Blue Jackets arena in a state of disrepair? No, that's dramatic. Just needs some work

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, cities that size could produce a positive ROI on an arena built with private money – but they get a much more attractive ROI if the government kicks in part of the capital cost.

A city the size of Calgary can't do it with private money alone. The ROI would be severely negative.

Why should government care about sporting team ROIs? Why should Chicago be concerned? Why should NYC of all places be concerned? If the ROI is so poor for Calgary, why do politicans trot out economic benefits all the time?

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

IOC just killing it!

Olympic officials try to crush U.S. probes of China doping, threaten Salt Lake Games



Edit - not trolling you - just saw the headline and it reminded me of the post - IOC doing IOC things in my opinion.

Not sure what that has to do with them changing the bid guidelines, but I never said the IOC is good at what they do. They're still only slightly less corrupt than FIFA.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Why should government care about sporting team ROIs? Why should Chicago be concerned? Why should NYC of all places be concerned? If the ROI is so poor for Calgary, why do politicans trot out economic benefits all the time?



Not sure what that has to do with them changing the bid guidelines, but I never said the IOC is good at what they do. They're still only slightly less corrupt than FIFA.

Because you need rich people invested in your town.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Why should government care about sporting team ROIs?

It's not the ROI for the team, it's the ROI for the building. You need to keep that arena full of events with high-priced tickets most nights of the year, and there isn't enough disposable money in a city this size to warrant that.

Why should Chicago be concerned? Why should NYC of all places be concerned? If the ROI is so poor for Calgary, why do politicans trot out economic benefits all the time?

You're actually surprised when politicians lie?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's not the ROI for the team, it's the ROI for the building. You need to keep that arena full of events with high-priced tickets most nights of the year, and there isn't enough disposable money in a city this size to warrant that.

Why do governments care about ROI for the building if the sport teams control the schedule and get all the revenue from sales in the building?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're actually surprised when politicians lie?

I'm not, but this goes back to the original point that started this discussion. The whole "this is just how it is" argument assumes everyone takes these politicians at face value, or let them off the hook when inevitably none of the promises come true. I also feel like "cities like Calgary can't have a team like the Flames without public money" is another lie trotted out to make the grift possible. If more cities say no, it won't be surprising when these projects magically materialize anyways. Calgary isn't on a razor's edge of irrelevance if the Flames exist here or not, and there's enough private business already set up here that it will be attractive anyways.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Why do governments care about ROI for the building if the sport teams control the schedule and get all the revenue from sales in the building?

They don't. But the companies do, and they will hold governments over a barrel if they can.

I also feel like "cities like Calgary can't have a team like the Flames without public money" is another lie trotted out to make the grift possible.

The Saddledome is literally starting to fall down. It would need tens of millions in repairs just to keep it safe to use, and that would still leave it badly designed and expensive to maintain.

With no arena, you have no hockey team.

Calgary isn't on a razor's edge of irrelevance if the Flames exist here or not, and there's enough private business already set up here that it will be attractive anyways.

Attractive to whom? Not sure what you're even arguing here.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Attractive to whom? Not sure what you're even arguing here.

Attractive to the private investment you're arguing won't even look at the city without public funding.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Attractive to the private investment you're arguing won't even look at the city without public funding.

Private investment won't look at building an arena in the city without public funding. If there's no hockey team to be the primary tenant, that turns the business case from bad to laughable.

If you're talking about private investment in general, that's completely off topic.