Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoflyzone
Yeah but hockey arenas are better at generating revenue than stand alone soccer or football or baseball stadiums. You can often use the same hockey arena for basketball games/concerts. Etc.
Dont hockey arenas have some of the highest usage in terms of days/year?
That, and the fact they are smaller/cheaper* than those other stadiums, means your ROI will be had sooner.
*excluding those cheapish soccer specific stadiums, like saputo stadium, which is basically mostly aluminum grand stands and grass.
|
Yes, but there is an adverse selection problem.
In a market like Toronto where you can charge lets say, $25 a ticket for the facility fee, and not effect the number of nights utilized and sold out, you can be profitable.
For smaller centres, it is much more marginal. In Calgary and Edmonton the NHL arenas regularly hold events where a $25 facility would increase the average ticket price by 50% or more. Which causes the adverse selection: you start reducing your utilization, which increases the facility fee, which reduces utilization more, which increases the facility fee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
I don't want one in Calgary and think The Flames are an offensive parasite, so why should I support paying to build it?
|
The main argument for me is even without the Flames, Calgary would eventually build a 12,000-16,000 seat large arena show music venue which could also hold hockey and figure skating in a pinch. And since that would likely be a ~$300 million investment, why not go in on a joint use with someone like the Flames.
Sure you can argue the public shouldn't subsidize 12,000 seat large arena music, and I would point out in response that the Alberta subsidizes 2,500 seat Broadway shows, 1,800 seat concerts, etc.