View Single Post
Old
10-02-2012, 01:46 PM
  #557
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
This has never made sense to me. Why do they need the assurance of a franchise moving there to get this arena built? This arena would probably survive in Seattle without an anchor tenant regardless. It would make a lot more sense to have an arena in place before you bring a team there. With an arena in place you can move any struggling team to Seattle. Without an arena you're looking at expansion or moving a team to a temporary Key arena site which means financial losses and a negative experience for the fans.

The political issue with the Key Arena seems to be another obstacle holding this back that makes absolutely no sense. Why do they need to save such an outdated building and have written guarantees that a new arena can not compete with the Key? It's ridiculous. The Key does not attract enough big events and it generates an insignificant profit. They should let the Key die or re-purpose it.
It has to do with repaying public debt. The city/county will not approve it unless the debt gets repaid. Its makes it much harder to repay that public debt if there is no major tenant. Majority of the repaying of the public debt will come from NBA/NHL events.

gstommylee is offline