View Single Post
Old
10-31-2012, 11:35 PM
  #30
hillbillypriest
Registered User
 
hillbillypriest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: there there
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
It makes sense. If Katz isnt going to contribute then he's not going to run the arena and the city wont do it. If they're willing to pay the maintenance costs bringing them on board makes a lot of sense, especially when it gets rid of Rexall place as a competitor for big events.
Not only makes sense, but was utterly predictable. Excluding Northland produced the absurd result of the old arena competing with the new for the same non-hockey revenue, thereby splitting the revenue pie, thereby creating a revenue shortfall, thereby creating a subsidy demand to make up a revenue shortfall that might not exist if the non-hockey pie wasn't split.

I suppose I could see why Northlands was being trashed by some people when Katz was making their continued involvement a deal breaker. Don't quite see why Northlands expressing interest in a city sponsored downtown arena would be seen as a bad thing by some people now...

hillbillypriest is offline