View Single Post
12-12-2012, 04:36 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,087
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
But if I understood the point of the article CGG linked, there are no benefits from a city or municipality building any sports facilities period. Doesn't matter if it's replacing one. By his argument those old arenas weren't beneficial either when they were built..

I'm not against Edmonton or QC building arenas. But there have been way too many times general themed arguments being used against Glendale end up being somewhat hypocritical.

In one sense you are right. But, in another, not so much.

Most arguments here against Glendale are not against the Arena being built in the first place. (I think most posters here understand that the Arena is not an economic benefit. It does allow the team a place to play, and is also a special events venue - so that there is 'entertainment' available in the city, however. And, that applies in every place - Minn/St Paul; QC; San Jose; Glendale....)

The arguments here against Glendale are that once the Arena has been built, now the city is giving money to the team for no other reason than that the team will leave if they don't. That makes Glendale's situation far different from QC, for example, where PKP is paying for the privilege of managing the Arena.

I hope the difference is clear.

MNNumbers is offline