View Single Post
01-30-2013, 02:42 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 27,106
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Thank you as well. The data has always suggested that, in a vacuum, having an anchor tenant is the preferred situation. However, unfortunately for Jobing arena, this particular anchor tenant requires an operational subsidy that not only cannibalizes all of the benefits associated with having an anchor tenant, it also requires millions more above that.

So the answer and the question need to be phrased appropriately: Is it better for an arena to have an anchor tenant? Yes, unless the anchor tenant requires an operational subsidy that is exponentially more than the revenues that the tenant generates.

During several council meetings, former Mayor Scruggs did a rather astute job of detailing the usage of the arena for lower attendance, higher indirect revenue events. However, the paradigm shift to programming the arena as a non-sport venue was simply too much for some of the less wise council members to comprehend. It's really a shame because when someone on the dais finally starting speaking knowledgeably about the situation, it flew right over the head of 90%+ of the attendees.
The Atlanta situation is a case in point. The owners wanted to jettison the Thrashers because they were a perpetual drag on the balance sheet. There were reports that the group that purchased the arena and the Hawks insisted that he didn't want the Thrashers in the deal, as I recall.

Whileee is offline