Ok you're at the point where you just see red every time someone questions the viability of this project. I get it. I was angry when the Browns left Cleveland even though their return was guaranteed.
That being said this is still a business board and we're talking business. Right now he doesn't own a team. He owns an option. He can pay $1 billion to exercise his option and then spend another $1 billion to build an arena and something like another $2 billion to build development surrounding the arena which according to you guys will be used to offset the losses that the team and arena will generate.
So why wouldn't a guy just pocket the profits on the development and not bother with reactivating the team and building an arena which will basically eat up his profits from the development?
Outside of the NFL, generally people do not own sports teams to make money on said team year over year. They own sports teams because of the "prestige", the tax advantages that come with it, and to make a ton of money when they sell the team at some future point.
With few exceptions, over the past 50+ years, if an owner wants a sports team to be highly successful every year they are going to lose money operating the team (at least on paper).
Yes, it is possible to build a mixed use development without an arena and make money. That isn't hard to do they are pretty common. But not many of those developers can say "look at the ED I built, its center piece is MY arena and MY sports team".
It is regularly discussed on here that the owner of an NHL team needs arena revenues or it will not be sustainable. Adding an ED makes it that much more sustainable. The team losses money (at least on paper) and the other revenue streams make up the difference.
