discostu
Registered User
Some form of subsidization would be required in most NHL markets, espeically those in the US if a new arena is funded. Obviously they are exceptions. I just don't see how this is something new, it's happened lots of other places, and in many other sports when new arenas are being built.
As far as the other sports being subsidized, my point was this. You say that all NFL teams would be turning a profit if public funding was taken away. That may be true, but I guess what I was trying to say is this, even if a team could build an arena completley on it's own profits and revenue's if state/local money is there I can gurantee is most cases the team would use that to help defray some of the costs of building a new stadium/arena rather than paying for the whole thing themselves.
No one will ever turn down free money, so yes, I agree with you on that point.
I think I just brought it up because when people say that Pittsburgh can support an NHL franchise, they don't qualify that statement. The truth is, Pittsburgh can support a franchise if they get a little help from the tax payer.
I support Pittsburgh keeping its franchise, as, I think stability is a good thing in the league, and I have my doubts that any of the prospective sights are much better. If the local government finds a solution that works for them that can keep the team there, more power to them. I just don't think people should hype the market of Pittsburgh to being more than it actually is.