edmonton_ice
Registered User
With Edmonton looking to build new arena is it time for the Flames and/or The City of Calgary looking at building a new rink or does the Saddledome have another 10 years in it ?
With Edmonton looking to build new arena is it time for the Flames and/or The City of Calgary looking at building a new rink or does the Saddledome have another 10 years in it ?
I want a new Mcmahon stadium first. I can't believe we are talking new Saddledome with a huge chunk of public money when what this city needs is a new football stadium.
The city also needs firefighters, police, snow removal, etc. I'd say that tax dollars should pay for these services before they go to corporate welfare and making rich people even richer.
Again, unless the Flames want to turn over a percentage of their ownership to the city...
I think most Edmontonians agree, but when your leaders ignore their constituents, who's really pulling the strings?
The city also needs firefighters, police, snow removal, etc. I'd say that tax dollars should pay for these services before they go to corporate welfare and making rich people even richer.
Again, unless the Flames want to turn over a percentage of their ownership to the city...
Any public money is an investment. Corporations that move here, Jobs created, Charities that benefit I could go on and on. Remember All these companies and employees pay taxes that you speak of. The Flames generate more money than any monies that would be used to help build a new arena.
Don't be so short sided.
I want a new Mcmahon stadium first. I can't believe we are talking new Saddledome with a huge chunk of public money when what this city needs is a new football stadium.
There's plenty of literature on the subject. Sports arenas haven't proven to benefit the local economy. Walmart + Ikea doesn't get public funds to build their "stadiums" and they create jobs and surrounding businesses. It's about elasticity, demand and competition. People are obsessed with sports teams and owners use the threat of taking the team elsewhere as leverage to gain subsidies and public funds.
Eventually Stadium and franchises go hand in hand. Ask Winnipeg.
Ask business affected by the lockout for instance. Success off the ice can go hand in hand on the ice.
I understand health care, emergency services are way above professional sports and buildings. there are millions of dollars in taxes generated from sports franchises. People should be concerned with government waste in many other areas.
People need not to be short sided and look at the big picture.
You're calling people short sighted, but I would suggest reading the literature.
Sports Franchise Game: Cities in Pursuit of Sports Franchises, Events, Stadiums, and Arenas by Kenneth L. Shropshire
Even if you want a lazy two minute read, just google it. I just googled "sports teams and the economy" and clicked on a link from the goldwater institute. here:
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/do-sports-teams-really-drive-economic-growth
Maybe --> you <-- need to inform yourself on the big picture.
As an extensive 2008 review of the peer-reviewed economic studies published over the past 20 years concludes: "No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer reviewed economic journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy."
One of the main reasons sports teams and the facilities in which they play are not drivers of economic growth is because they don't create new economic activity. Instead, they displace other forms of economic activity.
For example, imagine you were going to spend money on a night out. You could spend it on an expensive dinner or you could spend it on tickets to a sporting event. But because you have a limited amount of money to spend, you wouldn't spend it on both.
This substitution of one type of spending for another is exactly what you see happening when you analyze the experience of cities with sports teams. Consumers spending more of their discretionary income on sports-related goods is offset by those same consumers spending less on other things. Thus, no net new economic activity results.
Another point economists make is that most of the profit generated by sports teams go to the players, owners, and shareholders of the team. Those individuals tend not to live in the area in which the team plays. Instead, the money is "exported" to be spent or invested elsewhere. This reduces or eliminates the "ripple effect" that sports teams have on the local economy.
You're calling people short sighted, but I would suggest reading the literature.
Sports Franchise Game: Cities in Pursuit of Sports Franchises, Events, Stadiums, and Arenas by Kenneth L. Shropshire
Even if you want a lazy two minute read, just google it. I just googled "sports teams and the economy" and clicked on a link from the goldwater institute. here:
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/do-sports-teams-really-drive-economic-growth
Maybe --> you <-- need to inform yourself on the big picture.
Cfl football is soooooooo low on the totem pole. Way rather see the money put towards the flames.
You're calling people short sighted, but I would suggest reading the literature.
Sports Franchise Game: Cities in Pursuit of Sports Franchises, Events, Stadiums, and Arenas by Kenneth L. Shropshire
Even if you want a lazy two minute read, just google it. I just googled "sports teams and the economy" and clicked on a link from the goldwater institute. here:
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/do-sports-teams-really-drive-economic-growth
Maybe --> you <-- need to inform yourself on the big picture.
That seems like complete nonsense to me. Tell that to pub and bar owners around Calgary during the lockout.
This is also nonsense. In the Flames case, most season ticket holders are very wealthy individuals who can drop upwards of 10K a year on tickets. Money that would likely be going towards their second home in Arizona, or vacations, or investments outside of Calgary... not on a night out at some restaurant.
Also doesn't apply to Calgary, as our owners are from Calgary and live in Calgary. Players also live in Calgary for at least half the year.
None of these points are so strong that they warrant the ridiculous conclusion that sports team have no measurable effect on the economy. Wouldn't have expecting anything more from an article from a conservative public policy thinktank like Goldwater though.
This is why I dropped out of my economics degree. Economists like to think they are so scientific yet their models ignore tons of real world factors. Arguments often build off existing conservative views instead of starting on neutral ground. There's a reason economics is still considered an "art" like sociology and political science and doesn't get categorized as a business or scientific faculties, at least at the U of C.
And before someone accuses me of being some hippie liberal, I'm a very moderate person. I would be reluctant to give a significant amount of public money to the very rich Calgary Flames owners for the new arena. I just think this article is ********, perfect example of useless economist blather being portrayed as fact.
Because thats a totally unbiased source...
I'm quite informed thank you very much. I live in a world of reality where I see the every day effects of the Flames in our community. I see first hand the benefits of a sports franchises in general.
Don't believe every thing you read from every piece of literature or study you find. a lot of it is BS and will always be written to have it own spin to serve ones own needs..
Oh I see. And the rest of us live under a rock, eh? The 20yr olds at the pub spending money on game night wouldn't have spent money otherwise?
Hmmm, 20 yr old boys don't like the pub unless there's hockey?
And that comment about believing everything I read. You need to actually read SOMETHING before you criticize it eh.