Ugh!! There is risk no matter how an arena is financed, whether it is fully private or subsidized in part by the public, it just comes down to the degree of risk in the project. That is the same for any new arena in any city as it pertains to professional sports. The risks are obviously known by all parties and an MOU was reached based on those risks in the case of Seattle. Whether there will ever be a building is far from being a reality, which you obviously know, but continue to beat up a subject we here in Seattle are well aware of. Every time a little bit of the story changes we like to discuss it but not rehash old arguments from outside Seattle (at least for me is very tiresome and distracts from our discussion) that feel some sort of threat from a building that does not exist and will not for the foreseeable future.
Is the MOU viewed as the best option for the NHL, as has been stated numerous times from those of us in Seattle, no it is not. Would a privately funded arena be best, of course. But at an expansion fee of $500m I see absolutely no reason for any private investor or the city to get involved in such a risky investment. The NHL should look to those places that can and are more willing/able to take that risk. I believe that there are only two of them.
