Posted Jun 8, 2017, 9:56 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 494
|
|
Seattle doesn't have an arena capable of hosting an NHL team, and won't have till 2021 at the earliest. So no danger there. Quebec city has the problem of being in the eastern conference and the NHL is loathe to move a team from the west to the east and the unbalancing problems that would come with it. They didn't even want an expansion team there. Besides, if the NHL did want a team to move there, why would would it be the Flames? How many teams does this league have that are perennial money losers?
A new arena will not reduce legacy costs of the saddledome since it would still not generate property tax and it would then have to compete with the new building, unless it's torn down. Instead, a new arena will occupy land that could be better utilized with almost anything else.
Calgary is in the drivers seat here. They have a functional NHL arena already built in the right place. Really, the only excuse to build a new one is the roof. Still, it's pretty thin as it only costs the city a tiny handful of acts in a given year. Even Ken King admits that this alone doesn't justify a new building. If the Flames are serious about a new building, they will have to substantially sweeten the pot.
|