By Frank Parlato
A Vision Posed as a Feasibility Study
In April 2024, the City of Niagara Falls commissioned Sports Facilities Advisory, LLC (SFA) to conduct a feasibility report for a proposed sports and entertainment complex.
The proposed Centennial Park complex would feature a 180,000-square-foot main arena with 6-7-thousand seats, an ice rink and amenities, a smaller 500-seat community rink for youth events, and supporting infrastructure, including 800 parking spaces.
Mayor Robert Restaino released the report this month.
The report estimates the construction cost ranging from $178.7 million to $217.7 million – a $40 million differential and based in part on rising contstruction costs.
This estimate does not include the cost of the land – Parcel 0—which the City is trying to seize through eminent domain.
Success Defined by the Mayor, Not the Market
Rather than establishing objective, independent benchmarks for success, SFA conducted an internal workshop with Mayor Restaino and other city officials “to define success for the project.”
SFA adopted Mayor Restaino’s “desired outcomes as the ‘definitions of success.‘”
The “definitions of success“ for the arena include:
- Bringing in tourists who stay overnight and spend money.
- Expanding the tourist season into colder months via indoor events.
- Improving local life by adding recreational and entertainment options.
- Creating a high-quality arena to attract major regional/national events.
SFA then built its financial forecast around this vision—not as an independent feasibility test but to demonstrate how the Mayor’s vision could succeed.
SFA openly admits their projections rely on flawless marketing, tight fiscal discipline, and near-perfect management.
This means that the Mayor explained his vision, and SFA wrote it down in numbers as if it would be accomplished.
No tough questions. No risk assessment. It’s just a parade of best-case scenarios for a city that’s never pulled this off before.
No caution signs, no alternate routes—just a one-way ticket to Successville, population: maybe.
An Anchor Team That Doesn’t Exist
SFA’s entire report and the financial projections within it hinge on the presence of an anchor tenant for the arena —a professional or semi-professional team.
No such team has been announced. The entire business plan depends on a team the City hasn’t found.
The financial projections assume the professional or semi-professional anchor team, designated as the “Resident Teams,” are prioritized in scheduling and serve as the foundation for projected attendance and revenue models in the feasibility report.
The financial foundation rests upon the Resident Team. It shall play often. It shall fill seats. It shall justify the cost.
A team. Not a real team. Not one that exists. Without the team, the seats stay empty,
You built a revenue model on a unicorn in a jersey.
No anchor tenant means no regular events and no predictable income. No team, no hotel bookings.
The Resident Team does not exist, yet all estimates of success rely upon it.
A significant flaw in the study is that the financial and impact projections presume the existence of a resident team—when no team has been identified.
This undermines the model’s credibility and raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the projected $11.5 million annual economic impact.
Speculation Treated as Certainty
SFA outlines supplemental event categories—concerts, comedy shows, conferences, tradeshows, youth tournaments, and public skating—as potential drivers of usage.
However, the financial projections still hinge on the presence of a Resident Team plus consistent high-demand events to meet revenue goals in the feasibility report.
Concerts, expos, and tournaments—are presented as certainties.
None of these have been booked, confirmed, or identified.
SFA’s mandate, for which they were paid $140,000, was not to evaluate whether the City should build a new but rather to illustrate how such a facility might fulfill the objectives outlined by Mayor Restaino.
The report does not evaluate downside scenarios or account for the possibility that anticipated demand may fall short.
The job wasn’t to question the dream, only to shape it into numbers. SFA did what the mayor asked. No one asked, “What if they don’t show up?“ No one said, “What if the dream is only that—a dream?“
SFA was hired not to challenge the mayor’s vision but to legitimize it.
To be continued…
