[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yeah, not for profit is more accurate. The owners have not been in it to make money. If they were, this team would have been relocated a long time ago. Options have been there but they recognize the value of the team to the community, and how bad they would be held in the court of public opinion if they did sell or move the team.

Or they'd look incredibly stupid for selling an asset that has done nothing but increase, increase and increase in value.

Feel free to back through the Herald archives during the dark times of the Flames and the whole Save Our Flames campaign. The Stampede Board had a strangle hold on all revenues to do with the Saddledome and that caused much tension between the Flames and the Board. The Flames needed more money and part of that deal meant they would assume management of the dome and receive the lions share of revenues from the facility, much to the chagrin of the Stampede Board. This was pretty well known back in the day. Heady times for people to think about.

Did the big bad Stampede Board acquire operational control at gunpoint or something? Should they have given up that revenue stream out of the goodness of their hearts? Did the Flames not have an opportunity to contribute to the financing of the arena in exchange for management rights?

Spoiler!

The City of Calgary established the Saddledome Foundation in 1983 and leased the arena for 50-years to the non-profit organization. Its mandate was to "oversee the operation in a manner that protects taxpayers and benefits amateur sports at the local, provincial and national level".[35] The foundation is made up of a board of nine directors: three appointed by the city, three appointed by the province, and one each appointed by the Calgary Olympic Development Association (now WinSport Canada), Hockey Canada and the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede.[71] The foundation contracted the Stampede to manage the arena, and through its lease agreements with the Stampede and the Flames, earned 15% of gross concession sales, 50% of net income from luxury suites and executive seating and investment income on the arena's revenues.[35] The Flames signed a 20-year lease in 1983 that earned them 70% of advertising revenues and 90% of ticket revenues. The Stampede earned 85% of concession revenues and all revenue from parking.[35]


As part of the 1994 deal with the city, the Flames bought out the Stampede's contract for $20 million and took over management of the facility.[33] While the city and Saddledome Foundation paid for the 1994–95 renovations, the new agreement required the Flames to pay for future arena maintenance and repairs, as well as any further renovations.[35] The Flames agreed to manage the arena for 20 years and to contribute $14.5 million toward amateur sport in the city over that time.[33] The Saddledome Foundation retains the responsibility of distributing funds to amateur sport. From its inception through 2007, it had allocated over $20 million toward this cause.[72]

No Stampede board member has made a single penny directly from the Stampede's teet (even though they are all shareholders via a grandiose symbolic $5 investment). There are lots of good reasons to be on the Stampede Board, including advancing personal business interests and access to the city's elite networks, but they are not benefitting from any equity growth, unlike the Flames ownership. People in this city talk about the 'Stampede Board' with absolutely zero understanding of how it actually works.

There are lots of bad things to say about the Stampede (as a former employee I have a laundry list longer than most), but I have a lot less problem serving public funds up to them, because they are guaranteed to find their way back into the community in one way or another (whether it's in the best possible way can certainly be debatable at times), but it will never end up lining the pockets of wealthiest citizens...they can earn those returns on their own, just like every other business.

If all of this talk about the Flames owners not really being in it to make money, then they should have no problem giving up even more than 25% of a future sale...let's make it 50. Then we'd actually be talking about a partnership.