Would you buy shares in the Flames (to help fund an arena)?

[GullFoss]

Would you buy shares in the Flames so they could build a new arena?

Let me start with an assumption: The current owners of the flames never plan on selling the franchise for the purposes of moving it (because its a community asset), and they dont draw a profit out of the bottom line. The purpose for owning the team is (1) civic pride (2) social status and (3) getting your name on the cup

As a minority shareholder, I could get access to (1) and (2)!

Why wouldn't the owners consider floating a minority number of shares to the public. Suppose the owners create 2 million shares for the flames and keep 1.75 million for themselves, and offer 250,000 to Calgarians for sale at $1000 each, for the sole purpose of helping to fund an arena. That would raise $250 million for a new arena, while leaving ownership firmly in control of the current owners.

Meanwhile, suppose for being a shareholder you get the following:
1) Get to attend an annual shareholder meeting
2) Get to vote at the meeting. Your vote wouldn't matter because the majority owners would still outnumber you.
3) Get to say "We won the cup" and not feel silly for saying we, because...well you're an actual owner!
4) Paper copies of the share certificates for framing.
5) If you buy 10 shares or more, you get your name engraved on one of the seats in the new arena!
6) The shares can be purchased by a corporation, so they're tax deductable for corporations and small business owners
7) Technically, the shares have an intrinsic value, equal to 1/2,000,000 of the team value so you are getting something with resale value. And you would be able to resell them!
8) A share of dividend distributions, if any. Although, don't hold your breath if the owners have never drawn from profits in the past.
9) A seat licence and priority seat selection in the new arena for every $5000 of shares purchased. Note that seat licences in Toronto are a very valuable asset http://www.torontomapleleaflicenses....-gold-2-seats/
10) If you buy $1,000,000 or more of shares you get "seat licence" giving you the right to buy or sell your right to lease a luxury box.

Between a $250m ticket tax, $200m from the owners, and $200m in share sales, it would be more than enough to build a state of the art arena!

Would you have any interest in such an initiative?

[N-E-B]

Interesting idea, but I can't see it ever happening.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Let me start with an assumption: they dont draw a profit out of the bottom line.

I don't follow this part.

That being said, sure. I have Riders shares, I'd likely get in on Flames ones too.

[CroFlames]

I do believe that all the major league sports in North America have strict rules about ownership, and this type of public ownership is forbidden (save for the Green Bay Packers, since their ownership structure was grandfathered in).

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

3) Get to say "We won the cup" and not feel silly for saying we, because...well you're an actual owner!

Haha - Thanks for this!
My biggest pet peeve in the fandom of sport

[Senator Clay Davis]

Like the Packers shares it's paying for the right to say you're an "owner", except you have no influence on the team operations and can't make any money. Unlike the Packers though, this is still subsidizing billionaire owners whereas the Packers have no additional owners to subsidize, it's 100% public owned. It's basically writing the Flames a cheque and getting, I assume, pride out of it (and of course the "We won"). If people in this economy have $1,000 to burn like that, good for them I suppose.

[SeeGeeWhy]

This message sponsored by platinum equities.

[Southside]

You would be more likely to see a bond issue before they would sell shares.

[YYC in LAX]

Gimme a tile on the concourse for $1000. Preferably in from of Pocket Dawg

[Poe969]

IF they ever did this, I'd love to be a part of it but since I'm from Ontario I doubt it would ever be made available to me unless someone bought it then sold it to me.

I think it's a great idea though.

[albertGQ]

The numbers you used would indicate the Flames are worth $2B

[GGG]

Fake public ownership is such a scam. It's amazing people fall for it for some merch that says owner on it.

Your 5k for seat licences doesn't work as it implies 50k of seats but I bet you could sell 100k of them.

I think seat licences for 10k of seats in the lower bowl would work. If you give people first right of refusal for all events in their seats that would be quite valuable for scalping. It would probably be worth 10k a seat or even more. That could raise 100 million. People would hate it but they would sell.

[SofaProfessor]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

The numbers you used would indicate the Flames are worth $2B

This is the biggest issue I saw. The Flames are worth ~$450M according to Forbes.

So say the owners wanted to create 4 million shares and keep half for themselves... That means each share is worth $112.50 at the Forbes valuation. If 2 million shares are up for grabs then they could raise $225M. Yeah that's a lot of money but it's not mind blowing in the grand scheme of things. Would owners give up 50% of their cut in the Flames to raise $225M? Not likely. Especially if the city and province are going to get on board with taxpayer money. It wouldn't make sense to give up any stake, really.

It's a cool idea that's outside the box a bit but I doubt it would ever happen.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Like the Packers shares it's paying for the right to say you're an "owner", except you have no influence on the team operations and can't make any money. Unlike the Packers though, this is still subsidizing billionaire owners whereas the Packers have no additional owners to subsidize, it's 100% public owned. It's basically writing the Flames a cheque and getting, I assume, pride out of it (and of course the "We won"). If people in this economy have $1,000 to burn like that, good for them I suppose.

This is why its a terrible idea. Why would I want to line Murray Edwards pockets for nothing in return? Murray et al. are the only ones getting anything back on their investment, and they can afford the cost of this if they want it so bad.

[bizaro86]

That many shareholders and they would likely come under public company reporting rules, and have to report their financials. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to do that, and I'm positive the league wouldn't want them to, which is why it isn't allowed.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Gimme a tile on the concourse for $1000. Preferably in from of Pocket Dawg

I wonder if anybody has ever tried filling their pocket dawg with Rico's nacho cheese first.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Gimme a tile on the concourse for $1000. Preferably in from of Pocket Dawg

I wonder how much money they would make if they did sell "bricks".
it wasLeading up to the Olympics they did the same thing the Olympic Place down town (I think that is what it is called, it was used for medal ceremonies). My family bought one.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Southside

You would be more likely to see a bond issue before they would sell shares.

In the spirit of Calgarians / Southern Albertan's who would actual use the arena 'paying' for the arena this isn't that bad of an idea.

Buyers would buy $1000 bonds from the flames that pay a return in 10 years (term would be dependent on how fast the arena could be built). The % return on the bond would also have to be structured that it would come out of the profits of the flames that supposedly do not get taken out by the owners. I cant imagine the % return would be comparable to any sort of normal market returns for a comparable term bond / GIC however it would give some financial incentive beyond the idea of the buyer helping finance a new arena.

This way while profits are being taken off the bottom line they would be going back to Calgarians ensuring that the money is staying within the community, same as they would if they just reinvested the profits back into the community.

Plus buyers money would be going into a publicly owned asset instead of into the private owners equity (at least not directly).

Now a big caveat to this is that buyers of the bond would have to prove a Calgary / southern Alberta Residence (no dice Edmonton).

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Komskies

I wonder if anybody has ever tried filling their pocket dawg with Rico's nacho cheese first.

I'll put my money on CalgaryNext being built first before this ever happens. One can dream though, one can dream....

[SuperMatt18]

^ Could you not just buy the pocket dog plain, then go buy a cup of nacho cheese from the concession, and then do it yourself.

Sounds like a good test for a boring pre-season game.