[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why can't they keep playing in the dome then?

They can… until they can't. The trouble with the Dome is that it is badly designed, antiquated, and can't be renovated in any meaningful way. There is simply not enough room inside the shell to add any further amenities, and no way to enlarge the shell. Even the mid-1990s renovation was basically putting several layers of lip gloss on a pig.

Several posters on CP have pointed out that the Flames are now on the receiving end of revenue sharing. They've basically tapped all the revenue potential of their existing building, and have nowhere to go but down. Ten years from now, if the Saddledome is still in use, people will be looking at it the way they looked at the Nassau Coliseum and Rexall Place a few years ago.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Ken King is back on the West Village thing.

If he's going to die on that hill, then you can bet no one is coming to his aid until his corpse rots into unemployment afterlife.

It was a terrible prosposal. The idea wasn't, but proposal was, and they left wayyyy too many question marks to warrant further consideration. And of course he did no follow up on it after claiming it was just a pre-proposal. No addressing of all the issues/bugs with it that were pointed out with a more thought out plan, no professional renderings. Nothing. Then he brings it up again today? Wtf King.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Posted it earlier but it might get buried.

According to King the Flames offered to fund and finance the Victoria Park arena at a similar ratio that they were proposed for CalgaryNEXT.

Apparently didn't like or receive a response to that offer from the city.

Same ratio, so with the owner contributions and ticket tax how much was it for calgary next? 50%?

Tried going to calgarynext web site but it's not loading.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No, I am not talking about CalgaryNEXT.
Yes, they have made a proposal.

If folks listen to the Ken King clip on Fan960 its pretty clear the Flames have provided a proposal to the City on option B.

King also said, they not met with the City for over a month....

Sounds like the finance model is very similar as option a

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

They can… until they can't. The trouble with the Dome is that it is badly designed, antiquated, and can't be renovated in any meaningful way. There is simply not enough room inside the shell to add any further amenities, and no way to enlarge the shell. Even the mid-1990s renovation was basically putting several layers of lip gloss on a pig.

Several posters on CP have pointed out that the Flames are now on the receiving end of revenue sharing. They've basically tapped all the revenue potential of their existing building, and have nowhere to go but down. Ten years from now, if the Saddledome is still in use, people will be looking at it the way they looked at the Nassau Coliseum and Rexall Place a few years ago.

I haven't seen this, can post a link?

[shermanator]

Crap like this is why I have gone from die hard Flames fan to casual Flames fan in a few years.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Based on the experiences of private arena builders in Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa, if a new arena cost $450 million to build, it would have a market value of something like $300 million the day it opened. The rest of the construction cost would be basically unrecoverable.

You want a business decision? How about not pissing $150 million down a rat hole?

Instant the Flames get a new arena - the team's value increases by a ton which is why they want the damn thing so bad.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by lvsteven

This is what I was wondering.
Asking for as much as CalgaryNEXT was, it seemed lopsided to the city.

If the team is worth almost half a billion dollars according to forbes, are they not able to finance this themselves?

They are willing to finance the arena themselves but they won't pay for anything else such as the clean up, infrastructure, or the fieldhouse.

I wouldn't either, that's why I don't get the outrage.

[STX]

Looks like someone just received their copy of, 'The Art of the Deal' from Amazon...

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Seattle market is also...wait for it...a much worse hockey market, and despite what people think, is just as likely to be a total failure than a success.

The Key Arena renovation project is primarily for the purpose of getting an NBA team back in Seattle. It doesn't matter how good a hockey market Seattle is, if the building projects to pay for itself with basketball and concerts. In that case, having a hockey team as a secondary tenant would be gravy.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Was it a similar split to what Edmonton did, a deal the city has repeatedly said they wouldn't do, since before CalgaryNEXT was proposed with a similar split to Edmonton's deal?

They've proposed nothing worth listening to if that's the case, at least to the current mayor and council.

No it wasn't.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No, I am not talking about CalgaryNEXT.
Yes, they have made a proposal.

So the Flames are asking Calgarians to judge the city council on a plan that the public has not seen? Really?

Stop embarrassing yourself, Ken King.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Personally, I can see where CSEC got their funding model from, being 50% from them, 25% from the City, and 25% from the CRL.

Sorry how are you calculating this? Let's even use the Flames #'s. Here is the original Flames proposal: Link

It’s proposed the $890-million cost would be paid from four sources — a $240-million community revitalization levy, a $250-million ticket tax, $200 million from the city to fund the field house (long a priority on the city’s recreation list) and a $200-million contribution from the Flames’ ownership group.

Aside from the two simple line items, ticket tax is Calgary taxpayer money (also a later Q&A with KK would show that he wanted City of Calgary to front this money). CRL is also City money. CRL in layman's terms means using future property taxes to pay for current infrastructure - and property taxes are probably considered City money.

So how are you justifying your breakdown?

The City then said it would like Plan B, being Victoria Park.
CSEC said OK and provided a proposal.
There has been no response to the proposal.

Where is the proposal from CSEC? Do you have a link to it?

Where has it been confirmed that the City literally did not respond? Or was the response that they got not the answer they wanted? Considering Nenshi even yesterday talked about building an arena in Victoria Park, it seems very unlikely that there has been ZERO response to the "proposal."

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Instant the Flames get a new arena - the team's value increases by a ton which is why they want the damn thing so bad.

Based on the experience in Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa, the value of the franchise does not go up enough to compensate for the loss on the arena. The Molsons had to throw in 80 percent of the Canadiens to get back the construction cost of the Bell Centre.

[Matty81]

Seems disingenious to pull back your 200 million dollar contribution on a "ratio" contribution basis when they didn't get their first choice. I think if they committ 200 mil in good faith it probably gets done.

There's no way they are getting a new building with a 25% contribution. I don't mind city and user contributions but step up to the plate and be realistic.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by lvsteven

SHHHH, don't tell any Canadian franchises.
The t-mobile arena in Las Vegas was also 100% privately financed.

It CAN happen.
It DOES happen.

Are you honestly gonna compare Calgary/Edmonton to Las Vegas.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

If he's going to die on that hill, then you can bet no one is coming to his aid until his corpse rots into unemployment afterlife.

It was a terrible prosposal. The idea wasn't, but proposal was, and they left wayyyy too many question marks to warrant further consideration. And of course he did no follow up on it after claiming it was just a pre-proposal.

They want the Katz deal. Their own "district." Even if that means dropping the Field House from the CalgaryNEXT proposal.

They won't work with the Stampede, that's why they object to the Victoria Park location.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The Key Arena renovation project is primarily for the purpose of getting an NBA team back in Seattle. It doesn't matter how good a hockey market Seattle is, if the building projects to pay for itself with basketball and concerts. In that case, having a hockey team as a secondary tenant would be gravy.

Right but this is where moving to Seattle costs the team millions in revenue a year, nevermind the relocation fee. I fully get why the arena would want as many tenants as possible, I just don't see anything but a financial calamity moving a team from the only real pro team in a hockey heavy market to being possibly the fifth option for pro sports fans (and possibly down the sixth or seventh overall when UDub is factored in) in a hockey market that is mostly unknown. If Seattle were some kind of homerun market they'd already have a team, even if it were in the current Key Arena.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Aside from the two simple line items, ticket tax is Calgary taxpayer money (also a later Q&A with KK would show that he wanted City of Calgary to front this money).

Ticket tax is not taxpayer money. It is a surcharge levied solely on people who choose to be paying customers at the arena. Basically, it's a way of separating out part of the price of tickets so it won't be counted as HRR and the players won't glom half of it.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Based on the experience in Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa, the value of the franchise does not go up enough to compensate for the loss on the arena. The Molsons had to throw in 80 percent of the Canadiens to get back the construction cost of the Bell Centre.

So how would the City recoup the investment if you're saying that it's just a bad investment right off the bat?