The difference is they were actually good at PR and even if they weren't selling something great they could at least sell. Ken can't even sell very well. He still kind of reeks of expecting us to be happy they're doing this for us and we should be happy to contribute. A little more humility would help.
Or give something better than the crappy powerpoint for CalgaryNEXT.
Get a good architecture firm to come up with the plans, have some amazing renderings that make people think "WOW! That looks awesome, they city NEEDS to get that!" and you slide the debate into your side.
Instead they use a small-time architect (I know they did the 'Dome and other stuff in the city but times are different. You've gotta go with Populous or HOK or somebody huge) with some crappy AutoCAD renderings and we are left with 'blah'.
There's a lot of stuff that's right from the 'Field of Schemes' playbook that has worked elsewhere, but the fact they started out so poorly is why I do actually think they're incompetent and not just playing the game.
The Following User Says Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
All posturing aside, Ken King's comment that this deal doesn't make financial sense for the Flames may be valid. It may be true that they don't think they can make enough extra revenue to cover their portion of a 600 million dollar arena. If the people of the city aren't willing to contribute more than 200 million, then what?
It brings up the questions of whether Calgary really needs a 600 million arena. It becomes all about Edmonton I guess. If they didn't get theirs the public pressure for a new building here would be far less. I get it though, it's irrational and silly, but it's hard for most Calgarians to accept that Edmonton can have a new, shiny arena and we can't.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
It's all a dance. The Flames come off as whiners, the city is trying to contribute as minimally as possible.
The City does need to kick in some that won't be repaid, 50-80 million or so, maybe slightly more.
The Flames need to stop whinging and not expect 1/3 - 1/2 of the costs to be paid by the city.
As topfiverecords said, the ticket tax will only be a short term thing and will likely be paid back in 8-10 years on the less optimistic side of things. Then that revenue from then on goes to the team as they won't cut the costs of tickets.
Both sides are coming off poorly as we want everything or we're going to stamp our feet. Both sides have legitimate reasons for why they want to do things in the manner they do and there is a middle ground like in any negotiation.
The Flames as it sits with the Dome are probably leaving about 4-5 million dollars on the table each season. If there are more suites, they can charge more for them. Each suite I believe is in the 150K range per season although I'm not sure on the exact figures. I'm guessing off the top of my head there are 25 or so suites to go around the dome, so if they add all of those extra ones, then it'll jump their revenue significantly.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
Last edited by Caged Great; 09-15-2017 at 12:49 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Caged Great For This Useful Post:
Both sides are coming off poorly as we want everything or we're going to stamp our feet. Both sides have legitimate reasons for why they want to do things in the manner they do and there is a middle ground like in any negotiation.
Even if you think the city is coming off poorly, the CSEC is coming off significantly worse. This week has been a total win for the city, no other way to put it.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
All posturing aside, Ken King's comment that this deal doesn't make financial sense for the Flames may be valid. It may be true that they don't think they can make enough extra revenue to cover their portion of a 600 million dollar arena. If the people of the city aren't willing to contribute more than 200 million, then what?
It brings up the questions of whether Calgary really needs a 600 million arena. It becomes all about Edmonton I guess. If they didn't get theirs the public pressure for a new building here would be far less. I get it though, it's irrational and silly, but it's hard for most Calgarians to accept that Edmonton can have a new, shiny arena and we can't.
If the Flames organization can't make NHL hockey feasible and profitable in Calgary while the Jets can make it feasible and profitable in Winnipeg, then I can only conclude that either the Jets are brilliant or the Flames are incompetent (or both).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Didn't Murray Edwards move to the Isle of Man to avoid paying taxes to Calgary and the province of Alberta?. He wants taxpayers to help fund this yet he isn't one of us. Sell the team to local a owner Murray!.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Svartsengi For This Useful Post:
It's all a dance. The Flames come off as whiners, the city is trying to contribute as minimally as possible.
The City does need to kick in some that won't be repaid, 50-80 million or so, maybe slightly more.
The City has already offered to contribute more than this (without repayment).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Even if you think the city is coming off poorly, the CSEC is coming off significantly worse. This week has been a total win for the city, no other way to put it.
I agree fully there.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
Because of the intangible benefits of a new rink? Because of the increased interest for developers in assisting with getting the City's vision of the area accomplished? Because maybe that lower number could be recouped from higher property taxes in the area? Because they said they wanted a new arena there?
If it's a "no public money" position you want to take, why even enter into the debate? It's a fair position, but leaves nothing for negotiation.
I sure don't mind the City spending some money on it, on a non-repaid basis. And I sure don't want them paying for the whole thing. If you get to that point, then you can actually have a negotiation.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
No way. He's my new best friend. I'm going to invite him over to watch Big Brother tonight.
But seriously, he killed it.
The season recap episodes are such a bore though, would you wanna do that to your new best friend? Just show him last night's jury segment a couple of times
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I think the message coming out is Kings a condescending ####### who is threating to move the team instead of sitting at the table like an adult.
Except King cant move the team...it isnt his. Yet everyone sees him as the bad guy. He is doing that part of his job quite well.
Which goes to KC's other point that today was predictable in that he went out to take bullets from the press but in doing so, he flipped the news cycle and has set it up to own it by delaying releasing the Flames proposal til next week.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
All posturing aside, Ken King's comment that this deal doesn't make financial sense for the Flames may be valid. It may be true that they don't think they can make enough extra revenue to cover their portion of a 600 million dollar arena. If the people of the city aren't willing to contribute more than 200 million, then what?
It brings up the questions of whether Calgary really needs a 600 million arena. It becomes all about Edmonton I guess. If they didn't get theirs the public pressure for a new building here would be far less. I get it though, it's irrational and silly, but it's hard for most Calgarians to accept that Edmonton can have a new, shiny arena and we can't.
I think this is spot on.
Using forbes data for operating income and making the following assumptions ...
1) Forbes operating income is for hockey only revenue and expenses
2) Operating income grows at 2.5% year per year
3) 10% discount rate used for NPV
4) Building at a cost of $600M 100% paid by CSEC
Investment NPV is a loss of $345M
So then you ask what is the non hockey income? Don't have that, but I'd have to assume it's less than hockey related income as a starting point. But if I make it equal to hockey related income then the NPV of the building investment improves to a loss of $145M, still doesn't make sense.
So really as you say, they can't really go it alone. The deal is dead if that's their option.
So you can get $200M covered by the city, and then risk that the market can handle the tax on the tickets (is a risk if people won't pay the hike), and you're left with a $200M investment.
$200M gets you a +NPV of 18M on hockey income, and $217M IF you assume non hockey related revenue is equal.
So in a sense they may have to get this or the building concept is dead.
But to suggest there is another market out there that would be better is foolish. The only way they move is if someone gifts them an arena and even at that they'd better have good data to make sure they get positive operating income from a non traditional market.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
No question. What is fairly puzzling is how King and the Flames arrive at the notion that starting from scratch in the West Village plus the massive expense of site cleanup is a better course to the entertainment district goal than building in Vic Park where there are already supportive infrastructural plans in place.
Rightly or wrongly, they have the stance of...the Dome has sat where it is for 34 years now and nothing has popped up around it. What difference does putting up another arena 300 yards North do?
Or something similar and he even used the 300 yd reference in this presser.
If it's a "no public money" position you want to take, why even enter into the debate? It's a fair position, but leaves nothing for negotiation.
There is public money on the table. The Flames said no.
Seriously... For at least the past two years King has tried to push this as a partnership, That the Flames were looking for a Partner to build the arena with... well today we saw what Ken King (and by extension Murray Edwards and Co.) think "partners" are for. They came pitching an investment when really all they were looking for was a big blank cheque of billionaire begger welfare.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
