Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Wormius]

Bettman has already suggested that the NHL won't be participating in the Olympics, so where exactly does that leave things? We have to schedule Olympic hockey games with NHL games?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

That was a one off. For example, back in the 80's Shell Centre was constructed with one level of underground parking which is a joke for that size an office tower. The developer (I think the old O&Y) was not allowed to construct additional parking because it violated then City social policy.

Then city social policy would have been from the mid-70s (when Shell Centre started construction). I'd call that a pretty out-of-date gripe about social engineering.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Then city social policy would have been from the mid-70s (when Shell Centre started construction). I'd call that a pretty out-of-date gripe about social engineering.

Classic Nenshi.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why are the flames expected to continue being one of the top 10 revenue generators for a league of 31 teams when their population is in the bottom 3rd and they are 1 of 7 teams who's currency is generally worth less than the other 24 teams?

http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/NHL_..._by_population

What is your point? Seems like you are helping Ken King's argument. The Flames are a small market team generating less revenue than at least half the other NHL teams.

They could start paying a lot less for players, but you are going to see a huge revenue problem if they start doing that.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Bettman has already suggested that the NHL won't be participating in the Olympics, so where exactly does that leave things? We have to schedule Olympic hockey games with NHL games?

If the Olympics are in North America you can be guaranteed the NHL will close shop and let their players participate ...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stamps

No to an Olympic bid with my property tax dollars (which has already cost I believe about 5 million dollars with this exploratory bid) , to bring Olympic hockey to Edmonton .... I can't believe this city does not see the benefit to having the Flames and a new arena and are unwilling working out something ... I guess our Mayor and council are the smartest guys in the room ... Calgary was a place that had a can do attitude ... LOL

The can do attitude that Calgary has certainly isn't get fat of corporate charity. That's what we make fun of Quebec for It's do more with less. It's being innovative and taking risks. It's private business fighting to be successful.

A massive corporate subsidy to build a playground for the upper 10% of earners is the antithesis of Calgary and Albertas can do spirit/

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fire

LOL

You brought up the CDN dollar and the current local economy as reasons for not supporting the Flames financially and then you get all pissy about why those things matter when I make your arguments look foolish.

You'll have to show me where you made any of my arguments look foolish, you don't even appear to be reading my posts. I never said the weak dollar or economy were reasons to not support the flames. I said they were contributing factors to their revenues dropping which Ken King is implying was because of the arena.

Again I'm not opposed to the flames getting tax dollars for an arena in a deal that makes sense for taxpayers. However I am opposed to them trying to convince us we need to do it their way or no way at all using weak misleading arguments that are easily discredited just because there's a chance they'll get a better deal out of it. I hope you can see the difference.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Some of these arguments truly boggle my mind.

We don't heavily subsidized any other form of for-profit entertainment.

We don't build theatres for Cineplex for free. We don't gift them land or offer them reprieves from property tax.

This is a nice cherry-picked statement. But can we all just agree that for profit businesses, non-profits and other myriad stakeholders get subsidies all the time. From the Glenbow to The Bow, there have been things left on the table if not entirely provided.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by GGG

The can do attitude that Calgary has certainly isn't get fat of corporate charity. That's what we make fun of Quebec for It's do more with less. It's being innovative and taking risks. It's private business fighting to be successful.

A massive corporate subsidy to build a playground for the upper 10% of earners is the antithesis of Calgary and Albertas can do spirit/

Have you ever been to the Saddledome ?? Do you know anyone who has ever been to the Saddledome ?? A lot more than 10% of the people of Calgary will use this new arena ... we need the upper 10% to help us get this done ... I pay taxes to this city and I see the benefit of having a new arena in my city and the city participating ...

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fire

What is your point? Seems like you are helping Ken King's argument. The Flames are a small market team generating less revenue than at least half the other NHL teams.

They could start paying a lot less for players, but you are going to see a huge revenue problem if they start doing that.

My point is that when you isolate the arena aspect of their business, it would not be unreasonable to expect that revenues generated from ticket sales would be relative to that market's population size.

No that I think about it, it would be interesting to see where the flames land on a list of NHL teams ranked by gate and concession sales revenue generated.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Flame On

This is a nice cherry-picked statement. But can we all just agree that for profit businesses, non-profits and other myriad stakeholders gut subsidies all the time. From the Glenbow to The Bow, there have been things left on the table if not entirely provided.

*boggling intensifies*

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why are the flames expected to continue being one of the top 10 revenue generators for a league of 31 teams when their population is in the bottom 3rd and they are 1 of 7 teams who's currency is generally worth less than the other 24 teams?

http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/NHL_..._by_population

Ken King called Calgary a small market. By his reasoning, Calgary shouldn't even be a top ten team.

Can't have it both ways, Kenny

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by RM14

The #1 reason the Revenue would be down (if it is), is the crash in oil and reduced corporate entertainment budgets.

I personally would love to keep the Saddledome for the next 20 years because I love it and love going there to watch Hockey. I don't care about big name concerts that much as there are a lot of small venues in the city that attract good bands. I do however understand it is not viable for this city to keep the dome around for that long. With or without the Flames in town, there will be a new shiny arena in Vic park someday.

Eehhhh... even with small shows Calgary is really weak for it's size. Outside of the magic Sled Island is somehow able to perform with their lineups I rarely go to live shows because barely anything with some relevant contemporary buzz around them come and perform here. What's worse is seeing the consistent exodus of promising local acts skipping town and going east once they start getting some traction.

Doesn't necessarily play a role in arena-sized concerts but something is fundamentally wrong with Calgary's image even as far as that tier of music is concerned - I don't know if it's bad event organizers or losing venues of the capacity of Republik without replacements or political stigma or what but it's a noticeable void. The museum at the NMC is fairly lame but I'm a huge supporter of them just for their research/residency programming, I'm hoping it'll kick some life into the local scene and convince it to stay here.

[Rollin22x]

Nobody is forcing the Flames to spend to the cap.
They have options.

[RM14]

Now that the Flames are done talking, it would be cool if they released some of the Vic Park renderings if they have any..

[morgin]

Originally Posted by RM14

Now that the Flames are done talking, it would be cool if they released some of the Vic Park renderings if they have any..

Kk said they were going to (at least that’s how I interpreted his answer in the infamous presser) but that seems to have gone by the wayside.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by stamps

Have you ever been to the Saddledome ?? Do you know anyone who has ever been to the Saddledome ?? A lot more than 10% of the people of Calgary will use this new arena ... we need the upper 10% to help us get this done ... I pay taxes to this city and I see the benefit of having a new arena in my city and the city participating ...

I've been to the saddle dome. In fact I pay thousands of dollars voluntarily to go there and consume a product I enjoy 40ish times a winter

That's really about where my willingness to contribute to the Calgary flames' bottom line ends

[stamps]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I've been to the saddle dome. In fact I pay thousands of dollars voluntarily to go there and consume a product I enjoy

That's really about where my willingness to contribute to the Calgary flames' bottom line ends

You spend thousands of dollars a year going to the Saddledome and are unwilling to spend about 5 dollars a year on your property tax bill to have a new arena ?? A man of principal ... you cannot see the public benefit of having a new arena and the city chipping in to make it happen because the other people contributing have too much money and the players make too much money and they will be making too much money off of you as opposed to now... is that right ???

[getbak]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Classic Nenshi.

He was a diabolical little preschooler.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by stamps

You spend thousands of dollars a year going to the Saddledome and are unwilling to spend about 5 dollars a year on your property tax bill to have a new arena ?? A man of principal ... you cannot see the public benefit of having a new arena and the city chipping in to make it happen because the other people contributing have too much money and the players make too much money and they will be making too much money off of you as opposed to now... is that right ???

I am unwilling precisely because I am a man of principle

I don't support subsidizing of for profit entertainment franchises, I already materially support the team how I would with any other completely volountary luxury item. I wouldn't expect my neighbors who don't give 2 craps about hockey to support my hobby.

I don't really understand your last point. Obviously I am completely okay with supporting overpaid players of a game of skill and chance and the billionaire owners who employ them as I have season tickets. I don't see why you seem to think my personal entertainment dollars = non-negociable tax expenses of which there is a limited amount of that needs to pay for things like roads and public use facilities