Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[DiracSpike]

I'm talking about the NHL caving on threatening relocation over out of date buildings, viability-of-the-franchise and all that.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Nah, the only way they "cave" is if they end up accepting the cities last offer before this whole bruhaha. Otherwise they can just say the final deal was close to what they really wanted (regardless of how true that actually is) to get anyways and their old offer was always negotiable and blah blah blah.

"we always wanted a deal done, we always wanted a fair deal for everyone, we love this city, it's the best hockey market in the world, negotiations are always hard but we have to remember we all wanted what is best for the city and the wonderful people in it..."

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because the position is indefensible and they don't want to tarnish their reputations by having their pictures in the paper with a caption asking for hundreds of millions.

If their current position is indefensible, then perhaps they need to adjust their position.

But even if their position is tough, for men who tout themselves as pillars of the community, they should have more respect for the citizens of this city, and actually engage.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

"we always wanted a deal done, we always wanted a fair deal for everyone, we love this city, it's the best hockey market in the world, negotiations are always hard but we have to remember we all wanted what is best for the city and the wonderful people in it..."

Yup... I thought I covered that with the "blah blah blah"

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

But there is nothing that backs up your claim that if the team left we'd have a negative economic impact that would be substantial.

So you have backed off your position in the thread you started a couple of weeks ago entitled CSEC Will Not Move the Flames that there is "zero percent chance that the Flames leave Calgary" for which you provided no back up, having to later acknowledge later that this was just an opinion (but really a "fundamental fact"), and are now acknowledging the possibility?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Yup... I thought I covered that with the "blah blah blah"

Well it's Ken King so I just figured that was a direct quote.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

So the other owners who have to approve the deal give up more expansion money and take a safe hockey market off the table?

It isn't happening tomorrow.

Another expansion franchise will be done to equal out the conferences well before Flames would ever move.

But in 5-7 years when the Dome is really garbage, and the Flames aren't a high revenue team (if they even are), you really think a big American city with a brand new stadium wouldn't be attractive?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It isn't happening tomorrow.

Another expansion franchise will be done to equal out the conferences well before Flames would ever move.

But in 5-7 years when the Dome is really garbage, and the Flames aren't a high revenue team (if they even are), you really think a big American city with a brand new stadium wouldn't be attractive?

I think the window is shorter, 3 - 4 years.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is how Arlington is paying for it.

Essentially tax visitors to the city with the hotel and car tax which in essence is a tax burden mostly placed on businesses.

And everyone with a .5% sales tax.

It's also important to note that those taxes already exist and are being used to fund the city's contribution to the Cowboys' stadium. The city has simply elected (with the approval of voters in last November's referendum) to continue charging those taxes further into the future to fund their portion of the Rangers' stadium as well.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

So you have backed off your position in the thread you started a couple of weeks ago entitled CSEC Will Not Move the Flames that there is "zero percent chance that the Flames leave Calgary" for which you provided no back up, having to later acknowledge later that this was just an opinion (but really a "fundamental fact"), and are now acknowledging the possibility?

Absolutely not! Both CSEC and the NHL, internally, recognize they are not moving from Calgary.

Just look at where they put hte last two teams:

Winnipeg and Las Vegas... Hello!? There aren't many hockey markets out there, and right now non available that could be better then calgary.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If their current position is indefensible, then perhaps they need to adjust their position.

But even if their position is tough, for men who tout themselves as pillars of the community, they should have more respect for the citizens of this city, and actually engage.

I definitely agree with you, and like you said, for the save our flames promotions, ownership was happy to be front and center. Maybe Markin doesn't want any more attention? It's been a bad PR year for him:

Beleaguered Alberta Health deputy minister Carl Amrhein has resigned.

In a statement issued to Alberta Health staff Thursday afternoon, Amrhein announced he is resigning to become provost and vice-president of academics at the Aga Khan University, which is based in Karachi, Pakistan. His last day is Oct. 6, 2017.

"Work is underway to recruit a new deputy minister and in the meantime associate deputy minister Andre Tremblay will be acting deputy minister," Amrhein wrote. The email made no reference to his association with the Pure North S'Energy Foundation.

Over the past several months, Amrhein has faced intense scrutiny over his allegedly inappropriate relationship with Pure North S'Energy, a Calgary-based private health foundation with whom he signed a $4.2-million grant agreement in October 2016.

As CBC News reported, Amrhein participated in Pure North's alternative-health program while deputy minister and, in his previous role as official administrator of Alberta Health Services, he lobbied Alberta Health for funding for the foundation.

But his relationship with the controversial foundation, and its multimillionaire founder Allan Markin, went back even further. In 2012 and 2014, while Amrhein was provost of the University of Alberta, he provided endorsements of the Pure North program. The foundation twice used a letter of support from Amrhein to bolster funding requests to the Alberta government.

For months, both Amrhein and Health Minister Sarah Hoffman have refused to answer repeated questions about Amrhein's relationship with Pure North and Markin.

Amrhein declined to speak with a CBC reporter who approached as he both entered and left a meeting of the all-party public accounts committee on Thursday. During the meeting, Amrhein declined to answer questions about Pure North directed to him by United Conservative Party health critic Tany Yao.

At one point, Yao directly asked Amrhein if he would resign. Amrhein did not answer the question and the committee chair ruled it was out of order.

After Amrhein's resignation became public, Yao said that "after all the ethical questions surrounding Mr. Amrhein's tenure as deputy minister of health, quite frankly it's a relief to see that he has resigned today.

"I have repeatedly questioned Mr. Amrhein's objectivity and ability as deputy minister given his role in the Pure North scandal, as well as the problems within his own office.

"Health care makes up over 40 per cent of the province of Alberta's annual budget, and we simply cannot afford such ethical malaise in a department that all Albertans count on to be there for them."

The Alberta government has for years allowed the foundation of wealthy Calgary oilman Allan Markin to offer a private, unproven alternative health program, which some experts say is effectively a research “experiment” that has potentially risked the health of tens of thousands of people, including the homeless, addicted and seniors.

A CBC News investigation has found Alberta Health determined the program offered by the Calgary-based Pure North S’Energy Foundation:

Was not adequately supported by science.

Couldn’t prove the health and economic outcomes it claimed.

Distributed high doses of vitamin D and other nutrients in a way that could pose a health risk.

Yet despite this, and against the advice of senior ministry officials, the government of Premier Alison Redford gave Pure North a $10-million grant in December 2013 to further expand an existing program, which was ultimately offered to more than 7,300 Alberta seniors — without any ethical oversight.

Not a great time to open yourself up to questions by appearing in public.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

New Era seems like the guy who has paid the sticker price on every car he's bought because "that's what they said it costs."

No, if you know his history you will understand why he is loving every minute of this.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The Flames could only do this with BoG approval, and recent history suggests that that would be very difficult to secure.

Recent history suggests that the Board of Governors has no problem with relocating a franchise if nobody is willing and able to operate it in its existing location. That's why there is once again a team called the Winnipeg Jets.

But what IS relevant is the 1/2 billion dollar expansion fee that the NHL greatly covets, which would also interfere with any teams interested in relocation.

That expansion fee was only charged once, to the only ownership group that was willing and able to pay that much. There were no other bidders at that price – none. If the NHL ever expands again, I'm betting it won't be for that kind of money.

[stone hands]

Atlanta wasn't selling out every game despite icing a mediocre product for the better part of 25 years

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Atlanta wasn't selling out every game despite icing a mediocre product for the better part of 25 years

That's because Atlanta was icing a stone-awful product for every season of the franchise's existence. How many playoff games did the Thrashers win again?

Anyway, is that the Board of Governors' problem? If nobody wants to own a team that has to operate out of the Saddledome, and somebody wants a team in $MARKET badly enough to pay a large relocation fee, I suspect the BoG is likely to just say, ‘Go ahead.’

[stone hands]

It is their problem if you take a hockey team that has 41+ games of 18+k ticket sales and drops it in an unproven market not guaranteed to have anywhere near those numbers

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's also important to note that those taxes already exist and are being used to fund the city's contribution to the Cowboys' stadium. The city has simply elected (with the approval of voters in last November's referendum) to continue charging those taxes further into the future to fund their portion of the Rangers' stadium as well.

A few other interesting things.

The city paid 1/4 of the cost of Cowboy stadium.
The tax generates around 25 million per year
The city 23 years go when this tax was implemented payed 135 million for Arlington stadium for the rangers.

The ticket tax that the cowboys had on their Stadium was borrowed by the city but guarenteed by the cowboys.

Essentially the city of Arlington gives 25 million per year to professional sports teams and collects no direct revenue from them. Compare to Calgary at 6 million CAD.

That seems like a crazy amount to pay for the privilege of paying to watch sports. If one assumes that the Cowboys is half of the tax they pay 1.5 million per game hosted each year.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Recent history suggests that the Board of Governors has no problem with relocating a franchise if nobody is willing and able to operate it in its existing location. That's why there is once again a team called the Winnipeg Jets.

That expansion fee was only charged once, to the only ownership group that was willing and able to pay that much. There were no other bidders at that price – none. If the NHL ever expands again, I'm betting it won't be for that kind of money.

Seattle will pay the expansion fee. Bonderman and Bruckheimer did not have an Arena deal that met NHL requirements at the time of the RFP therefore Seattle could not bid.

[wpgflamesfan]

"Edmonton is the clear example of this. I mean, clearly, so much of Edmonton's flagging, sad, little ego is tied up in their hockey success that they needed to sign a scam of a deal to give a sweetheart arena over to (Oilers owner) Darryl Katz. And now all of a sudden the expectation is that Calgary is going to fall in line?"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ena-1.4313740?

[Roughneck]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ena-1.4313740?

"Edmonton is the clear example of this. I mean, clearly, so much of Edmonton's flagging, sad, little ego is tied up in their hockey success that they needed to sign a scam of a deal to give a sweetheart arena over to (Oilers owner) Darryl Katz. And now all of a sudden the expectation is that Calgary is going to fall in line?"
"I'm afraid we're not that pathetic," she said. "We're just not that pathetic, as a city."