Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I don’t know what you’re thinking with this, or where you get this train of thought.

You’re acting as if the market hasn’t been booming. You’re acting as if USA isn’t popping off what? 4 million vaccines a day?

If the Flames went up for sale, they would sell. If the city of Calgary backs out of this deal, the Flames will leave.

The NHL’s commitment to locations like Arizona show what type of markets they want their teams in. They want massive populations.

Alberta having two teams is bizarre given our population, and on top of that I believe the Flames have the lowest draw from a ratings perspective in all of Canada.

Did you listen to McGuire or read the CBC article that accompanied by post?

The NHL admitted this year that it's franchises are losing money without fans in the stands, while fan polling shows reluctance to return to stands in the near future independent of vaccine status.

Does that sound like a sharp incline to you?

Calgary is still the fastest growing market in the province of Alberta, and still has a vast amount more corporate wealth to support a franchise than Edmonton does.

[Beatle17]

Quote:
Coun. Jeff Davison said the two parties are still working together and that CSEC has not asked for more money.

"There's been no ask of council for additional public dollars to go into this project. Council is committed to the deal we have signed. We are committed to the four major capital projects that we have going on in the city and we put a very specific model forward, a very specific model to go and do that," he said.

So if this is true, which none of us know, it may show why CSEC wants CMLC removed as they possibly should have secured a position in a mill run 3 months ago before the price increases really hit. IF the steel price has increased by 15% since last fall THAT may be what the mentioned $70M price increase was. We should all stop reading between the lines of some Tweets. Let the city and CSEC discuss and fill us all in when they have come to a conclusion.

[Jiri Hrdina]

^The issue with this topic since Day 1 has been people arguing on the extremes.

I think it is reasonable to say that if the Flames don't replace the Saddledome their long-term future in Calgary is at risk. That doesn't mean they pack up and move the next day.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

^The issue with this topic since Day 1 has been people arguing on the extremes.

I think it is reasonable to say that if the Flames don't replace the Saddledome their long-term future in Calgary is at risk. That doesn't mean they pack up and move the next day.

Yup...which i have reiterated over and over but some just dont seem to want to accept it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The Toyota Centre may be almost 20. But it would be the 6th newest building in the NHL, and a darn sight newer than the 1983 Saddledome, which is the oldest but for MSG, and 10 years older then the next oldest. And Fertitta constantly talks about the NHL.

A relocation fee is a hefty consideration but it’s a lot less than an expansion fee. So the issue is purchase price + relocation fee versus expansion fee + startup costs/no team infrastructure etc. Buying an existing team has some advantages. The main thing going for Calgary is that there are other, perhaps better, acquisition targets. AZ. Fla. Ott.

I think the NHL made Arizona a hill to die on. The area fills an important geographic, demographic, and television market gap. The potential reward in that market is really high still. I am not sure they would view Calgary the same way.

Ottawa is a weird one. I don't know the exact reasons for the legal dispute between Melnyk and the other investors, and he does seem a little flakey. But he is also pretty consistent that he is dedicated to building a new arena and keeping the team there despite the hiccups. Perhaps Edwards would feel the same way, it's all just speculation. I do find it worrisome that the CSEC threw a wrench into it though. I don't think you do that if you are 100% committed and not prepared for the worst. Again, all just speculation because that is all we can do at this point.

I have no idea what the situation is in Florida. They came into the league with a bang and have teetered ever since. But they have also been pretty unnoteworthy during that time all the while watching their state rival excel. That has to be hard on marketing the product. With a good team at the moment and considering how invested they are to have weathered that dreadful period, perhaps the owners wouldn't be willing to let it go right away.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yup...which i have reiterated over and over but some just dont seem to want to accept it.

Well to be fair you have made the following comments:

"There are cities offering sweetheart deals RIGHT NOW who have arenas in place."

"Houston and Portland are very much in play as we speak."

It's that kind of unsupported alarmism which IMO is exactly the opposite of what Jiri is referring to.

I hope there is not a person here who won't acknowledge the Flames can't stay in the Saddledome indefinitely and it will take some form of public/private partnership to make a new arena work.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well to be fair you have made the following comments:

"There are cities offering sweetheart deals RIGHT NOW who have arenas in place."

"Houston and Portland are very much in play as we speak."

It's that kind of unsupported alarmism which IMO is exactly the opposite of what Jiri is referring to.

I hope there is not a person here who won't acknowledge the Flames can't stay in the Saddledome indefinitely and it will take some form of public/private partnership to make a new arena work.

Especially considering that most of the responders to transplant's points have actually been the one reiterating what Jiri said:

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You know the people who talk about how the threat of moving is real always seem to skip over how difficult it would be. Basically acting like if the arena falls through they can move quickly, that it would be smooth sailing. There are legal, political, financial complications to this, involving multiple entities that aren't even the direct seller or buyer. No one ignores the possibility of moving being out there, but it's not going to be easy at all.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This.

Yes Calgary would eventually lose the Flames without a new arena deal without public subsidy. But all these alarmist posts about Houston and Portland et al are just entirely premature and not rooted in fact.

The City is not in a bad negotiating position.

It's an odd conversation, for sure.

[BMStrikesAgain]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well to be fair you have made the following comments:

"There are cities offering sweetheart deals RIGHT NOW who have arenas in place."

"Houston and Portland are very much in play as we speak."

It's that kind of unsupported alarmism which IMO is exactly the opposite of what Jiri is referring to.

I hope there is not a person here who won't acknowledge the Flames can't stay in the Saddledome indefinitely and it will take some form of public/private partnership to make a new arena work.

and he's said those while while kind of being a condesending jerk the entire time.

Yeah you really have him pegged...he is broke.

Its like some are just ignoring this because they dont want it to be real.

Bizarre.

LOL.

or are plugging their ears yelling lalalala...

for a guy who ignored my reply to his "can't do city" then continues to talk down to any who disagree with him, well, its weird.

[powderjunkie]

Add the NHLPA as another obstacle to moving CGY. While they may not have any veto, they’d be pretty pissed if the league approved a move that is likely to hurt HRR (or at least not improve it relative to moving a franchise that is actually struggling).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Monahammer]

"you all refuse to see!!"

[Mull]

Originally Posted by getbak

There was no relocation threat. That was entirely wild speculation in this thread.

No one with any actual knowledge of what's going on has even suggested that the deal is close to falling apart, let alone any threat of the team leaving.

I don't think that is fair at all. On Skyrise (where the rumor of the talk hold was leaked prior to the news story and this was the source that got the discussion going on CP) the same poster who posted the rumor said that prior to this deal being signed said "They gave a week deadline apparently, or they'd move to Houston." Given this person broke this rumor before the news (and actually this person is how CP got wind of the rumor), its fair to assume they have some knowledge.

If the current deal is being speculated that it could fall apart, its more than fair and logical to speak about the "relocation threat" in real terms since the last stance pre-deal by the flames was apparently relocation.

Yes, tons of "ifs" and rumors to be fair however.

Not that I wouldn't laugh the Flames out of the negotiation room if they made that threat... but that is a different point to be discussed as we have seen.

[Mull]

From skyrise, different poster than the one I noted in my previous post:

Apparently CSEC wants to add some major upgrades that weren't in the original budget. These include upgrades to the corporate boxes and A/V/tech changes to the tune of $70 million. The City told CSEC to go ahead and add them at their cost, but CSEC wants the City to cover half.

[Gordies Elbow]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Calgary is still the fastest growing market in the province of Alberta, and still has a vast amount more corporate wealth to support a franchise than Edmonton does.

While the fastest growing market in Alberta might be a turtle race, what evidence supports "a vast amount more corporate wealth to support a franchise"?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Gordies Elbow

While the fastest growing market in Alberta might be a turtle race, what evidence supports "a vast amount more corporate wealth to support a franchise"?

It’s been a while since I looked but Calgary has always had a bunch more corporate head offices than Edmonton (in fact more than Vancouver and Montreal too).

[Mull]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s been a while since I looked but Calgary has always had a bunch more corporate head offices than Edmonton (in fact more than Vancouver and Montreal too).

Calgary has the largest amount outside of Toronto, but a slower growth rate than Vancouver and Toronto. Although Vancouver growth rate wasn't much larger than Calgary's (61% to 51%) and since they had a smaller number to begin with, one could argue Calgary's larger absolute gain is more impressive.

https://www.calgaryeconomicdevelopme...dmsdocument/29 Links to a PDF

Scroll to 2nd page to see numbers

[Gordies Elbow]

Originally Posted by Mull

Calgary has the largest amount outside of Toronto, but a slower growth rate than Vancouver.

https://www.calgaryeconomicdevelopme...dmsdocument/29

Scroll to 2nd page to see numbers

So they have the corporate tax income and rates to cover costs?

I had heard that Calgary relied on corporate revenues from downtown towers to cover a larger percentage of costs. Is that not correct?

[kermitology]

This is my issue here: there is a deal that both CSEC and the City of Calgary agreed to. CSEC, by report, is trying to add scope to the deal and get the city to pay for half of it, but that's a change to the original scope - so THAT IS ON THE FLAMES.

So, if the Flames want to blow up the deal - and it's them who are trying to make a change - the cost to the Flames here is not worth shutting down the project entirely. The city already agreed to their initial demands. And if the Flames threaten to leave over this, fine, go ahead. But the NHL should really caution supporting that notion when there is already an agreement in place.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Gordies Elbow

So they have the corporate tax income and rates to cover costs?

I had heard that Calgary relied on corporate revenues from downtown towers to cover a larger percentage of costs. Is that not correct?

Cover what cost sorry? All I did was list stats to answer the poster questions.

Calgary is (was perhaps?) reliant on our strong downtown to cover property tax revenue, its why our residential taxes are so "cheap". However, that foundation has fallen apart as downtown property values collapse pushing up property tax on all other business, and creating the discussion of moving the tax load back to residential.

Or so I understand, to lazy to google to find the news stories.

[Voodooman]

Originally Posted by Gordies Elbow

While the fastest growing market in Alberta might be a turtle race, what evidence supports "a vast amount more corporate wealth to support a franchise"?

I was just discussing this with someone recently, and they made the point (that I found difficult to dispute) that the Oilers have a larger, and overall, more passionate individual fanbase than the Flames. Sure, they still live in the glory days of the 80's, but the point is, they are still there, and all in, and have stayed loyal through some pretty dismal seasons. Just look at their 50/50 jackpots. Make all the sweat pant jokes you want (and trust me, I will), but I think there is a case to be made that the Oilers have a larger and more invested individual fanbase.

I think the Flames could struggle to keep the season ticket base over 10,000 for next year. Corporate support is going to be down, and people have gotten into the habit of not going to games, and spending a minimum of $150/night. Mix in a team that has some on-ice problems, and it's a recipe for a much reduced season ticket base, due on no small part to the smaller base of individual fans. I know of a few people who are long-term season ticket holders that are not likely to renew for a full package. I feel the team is really going to have to push game packs to put butts in seats when the time comes.

I'm not questioning the loyalty of anyone here. Obviously, if you are on this forum, you are a die hard Flames fan. But, just how many of us are there in this city and province?

The arena deal is going to be very interesting in the immediate future. Lots of posturing on both sides, but who will blink first?

[Gordies Elbow]

Originally Posted by Mull

Cover what cost sorry? All I did was list stats to answer the poster questions.

Calgary is (was perhaps?) reliant on our strong downtown to cover property tax revenue, its why our residential taxes are so "cheap". However, that foundation has fallen apart as downtown property values collapse pushing up property tax on all other business, and creating the discussion of moving the tax load back to residential.

Or so I understand, to lazy to google to find the news stories.

Well, not "to" lazy to find stories like this: Record vacancy rates in downtown Calgary.

Head offices like Shaw staying?

Maybe explains why the city wants to push the pause button.