Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The NFL is the only sport that has the ability (and they've mastered it) to blackmail taxpayers into paying for stadiums.

Not sure I understand what exactly you mean.
All recent MLB stadiums built are heavily publicly funded as well.
If it's not blackmail, it's irrelevant, the end result is the same - lot's of public money

[killer_carlson]

I think people in Calgary need to take a long, hard look at the deal Edmonton cut.

The most important question to ask is how much $$$ the Katz group actually put up at the start of construction.

Classic case of one side (city counsel) wanting a deal more than the other (Katz). After a certain point, Katz sat back and let city counsel negotiate against themselves. In public.

A cynic would say it was a legacy moment for a retiring mayor ... who would have been strung up on the deal had he run for Premier.

That being said, people in Edmonton are pumped about the project and the opportunity to use it. The rank and file will use the new arena many times over before they use or enjoy other city cultural investments.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The most important question to ask is how much $$$ the Katz group actually put up at the start of construction.

In actual up front dollars, Katz only put up about 20 million, if I understand correctly.
The other part of his 'investment' in the project comes from the 35 year lease of the building (unless that was also up front, and he pays no lease for 35 years).

The Katz Group will pay the principal and interest costs for $112.81-million of their contribution as rent over 35 years. The remaining $17.9-million will be paid as cash.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...agreement.aspx

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The NFL is the only sport that has the ability (and they've mastered it) to blackmail taxpayers into paying for stadiums. Since LA is vacant, they are a very viable threat, and cities who give in to being blackmailed generally get a Super Bowl as a reward. Brilliant system, and why the NFL doesn't actually want a team in LA, because the threat of moving someone there is amazing leverage that once gone will make it more difficult.

NHL teams for the most part have no leverage at all to try and get a new arena. Are the Flames owners really going to threaten to move from one of the NHL's top 6 or 7 markets? For a market that could absolutely fail? That seems irresponsible. They could sell it to someone who intends to move, but then they probably will not get full value for selling the team. I think it's going to be an impossible sell to get money for an arena. Flames should be pushing for support infrastructure but nothing more.

The NFL still blackmails taxpayers but they have established a stadium fund.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/a...tablishes.html

[nik-]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

I love the since he's rich he should pay. He should donate his money to charity which he does before being a good pal and buying an arena.

We all can agree that the Econ impact from arena et al project is good for community and coffers.

Local govt doesn't have to write a cheque. Could be just no taxes of any kind until owners recoup original investment. Lots of ways to do a PPP deal

No, since he's rich and they're building a new arena to maximize revenue streams they should pay. They're not building a new arena so they can lower ticket prices or donate more to charity.

[heep223]

Over the years, the Flames have been a poor investment for this ownership group and I know this for a fact more or less (mods can PM). The Flames owners can and are making excellent returns in their operating businesses and investments...the Flames are NOT one of them. Though I believe they're doing better now in large part due to the strength in CAD.

I'm not saying anything about the private vs. public funding debate. All I'm saying is I don't think polarizing this issue is constructive and it's simply not the case that owners in Calgary are making piles of cash on the Flames. The truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, as is the case usually in these types of contentious/emotional debates.

[Vulcan]

The problem is the way the NHL and almost all pro sports are set up. If the leagues set up funds to pay for their facilities, there wouldn't be a problem but in most cases, this would require the players to take a smaller cut so the owners could fund their arenas. This isn't happening and the leagues have no impetus to make it happen as long as they can get governments to foot the bill. The outcome is that today the Flames need govt. money for a new arena and possible stadium.

McMahon will probably be the worst stadium in Canada in a couple of years and the Dome is in much the same situation in the NHL.

[username]

The best way to pay for a new area is to increase ticket prices to cover the costs. That "taxes" the people who are going to benefit from the new building.

IMO, people who have no interest in hockey shouldn't have their tax dollars funding a new building.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by heep223

Over the years, the Flames have been a poor investment for this ownership group....

Yeah... they should have bought Apple stock in 1980 instead.

The 16 M investment in 1980 is now worth about 420 M.
There were some dark years, but yearly revenues have also been very significantly positive overall.

Flames ownership has not suffered terrible hardship

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by username

The best way to pay for a new area is to increase ticket prices to cover the costs. That "taxes" the people who are going to benefit from the new building.

IMO, people who have no interest in hockey shouldn't have their tax dollars funding a new building.

Lots of people don't have interests in museums, or pedestrians bridges, or overpasses built for a certain portion of the population. Lots of tax money is given to things people don't care about. I don't think a venue that will host many nights of entertainment for the community is much different then those.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by troutman

You would have liked Calgary in 1980, a city with no culture or soul.

“Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.” Pablo Picasso

Oh I did love the city in 1980. There is lots of culture and soul throughout the city, but big blue circles and overpriced bridges don't add to either.

[FlamesAddiction]

A great deal of tax money gets "wasted". Might as well waste it on something good.

[Locke]

Again, it should be recognized that the owners dont generally make any profit through the operation of the club but rather through the increase in the Franchise's value.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

^^The difference is that the tax dollars would go to a for-profit, private enterprise, so it isn't quite the same. Having said that, I do think if the city/province commits funds to infrastructure such as road/LRT access to a facility that would be an improvement to the city, then it should be considered in the same vein as the bridges/museums/etc.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Flames ownership has not suffered terrible hardship

Agreed and that's not what I said at all.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

The 16 M investment in 1980 is now worth about 420 M.

Do you know how much capital they had to put into the business over the years, particularly in the dark days? I don't but I know they were losing money. Do we know that someone would buy this franchise for $420M today? It's a loosey-goosey valuation based on a magazine isn't it? Even if they paid $16M for a business in 1980 and that business is now worth a net $420M, that's an annualized return of 10%. That's pretty much what you can expect from a diversified portfolio of public assets, certainly not making money cash over fist for an entrepreneurial business. And we know it's less than that because they had to put capital into the business over the years. I would surmise it's max 5% annualized.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

There were some dark years, but yearly revenues have also been very significantly positive overall.

Yes revenues are positive but that doesn't mean they're making money to the bottom line, not by a long shot.

All I'm saying is that this is far from a lucrative business for them.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Oh I did love the city in 1980. There is lots of culture and soul throughout the city, but big blue circles and overpriced bridges don't add to either.

What art was in Calgary in 1980 that you enjoyed?

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

overpriced bridges don't add to either.

Oh look, another dumb Peace Bridge comment from someone who doesn't have any clue what he's talking about.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

^^The difference is that the tax dollars would go to a for-profit, private enterprise, so it isn't quite the same. Having said that, I do think if the city/province commits funds to infrastructure such as road/LRT access to a facility that would be an improvement to the city, then it should be considered in the same vein as the bridges/museums/etc.

I agree with this. If they can leverage this to start the SE LRT line it will be a win win. Flames get an LRT right to their door step and Calgary gets another LRT line.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yeah... they should have bought Apple stock in 1980 instead.

The 16 M investment in 1980 is now worth about 420 M.
There were some dark years, but yearly revenues have also been very significantly positive overall.

Flames ownership has not suffered terrible hardship

From what I've read in Forbes the Flames haven't been making much of a profit if any in the first ten years of this century. Last year was profitable because we didn't spend to the cap but overall this hasn't been a money making business.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think it's going to be an impossible sell to get money for an arena. Flames should be pushing for support infrastructure but nothing more.

The Oilers got a ton of money from the city but you think it's impossible for the Flames to get money from the city for the new arena?