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

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Did you ever consider not moving here because they played out of the lowly saddledome? Did it even weigh into your decision?

In 2001 the Saddledome wasn't becoming obsolete either.

If I put my sports allegiances aside in 2014 and had to choose between Calgary and Winnipeg, I'd choose Winnipeg because the MTS Centre is a world class concert venue and I'd he able to enjoy the same pro sports in much better buildings.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

...I'd choose Winnipeg because the MTS Centre is a world class concert venue...

You may not care for her, but very representative.
Beyonce is touring only two Canadian cities this summer, Toronto and... yes you guessed it - Winnipeg!?!?!?
Why Winnipeg?
Investors Group Field opened in 2013

This is not sports. It would qualify as 'arts', made possible by a new sports facility.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Did you ever consider not moving here because they played out of the lowly saddledome? Did it even weigh into your decision?

If Winnipeg had a new arena and an NHL team, I would think he would choose to live closer to home. Just my guess, though.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

In 2001 the Saddledome wasn't becoming obsolete either.

If I put my sports allegiances aside in 2014 and had to choose between Calgary and Winnipeg, I'd choose Winnipeg because the MTS Centre is a world class concert venue and I'd he able to enjoy the same pro sports in much better buildings.

But you'd have to live the other 98% of your life in Winnipeg.
When i think about picking a place to live, start a career, raise a family... sports facility and whether or not i can see Beyonce in concert are low, low, low on my priority list. different strokes i guess.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Economists have measured these benefits and tried to put actual dollar figures to how much the intrinsic value is to people. When push comes to shove these benefits are about two orders of magnitude less than whatever the public cost was.

I've been beating this drum for a while now but there isn't one honest methodologically sound analysis that shows that public subsidies of private arenas is a sound economic decision.

And yes all the arguments you raise have been well explored.

Let's call this as it is. A bunch of billionaires see an opportunity to have someone else pay for their stuff. Who wouldn't try to bilk the unwashed masses and dress it up as civic pride?

Let me give you a nice tidy "analysis that shows that public subsidies of private arenas is a sound economic decision".

Assume the team is moved for better returns in another city. that's bad for Calgary right? Jobs lost. Tax revs lost.

Now assume that the team could be retained with a $100 cheque from city hall. That $100 is the amount needed to nudge the marginal return from a Calgary team above that found elsewhere.

Fictional but you get the point. Capital budgeting decisions are real.

There is a point that money from city provides high dollar return to the city vs losing the team.

[dustygoon]

^^ I know I sound douchie there so apologies...meant to highlight the point that there is a sweet spot in the middle that prob satisfies.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

LOL how does the Bow benefit a person like me that is not employed by EnCana nor is my job in any way influenced by EnCana? Because a big building is good for Calgary? Were the other tall skyscrapers getting lonely? EnCana was already here so what exactly is the economic impact of the Bow? Is EnCana not economically self sufficient?

Is a world class sports facility even better for Calgary than a skyscraper seeing people won't have to work for the Flames to actually get to use the facility whereas I get nothing out of the Bow? Honestly your post is hypocritical and I'm not saying that the government shouldn't have chipped in for the Bow because I'm for the government chipping in for an arena and if I was pro-Flames and anti-EnCana I would be a hypocrite as at the end of the day it's still taxpayer money going to corporation. You will always have a loud group that opposes taxpayer money going into anything but that doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day the city benefits. The Saddledome in it's day was a Calgary landmark that the Corral never was. The new facility will be an even bigger/better landmark and the venue possibilities of the stadium/arena project are endless.

Fine, then change it to a fancy restaurant. You can pay and go in that. Should the government dole out for those now?

The Flames are an economically self sufficient business.

Why an arena and not a restaurant? Or a movie theatre? An amusement park? I don't really get what makes an arena so special it's in its own category compared to other entertainment venues.

I personally don't care because I'll either pay via my tickets or pay via my taxes, but it seems dumb people that don't give two craps about the Flames or rock concerts are going to pay for it, when those both make money just fine on their own without public assistance. There are tons of other sporting and art facilities desperate for public money.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

If Winnipeg had a new arena and an NHL team, I would think he would choose to live closer to home. Just my guess, though.

Nah...Always hated Winnipeg. Never wanted to live there. Came to Calgary for jobs and flames.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

The Flames are an economically self sufficient business.

Yes, the Flames are a business. And, as such, could choose to move to a more lucrative economic environment. That's not a threat, it's a reality.
A new building is over one half billion dollars. Katz is getting in for an up-front cost of 20 million in Edmonton. If the Flames cost of entry is half a billion, they will move. That's just good business on their part.
There are benefits to the city in having the Flames in Calgary, economic and otherwise. Exactly what that value is is difficult to determine. But the city will have to ante up something to keep them in Calgary. That's just good business on their part.
The question will ultimately come down to where the tipping point is, on both sides.

[Table 5]

I really doubt there is a more stable and lucrative economic environment in North America than Calgary would be if we didn't have a team at the moment. Perhaps somewhere in Ontario...but the money you'd have to pay the Leafs would be halfway to what the arena would cost.

Some American city might pay for your arena...but good luck in 5 years when you're team sucks, nobody gives a crap, and you're deep in the red. The Flames bring a lot of positives to Calgary, but the whole threatening to leave for better scenarios is pure BS.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes, the Flames are a business. And, as such, could choose to move to a more lucrative economic environment. That's not a threat, it's a reality.
A new building is over one half billion dollars. Katz is getting in for an up-front cost of 20 million in Edmonton. If the Flames cost of entry is half a billion, they will move. That's just good business on their part.
There are benefits to the city in having the Flames in Calgary, economic and otherwise. Exactly what that value is is difficult to determine. But the city will have to ante up something to keep them in Calgary. That's just good business on their part.
The question will ultimately come down to where the tipping point is, on both sides.

Just because "it's good business on their part" doesn't mean the city should just do it. In fact, if a billionare is happy with a deal you're making with him, you're probably getting screwed over.

It also necessitates the existence of a "more lucrative economic environment" which I'm not sure is a reality.

[Flash Walken]

There is nothing stopping Murray Edwards from moving his oil and gas business to North Carolina.

Except of course, the economic conditions which make it profitable in Alberta don't exist in Carolina.

But if he wants to run his companies at a loss, who am I to stop him?

Let him threaten to move the Flames to Kansas City.

I'm sure all his buds on the Board of Governors would be THRILLED to have a team move from one of the most profitable locations for an NHL team to a complete unknown market that is not traditionally a hockey market.

Sounds like a smart business strategy.

[nik-]

It would be as comically empty a threat as when Katz did it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

There is nothing stopping Murray Edwards from moving his oil and gas business to North Carolina.

Except of course, the economic conditions which make it profitable in Alberta don't exist in Carolina.

But if he wants to run his companies at a loss, who am I to stop him?

Let him threaten to move the Flames to Kansas City.

I'm sure all his buds on the Board of Governors would be THRILLED to have a team move from one of the most profitable locations for an NHL team to a complete unknown market that is not traditionally a hockey market.

Sounds like a smart business strategy.

The BOG probably would love that. That would:
1) Lower the players $ share as league wide revenue would decline, but it wouldn't hurt their team's revenue at all (except maybe edmonton/vancouver)
2) Open up a hugely lucrative opportunity for them to move either move their team or threaten to move to extort an arena deal from their local government
3) If nobody actually moves, then they could expand to Calgary, and collect a big fat expansion fee. Pair it with a QC expansion in the east, and the owners could split on the order of a half billion

Of course, Murray Edwards didn't become hugely wealthy by doing stupid things. Threatening to move might be good business, but actually moving certainly wouldn't be.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Even in Canada, Calgary is unique in that respect.

Municipalities, then metropolitan areas by population (2011)
Toronto 2.62 M --> 5.58 M
Montreal 1.65 M --> 3.82 M
Calgary 1.10 M --> 1.21 M
Vancouver 603 K --> 2.31 M

Calgary is slightly different than the other three though because none of the surrounding suburbs are contiguous. In the other three examples, the only thing that separates one city from the next in many cases is a sign alerting you to that fact. Even Edmonton has St. Albert and Sherwood Park attached right to the city. Calgary simply annexed communities it grew into.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I really doubt there is a more stable and lucrative economic environment in North America than Calgary would be if we didn't have a team at the moment. Perhaps somewhere in Ontario...but the money you'd have to pay the Leafs would be halfway to what the arena would cost.

Some American city might pay for your arena...but good luck in 5 years when you're team sucks, nobody gives a crap, and you're deep in the red. The Flames bring a lot of positives to Calgary, but the whole threatening to leave for better scenarios is pure BS.

If the Flames owner treat the organization basically as a non-profit, then I can see why they would be hesitant on paying for the majority of the arena. They would never make that money back, even with the increased value of the franchise.

If the team becomes a money loser because they can't get a new arena built then eventually they will have to consider selling the team. If they can't find a buyer in Calgary they will sell to the highest bidder elsewhere.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Calgary is slightly different than the other three though because none of the surrounding suburbs are contiguous. In the other three examples, the only thing that separates one city from the next in many cases is a sign alerting you to that fact. Even Edmonton has St. Albert and Sherwood Park attached right to the city. Calgary simply annexed communities it grew into.

And thank god we did and hopefully it continues. Seeing some American cities with their tax bases moving away, yet continuing to burden their infrastructure, is a road no city should go down.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by nik-

It would be as comically empty a threat as when Katz did it.

That comically empty threat worked out not too bad.
For him

[nik-]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

That comically empty threat worked out not too bad.
For him

Yup, they sure bent over and grabbed their ankles.

[monkeyman]

The best the Flames can hope for is for a bunch of fans to start fear mongering. They know any threat to move would be empty so won't do so themselves. They know the mayor and most citizens would call them on it...
They'll ask for money though, no doubt about it, they've already laid the ground work with comments from Burke/King (i.e. best 1986 building...). They're biding their time, waiting for a new Premier, and or a Mayor.