CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by New Era

You don't think that companies that have head offices in Calgary have been given huge incentives and subsidies to be here? Companies don't just decide to pick up and move to another major city on a whim. There are always large incentives and tax breaks that draw companies to cities. You are paying for those towers, or some of the leases to space in those towers, you just don't know it because the deals cut to bring companies to Calgary are not public knowledge. Sports teams get the same incentives, but because of the nature of their business much of those negotiations happen in the open.

@powederjunkie

Glad to see someone else to work for the Board and come away with a bad opinion of them. I know they cannot be completely blamed for the deal cut to establish the Saddledome, but that deal has been hurting the Flames for years. They do not control important revenue streams that would allow them access to the dollars that will allow them to be more aggressive in their game. This is why the team is looking for a new facility, one away from Stampede owned land. When people suggest they build back on the grounds they just don't understand the board or what they are like to deal with. The Stampede grounds are a non-starter, which is a good thing. I hope a deal gets done, but it won't disappoint me if it doesn't. I just hope the people of Calgary will understand if ownership finally decides to cash in that savings bond they are sitting on and the team moves on to greener pastures.

Where exactly is greener pastures? Perhaps the only better open viable market is a 2nd team in Toronto and even that would be doubtful as better than Calgary depending on how much you'd have to give the Leafs to operate there.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by New Era

Glad to see someone else to work for the Board and come away with a bad opinion of them. I know they cannot be completely blamed for the deal cut to establish the Saddledome, but that deal has been hurting the Flames for years. They do not control important revenue streams that would allow them access to the dollars that will allow them to be more aggressive in their game.

Well no ****. The Flames put exactly $0 into the construction of the Saddledome. Why should they have ever had any rights to that revenue without paying for it? The Stampede selling the operating rights to the Flames for a song was a gift to the Flames and the Flames should be on their knees saying thank you. Don't act like the Stampede is some big bad evil meddling thing. The various levels of government built us the Saddledome and gave the Stampede the rights to operate. Just because the Flames started whining about wanting to operate their free building does not mean the Stampede were big bad meddlers. It's the other way around. The Flames were the whiny spoiled child wanting some other kid's rightfully owned toy.

Originally Posted by New Era

This is why the team is looking for a new facility, one away from Stampede owned land. When people suggest they build back on the grounds they just don't understand the board or what they are like to deal with. The Stampede grounds are a non-starter, which is a good thing. I hope a deal gets done, but it won't disappoint me if it doesn't. I just hope the people of Calgary will understand if ownership finally decides to cash in that savings bond they are sitting on and the team moves on to greener pastures.

The Stampede would welcome the Flames onto the grounds with open arms. If the Flames don't make the Stampede put in any money and build all of their own parking, the you're not going to find the Stampede sitting there with their hands out demanding parking money or a cut of operating revenue. They would have no leverage to. That would simply not make any sense. They'd just be happy to have the extra traffic down on the grounds. But if the Flames wanted to use the Stampede's rightfully owned parking lots, then you're damn right the Stampede should have their hand out. Would you let me park on your driveway for free?

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

They are NOT members of the "Board". The "Board" is not sitting in a ivory tower coming coming up with the ideas and making the deals. The executive leadership team does all of that, and brings it to the Board for approval, feedback, guidance and direction. Of course the Board has a major say in how things go, and essentially guide the direction of the organization (and decide if the CEO sticks around or not), but it's a few hours a week for most of them (more in June/July of course). Running the top of an organization is lots of work, which is why it's down by the aforementioned CEO, CFO and VPs, who are salaried, and spend ~8 hours on any given day focused on Stampede.

This is hardly any different from any other organization (perhaps Stampede board members seem a bit more prominent, but I think that may have to do with the breadth of backgrounds they come from, including some higher profile folks. An oil company's board is going to be mostly other oil dudes, and maybe some bankers, etc.).

Why aren't people outraged at the Encana Board or Petro Canada Board, etc. for layoffs? "Stampede Board" must just has a nice ring to it.

Lastly, because the Stampede isn't putting a team on the ice, they should have been more willing to give up their revenue stream? Giving it up for nothing would probably have meant the loss of some full time jobs (people like I used to be)...the majority of Flames payroll expense is for P/T, typically second jobs for people; 5-20 hrs/week.

Fantastic post. It's nice to see someone here with an understanding of how the Stampede's governance structure actually works. I get that you have your list of grievances about the Stampede, that's totally fair, but we are certainly aligned on our opinion of how the Stampede has conducted itself in its relationship with the Flames.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Pretty debatable to say the Flames are paying the ticket tax when they are just adding it to their tickets and having customers pay it.

You can argue they would charge the same price for tickets with or without the ticket tax but it also opens the door to justify higher prices because of the ticket tax.

Why wouldn't they? If they can fill their building by charging a higher price, they're still going to charge that price whether there is a ticket tax or not. It's basic supply and demand. The demand curve (i.e. the consumer) sets their consumption patterns based on the all in total cost.

Edit: Although I will give credence to a potential psychological effect of a "fee" affecting the demand curve. I guess there's a reason ticketmaster prices their tickets that way with about a billion fees on top of the "ticket price".

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Why wouldn't they? If they can fill their building by charging a higher price, they're still going to charge that price whether there is a ticket tax or not. It's basic supply and demand. The demand curve (i.e. the consumer) sets their consumption patterns based on the all in total cost.

Depends on how they charge it doesn't it? If they don't include it in the actually ticket price and then add it as a surcharge (which is probably likely), they'll list ticket prices as lower than you're actually paying.

I doubt the Flames take the Ticketmaster fees into account when setting their own prices.

EDIT: just noticed your edit saying pretty much what I said.

[RM14]

Also, I don't think sports fans are all that rational when paying for tickets. Supply and demand laws are not very predictable.

[Kjesse]

Murray Edwards declaring UK residency, reportedly to avoid paying the now much higher Alberta income tax, is probably not a good way to proceed when asking for taxpayer dollars to build your arena.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Murray Edwards declaring UK residency, reportedly to avoid paying the now much higher Alberta income tax, is probably not a good way to proceed when asking for taxpayer dollars to build your arena.

He's probably looking to pay less in income tax so he can give more money away to charity.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Where exactly is greener pastures? Perhaps the only better open viable market is a 2nd team in Toronto and even that would be doubtful as better than Calgary depending on how much you'd have to give the Leafs to operate there.

This is one of the things that just makes my head hurt about this discussion. People think that Calgary is a great market, ignoring the fact that current ownership have already acknowledged that the current building is not conducive to supporting a NHL team. What makes Calgary a great market if the only building available does not allow the team to operate effectively? Who is going to come in with another team if the last team here couldn't make it work with the existing facilities? No one would. Not without first getting commitments to have anew facility built for the new team.

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Well no ****. The Flames put exactly $0 into the construction of the Saddledome. Why should they have ever had any rights to that revenue without paying for it? The Stampede selling the operating rights to the Flames for a song was a gift to the Flames and the Flames should be on their knees saying thank you. Don't act like the Stampede is some big bad evil meddling thing. The various levels of government built us the Saddledome and gave the Stampede the rights to operate. Just because the Flames started whining about wanting to operate their free building does not mean the Stampede were big bad meddlers. It's the other way around. The Flames were the whiny spoiled child wanting some other kid's rightfully owned toy.

Remind me again. How much money did the benevolent Stampede Board put up to build the Saddledome?

The Stampede would welcome the Flames onto the grounds with open arms. If the Flames don't make the Stampede put in any money and build all of their own parking, the you're not going to find the Stampede sitting there with their hands out demanding parking money or a cut of operating revenue. They would have no leverage to. That would simply not make any sense. They'd just be happy to have the extra traffic down on the grounds. But if the Flames wanted to use the Stampede's rightfully owned parking lots, then you're damn right the Stampede should have their hand out. Would you let me park on your driveway for free?

How did you put it? No #### the Stampede board would want to keep the Flames. They are a guaranteed draw that fills their coffers all winter long. Without the Flames the grounds becomes a big empty parking lot for the majority of the winter. If the Flames build their own arena, with some convention space, the Stampede grounds could become a ghost town most of the year. Especially if the new facility steals away concert events and the bigger high profile events. So yeah, it makes sense why the Stampede board would want the Flames around. I hope you can understand why the Flames would much prefer it if the Stampede board were not around to leech off of the events driven by the hockey team.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Murray Edwards declaring UK residency, reportedly to avoid paying the now much higher Alberta income tax, is probably not a good way to proceed when asking for taxpayer dollars to build your arena.

Edwards is only one of the Flames ownership group. What about Libin, Markin, and Riddell? Their commitments enough?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by New Era

Remind me again. How much money did the benevolent Stampede Board put up to build the Saddledome?

None. What's your point? They were given the operating rights out of the gate. Was that a benevolent gift? Yup. Does that give the Flames the right years later to demand control of it? Nope. Does it make the Stampede a meddling hard to work with group? Nope. Unless you being against me taking over operational control of your house and parking on your driveway for free makes you a meddling hard to work with fellow. What if your parents gave you that house for free? Would it be ok for me then to demand operational control and park on your driveway for free?

Much like back then, the Flames ownership group are once again acting like whiny spoiled children who want, and even feel entitled to, someone else's toy for free. They, in my humble opinion, can respectfully **** off.

Originally Posted by New Era

How did you put it? No #### the Stampede board would want to keep the Flames. They are a guaranteed draw that fills their coffers all winter long. Without the Flames the grounds becomes a big empty parking lot for the majority of the winter. If the Flames build their own arena, with some convention space, the Stampede grounds could become a ghost town most of the year. Especially if the new facility steals away concert events and the bigger high profile events. So yeah, it makes sense why the Stampede board would want the Flames around. I hope you can understand why the Flames would much prefer it if the Stampede board were not around to leech off of the events driven by the hockey team.

The grounds certainly would become much less busy and I completely understand why the Flames would prefer to venture out on their own. It is purely business. What I am contending is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Stampede Board being some meddling hard to work with group (which some on here like yourself have pulled out of their ass).

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

None. What's your point? They were given the operating rights out of the gate. Was that a benevolent gift? Yup. Does that give the Flames the right years later to demand control of it? Nope. Does it make the Stampede a meddling hard to work with group? Nope. Unless you being against me taking over operational control of your house and parking on your driveway for free makes you a meddling hard to work with fellow. What if your parents gave you that house for free? Would it be ok for me then to demand operational control and park on your driveway for free?

Much like back then, the Flames ownership group are once again acting like whiny spoiled children who want, and even feel entitled to, someone else's toy for free. They, in my humble opinion, can respectfully **** off.


The grounds certainly would become much less busy and I completely understand why the Flames would prefer to venture out on their own. It is purely business. What I am contending is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Stampede Board being some meddling hard to work with group (which some on here like yourself have pulled out of their ass).

Ya... the stampede board is not the best group to be managing an NHL arena on behalf of an NHL team. What is the Stampede's mission statement or goal as an organization? What a joke if they feel entitled to managing an NHL arena because they were "given" stewardship at some point in time.

And when have the owners said anything at all about this? Where are you getting the vibe of "whiny spoiled children" from? Stampede board couldn't even manage the Casino or the racetrack properly. Flames owe them nothing at all.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Murray Edwards declaring UK residency, reportedly to avoid paying the now much higher Alberta income tax, is probably not a good way to proceed when asking for taxpayer dollars to build your arena.

Funny. I view it like this: his business and community interests just became a little less involved in Alberta. It shows there are limits to how much he and others with means will contribute to tax and public good. There are lots of places on this earth that need philanthropy and community investment. At some cost point, he is going to become indifferent between spending money on a rink in Calgary and spending it elsewhere. He just showed that he is not "all in" when it comes to living and being in Calgary.

And what's wrong with that?

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by New Era

This is one of the things that just makes my head hurt about this discussion. People think that Calgary is a great market, ignoring the fact that current ownership have already acknowledged that the current building is not conducive to supporting a NHL team. What makes Calgary a great market if the only building available does not allow the team to operate effectively? Who is going to come in with another team if the last team here couldn't make it work with the existing facilities? No one would. Not without first getting commitments to have anew facility built for the new team.

You don't consider a market that generates more revenue than half the teams in the league good? A market i might add that supports not only the Flames, but the Stamps, Hitmen and Roughnecks. Where do you propose they move that's a better market? All you have to do is look at the recently moved team in Winnipeg and the proposed expansion teams to figure out it's pretty slim pickings as far as good hockey markets.
If they were to leave though, all i have to say is, ladies and gentlemen, your Calgary Coyotes.

[The Ditch]

lmao at Edwards moving to London so he doesn't have to pay our taxes but wants us to pay for everything so he can make more millions, there isn't a big enough eye roll, can't wait to hear Ken King spin this with his car salesman pitch.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

None. What's your point? They were given the operating rights out of the gate. Was that a benevolent gift? Yup. Does that give the Flames the right years later to demand control of it? Nope. Does it make the Stampede a meddling hard to work with group? Nope. Unless you being against me taking over operational control of your house and parking on your driveway for free makes you a meddling hard to work with fellow. What if your parents gave you that house for free? Would it be ok for me then to demand operational control and park on your driveway for free?

How did you put it? Why should they (Stampede board) have any rights to that revenue without paying for it? The Stampede grounds were town of Calgary land way back in the day and the board was established to manage that event and property. What right do they have to demand anything beyond what the city directs them to do in regards to those lands? But that is what it is like to deal with the board, base on my experience working with them in the 70s and 80s. They don't know their place and think they should tell everyone how to conduct their business, even when it is beyond their understanding or purview.

Much like back then, the Flames ownership group are once again acting like whiny spoiled children who want, and even feel entitled to, someone else's toy for free. They, in my humble opinion, can respectfully **** off.

Funny, but that has always been my perspective on the Stampede board. Hated my time there and hated how the did business. I've always appreciated what the board has done for the reputation of Calgary on a global scale, but I hate the way they approach doing business,especially with local interests. Just my opinion. I think it's about time someone told them to respectfully #### off and leave them holding the white elephant that has become the grounds.

The grounds certainly would become much less busy and I completely understand why the Flames would prefer to venture out on their own. It is purely business. What I am contending is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Stampede Board being some meddling hard to work with group (which some on here like yourself have pulled out of their ass).

the board has always been a pain in the ass to deal with. It's the nature of what they are. As has been pointed out, there are more than enough failings by the Stampede board to understand how they work and why things fail.

@monkeyman

The Flames leave you will not get another team without a new building. There are other markets out there. Quebec City with a brand new state of th art arena. Markham will bend over backwards to get a team. Portland and Seattle are both on the league's radar and could certainly support a team. If the current team can't make a go of it you can bet your ass the league will block any potential movement back to Calgary until they have a new facility. Or are you forgetting that all moves require board of governors approval?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by RM14

Ya... the stampede board is not the best group to be managing an NHL arena on behalf of an NHL team. What is the Stampede's mission statement or goal as an organization?

First off, they weren't managing it "on behalf of an NHL team". They were managing it on behalf of the Saddledome Foundation which owns the arena. The Flames were merely tenants of the building.

That being said, the Calgary Stampede's vision statement is "to create a world-class year-round gathering place for the community". The operating rights were merely an asset which gave them revenue to accomplish that vision. But they weren't overly tied to the operating rights. That's why they were open and amicable enough to sell those rights to the Flames 22 years ago.

Originally Posted by RM14

What a joke if they feel entitled to managing an NHL arena because they were "given" stewardship at some point in time.

There's a big difference between feeling entitled to something and being entitled to something. Regardless of how they came about it, the Stampede simply had the operating rights.

Originally Posted by RM14

And when have the owners said anything at all about this? Where are you getting the vibe of "whiny spoiled children" from?

I am admittedly jumping into the memory banks of 22 years ago, but my recollection is that the Flames were the...more aggressive...party in making that sale happen. Happy to be corrected though. As for today, I don't think I'm alone in characterizing the owner's approach to CalgaryNEXT as being whiny entitled children thinking we should consider ourselves lucky that they want our toy (West Village land, taxpayer money, and infrastructure support at very least).

Originally Posted by RM14

Stampede board couldn't even manage the Casino or the racetrack properly. Flames owe them nothing at all.

You are right. The Flames owe the Stampede nothing at all. I do not disagree with you one bit.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

There's a big difference between feeling entitled to something and being entitled to something. Regardless of how they came about it, the Stampede simply had the operating rights.

Yes, and they should not or ever have been entitled to managing the NHL facility built for the city. Whether or not gov't officials decided the Stampede grounds was a good spot at that time.

Originally Posted by Frequitude

As for today, I don't think I'm alone in characterizing the owner's approach to CalgaryNEXT as being whiny entitled children thinking we should consider ourselves lucky that they want our toy (West Village land, taxpayer money, and infrastructure support at very least).

You are right. The Flames owe the Stampede nothing at all. I do not disagree with you one bit.

You're right your not alone in calling the owners those things, but the fact of the matter is that people are assuming the owners are saying all these things or acting a certain way when they have not said a single thing.

People seem to block out the part of Ken Kings presentation where he said, "Calgarians need to decide if this is something that they want and will benefit them" and said CalgaryNEXT doesn't work without that.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by New Era

How did you put it? Why should they (Stampede board) have any rights to that revenue without paying for it?

Who cares. They were given it. And then it was there's. It is completely irrelevant to this conversation. But if you want to go down that road, I'd say a not-for-profit organization committed to promoting this city's heritage and hosting an annual festival sounds like a pretty good place to give them. But I digress.

Originally Posted by New Era

The Stampede grounds were town of Calgary land way back in the day and the board was established to manage that event and property. What right do they have to demand anything beyond what the city directs them to do in regards to those lands?

Other than the original plot of land, all lands on which the Stampede grounds sit were purchased by the Stampede at full market value and gifted back to the City of Calgary for $0. They then lease that land from the city (for $1/yr). I'd say that gives them a pretty good leg to stand on as far as what happens on those grounds.

Originally Posted by New Era

Funny, but that has always been my perspective on the Stampede board. Hated my time there and hated how the did business. I've always appreciated what the board has done for the reputation of Calgary on a global scale, but I hate the way they approach doing business,especially with local interests. Just my opinion.

Fair enough. You're happily entitled to that feeling and it is likely genuine. Mine is obviously different. However I think you're letting your personal experience bias your perception of the relationship between the Stampede and the Flames, which is what this conversation is about and is what I was calling you out for.

Originally Posted by New Era

I think it's about time someone told them to respectfully #### off and leave them holding the white elephant that has become the grounds.

That would be impossible because the City owns that land.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Fair enough. You're happily entitled to that feeling and it is likely genuine. Mine is obviously different. However I think you're letting your personal experience bias your perception of the relationship between the Stampede and the Flames, which is what this conversation is about and is what I was calling you out for.

Just imagine what you'd think if he had a Murray Edwards Avatar.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by RM14

Yes, and they should not or ever have been entitled to managing the NHL facility built for the city. Whether or not gov't officials decided the Stampede grounds was a good spot at that time.

Fair enough. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. I just happen to disagree. The arena was built entirely with public money so I am very happy that the operating rights (which, let's not forget, are something that they, like the Flames today, paid an annual fee for) were given to a not-for-profit Calgary organization which re-invests all profits into this city and this province instead of in private hands who put any profits into their pockets.