CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Tinordi]

Where did Enoch go?

[Enoch Root]

to other, less circular threads

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

to other, less circular threads

Soooo - the Gaudreau contract or the Game Day Summary thread?

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Just because he apologized doesn't mean it didn't send a message (hence, the Mayor's comments i alluded to)

I don't think Quebec City or Seattle would care where the owner made his money. Nor would the CNRL "Brand" be affected by moving a team. It's not in retail. Consumers don't purchase CNRL gasoline. TransCanada isn't going to say "you can't ship your oil in my pipeline Mr. Edwards! Flames for Life!"

Also, I am not saying that the Flames would pull the trigger and move. I agree that it would not be in their best interest, but that doesn't mean they wouldnt pull the page out of the book of public-funding.

QC & Seattle won't care, because they don't need to.
Its CSE who should care. They won't have the same corporate support to utilize; QC because they're small time, Seattle because they're saturated.

You do bring up a great point though; the new Calgary ownership would be thrilled to hear the previous ownership established a corporate support structure.

You know they're going to use the nuclear message, and you know it's B.S, YET you're arguing for it?

Seattle doesn't even want the 4th of the 4 major sports. They want the 3rd, and will take the 4th as a concession.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The oil and gas industry doesn't work that way. They don't "need" Calgary - that's simply where the business is. Certainly they need employees (in a good economy) but it's not like the city has any say in that. The city has no control over their industry's regulations - that's the province and, to a lesser extent, the feds.

Really, I don't see how their other businesses affect this situation one way or another.

Doesn't work what way? They aren't concerned about how their brand is perceived?

BTW, Edwards, Riddell and Markin are heavy in oil and gas, while Markin is more of a real estate man and McCaig is a trucking guy (albeit the latter two are obviously dependent on oil and gas just like almost everyone else in the city).

Thanks tips.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Doesn't work what way? They aren't concerned about how their brand is perceived?


Thanks tips.

a. No, I don't really think CNRL, for example, is overly concerned about how it's brand is perceived. How do you think it would possibly have an effect? Is Joe fan going to track where the CNRL product is refined, transported and then sold on a retail basis? Does the average fan or city taxpayer even care about Murray Edwards' CNRL stake when thinking about the team?

b. You referenced oil and gas as the core of the Flames ownership. It's a big part but hardly everything.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Of course Rogers is doing a bang up job of turning everyone off of watching their product as well, so the fan is kind of screwed from both ends.

A real MMF, one might say.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

a. No, I don't really think CNRL, for example, is overly concerned about how it's brand is perceived. How do you think it would possibly have an effect? Is Joe fan going to track where the CNRL product is refined, transported and then sold on a retail basis? Does the average fan or city taxpayer even care about Murray Edwards' CNRL stake when thinking about the team?

Yes, Calgarians would;
Employees would. Vendors would. Clients would. In absolute? of course not. To dismiss? close minded.

b. You referenced oil and gas as the core of the Flames ownership. It's a big part but hardly everything.

I referenced it, because IT IS THE CORE of their ownership.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

QC & Seattle won't care, because they don't need to.
Its CSE who should care. They won't have the same corporate support to utilize; QC because they're small time, Seattle because they're saturated.

You do bring up a great point though; the new Calgary ownership would be thrilled to hear the previous ownership established a corporate support structure.

You know they're going to use the nuclear message, and you know it's B.S, YET you're arguing for it?

Seattle doesn't even want the 4th of the 4 major sports. They want the 3rd, and will take the 4th as a concession.



Doesn't work what way? They aren't concerned about how their brand is perceived?


Thanks tips.

I'm not arguing for it, I am just saying that they will use it and it will probably help sway people in this city and on council.

I agree with you that it is a stupid threat, but that doesn't mean they won't use it and it doesn't mean it won't work.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Yes, Calgarians would;
Employees would. Vendors would. Clients would. In absolute? of course not. To dismiss? close minded.


I referenced it, because IT IS THE CORE of their ownership.

I have to agree with Gio, here.

I do not think CNRL has to be worried about their brand in this instance.

CNRL has far greater threats to its brand than some overly-attached hockey fanboys.

Employees won't care so long as they have a job and a pay cheque. Vendors/clients won't care so long as CNRL is buying/selling from/to them.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Yes, Calgarians would;
Employees would. Vendors would. Clients would. In absolute? of course not. To dismiss? close minded.

Huge assumptions there, but what does CNRL care about any of that? How could it possibly affect negotiations with the city?

[GioforPM]

CNRL's clients are not in Calgary, by and large. It's vendors care a lot more about keeping a contract than a hockey arena. CNRL is the sole or largest revenue source for a whole lot of suppliers and service companies.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Huge assumptions there, but what does CNRL care about any of that? How could it possibly affect negotiations with the city?

Diminish & aggravate their negotiations with a poorly thought our tactic.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Maybe they shouldn't spend millions on bike lanes, art work on underpasses/train stations and libraries that most people don't use or want.

Key difference being anyone has the opportunity to use them, and not just see a bunch of concrete from the outside.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You mean the tax revenues being discussed in the article?

I know that this issue went around and around already, but I love how much more faith you place in a news article than academic studies. Ever read a news story about something you know lots about? Painful. Considering the state of the media, I wouldn't put so much stock in a single source news article. There is probably some truth in there, but it's been the only (flimsy) support you've had for your argument for pages.

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

"Construction of the Saddledome was financed as part of the funding for the 1988 Winter Olympics. The City of Calgary funded ....It was the most over-budget facility built for the '88 Olympics."

Does anyone today care about that 30 million? How much would the city have lost out on by not having the Olympics and the Flames for the past 30+ years?

Vastly different time/situation. The investments (including cost overruns) have certainly paid off...no reason to believe they would again. Until the Saddledome is crumbling or Olympic bid is approved, the need will be nowhere near comparable as it was in the 80's.

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Isn't the ticket tax another 200mill contribution? How is the ticket tax minus interest charges paid for by the City not an exact definition of a contribution from the owners?

Why bring up rent in response to my point?

Look through my post history, I am very anti-CalgaryNEXT, but a ticket tax is owner money, period.

As his been stated, it's a user fee (which IMO is a good thing).

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not as anti-Flame owner as some. Yes they want a new hockey rink, no doubt about that, but I also think they're trying to plug into what the city wants/needs as well.

Just want to point out that being anti-CNext and pro-Flames owner are not mutually exclusive. Until they play the move-card, this debacle has had a minimal impact on my opinion of ownership.

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Disagree. There are several markets the Flames could move to if the city/province doesn't help at all. There's a brand new arena in Quebec City as well as several less appealing options. But they will seem a lot more appealing the longer this drags out. Obviously that isn't what they want to do but at the end of the day this is all mostly about money. Sentimentality, history, culture, etc. all eventually lose out to the need for more money.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry to be condescending, but nothing makes me disregard an opinion faster than buying into the 'move-card' in the slightest. Here's the list of better available markets (with or without new buildings): Southern Ontario. That's it. That's the list. No way the NHL would even let them in, and if they did, the cost to do so would be so ludicrous that it would still be less appealing than staying in Calgary.

Sadly, the moving threat is likely to happen, and some are likely to take it seriously. It would likely mark the last time I spend a personal penny on the team though, so I hope it doesn't come to pass.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Diminish & aggravate their negotiations with a poorly thought our tactic.

That's a Flames versus city issue, it doesn't have anything to do with their underlying businesses. You are conflating the two.

[monkeyman]

The only associated businesses it'd impact might be the Stamps, Hitmen and Roughnecks. I don't think there's a market to take all 3 and I don't think CSEC can move the Flames and not expect some kind of backlash on those businesses. They could sell them I guess.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

The only associated businesses it'd impact might be the Stamps, Hitmen and Roughnecks. I don't think there's a market to take all 3 and I don't think CSEC can move the Flames and not expect some kind of backlash on those businesses. They could sell them I guess.

I suspect they don't make money on any of those, not significant money anyway. I figure they saved each of them except maybe the Hitmen.

I doubt there will be a "we're moving" threat anyway. I see the discussions of tax revenues as an attempt to entice, not threaten.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I suspect they don't make money on any of those, not significant money anyway. I figure they saved each of them except maybe the Hitmen.

I doubt there will be a "we're moving" threat anyway. I see the discussions of tax revenues as an attempt to entice, not threaten.

The stamps definitely make money.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's a Flames versus city issue, it doesn't have anything to do with their underlying businesses. You are conflating the two.

I didn't say CNRL. You asked about the City. If that was your intent, you need to detail that.

I suspect they don't make money on any of those, not significant money anyway. I figure they saved each of them except maybe the Hitmen.

They absolutely do, & it's material. Hitmen/Roughnecks utilize similar/existing OPEX, thus it can be perceived as free money.

I doubt there will be a "we're moving" threat anyway.

Move threat? I wouldn't put a limit to stupidity both on CS&E, and the listeners.

I see the discussions of tax revenues as an attempt to entice, not threaten.

Entice with tax revenues? What are they going to do? Share a business case? "we got this article from this Sunday paper guy"

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The stamps definitely make money.

I feel like the Hitmen have to make money too. They average 8-9k per game in attendance, but pay out a pittance in player salaries and can probably piggy back off of a ton of Flames assets/staff. If they are not making money, I doubt anyone in the WHL is.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I feel like the Hitmen have to make money too. They average 8-9k per game in attendance, but pay out a pittance in player salaries and can probably piggy back off of a ton of Flames assets/staff. If they are not making money, I doubt anyone in the WHL is.

It would surprise me considerably if any of their ventures actually fail to break even.

I know the Vancouver giants are/were basically printing money. I've been to the house it bought.