CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Senator Clay Davis]

If the new arena is not built within a reasonable timeframe, chances are high that the team would not be able to survive and compete in Calgary (he specifically said that this is not a "gun to the head threat, but a sad reality of today's sports entertainment market".

So they will go there eventually. Pathetic. We all know it's an empty threat, every conceivable market they could move to short of Toronto 2 will hurt the franchise without question. Oh well, should be a fun fight if nothing else.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So they will go there eventually. Pathetic. We all know it's an empty threat, every conceivable market they could move to short of Toronto 2 will hurt the franchise without question. Oh well, should be a fun fight if nothing else.

Not sure if the threat is empty of it is a threat at all. The team almost got moved in 2001-2002 and it was pretty much King's efforts that convinced Edwards, Markin, Libin and McCaig to invest the money needed to keep it in Calgary. The owners do want to keep it in Calgary as a community asset, this is a 100% sincere statement, I believe.

As for "nowhere to go", come on, there is always Seattle...

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

[*]Flames ownership will contribute $350M of their own cash, if the project goes ahead.
[*]The community levy (user fees) will have to fund the rest of the costs. Very complicated mechanism, he said.

Interesting that he mentioned 350M. In the original financing model it was 200M from the owners and 250M from the ticket levy.

Did they up the amount or have they decided to front the majority of the money for the user fee?

[CaptainYooh]

Good point. I am guessing they count user fees as their own money in this scenario.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Good point. I am guessing they count user fees as their own money in this scenario.

It does make things a bit more interesting if they were to contribute 350M on top of the 250M user fee.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If they build it 100% themselves, they can raise prices 99% for all I care. They put up the money, if they wanna earn it back that way go for it. But if the public is helping pay for the arena, and then will get ticket increases that shuts more of the public out, that's a problem for me.

I'm with you on this. Looking at the Oilers arena, comparable seats to what I have currently means about a 45% increase in price. I could move to lesser seats, but for me that means going from green to black level, and I'm sure many of those lesser seats will be taken by the people in the 300s. So while the average may be 20% or 30%, that doesn't factor in that there are now more seats that are more expensive.

So when the new arena is built, I will forced to choose between going to a lot fewer games, or cancelling all together. I would really be choked to find that not only am I paying the same to watch a lot less NHL hockey, but now my tax bill has gone up as well.

I would love to be able to watch the Flames play in a new arena. But if that prices me out of the market, that doesn't help me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Robbob

It does make things a bit more interesting if they were to contribute 350M on top of the 250M user fee.

It depends it could be them taking on the interest costs on the loan for the ticket Levy. So the ticket levy is worth 150 million NPV

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Not sure if the threat is empty of it is a threat at all. The team almost got moved in 2001-2002 and it was pretty much King's efforts that convinced Edwards, Markin, Libin and McCaig to invest the money needed to keep it in Calgary. The owners do want to keep it in Calgary as a community asset, this is a 100% sincere statement, I believe.

As for "nowhere to go", come on, there is always Seattle...

What does that cost in terms of Revenue vs Arena. The only way that happens if someone buys a Basketball team, convinces Seattle to build the arena and the flames ownership sells the team to the Basketball guys to be a secondary tenant. Seattle isn't funding your Arena for hockey and if you just rent the arena you wouldn't make as much money even if you save 300 million on an arena.

The threat shouldn't be moving, it should be selling the team as moving to the states doesn't make sense unless you own a basketball team. That said the reason Quebec might not be getting an expansion team might be to blackmail the Calgary.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Ken King

If the new arena is not built within a reasonable timeframe, chances are high that the team would not be able to survive and compete in Calgary (he specifically said that this is not a "gun to the head threat, but a sad reality of today's sports entertainment market".

[The Yen Man]

I actually don't really care too much if it takes longer to get a new arena, except for if it turns off free agents from signing or re-signing with the Flames in the future. If it impacts the on-ice product, then I'd be concerned. Not sure how big a role it plays in free agent decisions.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GGG

What does that cost in terms of Revenue vs Arena. The only way that happens if someone buys a Basketball team, convinces Seattle to build the arena and the flames ownership sells the team to the Basketball guys to be a secondary tenant. Seattle isn't funding your Arena for hockey and if you just rent the arena you wouldn't make as much money even if you save 300 million on an arena...

Seattle's metro population is close to $3.8M, which is pretty significant and lucrative for a pro sports market. There would be no competition for market share with another team in close vicinity. I am sure there will be corporate and political pressure to get things done there, if there's a valid opportunity. I also think Bettman/NHL would support a team there too at some point. This is like dominoes, if one thing happens, all of a sudden, another one could be happening too.

[Table 5]

While there may not be much incentive to change their extortion-tactics when cities keep bending over for them, I think part of the blame here lays at the feet of the NHL.

If the vast majority of their hockey teams can't survive without jurisdictions giving them hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate, perhaps they need to adjust their overall business model and control how much they are spending. Maybe instead of the salary cap being 70+ million, reality says it actually needs to be 40 million, so they can spend money on other things apart from player salaries. If every team put away 25 million every year, they'd have half a billion dollars to build a new stadium every two decades.

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Seattle's metro population is close to $3.8M, which is pretty significant and lucrative for a pro sports market. There would be no competition for market share with another team in close vicinity. I am sure there will be corporate and political pressure to get things done there, if there's a valid opportunity. I also think Bettman/NHL would support a team there too at some point. This is like dominoes, if one thing happens, all of a sudden, another one could be happening too.

Seattle has even less of an appetite to shell out government money for a new arena than Calgary does. Holding Seattle over our heads as a threat is laughable.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Table 5

...
If the vast majority of their hockey teams can't survive without jurisdictions giving them hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate, perhaps they need to adjust their overall business model and control how much they are spending...

This should not be a one-sided argument. Cities DO benefit from pro-sports and event entertainment facilities economically and socially. High quality entertainment districts revitalize dormant lands, generate new taxes and bring new developments into the neighbourhood. So, should cities be co-investing in these ventures? Absolutely. The difficult question always is how much.

[Benched]

Answering a question about their "Plan B" he said that if CalgaryNEXT doesn't happen, the new arena will most likely be built on the Stampede grounds north of the Saddledome; in which case the new fieldhouse will be built somewhere on the UofC grounds and McMahon would be given a facelift.

That actually sounds much better to me.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Seattle has even less of an appetite to shell out government money for a new arena than Calgary does. Holding Seattle over our heads as a threat is laughable.

This....plus why is Seattle thought of as a potential great market? If an NHL team is coming, there's a new arena. If there's a new arena, the NBA is 100% coming back. So the NHL team would be fighting for 4th place in sports money spending with the Sounders. It's a decent market, but I think over saturation of sports teams will be a problem. It certainly would be a decent sized downgrade from Calgary.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Seattle's metro population is close to $3.8M, which is pretty significant and lucrative for a pro sports market. There would be no competition for market share with another team in close vicinity. I am sure there will be corporate and political pressure to get things done there, if there's a valid opportunity. I also think Bettman/NHL would support a team there too at some point. This is like dominoes, if one thing happens, all of a sudden, another one could be happening too.

lol.

Seattle Supersonics had been in Seattle since 1967 and that city and state waved bye-bye to the Franchise instead of building them a new arena.

It cost the supersonics roughly 70 million dollars in settlements to the city of Seattle to get out of there.

And we suddenly think Seattle is going to build a hockey arena and be a more lucrative city for a hockey franchise than Calgary?

The Flames leaving Calgary would be so bad for the league it would impact league wide revenues. I dare say it is now essentially impossible for the Flames to change cities without being sold at a major profit to non-local interests.

The league knows this just as much as the team does.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Not sure if the threat is empty of it is a threat at all. The team almost got moved in 2001-2002 and it was pretty much King's efforts that convinced Edwards, Markin, Libin and McCaig to invest the money needed to keep it in Calgary. The owners do want to keep it in Calgary as a community asset, this is a 100% sincere statement, I believe.

As for "nowhere to go", come on, there is always Seattle...

2001-02 is ages ago (Apple was a struggling company back then just coming out with the ipod). The team and market are on a completely different level now. And there is a salary cap now.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This should not be a one-sided argument. Cities DO benefit from pro-sports and event entertainment facilities economically and socially. High quality entertainment districts revitalize dormant lands, generate new taxes and bring new developments into the neighbourhood. So, should cities be co-investing in these ventures? Absolutely. The difficult question always is how much.

Studies have shown that the benefits you list are negligible; but there is something to be said about the "feeling" of having a team. I would argue these two "benefits" are worth very little to a city.

So, yes, I agree with you on the point (I'm sure most would); but would most likely disagree on the dollar figure (like most would)

[Oil Stain]

Be careful what you wish for.

I have seasons tickets in Edmonton and have attended one preseason game in the new arena so far.

What I have found is that for me, an upper bowl ticket holder, the experience is about the same.

The upper concourse is narrow and congested, long lines for beer and bathrooms still, no cup holders, the seats are still very narrow and you aren't going to have much shoulder room if you go to a game with the guys, my comparable seats price wise in the new building are further away from the ice and $800 more per seat, the escalators only run upwards during the game effectively isolating you from the lower concourse, the urinals are rounded so you don't have anywhere to put you beer in the washroom, you can use interact with the drink vendors now which I feel slows things down considerably, the food and drinks are more expensive.

The upper bowl seats are more comfortable, and everything is shiny. That's about the extent of the improvements in the viewing experience in the upper bowl. It was only one game and perhaps things like line lengths and levels of congestion will get better once everyone learns the new building, but its not good to begin with.

Of course if you have $10,000 plus to spend on season tickets every season, then your experience at Rogers will be considerably better than Rexall place. People sitting in Loge for instance looked to have zero wait times for drinks or washrooms, and they could ballroom dance in their concourse during intermission without bumping into anyone.

So for everyone in Calgary pining for a new arena, just go in with eyes wide open. It's probably not going to improve the viewing experience much for the "average joe", and you are going to pay a lot more for the privilege.

Food for thought.