New Poll on Arena issue

[MrMastodonFarm]

Free Flames games.. city propping up Peace Bridge photos... guy would prefer an arena over bridges... this thread has all sorts of new and interesting madness.

[killer_carlson]

I think the poll results change if the question is:

How much should government contribute to a new arena if a partnership can be reached?

Removing the absurdity of losing the franchise changes the tone to the debate and my response.

If the Flames move, there will be at least 10 other franchises thrilled to move into the Calgary market. And the NHL would be thrilled to see a small market move to one where they make money, even with an aging arena.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

just curious, how is the Flames threatening to move any worse than the city refusing to give up a dime? Either would be bargaining in bad faith.

Better check your facts Alberta Beef, nobody at the City refused to give a dime. Here's what Nenshi said and it looks like he left the door open for the CSEC to come back with a proposal that has public benefit, and if that's the case they'll consider giving dollars:

“The thing about a new arena project – and I’ll use those terms because CalgaryNext, the West Village, is dead – but the thing about a new arena project is that our first criterion has always been public money for public benefits,” Nenshi said. “So, it really is up to the Calgary Sports and Entertainment [Corporation] to figure out what the public benefit is.”

If Nenshi had said "We'll never give money to those billionaires they can build their own damn arena" then that would be bargaining in bad faith. Half the people in this (and hte other) thread that are upset about Nenshi grandstanding seem to think that's what he's said.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I think the poll results change if the question is:

How much should government contribute to a new arena if a partnership can be reached?

Removing the absurdity of losing the franchise changes the tone to the debate and my response.

If the Flames move, there will be at least 10 other franchises thrilled to move into the Calgary market. And the NHL would be thrilled to see a small market move to one where they make money, even with an aging arena.

Not that I think the Flames would leave, but there isn't a single solitary team that would move to Calgary if the Flames left without a new arena, and even if there was, the NHL would never allow it without a new arena.

Tack on the CDN dollar, to the arena issue, and the likelyhood of the Flames every getting another team if the Flames left is slim to none.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Not that I think the Flames would leave, but there isn't a single solitary team that would move to Calgary if the Flames left without a new arena, and even if there was, the NHL would never allow it without a new arena.

Tack on the CDN dollar, to the arena issue, and the likelyhood of the Flames every getting another team if the Flames left is slim to none.

Even with the CDN dollar the Flames made an operating income of $18M according to Forbes and are the 16th best valued franchise.
https://www.forbes.com/teams/calgary-flames/

So by that metric, 15 teams would be lining up to relocate to Calgary.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Torture

Even with the CDN dollar the Flames made an operating income of $18M according to Forbes and are the 16th best valued franchise.
https://www.forbes.com/teams/calgary-flames/

So by that metric, 15 teams would be lining up to relocate to Calgary.

And I think the owners know that they still stand to make more playing in the Saddledome indefinitely than in a brand new arena in Houston or KC. Or on the wing and a prayer hope Seattle builds them a facility. Winnipeg at 15K seats is more viable than Atlanta. There's nowhere for them to go, unless they want to relocate to Quebec City, and that's where the Canes are going.

Gary Bettman will not allow another Canadian franchise to move. They've been propping up his league for the last twelve years, without new buildings.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Torture

Even with the CDN dollar the Flames made an operating income of $18M according to Forbes and are the 16th best valued franchise.
https://www.forbes.com/teams/calgary-flames/

So by that metric, 15 teams would be lining up to relocate to Calgary.

Not a single team would be looking to move to Calgary without a new rink, not one. Any potential move would be blocked by the NHL Board of Governors.

The Flames 18M in profit would be a pittance of the actual cost to move a franchise here, not that operating profit has anything to do with NHL team ownership anyways.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Not that I think the Flames would leave, but there isn't a single solitary team that would move to Calgary if the Flames left without a new arena, and even if there was, the NHL would never allow it without a new arena.

Tack on the CDN dollar, to the arena issue, and the likelyhood of the Flames every getting another team if the Flames left is slim to none.

If a building is 500 million the flames only need to be 25 million to 50 million per year more profitable then the team wanting to move. So are we 25 million dollars per year after the construction of a new arena than the Coyotes, Hurricanes, or Panthers?

The second thing around leaving is that for the flames to leave we only need to be more profitable by the difference between the other cities subsidy plus the relocation fee. So Seattle for example gives them a free building and they pay 200 million to relocate. Would Calgary be 15 to 30 million more profitable than Seattle? I would say probably. And in a Seattle scenario it really means selling the team to whoever buys the basketball team as you cant do it without the other ancillary revenues from an arena.

So until a city with a free arena that is within 15 to 30 million in additional profit potential emerges the flames aren't moving and any threat should be ignored.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Not a single team would be looking to move to Calgary without a new rink, not one. Any potential move would be blocked by the NHL Board of Governors.

The Flames 18M in profit would be a pittance of the actual cost to move a franchise here, not that operating profit has anything to do with NHL team ownership anyways.

I know not every team existing team below them on that list is going to pick up and leave but do you not think for example, Phoenix would be thrilled to move to Calgary?

And for the Flames, show me another city they could pick up and move to and earn $121M in Revenue and $18M in profit?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by GGG

If a building is 500 million the flames only need to be 25 million to 50 million per year more profitable then the team wanting to move. So are we 25 million dollars per year after the construction of a new arena than the Coyotes, Hurricanes, or Panthers?

The second thing around leaving is that for the flames to leave we only need to be more profitable by the difference between the other cities subsidy plus the relocation fee. So Seattle for example gives them a free building and they pay 200 million to relocate. Would Calgary be 15 to 30 million more profitable than Seattle? I would say probably. And in a Seattle scenario it really means selling the team to whoever buys the basketball team as you cant do it without the other ancillary revenues from an arena.

So until a city with a free arena that is within 15 to 30 million in additional profit potential emerges the flames aren't moving and any threat should be ignored.

Yearly profitability has nothing to do with major professional sports ownership. As long as they aren't losing money, no one really cares. Long term, the value of a franchise in Seattle is likely going to be more than Calgary as it builds value, and it would certainly mean more to the NHL, because people in Calgary aren't going to stop watching hockey and buying NHL merchandise when the team is gone.

If all it was about is operating profit, Toronto would have a second NHL team, and Quebec City would have had a team two years ago.

[polak]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Yearly profitability has nothing to do with major professional sports ownership. As long as they aren't losing money, no one really cares. Long term, the value of a franchise in Seattle is likely going to be more than Calgary as it builds value, and it would certainly mean more to the NHL, because people in Calgary aren't going to stop watching hockey and buying NHL merchandise when the team is gone.

If all it was about is operating profit, Toronto would have a second NHL team, and Quebec City would have had a team two years ago.

I totally disagree here. People stop watching hockey when the Flames are doing poorly. No one would care about the NHL if the Flames didn't exist. Any place to get ratings for non-flames games in Calgary?

But I do agree that a successful team in Seattle would be more valuable to the NHL than a team in Calgary.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Torture

I know not every team existing team below them on that list is going to pick up and leave but do you not think for example, Phoenix would be thrilled to move to Calgary?

And for the Flames, show me another city they could pick up and move to and earn $121M in Revenue and $18M in profit?

Phoenix would have been thrilled to move anywhere for the past 5 years, but the NHL wasn't having any of it. Why would moving a team to Calgary be any different?

The NHL does not need to expand it's Canadian market, it already has it cornered. They'll move a team here if they absolutely have to, but they clearly see it at a last resort.

There's no way they are letting another team move to Calgary to play in a 30 year old rink.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Free Flames games.. city propping up Peace Bridge photos... guy would prefer an arena over bridges... this thread has all sorts of new and interesting madness.

Nevermind that the arena is downtown so I guess those of us north of the bow river are out luck without any bridges to get that arena.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Phoenix would have been thrilled to move anywhere for the past 5 years, but the NHL wasn't having any of it. Why would moving a team to Calgary be any different?

The NHL does not need to expand it's Canadian market, it already has it cornered. They'll move a team here if they absolutely have to, but they clearly see it at a last resort.

There's no way they are letting another team move to Calgary to play in a 30 year old rink.

Arizona is still in Arizona because they have to give money back from the US tv deal without the Arizona market. Even though nobody watches them, the idea that they could go on a run and capture the state is a big deal to NBC. Trading a 5M+ metro area in the southern US for a government town in Quebec isn't going to sit well with the suits.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by polak

I totally disagree here. People stop watching hockey when the Flames are doing poorly. No one would care about the NHL if the Flames didn't exist.

Any place to get ratings for non-flames games in Calgary?

The people who routinely watch Flames game, will continue to watch hockey. Did they stop watching hockey in Winnipeg? Nope. They just started following other teams.

The bandwagon ones won't continue to watch, but it's a drop in the bucket to the NHL either way.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Phoenix would have been thrilled to move anywhere for the past 5 years, but the NHL wasn't having any of it. Why would moving a team to Calgary be any different?

The NHL does not need to expand it's Canadian market, it already has it cornered. They'll move a team here if they absolutely have to, but they clearly see it at a last resort.

There's no way they are letting another team move to Calgary to play in a 30 year old rink.

And if the NHL isn't having any of the Arizona Coyotes leaving, who according to the same page on Forbes posted an $8M deficit on what planet do they let the Flames leave Calgary?
https://www.forbes.com/teams/arizona-coyotes/

[Jbo]

Empty threat or not, if the Flames left, the only Alberta hockey team would be the Edmonton Oilers. No way I want any part of that dystopian future.

That just gave me anxiety to think about.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Torture

And if the NHL isn't having any of the Phoenix Coyotes leaving, who according to the same page on Forbes posted an $8M deficit on what planet do they let the Flames leave Calgary?
https://www.forbes.com/teams/arizona-coyotes/

You cannot compare an American team to a Canadian one. The Flames leaving Calgary probably doesn't change the NHL's market in Canada at all. Having a team in Arizona vastly improves the NHL's ability to expand market in the US (though I think we can say didn't work, but the opportunity is there).

I don't think they will leave Calgary, i'm saying if they did though, they aren't ever getting a team back without a new rink. Saying if the Flames left "So what, we'll get another one" is a ridiculous position.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The people who routinely watch Flames game, will continue to watch hockey. Did they stop watching hockey in Winnipeg? Nope. They just started following other teams.

The bandwagon ones won't continue to watch, but it's a drop in the bucket to the NHL either way.

What do you think Rogers is going to say when someone tries to relocate a Canadian franchise two years into a $5.2 billion deal? Over an arena no less. A franchise that sells out every game and has going back over a decade, where everyone in the city has at least a t-shirt if not an actual jersey, and Rogers is just gonna be like 'oh, okay, no problem. it's a drop in the bucket'?

They couldn't quit bitching about the poor tv numbers when none of the Canadian teams made the playoffs last year! They're not going to allow the Flames to move just cuz moar luxury suites!!!!!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

My comprehension translates "major-league venues are the entertainment Meccas of the world" into, "all over the world, major-league venues are entertainment centerpieces." My apologies if that's not how it reads to other people. My comprehension is usually on point, but I'm always open to better ways of wording my thoughts.

Although I am personally not a fan of hers, I'm not sure how someone could fail to see the business and cultural benefits that stem from having celebrities of her caliber perform in our city.

I get what you are saying, I just don't really agree with it. I mean sure, it would be the "entertainment centrepiece" in town, but, umm, so what?

I doubt any of us would agree that Edmonton is now a destination more than it was a year ago, even with their fancy new rink. I don't think Calgary would be any different.

And yeah we can all see business benefits ("cultural benefits" is more complicated) for some hotels and restaurants if a few more big names stop in, but at what cost? That's the question.

How many Katy Perry (or whoever) shows would recoup the money the city spends on this rink?

I voted for the $50 million option, based on a vague "yeah, help them out a bit, build an overpass or even donate some land or whatever", idea, but I'd rather the private business (that I love and spend way too much time following) covers the cost of building their own, umm, building.