[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I agree that tomorrow, next year, or even 3 years this is a non issue for the NHL and the Calgary Flames. Where it starts to become an issue is if in 10 years they aren't among the top half of the league and are still in the dome with no plans of a new arena then why wouldn't they consider options?

That will be too late which is why they are trying to get things done now. That Rogers NHL deal was a one-time gold mine for the league that likely is not repeated and I don't think things are going to get rosier for owners in the long term especially with TV viewership declining as people cut the cord or find other things to watch. There's never going to be a big cable deal from a US network so the NHL will continue to be a gate driven league which puts them at a disadvantage compared to NFL. MLB, and NBA. I do think it's important to be proactive in finding ways to supplement income in the future but that's not likely ever going to happen in the Saddledome.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Facebook is any indication, many long-time fans don't care anymore if the Flames leave.

Lots & lots of season ticket holders are corporate.

They would vote to keep the Flames.

I doubt Facebook is a good indicator.

[Par]

Originally Posted by DJones

If they don't have shovels in the ground in 2 or 3 years they will probably start looking elsewhere.

I'm optimistic they'll be starting next year though.

Where are they going to look? There is not a market like Calgary, unless you are sending them into Ontario or maybe have two teams in Edmonton(the Edmonton Oilers and the Alberta Cattle Rustlers and they play in Katz new arena.)

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Facebook is any indication, many long-time fans don't care anymore if the Flames leave.

Thankfully it's not ha ha ha.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Can anyone provide some context into this season ticket hold meeting?

Is burke just up there by himself fielding questions? Is this a panel?

It isn't a season ticket holders meeting. Burke is the speaker at a luncheon sponsored by the Canadian Club of Calgary where the topic is "The Challenges of competing in the NHL in Canada."

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Par

Where are they going to look? There is not a market like Calgary, unless you are sending them into Ontario or maybe have two teams in Edmonton(the Edmonton Oilers and the Alberta Cattle Rustlers and they play in Katz new arena.)

I would think Seattle is next on the list.

[Tinordi]

Thanks for mentioning that Rogers deal.

Undoubtedly, there's a clause in the deal if the composition of Canadian teams changes that would re-open the deal for another negotiation. Which means that every team in the league is going to have a say on where the Flames could relocate.

No matter what, the Flames leaving will reduce the value of that contract.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That will be too late which is why they are trying to get things done now. That Rogers NHL deal was a one-time gold mine for the league that likely is not repeated and I don't think things are going to get rosier for owners in the long term especially with TV viewership declining as people cut the cord or find other things to watch. There's never going to be a big cable deal from a US network so the NHL will continue to be a gate driven league which puts them at a disadvantage compared to NFL. MLB, and NBA. I do think it's important to be proactive in finding ways to supplement income in the future but that's not likely ever going to happen in the Saddledome.

Agree with everything here, especially the highlighted part.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Thanks for mentioning that Rogers deal.

Undoubtedly, there's a clause in the deal if the composition of Canadian teams changes that would re-open the deal for another negotiation. Which means that every team in the league is going to have a say on where the Flames could relocate.

No matter what, the Flames leaving will reduce the value of that contract.

If there was something like that, we would have heard about it.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Thanks for mentioning that Rogers deal.

Undoubtedly, there's a clause in the deal if the composition of Canadian teams changes that would re-open the deal for another negotiation. Which means that every team in the league is going to have a say on where the Flames could relocate.

No matter what, the Flames leaving will reduce the value of that contract.

I wouldn't be surprised if its written the other way in that the NHL reserves the right to move teams etc.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Thanks for mentioning that Rogers deal.

Undoubtedly, there's a clause in the deal if the composition of Canadian teams changes that would re-open the deal for another negotiation. Which means that every team in the league is going to have a say on where the Flames could relocate.

No matter what, the Flames leaving will reduce the value of that contract.

I wouldn't be so sure because that Rogers deal is simply for the national rights and not region specific rights but even if there was it would be a mere speedbump and not an obstacle.

[DJones]

Bettman is a lawyer, hate the guy but I'd be shocked if he didn't have a contingency plan for relocation.

Estrada is probably dead on that it's a national right. Not team based.

[Tinordi]

The value of the contract is specifically tied to the number of Canadian teams. It would be the height of incompetence to not protect yourself against relocation risk if you're Rogers. Almost 100% certain there's a clause in the contract on both the number and composition of Canadian teams triggering the contract to be renegotiated (by both sides).

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The value of the contract is specifically tied to the number of Canadian teams. It would be the height of incompetence to not protect yourself against relocation risk if you're Rogers. Almost 100% certain there's a clause in the contract on both the number and composition of Canadian teams triggering the contract to be renegotiated (by both sides).

They would still have all of the rights for Calgary though.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The value of the contract is specifically tied to the number of Canadian teams. It would be the height of incompetence to not protect yourself against relocation risk if you're Rogers. Almost 100% certain there's a clause in the contract on both the number and composition of Canadian teams triggering the contract the be renegotiated (by both sides).

So what? Flames bring in practically the lowest TV ratings of all Canadian teams. You can argue Rogers would be happy to get more Leafs, Habs, Oilers, or Canucks games aired in the place of the Flames as Calgarians that watch hockey would simply turn to the Oilers or another team. The ratings would in likeliness go up if they replaced Flames national broadcasted games with other Canadian teams.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The value of the contract is specifically tied to the number of Canadian teams. It would be the height of incompetence to not protect yourself against relocation risk if you're Rogers. Almost 100% certain there's a clause in the contract on both the number and composition of Canadian teams triggering the contract the be renegotiated (by both sides).

Exactly this, the entire value of the deal is predicated on not only the amount of canadian teams, but also their geographic location for the purposes of broadcasting.

Adding a team to quebec and upsetting the balance of Toronto/Montreal as the cornerstone eastern pieces of a 6 hour block of television has significant impacts for the returns of that contract.

I would assume a relocation to Seattle is a heck of a lot more likely than Quebec and I don't think either is remotely plausible.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Facebook is any indication, many long-time fans don't care anymore if the Flames leave.

what does this mean

[Par]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That will be too late which is why they are trying to get things done now. That Rogers NHL deal was a one-time gold mine for the league that likely is not repeated and I don't think things are going to get rosier for owners in the long term especially with TV viewership declining as people cut the cord or find other things to watch. There's never going to be a big cable deal from a US network so the NHL will continue to be a gate driven league which puts them at a disadvantage compared to NFL. MLB, and NBA. I do think it's important to be proactive in finding ways to supplement income in the future but that's not likely ever going to happen in the Saddledome.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So what? Flames bring in practically the lowest TV ratings of all Canadian teams. You can argue Rogers would be happy to get more Leafs, Habs, Oilers, or Canucks games aired in the place of the Flames as Calgarians that watch hockey would simply turn to the Oilers or another team. The ratings would in likeliness go up if they replaced Flames national broadcasted games with other Canadian teams.

You got any evidence to back this up? I always thought that the Flames would have good TV ratings.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That will be too late which is why they are trying to get things done now. That Rogers NHL deal was a one-time gold mine for the league that likely is not repeated and I don't think things are going to get rosier for owners in the long term especially with TV viewership declining as people cut the cord or find other things to watch. There's never going to be a big cable deal from a US network so the NHL will continue to be a gate driven league which puts them at a disadvantage compared to NFL. MLB, and NBA. I do think it's important to be proactive in finding ways to supplement income in the future but that's not likely ever going to happen in the Saddledome.

I agree with everything. It is a lot of posturing to get a deal done (which it will IMO). I was just commenting that there will need to be something eventually. Sooner rather than later or it will just make business sense to leave.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Facebook is any indication, many long-time fans don't care anymore if the Flames leave.

I wouldn't say I would be happy if they left, but at this point I think I'd just pick a new team to cheer for until we got another team. That, or just stop watching the NHL all together. I've been slowly losing interest in the league for the last few years now. I used to watch any game any time. Now I pretty much watch Flames games exclusively. The on-Ice product is stale and lacking in originality. The Flames the only thing keeping me interested since I've been emotionally invested in this team since I was 4, so about 19 years.

That said, I'm not a Flames fan first, I'm a Calgary fan. If the Flames want to pack their bags and leave then so be it. WHL hockey is fun and the Hitmen are actually a well run team. I could get behind them easily.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

WHL hockey is fun and the Hitmen are actually a well run team. I could get behind them easily.

The Flames would probably sell them to someone local if they moved. The question would be if they could afford to play out of the Dome and who would pay for the maintenance.