[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Not entitled to millions of dollars, but probably shouldn't be considered "a disgrace" to the city, which is what that poster was responding to.

This...the argument has nothing to do with giving them hundreds of millions of dollars it was defending them against being called a disgrace and embarrassment to the city. Some of you need to calm the hell down.

[Freeway]

Burying the lede: based on that Herald piece, we're going to see AN ARENA DEAL brought to council sometime in the next six (?) weeks. That seems like very big news.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It really doesn't matter if we SHOULD give them money. The point is in a world with limited NHL teams (Supply) some city WILL build a stadium (Hello Seattle!)

At the end of the day it isn't a bluff. These businessmen will take their team to a city that WILL build them a stadium.

Of course. That's the nature of any business... but there are a number of questions ownership has to weigh:

1) is whether the franchise is financially successful despite the current arena?

2) is a market like seattle or quebec that much better when adding the additional costs of relocation, including relocation fees? There's no guarantee that Seattle could even sustain an NHL franchise even with a new building... i have more confidence in QC, but even then its not a slam dunk...

3) will the NHL BOT even allow for the franchise to relocate to said City? They didn't allow other franchises to move in the past... And why would the other owners be ok with a paltry 150 million or so relocation fee when they could get 500 million from a new franchise fee?

4) would other teams, say a MTL or Van ask for territorial compensation due to losing some market?

so, while it isn't a bluff, Calgary is one of the more stable franchises in the NHL... Yes, they're businessmen. That's exactly the point. They aren't dumb enough to piss it away either unless moving is the option of last resort...

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Burying the lede: based on that Herald piece, we're going to see AN ARENA DEAL brought to council sometime in the next six (?) weeks. That seems like very big news.

Which makes Burke's comments even more idiotic and is the reason why I believe this wasn't at the direction of the Flames' brass. This was Burke being a loud mouth at a very ill-advised time when both public support and progress why starting to move favorably.
Thankfully it seems like the parties actually involved aren't letting this get in the way. But I hope Burke received a firm lashing for something so dumb.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Burying the lede: based on that Herald piece, we're going to see AN ARENA DEAL brought to council sometime in the next six (?) weeks. That seems like very big news.

I would think that's definitely the goal. At minimum, if they're NOT agreed, I would imagine the City will release the funding structure it's willing to live with. Purpose would be two-fold: 1) to gauge public reaction; 2) to stake a public position that would likely be seen as more than reasonable, potentially making the Flames seem unreasonable that they wouldn't accept.

[Tinordi]

No City loans, no paying for the arena, no owning the arena.

City would pay for public transit upgrades, any necessary roadway safety upgrades and engineering, water and other utility upgrades, offer a lease hold for the land, and update zoning and density bonuses for developments around the arena.

But no money or loans to pay for the actual arena.

[kevman]

I just thanked a Tinordi post - that felt weird.

He's right thought. Just say no to public funds paying for a private arena. I could however get behind a station on the green line, or any existing line, that makes the stadium more accessible.

I love the back and fourth in this thread. There have been countless studies and numbers posted on the simple fact that using tax dollars to build a stadium is a terrible investment yet people keep coming back and saying the opposite.

Simple question, if the Flames ownership group is already a top 10 earner in the league with an antiquated stadium what makes you think they'll do better in a new market? The Flames, with the oldest stadium in the league, already out profit 20 other markets. 20 markets with newer and fancier stadiums. Don't fall for the hype, they're not going anywhere.

[CliffFletcher]

So Francis just said he's certain the Flames would move if they didn't get a new arena deal. Fool or knave?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So Francis just said he's certain the Flames would move if they didn't get a new arena deal. Fool or knave?

They're not mutually exclusive

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So Francis just said he's certain the Flames would move if they didn't get a new arena deal. Fool or knave?

The Flames have almost the entire media group in Calgary fighting for them right now, and they've all kicked the schilling up to the max lately.

I would imagine that means a deal is pretty close and their friends in the media are just trying to squeeze a little more out of the city. It's painfully obvious and very insulting that our local guys would do this and think the citizens wouldn't see through the non-partisan coverage/partnership with the Flames.

But then again, you talk to a lot of local citizens and you quickly realize that media can actually get a lot by the average citizen.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So Francis just said he's certain the Flames would move if they didn't get a new arena deal. Fool or knave?

Like most things Francis says, pointless.

Did he put a date on it? A lot of bad things would have to happen before that day ever came, and they're not very likely to happen.

Sure, if there's no deal 10 years from now, probably even 5 years from now, then the relocation talk will be more realistic.

Right now, it's pointless posturing.

[GranteedEV]

Having seen the storied Seattle Supersonics become the Oklahoma City Thunder, I don't think it's crazy to think the Flames could move without a new Arena. However I'm confident an arena deal will get done so it's a moot point.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

How much is the new sport complex up in the Northwest by the Royal Oak Walmart priced at? I understand the need for the multipurpose complexes but that was looks unnecessarily, over the top fancy. I am not saying they should put that money in the new rink but I wonder about the money for the splashy roof etc. Could that money have been spent elsewhere? It's not like it will be a gathering point for the rest of Calgary.

And I do understand the building is supposed to be cutting edge environmentally. I don't think we need to go cold war era Russia in our buildings but it seems like a lot of extra money is spent on the bells and whistles these days.

I agree with this 100%. For the most part, i find alot of the new public venues in this city to be a little over the top. I play hockey at Winsport. Great facility but really?

I also think if the Flames want a new rink, and want the city to pay, they need to tone it down as well. It doesn't have to be state of the art. You can get a nice arena for 400 million - which is the Flames contribution and the ticket tax.....

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It's interesting to read New Era's opinions in here, but then read his (her?) opinions in the US Orange POTUS thread in Offtopic. For such a ridiculously onesided liberal over in that political thread, who could not be anymore steadfast to refute, debate, and hold views that appear almost disdainful to any conservative or republican lean- to then come over here and advocate for billionaires to get richer off the backs of the citizenry in a city he/she doesn't even live in, in this thread, is so bizarre to me.

Also Colley-Urquhardt (sp?) calling anyone else a blowhard is hilarious.

I don't want to speak for New Era and his motivations here, but I imagine it has much to do with the emotional attachment to the team and the fact that its of great importance to him.

This is what I see from people who are huge proponents of the arena that I know personally. They use the same arguments the Flames use, its good for business, revenue etc. but its entirely based on the fact that they are just massive fans of the flames and have an emotional attachment.

Which is fair. I have always argued that a public benefit to the city is the emotional attachment and city pride of a sports team. They can come to define certain cities (usually the dull ones, but I digress).

The question is how much is that civic/emotional benefit worth to a city? 40 million? 100? 500?

[kevman]

Sure they could move - but it would be bad business.

Here's the Forbes 2016-2017 NHL Team Valuation list ranked by annual operating income:

MTL - $76.9 Million
NYR - $74.5
TOR - $68
CHI - $34.4
BOS - $33.5
VAN - $29.6
PIT - $25.7
PHI - $24.7
DAL - $20.9
CGY - $18

https://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuation...peratingIncome

So do the owner think that Seattle, with a new arena, can be a more lucrative market then Calgary as it is? When Edmonton and it's new stadium isn't? ($15.4 Million/year) Neither is Minnesota, St. Louis or Washington. My gut feel is Seattle isn't. But what do I know? I'm not the Billionaire.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

How about how most of the owners could sell for 10X their original investment and not have to deal with this anymore.

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

It has worth because it's a 1/31 share of the NHL. They're not losing money hand over fist but they could decide to forego all the headaches that come with owning a team and realize their tidy capital appreciations. I won't fault them for that, any of us would do the same.

Owning a hockey team really is an onerous task. Headaches? Seriously? Wake me up when they're losing money. They have the privilege of owning one of the scarcest properties out there. If that makes life too hard, then good riddance.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Having seen the storied Seattle Supersonics become the Oklahoma City Thunder, I don't think it's crazy to think the Flames could move without a new Arena. However I'm confident an arena deal will get done so it's a moot point.

How has that worked out? IIRC the new buyers were OKC folks. How does the franchise valuation and operating revenue compare now? We'll really find out how good that decision is once they lose Westbrook and recede to the basement of the standings.


From the FlamesNation interview:

NSFW!

you really have to look closely at the financial details and make sure that everything, not just in terms of the construction split but also how the lease works out, is worked out in advance, because we’re seeing more and more cases where the headline number (in terms of they get this much money in public subsidies) is dwarfed by the amount of hidden costs. Judith Grant Long, who’s a researcher at the University of Michigan, did a book a few years ago where she broke down the full costs and found that the average hidden cost, things in terms of tax kickbacks and maintenance and operations expenses that are on the public and things like that, all of that came to about 40% over and above what the actual public cost was of construction, and that number’s going up.

This is a big thing for me that I hope is scrutinized as things move forward.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Owning a hockey team really is an onerous task. Headaches? Seriously? Wake me up when they're losing money. They have the privilege of owning one of the scarcest properties out there. If that makes life too hard, then good riddance.

The Flames have lost money for many years in the past. With the CDN dollar in the dumpster, the worst arena in the NHL, the terrible Calgary economy and the increasing costs of non-player salaries, it would not be surprising at all if the Flames are losing money in a few years. Some people seem to have short memories, the Save the Flames campaign was not that long ago.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Leveraging charitable donations is only a couple of steps above leveraging a meeting with someone on their death bed.

Who is doing that??

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Fire

The Flames have lost money for many years in the past. With the CDN dollar in the dumpster, the worst arena in the NHL, the terrible Calgary economy and the increasing costs of non-player salaries, it would not be surprising at all if the Flames are losing money in a few years. Some people seem to have short memories, the Save the Flames campaign was not that long ago.

It was the save the Flames campaign and a sweetheart deal from the City on a Saddledome lease that saved the Flames, only to have the Flames turn around and jack ticket prices and demand a new Arena and Stadium from the same fans and city that saved them. And in retrospect, the Flames have to feel very fortunate they weren't so short-sighted as to look at a few rough years in a great market to roll the dice on an unproven one that would surely have seen them in a less favourable position today.
If anything, it should be the Flames that look back on history and ask themselves, is moving really the best option. I think history would suggest no!

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Owning a hockey team really is an onerous task. Headaches? Seriously? Wake me up when they're losing money. They have the privilege of owning one of the scarcest properties out there. If that makes life too hard, then good riddance.

...I can't tell what you're arguing with me about. People seem to think there's zero chance they could move and I'm pointing out reasons why I think they could, most notably through just washing their hands of their 1/31 share of the NHL and collecting their massive capital gains. I don't think it'll happen, I'm reasonably confident that both parties will come to an agreement with the knowledge that Calgary is better with the Flames and the Flames are better with Calgary, but it's a possibility.

I'm a little astonished at the hardliners who are daring the team to move by not supporting the use of public funds in any way, but at the same time are morally outraged that the team would threaten to move. Pick one.