[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The Seattle market is… wait for it… three times the size of the Calgary market.

Being a smaller city is exactly why we need to be prudent with any public funding...the per capita burden on the tax payer is that much higher.

The NHL is a business. It either needs to work on it's own merits or not. The hand outs need to stop...whether it's Calgary or Seattle.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Based on the experience in Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa, the value of the franchise does not go up enough to compensate for the loss on the arena. The Molsons had to throw in 80 percent of the Canadiens to get back the construction cost of the Bell Centre.

Then being an NHL owner is a ####ty investment and they should find a better place for their money. I'm not sure why the public should be expected to subsidize to make the investment worthwhile. I don't get anything out of it other than the opportunity to pay more for the same product.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Same ratio, so with the owner contributions and ticket tax how much was it for calgary next? 50%?

Tried going to calgarynext web site but it's not loading.

The breakdown for the Flames proposal for a $890 million CalgaryNEXT building was:
$200 million from CSEC
$250 million from ticket tax
$200 million from city fieldhouse
$240 million from CRL

If you consider CSEC and ticket tax as Flames contribution similar ratio would be 50.5%. Then there is also the question of how relevant that % is with additional infrastructure costs and other things.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Ticket tax is not taxpayer money. It is a surcharge levied solely on people who choose to be paying customers at the arena. Basically, it's a way of separating out part of the price of tickets so it won't be counted as HRR and the players won't glom half of it.

I say that it's BS. Considering the Flames aren't even fronting the money, they're expecting the City of Calgary to be the bad guy, take the financing, and increase the ticket tax while the Flames get to shield themselves from risk.

If the Flames fronted the money and charged their ticket tax, then I would agree with your assessment.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right but this is where moving to Seattle costs the team millions in revenue a year, nevermind the relocation fee. I fully get why the arena would want as many tenants as possible, I just don't see anything but a financial calamity moving a team from the only real pro team in a hockey heavy market to being possibly the fifth option for pro sports fans (and possibly down the sixth or seventh overall when UDub is factored in) in a hockey market that is mostly unknown. If Seattle were some kind of homerun market they'd already have a team, even if it were in the current Key Arena.

So say they profit ten million a year instead of 30 million a year in Calgary.

But they save 500M initially. Only need a 4% return on that money to breakeven.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If Seattle were some kind of homerun market they'd already have a team, even if it were in the current Key Arena.

The Key Arena isn't even good enough for a WHL team. It's a dreadful venue for hockey, and would have to be torn down and rebuilt to meet NHL standards.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The breakdown for the Flames proposal for a $890 million CalgaryNEXT building was:
$200 million from CSEC
$250 million from ticket tax
$200 million from city fieldhouse
$240 million from CRL

If you consider CSEC and ticket tax as Flames contribution similar ratio would be 50.5%. Then there is also the question of how relevant that % is with additional infrastructure costs and other things.

How the hell is ticket tax "Flames contribution" when the City is fronting the money?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No it wasn't.

So what was it then?

You'd think this is the kind of thing they'd want to get out to the public ASAP to put pressure on the city if it's such a good proposal.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Sorry how are you calculating this? Let's even use the Flames #'s. Here is the original Flames proposal: Link



Aside from the two simple line items, ticket tax is Calgary taxpayer money (also a later Q&A with KK would show that he wanted City of Calgary to front this money). CRL is also City money. CRL in layman's terms means using future property taxes to pay for current infrastructure - and property taxes are probably considered City money.

So how are you justifying your breakdown?



Where is the proposal from CSEC? Do you have a link to it?

Where has it been confirmed that the City literally did not respond? Or was the response that they got not the answer they wanted? Considering Nenshi even yesterday talked about building an arena in Victoria Park, it seems very unlikely that there has been ZERO response to the "proposal."

I think in one of the last q&a King said 450M would come from the flames side, which I think implied they would front the ticket tax money. I know in the very early stages it was hinted at that they would want the city to front the money, but that didn't go over very well.

[lvsteven]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Are you honestly gonna compare Calgary/Edmonton to Las Vegas.

It is business, and businesses do not ask for government money to build. At least not in the real world, unless it is something like an Apple or Amazon coming into town and creating 50,000 jobs.

Listen... Remember how small and tiny Chinook Center used to be? They did not ask for government money to build.

That was a huge redevelopment project that took years.

How many of the giant towers in the downtown core asked for government money to be built?

That is all I am pointing out.
The Seattle arena is not government financed. They put it all out there to get a basketball team. They were willing to do that with their own money, because they have confidence in their business model.

Do the flames not have confidence in the future of the team? That they cannot build the Flames brand? They have increased in value every year. Is that going to suddenly stop?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I say that it's BS. Considering the Flames aren't even fronting the money, they're expecting the City of Calgary to be the bad guy, take the financing, and increase the ticket tax while the Flames get to shield themselves from risk.

If the Flames fronted the money and charged their ticket tax, then I would agree with your assessment.

The amount to be collected through ticket tax includes financing costs, so the City of Calgary does not ‘take the financing’. If the Flames front the money, it will still be borrowed, but at a higher interest rate than a governmental body such as the City could get – which only increases the cost.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Regorium

How the hell is ticket tax "Flames contribution" when the City is fronting the money?

Because the Flames pay it back.

It is an accounting trick though, because the Flames never actually pay any of that money out of pocket. The city does, and then the fans pay it back as a user fee. The benefit for the Flames is while they could just front the money themselves and then raise ticket prices to compensate, I would bet that a tax that goes to the city instead would not count as HRR payable to the players.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Regorium

How the hell is ticket tax "Flames contribution" when the City is fronting the money?

It was never confirmed that the city would have fronted the money. The Flames were asking them to but it sounded like that was up for negotiation.

[tkflames]

At least they waited for Garth Brooks to leave before this nonsense....

+1 vote for Nenshi and I am tired of the egocentric know it all better schtick...

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The breakdown for the Flames proposal for a $890 million CalgaryNEXT building was:
$200 million from CSEC
$250 million from ticket tax
$200 million from city fieldhouse
$240 million from CRL

If you consider CSEC and ticket tax as Flames contribution similar ratio would be 50.5%. Then there is also the question of how relevant that % is with additional infrastructure costs and other things.

The CRL on the West Village side was the real deal-killer, more than anything else.

Not sure there's much more to take from the Rivers District CRL that oculd be used, but certainly more opportunity to fit stuff in with the East Village/Vic Park side of things where there is actually the potential to recoup funds from the levy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by DJones

So say they profit ten million a year instead of 30 million a year in Calgary.

But they save 500M initially. Only need a 4% return on that money to breakeven.

The relocation fee needs to be considered as well. Also the likely lawsuit from Sportsnet losing a major market from its TV deal. Not sure if the NHLPA could win a lawsuit here but there could also be that too. And you're assuming they'll make a profit and not lose money. I suspect they lose money or barely break even. Remember they'll be looking up at the Sounders in the Seattle sports pecking order.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by morgin

Then being an NHL owner is a ####ty investment and they should find a better place for their money.

Now you're getting it.

I'm not sure why the public should be expected to subsidize to make the investment worthwhile.

Basically, because the public has subsidized all the other teams, and that's the price of playing in the major leagues. It's a stupid reason, but unfortunately a real one.

No doubt your mom used to ask you, ‘If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?’ In this case, the friends are all chained together at the ankles, and it's not really possible for just one of them to refuse to jump. —Well, they could, but only at the cost of eventually losing their franchise.

[Demzy84]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The Key Arena renovation project is primarily for the purpose of getting an NBA team back in Seattle. It doesn't matter how good a hockey market Seattle is, if the building projects to pay for itself with basketball and concerts. In that case, having a hockey team as a secondary tenant would be gravy.

Wrong, one of the primary financiers of the KeyArena renovation is known to want to own an NHL team. The SoHo project was primarily for an NBA team, this renovation is for both, more so NHL

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Demzy84

Wrong, one of the primary financiers of the KeyArena renovation is known to want to own an NHL team. The SoHo project was primarily for an NBA team, this renovation is for both, more so NHL

Who cares what the owner wants? The people of Seattle want an NBA team back somewhere between 10 and 50 times more than they want an NHL team.

[Jordan!]

Sports. Wtf