[News] Seattle announces $660 mil private arena deal. NHL team to be announced in July?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

How are the Flames expenditures going to drop substantially by moving to Seattle? Seriously I'd love to hear the argument there. They are going to make less revenue, that's obviously not up for debate. But unless they are cutting payroll (which of course means a less competitive team, which of course means lower ticket sales, which of course means...), where are these substantial expenditure savings coming from?

Are you not aware they are sharing a building with another tenant? That means cost sharing for operational expenses related to the arena. That is just proven all over the league where teams have dual tenants.

To flip the coin, I want to see this proof they are going to make less revenue. What guarantee is there they are going to make less revenues? Because you say so? Because Calgary is some golden goose or something? You can't guarantee that, because you don't know. I would love to see the numbers of what team revenues were around the league, but those appear to be closely guarded secrets.

As I've already pointed out, they are making money in American dollars, so get an immediate 25% bump in value of the dollar. So if the Flames were making $100M in revenues in Calgary, they are going to be making the exact same dollars at $75M in Seattle. I would think that for a Seattle team to see a massive drop in revenues they would have to be a failure at the box office. It is highly doubtful a first year team would be a failure at the box office, and a team as good as the Flames, should draw very well as they would be in the playoff mix. Seems you're just hoping they fail to say the Flames owners made a mistake, when common sense says its very unlikely they would suffer immediately.

[tfi racing]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Sweet! As I live in Victoria this is great news.

Could get a lot more Flames road games in!!!

Originally Posted by activeStick

Or maybe Flames home games!

Perhaps,but for those on Vancouver Island it will still probably be close to the same money to see the Flames in Vegas or LA instead of Vancouver or Seattle...

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by New Era

Are you not aware they are sharing a building with another tenant? That means cost sharing for operational expenses related to the arena. That is just proven all over the league where teams have dual tenants.

To flip the coin, I want to see this proof they are going to make less revenue. What guarantee is there they are going to make less revenues? Because you say so? Because Calgary is some golden goose or something? You can't guarantee that, because you don't know. I would love to see the numbers of what team revenues were around the league, but those appear to be closely guarded secrets.

As I've already pointed out, they are making money in American dollars, so get an immediate 25% bump in value of the dollar. So if the Flames were making $100M in revenues in Calgary, they are going to be making the exact same dollars at $75M in Seattle. I would think that for a Seattle team to see a massive drop in revenues they would have to be a failure at the box office. It is highly doubtful a first year team would be a failure at the box office, and a team as good as the Flames, should draw very well as they would be in the playoff mix. Seems you're just hoping they fail to say the Flames owners made a mistake, when common sense says its very unlikely they would suffer immediately.

Well since neither of us can offer proof, I'll make my argument instead. Even if you wanna be generous and say there's 150,000 diehard hockey fans in Seattle, there are still at least that many in Calgary. But in Calgary you compete against no one. The Stamps aren't a real competitor. The Seahawks, the NBA team, the Mariners, the Sounders, UDub...there's just a bit more competition for the sports dollar there. Bigger market yes, but not necessarily more diehards (likely not), and more competitors. If the team isn't a consistent winner, how do you see them not being just another middling market for an NHL owner?

Plus there's also corporate support that is more difficult to get with the competition compared to Calgary, and the local TV deal which will be for less. The USD difference is nice for now, but given Trump intends on, well, being Trump, that difference is shrinking and will continue to do so. He wants more exports, gotta get that dollar down. The operational savings over time probably cover the relocation fee, an unavoidable expenditure that comes with moving to Seattle.

I do not see a scenario where the Flames move under current ownership, selling is much more likely. So suffering has nothing to do with it. Looking at the Seattle market shows that it's not something that can be consider a real threat for a move when compared to Calgary. As I've always maintained, Toronto 2 is the real threat but is also a lot more complicated.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I'm almost 100% sure there'll be some public money on the table - but not in the same ballpark as the Flames want.

I think the key arena land is owned by the city not the OVH. The article also states they will get revenue from 2 near by parking garages but also pay Seattle 2.6 million per year. I'd also suspect some kind of property tax discount on the assessed value.

Will be interesting to see the mix here as it sets the maximum the city can expect the flames to pay where Edmonton is the minimum.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by New Era

Are you not aware they are sharing a building with another tenant? That means cost sharing for operational expenses related to the arena. That is just proven all over the league where teams have dual tenants.

To flip the coin, I want to see this proof they are going to make less revenue. What guarantee is there they are going to make less revenues? Because you say so? Because Calgary is some golden goose or something? You can't guarantee that, because you don't know. I would love to see the numbers of what team revenues were around the league, but those appear to be closely guarded secrets.

As I've already pointed out, they are making money in American dollars, so get an immediate 25% bump in value of the dollar. So if the Flames were making $100M in revenues in Calgary, they are going to be making the exact same dollars at $75M in Seattle. I would think that for a Seattle team to see a massive drop in revenues they would have to be a failure at the box office. It is highly doubtful a first year team would be a failure at the box office, and a team as good as the Flames, should draw very well as they would be in the playoff mix. Seems you're just hoping they fail to say the Flames owners made a mistake, when common sense says its very unlikely they would suffer immediately.

It's tough to say what kind of revenue the Flames (or any team) would make in Seattle at this point.

Unless Edwards sells the team to the Key Arena owners, they would most likely be taking a cut on many of the gate driven revenues (parking, concessions) - this is all dependent on what type of deal the owners would give the team; but given its over 600 million in private money, the arena owners are going to want a sizable return.

I understand the C$ to US$ argument, though i suspect overall revenues would be 20% lower regardless given the cost of tickets, parking, concessions are generally lower in the US (generalizing, of course). So, you could call the revenue/profit a wash - IF the flames had the same deal they have at saddledome, which is unlikely

[MoneyGuy]

Quebec City should be next up. They have to be disappointed.

[Ducay]

Yes a tiny market with a stagnant (if not regressing) business base is "next up". I'm sure they feel that way, but it makes so little sense, especially with a crap CAD$

They'll be lucky to add a QMJHL team

[Stay Golden]

Another city preparing to build a shiny new arena perhaps in a strong effort to lure an NHL team. Perhaps they know something we don't. If gnashing Nenshi thinks the Flames moving in the next 5 years isn't a possibility lmao. He will be known as the mayor that ended the Calgary Flames. That will be part of his legacy.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Another city preparing to build a shiny new arena perhaps in a strong effort to lure an NHL team. Perhaps they know something we don't. If gnashing Nenshi thinks the Flames moving in the next 5 years isn't a possibility lmao. He will be known as the mayor that ended the Calgary Flames. That will be part of his legacy.

the City Council sets the mandate.

People's hate on for Nenshi has clouded their thinking...

its actually pretty laughable how much grief he gets by this board.

NHL? you poll the folks in Seattle and i'd bet they rather have an NBA team ahead of the NHL...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Another city preparing to build a shiny new arena perhaps in a strong effort to lure an NHL team. Perhaps they know something we don't. If gnashing Nenshi thinks the Flames moving in the next 5 years isn't a possibility lmao. He will be known as the mayor that ended the Calgary Flames. That will be part of his legacy.

Do you mean the city that proving the land, no cash, will receive a minimum of 2.6 million per year from two parking garages plus will be paid the current revenue of key arena in rent.

Or do you mean the city that the arena group will pay 40 million to the city to improve transit options

Or do you mean the city that has the ownership group agreeing to pay 170 million to renovate if the want to extend the lease?

Essentially the Seattle deal is the Nenshi offer plus extras. The day the flames offer it to the city Calgary will sign up.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Another city preparing to build a shiny new arena perhaps in a strong effort to lure an NHL team. Perhaps they know something we don't. If gnashing Nenshi thinks the Flames moving in the next 5 years isn't a possibility lmao. He will be known as the mayor that ended the Calgary Flames. That will be part of his legacy.

People realize the West still needs an expansion team right? And potentially a soft landing spot for the Coyotes on top of that? Moving Calgary does absolutely nothing to address those elephants in the room. Why is the league going to prefer financially shuffling deck chairs around with yet another relocation crisis when they can get a substantially larger cash injection through another expansion franchise? The arena announcement doesn't make the relocation threats any less of a bluff than they were the first time the Flames used it.

It's ironic that the owners are so eager to compare the situation to Edmonton's, considering how the Oilers' ownership has since come out and admitted all their threatening rhetoric and their city visit stunts to get their arena had no basis in any actual relocation plan and was a transparent ploy to twist the city's arm. Fool me once.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well since neither of us can offer proof, I'll make my argument instead. Even if you wanna be generous and say there's 150,000 diehard hockey fans in Seattle, there are still at least that many in Calgary. But in Calgary you compete against no one. The Stamps aren't a real competitor. The Seahawks, the NBA team, the Mariners, the Sounders, UDub...there's just a bit more competition for the sports dollar there. Bigger market yes, but not necessarily more diehards (likely not), and more competitors. If the team isn't a consistent winner, how do you see them not being just another middling market for an NHL owner?

I don't think the first year in Seattle would equal a typical year in Calgary. But once the fan base gets into it, Seattle will be more financially lucrative. This is a city that loses its mind over Sounders games, so I strongly believe a faster paced sport like hockey will find a fan base. Corporate pockets are deeper. The metropolitan area has a larger population, and despite what some think, fans from Bellevue / Redmond / Tacoma won't hesitate to come to games.

The other under-appreciated point may be US merchandising and local broadcast income. Although it's Seattle's team, I'm rather sure it'll recruit supporters in the Northwest region. I bet the well of potential Calgary Flames fans in the US has run dry, but there's plenty of recruitable Seattle "something something green/blue water theme" fans.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Another city preparing to build a shiny new arena perhaps in a strong effort to lure an NHL team. Perhaps they know something we don't. If gnashing Nenshi thinks the Flames moving in the next 5 years isn't a possibility lmao. He will be known as the mayor that ended the Calgary Flames. That will be part of his legacy.

Nah lol

[Vulcan]

If the Flames go anywhere I'd guess it would be Kansas City.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If the Flames go anywhere I'd guess it would be Kansas City.

I don't think KC is a realistic possibility. Lamar Hunt Jr., the owner of the Kansas City Mavericks, an ECHL team was asked about it. He balked at the $500M expansion fee and indicated they'd need to generate at least 100m in revenue to make NHL hockey work in KC. He didn't think KC would be able to generate that kind of revenue.
I don't think the economics of the Flames moving would be much different than that of an expansion team. Also, the Spirit Centre is pretty busy and there's no way the Flames would have the control or get the sweetheart deal they get at the dome.
The Flame aren't moving. It's just not going to happen.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I don't think KC is a realistic possibility. Lamar Hunt Jr., the owner of the Kansas City Mavericks, an ECHL team was asked about it. He balked at the $500M expansion fee and indicated they'd need to generate at least 100m in revenue to make NHL hockey work in KC. He didn't think KC would be able to generate that kind of revenue.
I don't think the economics of the Flames moving would be much different than that of an expansion team. Also, the Spirit Centre is pretty busy and there's no way the Flames would have the control or get the sweetheart deal they get at the dome.
The Flame aren't moving. It's just not going to happen.

Thanks I hadn't heard that. The Hunts may not want to spend that much on an expansion team but buying an established good team may be a different question. I'm mostly looking at the Hunts being big sports investors and us moving our ECHL franchise to Kansas City.

Of course this may be just another orchestrated move by King to put pressure on Flames fans even as you say, there is nothing to it.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Yes a tiny market with a stagnant (if not regressing) business base is "next up". I'm sure they feel that way, but it makes so little sense, especially with a crap CAD$

They'll be lucky to add a QMJHL team

QC already has a (very popular and very well-attended) QMJHL team...

[NiklasSundblad]

For the Flames to move to Seattle the NHL would have to be willing to leave a top ten market, as well as give up 500 million is free cash as they loose an expansion market, or a relocation market as Arizona, Florida and Carolina absolutely flounder financially. This is on top of walking away from their TV deal with Rogers, and giving up all the revenue the new arena would bring in in Calgary, such as naming rights. If this is worth not swallowing their pride because Calgary Next was "mocked and ridiculed," then best of luck to them. There is no situation that realistically exists where the team is better off financially than if they just took the deal currently on the table.

[Finger Cookin]

The league wouldn't lose $500M in possible expansion fees, as 1) the next expansion team will still pay $500M or more, regardless of whether a team is based in Seattle or not, and 2) the league would likely get at least $60M in a relocation fee like it did when the Thrashers moved

I don't think the Flames are headed anywhere either, I just wanted to discuss this "lost free cash" figure

[GranteedEV]

Seattle needs an expansion team to balance out the conferences.