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

[Tinordi]

Yeah, if you're arguing for the city to bend over and pay hundreds of millions, increase property taxes so that you can enrich billionaires then saying that it's because we'll get to see Garth Brooks or Eminem once every 5 years is pretty much the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

It has been proven over and over that concerts don't add any economic benefits to cities so why are bands/concerts still used as a reason on why we should build a new arena using tax payer money?

Who cares which band comes here for the night, sucks up our money and spends it elsewhere.

Remember when Garth Brooks had all those Edmonton shows and didn't come to Calgary? We can't have that happen.

[CF84]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated in this thread but there is nothing holding the owners back from building a new arena all they need to do is pay for it.

That this most basic point is somehow lost shows just how warped our understanding of this issue is.

The crazy train is going off the rails for the arena supporters.

Just because a team "could" build their own arena doesn't mean they will.

If I'm an owner of a business and I'm give two options:

-move to new city where multimillion dollar building is already provided

-stay where I am and spend my own money

The choice doesn't seem very difficult to me.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CF84

Just because a team "could" build their own arena doesn't mean they will.

If I'm an owner of a business and I'm give two options:

-move to new city where multimillion dollar building is already provided

-stay where I am and spend my own money

The choice doesn't seem very difficult to me.

Stop peddling dishonesty.

Moving to a new city is not an option.

[CF84]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Stop peddling dishonesty.

Moving to a new city is not an option.

Good argument.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Fire

Are the people who are angry about the Flames wanting the city to pay for a large portion of the arena still bitter that the Flames owners didn't pay for the Saddledome?

After about 5 more years in the dome the Flames will be struggling to remain a cap team. After the 10 year mark they will probably be forced to sell.

That was a completely different situation. The Corral was undersized and outdated. It was completely unsuited as both an NHL and Olympic arena. The improvement from the Corral to the Dome was significant. For most fans, the improvement in the arena experience between the Dome and the new building will be minimal.

The Flames will see the biggest benefit from a new building. Why shouldn't they shoulder a significant amount of the cost?


Also, originally, the Flames were simply a tenant of the Saddledome and paid rent to the city for the use of the building. The Stampede board operated the building. The Flames received the revenue from in-arena advertising and ticket sales.

Do you think there's any chance the Flames would agree to go back to that arrangement if the city paid for the whole new building?



Also, what's going to happen in the next five years to suddenly kill the Flames' revenue? They still have one of the largest arenas in the league and have some of the highest ticket prices. Concession prices keep climbing too.

[EldrickOnIce]

This thread is even worse than the last ten on same topic, with the wailing, gnashing of teeth, useless rhetoric and over the top emotion.
Flames ownership will relocate or sell at some point without a new building that is partially publicly funded.
That's it.
It's foolish to suggest the NHL wouldn't let them move. Of course they will. And one day the NHL will indeed come back, when there is a new building.
There is nothing wrong with this happening. St Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers are latest examples of teams who relocated because of out dated facilities and lack of public will to replace them. And there will be more. And life and sports will go on. And crybabies will cry.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This has been discussed and it's a relatively weak argument. Nobody is privy to the language in the contract but I'm sure the NHL fully considered that a team could be added or subtracted over the duration of the deal. I don't think for a second that they would stand in the way of a team relocating because of the TV deal as they could easily offset that with moving the Coyotes to Quebec who is waiting with open arms. That contract is great and all but the NHL survived fine without it and they would do fine with a little less change seeing they would be gaining a large US market.

Tinordi couldn't even respond to my challenge of his "NHLPA would sue" claim with a coherent rebuttal, so there isn't much point wasting your time debating him on anything legal. He hasn't a clue and is flailing away, as usual.

That said, while I doubt very much the TV deal would step in the way of relocation, the NHL's own policies very much would. History has shown us that the NHL doesn't move a franchise until there is no other option. And that includes looking for new owners in the market. The Flames and Edwards know full well that relocation is not happening. But that's not going to stop them, and Betman, from relying on scare tactics in their dispute with the city.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CF84

You say it's people being emotionally manipulated, however I dislike Calgary, as a city, and would be fine if the team moved away.

You don't know about how big a difference an arena makes when a band is deciding weather they will make a stop through your city. I've toured across North America for years in bands and although we only got to theatre size, the venue was always a factor when booking shows. Bands remember bad experiences from a difficult load-in to horrible acoustics to an uncomfortable green room. The Saddledome has a bad reputation in the industry so why wouldn't a new arena encourage new entertainment to stop through?

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...omes-drawbacks

Calgary would once again become a viable option for bands and entertainment, if a new arena was built.

The bolded is exactly my point about emotional manipulation. You've been bred to believe that building a new arena is the magic bullet. That once built, Calgary will never be skipped for concerts ever again. That there aren't any other conceivable reasons for Calgary getting skipped, that it's entirely based on the building. That there's no way it's because Calgary promoters might just be worse than Edmonton promoters. Or that Northlands and now the OEG might just make sweeter offers and be easier to deal with than CSEC. People simply don't want to consider any other possibilities, and I get it, because the arena as a cure all is a wonderfully simple solution. But there is unquestionably more to it than just the arena, and when the new arena is built and Calgary still gets skipped people might finally realize that.

[rhino]

People who do not want public money put into an new arena project are wearing blinders! Even taking the Calgary Next project at the full cost the city estimates at 1.8 billion and 2/3 of the cost to taxpayers works out to less then $1000 per citizen. Now weigh that small amount per citizen versus the loss of a few thousand jobs, a few million dollars that the CSEG raises for charities and the lost revenue for small businesses such as restaurants and bars that fill up during a Flames game. Also the CSEG wants a new facility for The Stampeders and if they were to move the Flames you can bet they sell of the Stamps and Hitmen and Roughnecks as well which could very well mean the end of a couple of those teams as well.

Having wealthy business men wanting to invest money in our city is not a negative people!! Facilities like a new arena and stadium benefit the greater good so I see no issue is sharing that responsibility.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

This thread is even worse than the last ten on same topic, with the wailing, gnashing of teeth, useless rhetoric and over the top emotion.
Flames ownership will relocate or sell at some point without a new building that is partially publicly funded.
That's it.
It's foolish to suggest the NHL wouldn't let them move. Of course they will. And one day the NHL will indeed come back, when there is a new building.
There is nothing wrong with this happening. St Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers are latest examples of teams who relocated because of out dated facilities and lack of public will to replace them. And there will be more. And life and sports will go on. And crybabies will cry.

The Rams are kind of unique because they went to one of the very worst NFL markets in America. But they moved primarily because Kroenkeworld will become an automatic Super Bowl host every five years, plus it's the new home of NFL media, they'll be getting college playoff games down the road, plus the Final Four, plus USMNT, plus USWNT, plus the Olympics, and so on. Kroenkeworld is also mostly privately financed, with Kroenke mostly looking for some tax breaks.

The bigger point though is LA is a legitimate threat of a market for every NFL team, that's why the NFL stadium blackmail game worked so long. With LA now out of the picture, it's gonna be interesting to see if the NFL is still able to get as many stadiums done. But the NHL doesn't have that market outside of Toronto 2, every other potential market is fraught with risks and potential failure. So moving as a threat is way more hollow here, selling to someone who wants to move is another thing but how many owners out there are going to move to a worse market, and pay the relocation fee to do so?

[rhino]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The bolded is exactly my point about emotional manipulation. You've been bred to believe that building a new arena is the magic bullet. That once built, Calgary will never be skipped for concerts ever again. That there aren't any other conceivable reasons for Calgary getting skipped, that it's entirely based on the building. That there's no way it's because Calgary promoters might just be worse than Edmonton promoters. Or that Northlands and now the OEG might just make sweeter offers and be easier to deal with than CSEC. People simply don't want to consider any other possibilities, and I get it, because the arena as a cure all is a wonderfully simple solution. But there is unquestionably more to it than just the arena, and when the new arena is built and Calgary still gets skipped people might finally realize that.

It's quite well known that the reason we miss out on concerts is because of the design of the roof of the dome. It cannot accommodate some equipment that is required. We also miss out on concerts in the summer as we have no outdoor facility that can be used due to the bylaw in and around McMahon. Your speculation about promotors and the ease of dealing with one group or another as a reason for concerts not booking here is ridiculous speculation.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by CF84

Just because a team "could" build their own arena doesn't mean they will.

If I'm an owner of a business and I'm give two options:

-move to new city where multimillion dollar building is already provided but likely lose millions yearly because nobody in the new city really cares about hockey

-stay where I am and spend my own money in one of the best hockey markets in the world and continue making millions yearly in a city that supports my business and has agreed to subsidize a new building as long as I'm reasonable about how much money I expect the tax payers to burden

The choice doesn't seem very difficult to me.

Good post. I agree completely, the choice seems clear.

[rotten42]

Sure....a private business like Amazon comes along and you know Nenshi is all over giving up tax breaks - land deals but a sports franchise is looking for public money and some how its so different. I call bull####.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The bolded is exactly my point about emotional manipulation. You've been bred to believe that building a new arena is the magic bullet. That once built, Calgary will never be skipped for concerts ever again. That there aren't any other conceivable reasons for Calgary getting skipped, that it's entirely based on the building. That there's no way it's because Calgary promoters might just be worse than Edmonton promoters. Or that Northlands and now the OEG might just make sweeter offers and be easier to deal with than CSEC. People simply don't want to consider any other possibilities, and I get it, because the arena as a cure all is a wonderfully simple solution. But there is unquestionably more to it than just the arena, and when the new arena is built and Calgary still gets skipped people might finally realize that.

Uhh, Clay. It is common knowledge that the Saddledome's design makes it unsuitable for most larger arena shows. You're resorting to massive hyperbole and disingenuous twisting of arguments to try and sidestep that fact.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The problem with your argument is that The City is going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new arena anyways, and as a tax payer I'd prefer they did that with the Flames picking up a good chunk of that while continuing to add the benefits to the city beycurrently do. I also want a new arena not to be owned and run by the City which is what will happen if the Flames were to leave. Those situations turn into real problems for cities that go that route.

The problem with your argument is you're equating very different scales of investment. The latest figures on CalgaryNEXT estimated the city having to foot around $1b, and if you believe that the city can't build a less expensive standalone arena... a much less expensive standalone arena, then you're out to lunch. It's not so much that the city shouldn't be helping or paying for these things (because I agree, they'll have to build something eventually), but it's that the massive difference in scale and need is insane. In addition, I hate to break it to you, but the city currently owns the Saddledome, and every proposal from CESC has involved the city owning that building too.

The fact is, privately wealthy billionaires are proposing this venture as a "sure thing" but nobody wants to pay for all it, and nobody wants to own it. Why do you think that is? If it's too expensive, come up with a cheaper proposal.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

...
So moving as a threat is way more hollow here, selling to someone who wants to move is another thing but how many owners out there are going to move to a worse market, and pay the relocation fee to do so?

In strictly economic terms, it would be interesting to math out projected decrease in revenue vs the opportunity (and real) cost and risk of putting 500M into privately funded building.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Sure....a private business like Amazon comes along and you know Nenshi is all over giving up tax breaks - land deals but a sports franchise is looking for public money and some how its so different. I call bull####.

Yeah, I can't think of anything that's different about that...

Amazon HQ2 will be Amazon’s second headquarters in North America. We expect to invest over $5 billion in construction and grow this second headquarters to include as many as 50,000 high-paying jobs – it will be a full equal to our current campus in Seattle. In addition to Amazon’s direct hiring and investment, construction and ongoing operation of Amazon HQ2 is expected to create tens of thousands of additional jobs and tens of billions of dollars in additional investment in the surrounding community.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

It's already basically unusable for any concerts with a stage setup, and last year they basically has to cancel a concert because of 5-10 cm of snow (Eric Church agreed to play acoustic which it wouldn't have done). If we were getting the volume of concerts we used to we likely would have seen a lot more of this last year.

Aside From the fact that it is 28 years old, I've also heard rumours (not sure if true or Not), that the roof was damaged and there was a bunch of patchwork repairs, and Then the flood and similar patchwork repairs occurred. Fully planned on a new stadium so there was really no point in throwing buckets of money into it. Eventually a lot of work needs to be done, and there's no real point in doing that given the age of the stadium.

Garth brooks solved the roof issue for far less than the cost of a new stadium.

[burn_this_city]

I find it unfortunate that we aren't building the new arena now during the recession. Construction costs are down significantly in this province. One will get built eventually, probably during the next boom cycle and we'll pay an extra 30% for it.