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

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by getbak

No, not "worst" mayor, WORLD Mayor

Exhibit A why we also need to spend money on libraries.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

Not to mention that unless it's a one off show and not a tour, most concerts that are held at the dome or have chosen to skip the city are not financed by local promoters. A majority of the high end popular artists that opt to head north or skip Calgary are booked by Live Nation or other large conglomerates. The building is a major factor. Period.

Some of the local outdoor and smaller venue events are held by local promoters. But anything large is certainly not funded nor negotiated locally. So the reason for a large amount of concerts skipping the city is not related to issues or difficulty in dealing with the local promoters. As the local promoters are not involved in the high profile tours skipping yyc whatsoever.

I'm saying this as I've read on a few posts here about how some believe dealing with local promoters in Calgary vs Edmonton plays a role in missing out on tours. That's completely false when it comes to major acts skipping.

[troutman]

CSEC should open their books and prove the public benefit. So far evasive when asked dollar figures.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Why do we need a new arena to raise ticket prices? If the Flames need more revenue to keep up, seems plausible that a ticket price increase would still get them there?

You hope to draw in other events to prevent the continual increase in ticket prices. The current building is incapable of holding a great number of events because of structural limitations. The entertainment market has outgrown the Saddledome.

[Makarov]

Personally, some new blood in the ownership group would probably be the most positive potential outcome from this. From the on ice product to new arenas to jerseys, this organization has lacked vision and leadership for years now. To quote the late, great Joker: this team needs an enema.

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by troutman

CSEC should open their books and prove the public benefit. So far evasive when asked dollar figures.

100% agree, as a voter it is tough to make this an election issue if I don't have all the information.

[Ruttiger]

Originally Posted by Gaudfather

This is the kind of clown show that should be unfolding in Edmonton - not Calgary!

It did. You must have a short memory.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, but you did invent an argument that people who realize we need a new arena if we're going to have any hope of getting more large shows are actually saying that "Calgary will never be skipped for concerts ever again" if we got a new arena. That is not what the person you replied to said, and that is not what anyone has said. The argument being presented is that the state of the arena is the single largest factor in why Calgary often gets skipped. Since you can't counter that argument, you instead invented a strawman position to attack.

I agree it is part of the decision making but many of these bands are not going to stop in both Edmonton and Calgary anyway. The fact of the matter is that many "world tours" encompass capital cities of states, provinces and little else no matter what the state of said building. Toss in the fact that many performers simply do not want to play in arenas, new or old and you've got a pretty niche market applying simply to the novelty acts.

If Calgary is truly worried about concerts etc we should be discussing building a single purpose, large scale venue capable of attracting all of today's top performers and not a hockey rink that can host these acts in a pinch.

[The Familia]

Harley Hotchkiss is rolling in his grave right now. I don't think it would have come down to this if he were still around.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by troutman

CSEC should open their books and prove the public benefit. So far evasive when asked dollar figures.

I dont remember the name, but one of the people involved with the Edmonton arena project has offered to come down and show Calgary City Council their community impact study on the first year of operation of Edmontons new facility. Probably an interesting report.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by New Era

You hope to draw in other events to prevent the continual increase in ticket prices. The current building is incapable of holding a great number of events because of structural limitations. The entertainment market has outgrown the Saddledome.

How does that affect the Flames and their ability to be competitive? Do the Flames get revenue from concerts/events? Pardon the ignorance.

[savemedrzaius]

Can someone give me a quick breakdown on what your owner is willing to give the city for going half on construction cost?

What does the city get out of it? Does the city get a percentage of all revenues?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, but you did invent an argument that people who realize we need a new arena if we're going to have any hope of getting more large shows are actually saying that "Calgary will never be skipped for concerts ever again" if we got a new arena. That is not what the person you replied to said, and that is not what anyone has said. The argument being presented is that the state of the arena is the single largest factor in why Calgary often gets skipped. Since you can't counter that argument, you instead invented a strawman position to attack.

Since it's effectively impossible to determine why bands choose to skip somewhere (the bands don't usually tell you why they aren't playing somewhere, of course), we're all speculating. The building is a factor. The biggest? Could be. Could also be Edmonton and Calgary are comparable market sizes and bands who play arena shows often choose to only play one.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Harley Hotchkiss is rolling in his grave right now. I don't think it would have come down to this if he were still around.

Too young to remember the Save Our Flames campaign?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...2000-1.3054645

[Redlan]

Can someone please create a Nenshipuck.com fan board? I threw-up a bit in my mouth.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rhino

No economic case for subsidizing the Flames??? You may want to rethink that statement

No, I have linked study after study that show that investing in an arena is a poor investment. One such study showed that simply rebating the tax dollars to the citizens is a better economic investment than building an arena.

So no I will not rethink this statement when throwing money out a window is a better investment economically than an arena.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

100% agree, as a voter it is tough to make this an election issue if I don't have all the information.

They would just pay for a study to be done by someone that pumps their tires on non-existent public benefit. This would be pointless.

[CF84]

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.

Come on. Don't put words in my mouth. Also, don't talk about how I've been bred.

I didn't say "every form of entertainment will stop in Calgary if a new arena is built." Of course Calgary will still be skipped. It WILL be skipped less often though.

I don't live in Calgary, I don't like Calgary, and I would still gladly cheer for the Flames in another city so I'm not sure how my opinion could be considered an emotional overreaction. I don't hope the Flames move away from Calgary, but I am already unable to afford games, so it doesn't make much of a difference to me where the team is based. I'll always cheer for the Flames.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

How does that affect the Flames and their ability to be competitive? Do the Flames get revenue from concerts/events? Pardon the ignorance.

Yes. The Flames are managing the building and get a cut of all events in the Saddledome. They are also responsible for all expenses.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by New Era

Too young to remember the Save Our Flames campaign?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...2000-1.3054645

The Flames ownership group showed their true colours back then just as they are now. All the past rhetoric about the Flames having owners that give a hoot about the community and being the best in the league is a bunch of garbage.

These guys are money hungry billionaires that will stop at nothing to get their way. At some point I would wager that they will move the team simply out of spite if the city pushed this fight too far.