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

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Case in point is the floods of 2013.

That building looked like it may be a candidate for demolition as opposed to being brought back to functionality.

IIRC, the Flames spent in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars when it was all said and done for clean up, replacement of equipment and seats, along with all the cursory expenses of that disaster. All at a time when they weren't bringing in a penny of revenue. It was quite a display of "get er done".

To be fair I'm sure the Flames have something called insurance to cover such costs for flooding damage. There was very little get er done on there part in that situation.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Let's roll it back a bit here. The Flames organization has given a great deal to this city over it's tenure here. Helping to building many public facilities through charitable donations and fundraisers. As well as the individual players themselves.

There is no doubt the Flames have a positive impact on the city. But their positive impact is also only maximized if they work with the cities long term development plans.

Look, I actually really liked the idea of CalgaryNext. The field-house. The riverside placement. The clean up of the creosote. Improvements for that nightmare intersection. I was all in for that. Even if their pitch wasn't absolute bonkers, the city has planning that it does. Long term planning, like decades. The idea that a sports team will just throw a huge wrench into that because they want part of the development funds but want to put the stadium wherever they want is at the very least kind of annoying.

CalgaryNext was an offer that the city rejected out of hand. The Flames are past that and onto Plan B which the city offered and I'm assuming the Flames rejected out of hand. So that's 2 plans dead.

The Flames are saying now that the city is not talking to them anymore so they will no longer pursue a new arena and play in the SaddleDome until it's no longer feasible to do so.

I think it had to get to this point eventually. Let's see what City Council does. They could simply ignore yesterday's news conference and go on business as usual.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

If this all boils down the allocation of city tax dollars, how can some posters be so adamantly convinced that their OPINION on how dollars should be spend is correct? I fully support a portion of tax dollars subsidizing a new arena, because I personally see the benefit (even if intangible, and uneconomic) a new arena brings to the city. I also respect others that don't share that opinion. But this thread is filled with people getting up on a soap box and claiming that somehow their opinion is more valid than others. Its not.

That's pretty much every thread from politics to signing players

[442scotty]

As usual this thread has turned into a pissing match between two opposing lines of thought.

While the designs were ugly and needed work I think the west village idea as a complete sports, commercial and residential development was an awesome idea. Expensive? You bet but a win for ALL involved in the long run and will never be more affordable .

On another point, if the Flames need more revenue I have no problem with pay for viewing say $5? Per game.

As for attending games, I can afford a few each year but having to deal with the traffic and parking is such a problem I can't be bothered.

I hope the Flames stay but life goes on if they leave. I will support them wherever. Being from Winnipeg and having gone through the loss of the original Jets, I can tell you that the community will suffer. Sports team bring people together no matter your race or beliefs. Losing the Flames will have a negative effect on the city. And if you haven't walked in those shoes you have no idea...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

To be fair I'm sure the Flames have something called insurance to cover such costs for flooding damage. There was very little get er done on there part in that situation.

You're both right.

Damage to the Dome almost certainly came out to well over $3 million. Most of it would have been covered by insurance. But not all. That remainder would have been an unexpected cost.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Like it or not, the existing Saddledome, in it's current stay of decay and age was a gathering place, a city symbol of pride and has hosted thousands and thousands of events that have enhanced our community. Whether you like hockey, don't like hockey, like music, don't like music, like olympics don't like olympics. The economic benefits of the team, their gifts to foundations and player time towards charity events enhance our community. A modern arena is a continued extension of this for decades and future generations to come.

You'd be surprised at how many Calgarians can't afford events at the Saddledome. It's not some universal access public good. It's a venue for expensive entertainment events that are beyond the means of many people in this city. $260 for a couple people to watch a game just isn't on for a lot of Calgarians. Neither is $140 for a concert. Events at a new arena will be even more exclusive.

And the Flames might give, what, $5 mil a year to charity? Which is nice. But every major pro sports team in North America does the same. Frankly, I'd rather the city give out $5 mil a year in charity on behalf of the Flames than bankroll the CSEC's private business to the tune of $200 mil.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Case in point is the floods of 2013.

That building looked like it may be a candidate for demolition as opposed to being brought back to functionality.

IIRC, the Flames spent in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars when it was all said and done for clean up, replacement of equipment and seats, along with all the cursory expenses of that disaster. All at a time when they weren't bringing in a penny of revenue. It was quite a display of "get er done".

Of their own money? Or insurance claim for damage totals?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

If this all boils down the allocation of city tax dollars, how can some posters be so adamantly convinced that their OPINION on how dollars should be spend is correct? I fully support a portion of tax dollars subsidizing a new arena, because I personally see the benefit (even if intangible, and uneconomic) a new arena brings to the city. I also respect others that don't share that opinion. But this thread is filled with people getting up on a soap box and claiming that somehow their opinion is more valid than others. Its not.

This is a reasonable argument, but I think you are the first person to make it. Rarely will someone actually come out and say the Civic pride of owning the flames is worth x dollars. Instead they try to point to economic value which is false and that's when I am adamantly convinced by opinion is correct.

So what dollar value are you willing to subsidize the flames to in order to keep them here? Acknowledging that there isn't an economic benefit to doing so.

[Dogbert]

Love how I'm always hearing about how "entitled" liberals are supposed to be, yet the last three or four years of elections have all featured conservatives and their allies outright threatening the electorate if they don't vote for their preferred candidate.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Of their own money? Or insurance claim for damage totals?

They did claim some of it on insurance.

a lot of it was not covered however.

Either way, i was just showing an example how the team did/does have expenses in that old barn.

[DiracSpike]

This raising of tensions just before the season is unfortuante but at least it looks like Tinordi's brain melted sometime this morning and got banned, so not all bad I guess.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is a reasonable argument, but I think you are the first person to make it. Rarely will someone actually come out and say the Civic pride of owning the flames is worth x dollars. Instead they try to point to economic value which is false and that's when I am adamantly convinced by opinion is correct.

So what dollar value are you willing to subsidize the flames to in order to keep them here? Acknowledging that there isn't an economic benefit to doing so.

I made that point. The Flames make people feel good.

That said I believe there's economic value that those articles never talk about. Things like people driving in from other cities to attend and staying at hotels. A new arena will get the next all-star game. Edmonton and Calgary with brand new arenas could host a World Cup. Having McDavid helps in this case. The arena can host a basketball qualifier (now that they are split up like soccer). It can host Davis Cup. It can have a real circus show instead of one in a dinky tent. It can get more concerts as people have said. And charge more for all of them!

The arena holds 20,000. The goal is to get different segments of 20,000 people there for different reasons and have their money trickle down.

Matty81 might find more reasons to come in from Kelowna.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

This raising of tensions just before the season is unfortuante but at least it looks like Tinordi's brain melted sometime this morning and got banned, so not all bad I guess.

Aww you got me excited, then I looked and he was only in the sin bin.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by 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.

The best thing that could come out of this train-wreck is Murray Edwards selling his stake and moving on.

[CalgaryFan1988]

No doubt Bettman is licking his chops at the potential of having another american team and getting rid of another Canadian one.

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what dollar value are you willing to subsidize the flames to in order to keep them here? Acknowledging that there isn't an economic benefit to doing so.

Its too simple to just throw out an absolute figure. It has to be in the context of what the flames are contributing and relative to the total cost of the project. But I do see the Calgary flames relationship with the City as a partnership with mutual benefit and as such there should be some sharing. Similar question to you....do you think the Flames add zero value to the City of Calgary?

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

To be fair I'm sure the Flames have something called insurance to cover such costs for flooding damage. There was very little get er done on there part in that situation.

I'm pretty sure they didn't get the claim (or at least as much as they would have hoped) due to the fact the had ignored reports and requests to do something about what is essentially a spillway that they have for an employee entrance on the river side. They were suppose to improve the berm to reduce flood risk.

[Ozy_Flame]

I didn't actually get to listen to Ken King until this morning on the Pinder show (replay from yesterday), and I have to say - he's still pushing for a West Village location and they think they have a legitimate, fair proposal.

If they think the West Village and CalgaryNEXT is still a viable option, then these negotations are even worse off than I thought. Flames trying to shoehorn their preferred location and then walking away from talks with the City is crazy. There is no way they haven't considered the Victoria Park location, this is grandstanding.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

Its too simple to just throw out an absolute figure. It has to be in the context of what the flames are contributing and relative to the total cost of the project. But I do see the Calgary flames relationship with the City as a partnership with mutual benefit and as such there should be some sharing. Similar question to you....do you think the Flames add zero value to the City of Calgary?

I don't think the Flames add zero value.

I would be happy if the Flames wanted to work with the City's framework for some sort of entertainment district, and then the City gave them a small property tax subsidy and basically design the district around the Flames' requirements.

The fact that the Flames want the City to build the majority of the arena, assume the liability, give them free land and take on the depreciating asset is too much for me. The benefit that the upper middle class/rich people don't have to drive 300km to see a concert is not that worthwhile in my opinion.

[Northendzone]

I know this thread is 45 pages now, so forgive if this question has been asked and answered but why was bettman in town yesterday? did he golf? or was he there to play the real heavy?

personally, I would like to see the flames ask and the city's offer.

and like bingo, I think the way both sides have gone about this is shameful - there should have been more of a partnership from the get go - but what do I know about running a pro sports team or civic politics.

In my current world the flames leaving would nto have a huge impact to me - but given the choice I'd rather see them stay if the right deal is there for everyone.