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

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by greyshep

I will say one positive thing about the Spector interview this morning. He clearly sees the charade for what it is and called that out in the discussion. I appreciated his comment to stop the sheep from running around with their hair on fire scared that the owners are actually going to move this team.

Yeah, it's comical that it took an Edmonton journalist to point out that the other teams won't let a profitable Calgary franchise relocate. The fact the local media hasn't admitted that basic truth shows that they're either in the pocket of the Flames, or just really dim.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

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.

Economic value equivalent to picking up 1/3 of the cost? That seems pretty reasonable.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

they're either in the pockets of the Flames, or just really dim.

Well, we are talking about people like Eric Francis. Don't rule out both.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

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

This is such a false narrative. Bettman bent over backwards in the 90s to keep Canadian teams and prop them up. Did he push US expansion? Sure. Did he work against Canadian teams? Nope.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Economic value equivalent to picking up 1/3 of the cost? That seems pretty reasonable.

I realize that we don't have the details yet, but presuming that the City's contribution is to be repaid by CRL (so really, this amounts to little more than a direct payment from the City to the Flames), I'm surprised that there aren't more posters in this thread saying 1/3 is way too much from the City. For me, it is at the very top of my "tolerable range", and really is only justified by my own personal emotional attachment to the Flames.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

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.

Since they don't own the land I doubt it was on them to build a berm. Furthermore, flood insurance is really tricky and complicated. Coverage usually depends on the water source. A lot of people found out the hard way that their flood insurance didn't cover the kind of flooding they got. And there are limits to insurance both through deductible and maximum coverage limits.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by 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.

No idea what you think you heard as I heard nothing like that at all. One of us needs an ear cleaning.

In fact he was quite clear that they have made a VIC PARK proposal to the city but hadn't heard a word back from them since July 31, and when Nenshi publically proclaimed his vision for Vic Park 2 days ago, KK called his office to get clarity. When he was told by Nenshi's chief of staff that the CSEG idea was a no go for the mayor, KK relayed that information to ownership. They then made a decision to quit negotiating with the city at all.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I realize that we don't have the details yet, but presuming that the City's contribution is to be repaid by CRL (so really, this amounts to little more than a direct payment from the City to the Flames), I'm surprised that there aren't more posters in this thread saying 1/3 is way too much from the City. For me, it is at the very top of my "tolerable range", and really is only justified by my own personal emotional attachment to the Flames.

That's a heavy presumption. There's a school of thought that the City offered only a loan or a loan guarantee for a 1/3 portion, which ends up being a contribution only if the Flames default in payment. Given Nenshi's comments way back about no money, that may be the offer they made.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No idea what you think you heard as I heard nothing like that at all. One of us needs an ear cleaning.

In fact he was quite clear that they have made a VIC PARK proposal to the city but hadn't heard a word back from them since July 31, and when Nenshi publically proclaimed his vision for Vic Park 2 days ago, KK called his office to get clarity. When he was told by Nenshi's chief of staff that the CSEG idea was a no go for the mayor, KK relayed that information to ownership. They then made a decision to quit negotiating with the city at all.

Exactly. King's exact words (re: West Village) was that ownership had "surrendered their position." Meaning they backed off the WV idea.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No idea what you think you heard as I heard nothing like that at all. One of us needs an ear cleaning.

In fact he was quite clear that they have made a VIC PARK proposal to the city but hadn't heard a word back from them since July 31, and when Nenshi publically proclaimed his vision for Vic Park 2 days ago, KK called his office to get clarity. When he was told by Nenshi's chief of staff that the CSEG idea was a no go for the mayor, KK relayed that information to ownership. They then made a decision to quit negotiating with the city at all.

Then I'll have to listen again. Listening to the interview, King was saying that the City was considering a Victoria Park location and that was something the Flames were not going to be doing. This was during the CalgaryNEXT proposal discussions. I wouldn't have posted if that wasn't the case.

My point being, "Plan B" was probably an option from the start for the Flames, and the Flames would be disingenuous to say that it wasn't an option when the City considered it a more viable solution.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No idea what you think you heard as I heard nothing like that at all. One of us needs an ear cleaning.

In fact he was quite clear that they have made a VIC PARK proposal to the city but hadn't heard a word back from them since July 31, and when Nenshi publically proclaimed his vision for Vic Park 2 days ago, KK called his office to get clarity. When he was told by Nenshi's chief of staff that the CSEG idea was a no go for the mayor, KK relayed that information to ownership. They then made a decision to quit negotiating with the city at all.

This is what I heard as well. The underlying tone being that they were firmly rebuffed on their Vic Park Proposal, which means that Nenshi's vision video is full of hot air unless the city intends to pay for a Vic Park arena all by themselves.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by New Era

This may be the most ridiculous thing introduced in this thread. This is your idea of a reasonable parcel of land for development of anything? Did you actually look and see how big that parcel is? It is eight cars wide. And on that you're going to build "hotels and stuff?" That's going to be quite the entertainment district.



Except that the city isn't putting up anything. They are basically co-signing the loan and waiting for the money to be paid back. The post where you claimed to be so right, when you were so wrong, proved that in spades. There are so many here that are pissed about the Flames using the ticket tax as a means to pay for a chunk of their portion, but that is their long term revenue they using for the project. This is revenue they are giving up on every ticket sold. Conversely, the city is just covering a loan with their 1/3 commitment. The Flames have to pay that back. So in reality, the team is paying 1/3 up front, 1/3 in ticket revenues, and then 1/3 in a co-signed loan they are paying back to the city. The Flames pay for it all, and get to do so on a piece of land where there are no other enrichment opportunities, unless you think a piece of land 8 cars wide is suitable for anything but frontage.

They are. IN almost every deal that has been made public the Flames are paying the largest share, and to the tune of two thirds. The major caveat being the external costs of infrastructure improvements and site remediation, which should go to the interests responsible for those assets.
.

I said 1/3 public, 1/3 ticket tax, 1/3 owner - and that's what's reported.

With respect to the "public portion to be paid back" we can speculate about what that means. If it's a CRL - which seems to be the most oft discussed option that is taxpayer money. I don't know what the quarrel is here.

On the site area, I said there was some commercial use lands, if you had read further you would have seen I said if they wanted something more substantial, they should maybe discuss the other side of Olympic Way as well.

Why are you so hostile?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You'd be surprised at how many Calgarians can't afford events at the Saddledome.

I think the majority can afford Hitmen tickets, no?

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Rejean31

Spector, is such a frigging idiot!! On the Fan960 right now talking about this situation and the moron doesn't even know when the Saddledome was built, has said 1986 twice now.

Fan960 was moron central this morning. "I remember when Calgary had can do attitude".

And

"Yeah, I remember when Calgary had 'swagger'".

So I guess you guys need to bring back Calgary's 'swagger' by handing over hundreds of millions to a billionaire and a few multi multi millionaires.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, it's comical that it took an Edmonton journalist to point out that the other teams won't let a profitable Calgary franchise relocate. The fact the local media hasn't admitted that basic truth shows that they're either in the pocket of the Flames, or just really dim.

The flames hired the city's most prominent media executive for a reason.

The livelihood of sports radio in Calgary is dependent on there being an NHL team to cover. The stamps and Dino's and hitmen won't cover it.

They are obviously in the flames Pocket.

[iggy_oi]

How was construction for the saddledome funded?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

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

I honestly don't get this.

Islanders, Carolina, Phoenix and Florida are all doing significantly worse than the Flames financially. What makes anyone think that a mid-revenue team like the Flames will have some sort of priority when moving to Seattle, when bottom 5 revenue teams are struggling to operate at a profit.

Why would the NHL BOG vote to move the Flames before any of these teams that will be lining up at the potential to move to Seattle? Why would they voluntarily reduce the total revenue of the NHL? Just not a smart business decision. Couple this with the potential for Rogers to reopen the NHL TV deal if an NHL team moves, which would be an insane decision. No one else is ponying up that type of money for a TV deal with one less CDN team.

Interest rates are continuing to rise in Canada, which will increase the strength of the Canadian Dollar. The Flames just increased their revenues and profit by doing absolutely nothing in the off season.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

How was construction for the saddledome funded?

Provincial municipal and Federal funding.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is such a false narrative. Bettman bent over backwards in the 90s to keep Canadian teams and prop them up. Did he push US expansion? Sure. Did he work against Canadian teams? Nope.

He didn't even push for US expansion. The BOG - including Harley Hotchkiss and the Flames - pushed for it, began the process and hired Bettman to complete it.

The entire "expand into the US to get a national TV deal" plan predates Bettman by three years. It's also long since wrapped up. People need to stop applying 1993 thinking to 2017.

[Flames_Gimp]

Nenshi has been the stumbling block all along, get rid of him.the flames give back more to the city than a giant blue ring or rocks attached to sticks.