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

[the-rasta-masta]

The interesting thing about moving to a Seattle market for the Flames is that they would likely have to share a building with an incoming basketball team, and likely wouldn't have the same opportunity to take in revenue from concerts and events as they would as an anchor tenant of even the existing Saddledome.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You want to play that game with Murray Edwards and Clay Riddell?

Good luck with that. You will lose that battle every single time. Again, that is just the reality of things. If that is yout stance, be prepared for the team to leave and sooner rather than later.

As for your poll question, I was under the impression that has been done and it was a majority that wanted a new arena using public funds, but I may be wrong on that.

I've met both Edwards and Riddell, but only seen Edwards in actual negotiations. I can say this - he's legit usually the smartest guy in the room (and the room had lots of smart guys) and he has a practically photographic memory. He's tough, but I wouldn't describe him as unfair with the other side. And he doesn't really bluff. He takes tough stands and is prepared to follow through - he has simply walked from deals I've seen, where the other side figured it was just a tactic.

There was a poll like you say, but the question was a little more nuanced. there was a willingness to use public funds, but of course no one wanted their taxes to go up.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rvey-1.4110440

[_Q_]

I don't think this current ownership group would just get up an move to Seattle. They would, however, sell the team to an owner that wants to put a team there.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think one thing that gets missed with Nenshis arrogance is he wins.

He got most of the deal he wanted against Calgary suburban developers
He got most of the deal he wanted against Uber
And now he is swinging dicks with Murray Edwards.

So far Nenshis arrogance has been effective at delivering in these types of negotiatons.

He just got the Green Line funding he so coveted as well. The SWRR deal also simply would not have happened without him. There was a lot of repairing of the relationship with the Tsuut'ina after Bronco left. These were much more delicate ones though compared to the very public squabbles on the others, but different tactics win different kinds of negotiations.

[East Coast Flame]

The Seattle threat is laughable. The group that is building the stadium is going to want to own their own team. So either the Flames sell or become a tenant there with no revenue outside of hockey. Zero chance either happens.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I don't think this current ownership group would just get up an move to Seattle. They would, however, sell the team to an owner that wants to put a team there.

That's where some of the sceptics regarding a move appear to make a mistake. They figure, since the team might not make as much money in Seattle (which is a big if, given Canadian dollars, Canadian prices, whatever deal could be made on their arena, etc), the owners would be crazy to move. But if the owners just sell, take the money and run, leaving new Seattle owners to figure out the rest, I don't see what the impediment is. Even if the Flames' owners just break even on their initial investment, they still have had the benefit of their ownership for the last few decades (which varies per owner). If I buy in at $50M, make $3M per year for 10 years, then sell at $50M, I'm OK with that. Plus, no capital gains on the sale. Heck, if I take a loss, that's a tax writeoff.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

The Seattle threat is laughable. The group that is building the stadium is going to want to own their own team. So either the Flames sell or become a tenant there with no revenue outside of hockey. Zero chance either happens.

Why would there be zero chance of a sale? The various owners of the Flames have sold their interests in the past from time to time.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

The interesting thing about moving to a Seattle market for the Flames is that they would likely have to share a building with an incoming basketball team, and likely wouldn't have the same opportunity to take in revenue from concerts and events as they would as an anchor tenant of even the existing Saddledome.

Except the Flames would be moving to Seattle, not the Flames ownership group. If the Flames leave Calgary it will be through a sale. The Flames owners will have said enough is enough and wash their hands of the hockey team. They will happily take their money and run if they no longer have interest in the venture or think it provides no value to them. If the Flames move to Seattle it is because they were sold and they become property of the group that owns the Seattle arena.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rage2

Teams aren't going to care about a one time $10m payment that dilutes their long term revenues and valuations, especially since NHL isn't at a level of demand that can handle another expansion after Vegas. They would 100% prefer relocation today.

Then why wasn't a failing market relocated to Vegas. Also the NHL was willing to award more than one franchise but only got the one offer. I don't see any datapoint suggesting that they wouldn't approve a Seattle expansion franchise if the money is there.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except the Flames would be moving to Seattle, not the Flames ownership group. If the Flames leave Calgary it will be through a sale. The Flames owners will have said enough is enough and wash their hands of the hockey team. They will happily take their money and run if they no longer have interest in the venture or think it provides no value to them. If the Flames move to Seattle it is because they were sold and they become property of the group that owns the Seattle arena.

And like every other NHL that has been sold recently, you don't think there would be preference given to a group that wants to keep it in Calgary?

[Erick Estrada]

Murray Edwards is pretty tight with Bettman and the NHL. I can see some of the other owners maybe having enough but is there any indication that Edwards would want out of the NHL? Considering he's one of the more involved owners in the NHL it appears to me he likes being part of the club and would move the team before selling. I don't think selling the team is an option.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

And like every other NHL that has been sold recently, you don't think there would be preference given to a group that wants to keep it in Calgary?

Yeah.... And to further discuss your point, wouldn't there realistically be an owner to emerge that would see the fact that this is a top hockey market and work with city council to get an arena deal that works for all those involved? If Murray Edwards et al can't make I work in Calgary, then that's on them. Let's get real, Calgary in 2017 isn't 1993 Winnipeg.

The more I think about this, the more it becomes clear that city council has the upper hand in negotiations.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except the Flames would be moving to Seattle, not the Flames ownership group. If the Flames leave Calgary it will be through a sale. The Flames owners will have said enough is enough and wash their hands of the hockey team. They will happily take their money and run if they no longer have interest in the venture or think it provides no value to them. If the Flames move to Seattle it is because they were sold and they become property of the group that owns the Seattle arena.

You can't just buy an existing NHL team and relocate it. The sale and relocation still have to be approved by the NHL board of governors. Something that won't happen.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

And like every other NHL that has been sold recently, you don't think there would be preference given to a group that wants to keep it in Calgary?

Am I missing something? Has another ownership group stepped forward offering to buy the Flames and then operate in Calgary without a NHL building? I'm asking because I haven't heard of anyone.

I do think that the hope of someone stepping up to buy the Flames to keep them in Calgary without a new arena deal is unreasonable. If the current group, which is well funded and very patient, can't make this work it is unlikely that someone else is going to jump on their white charger and be the shining knight that saves the day. This ownership group washes its hands of this team, and this team is headed elsewhere. If Bettman has been to town (twice) on ownership's behalf, the league is already in their corner and would likely grant them permission to do as they see fit.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

And like every other NHL that has been sold recently, you don't think there would be preference given to a group that wants to keep it in Calgary?

You would think, but a young team on the verge of greatness would be a great way to fill a new arena. I have to believe Calgary would be outbid

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think one thing that gets missed with Nenshis arrogance is he wins.

He got most of the deal he wanted against Calgary suburban developers
He got most of the deal he wanted against Uber
And now he is swinging dicks with Murray Edwards.

So far Nenshis arrogance has been effective at delivering in these types of negotiatons.

I see nothing wrong with his arrogance. He is smarter than 99% of the people on the planet. and he isn't corrupt. I'd take him any day over lapdog mental midgets like Bronnconnier and Bill Smith.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by New Era

Am I missing something? Has another ownership group stepped forward offering to buy the Flames and then operate in Calgary without a NHL building? I'm asking because I haven't heard of anyone.

Am I missing something? Why is this even a possible scenario/needed at this point? There is zero indication the Flames owners are selling so no, of course another group stepping forward hasn't happened.

If one, two, or all owners wasn't to sell the team would be kept local. A guy Brett Wilson tried to be into the Flames before getting 5% of the Predators. You know he'd love to ditch that measly percentage for a much larger stake in his own team. Hell maybe Uber founder, Calgarian and seven billion dollar man wants a piece of his former local team.

I'll also reiterate.. the team can't relocate without the approval of the BOG, something that won't happen, new owners or not.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by JFK

The sale and relocation still have to be approved by the NHL board of governors. Something that won't happen.

And why is that? Why would the BoG block the sale of the Calgary Flames? Is it because Calgary is such a huge market? Is it because Calgary is such a major metropolitan area? Is it because Calgary is such a large media market? Is it because Calgary is such a major economic market? Other than being Canadian (a strike to most owners) and being in hockey country, what makes Calgary a market that the BoG would trip all over themselves blocking a sale? This is a team that has come to an impasse in getting a new building constructed. The viability of the team is now in question. Why would the BoG stand in the way of the owners following though on their desire to sell the team?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

We have the saddledome. It's 30 years old. easy.

Which sucks for concerts because the rigging setup a lot of large shows use needs to be hung from the ceiling and the Saddledome cannot support that.

Not sure how many times that needs to be reiterated. Calgary misses on our big shows that bring people from out of town, bring business to hotels/restaurants because the Saddledome setup cannot support their speaker/lighting setups without massive modifications. Just because Garth Brooks eventually decided to bring a modified setup does not mean that typically happens.

If Calgary wants to be a premier city that brings in big name rock, pop, country concerts then yes, we need a new arena ASAP. The Flames are not the only reason a new building is needed. So yes a new arena is needed if Calgary wants to be a premier destination for concerts. These concerts bring people from out of town to stay in hotels, eat at restaurants. The bands themselves and their crews also stay in hotels and eat at restaurants. Some people do not seem to be considering this aspect of a new arena.

Personally I've travelled in the past to Seattle and Vancouver to see shows from bands that skipped Calgary. We could have the reverse. People travelling from Sask, BC, rural AB to come see major shows. It brings in tourism dollars no question.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by New Era

And why is that? Why would the BoG block the sale of the Calgary Flames? Is it because Calgary is such a huge market? Is it because Calgary is such a major metropolitan area? Is it because Calgary is such a large media market? Is it because Calgary is such a major economic market? Other than being Canadian (a strike to most owners) and being in hockey country, what makes Calgary a market that the BoG would trip all over themselves blocking a sale? This is a team that has come to an impasse in getting a new building constructed. The viability of the team is now in question. Why would the BoG stand in the way of the owners following though on their desire to sell the team?

They wouldn't block a sale, they'd block a move. Pay attention bro.

For all those reasons (ignoring your dramatics) yes and the fact the BOG wants to keep Seattle open for huge potential expansion dollars.