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

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by JFK

How much? What's the dollar figure? What are these people spending on restaurants and hotels?

Figures not anecdotes. What's the economic impact of a major concert in a major city.

42 million for the 9 Garth Brooks shows.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/ga...ntons-economy/

Sure the city doesn't see a lot of that directly because it goes to businesses. The city would probably see some trickle down from transit and parking revenue.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by New Era

And... ? Is there a clause in there that prevents a Canadian team from relocating? Isn't that contract a national contract, which means its predominantly for Leafs rights? Would the Flames or Jets or Senators or Canucks or Oilers ceasing to exist change that contract in any way (taking away the McJesus factor)?

Lol.

The contract is predicated on the Canadian teams. Losing a Canadian team jeopardizes the whole deal. It is a CANADIAN national broadcasting deal. A team in Seattle doesn't help Rogers sell products in Western Canada. I don't know if a 15 percent reduction in game rights they can carry fits the original scope of the deal.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Lol.

The contract is predicated on the Canadian teams. Losing a Canadian team jeopardizes the whole deal. It is a CANADIAN national broadcasting deal. A team in Seattle doesn't help Rogers sell products in Western Canada. I don't know if a 15 percent reduction in game rights they can carry fits the original scope of the deal.

I'm willing to bet there is a re-opener in there somewhere based on the number of Canadian teams.

If Rogers didn't insist on having it put in, then the NHL might have because they would hope to squeeze a few more dollars from Rogers if QC got a team.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by JFK

And...

Did you think I wouldn't ready your link?

Also.

Maybe I wasn't clear.. but I was asking specifically what the dollar amount OUTSIDE the arena would be. What's the economic impact for the city not for the owners of the arena.

Festivals are another beast altogether. SXSW is amazing, and takes places at different events all over the city, not just one big arena. Poor example.

Yes, I know links work, that is why I add them to my posts. Context matters and I don't want to be accused of hiding or twisting the facts.

You have asked for information that is hard to quantify as the information is not public. Since you obviously feel data is available on everything, can you find me Donald Trump's tax returns?

What I have done is shown you what the revenues are like for a single concert event (who keeps the money is irrelevant). I have also shown you want the value to the economy from a festival. I'm curious why festivals are different when we are talking about the revenue generated for a municipality from an event? Aren't the attendees there for the event and will be spending money as a result of attending said event? I would think from this we can easily surmise there is significant value to a municipality from hosting these events.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Robbob

42 million for the 9 Garth Brooks shows.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/ga...ntons-economy/

Sure the city doesn't see a lot of that directly because it goes to businesses. The city would probably see some trickle down from transit and parking revenue.

So 4M+ per event. Jives with the estimated 5M from out of towners from Junos a few years back.
You're right, directly to the city, not much. To the local economy, significant.

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

So 4M+ per event. Jives with the estimated 5M from out of towners from Junos a few years back.
You're right, directly to the city, not much. To the local economy, significant.

How can something be positive for the economy but not good for the city? It really is not that large of a leap in thinking.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by New Era

You have asked for information that is hard to quantify as the information is not public. .

So I'm not the one claiming the great economic impact that big arena shows generate for the local economy, that was FDW. I was simply asking for facts not anecdotes. If that information is so hard to quantify maybe anyone boasting about that from now on should prove it or STFU about it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

And... ? Is there a clause in there that prevents a Canadian team from relocating? Isn't that contract a national contract, which means its predominantly for Leafs rights? Would the Flames or Jets or Senators or Canucks or Oilers ceasing to exist change that contract in any way (taking away the McJesus factor)?

Yes, but the value of that deal and the next deal is getting eyeballs to watch. You significantly decrease the value of the Saturday late night game by removing the Flames from Canada. If you say the flames Market is around 2.5 million people. Half of Alberta and Sask. That is roughly 7% of the population of Canada.

Now some of those would switch to the oilers and the jets others would abandon hockey. So lets say 3.5% just to throw a number out there. 3.5% of 500 million is 17.5 million. So in the next TV deal you are costing yourself money. An the amount of money you are costing yourself is likely greater than the 8 million dollars per season that is on the table right now.

Feel free to use your own numbers and assess the value but it is certain non-zero and certainly is in the ballpark of the value separating the city and team.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Lol.

The contract is predicated on the Canadian teams. Losing a Canadian team jeopardizes the whole deal. It is a CANADIAN national broadcasting deal. A team in Seattle doesn't help Rogers sell products in Western Canada. I don't know if a 15 percent reduction in game rights they can carry fits the original scope of the deal.

Are you certain that its predicated on ALL Canadian teams? Also, what would the value of losing the Flames in that deal be? For comparison sake, the Flames sold the naming rights to the Saddledome to Scotia Bank for $20M on a 20 year deal. The Leafs just got $800M from the same company on a similar 20 year deal. What do you think the real value of the Flames is to that "national" contract?

[Corral]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You think so? I bet if the Flames win the Cup you get 500,000+ people come to the parade.

Seriously? No, the Flames are not that popular here. This little standoff they have created is going to make that very transparent. And i'm glad the City has called their bluff.

I know it would never happen, but I would like nothing more than to see the Dome half empty on opening night. These negotiations would be concluded very quickly after that.

[peterh]

I just want the new arena built, look at the experience in Nashville and even Edmonton now. Calgary is seriously missing out on making the East Village river area a great entertainment distinct instead we are getting the label of "no-fun" city.

For people who says don't give the billionaires 1 cent, guess what there have been only 3 arenas built in Canada with only private funds and each one of those arenas is in a much bigger city than Calgary. Look at the Quebec City arena built with 100% government funds or Winnipeg's new football Stadium. Calgary barely gets any federal funds for any projects other than the National Music Centre.

The only reason my NYC & Tampa clients have ever heard of Calgary is because of the Flames. That is an indirect benefit that no one even tries to value.

Lastly, Nenshi is very aggressive dealing with private businesses which obviously isn't getting anything done. I don't want Bronconnier in bed with private sector style corruption but Nenshi doesn't have to be so arrogant to these business leaders which as we all know probably have huge egos themselves.

Lastly Ken King should just pull the slightly less nuclear option and announce plans to explore building the arena on the Tsuu T'ina reserve instead of downtown, that would take away a bit of Nenshi's arrogance. I voted for him twice but I am not happy with the progress on this major issue plus his personal relationship with the Concrete Equities CEO.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes, but the value of that deal and the next deal is getting eyeballs to watch. You significantly decrease the value of the Saturday late night game by removing the Flames from Canada. If you say the flames Market is around 2.5 million people. Half of Alberta and Sask. That is roughly 7% of the population of Canada.

Now some of those would switch to the oilers and the jets others would abandon hockey. So lets say 3.5% just to throw a number out there. 3.5% of 500 million is 17.5 million. So in the next TV deal you are costing yourself money. An the amount of money you are costing yourself is likely greater than the 8 million dollars per season that is on the table right now.

Feel free to use your own numbers and assess the value but it is certain non-zero and certainly is in the ballpark of the value separating the city and team.

Okay, this is good. I appreciate the effort. Now we are establishing the value of the team to all interests. That is good. So when the argument is the Flames don't really have much value to the local economy these are the types of numbers we have to consider. This is a number more related to the larger economy and the importance of the team.

[sa226]

Originally Posted by Robbob

42 million for the 9 Garth Brooks shows.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/ga...ntons-economy/

Sure the city doesn't see a lot of that directly because it goes to businesses. The city would probably see some trickle down from transit and parking revenue.

I haven't been following the nuances of the thread so maybe I missed a discussion on this. But this 42 million has been refuted a number of times.

The source of the figure is the Oilers entertainment group and then it goes on to talk about arena finance details.

Not to say there isn't an impact on the local economy, but most unbiased sources say the impact is almost impossible to accurately measure and if they were to guess it would come in much less than 42 million.

Im terrible at linking articles, but ill see if I can find a couple.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

Okay, this is good. I appreciate the effort. Now we are establishing the value of the team to all interests. That is good. So when the argument is the Flames don't really have much value to the local economy these are the types of numbers we have to consider. This is a number more related to the larger economy and the importance of the team.

They have minimal value to the local economy because of the substitution effect. They have a value to the NHL because they are the one being substituted.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Robbob

42 million for the 9 Garth Brooks shows.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/ga...ntons-economy/

Sure the city doesn't see a lot of that directly because it goes to businesses. The city would probably see some trickle down from transit and parking revenue.

Guys, you realize garth brooks just played here, right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

How can something be positive for the economy but not good for the city? It really is not that large of a leap in thinking.

Because it goes into the pockets of business owners, not into the city's public funds. It's great that it benefits local businesses, but it would be at a cost to the city as a whole as the city would still be short money for public services.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by New Era

Are you certain that its predicated on ALL Canadian teams? Also, what would the value of losing the Flames in that deal be? For comparison sake, the Flames sold the naming rights to the Saddledome to Scotia Bank for $20M on a 20 year deal. The Leafs just got $800M from the same company on a similar 20 year deal. What do you think the real value of the Flames is to that "national" contract?

This is so stupid.

Sportsnet has the rights to broadcast all 82 flames games. If you think a loss of 36 national broadcasts would not at least jeopardize the deal as it currently exists I don't know what to tell you.

Even without a provision in the contract, my company would fight tooth and nail to recover a 15% reduction in accessible revenue, including litigation. For the NHL, even the prospect of losing the terms of that deal as they currently exists would have a negative impact on league wide revenue. Losing it entirely and having teams negotiate regional tv deals would be a huge, huge step back for the league.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Corral

Seriously? No, the Flames are not that popular here. This little standoff they have created is going to make that very transparent. And i'm glad the City has called their bluff.

I know it would never happen, but I would like nothing more than to see the Dome half empty on opening night. These negotiations would be concluded very quickly after that.

How many people show up to the parade doesn't matter anyways.

People who don't even follow hockey went to the red mile. They show up for the party and atmosphere not because of their love of hockey and the Flames.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Guys, you realize garth brooks just played here, right?

But it was a scaled down show because of the roof, so people chose to spend proportionally less on dinner and drinks to account for the fact it wasnt as good as the Edmonton setup.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peterh

I just want the new arena built, look at the experience in Nashville and even Edmonton now. Calgary is seriously missing out on making the East Village river area a great entertainment distinct instead we are getting the label of "no-fun" city.

For people who says don't give the billionaires 1 cent, guess what there have been only 3 arenas built in Canada with only private funds and each one of those arenas is in a much bigger city than Calgary. Look at the Quebec City arena built with 100% government funds or Winnipeg's new football Stadium. Calgary barely gets any federal funds for any projects other than the National Music Centre.

The only reason my NYC & Tampa clients have ever heard of Calgary is because of the Flames. That is an indirect benefit that no one even tries to value.

Lastly, Nenshi is very aggressive dealing with private businesses which obviously isn't getting anything done. I don't want Bronconnier in bed with private sector style corruption but Nenshi doesn't have to be so arrogant to these business leaders which as we all know probably have huge egos themselves.

Lastly Ken King should just pull the slightly less nuclear option and announce plans to explore building the arena on the Tsuu T'ina reserve instead of downtown, that would take away a bit of Nenshi's arrogance. I voted for him twice but I am not happy with the progress on this major issue plus his personal relationship with the Concrete Equities CEO.

Is the Tsuu T'ina band likely to even contribute the 200 million dollars that the City has offered so far? Let alone even more? And donate the land and build the infrastructure required? If so, more power to them I guess. Doesn't seem remotely plausible to me.