Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Manhattanboy]

I really am tired of Ken King. Man he must be a fabulous CEO. Because he is awful as a PR rep.

[bubbsy]

The q and a not as good for king than his prepped statement

[Textcritic]

Am I missing something? I am trying really hard but struggling to see from K. King's perspective how the Flames are contributing 100% according to the City's proposal minus the land contribution "accounting trick." what am I missing?

[Philly06Cup]

Flames need the city of Calgary. There are no better hockey markets.

City of Calgary needs the Flames. The Flames are strong part of the culture and identity of the city.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

lol 120% and claiming the ticket surcharge is their money also.

haha.

But it is their money that is ear-marked for loan repayment, it is still revenue that could be used other ways without the building. They still will pay tax on this revenue. To say it is not their revenue would imply the money is earned tax free (Corporate tax). That is not the case.

[Roughneck]

So there you have it. A ticket surcharge won't see a $100 ticket becoming a $108 ticket, but instead means the Flames are only going to keep $92 from a $100 ticket.

I guess?

[Split98]

We need new ownership.

As owners of the Calgary Flames, you should rather vomit than compare yourselves to the Oilers. I'll compare you to the Leafs and the Canadiens -- or hell... Seattle.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Am I missing something? I am trying really hard but struggling to see from K. King's perspective how the Flames are contributing 100% according to the City's proposal minus the land contribution "accounting trick." what am I missing?

Take into account who is speaking and you will get your answer.

[Otto-matic]

Thus ends my support of Ken King in any capacity in the Flames. I hope he gets canned.

[Locke]

Edmonton Deal again. Third time hes referenced it.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Am I missing something? I am trying really hard but struggling to see from K. King's perspective how the Flames are contributing 100% according to the City's proposal minus the land contribution "accounting trick." what am I missing?

Because any money out of their revenue to pay for a ticket tax or to pay back the city comes out of their revenue so they pay 100%.

Or something.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by New Era

I agree with you. That is exactly what the debate is about. It sucks that the business you work for doesn't have the type of clout, or are in the right industry, to get this special treatment. But that is the nature of the beast. Trust me, I would love to see things to be as simplistic as you suggest, but that is not the reality of the world we live in.

And I get that. Once you reach a certain size and clout, special treatment is part of the game. It's how the world works.

You can use a lot of words to describe a deal where billionaires get special treatment. Realistic, opportunist, visionary...sure. But fair is not one of them.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

So there you have it. A ticket surcharge won't see a $100 ticket becoming a $108 ticket, but instead means the Flames are only going to keep $92 from a $100 ticket.

I guess?

No he's saying the Flames could charge $108 and keep it all if they wanted to but in this deal $8 is going to the ticket tax but it's really their money.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Flames need the city of Calgary. There are no better hockey markets.

City of Calgary needs the Flames. The Flames are strong part of the culture and identity of the city.

I am strongly starting to believe the Flames need new owners.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Split98

We need new ownership.

No, they need a new CEO.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Am I missing something? I am trying really hard but struggling to see from K. King's perspective how the Flames are contributing 100% according to the City's proposal minus the land contribution "accounting trick." what am I missing?

Putting my crazy cap on:

35 year lease worth of property tax = 1/2
Ticket tax fronting = 1/3
Flames portion = 1/3

= 120%?

I mean, I guess that's how he's adding it up in his head? Crazy guy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah I'm thinking King has been sent out there to get the public fully rallied behind the 3 way split deal. I refuse to believe he's this stupid or tone deaf.

[RM14]

"The city's deal for a new arena makes less sense than staying in the dome".

[robaur]

Wow. It's obviously clear that Flames expect the City to donate ~$200M for the arena and not expect anything in return.

So what is the point of the Flames boasting about the Flames Foundation and philanthropic contributions to Calgary, when they are expecting, at the end of the day, to receive a lump-sum payment in the form of a Gift/Charitable contribution for a new Arena to generate revenue for ownership.

FFS. This press conference just made the Flames look so much worse.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Bane

As others have said previously in the thread, unless they cap ticket prices now, and the ticket tax comes out of their existing ticket prices, then its not their revenue from this negotiating perspective. The money is coming from the users.

So if the Flames increased the ticket price by the same amount as the tax without calling it a tax then that would be their revenue but since it called a tax it is not. Maybe I am missing something.