Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-21-2017, 08:38 PM   #2121
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks View Post
I'm not crazy about spending tax dollars on arenas but to me there are a few basic facts.
1) The Flames are never going to self fund an arena. Besides the fact that it makes no financial sense as an investment, owning the building would tie the team down for 30+ years and leave them with no negotiating power against present or future governments. It's not going to happen, ever.
2) Calgary will eventually have to replace the Saddledome. It's nearing the end of it's days. Might be 5 years, might be 15 years but it has to be replaced eventually.
3) If the Flames stick around until they can't make money in the Dome anymore then leave then the city/province will be on the hook for 100% of the costs. Anyone who says they will never leave or can't leave is fooling themselves. They aren't going to stay in Calgary and lose money when they can go to a nice new, shiny, rent/cost free arena in a different city.

If you can accept the above as true then it is obvious that a deal needs to be made with the Flames or it will cost us more in the long run. I have no problem with the Flames claim that the ticket tax is part of their contribution, you can only charge so much for a ticket. I think the Flames have to put in a bit more but I think their proposal is closer than the city on what will be required to get the deal done.
This train of thought is predicated on the Flames leaving not being an option. It very much is. It's pretty clear that even on the Flames forum, there are a significant number that have no qualms about them leaving.
Regorium is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:38 PM   #2122
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Exp:
Default

Number 3 is not true at least in the near term. The Flames make 18 million per year and spend to the cap each year. There revenue sources remain constant and given that everyone already has new arenas there hierarchy in profitability will remain constant. Therefore if the owners are satisfied with their current return there is no reason to move until the Dome needs replacing.
GGG is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:40 PM   #2123
monkeyman
First Line Centre
 
monkeyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik- View Post
I think there's an assumption that some type of number of Canadian markets involved would be in the contract, but there's no proof it exists. Roger's may have just felt that a Canadian market leaving would be unthinkable and didn't bother to account for it, but I can't see them being optimistic to that level.
Also, I don't think Rogers is doing well under the current contract. If that's the case, they may welcome an opportunity, any opportunity to adjust or nullify their current deal.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
monkeyman is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:46 PM   #2124
Jacks
Franchise Player
 
Jacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium View Post
This train of thought is predicated on the Flames leaving not being an option. It very much is. It's pretty clear that even on the Flames forum, there are a significant number that have no qualms about them leaving.
Not sure if you read what I wrote, I said they will leave eventually with no arena. Only a few people are saying good riddance, some others are telling themselves it will never happen.
Jacks is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:47 PM   #2125
Robbob
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium View Post
I think if the CSEC has stipulated that the Saddledome must be demolished due to a non-compete clause, then it absolutely becomes a contribution from the City.

Otherwise if we're okay with having two arenas and the City chooses to demolish the Saddledome for planning or their own reasons, then it shouldn't go into the calculation.
I don't think the city would want the saddledome to remain standing. The costs to keep it operational for a handfull of events would not be worth it.
Robbob is online now  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:48 PM   #2126
Bourque's Twin
First Line Centre
 
Bourque's Twin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Section 120
Exp:
Default

I can't quantify the public's benefit so I can't say what I think the City should throw in.

I think the City's finance department should simplify and publicly show how each proposal would fit within the City's budget and income statement going forward. They should also show what other major capital projects are in the pipeline and if an arena should be a higher or lower priority.
Bourque's Twin is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:50 PM   #2127
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks View Post
Not sure if you read what I wrote, I said they will leave eventually with no arena. Only a few people are saying good riddance, some others are telling themselves it will never happen.
Yeah I got that part, the rest of your post that's basically saying "the only way to keep the Flames is to throw money at them" is what I'm responding to.

If we don't care whether they leave or stay, why would we take on a terrible deal just to keep them here? The entire idea of taking a terrible deal (as your post suggested) is predicated on the desire for the Flames staying over anything else.
Regorium is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:54 PM   #2128
Jacks
Franchise Player
 
Jacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium View Post
Yeah I got that part, the rest of your post that's basically saying "the only way to keep the Flames is to throw money at them" is what I'm responding to.

If we don't care whether they leave or stay, why would we take on a terrible deal just to keep them here? The entire idea of taking a terrible deal (as your post suggested) is predicated on the desire for the Flames staying over anything else.
First of all, who is "we"?
I'm willing to bet the vast majority of fans care a lot whether the Flames leave or stay. Regardless, any major Canadian city is going to have an arena, if the Flames aren't paying a sizeable chunk of it and aren't the anchor tenant then it will cost us a hell of a lot more in the long run to replace the Dome.
Jacks is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:55 PM   #2129
calgaryblood
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay View Post
Also, city seems to be pushing hard as showing the user fees as a separate source of funding; I'd say thats one point ownership is correct on.
Except when they're describing the Edmonton deal it becomes a "user fee", right?
calgaryblood is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 09:14 PM   #2130
CampbellsTransgressions
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

From their joke proposal:

"(or even for that matter, "fair", based on other arena deals in comparable cities)."

LOL

You want to know what's not fair? Everything in life. Go #### yourselves, Flames.

Not watching a game this year just like last year after they scumbagged around with the Wideman ordeal.

Not the organization I grew up following.

If I'm to believe that the Flames will fold without a new arena, then good. Lets see how the NHL addresses a full blown crisis.
CampbellsTransgressions is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 09:38 PM   #2131
camm13
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions View Post
From their joke proposal:

"(or even for that matter, "fair", based on other arena deals in comparable cities)."

LOL

You want to know what's not fair? Everything in life. Go #### yourselves, Flames.

Not watching a game this year just like last year after they scumbagged around with the Wideman ordeal.

Not the organization I grew up following.

If I'm to believe that the Flames will fold without a new arena, then good. Lets see how the NHL addresses a full blown crisis.
Bye.
camm13 is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 09:39 PM   #2132
longsuffering
First Line Centre
 
longsuffering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Just because I said one deal was fair does not mean that I can't think other deals are fair as well. Believe it or not, the whole world doesn't ascribe to a single perspective or idea on what is fair. Some people can hold a very nuanced view where give and take on each side can provide a fair deal.




Rent to the tune of $275M dollars! Be accurate. There was nothing in the deal about the city picking up anything more than the $225 million, and it was meant to be all encompassing.



Is that really your position? Really? An you accuse me of trolling? The Flames presentation suggested they were fronting $275M in cash.



Is this about your ego and your poll having to be right or something? Because I can't believe anyone would really give a rip about someone else thinking that there are more than one way to skin a cat. Why do you care that I think both proposals have merit and could be the foundation for a deal? Is this more about you being right than the a deal being formulated that can work for all parties? Sure seems that way based on your attacks on me.



Says I can see the value of multiple positions and don't have to create a singular position and then brow beat people into agreeing with it. You might want to look into that. There are many ways to any solution, not just a single one.
I pointed out you said 1/3 of City funding was fair who then turned around and said 52% was also fair.

If you see pointing out that inconsistency is an attack, I don't know what to say.

Not to mention that we've learned the Flames aren't fronting anything like $275 million.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
longsuffering is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 09:47 PM   #2133
931228
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions View Post
From their joke proposal:

"(or even for that matter, "fair", based on other arena deals in comparable cities)."

LOL

You want to know what's not fair? Everything in life. Go #### yourselves, Flames.

Not watching a game this year just like last year after they scumbagged around with the Wideman ordeal.

Not the organization I grew up following.

If I'm to believe that the Flames will fold without a new arena, then good. Lets see how the NHL addresses a full blown crisis.

This is one of the worst post i’ve ever read
931228 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 931228 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-21-2017, 09:55 PM   #2134
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks View Post
3) If the Flames stick around until they can't make money in the Dome anymore then leave then the city/province will be on the hook for 100% of the costs.
100% of the costs and 100% of the revenue. The Flames want the city to pay 50% of the costs and receive 0% of the revenue. What's the better deal?

Remember, the Flames needed a new deal in the mid-90s because the deal they had where the city and Stampede received a significant amount of the revenue from the Saddledome saw too much money going to the city and Stampede board and not enough to the Flames.



Also, if the city is building a new facility on their own, it doesn't necessarily need to cost $500 million.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 09:56 PM   #2135
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

This thread really starting to show which posters are and which aren't real Flames fans. Sad, but true.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
CaptainYooh is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 09:58 PM   #2136
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
This thread really starting to show which posters are and which aren't real Flames fans. Sad, but true.
Go on.
nik- is offline  
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Old 09-21-2017, 09:59 PM   #2137
Rollin22x
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Rural AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks View Post
First of all, who is "we"?
I'm willing to bet the vast majority of fans care a lot whether the Flames leave or stay. Regardless, any major Canadian city is going to have an arena, if the Flames aren't paying a sizeable chunk of it and aren't the anchor tenant then it will cost us a hell of a lot more in the long run to replace the Dome.


Why would the city have to have an arena? Especially if there isn't a hockey team to play there. An arena doesn't define a city.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rollin22x is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 10:03 PM   #2138
Matty81
Franchise Player
 
Matty81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

So what are they really apart... Bottom line?

Just spitballing but 40 mil up front is the difference in the city contribution on the plan plus the city wants their 185 mil back over 35 years which the flames dont wanna do.... That has a present value of 110 mil using current prime interest rate.

So 150 mil apart, give or take the dome demo and land costs and quibbling over where that fits. It is not huge. Let's all agree to have them split the difference at 75 each and move on am i right?

Definately not worth the amount of drama these big babies are creating.
Matty81 is offline  
Old 09-21-2017, 10:03 PM   #2139
transplant99
Fearmongerer
 
transplant99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions View Post
From their joke proposal:

"(or even for that matter, "fair", based on other arena deals in comparable cities)."

LOL

You want to know what's not fair? Everything in life. Go #### yourselves, Flames.

Not watching a game this year just like last year after they scumbagged around with the Wideman ordeal.

Not the organization I grew up following.

If I'm to believe that the Flames will fold without a new arena, then good. Lets see how the NHL addresses a full blown crisis.

Good to see people staying rational.. LOL
transplant99 is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-21-2017, 10:11 PM   #2140
Chewy
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Do the flames have to be a cap team?

Tell the public they are going to spend 90% of the cap.

The other 10% that the team was going to spend on player salaries, goes into funding the new arena.

I am sure that will be enough to bridge the gap between the city and the Calgary flames.

Thoughts?
Chewy is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:22 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy