Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Jacks

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.

[GGG]

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.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Regorium

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.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Regorium

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.

[Bourque's Twin]

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.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Jacks

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.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Regorium

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.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Ducay

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?

[CampbellsTransgressions]

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.

[camm13]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

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.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by New Era

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

[931228]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

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

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Jacks

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.

[CaptainYooh]

This thread really starting to show which posters are and which aren't real Flames fans. Sad, but true.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This thread really starting to show which posters are and which aren't real Flames fans. Sad, but true.

Go on.

[Rollin22x]

Originally Posted by Jacks

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

[Matty81]

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.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

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

[Chewy]

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?