Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Fire

So, what's your point? No matter what decade it is, the fans will not support a mediocre hockey team with no hope for the future.

What do you call 2006-2014

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by nik-

ok.

What's your point? Two decades ago and two CBA's ago things were different!

Yes, Calgary had an economic leg to stand on two decades ago and still couldn't guarantee consistent numbers at the gate. There's a hell of a lot of empty assumptions that the city is going to fully rebound from this slump. With the...added economic bureaucracy now conflated with doing buisness in Alberta oil these corporations that have been abandoning ship "for the time being" are just going to find it easier and cheaper to stay out and invest elsewhere. If the corporate support erodes what's going to drive the salaries that allow people to regularly afford seasons tickets?

[fotiou22]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

And? He just made Ken King look like a total amateur.

Nenshi can be an arrogant nerd, but he's intelligent and gets his point across. He's looking after the interests of the city which is a breath of fresh air when it comes to sports teams IMO.

Ken King is a total amateur. He's gone full Wideman on this project.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Fire

So, what's your point? No matter what decade it is, the fans will not support a mediocre hockey team with no hope for the future.

The point is that there is a salary cap now, as ownership has "cost-certainty".

Bringing up arguments from a different set of circumstances is as valid as bringing up arguments from a different sport on a different continent.

Winnipeg moved WITH a sweetheart deal from the province to cover losses.

They have a team now because of cost certainty, aka the salary cap, NOT because of a new arena. If it was because of a new arena, why is the arena undersized?

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by fotiou22

Ken King is a total amateur. He's gone full Wideman on this project.

That is pretty much what I've learned. He's clearly out of touch with municipal economics & finance & needs to retire.

He's always had the klepto-charm charisma that he uses to sell a narrative of "ah shucks, maybe someone knows more than we do, but this is what we think, what we need."

It's clear now that he's out of touch.

Someone else needs to get this deal done.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by stone hands

What do you call 2006-2014

They were a team that could spend up the cap ceiling, meaning fans still held out hope they could improve. My assumption, which you may disagree with, is that the Flames will eventually not be a cap ceiling team if they remain in the Saddledome.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Yes, Calgary had an economic leg to stand on two decades ago and still couldn't guarantee consistent numbers at the gate. There's a hell of a lot of empty assumptions that the city is going to fully rebound from this slump. With the...added economic bureaucracy now conflated with doing buisness in Alberta oil these corporations that have been abandoning ship "for the time being" are just going to find it easier and cheaper to stay out and invest elsewhere. If the corporate support erodes what's going to drive the salaries that allow people to regularly afford seasons tickets?

How would a new arena change the outcome? It's not as if there is an expectation that ticket prices will decrease in a new building.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

They have a team now because of cost certainty, aka the salary cap, NOT because of a new arena. If it was because of a new arena, why is the arena undersized?

So the Jets would have gotten a team without the new arena? The lack of seats in the arena is an issue and will become a bigger issue in the future. They already spend less on player salaries than most teams. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they are talking new arena in 10 years because they can't compete and attendance will be dropping.

[fotiou22]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

That is pretty much what I've learned. He's clearly out of touch with municipal economics & finance & needs to retire.

He's always had the klepto-charm charisma that he uses to sell a narrative of "ah shucks, maybe someone knows more than we do, but this is what we think, what we need."

It's clear now that he's out of touch.

Someone else needs to get this deal done.

The buffoonish quality of this pitch would have been laughed out of any boardroom in downtown Calgary. King and Edwards have had more than a decade to bring something viable to taxpayers. In lieu of creating something valuable, they now throw a tantrum. It's embarrassing.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

How would a new arena change the outcome? It's not as if there is an expectation that ticket prices will decrease in a new building.

It won't, my inner cynic just thinks the owners want to bank on as good as a sweetheart deal as they can manage and milk it out until they can get a good sale out of it. They didn't get it so they're just sitting on their hands with what they have with the intent of cashing out earlier than intended. Phoenix is demonstrating that you can come up with all manner of reasons to make a venue suddenly untenable regardless of how new it happens to be anyway.

These owners are more oil-conscious than you or I and I get the sense they see some kind of writing on the wall.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Robbob

IIRC they pretty much bought them because John Forzani had passed away. Finding CFL owners isn't an easy thing to do.

The Flames bought the Stampeders 2 years before he died.

[longsuffering]

Rather than pit NHL teams against the cities where they play and the fans that cheer for their home team, perhaps it is time for the NHL to address their business model.

Other than sports teams, I can't think of other entire industries which operates on a model where they don't build their own 'factory' or place of business.

Allow, no require, each team to establish a sinking fund to replace their existing facilities every 30 years. That money would be removed from HRR.

Naturally the players would be unhappy but if the public's appetite for building sporting palaces for their professional sports teams on the public dime is truly waning, players will have to recognize this is the new economic reality.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The temper tantrum comment is going to piss off ownership a lot. Corporate type guys don't like being insulted during negotiations.

Yup. They're usually the type of people (often male) who hate when others are able to methodically explain (or publicly expose to others) why their position is BS...

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Kudos to the Ken King for somehow convincing part of the population this is the case. I'm not exactly sure how a reasonable person can actually come to that conclusion, but kudos nonetheless.

The part that many others aren't seeing is that they currently do not pay property tax, but the cities plan is to start charging them in lieu of the up front contribution. They are taking one thing away while giving them something else.

So compared to what they currently receive, which is tax exemption, being charged for it now is a new revenue source for the city. I can't believe people are missing that important point.

The city previously decided that was a worthwhile contribution towards the Flames existing in our city, but now they feel it is an opportunity to take that away. It is an important distinction.

[Manhattanboy]

Ken King has pretty much depleted any goodwill the Flames might have had with the public on this issue. If that was the intention of his bosses then I don't know what to say.

To execute on their strategy (assuming they have one), all King had to do ten days ago was announce that unfortunately to date the Flames and the City had been unable to come to an agreement on a new arena, so for the time being the Flames were suspending discussions with the City until after the election, and that they looked forward to working with the new Council on the matter.

[troutman]

Got me thinking how it is done in other leagues:

Everton:
http://www.eurosport.com/football/pr...64/story.shtml

Tottenham:
http://www.footballeconomy.com/conte...tadium-funding

Ground developments to football stadiums in the English football league system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground..._league_system

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The part that many others aren't seeing is that they currently do not pay property tax, but the cities plan is to start charging them in lieu of the up front contribution. They are taking one thing away while giving them something else.

So compared to what they currently receive, which is tax exemption, being charged for it now is a new revenue source for the city. I can't believe people are missing that important point.

The city previously decided that was a worthwhile contribution towards the Flames existing in our city, but now they feel it is an opportunity to take that away. It is an important distinction.

Important to understand also that there's a difference between charging someone large amounts of money for a 34 year old arena versus a brand new one. One that increases the revenue capabilities of the Flames as they're sure to maximize suites and lower bowl seating versus lower value upper bowl.

And the property tax or rent that the Flames pay the city would go into general revenue, not to directly pay back the city's investment.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The part that many others aren't seeing is that they currently do not pay property tax, but the cities plan is to start charging them in lieu of the up front contribution. They are taking one thing away while giving them something else.

So compared to what they currently receive, which is tax exemption, being charged for it now is a new revenue source for the city. I can't believe people are missing that important point.

The city previously decided that was a worthwhile contribution towards the Flames existing in our city, but now they feel it is an opportunity to take that away. It is an important distinction.

I don't think people are missing that point. Nenshi even said they're open to negotiating that specific issue, but you can't do that if no one is sitting at the other side of the table.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fire

Were you around for the 90's. The building was almost 1/3 empty for a good portion of it.

While there were empty seats, financial support for the Flames never necessarily cratered that badly. According to Hockeydb, the lowest the Flames average attendance at the Dome was 15,320 in 99-00. Obviously not everyone of those sold seats had butts in them, but I think that's actually a pretty solid floor for a team that sucked for a decade, and has been mediocre most of the last 30 years.

Just as a comparison, the Oilers bottomed out at 12,335 in the mid 90s. The Canucks bottomed out at 10,406 in the 80s.

I remember the Save The Fames Campaign and how a lot of us on CP pitched in for season tickets. While there was a threat to leave, I recall there being a lot more sympathy for the Flames position back then with the Canadian dollar and the disparity of wealth among teams in the league.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The part that many others aren't seeing is that they currently do not pay property tax, but the cities plan is to start charging them in lieu of the up front contribution. They are taking one thing away while giving them something else.

So compared to what they currently receive, which is tax exemption, being charged for it now is a new revenue source for the city. I can't believe people are missing that important point.

The city previously decided that was a worthwhile contribution towards the Flames existing in our city, but now they feel it is an opportunity to take that away. It is an important distinction.

Anyone have history on how that happened? Last time i checked, the Flames are a for profit enterprise that is wholly privately owned...

While they certainly are involved in many charitable works around the City, they are not a non-profit business...

Not sure how that tax exemption came to pass in the first place?