Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I wouldn't call it a losing venture, but more a relatively poor return on investment.

I dont see that as true though.

Nobody is buying a hockey team thinking they're going to be taking 'Scrooge McDuck' swims in vaults full of cash.

The real money comes in the appreciation of the Franchise.

The current ownership group bought this Franchise for a pittance of its current value.

The day-to-day operations are just about increasing that value but NHL Franchises for what they cost in the 80s compared to now have been a hell of an investment. As long their seasonal-operations costs relative to their expenses covered them then the appreciation in Franchise Value was the Golden Ticket.

[Table 5]

NHL ownership reminds me of a decent long-term stock with a crappy dividend. If you want to make money, you have hold it for a while, and you have to cash out.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

NHL ownership reminds me of a decent long-term stock with a crappy dividend. If you want to make money, you have to cash out.

Thats.......actually pretty apt.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

The volunteer efforts after the flood accomplished that far better, far more meaningfully, and at a far more genuine grassroots level than any sporting event ever will. Does that mean I should be free to exploit the fact I chipped in with the effort and helped people whose lives were ruined to guilt people into giving me free stuff?

Sure, if that is a story that exemplifies something to you, and it really drove home that point to you, re-tell it as often as you like, and as often as you can. I think it is great when people can have a moment when they realize they part of something bigger, and they can articulate that to others. As far as it getting you free stuff, that's up to the audience.

I don't see anyone getting free stuff in this discussion, but that is part and parcel to the problem. There are just some who see it one way, and are so entrenched in that perspective that nothing, absolutely nothing is going to shift their beliefs or belief system. They'll yell and scream and see no value in anything that is counter to that belief. Sorry, but there is some good in both proposals, both could work. Compromise could make this work, but there are just too many who see this political debate as sports, and they have their team and nothing is going to make them see the value of anything presented by the opposition. It is tribalism at its worst.

[nik-]

God, stop. No one is buying that you think he's not just trying to leverage it for public support. You're not that dumb. Why do you insist on this charade?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Table 5

NHL ownership reminds me of a decent long-term stock with a crappy dividend. If you want to make money, you have hold it for a while, and you have to cash out.

That's why moving isn't as much of a long shot as some people think it is (so long as the move involves a sale). I still think it's highly unlikely. But there's stupid money out there, especially in the US where sports teams are concerned.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's why moving isn't as much of a long shot as some people think it is (so long as the move involves a sale). I still think it's highly unlikely. But there's stupid money out there, especially in the US where sports teams are concerned.

Based on some of the business done this summer...

"Welcome your Qatari Royal FLLLLAAAAAAAAAAMES!!!"

Also there are no other teams.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont see that as true though.

Nobody is buying a hockey team thinking they're going to be taking 'Scrooge McDuck' swims in vaults full of cash.

The real money comes in the appreciation of the Franchise.

The current ownership group bought this Franchise for a pittance of its current value.

The day-to-day operations are just about increasing that value but NHL Franchises for what they cost in the 80s compared to now have been a hell of an investment. As long their seasonal-operations costs relative to their expenses covered them then the appreciation in Franchise Value was the Golden Ticket.

Sure has been on paper for sure.

But a paper evaluation by a company like Forbes isn't a price sticker in a store. You have to find someone to actually buy it, and that's a different animal.

I'm sure the roll over in ownership have all done well in the past for sure, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the asset ties up capital now that can't be used elsewhere.

With the number of markets that are tight and no where really to move it, I can't see a big line of wealthy people wanting to by the Flames which essentially nullifies their asset value gain on paper doesn't it?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Dude, be careful. There's a post from a few pages back saying Francis just threatened a random fan with a lawsuit for suggesting this on twitter.

I said it wouldn't shock anyone if he was on the payroll... not that he was literally on the payroll (which the person in question did). There is a very large difference (mainly I'm not asserting that the Flames pay him). I think folk who threaten libel are generally full of it... I mean seriously I'm fairly certain that if you were to scour the annuls of CP that's not even in the top 50 of things said about Eric Francis that he wouldn't like.

C'mon. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Eric Francis doesn't publicly promote the Flames owners interests (regardless of his motives for doing so).

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't see anyone getting free stuff in this discussion, but that is part and parcel to the problem.

Okay, I'll put it another way; if I'm offered a 50% discount on an item because of my volunteer contribution, should I be entitled - is it in any way good decorum - to make an extremely public scene about it because they're not giving me 75%?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Another NHL owner could refute it.

The annual Forbes report is out soon, which would certainly point to a fib if they have the Flames in the top 7-8 in operating income and revenue.

I'm with you guys on CSEC having a fairly brutal week, I think King's press conference was a complete mess a few days ago, but I think if he's referring to something as specific as NHL revenue sharing you can take him at face value.

This debate has enough drama without adding another witch hunt.

Yes I am with you. I believe him.

However one little morsel of information can be rather misleading without context and full disclosure. So its kind of useless on its own.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yes I am with you. I believe him.

However one little morsel of information can be rather misleading without context and full disclosure. So its kind of useless on its own.

Agreed.

I didn't see them as a big money making operation from the Forbes money anyway, so slipping a few notches with the exchange rate could easily be the difference.

Plus we don't know their hedging activity. Maybe they hedged out the past two hockey seasons in advance and those hedges ran out because they weren't far reaching.

The difference between paying and receiving is as little as $10M in operating income.

[united]

At one of the season ticket holder sessions I attended in June, King said the Flames finished 16th this past season thus were on the receiving end of revenue sharing but obviously not getting a huge cheque back.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

haha. Not sure I agree with his math about how our market works.

19,000 seats. 45 games. Basically saying each ticket for each game is a separate transaction, meaning the Flames need 850,000 transactions a season. Since we have 1M residents, that makes us a tapped out market.

Now obviously his math doesn't make sense because of STHs who might buy two seats for a whole season thus eating up 90 transactions with 1 transaction. He acknowledges this fact but then pushes on with his 850,000 transaction ideas.

Has to make me wonder why CSEC would push ahead with arena at all. If the Flames are eating up 850,000 transactions in a city of 1.2M people, and the hope is to have at least as many people attend other events like concerts, that means the arena needs 1.7M transactions in a city of 1.2M people. We are in a transaction deficit!

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats.......actually pretty apt.

That's exactly it, at a best case scenario. Sports franchises are more how billionaires feel or are treated like royalty.

With the current consolidation of wealth there is a lack of pro sports teams for billionaires to take a bath on. Which is why MLS soccer appears to be a Ponzi scheme.

http://deadspin.com/is-mls-a-ponzi-scheme-1797509617

One likely reason for the league’s furious expansion is the same dynamic that led to Steve Ballmer spending $2 billion to own the Los Angeles goddamn Clippers: There are suddenly a hell of a lot of people with ungodly amounts of money in the U.S., and only so many sports franchises: America now has 540 billionaires and only 123 Big Four teams. If you’re a rich dude with a jones to sit in an owner’s box and hire and fire GMs, MLS may be your best option.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by New Era

There are just some who see it one way, and are so entrenched in that perspective that nothing, absolutely nothing is going to shift their beliefs or belief system. They'll yell and scream and see no value in anything that is counter to that belief. Sorry, but there is some good in both proposals, both could work. Compromise could make this work, but there are just too many who see this political debate as sports, and they have their team and nothing is going to make them see the value of anything presented by the opposition. It is tribalism at its worst.

I don’t have anything of substance to add to this discussion, but I did want to point out that this has to be the least self aware post you’ve ever made here given how you continue to trip over yourself to be the first to defend KK at every step of the way.

[renny]

Originally Posted by New Era

Sure, if that is a story that exemplifies something to you, and it really drove home that point to you, re-tell it as often as you like, and as often as you can. I think it is great when people can have a moment when they realize they part of something bigger, and they can articulate that to others.

Sorry I don't agree with this, re-telling the same story over and over again causes the story to lose it's effectiveness. Also, telling there's really only one reason to tell a story like time and time again, this because you want people to say or think that you're a great person.

Integrity/Character is doing the right thing even when nobody's watching. If you truly wanted to do good, you wouldn't need to tell people about it. The actions or the receiver would be more than happy to sing your praises. That's far more effective then someone talking about this great thing the did. Mr. King re-telling the same story over and over again in a way diminishes, maybe even invalidates, the action itself.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Has to make me wonder why CSEC would push ahead with arena at all. If the Flames are eating up 850,000 transactions in a city of 1.2M people, and the hope is to have at least as many people attend other events like concerts, that means the arena needs 1.7M transactions in a city of 1.2M people. We are in a transaction deficit!

The Hitmen average about 8,000 per game; the Stamps about 28,000; and the Roughnecks around 11,000. That's about 600,000 tickets combined between them (more, if they all play home playoff games).

Between all the teams CSEC owns, they're already exceeding the total population of metro-Calgary. That doesn't even include concerts (and none of those teams are playing at capacity).

[Barnes]

If all this small market, number of transactions, woe is us stuff is to be believed, why does CSEC think it’s appropriate to build the second most expensive arena (adjusted for 2017 $) in the history of the league?

[ZedMan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The annual Forbes report is out soon, which would certainly point to a fib if they have the Flames in the top 7-8 in operating income and revenue.

I haven't dug into it at all but, since NHL teams are private, aren't the Forbes numbers (especially around something like profits) mostly educated guesses?