Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[TGH44]

This is an emotional issue for everyone. I am a long time STH and believe the Flames need a new arena, however, I also don’t think the City should just hand over the money for it. Unfortunately, the parties, much like a lot on this Board, have made the issue personal. In my career in the energy industry, I am responsible for negotiating transactions much larger than this arena and the first rule is to never make it personal (it’s just business). Making it personal clouds your judgement and hardens biased positions. It’s also critical to agree upon some overriding principles. If the parties can’t agree that there are both direct and indirect benefits for the Flames to be in Calgary then no matter what either side proposes it would be unlikely that they could craft a deal that works for both. If you take a hard line you better be prepared to follow through. Doubting that the Flames owners, at some point in time, would move the team if the economics warranted will ultimately result in the team leaving at some future date. Such an outcome would be a complete failure on all sides. If I behaved like both sides and lost a deal, I would be fired on the spot.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by TGH44

In my career in the energy industry, I am responsible for negotiating transactions much larger than this arena and the first rule is to never make it personal (it’s just business).

It's a little easier to say it's just business when it's a couple big companies going at it for a deal. Understandably things will be different when taxpayer dollars are involved, and in this case a significant amount of taxpayer dollars.

[Ozy_Flame]

I am not sure people have the same passion for energy, petroleum and petrochemical facilities or the like versus a local sports team. You can't really compare the two.

[fotiou22]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

Credit to Campbell for pointing out King was... "Answering questions from a team-friendly moderator..."

It's a little clunky, but after all these years, I do believe The Hockey News has found the right title for Eric Francis.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by JFK

Bettman's message to Calgary voters was, "You need to make your voice heard if you think the city is moving in the wrong direction."

Thanks to Gary, I have made my voice heard more than I typically would in an election...although I have a feeling Gary would be a little disappointed in what I'm saying. Good thing he doesn't wage into politics though.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by TGH44

This is an emotional issue for everyone. I am a long time STH and believe the Flames need a new arena, however, I also don’t think the City should just hand over the money for it. Unfortunately, the parties, much like a lot on this Board, have made the issue personal. In my career in the energy industry, I am responsible for negotiating transactions much larger than this arena and the first rule is to never make it personal (it’s just business). Making it personal clouds your judgement and hardens biased positions. It’s also critical to agree upon some overriding principles. If the parties can’t agree that there are both direct and indirect benefits for the Flames to be in Calgary then no matter what either side proposes it would be unlikely that they could craft a deal that works for both. If you take a hard line you better be prepared to follow through. Doubting that the Flames owners, at some point in time, would move the team if the economics warranted will ultimately result in the team leaving at some future date. Such an outcome would be a complete failure on all sides. If I behaved like both sides and lost a deal, I would be fired on the spot.

You may or may not be fired if a deal falls apart, I would assume a lot of factors would be considered. I'm certain you would be fired if you caved on every point and just handed over a few hundred million to the other party with no chance of ever getting value back.

[442scotty]

The hard line, make the rich pay, the flames owners should pay for everything people on here remind me of anti vaxers lol. It doesn’t matter what you say, what the facts are, what the truth is.... they cannot and will not hear or believe anything that sways them from their belief that they and only they are right.

The reality is.... if we want the Flames in our city they have to be able to make a reasonable profit. That means they pay and WE pay as well. That’s just the way it is. We will have to up the offer and the Flames need to come down a bit in their demands. If you aren’t willing to make reasonable sacrifices to keep the flames in this city then you are not a true fan. Common sense seems to have left the room in this arena discussion.

[fotiou22]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Thanks to Gary, I have made my voice heard more than I typically would in an election...although I have a feeling Gary would be a little disappointed in what I'm saying. Good thing he doesn't wage into politics though.

Would also help if the candidate they were running against Nenshi could spell city council. Bettman and King truly believe Calgarians are idiots.

[Ozy_Flame]

I think people are OK with a City investment, as long as it is a good deal for the city and taxpayers.

The current Flames offer does not achieve that.

[East Coast Flame]

"What the NHL Is Doing In Calgary Is Pretty Gross"

https://deadspin.com/what-the-nhl-is...oss-1818879619

A massive, multinational company is inserting itself into Calgary’s mayoral election, attacking an incumbent whose policies are preventing said company from obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer handouts, and overtly threatening citizens that unless they vote the way the company wants, they’ll leave town.

[Parallex]

Just a thought... why not extend the lease?

I mean Madison Square Garden is already about 50 years old so there's nothing to say that the new arena would have to be mothballed in 30. Design the building for ease of future renovation and plan a major renovation at around the 30 year mark (with the back 20 years of ticket tax paying for said renovation). CS&E kick in significantly more up front money for it's construction (and in exchange get 20 additional rent free years at the back end).

[TGH44]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

You may or may not be fired if a deal falls apart, I would assume a lot of factors would be considered. I'm certain you would be fired if you caved on every point and just handed over a few hundred million to the other party with no chance of ever getting value back.

As I mentioned, you have to agree upon some principles at the start whether its purchase price/defn of Assets or in this case whether each side believes that the Flames bring direct and indirect benefits to the City. If the parties agree upon that then you are starting from the same spot and you are negotiating/evaluating the size of those benefits which then will lead to the size of investment and allocation of revenue streams. I haven't seen the detailed economics of either proposal (and I would expect everyone on this Board is in the same position) so its difficult to judge either position other than saying each proposal doesn't pass the eye test (not sure we can go as far as you suggested in saying the City hands over a few hundred million without getting value back). The main point, if Francis's (who I'm not a fan of) quotes are correct, is that the parties don't agree on the fundamental issue of whether the Flames bring direct and indirect benefit to the City. If that's correct then there is no point in discussing level's of investment or allocation of revenue streams.

[Wormius]

I think if the Flames moved, the NHL would also be missing out on all of the revenue that the American NHL teams get from Canadian attendance. I don't think any ex-pats are going to be interested at all in attending games in Phoenix or Las Vegas without the Calgary Flames. The only time any of those arena's get near full attendance is when Canadian teams play.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

If you aren’t willing to make reasonable sacrifices to keep the flames in this city then you are not a true fan.

You could always start a go fund me for the true fans to kick in a couple hundred million. I suppose based on this logic that seems more fair than making a bunch of non-fans pay for it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fire

The Canadian dollar isn't weak. It's currently really close to it's average value since 1990.

It has rebounded, however it's still not at the level it was at when the flames were one of the teams that were contributing to revenue sharing. While that could actually be used to make an argument for why the flames need a new building, King chose to not present it that way.

The current local economy is most likely the new normal in Calgary.

I'm sorry is this an argument for or against taxpayers handing over millions of dollars to a private entity?

So don't expect the Flames to be a top 10 team in revenue again unless they have long playoff runs (or get a new arena).

So in order for the flames to bounce back and make more money all they really need to do is improve the quality of the on ice product? People might be a little more inclined to help them out if they did that first. Can't blame the building for the on ice product, although I wouldn't be surprised if they tried.

Many of the anti-CSEC group have been saying the Flames were a top ten team for revenue and was using that as an argument against them on why they don't need funding. Now Ken King tells them otherwise and the same group gets defensive and proclaim that CSEC is misleading the public because they are still making a profit. Even though they never said they weren't making a profit. I'm sure if the Flames end up losing money in the future the same group will tell us they are still misleading us because the increase in franchise value makes up for any losses.

Here's where this debate gets unnecessarily divisive. In my view the majority of people understand that some public funds will be spent on a new arena. People may not agree with it but I believe most people can accept it, they would just prefer to get the best deal possible(I would fall under this category). The CSEC also know they will not be gifted a new arena, but they would also like to pay as little as possible for it. So the frustration here isn't about who's paying or how much and picking sides. The frustration you're hearing from the group you claim are "anti-CSEC" is there because people see the situation and understand what's going on, but they are not fans of the flames' playing politics and using negotiating tactics that frankly insult most people's intelligence.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

The hard line, make the rich pay, the flames owners should pay for everything people on here remind me of anti vaxers lol. It doesn’t matter what you say, what the facts are, what the truth is.... they cannot and will not hear or believe anything that sways them from their belief that they and only they are right.

The reality is.... if we want the Flames in our city they have to be able to make a reasonable profit. That means they pay and WE pay as well. That’s just the way it is. We will have to up the offer and the Flames need to come down a bit in their demands. If you aren’t willing to make reasonable sacrifices to keep the flames in this city then you are not a true fan. Common sense seems to have left the room in this arena discussion.

Whaaaa? You are implying that if I'm not willing to spend my own money on the CSEC's capital requirements then I'm a not a true flames fan? I guess I'm not a true flames fan then.

Further, if the Flames aren't making a profit in this city then perhaps the business model is broken? Perhaps they pay their players too much? like 50% of the gross profit split. HOw does it become my problem?

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Fire

The Canadian dollar isn't weak. It's currently really close to it's average value since 1990. The current local economy is most likely the new normal in Calgary. So don't expect the Flames to be a top 10 team in revenue again unless they have long playoff runs (or get a new arena).

Many of the anti-CSEC group have been saying the Flames were a top ten team for revenue and was using that as an argument against them on why they don't need funding. Now Ken King tells them otherwise and the same group gets defensive and proclaim that CSEC is misleading the public because they are still making a profit. Even though they never said they weren't making a profit. I'm sure if the Flames end up losing money in the future the same group will tell us they are still misleading us because the increase in franchise value makes up for any losses.

I think you are failing to understand this.

Toys R Us just filed for bankruptcy, should the feds help them out with our money? A private or public organization's bottom line is not a tax payer issue.

[corporatejay]

Bell called Nenshi for comment. Nenshi with a great quote:


He says his recollection is “somewhat different.”

“It is fair to say he wasn’t making any overt threats. But he certainly did say: You know, if you screw this up the Flames are going to leave and that is going to be miserable and it’ll destroy your city,” says Nenshi.

“I remember very well saying to him: That would be an awful outcome but it’s not going to destroy my city.

“He intimated it is the end of a political career if you lose a hockey team. I said: Be that as it may, we’ve got a lot of work to do and we’ve got to make the right and the fair deal for taxpayers.”

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/09/27...e5559822bbb2c5

[Ashasx]

What The NHL Is Doing In Calgary Is Pretty Gross

A massive, multinational company is inserting itself into Calgary’s mayoral election, attacking an incumbent whose policies are preventing said company from obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer handouts, and overtly threatening citizens that unless they vote the way the company wants, they’ll leave town.

Oh, and about all of this, Gary Bettman has the gall to say, “I don’t weigh into politics.”

That description above is, of course, the fundamental conflict at the heart of the entire stadium financing scam, where teams and leagues demand public money for their private business while functionally extorting taxpayers and elected officials with the threat of relocation. But rarely has it been so blatant as this

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

If you aren’t willing to make reasonable sacrifices to keep the flames in this city then you are not a true fan. Common sense seems to have left the room in this arena discussion.

Are you accusing King, Edwards and co. Of not being true fans?!