Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal - Page 137 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Cali Panthers Fan · 09-28-2017, 09:57 AM

Ahh, the "No true Scotsman" argument. Had to happen at some point.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

nik- · 09-28-2017, 09:58 AM

Quote:

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.

Show us them facts.

PsYcNeT · 09-28-2017, 09:58 AM

I'm assuming the only "true fans" in this city are STHs that shell out thousands of dollars every year for a sub-par product from an ownership group that hates them.

True fan = masochist?

Have some respect for yourself man.

Table 5 · 09-28-2017, 10:01 AM

If you're not tithing to the Flames, you are not a true fan.

442scotty · 09-28-2017, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

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?

I didn’t mention anybody in particular but if you think you fit my comments that’s on you lol. I don’t think I said anything outlandish or unreasonable. We aren’t Toronto or Montreal... if we want to insure that we keep our Team in Calgary we ALL have to do our part.... The owners and the citizens of this city.

Ashasx · 09-28-2017, 10:06 AM

It infuriates me more than anything that after King said this "wasn't going to be like Edmonton", it has turned out far worse and more embarrassing.

PsYcNeT · 09-28-2017, 10:09 AM

You know that a sports team shouldn't be directly tied to your identity right?

I mean sure, we can all feel strong fremdschamen on behalf of CSEC and their blundering, but you are not defined by the media you consume.

Roughneck · 09-28-2017, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 442scotty

I didn’t mention anybody in particular but if you think you fit my comments that’s on you lol. I don’t think I said anything outlandish or unreasonable. We aren’t Toronto or Montreal... if we want to insure that we keep our Team in Calgary we ALL have to do our part.... The owners and the citizens of this city.

Hopefully thise second tier fans can step up and do their part as much as those Tier 1 fans are. Ask for higher ticket prices, pay more for beer, buy crappy jersey designs. Only $50 for the PL? I demand $100 to do my part!

Hot_Flatus · 09-28-2017, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 442scotty

I didn’t mention anybody in particular but if you think you fit my comments that’s on you lol. I don’t think I said anything outlandish or unreasonable. We aren’t Toronto or Montreal... if we want to insure that we keep our Team in Calgary we ALL have to do our part.... The owners and the citizens of this city.

And I think that relates much more closely to the cities proposal than it does the CSEC proposal. A for profit organization should not be stringing the fans and city along to pay more than half of the bill for such a revenue generator as this building will be.

Billionaire owners set to make even more money off of this can do their part much easier than a cash strapped tax payer budget can!

Parallex · 09-28-2017, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 442scotty

The reality is.... if we want the Flames in our city they have to be able to make a reasonable profit.

What's "reasonable"? Have them throw open their books to independent audit so the citizens can see for themselves the costs/revenues and determine what kind of deal can produce "reasonable" profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 442scotty

That means they pay and WE pay as well.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the impasse. On any ledger there is a credit sheet and a debit sheet the issue isn't really on the debit sheet it's on the credit sheet.

Quote:

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.

Nice. Anyway that we can have a "true fan" tax levy? Folk get to vote yay/nay for funding with the "yays" paying? After all why should folk who aren't "true fans" pay for those who are? I mean surely "true fans" ought to be willing to pay more then all those dastardly "untrue fans" right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Common sense seems to have left the room in this arena discussion.

Well, you're correct on that... but only ironically.

Ozy_Flame · 09-28-2017, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Hopefully thise second tier fans can step up and do their part as much as those Tier 1 fans are. Ask for higher ticket prices, pay more for beer, buy crappy jersey designs. Only $50 for the PL? I demand $100 to do my part!

Was at the Rogers Arena last night for a concert. Paid over $40 for two beers and two slices of pizza. We don't want to go this route in Calgary, but I'm sure it's inevitable

Canehdianman · 09-28-2017, 10:18 AM

Some of these arguments truly boggle my mind.

We don't heavily subsidized any other form of for-profit entertainment.

We don't build theatres for Cineplex for free. We don't gift them land or offer them reprieves from property tax.

RM14 · 09-28-2017, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Some of these arguments truly boggle my mind.

We don't heavily subsidized any other form of for-profit entertainment.

We don't build theatres for Cineplex for free. We don't gift them land or offer them reprieves from property tax.

But the City wants an arena in a specific location. Why would that be you think?

Backlunds_socks · 09-28-2017, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM14

But the City wants an arena in a specific location. Why would that be you think?

The City may want that, but CSEC can acquire land, apply for permits and possibly be able to build what they want where they want if they were ready to fork up the $$$.

RM14 · 09-28-2017, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

The City may want that, but CSEC can acquire land, apply for permits and possibly be able to build what they want where they want if they were ready to fork up the $$$.

Why would CSEC pay 100% for something two parties have publicly stated they want.

Backlunds_socks · 09-28-2017, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM14

Why would CSEC pay 100% for something two parties have publicly stated they want.

The City of Calgary also wants development in the downtown core, do you see them helping out brookfield or other developers?

iggy_oi · 09-28-2017, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM14

Why would CSEC pay 100% for something two parties have publicly stated they want.

Ok...Why should the city not be entitled to a say on the location of something they are going to be paying for a large chunk of?

RM14 · 09-28-2017, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

The City of Calgary also wants development in the downtown core, do you see them helping out brookfield or other developers?

I don't see it no. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Backlunds_socks · 09-28-2017, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM14

I don't see it no. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

The City is accountable to its citizens, so if you want to see it you can. It just does not happen.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...an-bridge.aspx

The above link is a good example of a private/city parternship. The pedestrian bridge over MacLeod will help vehicle traffic, create a safer pedestrian crossing and help drive people into the mall. Its a great spend of city money - so hence the cost split.

RM14 · 09-28-2017, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Ok...Why should the city not be entitled to a say on the location of something they are going to be paying for a large chunk of?

That's my point. They want it, they should pay for some of it. No-one else ifs going to fund this thing 100% on their. It isn't the movie theater business at all.