Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Flames not making a profit? Don't buy it.

I'd like to hear more about this.

[_Q_]

This saga is really starting to test my patience with this team.

I might just become a Caps fan and be done with this team.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Flames not making a profit? Don't buy it.

Where did they say they were not making a profit? They said their Revenue is no longer Top 10 and trending downward in comparison to the league. All they are saying is that they will be fine for a while, but something has to happen down the road to earn more revenue.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by RM14

Where did they say they were not making a profit? They said their Revenue is no longer Top 10 and trending downward in comparison to the league. All they are saying is that they will be fine for a while, but something has to happen down the road to earn more revenue.

or reduce costs. You see there are two sides to making more money.

[Manhattanboy]

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?

No but when the social engineers at City Hall decide they want something they have no problem imposing punitive measures (eg. years ago to encourage use of public transit the City punished developers by restricting the amount of underground parking that could be constructed in new office towers).

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

No but when the social engineers at City Hall decide they want something they have no problem imposing punitive measures (eg. years ago to encourage use of public transit the City punished developers by restricting the amount of underground parking that could be constructed in new office towers).

Ah I see. So the City should block all public access to the dome forcing CSEC to construct a new facility?

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

or reduce costs. You see there are two sides to making more money.

It's true. Not a good way to plan for the future but yes. They could pay players less, reduce management costs, fly cheaper, eat cheaper. It still does not affect revenue sharing though does it?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

Ah I see. So the City should block all public access to the dome forcing CSEC to construct a new facility?

I'm not going to try any longer to change minds on this thread. I will say this, without a more meaningful contribution by the City to an arena I honestly believe the days of this group continuing to own the franchise are numbered. Will be interesting to see what a new buyer does with the team.

I suppose the wildcard in all of this is where an Olympic bid goes.

[Flash Walken]

Ken King is DONE talking about a new arena.

You hear me? Done!

...y'all got any more of that federal money?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

No but when the social engineers at City Hall decide they want something they have no problem imposing punitive measures (eg. years ago to encourage use of public transit the City punished developers by restricting the amount of underground parking that could be constructed in new office towers).

"Punished" isn't the word I, or developers would use when it comes to lowering parking minimums.


They're called parking minimum requirements for a reason. Higher those minimums the more land needs to be used for it, or the further you need to dig down. Both are expensive and eat away at the potential profit to be made with project.

This is why developers had to go to council to request a building with NO parking a few years ago, rather than asking if they could build more. It's people who want parking, not developers.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...-village-tower

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Just waiting for the "Tier I, Tier II" fan categories to drop.

See, the whole Tier I and II thing doesn't bother me one bit. It may not be good PR (especially when coming out of a bumbling fool like Lowe, and inevitably King), but certain fans make teams more money than others, so in business terms it makes sense to prioritize.

Those types of business decisions are at least understandable, because they deal with their direct customers. Fans choose to buy in or not.

It's when they start asking the general public to subsidize their operations is when I start losing sympathy. Taxpayers and non hockey fans have no option to opt out.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ken King is DONE talking about a new arena.

You hear me? Done!

...y'all got any more of that federal money?

"I'm not talking about the arena. Bettman is talking about the arena. So I'm keeping my word."


"Similarly, we still aren't threatening to move if the city doesn't build us a new arena. We are simply mentioning that the city isn't interested in building us a new arena, and because of that we will eventually have to move."

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by RM14

Where did they say they were not making a profit? They said their Revenue is no longer Top 10 and trending downward in comparison to the league. All they are saying is that they will be fine for a while, but something has to happen down the road to earn more revenue.

The flames saying that is completely ignorant to the other factors which are contributing to their reduced revenues. That's what people are taking issue with. The flames are insinuating that the saddledome is the reason their revenues are trending downwards, and that's simply not the case. They were a top earner in the league playing the exact same building. I'm not going to ignore the fact that some teams have gotten newer buildings since then which would boost their revenues, but that doesn't reduce the flames' revenue. I'm also not going to pretend that a team generating less revenue playing in the same arena is somehow related to the arena when they are charging more than ever for tickets. We have the oldest building in the league yet there are teams that are much worse off then we are, how is a newer building here going to guarantee the team stays when newer buildings haven't been able to do so elsewhere?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I'm not going to try any longer to change minds on this thread. I will say this, without a more meaningful contribution by the City to an arena I honestly believe the days of this group continuing to own the franchise are numbered. Will be interesting to see what a new buyer does with the team.

I suppose the wildcard in all of this is where an Olympic bid goes.

That's great news! The current owners (or at least the majority one) really need to go. Edwards doesn't even live in the country any more. The sooner he sells, the sooner this gets done.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

"Punished" isn't the word I, or developers would use when it comes to lowering parking minimums.


They're called parking minimum requirements for a reason. Higher those minimums the more land needs to be used for it, or the further you need to dig down. Both are expensive and eat away at the potential profit to be made with project.

This is why developers had to go to council to request a building with NO parking a few years ago, rather than asking if they could build more. It's people who want parking, not developers.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...-village-tower

That was a one off. For example, back in the 80's Shell Centre was constructed with one level of underground parking which is a joke for that size an office tower. The developer (I think the old O&Y) was not allowed to construct additional parking because it violated then City social policy.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

See, the whole Tier I and II thing doesn't bother me one bit. It may not be good PR (especially when coming out of a bumbling fool like Lowe, and inevitably King), but certain fans make teams more money than others, so in business terms it makes sense to prioritize.

Those types of business decisions are at least understandable, because they deal with their direct customers. Fans choose to buy in or not.

It's when they start asking the general public to subsidize their operations is when I start losing sympathy. Taxpayers and non hockey fans have no option to opt out.

Exactly, we know that some fans are more valuable to a brand/team, but it's more that no one likes being called that (Me, I'm never anywhere near the top, so I'd be like a Tier V).

[Fire]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

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

LOL

You brought up the CDN dollar and the current local economy as reasons for not supporting the Flames financially and then you get all pissy about why those things matter when I make your arguments look foolish.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by RM14

It's true. Not a good way to plan for the future but yes. They could pay players less, reduce management costs, fly cheaper, eat cheaper. It still does not affect revenue sharing though does it?

Why are the flames expected to continue being one of the top 10 revenue generators for a league of 31 teams when their population is in the bottom 3rd and they are 1 of 7 teams who's currency is generally worth less than the other 24 teams?

http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/NHL_..._by_population

[RM14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The flames saying that is completely ignorant to the other factors which are contributing to their reduced revenues. That's what people are taking issue with. The flames are insinuating that the saddledome is the reason their revenues are trending downwards, and that's simply not the case. They were a top earner in the league playing the exact same building. I'm not going to ignore the fact that some teams have gotten newer buildings since then which would boost their revenues, but that doesn't reduce the flames' revenue. I'm also not going to pretend that a team generating less revenue playing in the same arena is somehow related to the arena when they are charging more than ever for tickets. We have the oldest building in the league yet there are teams that are much worse off then we are, how is a newer building here going to guarantee the team stays when newer buildings haven't been able to do so elsewhere?

The #1 reason the Revenue would be down (if it is), is the crash in oil and reduced corporate entertainment budgets.

I personally would love to keep the Saddledome for the next 20 years because I love it and love going there to watch Hockey. I don't care about big name concerts that much as there are a lot of small venues in the city that attract good bands. I do however understand it is not viable for this city to keep the dome around for that long. With or without the Flames in town, there will be a new shiny arena in Vic park someday.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I'm not going to try any longer to change minds on this thread. I will say this, without a more meaningful contribution by the City to an arena I honestly believe the days of this group continuing to own the franchise are numbered. Will be interesting to see what a new buyer does with the team.

I suppose the wildcard in all of this is where an Olympic bid goes.

No to an Olympic bid with my property tax dollars (which has already cost I believe about 5 million dollars with this exploratory bid) , to bring Olympic hockey to Edmonton .... I can't believe this city does not see the benefit to having the Flames and a new arena and are unwilling working out something ... I guess our Mayor and council are the smartest guys in the room ... Calgary was a place that had a can do attitude ... LOL