Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal - Page 213 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Infinit47 · 12-13-2017, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

The CSEC is a "massive multi-national company"?

I think he was referring to the NHL.

nfotiu · 12-13-2017, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

The CSEC is a "massive multi-national company"?

The article is referring to the NHL getting invovled.

icecube · 12-13-2017, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

The CSEC is a "massive multi-national company"?

I think they are referring to the NHL, hence the title of the article.

transplant99 · 12-13-2017, 09:52 AM

Fair enough...was just going off the quote.

Even then though...did the NHL "inject" itself in the election? Or did Bettman go to bat for his boss?

It's just so weird to me that people get all up in arms about what the NHL/CSEC is doing in regards to a negotiation. It's obvious they are going to want the best deal possible for the ownership group....to do otherwise would be counter-productive to all ownership groups.

GioforPM · 12-13-2017, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Fair enough...was just going off the quote.

Even then though...did the NHL "inject" itself in the election? Or did Bettman go to bat for his boss?

It's just so weird to me that people get all up in arms about what the NHL/CSEC is doing in regards to a negotiation. It's obvious they are going to want the best deal possible for the ownership group....to do otherwise would be counter-productive to all ownership groups.

I agree, and the same applies to the "threats" to move (of which there haven't been any serious overt examples. I mean, when an owner or King is asked "if you can't get a deal done what will the Flames do - might they move?", how is it a smart tactic to say "No that could never happen - we will just have to build our own arena."? Of course you have to admit that moving is a possibility, if you are also claiming that you need a deal with city to be able to make a new arena feasible.

troutman · 12-13-2017, 10:35 AM

The owners would be persona non grata in Calgary if they ever moved the team. They aren't going to damage their legacies in Calgary.

transplant99 · 12-13-2017, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

The owners would be persona non grata in Calgary if they ever moved the team. They aren't going to damage their legacies in Calgary.

The current group? Sure.

If some outside entity came in and bought them? They wouldn't care.

Northendzone · 12-13-2017, 10:54 AM

i assumed francis retweeted it because it was originally tweeted by the herald. i assume the herald originally tweeted it because they own the content

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler

This right here should tell you everything you need to know about Eric Francis:

Weitz · 12-13-2017, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler

This right here should tell you everything you need to know about Eric Francis:

Someone re-tweeted their own article? Are you new to twitter?

In fact I stopped following some people because they kept re-tweeting their articles so many times.

Ozy_Flame · 12-13-2017, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weitz

Someone re-tweeted their own article? Are you new to twitter?

In fact I stopped following some people because they kept re-tweeting their articles so many times.

Yeah, it's the same as on Instragram where corporations and fledgling companies start following you randomly in hopes of spiking up their own follower count. It's disingenuous and for self-serving purposes.

Roughneck · 12-13-2017, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stamps

So if the Flames leave it's about 30 to 45 million dollars lost to the city over 30 years ....

They would lose nothing if the team is demanding free transit.

stamps · 12-13-2017, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roughneck

They would lose nothing if the team is demanding free transit.

I think asking , not demanding ... not a deal breaker ...

Hockey Fan #751 · 12-13-2017, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM14

I don't know either. I am under the impression that Murray Edwards has the most shares, but I doubt he has more than 50% control, or enough to make decisions such as moving the team on his own authority.

With the Oilers and Katz, the way I remember it is he was negotiating a price with X number of owners and once he got over 50% shares in the team, the dominos started to fall and he got all the rest of them. I imagine there wouldn't be a lot of interest in holding onto your shares in that type of situation, however one big difference between now and then is that franchise values seem to be skyrocketing up and up so maybe they would hold onto their shares.

On the flip side, if an owner held for example 20% of the shares and the majority owner wanted to move the team they would probably bail because they wouldn't want to be associated with the move and/or pay the relocation fee out of pocket.

troutman · 12-13-2017, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

The current group? Sure.

If some outside entity came in and bought them? They wouldn't care.

If they sold the team to a group that moved the team, they would still be persona non grata.

DiracSpike · 12-13-2017, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

If they sold the team to a group that moved the team, they would still be persona non grata.

Nah, for most people Nenshi would wear that one.

troutman · 12-13-2017, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Nah, for most people Nenshi would wear that one.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rvey-1.4110440

Most Calgarians would support the city getting involved in the construction of a new arena to replace the Saddledome — as long as it doesn't increase their taxes.

In Quebec's case, Aubut says he was not reviled:

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/ho...turn-to-quebec

Aubut says he was never reviled in Quebec for selling the Nordiques, having been decorated by the city while still being referred to as “the kid of the Grand Allée,” his long-used nickname.

“The people of Quebec have been terrific,” he said. “They were disappointed the team left, but they knew how hard I worked to get a deal done. We were maybe a couple years from winning the Stanley Cup.”

Hockey Fan #751 · 12-13-2017, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

“The people of Quebec have been terrific,” he said. “They were disappointed the team left, but they knew how hard I worked to get a deal done. We were maybe a couple years from winning the Stanley Cup.”

Didn't they win the Cup the following year? A bit of an odd comment.

calgaryred · 12-13-2017, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

Didn't they win the Cup the following year? A bit of an odd comment.

Roy would have never been traded to the Nords , if they didn't relocate to Denver

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

monkeyman · 12-13-2017, 12:11 PM

I would imagine the split of people blaming the Flames owners vs. Nenshi would pretty much inverse the split of people who support either side right now, which is pretty solidly in support of the mayor. So most would blame the owners and they'd likely feel the backlash in attendance for the Stamps, Hitmen and Roughnecks.

The Fonz · 12-13-2017, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

The current group? Sure.

If some outside entity came in and bought them? They wouldn't care.

But there aren't any potential markets that are as strong as the market the Flames currently reside. The only reason to move this Flames team would be one of pride, such as, Edwards not willing to publicly lose this negotiation with Nenshi.

An outside entity would not hold the same animosity toward Nenshi, and so I can't see a scenario where relocation would be on the table with a new ownership group.