Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Nacre

Numerous independent studies have shown that no net jobs or other economic benefits are added as a result of building a new stadium or arena. If the Flames leave, people in Calgary will simply re-allocate whatever they would have spent on the Flames to other stuff like restaurants, theatre, skiing, etc.

When the Sonics left Seattle I was enraged. And then I discovered that without my Sonics season ticket I had an extra $3,000 per year to spend on other things. Instead of NBA tickets I have two season tickets for one of Seattle's WHL teams, season tickets at a ski area and money left over for restaurant upgrades and some concerts. Honestly I am better off now without the NBA.

Keeping the NHL in Calgary (or any other major league team in any other city) is purely about emotion.

You're not wrong, but you may not be necessarily right either.

This has been part of the crux of the matter, the overall economic impact on a municipality due to an NHL team is a very nebulous thing to concretely quantify, especially as not all of the benefits are tangible or strictly economic.

This part of the argument has been going around in circles since the beginning and despite studies and articles on both sides of the equation there is no absolute consensus one way or the other.

And, dont forget, in some capacities that emotional effect has value as well.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Nacre

Numerous independent studies have shown that no net jobs or other economic benefits are added as a result of building a new stadium or arena. If the Flames leave, people in Calgary will simply re-allocate whatever they would have spent on the Flames to other stuff like restaurants, theatre, skiing, etc.

When the Sonics left Seattle I was enraged. And then I discovered that without my Sonics season ticket I had an extra $3,000 per year to spend on other things. Instead of NBA tickets I have two season tickets for one of Seattle's WHL teams, season tickets at a ski area and money left over for restaurant upgrades and some concerts. Honestly I am better off now without the NBA.

Keeping the NHL in Calgary (or any other major league team in any other city) is purely about emotion.

I'm not so sure about that. In some cases, yes. But I'm a season ticket holder and if the team were to leave I'd spend almost all of it ($5,000) on vacation/travel. I don't think I'd spend much of it in Calgary at all. I don't think I'm in the only one.

And when I go to games, I often go out to dinner before. That wouldn't be happening as often, either.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by stang

I'm not an Edmontonian, as a matter of fact I am not even an Albertan.

You're right I am not invested in this decision like you are. Just pointing out that it will create more jobs with more hours. Is it a lot more. Probably not. I am interested in the outcome for sure, however I have not educated myself on either side of the argument to really comment. No justification or motive on my part. Just pointing out it will create more jobs, and more working hours.

The job creation angle is always weird to me. We're a huge city, an arena creates what a couple to a few dozens jobs? Not nothing, but statistically for a city of 1.3 million isn't that practically nothing?

Which again, those jobs would be great, however these dozens of jobs are always brought forth in arena debates as a reason to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

If people throwing out this line really cared about efficient job creation isn't there many other ways we could spend hundreds of millions to create jobs?

Hell, we could literally just pay dozens of people to do nothing every year and still come out better than the arena job creation route. This job creation stuff always comes off quite disingenuous from those who likely just want a new arena.

[LIP MAN]

Originally Posted by jayswin

The job creation angle is always weird to me. We're a huge city, an arena creates what a couple to a few dozens jobs? Not nothing, but statistically for a city of 1.3 million isn't that practically nothing?

Which again, those jobs would be great, however these dozens of jobs are always brought forth in arena debates as a reason to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

If people throwing out this line really cared about efficient job creation isn't there many other ways we could spend hundreds of millions to create jobs?

Hell, we could literally just pay dozens of people to do nothing every year and still come out better than the arena job creation route. This job creation stuff always comes off quite disingenuous from those who likely just want a new arena.

I'm also miffed as the Arena kicked out the small businesses so they could put in their own kiosks. My friend owned the mini donut and lemonade stands, and now it's their own "'Mac Shack". Thus putting less into local business than before.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by LIP MAN

I'm also miffed as the Arena kicked out the small businesses so they could put in their own kiosks. My friend owned the mini donut and lemonade stands, and now it's their own "'Mac Shack". Thus putting less into local business than before.

Are you surprised? Concession can be big money.

[Nacre]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

I'm not so sure about that. In some cases, yes. But I'm a season ticket holder and if the team were to leave I'd spend almost all of it ($5,000) on vacation/travel. I don't think I'd spend much of it in Calgary at all. I don't think I'm in the only one.

I can only say that this has not happened in Seattle. When the NBA team left people simply shifted their purchases to other sports events: especially Seattle's new soccer team that draws 43,000+ per game.

Additionally it is worth noting that Seattle's arena went from running at a loss with the NBA to making a profit without it thanks to the elimination of the arena's debt servicing. A modest renovation of the Saddledome to make it a better concert venue should enable the arena to operate at a profit even without the NHL.

[stang]

Originally Posted by jayswin

The job creation angle is always weird to me. We're a huge city, an arena creates what a couple to a few dozens jobs? Not nothing, but statistically for a city of 1.3 million isn't that practically nothing?

Which again, those jobs would be great, however these dozens of jobs are always brought forth in arena debates as a reason to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

If people throwing out this line really cared about efficient job creation isn't there many other ways we could spend hundreds of millions to create jobs?

Hell, we could literally just pay dozens of people to do nothing every year and still come out better than the arena job creation route. This job creation stuff always comes off quite disingenuous from those who likely just want a new arena.

This is probably true. i'd think its more then "dozens" but still not "Hundreds"

[Locke]

Originally Posted by LIP MAN

I'm also miffed as the Arena kicked out the small businesses so they could put in their own kiosks. My friend owned the mini donut and lemonade stands, and now it's their own "'Mac Shack". Thus putting less into local business than before.

See, thats the flipside, the whole point of this entire exercise is to maximize and control all streams of Revenue.

They want the concession, the parking, the gate, everything.

The whole point of the new arena isnt just to have more bathrooms or more seats or whatever, its to maximize and consolidate all revenue streams, and the less time you spend in the bathroom the more time you spend eating pocket dawgs and drinking beer, ergo more revenue.

I'm not advocating that theres anything wrong with that, but finding that balance between cost and value for the taxpayers is a nebulous calculation at best.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Nacre

I can only say that this has not happened in Seattle. When the NBA team left people simply shifted their purchases to other sports events: especially Seattle's new soccer team that draws 43,000+ per game.

Additionally it is worth noting that Seattle's arena went from running at a loss with the NBA to making a profit without it thanks to the elimination of the arena's debt servicing. A modest renovation of the Saddledome to make it a better concert venue should enable the arena to operate at a profit even without the NHL.

That's the difference. In a city the size of Seattle, there are other similar choices, facilitating a simple transfer of revenues from one venue to another.

In Calgary, that simply wouldn't be as true. This is a one horse town when it comes to major sports. And for many people in northern (one sport) climates, the obvious substitute is travel.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by stang

I'm not an Edmontonian, as a matter of fact I am not even an Albertan.

You're right I am not invested in this decision like you are. Just pointing out that it will create more jobs with more hours. Is it a lot more. Probably not. I am interested in the outcome for sure, however I have not educated myself on either side of the argument to really comment. No justification or motive on my part. Just pointing out it will create more jobs, and more working hours.

If the city took $100 million and bought long-term Government of Canada then the city could use the interest to fund 64 $35000/year jobs. It would be absolutely silly for the city to do this, but it shows that as a source of job creation a new arena is basically irrelevant.

[pylon]

I think there is really no more point of debating this whole thing. If the City were to hand the Flames an Arena for free at this point in time, they wouldn't take it. And I have actually heard that. The end game here is relocation. Think about the math:

A) With a new FREE arena, what's the team gonna make? $10 Million a year? $20 million if they hit it out of the park, and we have a good dollar?

Or, option:

B) Relocate, sell and cash out. for +/- $500-600 million.... US dollars. Plus the league gets a nice tidy relocation fee.

Edwards & Co. would be brain dead not to cash out in the short term, they'll all be dead by the time they see $500 million in US profits keeping the team here.

So this is what you do:

Let attendance dwindle (which it definitely is).

Not address team issues (Gulutzan, which they aren't) making the fans apathetic, which they are doing very well at. Second market tickets have never been easier to get for pennies on the dollar, even though we have the most star studded roster we've had in 20 years.

Upper management has been absolutely invisible this season, and won't address the media for any reason.

The Flames just need to lose money for a season or two with a downward attendance trend, combine that with the fact an arena will never happen as long as Nenshi is in power, it works perfect for Bettman and the BOG to move the team to Houston with no future prospects.They have a scapegoat in Nenshi, and the dwindling attendance / team revenue. By losing 10 or 20 million/season the next couple of years, CSEC is positioned to win MASSIVELY if the team gets to relocate.

There is just too much money at stake for CSEC to 'do the right thing' and it is clear, Bettman isn't on the side of anyone but the league and owners, and like it or not, that's what he's paid to do. And to be honest, Edwards and Co. would be stupid not to become apathetic themselves for a season or two, to get the chance to move. It would actually be a pretty savvy business move, and I'd do the same thing if I was at the helm. We're talking half a billion dollars. Loyalty only goes so far when those types of numbers are in play.

My prediction is 2018-2019 is the last season for the Flames, as 2019-2020 will be the inaugural season for the Houston ________s.

This is also going to go down like the Ryan Smyth trade, what was it? They were 170k apart? And they looked like fools for being so stingy. If the city took the teams original deal in the first place, we aren't here. We are going to lose an NHL franchise for what amounts to about a $100 million dollar gap. What's that? A bridge and a couple interchanges? Ask every Calgarian out there what they would rather have, what gives them more sense of community and pride. An NHL team?

Or a bridge and two interchanges that'll speed up their morning commute by 4 minutes on a snowy day.

[Manhattanboy]

It’s up to the owners now. I do not see the City moving off its position in any meaningful way.

[PeteMoss]

They aren't going to move.

They might sell the team.

The benefit of owning of a sports team, besides the ego boost is the increasing value of the team. Unless they move to Toronto and replace the Maple Leafs they aren't going to earn back $500 million no matter where they move.

[ClubFlames]

Bettman keeps fighting for teams in Florida, Arizona, Carolina, telling media they won't move under any circumstance even with attendance under 75% on average for each of those teams.

Some Flames fans think we only have 2 more years left to enjoy hockey in Calgary. We are moving to Houston even with 97% attendance rate to our home games.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

They aren't going to move.

They might sell the team.

The benefit of owning of a sports team, besides the ego boost is the increasing value of the team. Unless they move to Toronto and replace the Maple Leafs they aren't going to earn back $500 million no matter where they move.

The cost of buying an expansion team is now $650 million.

What's the relocate fee? $170 million?

By my math that leaves a $480,000,000 benefit to a current owner to move. You'd think buying a team with a talent core and a very good set of player contracts like the Flames, is going to be worth the same or more than starting from scratch. Albeit the Knights are kinda proving that whole notion wrong. lol

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by stang

I'm not an Edmontonian, as a matter of fact I am not even an Albertan.

You're right I am not invested in this decision like you are. Just pointing out that it will create more jobs with more hours. Is it a lot more. Probably not. I am interested in the outcome for sure, however I have not educated myself on either side of the argument to really comment. No justification or motive on my part. Just pointing out it will create more jobs, and more working hours.

It's basically an irrelevant cost for maybe half a dozen more events a year. In terms of jobs, Edmonton losing the Rush probably negatively affected those min wage working hours more than adding shows did to gain them. Bottom line for Katz is undoubtedly better, but 'more hours' it is likely a wash.

[flamesfever]

Having two NHL teams in one province like Alberta only makes sense when the province is extremely wealthy. Now that this isn't the case, they will probably move the Flames to create a more widespread presence throughout NA.

Then we can happily all start cheering for the Oilers. LOL

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by pylon

I think there is really no more point of debating this whole thing. If the City were to hand the Flames an Arena for free at this point in time, they wouldn't take it. And I have actually heard that. The end game here is relocation. Think about the math:

A) With a new FREE arena, what's the team gonna make? $10 Million a year? $20 million if they hit it out of the park, and we have a good dollar?

Or, option:

B) Relocate, sell and cash out. for +/- $500-600 million.... US dollars. Plus the league gets a nice tidy relocation fee.

The cost of buying an expansion team is now $650 million.

What's the relocate fee? $170 million?

By my math that leaves a $480,000,000 benefit to a current owner to move. You'd think buying a team with a talent core and a very good set of player contracts like the Flames, is going to be worth the same or more than starting from scratch. Albeit the Knights are kinda proving that whole notion wrong. lol

Your math sucks.


Cost of an expansion team: $650M

Cost of relocation: $670-770M+ (cost of the team PLUS the expansion fee).

But that's assuming the league owners would rather collect $5M each in relocation of a stable and successfully financial team even in the situation where a free arena was on the table, than $20M each with an expansion fee to an owner clearly willing to pay that much.


So like you said, think about the math.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Having two NHL teams in one province like Alberta only makes sense when the province is extremely wealthy. Now that this isn't the case, they will probably move the Flames to create a more widespread presence throughout NA.

Then we can happily all start cheering for the Oilers. LOL

I'll be dead honest. If they didn't have that dumpster fire 2.5 hours up the road with their shiny new building, I would probably be less invested in this, and care a whole lot less. But we will automatically become the second rate have-not city in Alberta the second the team moves. I'm petty, and that really bothers me...... a lot.

However, under no circumstance ever in the history of ever, will I cheer for The Edmonton Oilers. I'd rather burn my groin with cigars.

I'll just cheer for my Eastern team the Flyers, the Flames of the east.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by pylon

I'll be dead honest. If they didn't have that dumpster fire 2.5 hours up the road with their shiny new building, I would probably be less invested in this, and care a whole lot less. But we will automatically become the second rate have-not city in Alberta the second the team moves. I'm petty, and that really bothers me...... a lot.

However, under no circumstance ever in the history of ever, will I cheer for The Edmonton Oilers. I'd rather burn my groin with cigars.

I'll just cheer for my Eastern team the Flyers, the Flames of the east.

Agreed. ABE is my life motto. Flames leave and I'm out. I might watch Vegas, or the Habbies, but I won't be nearly as invested as I am for the Flames. Honestly I think it's moot tho. Flames aren't leaving, regardless of all the Chicken Littles posting in this thread.