Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Lil Pedro

Why would the potential Houston owner pay top market value for the Flames franchise, when he could easily buy the Coyotes for half that cost in 2-5 years when their arena deal in that city falls thru? Makes zero sense to me. The NHL and the Flames can threaten all they want but they aren't moving. The franchise (much like the majority of Canadian franchises) are too vital to the longevity of the NHL. Frankly, the idea of the Flames moving to another market falls on deaf ears.

A franchise isn't vital to the longevity of the NHL if it doesn't have the corporate support to sustain itself, that's just as true in Phoenix as it is in Toronto or Montreal. That corporate support is eroding under Calgary's feet in real-time, regardless of what side of a line the city happens to be sitting on.

[Bleeding Red]

Forbes may tag the Flames at $430 mil, but reading the article they note that price is unlikely the bid/sell price. If I read it correctly, that is the price if you want to sell and STAY in the market, as arena leases, ancillary (concert) revenue, and TV market are all taken into account. It also notes that though they valued the Panthers at $240 mil, they ended up selling for about $150 mil. I also don't think Bettman would charge a steep $200 mil relocation fee to get a franchise into a top 5 US market. I still think $300 - $400 mil total gets it done. Even paying full price, simply moving to Houston with a sweet arena deal could increase the value by at least 10% overnight.

But again the ownership group would need a plan for the rest of the assets and would likely take a hit on all of them should they decide to sell.

I'm just saying unless you think a 36 team NHL is viable and in the works, then moving to Houston is a distinct possibility.

[442scotty]

We need Suncor to buy the team and build an arena. Local with long term stability but I'm pretty sure that Murray Edwards would never sell to a rival

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Forbes may tag the Flames at $430 mil, but reading the article they note that price is unlikely the bid/sell price. If I read it correctly, that is the price if you want to sell and STAY in the market, as arena leases, ancillary (concert) revenue, and TV market are all taken into account. It also notes that though they valued the Panthers at $240 mil, they ended up selling for about $150 mil. I also don't think Bettman would charge a steep $200 mil relocation fee to get a franchise into a top 5 US market. I still think $300 - $400 mil total gets it done. Even paying full price, simply moving to Houston with a sweet arena deal could increase the value by at least 10% overnight.

But again the ownership group would need a plan for the rest of the assets and would likely take a hit on all of them should they decide to sell.

I'm just saying unless you think a 36 team NHL is viable and in the works, then moving to Houston is a distinct possibility.

Why would Seattle pay $650 million for an expansion franchise if there is a team available for substantially less?

[sureLoss]

The Hurricanes were recently sold in a deal for 61% of $500 million with an option to buy the rest in 3 years.

That was with a Forbes evaluation of $370 million for the Hurricanes.

The NHL also has to protect the integrity of expansion fees. They cannot sell a team in the near future for much less than the $500 million Vegas paid.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

A lot of people actually surprised they didn't see Murray Edwards, Ken King and the rest of CSEC on this list?

I know they're not the brightest group, but individual donations were likely discussed internally and I'm sure it was agreed that that would not look good on the organization. I'm sure with enough digging, you can find a lot of proxy donations (family, friends, etc) on top of the Saddledome ads

Rhonda Bean is listed as a donor for $1000. Wife of Flames COO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Rhonda Bean is listed as a donor for $1000. Wife of Flames COO.

About $25K in numbered companies, which a guy could search if he was inclined.
I imagine a few might be set up by Flames connections. But really - if any owners donated, I don't see an issue - he supported their issue (more or less). Just like people who wanted someone to be tough on the Flames might donate to Nenshi.

However, what was suggested by some here was that somehow Smith got free advertising because of his ads during Flames games. If that was the case it would have to appear in this list as a donation in kind, at whatever value those ads would have.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

flames are going nowhere. after seattle gets their team, what's left in the west? Houston?

Calgary as a baseline? Metro population 1.246M. GDP of $91.5B. Strong hockey tradition, no doubt, but that is flagging. Are there other markets in the west? Sure there are.

There's Houston. Metro population 6.313M. GDP of $526B. Home of the NBA's Rockets. Natural rival for Dallas.

There's San Diego. Metro population 3.317M. GDP of $220.6B. Kind of a forgotten city for sports. Natural rival for the west coast teams, especially Anaheim, Los Angeles, Arizona, and Las Vegas. Has a hockey tradition with the Gulls.

There's Portland. Metro population 2.389M, CSA of 3.111M. GDP of $157.8B. Home of the NBA's Trailblazers. Natural rival for the west coast teams, especially Seattle. Has a hockey tradition with the Winterhawks.

There's Kansas City. Metro population 2.159M, CSA of 2.428M. GDP of $125.6.B. Home of the NBA Thunder. Natural rival for St. Louis. No real hockey tradition, other than the failed Scouts from the 1970's.

There's Austin. Metro population 2.056M. GDP of $119.9.B. Natural rival for Dallas. No real hockey tradition. Team would be the only show in town after UofT football.

There's San Antonio. Metro population 2.454M. GDP of $108.9.B. Natural rival for Dallas. Minor league hockey tradition.

All of them bigger than Calgary, with greater GDP, and more thriving economies. Then there are the Calgary sized markets.

There's Salt Lake City. Metro population 1.153M, CSA 2.467M. GDP of $71.451B. Home of the NBA's Jazz, and college sports. Has a hockey tradition with minor league and college teams. Past Olympic host city as well.

There's Oklahoma City. Metro population 1.373M. GDP of $72.B. Home of the NBA Thunder. Natural rival for Dallas. No real hockey tradition.

Both bigger than Calgary in population, but smaller economically. Both have NBA teams that they could leverage to bring in a team as another revenue stream for their building.

There are other locations in the west, and just as good or better than Calgary in many regards. Remember the narrative here saying what a bad market Seattle was and they wouldn't draw flies? Remember the narrative saying it wasn't a patch to Calgary? Remember when the narrative was that there would be no season ticket holders? 10,000 deposits in 12 minutes sure kicked that narrative in the nuts. 25,000 deposits for the day certainly destroyed that narrative. So please, keep trying to convince yourself, and creating a false narrative, that there are not other viable cities, cities with better economies on scales much larger than Calgary, that are suitable locations for team relocation.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by New Era

Calgary as a baseline? Metro population 1.246M. GDP of $91.5B. Strong hockey tradition, no doubt, but that is flagging. Are there other markets in the west? Sure there are.

There's Houston. Metro population 6.313M. GDP of $526B. Home of the NBA's Rockets. Natural rival for Dallas.

There's San Diego. Metro population 3.317M. GDP of $220.6B. Kind of a forgotten city for sports. Natural rival for the west coast teams, especially Anaheim, Los Angeles, Arizona, and Las Vegas. Has a hockey tradition with the Gulls.

There's Portland. Metro population 2.389M, CSA of 3.111M. GDP of $157.8B. Home of the NBA's Trailblazers. Natural rival for the west coast teams, especially Seattle. Has a hockey tradition with the Winterhawks.

There's Kansas City. Metro population 2.159M, CSA of 2.428M. GDP of $125.6.B. Home of the NBA Thunder. Natural rival for St. Louis. No real hockey tradition, other than the failed Scouts from the 1970's.

There's Austin. Metro population 2.056M. GDP of $119.9.B. Natural rival for Dallas. No real hockey tradition. Team would be the only show in town after UofT football.

There's San Antonio. Metro population 2.454M. GDP of $108.9.B. Natural rival for Dallas. Minor league hockey tradition.

All of them bigger than Calgary, with greater GDP, and more thriving economies. Then there are the Calgary sized markets.

There's Salt Lake City. Metro population 1.153M, CSA 2.467M. GDP of $71.451B. Home of the NBA's Jazz, and college sports. Has a hockey tradition with minor league and college teams. Past Olympic host city as well.

There's Oklahoma City. Metro population 1.373M. GDP of $72.B. Home of the NBA Thunder. Natural rival for Dallas. No real hockey tradition.

Both bigger than Calgary in population, but smaller economically. Both have NBA teams that they could leverage to bring in a team as another revenue stream for their building.

There are other locations in the west, and just as good or better than Calgary in many regards. Remember the narrative here saying what a bad market Seattle was and they wouldn't draw flies? Remember the narrative saying it wasn't a patch to Calgary? Remember when the narrative was that there would be no season ticket holders? 10,000 deposits in 12 minutes sure kicked that narrative in the nuts. 25,000 deposits for the day certainly destroyed that narrative. So please, keep trying to convince yourself, and creating a false narrative, that there are not other viable cities, cities with better economies on scales much larger than Calgary, that are suitable locations for team relocation.

Ultimately the more and more I see the economic situation in Canada and in the oil and gas industry as a whole the more I question whether Calgary is long term viable or if we are heading for a long bleak economic recession and exodus as capital flees this province and country as there are better opportunities to build and make money outside of Canada and especially for the O&G industry as it is impossible for the governments in this country to get out of their own way.

All that was to say that I don’t think the team leaving is really that far fetched and I think if a Phoenix arena deal gets done, Calgary becomes the number 1 candidate to move to Houston and I believe it will happen. Not sure if Murray would ever sell but I can see how it would make economic sense for him.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Why would Seattle pay $650 million for an expansion franchise if there is a team available for substantially less?

Because in today's NHL you can get an expansion team and you have a Stanley Cup contender who will probably finish with a top 5 record in the NHL.

[DiracSpike]

Even if the Houston guy buys the Coyotes that doesn't mean the NA relocation market is dried up forever in a permanent state of stasis. There will always be a local billionaire willing to make a name for themselves by bringing a hockey team to their city, the fact is there are more markets capable of supporting a mid tier professional sports league like the NHL than there are teams.

This constant dismissal of new American cities as non-hockey markets is a micro view of what goes in to making a franchise successful. As pointed out even lower locales like Portland and San Diego have multiple times the population and GDP, along with newer arenas and the substantial advantage of making their dollars in USD and not CAD. The Flames will move without a new arena eventually, probably within 5 years.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

This constant dismissal of new American cities as non-hockey markets is a micro view of what goes in to making a franchise successful. As pointed out even lower locales like Portland and San Diego have multiple times the population and GDP, along with newer arenas and the substantial advantage of making their dollars in USD and not CAD. The Flames will move without a new arena eventually, probably within 5 years.

Maybe it's owing to the failure of the NHL to take hold in many of these big American cities with multiple times the population and GDP. Atlanta. Carolina. Miami. Phoenix. Even Colorado is averaging 4,000 fewer tickets sold per game than the Flames.

Big American city + NHL team =/= a loyal and lucrative fanbase.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Maybe it's owing to the failure of the NHL to take hold in many of these big American cities with multiple times the population and GDP. Atlanta. Carolina. Miami. Phoenix. Even Colorado is averaging 4,000 fewer tickets sold per game than the Flames.

Big American city + NHL team =/= a loyal and lucrative fanbase.

It's almost as if a loyal and lucrative fanbase isn't nearly as important as people blindly insist it is. In any case I think we'll find out just how lucrative Calgary's fanbase really is as this war of attrition being waged from all sides on the O&G industry drags on several more years.

[Calgary4LIfe]

What Ken King promised (for years) that the Flames would deliver on fell incredibly short of what happened. For them to negotiate with the nuclear threat of leaving - well, just press the damn button and leave, or get your damn butts back in front of council and hammer something out that is actually fair.

Just like a girlfriend I loved in the past but didn't work out, I know I will move on, and probably find a better one again.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

What Ken King promised (for years) that the Flames would deliver on fell incredibly short of what happened. For them to negotiate with the nuclear threat of leaving - well, just press the damn button and leave, or get your damn butts back in front of council and hammer something out that is actually fair.

Just like a girlfriend I loved in the past but didn't work out, I know I will move on, and probably find a better one again.

Sounds good in theory, but truth is you never stop loving her...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

What Ken King promised (for years) that the Flames would deliver on fell incredibly short of what happened. For them to negotiate with the nuclear threat of leaving - well, just press the damn button and leave, or get your damn butts back in front of council and hammer something out that is actually fair.

Just like a girlfriend I loved in the past but didn't work out, I know I will move on, and probably find a better one again.

This has to happen on both sides, just sitting there believing that the Flames should go back crawling hat in hand saying please sir can I have some more, isn't going to happen.

There has to be a reason, interest and enthusiasm on both sides to even start kick starting this process.

Both sides have acted like petulant 12 year olds, but the reality is there is no parent trapesque hilarious trapping both parties in the basement until they fall in love with each other again end of story here.

The fact is that when the Flames said they're not exploring this anymore I believe that they are quite serious about it. When Nenshi basically left it to the Flames to restart negotiations, I believe that he's serious about it.

When Bettman says that he's not talking about it, I don't believe that there's any interest in his part of re-inserting himself unless the flames ask him to.

We're at an impasse and nothing will be done until about half a year before the Flames contract to use the dome expires.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Even if the Houston guy buys the Coyotes that doesn't mean the NA relocation market is dried up forever in a permanent state of stasis. There will always be a local billionaire willing to make a name for themselves by bringing a hockey team to their city, the fact is there are more markets capable of supporting a mid tier professional sports league like the NHL than there are teams.

This constant dismissal of new American cities as non-hockey markets is a micro view of what goes in to making a franchise successful. As pointed out even lower locales like Portland and San Diego have multiple times the population and GDP, along with newer arenas and the substantial advantage of making their dollars in USD and not CAD. The Flames will move without a new arena eventually, probably within 5 years.

If our current ownership group/organization has this sort of attitude towards the city, and can't accept a fair deal, I say good riddance. As you said in the bolded, there will be another owner willing to come to Calgary with a team, and it will happen quite soon after a flames team ever tries to leave.
Good riddance to Murray Edwards and his petulance, and good riddance to ken king. Both are (and always have been) dramatically out of touch with the fan base. Hotchkiss is probably spinning in his grave.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

If our current ownership group/organization has this sort of attitude towards the city, and can't accept a fair deal, I say good riddance. As you said in the bolded, there will be another owner willing to come to Calgary with a team, and it will happen quite soon after a flames team ever tries to leave.
Good riddance to Murray Edwards and his petulance, and good riddance to ken king. Both are (and always have been) dramatically out of touch with the fan base. Hotchkiss is probably spinning in his grave.

I disagree with this.

The only way an owner would be willing to bring a franchise to Calgary is if the City provides them with a shiny new arena, and that will be a condition that Bettman puts on the relocation of a franchise to Calgary.

Calgary sat 20th in the league last year in revenue, and 19th in operating Income. Why would the NHL relocate a franchise to a team in the bottom third or close to the bottom third of the league currently that makes no sense.

Lets say that the Flames did leave calgary, probably won't happen but lets say they did leave. Calgary would go to pretty much the bottom of the list of relocation and expansion cities that the NHL would consider.

Also as much as we talk about local owners, I'm curious as to who as a local owner would step forward and be willing to buy the team is fund a arena. I can't think of one.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

If our current ownership group/organization has this sort of attitude towards the city, and can't accept a fair deal, I say good riddance.

Agree.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

As you said in the bolded, there will be another owner willing to come to Calgary with a team, and it will happen quite soon after a flames team ever tries to leave.

Disagree. If someone was that willing to own a team in an economically-deteriorating Calgary AND pay their own way for a new arena they'd have bought it from CSEC outright already. If the Flames leave it'll be because nobody with the pockets to own a team sees the value in keeping their investment here, so what sense would it make for an owner to relocate a franchise back here in the foreseeable future?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by New Era

... So please, keep trying to convince yourself, and creating a false narrative, that there are not other viable cities, cities with better economies on scales much larger than Calgary, that are suitable locations for team relocation.

The Americans are stealing our NHL hockey.