[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

How are you getting $8000?

150 000 000 / 41 home games / 19 000 seats = $192.55 average seat cost for the Flames to generate $150 million in ticket sales.

Which is still relatively high, but the facility fee is supposed to be also collected from Hitmen, Roughneck, and other non CSEC commercial events (i.e. concerts) which I think is part of the projected $150 million. So it is plausible IMO.

FWIW last year, rough attendance was 885,000 for the Flames last year. That includes both pre-season and playoffs. Vivid Seats - which I use only because it was first Duck Duck Go hit - had us at 98USD for a median price last year. That's c$129 on average, or about $115 million in ticket revenue for the Flames alone.

The Hitmen drew an additional 300,000 fans, and the Roughnecks 140,000. Plus concerts and other events. Add in the fact the new centre will likely have more luxury suites and fewer cheap seats, and they shouldn't really struggle to get to $150 million in overall ticket sales.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

How are you getting $8000?

150 000 000 / 41 home games / 19 000 seats = $192.55 average seat cost for the Flames to generate $150 million in ticket sales.

Which is still relatively high, but the facility fee is supposed to be also collected from Hitmen, Roughneck, and other non CSEC commercial events (i.e. concerts) which I think is part of the projected $150 million. So it is plausible IMO.

150,000,000 / 19000 = 7894 per seat for all sources each year. I was trying to figure out what the average ticket price would need to be across all events to see if it’s reasonable. Hitmen and Roughnecks make up about 50 dates in the $20-$40 range and 10kish people??? So on a per seat basis 10k*$40*50 events/19k gives about $1000 per seat. Flames is somewhere around $100 per ticket in the old building??? So say 4K per seat in flames revenue, So on a per seat basis 10k*$40*50 events/19k gives about $1000 per seat.

So that is 5000/8000. So need about 30 concert dates?? Or am I underestimating the flames game portion. Overall it seems pretty close certainly within 20%.

In the city report it identified as not meeting revenue projections as a high risk item and that the calculations for the revenue from those sources were done by others (I assume that means the flames).

[SebC]

An inverted bowl is a dome. Seems fitting for a name.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Hitmen and Roughnecks make up about 50 dates in the $20-$40 range and 10kish people???

The Hitmen averaged 7363 last year over 36 regular season games. I'd probably put average ticket price around $20. Including playoffs, about 300,000 spectators total

The Roughnecks averaged 12,593 over 9 regular season games. Cheapest season tickets are $32 for adults and $23 for children. Lower bowl and rows 1-4 of 200s are $42-62. Given much of the crowd is walk-up at higher prices, and that the lower bowl typically fills up quite well, probably an overall average of about $45-$50. Including playoffs last year, overall attendance of about 140,000.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by SebC

An inverted bowl is a dome. Seems fitting for a name.

Has any building in North America been built with the inverted bowl?

I'd be wary of being the first.

[CroFlames]

If it's indeed built on 12th Ave, I hope they unveil both the arena name and the renaming of 12th Ave to Jarome Iginla Avenue simultaneously.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Has any building in North America been built with the inverted bowl?

I'd be wary of being the first.

Looks like the Los Angeles Clippers' proposed new arena in Inglewood will be the first.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Has any building in North America been built with the inverted bowl?

I'd be wary of being the first.

I like the concept and I don't see how it wouldn't deliver on providing better sightlines for upper bowl fans. The only issues I can see with being the first it cost overruns as IMO it appears it's more complex than the traditional upper bowls as there's more tiers and due to the inward trajection I imagine more support is required. Personally I would rather be one of the first of the cutting edge new designs than one of the last of the old outdated designs.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I like the concept and I don't see how it wouldn't deliver on providing better sightlines for upper bowl fans. The only issues I can see with being the first it cost overruns as IMO it appears it's more complex than the traditional upper bowls as there's more tiers and due to the inward trajection I imagine more support is required. Personally I would rather be one of the first of the cutting edge new designs than one of the last of the old outdated designs.

Perhaps if you were building with 100% private money.

Cost overruns will = drastic cuts. I don't see the City kicking even more money in, and I doubt CSEC would either as they don't own it.

[Resolute 14]

Also, while not an inverted design, Miller Park in Milwaukee has an extremely steep incline in its upper levels, and even from the 400 level you really feel like you are on top of the plate. So I like this design concept.

The big negative for me, however, is that since they are promising that what used to be "the worst seats" will now be "the best seats in the house", is that the prices for those are going to be nuts. Back end of the 100 level might well become the "cheap seats".

[Toonage]

Not sure if Rossetti designed Little Caesar's Arena in Detroit and while I have never been there I have only heard glowing reviews for the place. If the Flames eschew the inverted bowl, this seems like it would be a terrific design and fit what they are looking for inside & out.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Has any building in North America been built with the inverted bowl?

I don't think there's one anywhere. Having said that, it seems pretty similar to me to the triple-stacked boxes at Staples Center. And also, if could revolutionize arena design, the risk of not doing it might be higher than that of going for it. As long as due diligence is done, I think the risk of a critical flaw is negligible. So the worst that might plausibly happen is cost overruns - vs. build a traditional arena and have something that's outclassed for the next 35 years.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

The city and flames ownership aren't gonna lose 5-10 plus million a year for naming rights from one of the big Canadian companies

It could be the "Rogers Corral" or something similar.

But honestly I think the most likely name is "Scotiabank Events Centre"

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Has any building in North America been built with the inverted bowl?

I'd be wary of being the first.

The one thing with the inverted bowl designs is that they definitely seems to be geared towards a more "premium" experience. Not that I expect many cheap seats in a new arena, but I would imagine there would be even less so with this type of design.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The one thing with the inverted bowl designs is that they definitely seems to be geared towards a more "premium" experience. Not that I expect many cheap seats in a new arena, but I would imagine there would be even less so with this type of design.

This concept looks to be fantastic for concerts.

[SniperJ]

Originally Posted by GGG

A few other things from that document package. The 75 million for sport is a 1.5 million per year payment increasing 2% per year. This appears to replace the current Flames “donation” to the Saddledome foundation so isn’t really new money

In the first 5 years the city maximum of the facility fee is limited to 3 million then remainder is 2%. To get 3 million from 2% you would need to have 150,000,000 million in ticket sales. Excluding boxes that is about 8000 dollars a seat. I’m not sure if that is realistic or not. How much does a flames home game bring in ticket sales 2 million ????

Math is hard - $8,000 a seat, that's priceless!

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

It could be the "Rogers Corral" or something similar.

But honestly I think the most likely name is "Scotiabank Events Centre"

Could there be a 20 year ban on giving naming rights to Rogers or Scotiabank? I know the oil companies are hurting now, but maybe give them a discount so we don't end up with another boring name.

[Domoic]

Perhaps a dumb question - but why does the Saddledome have to be demolished in all of this? And what will go up in its place?

Thanks

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Domoic

Perhaps a dumb question - but why does the Saddledome have to be demolished in all of this? And what will go up in its place?

Thanks

So there is no competition for the CSEC building.

Hilariously, the demo of the saddledome magically got cut in half in cost.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SniperJ

Math is hard - $8,000 a seat, that's priceless!

His math actually isn't wrong. It's $8000 in revenue on average, per seat, over all ticket paying events. Not just the Flames.