Evan Woolley's motion to reconsider Flames Arena funding fails 4-11

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rando

According to Forbes

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

They make over $100 million? I don’t think so.

That Forbes report is Revenue, so thats before all expenses.

So sure, its entirely likely they gross around $100M/year but theres no way they make anything close to that in profit.

Just accounting for the salary cap of ~$80M kills most of it let alone benefits, staff, insurance, maintenance, travel, etc. They're likely turning a small profit or breaking even.

The real moneymaker for the Flames is the fact that the initial investment was ~$30M in the 80s and the current value of the team/franchise is substantially higher plus things like expansion fees and TV revenue.

Its not like they've been making a killing on playoff ticket sales.

[Mr.Coffee]

If this succeeds and curbs the arena deal, 1,000,000% the Flames are done in Calgary. So, people need to decide whether they want a Green line (except we still won’t be able to fund it, so logic is flawed) or the Flames.

They will leave. Guaranteed.

[dustygoon]

Just do lime bikes.

Says guy who doesn’t live there anymore but wants to watch flames on TV in a new arena.

[DiracSpike]

Yea there’s no way they make 100 million profit the franchise is only worth 400 million, just hearing that number you can tell it’s wrong. That capital gain is gonna look a lot more attractive to cash out on if they get dragged back to the table for more negotiation on a deal that was supposed to be finished. I’d sell in a second.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If this succeeds and curbs the arena deal, 1,000,000% the Flames are done in Calgary. So, people need to decide whether they want a Green line (except we still won’t be able to fund it, so logic is flawed) or the Flames.

They will leave. Guaranteed.

Frankly...thats bad overall but not even the worst part. Killing deals that were reached in good faith even though the market forces have changed is just very bad for business.

They can point fingers any which way they like, justifiably or not, but once they start operating like this nobody will do business with them.

[combustiblefuel]

The city needs to act in the populations best interst and not a independent companies best interest. People here have said the city's public transportation can't and will never rival bigger cities trasits so they dont need to. Except that is a false dichotomy. Calgary's population will keep growing so you need to act now so in the inevitable future you can at least keep pace. If the flames move they move.

[OMG!WTF!]

Yeah 290 million should be enough for council to change their minds a couple more times and then flush a few hindred million more in designs. Those idiots will have us all walking in a few more years so why not ditch the Flames too?

[Crown Royal]

It won't get cancelled. Changing an 11-4 vote for, to a 10-5 against is one hell of an uphill battle.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Yea there’s no way they make 100 million profit the franchise is only worth 400 million, just hearing that number you can tell it’s wrong. That capital gain is gonna look a lot more attractive to cash out on if they get dragged back to the table for more negotiation on a deal that was supposed to be finished. I’d sell in a second.

Billionaires would be tripping over themselves trying to buy NHL teams if they knew they could profit $100 million annually.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Locke

That Forbes report is Revenue, so thats before all expenses.

So sure, its entirely likely they gross around $100M/year but theres no way they make anything close to that in profit.

Yeah, I know. That's why both posts I said revenue, not profit.

It's a little baffling Strange Brew just brushed the figure aside . Forbes is a better source then the quote "I don't think so" in my opinion.

The exact number Forbes has is 132million in US dollars by the way. Flames player salary is over 80 million, so while I don't think they're making money hand over fist, they're still making a tidy profit. Also don't think Forbes has the entire picture, and I don't doubt the Flames are doing some creative book keeping to have reported revenue down.

Long story short, the Flames aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Gary Bettman can't snap his fingers and move the team so fast my head spins, and the Board of Governors won't approve the relocation of a successful Canadian franchise, one that makes a profit despite a sub standard arena in their eyes.

Oilers revenue shot up over 30 million a season after their new building, so we can see why the Flames want a new rink. But it continues to be a bad investment for the city.

The Calgary Flames need a new arena, not the city of Calgary.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Yea there’s no way they make 100 million profit the franchise is only worth 400 million, just hearing that number you can tell it’s wrong. That capital gain is gonna look a lot more attractive to cash out on if they get dragged back to the table for more negotiation on a deal that was supposed to be finished. I’d sell in a second.

the Forbes link nor my posts used the word profit.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Billionaires would be tripping over themselves trying to buy NHL teams if they knew they could profit $100 million annually.

Some of us posting here really need to learn the difference between the words revenue and profit.

[J pold]

The $290M doesn't cover the cost of the City's incompetency on the Green Line project from day one. That money will allow them to redesign the project for the 4th or 5th time? Even then it will still likely never get built. Only difference being the Flames are playing elsewhere.

Hard to live in this city right now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If this succeeds and curbs the arena deal, 1,000,000% the Flames are done in Calgary. So, people need to decide whether they want a Green line (except we still won’t be able to fund it, so logic is flawed) or the Flames.

They will leave. Guaranteed.

They only leave if the current owners wish to sell or relocate, AND nobody else is willing to operate the team in the city. That's not likely any time soon.

[The Boy Wonder]

This is much ado about nothing....

Woolley is one of the worst councillors we have and he will continue to be a laughingstock.

This motion is nothing but posturing and I hope his constituents (like me) realize how useless he is as an elected official.

This will get defeated right away, wasting councils time to get on his soapbox.

[Royle9]

Woolley, Farkas & Farrell.

3 stooges look out.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

This is much ado about nothing....

Woolley is one of the worst councillors we have and he will continue to be a laughingstock.

This motion is nothing but posturing and I hope his constituents (like me) realize how useless he is as an elected official.

This will get defeated right away, wasting councils time to get on his soapbox.

Originally Posted by Royle9

3 stooges look out.

I'll never understand why people feel the need to attack people individually if they disagree with their ideas. You want an arena, and disagree with Woolley, fine. Debate the facts, not the person.

There's lots of debate in this thread so it wouldn't be a stretch to assume some of Woolley's constituents support him. That makes him a laughingstock and one of the worst? Nice.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Torture

I'll never understand why people feel the need to attack people individually if they disagree with their ideas. You want an arena, and disagree with Woolley, fine. Debate the facts, not the person.

There's lots of debate in this thread so I wouldn't be surprised if some of Woolley's constituents support him. That makes him a laughingstock and one of the worst? Nice.

It's not an "idea" that bothers me, its that the 3 of them have continuously wasted city and constituent time by trying to grandstand and look mighty in the public eye, and have been for years. Never successfully btw.

At what point is enough... enough?

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Torture

I'll never understand why people feel the need to attack people individually if they disagree with their ideas. You want an arena, and disagree with Woolley, fine. Debate the facts, not the person.

There's lots of debate in this thread so I wouldn't be surprised if some of Woolley's constituents support him. That makes him a laughingstock and one of the worst? Nice.

I have written in to Woolley's office on multiple occasions and have not had positive interactions with him as a person or the way his office is run. So I think it is totally fair to lump him in with Druh (easily one of the worst politicians of our age)

Woolley doesn't promote the betterment of our city. He proposes ridiculous things to try to "build his brand" as a politician and hopes something will stick. Like his insane 30kph speed limit city wide.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Rando

the Forbes link nor my posts used the word profit.

Some of us posting here really need to learn the difference between the words revenue and profit.

Buddy you're the one posting their gross revenue like it counts for a hill of a beans when you have no idea what their costs or net revenue is. You were clearly confused it's ok, that happens. Now you know better that gross revenue counts for jack #### and you should refrain from tossing it out in future discussions about the financial viability of the Flames.

[stone hands]

can we stop pretending for one second that billionaires own sports teams because it a sound investment vehicle instead of it being an extremely prestigious toy they can flaunt to their other billionaire friends and are in the hockey business because they personally want to own a hockey team and no other reason?