Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Isn't that a distinction without a difference? How often does a team relocate to a new city without also changing owners?

It just happened three times in the NFL, in the same offseason, so...

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Whoooooosh.

It's not an opinion - roads, libraries, and bike lanes are all publicly owned, operated, and maintained infrastructure that everyone in the city can use for free. The arena deal creates a publicly owned and maintained facility that is operated by a multi million dollar corporation and only the select high paying customers will get to use it.

None of what I just said was an opinion. That is what is happening here. If you still don't see the difference then the conversation is pointless.

On top of simply access, most citizens derive indirect benefits even if they don't use them. One can argue the same for the arena, but I'd say it's a few more degrees of separation for indirect benefits in most cases.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's hard to know what is going on behind the scenes. It's not in anyone's best interests to make relocation discussions public (see Jim Balsillie). Not too many people saw Winnipeg as a realistic destination before it happened. Things can happen very fast if the people involved see an opportunity present itself. It's easy when there isn't an apparent opportunity to point out all the reasons why something won't happen, but when there is an opportunity, the mind set usually changes from "we can't", to "how can we".

Bettman said Houston is very much on the radar despite those issues and I am sure he would move heaven and hell to get a team there.

One example in 24 years. And it was a city that had already failed once before.

Meanwhile, ARI, FLA, CAR, NYI, OTT have all had prolonged periods of turmoil...while the usual suspects for relocation QUE, HOU, KC, POR, AUS, TOR2 have all been available to some degree.


21 teams play in buildings built from 1993-2001. Most of the oldest have had significant fairly recent renos (ANA, STL, CHI, VAN, BOS, TBL, NAS, PHI, WAS, TOR).

OTT and SJ are the only teams likely to be playing the new arena game anytime soon (they've both had their first steps).

It might seem like everyone has new arenas, but only DET, VGK, EDM and soon NYI + SEA are particularly recent.

ARI 2003, WPG 2004, NJD 2007, PIT 2010, NYR 2013 reno are the five others.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It just happened three times in the NFL, in the same offseason, so...

The NHL is not like the NFL in that regard. The NFL plays musical chairs with franchise locations all the time. The NHL is still trying to make Glendale work, for crying out loud.

When was the last time an NHL team relocated without also being sold to new owners?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

On top of simply access, most citizens derive indirect benefits even if they don't use them. One can argue the same for the arena, but I'd say it's a few more degrees of separation for indirect benefits in most cases.





One example in 24 years. And it was a city that had already failed once before.

Meanwhile, ARI, FLA, CAR, NYI, OTT have all had prolonged periods of turmoil...while the usual suspects for relocation QUE, HOU, KC, POR, AUS, TOR2 have all been available to some degree.


21 teams play in buildings built from 1993-2001. Most of the oldest have had significant fairly recent renos (ANA, STL, CHI, VAN, BOS, TBL, NAS, PHI, WAS, TOR).

OTT and SJ are the only teams likely to be playing the new arena game anytime soon (they've both had their first steps).

It might seem like everyone has new arenas, but only DET, VGK, EDM and soon NYI + SEA are particularly recent.

ARI 2003, WPG 2004, NJD 2007, PIT 2010, NYR 2013 reno are the five others.

MSG may just be moving a few blocks. Very preliminary steps.

[Beatle17]

Just a quick question in regards to CMLC. Who does everyone think has a better knowledge of doing huge deals, CMLC or Murray Edwards?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Just a quick question in regards to CMLC. Who does everyone think has a better knowledge of doing huge deals, CMLC or Murray Edwards?

If you want an answer, first answer - how is this relevant?

A better question is - who does everyone think has the City and the Cities taxpayers in mind when developing the project?

Edwards is looking after himself- CMLC has a mission of "Strengthening connections between people and the places they share, our passionate approach to elevating the urban experience infuses communities with new energy and the confidence to build, grow and believe. "

Its foolhardy to go down this path. Siding with Edwards over CMLC without more details simply shows how blinded and irrational people can act towards a hockey team.

News flash - the flames don't care about you as fan any more than the money you give them. You are a customer- that is it. Nothing more.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Mull

If you want an answer, first answer - how is this relevant?

A better question is - who does everyone think has the City and the Cities taxpayers in mind when developing the project?

Edwards is looking after himself- CMLC has a mission of "Strengthening connections between people and the places they share, our passionate approach to elevating the urban experience infuses communities with new energy and the confidence to build, grow and believe. "

Its foolhardy to go down this path. Siding with Edwards over CMLC without more details simply shows how blinded and irrational people can act towards a hockey team.

News flash - the flames don't care about you as fan any more than the money you give them. You are a customer- that is it. Nothing more.

Asked a question, thanks for your answer. My belief is Edwards has a better overall ability to build projects for up to $10B than consultants, who get paid quite well, on behalf of the city. CMLC isn't working for free or they would all be city employees.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The NHL is not like the NFL in that regard. The NFL plays musical chairs with franchise locations all the time. The NHL is still trying to make Glendale work, for crying out loud.

When was the last time an NHL team relocated without also being sold to new owners?

Whalers and North Stars didn't change owners. They thought there were better markets for their team to succeed financially. But the thing about Calgary is there is only one market that is an undisputed financial upgrade, and Toronto 2 is probably not possible. People can make whatever claims they want about Milwaukee or Houston or whatever, but those are not elite hockey markets, if they were they would have had a team by now.

The thing is Calgary is not in any financial trouble. Other teams who moved were. This would kind of be unprecedented for a top half market to move to an unknown market.

[Table 5]

I'm curious to see Murray Edward's real-estate development portfolio. The Flames could barely even get a decent rendering out the last time they were in charge.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Asked a question, thanks for your answer. My belief is Edwards has a better overall ability to build projects for up to $10B than consultants, who get paid quite well, on behalf of the city. CMLC isn't working for free or they would all be city employees.

So to get this clear, you don't think the underlying motivation (i.e. mission statements or alternate) of parties matter when it comes to who represents the City in this development?
Edit: And as another person said- what signs has Edwards shown in that the Flames can support any sort of development of this size? The flames have been wholly incompetent on the arena debate for the last decade, i.e. the renderings they released. Its been an absolute embarrassment.

I am interested in your thoughts. Do you believe

-that Edwards primary interest in this project is increasing the Flames worth
- that CMLC primary interest in this project is developing a project that supports the Cities goals?

And your rational that because CMLC has staff who don't work for free.... therefore they don't want to protect the interest of the City? Is that what you are saying?

There is ALOT of dumb points in this thread, I think you get the award for making the dumbest point of them all.

Pro-arena because you like it? Sure, go for that position. To argue the Edwards managing it is in the best interest of the City.... I am just amazed. Thank you

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Mull

If you want an answer, first answer - how is this relevant?

A better question is - who does everyone think has the City and the Cities taxpayers in mind when developing the project?

Edwards is looking after himself- CMLC has a mission of "Strengthening connections between people and the places they share, our passionate approach to elevating the urban experience infuses communities with new energy and the confidence to build, grow and believe. "

Its foolhardy to go down this path. Siding with Edwards over CMLC without more details simply shows how blinded and irrational people can act towards a hockey team.

News flash - the flames don't care about you as fan any more than the money you give them. You are a customer- that is it. Nothing more.

The correct answer is both are in it for the $$

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah. I am assuming a move to any other city is a sale. And that would have its attractions to the owners too. I’m assuming the Flames owners aren’t averse to being paid out.

I can’t recall a move without an ownership change.

I question this assumption. We can have the typical arena argument forever and ever, but the thing that should never be overlooked is the scarcity of professional franchises, especially in Canada. Owning a franchise is no more of a 'hassle' (as many often call it) than owning a yacht, vintage ferrari, or impressive wine/art collection.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Just a quick question in regards to CMLC. Who does everyone think has a better knowledge of doing huge deals, CMLC or Murray Edwards?

I'd take CMLC.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Mull

So to get this clear, you don't think the underlying motivation (i.e. mission statements or alternate) of parties matter when it comes to who represents the City in this development?
Edit: And as another person said- what signs has Edwards shown in that the Flames can support any sort of development of this size? The flames have been wholly incompetent on the arena debate for the last decade, i.e. the renderings they released. Its been an absolute embarrassment.

I am interested in your thoughts. Do you believe

-that Edwards primary interest in this project is increasing the Flames worth
- that CMLC primary interest in this project is developing a project that supports the Cities goals?

And your rational that because CMLC has staff who don't work for free.... therefore they don't want to protect the interest of the City? Is that what you are saying?

There is ALOT of dumb points in this thread, I think you get the award for making the dumbest point of them all.

Pro-arena because you like it? Sure, go for that position. To argue the Edwards managing it is in the best interest of the City.... I am just amazed. Thank you

I believe that both parties have their best corporate interest at heart. The issue is why don't they trust each other and what works best for BOTH parties.

Personally I would like to see them get moving on a new building and find out who let this information out to general public. Who does leaking, or disseminating, of information help/hurt the most? The last point to me is the party with the most to lose in the negotiation.

I am not disparaging CMLC, they seem to have done a wonderful job handling the $37-$39M of city tax money so far, but what is the real reason for the sudden dispute?

Thanks for your answer above.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

When was the last time an NHL team relocated without also being sold to new owners?

If it has ever happened, it would have been prior to the Original 6 days. Every post-expansion relocation either happened simultaneously with a sale of the franchise, or very shortly after the franchise was sold to new owners who likely purchased with an eye towards moving.

The Whalers and Stars were both sold 3 years before they relocated, but in both cases, the new owners had no previous ties to the local area and moved the teams as soon as the league would let them.



Either way, there have been some massive jumps to conclusions in this thread over the last day. We went from a slight pause to sort things out to talking about the team moving.

The reality is this will almost-certainly get sorted out and there's a good chance the building will still be open in time for the 2024 season. It might miss the 2024 Stampede, but I wouldn't even count that out at this stage.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Asked a question, thanks for your answer. My belief is Edwards has a better overall ability to build projects for up to $10B than consultants, who get paid quite well, on behalf of the city. CMLC isn't working for free or they would all be city employees.

Have you followed the Sturgeon Refinery? Want to compare cost overruns there with recent CMLC projects?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

I believe that both parties have their best corporate interest at heart.

And here you go again, you simply hand wave the difference in corporate interest as if it doesn't matter.

Its frankly a very stupid point

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Isn't that a distinction without a difference? How often does a team relocate to a new city without also changing owners?

It’s a huge distinction IMO. There is quite a difference between owning a sports team, and not.

Instead of talking about relo, we should be debating whether Edwards and co. want to stay in the pro sports business.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Have you followed the Sturgeon Refinery? Want to compare cost overruns there with recent CMLC projects?

To be fair, there was another management group that ran/ runs the construction of that refinery. But it's not like CNRL is known for never going over budget or over time on any projects ever

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Have you followed the Sturgeon Refinery? Want to compare cost overruns there with recent CMLC projects?

THis might be a good read for you, CNRL didn't screw it up, the government did.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...nwrp-1.5718044

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

THis might be a good read for you, CNRL didn't screw it up, the government did.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...nwrp-1.5718044

I don't understand what your point is from this article. The government didn't cause the cost over runs, the partnership did. CNRL owns 50% of the partnership that built and operates the refinery. They have significant control over cost overruns. The government may have let them off the hook and mismanaged everything, but the project was still way over budget.