Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 12-22-2021, 02:03 PM   #621
Shazam
Franchise Player
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Memento Mori
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Ding ding ding. I think we have the answer here. These are just excuses to pull out, the real reason lies elsewhere.
Could be the CAD$ dropping like a rock soon.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Shazam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:03 PM   #622
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taffeyb View Post
No. Definitely recent. I’ll have to search that out…

Edit. From 2017….Ken King (rip!)

He said the team used to be among the top 10 revenue-earning teams in the NHL who, under the league’s revenue-sharing agreement, contribute funds to the lower-earning teams.

“We have now crossed the line. We are now receivers. We’ll get a cheque this year. Isn’t that ridiculous, in this beautiful market?” he said.

“And I can say, sadly, that we have crossed one of the remedies off the list, and that is the new facility.
This doesn't mean negative net income, it's simply how the revenue sharing agreement shakes out (perhaps not too disimilar to inter-provincial equalization).

I'll speculate here that there's a lot of factors included like league wide sponsors/partnerships, national TV deals, etc. Every team pays a proportional amount out as revenue sharing and takes a proportional amount in from these wider revenue sources...TOR, NYR, MTL will always pay out more than they receive...CGY moving from slight givers to slight takers only means we're more/less average.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taffeyb View Post
CSEC didn’t make any threats of moving. Their statement says they will continue to play out if the Dome. They know better than to play that card. Just us folks speculating. That being said, if they do comment on relocating, I’d be worried.
"They won't threaten to move...they'll just move."


Except of course for the myriad process that would have to play out first.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk View Post
She had nothing to do with it. It was discussed with Administration and happened prior to her even being elected Mayor. And as Cllr Dhaliwall and Cllr Wong stated in the press conference, the Approval Authority, Calgary Planning Commission heard the application Nov 18, and no concerns were raised, and the applicant were supportive, even "boasting" about those climate mitigation conditions. Again, even if they had buyers remorse post approval, they could have appealed.

Even Further, The Mayor has offered, and offered again to seek provincial and federal funding to cover those costs. The structure of the condition enables that to happen.
Out of thanks...just want these accurate facts to be repeated.
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:06 PM   #623
Hot_Flatus
#1 Goaltender
 
Hot_Flatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nsd1 View Post
Quick summary of Mayor Gondeks press conference by Adam MacVicar

Spoiler!

Sorry Jyoti but pressing the Flames on sidewalks etc is a joke considering the free reign they give residential developers in new communities to provide next to nothing. I also think it's fair to say that agreeing to go public with CSEC means a professional and well thought out news conference like today and not whining on twitter in advance, which is both unprofessional and incredibly damaging for citizens and both parties moving forward. Grow up.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Hot_Flatus is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
Old 12-22-2021, 02:10 PM   #624
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Aren't pretty much all developers responsible for sidewalks? Like, if you build a house and destroy the sidewalk, you are on the hook for it. I imagine every tower downtown has the same requirements.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:11 PM   #625
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Is “sidewalks and solar panels” the new “silly hall” meme here?
Wormius is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:11 PM   #626
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus View Post
Sorry Jyoti but pressing the Flames on sidewalks etc is a joke considering the free reign they give residential developers in new communities to provide next to nothing. I also think it's fair to say that agreeing to go public with CSEC means a professional and well thought out news conference like today and not whining on twitter in advance, which is both unprofessional and incredibly damaging for citizens and both parties moving forward. Grow up.
Yeah, that twitter rant was extremely foolish. She wanted to get the first word in, for public opinion, but all she did was create a much larger void between the sides.

As many have said, it is very much a game of egos, and she did damage with that move.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Old 12-22-2021, 02:12 PM   #627
shadowlord
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Vancouver, BC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StickMan View Post
After reading their statement, it seems like the CSEC was kind of looking for an out as the costs kept increasing and were likely going to keep increasing, and Gondek kind of handed them that. The question is, what was Gondek's intent here? Was she just looking for her name in yet another headline and it went terribly wrong? Or was ending the arena deal her intended result?
I think she's wanted to get out of the deal from the get-go, and upon becoming mayor started thinking of ways to make it unpalatable to the CSEC and making them take the blame for it while looking good for herself - "I stood up against the billionaires".

I have no love for the CSEC billionaires, but this particular negotiation has a political motivation to it on Gondek's side.
shadowlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:14 PM   #628
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJones View Post
Finding a local buyer that will buy the team and fund the new arena seems unlikely. That's a lot of money to find locally.

That's why Houston is always brought up, they have an arena already. Money's not an issue. They just need to pay the relocation fee which would probably lower the teams price proportionately.
For the Flames to move, ALL of the following would have to happen:

1. A non-local buyer offers more than a local buyer, and is willing to pay an additional $200M relocation fee (some speculate higher, but IMO this is realistic)

2. The price Murray & Co. agrees to sell for would also have to be less than what another NHL owner would except (i.e. why would someone pay Murray $600M when Meruelo (or Melnyk) might find it hard to refuse an offer of say $500M?)

3. The league and BOG would have to decide that the arena extortion game is more important than general stability and revenues.


#3 is anybody's guess (pre-COVID they might have favoured extortion, but I'm not so sure right now), but it's pretty tough to fathom conditions #1 and #2 existing at the same time - at least while the Coyotes and Sens are in more distressed situations.
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:14 PM   #629
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

What part of her Twitter statement was a rant?
Wormius is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Old 12-22-2021, 02:15 PM   #630
Yoho
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
What part of her Twitter statement was a rant?
Just the typed words part.
Yoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:18 PM   #631
CFO
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Exp:
Default

Heard Houston is trying hard for a franchise and ME has connections down there and looking to move.
CFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:19 PM   #632
Macindoc
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toonage View Post
How much would the team increase in value if moved to a market with a newer building w/ suites, etc?
Not just suites, but personalized/augmented fan experiences, which is where the majority of future revenue is anticipated to come from. I could easily see an arena with such capabilities adding $1B to the value of a franchise, since this is expected to add more revenue than current ticket sales and concessions provide.
Macindoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:19 PM   #633
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

I have to say - I ain't even mad.

The city, and the team, needs a new event center. So I have been on board from the beginning. But nothing about this project ever got me particularly excited. Not the location, not the deal, and certainly not the building. I mean, it's all fine, it's all good, and it's all probably what was needed. It just never wowed me.

So I guess I'm fine with it all going back to the drawing board. But I think the only way we have a chance of getting a better solution in the future, is with new players.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:22 PM   #634
Hot_Flatus
#1 Goaltender
 
Hot_Flatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Aren't pretty much all developers responsible for sidewalks? Like, if you build a house and destroy the sidewalk, you are on the hook for it. I imagine every tower downtown has the same requirements.
Comparably speaking this city asks developers to pay for peanuts compared to most other major cities. Why? Who knows, but even the most recent move to raise the development related fees did not even bring it close to where it should be. Sidewalks, as an example that I used is moot but the point stands - this move was an attempt to extract a little more from the equation and the City (and the Mayor) failed miserably.

I'd much rather they show a backbone with residential development, which could actually help the cities finances long term than try to bend over CSEC for a few more million at the 11th hour and then plead to social media acting all surprised that things fell apart.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Hot_Flatus is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
Old 12-22-2021, 02:24 PM   #635
Bend it like Bourgeois
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by handgroen View Post
That brand spanking new Convention centre is gonna look great next to the old dome.

Those two projects have been and should always be seen as a package deal IMO one without the other is going to look like Calgary slapped rims and a spoiler on the old dodge neon.
This is where I lose the plot. A convention centre exists so that billion dollar entities can occasionally show up and attract visitors and spending. It’s important, but transient.

If Taylor Swift, the Royal Order of Water Buffalo convention, or some dinosaur science thing want to roll into town the city will spends gobs to build and operate facilities for that to happen. Our mayor will love it.

If it’s hockey players or owners who pay taxes here, create foundations, visit the childrens hospital etc. we collectively say #### you make your own arena.

I just don’t see the logic.
Bend it like Bourgeois is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bend it like Bourgeois For This Useful Post:
Old 12-22-2021, 02:24 PM   #636
Dan403
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

This is what you get for electing leftists.
Dan403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:26 PM   #637
DJones
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
For the Flames to move, ALL of the following would have to happen:

1. A non-local buyer offers more than a local buyer, and is willing to pay an additional $200M relocation fee (some speculate higher, but IMO this is realistic)

2. The price Murray & Co. agrees to sell for would also have to be less than what another NHL owner would except (i.e. why would someone pay Murray $600M when Meruelo (or Melnyk) might find it hard to refuse an offer of say $500M?)

3. The league and BOG would have to decide that the arena extortion game is more important than general stability and revenues.


#3 is anybody's guess (pre-COVID they might have favoured extortion, but I'm not so sure right now), but it's pretty tough to fathom conditions #1 and #2 existing at the same time - at least while the Coyotes and Sens are in more distressed situations.
#1 Seems like an easy yes to me. The 200M is a third of the cost of a new arena. So again, Houston

#2 Never got the impression that Melynk wants to sell, everyone would probably be overjoyed haha

#3 Going forward without a new stadium, our revenues are not great. If someone was buying the team I'd wager they think they can be better than average long term.
DJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:30 PM   #638
Macindoc
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
For the Flames to move, ALL of the following would have to happen:

1. A non-local buyer offers more than a local buyer, and is willing to pay an additional $200M relocation fee (some speculate higher, but IMO this is realistic)

2. The price Murray & Co. agrees to sell for would also have to be less than what another NHL owner would except (i.e. why would someone pay Murray $600M when Meruelo (or Melnyk) might find it hard to refuse an offer of say $500M?)

3. The league and BOG would have to decide that the arena extortion game is more important than general stability and revenues.


#3 is anybody's guess (pre-COVID they might have favoured extortion, but I'm not so sure right now), but it's pretty tough to fathom conditions #1 and #2 existing at the same time - at least while the Coyotes and Sens are in more distressed situations.
I believe that the value of the new venue was baked into the 2021 valuation of the Flames, which is why it increased 42% YOY, the 5th most among NHL franchises. Without a new building, why would the value of the Flames increase more than most other franchises?

I'm pretty sure the Flames would not be valued at $680M today.

And the league is more concerned about long-term revenues than current revenues. With the current facilities, the Flames have the lowest potential revenue of any NHL franchise, and that discrepancy will only increase over time.
Macindoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2021, 02:31 PM   #639
Looch City
Looooooooooooooch
 
Looch City's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan403 View Post
This is what you get for electing leftists.

#### it I’ll take that any day over bending over for billionaires.
Looch City is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Looch City For This Useful Post:
Old 12-22-2021, 02:31 PM   #640
Firebot
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Exp:
Default

https://twitter.com/user/status/1473453723040972801

This particular tweet is really what this is about. Gondek admits to not supporting the most recent deal (why would she even mention this in a tweet), and goes on to say how much work she put in to identify new costs since elected mayor (2 months), specifically climate mitigation and road/sidewalk right of way issues.

These have nothing to do with arena construction costs. They were about "how can we add things that I like now that I am in charge and to show I mean business with climate emergency"

That the first action Gondek did was air out the dirty laundry on social media head for everyone to see, and passing it as only a 1.5% cost increase she is looking to play the victim game with the public.

Gondek is acting in bad faith, thought she could push this virtuous climate feel good add on top of a fast escalating costly project (and how it's only 1.5% of cost), and with CESC already balking at the ever increasing cost overrun in this inflationary chaos, CESC used this as a way to bail out which caught the city offguard.

It's no secret how CESC views these climate mitigation costs, considering how often they state it as part of their statement. I doubt this was ever about the roadway / sidewalk right of way cost (though that again seems like a city cost). It's about tacking on additional costs of dubious motive, that started as soon as a new mayor got elected.

The city needs to realign what it's trying to do, especially if the goal as a city is to build an event center in the next half centennial. It's not getting any cheaper and our mayor is grandstanding, and CESC is posturing back. They need to go back to the table as adults (and that's both sides)

More info on the previous deal here which had both sides make concessions.

https://www.coliseum-online.com/flam...e-fiscal-soup/

Last edited by Firebot; 12-22-2021 at 02:40 PM.
Firebot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
e=ng , edmonton is no good

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:33 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021