[News] CSEC and City of Calgary agree to restart formal discussions on new arena

[Yeah_Baby]

The thing is public dollars shouldn't be used for arenas etc. I also don't think the owners should hold player salaries in escrow tied to revenue. But as with most things in politics it's eventually going to get done, because no one wants to go into an election being the Mayor or Councilor that chased the Flames out of town.

Even look at Edmonton, one of the most militant anti public funds councilors was a dude named Don Iveson, who did a 180 at seemingly the 11th hour, and then ran for mayor and won shortly after.

[bdubbs]

Now all we need is warm weather all year and 10x the population to support it! It's totally doable right?

I'm a supporter of a new arena, for what its worth, but any comparisons to LA / L.A. Live have to be taken with a grain of salt.

[pokerNhockey]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

How proud will you be when The Flames pack up and leave town? That was the best deal for both sides. period.. next deal will absolutely be worse for both sides.

Personally, I think that is an empty threat. Through the Bankruptcy in Phx we know that the team was losing $50mm a year and yet the league refused to move them. Everything I have seen suggests the Flames are decidedly middle of the pack to above average for revenue even though they are one of the worst teams over the past few decades (by playoff performance -> which the league says is critical for most teams to make money), so the market out performs the results by a lot.


If they do leave, it is to send a message, not because Calgary is nonviable. My personal view on that is I will be sad, but if they choose to do that over all the teams that have far worse economics simply because we won't pay for their shiny new phallic object they can pound sand.


Also, the only reason the Flames cancelled the building was because they think they can get a better deal. If they thought it would be worse for them they would have gone ahead with it.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by getbak

Even a cheaper option at a CFL-scale would be a hard sell for Calgary... maybe as the centerpiece of an Olympic bid with big contributions from the provincial and federal governments.

That's how I would approach it too... pair it with an Olympic bid; in addition to private and municipal funding, see if you can get funding from non-traditional sources including provincial, federal and IOC. This was the case in 2017 for the last bid, but that funding model wasn't communicated to citizens very well IMO.

[rotten42]

https://tenor.com/view/horse-dead-beating-gif-9285411

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Muta

That's how I would approach it too... pair it with an Olympic bid; in addition to private and municipal funding, see if you can get funding from non-traditional sources including provincial, federal and IOC. This was the case in 2017 for the last bid, but that funding model wasn't communicated to citizens very well IMO.

Calgary had a chance for this, but that ship has sailed.

There is no way the IOC is entertaining Calgary for the Olympics after Calgary turned up their noses at them a few years ago. Maybe in 50 years when everyone forgets what happened.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Calgary had a chance for this, but that ship has sailed.

There is no way the IOC is entertaining Calgary for the Olympics after Calgary turned up their noses at them a few years ago. Maybe in 50 years when everyone forgets what happened.

oh, darn.

[Ozy_Flame]

I don't think Olympic bid specifically, I think the point is with a major event or hosting experience. Olympics, Sports tournament, world expo, etc. That's how you get federal funding to help with the project, especially if there is more overt benefit for the larger audience who use the facility.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Calgary had a chance for this, but that ship has sailed.

There is no way the IOC is entertaining Calgary for the Olympics after Calgary turned up their noses at them a few years ago. Maybe in 50 years when everyone forgets what happened.

It's not like cities are lining up to host the Olympics... especially the Winter. It looks like the IOC might not even name a host for 2030 this year, which is the customary 7 years prior to the games (which they've already expanded for the Summer games to give the hosts more time to prepare -- 2032 was already awarded in 2021).

If Calgary comes forward and offers to host, we'll automatically become a front-runner.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

How proud will you be when The Flames pack up and leave town? That was the best deal for both sides. period.. next deal will absolutely be worse for both sides.

And go where? Will never happen

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

The thing is public dollars shouldn't be used for arenas etc. I also don't think the owners should hold player salaries in escrow tied to revenue. But as with most things in politics it's eventually going to get done, because no one wants to go into an election being the Mayor or Councilor that chased the Flames out of town.

Even look at Edmonton, one of the most militant anti public funds councilors was a dude named Don Iveson, who did a 180 at seemingly the 11th hour, and then ran for mayor and won shortly after.

With that explanation, a salary cap would be removed

Without the escrow, it wouldn't work

However that is way off topic

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by flambers

With that explanation, a salary cap would be removed

Without the escrow, it wouldn't work

However that is way off topic

It could still generally work, it just wouldn't be precisely 50%. The trick would be to adjust the limits based on a better assumption than even distribution of spending across all teams (there is enough data now that they could probably get it pretty close, though it would also change the financial implications for teams to spend to either extreme).

Or you adjust future cap limits to remedy a previous year's imbalance...which is essentially what they are doing now (achieving 50/50 over a longer timespan)

[Northendzone]

so are their shovel's in the ground today

[Table 5]

The solution to all this is fairly simple (in theory at least)…the league needs to cut expenses down to a level that allows them to build/maintain their own infrastructure. The biggest expenses the league has are players salaries, so they need to come down to whatever level that makes the operation viable without subsidies. Like with any private business, you can’t be handing out multi-million dollar salaries, and then complain that you can’t pay the rent.

I don’t know what that reduction is, but the NHL/NHLPA need to integrate infrastructure planning into their cap/escrow agreements. For example, if the NHL salary cap was $40M, instead of $80M or whatever it is now, and they put that extra $40M away every year…well they’d have enough money for every team to build a new stadium every 25-30 years. Yes it might mean that a star is making $5M instead of $10M... but if that’s what makes the league viable without subsidies, so be it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The solution is to all this is fairly simple (in theory at least)…the league needs to cut expenses down to a level that allows them to build/maintain their own infrastructure. The biggest expenses the league has are players salaries, so they need to come down to whatever level that makes the operation viable without subsidies. Like with any private business, you can’t be handing out multi-million dollar salaries, and then complain that you can’t pay the rent.

I don’t know what that reduction is, but the NHL/NHLPA need to integrate infrastructure planning into their cap/escrow agreements. For example, if the NHL salary cap was $40M, instead of $80M or whatever it is now, and they put that extra $40M away every year…well they’d have enough money for every team to build a new stadium every 25-30 years. Yes it might mean that a star is making $5M instead of $10M... but if that’s what makes the league viable without subsidies, so be it.

This is certainly true and it wouldn't even be nearly that dramatic a cut. $10M per year for 40 years with a 4% ROR = $950M.

The problem is that CGY should have started this 40 years ago...

[Muta]

Originally Posted by getbak

It's not like cities are lining up to host the Olympics... especially the Winter. It looks like the IOC might not even name a host for 2030 this year, which is the customary 7 years prior to the games (which they've already expanded for the Summer games to give the hosts more time to prepare -- 2032 was already awarded in 2021).

If Calgary comes forward and offers to host, we'll automatically become a front-runner.

100% agree. The IOC was very much on board for Calgary's 2026 bid when it was being discussed. There already has been rumblings about another future Olympic bid (see here).

Calgary tries again, the IOC for sure listens and will support. They are in the right timezone for lucrative North American TV deals (one of the reasons the IOC liked Calgary's 2026 bid), have little political turbulence to deal with (unlike China and Russia recently, and FIFA's Russia and Qatar stuff), and have the right geography and potential infrastructure to support a Games again.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The solution to all this is fairly simple (in theory at least)…the league needs to cut expenses down to a level that allows them to build/maintain their own infrastructure. The biggest expenses the league has are players salaries, so they need to come down to whatever level that makes the operation viable without subsidies. Like with any private business, you can’t be handing out multi-million dollar salaries, and then complain that you can’t pay the rent.

I don’t know what that reduction is, but the NHL/NHLPA need to integrate infrastructure planning into their cap/escrow agreements. For example, if the NHL salary cap was $40M, instead of $80M or whatever it is now, and they put that extra $40M away every year…well they’d have enough money for every team to build a new stadium every 25-30 years. Yes it might mean that a star is making $5M instead of $10M... but if that’s what makes the league viable without subsidies, so be it.

But team owners have figured out that all you have to do is threaten to move a team and municipalities cave and fork over the money.

So why would the NHL do what you suggest, when they can just continue to shake down cities for millions?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Muta

... have the right geography and potential infrastructure to support a Games again.

I also think such an event would help spur more federal funding for HSR and/or train infrastructure between Calgary, Edmonton and the Rockies. The province is long overdue for this and everyone wants it for a variety of reasons (especially at the pace of growth currently in Alberta).

Just a gut feeling.

[Knut]

PLus alot of the no voters have likely died off since the last vote. I am all for an Olympic bid at this time

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

But team owners have figured out that all you have to do is threaten to move a team and municipalities cave and fork over the money.

So why would the NHL do what you suggest, when they can just continue to shake down cities for millions?

It's true, the league has no real incentive to change the business model as things stand. If I was in their position and had my business infrastructure subsidized, I wouldn't be looking to rock the boat either. It only changes when enough municipalities say no more, or public sentiment starts affecting votes. Unfortunately there's always an official willing to cave or be bought off.

Like I said, the "solution" to the arena funding problem itself is pretty easy. It's the implementation that's tough...