Are flames fans concerned about the team leaving if the arena situation falls through

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I mean, I don't really remember Bettman doing a whole lot to save the Nordiques. To his credit, he got us the salary cap that allowed most of the rest of the Canadian teams to survive (TOR and MTL didn't really need it), but fighting to keep teams in four cities (Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver) is different than just fighting to keep a team in Calgary.

If this city doesn't want a new arena, then it doesn't want pro sports or marque concerts and events either. Can't see anyone fighting to keep an NHL team in a city like that.

I think the NHL landscape is quite a bit different today than it was nearly 30 years ago. The Canadian TV money, the higher Canadian Dollar, social media and etc have probably tipped the scales a little bit more to our side. Canadian teams aren't in as much danger as they were back in the mid to late 90's when Canadian NHL and even Canadian NBA teams (Grizzlies) were struggling mightily.

The NHL knows the Flames were close to an arena deal, so if there's a will, then there should be a way. It's not like the people of this city are against the idea of a new arena and it's not like the Saddledome is an dysfunctional piece of turd. It works, but it's old.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Bettman worked pretty hard to keep the Flames here back in the SOF days.

Hmmm... I remember the SOS days... and maybe I remember one for the Flames too? I seem to recall some kind of threat to move if we didn't hit a season ticket mark one year, which I think we did...? Was the SOF thing only that one season, which is why I remember the Stamps one more?

I didn't think Bettman was that involved in our thing other a press conference here during the All Star game?

Honetsly, I was pretty young and my on ice memories from back then are cloudy enough lol. Off ice ones are worse.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Yeah, if the Dome wasn't saddle shaped then maybe you could get away with doing a major renovation.

Several years ago, there was a study done on the Saddledome to see how much it would cost to renovate and update. Unsurprisingly, the study determined it would be more cost-efficient to just build a new building. There was also a study done to see what could be done with the Saddledome's life post-hockey - maybe a conference space, or converting it to something like Maple Leaf Gardens was converted too, among other ideas; and even then, it was determined to be incredibly cost-prohibitive to do anything worthwhile with it. The Saddledome really is at the end of its useful life.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Hmmm... I remember the SOS days... and maybe I remember one for the Flames too? I seem to recall some kind of threat to move if we didn't hit a season ticket mark one year, which I think we did...? Was the SOF thing only that one season, which is why I remember the Stamps one more?

I didn't think Bettman was that involved in our thing, other a press conference here during the All Star game?

Honetsly, I was pretty young and my on ice memories from back then are cloudy enough lol. Off ice ones are worse.

Bettman wasn't directly involved in the ticket drive. But he was very supportive and worked hard to keep Canadian teams back then, behind the scenes.

That was all Harley making moving threats BTW, for all the talk about how the Flames are different now

[yourbestfriend]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yeah I can't see the NHL working so hard to keep a market like Arizona in the NHL while completely abandoning Calgary and poisoning the well so to speak. Even if Edwards finds a way to convince all the other shareholders to abandon ship, he's going to have to convince what is it, 17 other owners to pull out of a Canadian market with all the history and the Battle of Alberta and etc? No chance. The NHL and Edwards can talk big in order to gain some leverage, but in the end, the Flames are staying put and we'll get an arena one of these days.

Nobody outside of Alberta cares about the BoA history, this will be a purely money and arena play. Atlanta and Houston both have urban populations of 4.5M+ and more importantly, are major economic and hubs in the US. Both are top10 for the most fortune500 headquartered companies in the US. That trumps Calgary, and most other NA cities in potential corporate and retail revenue.

Add to this Atlanta has just put forward a plan for a $2B entertainment district which includes a hockey arena that can be completed in 3years and you can easily see why it's not hard to connect the dots for relocation, whether that's Calgary or Arizona. I don't see why Edwards wouldn't be chomping at the bit to relocate to Atlanta if that deal gets approved. By all accounts he's a cheap bastard, so if someone else is taking the risk and putting up the arena money... why wouldn't he want in on that.
The Oakland A's also just agreed to relocated their team to Vegas basically because of a stadium. Both these facts have definitely provided enough ammo for Edwards and Bettman where any talks of relocation is much more than "talking big".

[GirlySports]

A's are Vegas bound. Just bought land to build a stadium.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/mlb/article...-in-las-vegas/

The Athletics had been negotiating with the City of Oakland to build a new waterfront stadium on a site known as Howard Terminal since 2018, but have had many other stadium plans fall through over the past two decades. However, after the report in the Review-Journal was published Wednesday, Oakland mayor Sheng Thao said the city would end those negotiations and pursue other projects for the waterfront site.

If you look at the cases, they are quite similar. Flames are now where the A's were 5-10 years ago. The last new areas in the NHL was Detroit in 2017, Vegas and Seattle don't count.

Even if the Flames cut a deal tomorrow, we're looking at 2027?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

Nobody outside of Alberta cares about the BoA history, this will be a purely money and arena play. Atlanta and Houston both have urban populations of 4.5M+ and more importantly, are major economic and hubs in the US. Both are top10 for the most fortune500 headquartered companies in the US. That trumps Calgary, and most other NA cities in potential corporate and retail revenue.

Add to this Atlanta has just put forward a plan for a $2B entertainment district which includes a hockey arena that can be completed in 3years and you can easily see why it's not hard to connect the dots for relocation, whether that's Calgary or Arizona. I don't see why Edwards wouldn't be chomping at the bit to relocate to Atlanta if that deal gets approved. By all accounts he's a cheap bastard, so if someone else is taking the risk and putting up the arena money... why wouldn't he want in on that.
The Oakland A's also just agreed to relocated their team to Vegas basically because of a stadium. Both these facts have definitely provided enough ammo for Edwards and Bettman where any talks of relocation is much more than "talking big".

This is the part that I think people don't get. I might be wrong, if the Flames re-locate, I'm going to guess Edwards wouldn't remain the owner. He'd probably sell to an Atlanta based ownership group in this situation, who would then be dealing with the contract / lease required to use the new building there.

Very unlikely Edwards is moving the team himself to a new location, he'd be selling it to a new ownership group who'd be moving it. Edwards likely owns the Flames (not saying it's all selfless) because of his connections to Calgary and it's connection to his other Calgary based businesses. Again, might be wrong, but I doubt he's interested owning the team in some random city he's not connected too, but maybe he is.

[Loyal and True]

Every year that passes is another year of lost leverage for the city. Eventually the city will need a new event centre, with or without an NHL team. As the buiding ages and deteriorates, the cost/benefit of reno (vs. new building) becomes less and less palatable to the public (not unlike armchair GMs' retool vs rebuild debate).Then any portion of dollars contributed by private stakeholders (team owners) will be viewed as a private contribution towards a civic need, as opposed to City portion being viewed as handouts to billionaires.

I won't be surprised if the city portion ends up similar to Edmonton's portion. Flames could just wait it out, if they want.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Fenway Park is an iconic landmark recognized as being part of the history and tradition of the game. The facility has been renovated a number of times, including this past year, with hope of extending its lifespan out another few decades, but even the most diehard fans recognize Fenway is coming to an end. The Saddledome is a dump and structurally unsound. It is literally falling apart and cannot be renovated without massive cost. There is no history or tradition behind the Saddledome. The closest comparison to what you're talking about would be the Forum in Montreal, and that facility was replaced for all the reasons the Saddledome needs to be replaced.

Well, one of the original six's building remains, and it's the greatest closed-air venue in the world. In today's dollars tho, they've spent almost $2bn in renovations.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Well, one of the original six's building remains, and it's the greatest closed-air venue in the world. In today's dollars tho, they've spent almost $2bn in renovations.

New York is also a lot different situation than Calgary.

If you want to keep the team in Manhattan, and not have to move them right out of downtown, then you're going to reno MSG.

[GioforPM]

The Dome reno would require a complete new roof, no?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

Every year that passes is another year of lost leverage for the city. Eventually the city will need a new event centre, with or without an NHL team. As the buiding ages and deteriorates, the cost/benefit of reno (vs. new building) becomes less and less palatable to the public (not unlike armchair GMs' retool vs rebuild debate).Then any portion of dollars contributed by private stakeholders (team owners) will be viewed as a private contribution towards a civic need, as opposed to City portion being viewed as handouts to billionaires.

I won't be surprised if the city portion ends up similar to Edmonton's portion. Flames could just wait it out, if they want.

How much money would they leave on the table by waiting it out? more than the cost of what their extra contribution to the last deal was, I bet.

Look at the money the Oilers have made since their new building opened and the difference there now in the value of the franchise compared to the Flames.

I took a peek at a forbes article. Oilers 7th, valued at 1.27 Billion with an operating income of 87 million

Flames 21st, valued at 855 million with an operating income of 41 million.

pretty big difference, and that's a lot of money they're leaving on the table if their plan is to wait out the city.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Well, one of the original six's building remains, and it's the greatest closed-air venue in the world. In today's dollars tho, they've spent almost $2bn in renovations.

Wow, does this statement come off sounding strange, like the Rangers started playing in the same building they are currently in. The Rangers started in Madison Square Garden III (a completely different building) and played there until 1968. Maybe you're not aware, but the building that is called Madison Square Garden today is actually Madison Square Garden IV - the fourth building that has had the name and in roughly the same location in New York (PT Barnum was in MSG I). The current MSG was opened in 1968 and has undergone two major renovations ($200M in 1991 and $1B+ in 2011). MSG is far from perfect, considering the constraints, but it as state of the art as you get for a renovation. Ironically, there have been multiple plans fora new Garden near the existing one, but they've elected to renovate rather than construct new. I think real estate values for high rises probably makes that land more attractive. Fortunately the Flames don't have that problem.

[Southside403]

Murray should just sell the team get in fresh wealthy owner change the culture get a arena built at flames expense move on. If the Flames pay for the arena do they get all the revenue?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I'm so confused by some of the takes in here on the building, they are super baffling.

1. Murray should move the team, then the NHL will give us an expansion team and that owner will build the building themselves? At the estimated $684M for the project (which we all know will be higher), the pay back period on that investment based on Flames earnings is around 75 years...........why would that be different / more palatable for a new ownership group. Public partnership is still going to be needed for a different owner.

2. Get the owners out and the Province and City will figure out how to build this then attract a new owner? The the city is already getting enough heat for the original proposal of using public funds for half of this project (many people feel that number should be 0, as we know), why would having public funds pay for ALL of it all of a sudden be a reasonable option?

Losing hockey games sure does make people lose touch with reality doesn't it.

What's baffling is the idea that a new owner would have to build the building themselves. The city has shown itself more than willing to pay at least $300M.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

How much money would they leave on the table by waiting it out? more than the cost of what their extra contribution to the last deal was, I bet.

Look at the money the Oilers have made since their new building opened and the difference there now in the value of the franchise compared to the Flames.

I took a peek at a forbes article. Oilers 7th, valued at 1.27 Billion with an operating income of 87 million

Flames 21st, valued at 855 million with an operating income of 41 million.

pretty big difference, and that's a lot of money they're leaving on the table if their plan is to wait out the city.

Fair comment, especially the increased operating income (breaking out a McDavid factor in Edmonton). I wouldn't focus on the forbes valuations as much, anymore than I focus on the assessed value of my properties... unless I intended to sell. Maybe someone wants to brag about values at the Club, but I doubt it.

But in reality, these owners made way more returns by investing their cash in other ventures than any returns left on the table here.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It’s probably less to do with external validation of caring about your team as much as it is the fact that people want to watch the best.

The NHL has the best. This is known. So if you want to watch the best, you watch the NHL. That’s why so many kids are falling in love with the Oilers (shudder)- because of McDavid. People love to see what “the best” can do.

Notwithstanding the above, I agree with you that you can definitely get enjoyment by following minor league teams, and often the entertainment value is equal or better sometimes. Fully agree.

This is exactly it. It has nothing to do with external validation with respect to why I choose to support and follow certain leagues.

If one gets enjoyment watching minor or local league teams, good on them, thats cool. Everyone has different reasons for supporting whatever they choose to put their dollars to. It would be a shame for the Flames to leave Calgary. (I don’t believe they will, as a new rink will eventually be settled on).

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by Southside403

Murray should just sell the team get in fresh wealthy owner change the culture get a arena built at flames expense move on. If the Flames pay for the arena do they get all the revenue?

Not sure what is better, the Devil you know, or the Devil you don't. An ownership change does not necessarily mean a new owner would be different or better.

People with the kind of money that can buy an NHL Franchise, are not used to being told no. They are used to doing what they want.

If it was a group like Fenway sports or something that they likley leave the hockey ops team to the hockey side of the business. But I am not sure a single owner would be better. Aqualinni/Katz/Gaglardi. not sure any of them are prize owners that stay out of the way.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Wow, does this statement come off sounding strange, like the Rangers started playing in the same building they are currently in. The Rangers started in Madison Square Garden III (a completely different building) and played there until 1968. Maybe you're not aware, but the building that is called Madison Square Garden today is actually Madison Square Garden IV - the fourth building that has had the name and in roughly the same location in New York (PT Barnum was in MSG I). The current MSG was opened in 1968 and has undergone two major renovations ($200M in 1991 and $1B+ in 2011). MSG is far from perfect, considering the constraints, but it as state of the art as you get for a renovation. Ironically, there have been multiple plans fora new Garden near the existing one, but they've elected to renovate rather than construct new. I think real estate values for high rises probably makes that land more attractive. Fortunately the Flames don't have that problem.

Yeah, if they named a new building the Saddledome that wouldn't make it the same building.

If MSG moves it won't be because the Rangers want to, it'll be because the government wants to finally renovate Penn Station (which is directly below MSG) into something other than the dump hole it currently is and pay them to move.

[Redlan]

Nobody is buying the Flames (with the intent to keep the team in Calgary) without a new venue to play in.

No team will relocate, nor will an expansion team come to Calgary without an new venue to play in.

Like it or not, a partnership on the the building costs of an Event Centre is inevitable and in the best interest of the City and the CSEC - they both know it.