Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[GioforPM]

From the link:

The survey does show the vast majority, between 68 and 73 per cent of respondents, are OK with the city providing either land, cash, a loan or some other sort of financial arrangement for the new facility.
The one caveat: it cannot increase taxes. Once tax increases are mentioned, support for the arrangement craters to 24 per cent.
Support is only lukewarm for providing an interest-free loan (41 per cent) and the city providing a significant financial contribution based on the economic benefit of a new arena (44 per cent).

The 44% figure is higher than I would have predicted. I wonder if CRL was even mentioned in the survey.

On the taxes - I suspect if you put "tax increases" in the abstract on any survey question about any topic, you will get a huge drop in support. But what if the average tax increase was actually calculated and inserted? I bet a lot of "no taxes" people would probably be OK with a tiny increase. What if their taxes go up $20? Is that the hill to die on?

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

On the taxes - I suspect if you put "tax increases" in the abstract on any survey question about any topic, you will get a huge drop in support. But what if the average tax increase was actually calculated and inserted? I bet a lot of "no taxes" people would probably be OK with a tiny increase. What if their taxes go up $20? Is that the hill to die on?

It's the old death-by-a-thousand-papercuts adage. If they go up $20 this one time? Maybe. Will this be the only excuse they find to notch up taxes "only" $20 after establishing precedent that as long as it's done in chunks of $20 or less it'll be viewed as tolerable? Absolutely not.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

From the link:

The survey does show the vast majority, between 68 and 73 per cent of respondents, are OK with the city providing either land, cash, a loan or some other sort of financial arrangement for the new facility.
The one caveat: it cannot increase taxes. Once tax increases are mentioned, support for the arrangement craters to 24 per cent.
Support is only lukewarm for providing an interest-free loan (41 per cent) and the city providing a significant financial contribution based on the economic benefit of a new arena (44 per cent).

The 44% figure is higher than I would have predicted. I wonder if CRL was even mentioned in the survey.

On the taxes - I suspect if you put "tax increases" in the abstract on any survey question about any topic, you will get a huge drop in support. But what if the average tax increase was actually calculated and inserted? I bet a lot of "no taxes" people would probably be OK with a tiny increase. What if their taxes go up $20? Is that the hill to die on?

If the city forked over 300 million dollars, no strings attached, spread that over 500,000 private dwellings in the city and you've got a one time payment of approximately $600 per dwelling. Of course, you could spread the pain out over years, but then the city might be paying interest on that too.

Flames already get 20k a year from my family. Not really interested in giving them a portion of my tax too.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If the city forked over 300 million dollars, no strings attached, spread that over 500,000 private dwellings in the city and you've got a one time payment of approximately $600 per dwelling. Of course, you could spread the pain out over years, but then the city might be paying interest on that too.

Flames already get 20k a year from my family. Not really interested in giving them a portion of my tax too.

Divide that by three, because "dwellings" only provide about 30% of the city revenue.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

770 mentioned today that there was a new survey out that showed a majority of Calgarians support building a new arena, but that the city should not providing any funding beyond land and a loan that should be repaid with interest. They mentioned the name of the survey group, but it escapes me.

Anyone have a link to that survey? I can't seem to find it.

Which is pretty much exactly what the City offered except I'm unclear on whether they included interest.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Locke

Which is pretty much exactly what the City offered except I'm unclear on whether they included interest.

No, it isn't... the City offered them $185,000,000.00 straight up (Property Taxes are not payments on a loan).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No, it isn't... the City offered them $185,000,000.00 straight up (Property Taxes are not payments on a loan).

The city offered to continue the current rate of subsidies to the team for the next 35 years. You can't discount the change from the current agreement but you also count discount the fact that a current subsidy exists either.

[Brick]

The Hockey News article by Ken Campbell:

KING’S PORTRAYAL OF FLAMES AS FINANCIAL BOTTOM-FEEDER MISLEADING, DISINGENUOUS

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...g-disingenuous

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Brick

The Hockey News article by Ken Campbell:

KING’S PORTRAYAL OF FLAMES AS FINANCIAL BOTTOM-FEEDER MISLEADING, DISINGENUOUS

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...g-disingenuous

Whoever wrote the title for the article is an idiot. King never said the Flames were a bottom feeder, but obvious since they are receivers of revenue sharing they are not one of the top revenue teams in the league. Most likely somewhere between 10-15 in the league.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Fire

Whoever wrote the title for the article is an idiot. King never said the Flames were a bottom feeder, but obvious since they are receivers of revenue sharing they are not one of the top revenue teams in the league. Most likely somewhere between 10-15 in the league.

I think the title probably communicates the sentiment that King was attempting to convey—that the Flames struggle to make money and are not among the top-earning teams in the NHL.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think the title probably conveys the sentiment that King was attempting to convey—that the Flames struggle to make money and are not among the top-earning teams in the NHL.

Well it doesn't. It's trying to claim King is going around trying to convince people that the Flames are a bottom 10 revenue team. What else would bottom feeder mean? Just shows the biases of the writer or editor.

[stone hands]

He specifically said the flames were recipients of revenue sharing to debunk the idea that they were profitabld

[getbak]

Look at the headline the Herald used: Amid arena debate, Calgary Flames becomes a have-not market in the NHL, says King

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...-nhl-says-king


He may not have said that the Flames are struggling, but he certainly implied it.



Calgary is the sixth-smallest market in the NHL (only Ottawa, Edmonton, Carolina, Buffalo, and Winnipeg are smaller -- only Winnipeg is significantly smaller). It's actually shocking that the Flames have remained a Top-10 revenue team all this time.

They managed to remain a top-10 revenue team for over a decade while playing in one of the smallest markets and one of the oldest buildings, while missing the playoffs in 6 of the last 8 seasons and only winning one playoff round in the last 12 seasons. If anything, giving them corporate welfare should be an insult to them.

[Barnes]

Guys, this Hockey News Maple Leafs writer from Sudbury clearly has biases. His agenda is without a doubt pro...

Nenshi?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Guys, this Hockey News Maple Leafs writer from Sudbury clearly has biases. His agenda is without a doubt pro...

Nenshi?

Must be part of the Druh Cruh.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by stone hands

He specifically said the flames were recipients of revenue sharing to debunk the idea that they were profitabld

Does receiving revenue sharing mean an NHL franchise is unprofitable though? I'll admit I haven't looked into it much, but I thought the way the league shared its revenues as defined by the CBA was by using a formula that saw the top ten revenue generating teams paying a share to the bottom 10 revenue sharing teams. I've never heard of it being based on whether or not those bottom 10 teams were in the red or not.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

From the link:

The survey does show the vast majority, between 68 and 73 per cent of respondents, are OK with the city providing either land, cash, a loan or some other sort of financial arrangement for the new facility.
The one caveat: it cannot increase taxes. Once tax increases are mentioned, support for the arrangement craters to 24 per cent.
Support is only lukewarm for providing an interest-free loan (41 per cent) and the city providing a significant financial contribution based on the economic benefit of a new arena (44 per cent).

The 44% figure is higher than I would have predicted. I wonder if CRL was even mentioned in the survey.

On the taxes - I suspect if you put "tax increases" in the abstract on any survey question about any topic, you will get a huge drop in support. But what if the average tax increase was actually calculated and inserted? I bet a lot of "no taxes" people would probably be OK with a tiny increase. What if their taxes go up $20? Is that the hill to die on?

Well its like what security people call a "salami attack". It adds up eventually, if the Flames are asking for 400 million, that's 400 million pulled out of the local economy that would be spent elsewhere or maybe not spent at all.

[Rollin22x]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Does receiving revenue sharing mean an NHL franchise is unprofitable though? I'll admit I haven't looked into it much, but I thought the way the league shared its revenues as defined by the CBA was by using a formula that saw the top ten revenue generating teams paying a share to the bottom 10 revenue sharing teams. I've never heard of it being based on whether or not those bottom 10 teams were in the red or not.

That's what I think as well. Revenue sharing is relative to the earnings of the other teams. The Flames may be in the black but 10 other teams are earning more.

[GGG]

The bottom 15 teams in the NHL receive revenue sharing from the top 10 teams So receiving revenue sharing doesn't mean not profitable and doesn't mean it's in the bottom quartile or third in revenue.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Does receiving revenue sharing mean an NHL franchise is unprofitable though? I'll admit I haven't looked into it much, but I thought the way the league shared its revenues as defined by the CBA was by using a formula that saw the top ten revenue generating teams paying a share to the bottom 10 revenue sharing teams. I've never heard of it being based on whether or not those bottom 10 teams were in the red or not.

i don't think it does either, its just the insinuation that kk was making in response to the idea that the flames make money hand over fist. the implication of receiving equalization payments to your layman(such as myself until i just learned otherwise) is that they must not be in good shape to have to be getting money from the league, when the reality is that they still make money, just not in the top 10