Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

I This city needs the Flames.

Need vs. want is a lot different. But, yes the city as a whole wants the flames.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

I respectfully disagree. This city needs the Flames. Sure people will still play pond hockey if they are gone. But the prestige and standing of this city takes a dive if we lose the only real sports franchise we have. It would be the height of embarrassment, really.

LOl

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

I respectfully disagree. This city needs the Flames. Sure people will still play pond hockey if they are gone. But the prestige and standing of this city takes a dive if we lose the only real sports franchise we have. It would be the height of embarrassment, really.

Can I set you straight since you probably wanted my username

The Flames will be sold to another local buyer before the BOG would ever let them leave this city, why? because the owners want a new arena more than they need one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

I respectfully disagree. This city needs the Flames. Sure people will still play pond hockey if they are gone. But the prestige and standing of this city takes a dive if we lose the only real sports franchise we have. It would be the height of embarrassment, really.

Has this ever happened as a result of a professional sports team leaving anywhere in the world? Everyone talks to this happening but no one points to evidence. I don't think annedotal evidence exists to support this. Do you think Winnipeg is more prestigious with the Jets back? It's still Winnipeg. Was Winnipeg somehow crappier without the the Jets? How about Quebec City. You just don't here that those cities lost prestigie as a result of losing their teams.

The only thing it would do is give Edmonton an arguement in the who has a better city which still wouldn't put a dent in the E=NG thread.

This is also predicated on the fact you believe they will move. They aren't in the next X years. Doesn't make sense.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

I respectfully disagree. This city needs the Flames. Sure people will still play pond hockey if they are gone. But the prestige and standing of this city takes a dive if we lose the only real sports franchise we have. It would be the height of embarrassment, really.

What prestige and standing exists for having a hockey team? No one other than hockey fans cares. Is Winnipeg much more prestigious now that the Jets are back? Is their standing world class now?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

I respectfully disagree. This city needs the Flames. Sure people will still play pond hockey if they are gone. But the prestige and standing of this city takes a dive if we lose the only real sports franchise we have. It would be the height of embarrassment, really.

Do you think less of Quebec City, Seattle, St. Louis, Montreal, Houston, Vancouver, Atlanta or San Diego (all cities that lost a team in the somewhat recent past)? Quebec and San Diego are the only ones who lost their only big pro sports team, I hope they can survive the embarassment.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Do you think less of Quebec City, Seattle, St. Louis, Montreal, Houston, Vancouver, Atlanta or San Diego (all cities that lost a team in the somewhat recent past)? Quebec and San Diego are the only ones who lost their only big pro sports team, I hope they can survive the embarassment.

Everyone always forgets the Padres.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Duffalufagus

I respectfully disagree. This city needs the Flames. Sure people will still play pond hockey if they are gone. But the prestige and standing of this city takes a dive if we lose the only real sports franchise we have. It would be the height of embarrassment, really.

Two things:

1. This post is exactly why ownership groups are able to bilk governments out of huge amounts of money. They successfully dupe people into thinking sports is truly critically important to a city, moreso than libraries and other public works.

2. The height of embarrassment would be if Bill Smith won because of this issue. Calgary would instantly shoot to the top of the list of most embarrassing cities when it comes to dealing with this.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Do you think less of Quebec City, Seattle, St. Louis, Montreal, Houston, Vancouver, Atlanta or San Diego (all cities that lost a team in the somewhat recent past)? Quebec and San Diego are the only ones who lost their only big pro sports team, I hope they can survive the embarassment.

Quebec City is incredible. It should be at the top of any must see city list in Canada.
It also, after losing the team, built a 400M arena with 100% public money, and still has only a QMJHL team as anchor tenant.
QC is probably the worst example you can cite with respect to public arena funding.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Murray Edwards, Alvin Libin, Allan Markin, Jeffrey McCaig, Clay Riddell and Byron Seaman…why so silent?

Because the position is indefensible and they don't want to tarnish their reputations by having their pictures in the paper with a caption asking for hundreds of millions.

Markin is a former Calgarian of the year. This isn't exactly a boon to his ability to do business in the city right now.

They are just fine tarnishing King's reputation though. "Strike-breaking newspaper man demands hundreds of millions or the team walks" is digestible for them. A lot more digestible than "Former Calgarian of the year threatens to implode Calgary Cultural Landscape".

[troutman]

I'm always struck when I hear people saying they are spending $20,000 per year on Flames tickets. Where else in US are they going to find so many people willing to do this? They can't.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Quebec City is incredible. It should be at the top of any must see city list in Canada.
It also, after losing the team, built a 400M arena with 100% public money, and still has only a QMJHL team as anchor tenant.
QC is probably the worst example you can cite with respect to public arena funding.

In fairness, QC was replacing a facility old enough to where it was becoming an outright safety hazard to attendees. Even if they never get an NHL team there was a legitimate case to be made for building it - although yes the seating capacity and level of public commitment might have otherwise been different without that carrot dangling in front of them

If the Saddledome was to the point of deterioration as the Colisee was, the benefits of a new facility would likely be a much easier sell to the city.

[Reneeee]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Can I set you straight since you probably wanted my username

The Flames will be sold to another local buyer before the BOG would ever let them leave this city, why? because the owners want a new arena more than they need one.

Yes and yes, both cities were worse off when they didnt have a pro team and now Winnipeg is above Quebec City in that margin. Hell even Vegas has jumped up a peg in my books in being a more desirable tourist destination, because now there is a 4th option for people besides Drinking, Gambling, watching a magic show / concert and attending a Golden Knights game.

Anybody who believes a city is the same or better without a pro sports team really doesn't value pro sports

[Dr. Pepper]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Anybody who believes a city is the same or better without a pro sports team really doesn't value pro sports

Nailed it. You value pro sports - lots of people could care less. You are not more important than them. They should not suffer a higher tax burden so your values can be catered to.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by SebC

They're targeting their message to the more gullible segment of the population, so that those people can apply pressure on the city.

Yeah, that's obvious. It's why they keep on referring to money the city puts in as "CRL" even though they knew that there wasn't enough to cover the arena (to say nothing of the arena + all the municipal infrastructure the district will need)... because without the CRL they can't claim that the money will have no civic impact.

That gullible segment of the population... they may not understand all the nuances of municipal government/development but they understand big property tax hikes and the prospect of the potholes on their street not getting patched, less frequent garbage collection, and reduced snow removal on city streets.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Yes and yes, both cities were worse off when they didnt have a pro team and now Winnipeg is above Quebec City in that margin. Hell even Vegas has jumped up a peg in my books in being a more desirable tourist destination, because now there is a 4th option for people besides Drinking, Gambling, watching a magic show / concert and attending a Golden Knights game.

Anybody who believes a city is the same or better without a pro sports team really doesn't value pro sports

Winnipeg's local economy was in its best shape ever when they were between NHL teams, even the most committed Jets STH will tell you this. If anything the economic condition of the city has regressed slightly since the return of NHL hockey.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Everyone always forgets the Padres.

Yes, but in everyone's defense... they're the Padres.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Yes and yes, both cities were worse off when they didnt have a pro team and now Winnipeg is above Quebec City in that margin. Hell even Vegas has jumped up a peg in my books in being a more desirable tourist destination, because now there is a 4th option for people besides Drinking, Gambling, watching a magic show / concert and attending a Golden Knights game.

Anybody who believes a city is the same or better without a pro sports team really doesn't value pro sports

HAHAHAHA.

Trust me, no one thinks Winnipeg is better than Quebec City because the Peg has the Jets. Give your head a shake.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The Braid article brings up a good point. I think a lot of us remember the Save the Flames campaign from the 90s. While it had it’s own share of rhetoric and tough talk, you could at least respect it, as it was the Flames ownership getting in front of the mic to speak to fans. Back then a lot of us could sympathize with the Flames economic situation, and the response from fans, especially on CP, was overwhelmingly supportive.

This time around the ownership is completely silent and invisible. Instead of engaging, they lurk in the shadows getting others to do their dirty work, whether it be King, Bettman, Wilson, or the “Flames friendly” Eric Francis. You’d think that when you’re asking for hundreds of millions of public dollars, you could atleast step up to the plate and engage with the people you want the money from.

Murray Edwards, Alvin Libin, Allan Markin, Jeffrey McCaig, Clay Riddell and Byron Seaman…why so silent?

I think the main difference between the Save our Flames campaign and the arena fiasco is that the SOF campaign asked people to buy the product. Fans were buying tickets to keep the team afloat. (I wasn't here at the time so i may be missing some sort of city contribution)

I think most people on this forum would agree that a ticket tax to pay for the arena would be ok.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Yes and yes, both cities were worse off when they didnt have a pro team ... a more desirable tourist destination...

"Tourist destination" is it at all a strong argument in favour of building a new arena. How much tourism do you imagine the Flames actually generate? I expect the figure is negligible, and would remain negligible regardless of the age of the arena.

The City of Calgary would on the whole not suffer with the relocation of the Flames.Yes, a segment of the population would be saddened for a time, but life would go on and the many, much more important intricacies of the city would continue as they did before.