[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think they offered to show the city. If they are receiving any money from the nhl then it is probably not that far of a leap to say they are not in the top third for revenue generation anymore.

I don't think they offered that, but if you can find reference to it that would be great.

My understanding is the NHL (MLB, NBA, etc.) do not open their books for any independent auditors - and never will.

If anyone knows any different, i would be interested in knowing.

[kevman]

I was also under the impression that Katz had bought most of the land around the arena district when it was worthless knowing they'd cash in when redevelopment began. If that's the case there are no shortage of revenue streams for Katz from his arena deal.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by kevman

I was also under the impression that Katz had bought most of the land around the arena district when it was worthless knowing they'd cash in when redevelopment began. If that's the case there are no shortage of revenue streams for Katz from his arena deal.

I think that was part of the deal itself (i.e. not him being shady)

The argument Katz made was you pay for the arena and ill pay for the redevelopment around it.

Which is hilarious because, again, what is the better money making venture, condos/office towers or an arena???

This is also why the City can point to the "spontaneous" growth around the arena as proof the arena is driving development - although it actually really isn't as most of it is being developed as per the agreement and on Spec.

The final nail in the coffin on this terrible deal is the City agreed to move most of its employees into one of the new towers by the arena (one owned by Katz) for insane rent prices while simultaneously having to pay the lease in their old building.

Again, details like this bother me so much. I would rather have the city come out and say "we gave them cash" than crap like this.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

For those in the know at City Council, any word on whether the City is moving forward with a plan at Victoria Park? Ken King mentioned this at the STH meeting, and indicated it might be done yesterday or last evening.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

...I can't tell what you're arguing with me about. People seem to think there's zero chance they could move and I'm pointing out reasons why I think they could, most notably through just washing their hands of their 1/31 share of the NHL and collecting their massive capital gains. I don't think it'll happen, I'm reasonably confident that both parties will come to an agreement with the knowledge that Calgary is better with the Flames and the Flames are better with Calgary, but it's a possibility.

I'm a little astonished at the hardliners who are daring the team to move by not supporting the use of public funds in any way, but at the same time are morally outraged that the team would threaten to move. Pick one.

Because you make it sound like owning a franchise is an unpleasant, philanthropic experience, done only for the benefit of the city.

Owning a franchise is like owning a rare, classic car (that you actually want to drive). It's expensive as hell to operate/maintain, but the value continues to build. You don't do it because it's an easy, reliable source of transportation, and a hands-off investment, but because it's fun to own, exclusive, and something that few others can afford to enjoy.

When's the last time a franchise was sold for less than it was bought?

Originally Posted by RM14

Liability is a big deal. But, at least the City would maintain ownership of prime land. In that neighborhood it will be worth ridiculous amounts in 4 or 5 decades if they needed to sell it.

They don't even own the land right now. The idea is to trade a larger area of city owned land for this area of Stampede owned land. This parcel is theoretically more valuable, but it's hard to imagine it being anything other than event district land. I would think the Stampede might want to include a provision in any land swap deal that they get first crack at buying it back when it's time to demolish the next arena.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Reading between the lines it is obvious tickets prices will go up but they won't gouge like the oilers did.

The conversation was this:

King- Ridiculous to try and make some promise about what it may or may not be.
Fair to say Edmonton really hammered their prices
They are near the top of the world, some days we envy them, some days we don't.
I think we can deliver value
Ask you to depend on us, and we'll see.

(Audience member)- Wondering with Edmonton having a new building and a skyrocket in price (especially playoff prices) is that something we are going to see here?

King- I don't want you to expect it but it's a very legitimate concern. One of which you will have fair warning on.

I don't think there's any question- with a new building expect a massive increase in prices. I had asked King something very similar in an email a little while ago, and got a very deflected answer back from him.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

They don't even own the land right now. The idea is to trade a larger area of city owned land for this area of Stampede owned land. This parcel is theoretically more valuable, but it's hard to imagine it being anything other than event district land. I would think the Stampede might want to include a provision in any land swap deal that they get first crack at buying it back when it's time to demolish the next arena.

Of course they could. Or the city could keep it and sell it someday and tell the Stampede to beat it. Stampede hasn't exactly been amazing managers of the event grounds.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The conversation was this:



I don't think there's any question- with a new building expect a massive increase in prices. I had asked King something very similar in an email a little while ago, and got a very deflected answer back from him.

I agree the prices will go up. It will be the degree of the increase. Pittsburgh went up 15-20%. Here is an article about the increases in various parts of the arena in Edmonton from 2015. IMO I don't think the Flames would go to that extreme.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I agree the prices will go up. It will be the degree of the increase. Pittsburgh went up 15-20%. Here is an article about the increases in various parts of the arena in Edmonton from 2015. IMO I don't think the Flames would go to that extreme.

if they are, they sure as heck would tell you.
you'd have to be silly to think a new arena won't cost you a heck of a lot more to get into and to purchase things once there.

why sell you a $5 hot dog when they'll be able to sell you a $12 gourmet dog and call it part of the top tier experience.

they'll go to the extreme. because people will pay. they might complain a bit, but they'll pay.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Owning a franchise is like owning a rare, classic car (that you actually want to drive). It's expensive as hell to operate/maintain, but the value continues to build. You don't do it because it's an easy, reliable source of transportation, and a hands-off investment, but because it's fun to own, exclusive, and something that few others can afford to enjoy.

I agree with this anology. My point is, if it was becoming increasingly expensive to store that car, and it was a long and hostile battle to find a new place to store it, you might just decide to take the money you've made on it and call it a day.

I'm confident there's a deal to be made here that will result in the flames getting a new building and the city getting good value for tax payer dollars

[troutman]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...427494533.html

Burke’s invocation of Manitoba’s experience with IGF and what is now called Bell MTS Place is really an argument against public funding for stadiums and arenas, not one in favour of it.

For starters, there was very little public funding in the construction of Bell MTS Place; just $40 million of the original $133.5-million cost came from taxpayers.

If Burke is suggesting the Flames want the same deal to build a new arena in Calgary that Chipman got to build one in Winnipeg, there’s not a politician in Alberta who wouldn’t leap at that arrangement.

Just as curious — and dumb — was Burke’s mention of taxpayer funding at Investors Group Field, which in many ways has become a poster child for precisely why governments shouldn’t be getting involved in building megaprojects for pro sports franchises.

The project was irredeemably flawed from the moment the decision was made to build it on a cul de sac. And the stadium has turned into a giant money pit, with governments throwing good money after bad to try and fix a seemingly never-ending list of construction problems.

On top of that, there are legitimate questions now being asked about the ability of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers to pay back the "loan" the province gave them to build IGF; attendance declines the last three years in a row have forced the club to dip into its savings just to make the $4.5-million annual mortgage payment.

But yeah, Calgary — do it exactly like we did, only with more zeros attached.

[nfotiu]

I'm sure it's covered somewhere in here, but what is the ownership's case for how a new arena will bring in more revenue? Years ago, suites were a big revenue driver that was missing from old arenas, but with the Saddledome having 2 rings of suites, I doubt there is much more revenue to be had in that department. Is it that they can get people to pay more for tickets to go to a shiny new arena?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I'm sure it's covered somewhere in here, but what is the ownership's case for how a new arena will bring in more revenue? Years ago, suites were a big revenue driver that was missing from old arenas, but with the Saddledome having 2 rings of suites, I doubt there is much more revenue to be had in that department. Is it that they can get people to pay more for tickets to go to a shiny new arena?

Charge more for the luxury boxes, more for the seats, more profit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I'm sure it's covered somewhere in here, but what is the ownership's case for how a new arena will bring in more revenue? Years ago, suites were a big revenue driver that was missing from old arenas, but with the Saddledome having 2 rings of suites, I doubt there is much more revenue to be had in that department. Is it that they can get people to pay more for tickets to go to a shiny new arena?

The second ring of boxes in a new arena would be significantly better than the current ones, which IMO are not very attractive to corporate owners (they scream "second class company"). Their sight lines are not good and they don't have their own washrooms.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I agree the prices will go up. It will be the degree of the increase. Pittsburgh went up 15-20%. Here is an article about the increases in various parts of the arena in Edmonton from 2015. IMO I don't think the Flames would go to that extreme.

The thing is, they will be removing 4000 of the cheapest seats, and adding 3000 of the more expensive seats. Anybody sitting in Black right now will have to move to Green. So add 40% to your 15-20%. Now that all the PL STHs are in the Green seats, Green will move to Orange, etc.

I looked at Edmonton. Prior to last year my seats in the Dome were comparable in price. Seats similar to mine went up about 60% in the new arena. Even the cheapest seats at Rogers are still 15-20% more than my current seats.

I get why the Flames are doing this. It's a way to make more money. I just don't think my taxes should go up so the Flames can price their product out of my budget.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I'm sure it's covered somewhere in here, but what is the ownership's case for how a new arena will bring in more revenue? Years ago, suites were a big revenue driver that was missing from old arenas, but with the Saddledome having 2 rings of suites, I doubt there is much more revenue to be had in that department. Is it that they can get people to pay more for tickets to go to a shiny new arena?

The lower suites are reduced cause of how low they are to the ice (after the 13th row). And it is not a full ring. The upper suites are only goal line to goal line, also not a ring around. There will be a lot more in the new arena.

Although, those lower bowl suite are so close to ice, that all those clients will not happy on moving twice as far away from the ice for any kind of increased prices.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...427494533.html
Snipped...
For starters, there was very little public funding in the construction of Bell MTS Place; just $40 million of the original $133.5-million cost came from taxpayers.

Pretty sure CSEC would be ultimately be pretty happy with 30% of total cost on taxpayers, like above.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I'm sure it's covered somewhere in here, but what is the ownership's case for how a new arena will bring in more revenue? Years ago, suites were a big revenue driver that was missing from old arenas, but with the Saddledome having 2 rings of suites, I doubt there is much more revenue to be had in that department. Is it that they can get people to pay more for tickets to go to a shiny new arena?

Just look at Edmonton's rink.

Luxury Boxes.
Theatre Boxes.
Loge Tables.
Loge ledge.
Sky Lounge.
Sportsnet Club.
Club seats.
Oilers O-zone seats.


Just a huge pile of $300+ seating options all over the rink.

Then you have things like Ford Hall which is a bar inside the rink building but open to the public, as well as a few restaurants and a casino.

Plus they will raise prices on everything (seats,drinks,food). That's pretty much a guarantee.

In the Oilers rink for example, there is now a premium on attack twice end, as well as aisle seats.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

In the Oilers rink for example, there is now a premium on attack twice end, as well as aisle seats.

This is nuts.. These used to be things long-term season ticket holders could strategically get over time and seniority and be proud about. This is a dirty level of nickel-and-dimeing every little thing.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I don't think they offered that, but if you can find reference to it that would be great.

My understanding is the NHL (MLB, NBA, etc.) do not open their books for any independent auditors - and never will.

If anyone knows any different, i would be interested in knowing.

That's definitely incorrect. All teams have audits. KPMG is the Flames auditors in Calgary.