CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by New Era

St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland fans were all saying the same thing. Don't discount the desires of an owner to make a quick buck. Calgary is very fortunate to have the owner group they currently have. That ownership group can change so nothing is guaranteed, especially if a better offer comes calling. Calgary is a great market, but so are a lot of other markets. I seriously doubt Calgary could compete with Markham if that was a possibility, especially if the potential for a new building dies.



See, I don't care where the team is. I don't live in Calgary so it doesn't matter to me where the team was. In fact, if the team were south of the border it would probably mean I could attend more games as travel options would increase substantially. Calgary is the one that could be the biggest loser here, no one else. Quote all the studies that suggest the city should tell the Flames to #### themselves all you want, but if the owners tire of the crap they have plenty of options to satisfy people that share your interests. I'll still be cheering for the Flames, where ever they are, but you'll be crying because you lost your team. Ask the Jets fans how hard it was to see the team shuffle off to Phoenix and how lucky they feel to have the team back again. Then ask them if they want to go through that again.

St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland vs. Los Angeles.

Portland, Seattle, Markham vs. Calgary

The comparison to the situation in the NFL is weak. LA is one of the top 5 markets in the US. St Louis and Oakland are small and have substantially worse economic conditions.

Also, the NFL has capitulated and is willing to give the Chargers 300 million for a new arena in SD.

To your second point, again it comes down to the (irrational) emotional attachment we have with local sports teams - and professional sports in general. Is that emotional attachment worth 450 million bucks? What is it worth? (according to the Field of Schemes, 40 million)

[DiracSpike]

All he's saying is that teams move all the time, people shouldn't treat that as a completely empty threat because it's not.

In 2008 the Seattle Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City, a significant drop off in market quality but it didn't matter because the group that bought the sonics was from Oklahoma City and they didn't care.

There are lots of markets in the US that have no hesitations to use public money on stadiums to try and put themselves on the map. Recently it hasn't even been cities but wealthy suburbs that have built sweetheart stadiums. Glendale, Santa Clara, a suburb in Atlanta convinced the Braves to move there from a stadium that wasn't even 20 years old in Turner Field. If the Flames were to move I think the most likely avenue would be the ownership group selling to someone from the US who has one of these deals in place. It's definitely not likely but it's also not the flaccid threat a lot of you seem to think it is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It's definitely a 100% empty threat. Any scenario that involves moving, or selling to another owner who intends to move, will cost the Flames ownership groups tens of million, likely hundreds of millions of dollars. If they wanna lose that money good for them, but that's why it's an empty threat because they'll never voluntarily lose money, unless it's out of spite. And if they wanna be spiteful, good for them, wish I could just throw millions away because I'm petty.

[DiracSpike]

How would selling the team in American dollars lose them money?

I have no idea what they bought the team for but a lot of them have been owner for 20+ years so I find it hard to believe their stakes have gone anywhere but up

Edit: Forbes has them listed at 440 million. Given the propensity of Forbes to underpredict values and the exchange rate the owners could get up to 700 mil CAD for the team if they sold. Thats a lot of money to say no to.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

How would selling the team in American dollars lose them money?

I have no idea what they bought the team for but a lot of them have been owner for 20+ years so I find it hard to believe their stakes have gone anywhere but up

Edit: Forbes has them listed at 440 million. Given the propensity of Forbes to underpredict values and the exchange rate the owners could get up to 700 mil CAD for the team if they sold. Thats a lot of money to say no to.

The NHL entertained Bids last year for expansion franchises.

Only 2 cities were interested enough to put down a deposit.

It's an empty threat.

[Senator Clay Davis]

^^That's $440 million valued at playing in Calgary, a top 10 NHL market. That becomes significantly less when it's selling to become a bottom 10 NHL market. So lets say an ownership group in KC wants to buy and move the Flames. They are not paying $440 million for the Flames. I think absolute best case scenario they can sell for $350 million there, and seeing as at that point it'd be obvious ownership wants out because they won't get the new arena, all of a sudden offers to buy will be all lowballs. Then getting $300 million would be a good salvage job.

So stay in Calgary and have a franchise worth $440 million, or sell it to the KC group for probably $300 million. I don't know, I probably wouldn't be too thrilled watching an asset sell for 66% of its worth. In fact I'd call that catastrophic. But if the Flames owners want to take their ball and go home, and leave $140 million on the table, good for them.

[ken0042]

Not that I think relocation is likely, I'd say in your example of selling to KC is showing too low of a price. Seeing as expansion fees are approaching $500M USD, paying $440M USD for an established team seams like a good deal.

[Senator Clay Davis]

^Relocation fees apply as well, so whether it's expansion or moving, either one comes with a hefty fee. And if someone wants to suggest Markham, that's gonna cost even more to placate the Leafs and Sabers who can block anyone from entering that market. There's almost no markets moving the Flames doesn't devalue the franchise.

[OldDutch]

I think the language Bettman used in his last visit to Calgary was telling. He was very careful to come as close to threatening relocation without actually saying it. He very much was playing a card he didn't have.

All he could say was things along the line that it would be sad if the Flames played in an old rink. That it would be embarrassing.

I mean ownership could pull a Rams and move a team from a top market. Then move them back. I don't think that is likely however. Flames are run by some diverse owners with too much reputation here in Calgary.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The NHL entertained Bids last year for expansion franchises.

Only 2 cities were interested enough to put down a deposit.

It's an empty threat.

That's inaccurate. Only two teams were interested in submitting the application package and the fee that went along with it. How interested would you be in buying a car from a dealer that charged you a thousand bucks just to fill out a credit app? Probably not really motivated, especially when there may be better ways to get into the league.

Seriously, who the hell would want to put up that kind of money for an expansion team, one filled with cast offs and garbage players, and no development system, when you can likely buy a struggling team with established star players and then relocate it to the city of your choice? Which would you rather have? The San Jose Sharks in their first year, or the Calgary Flames and their mature farm system? The smart money is being patient, snapping up a team and moving them.

Not a threat. A reality that has played itself out in the NBA and NFL very recently.

@cappy

$300 million for a new football stadium? The last three stadiums built have come in at $720M (2008), $1.15B (2009) and $1.6B (2010). That $300M is nothing and doesn't come close to financing a new stadium.

[nik-]

Relocation is an empty threat even if 8 cities put in bids.

New Arena playbook: Relocation threat

I idealistically hoped that the Flames wouldn't sink to the level of every other team that's done this, but alas. At this point they're still doing it via proxy. Soon we'll be hearing a lot more about "viability of the franchise" I'm sure.

[DiracSpike]

To be fair the owners haven't threatened anything yet. My point is that in the near future they could sell the team for a lot of money and be done with the headache of dealing with the city.

In 2006 the Supersonics had a local Seattle owner and a minor stadium dispute, two years later their team was gone. It's fine to have a hardline stance against ANY public funding but don't pretend that its a certainty the Flames stay here.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

To be fair the owners haven't threatened anything yet. My point is that in the near future they could sell the team for a lot of money and be done with the headache of dealing with the city.

In 2006 the Supersonics had a local Seattle owner and a minor stadium dispute, two years later their team was gone. It's fine to have a hardline stance against ANY public funding but don't pretend that its a certainty the Flames stay here.

I would rather see the team leave without any city money than the team stay on a sweetheart deal.

Call me a traitor, call me a 2nd tier fan, call me out for "not being a true fan" whatever you want.

The Flames being located in Calgary is worth something to me. Its worth something to the city. Is it worth 450 million? is it worth the lost opportunity cost that money could do elsewhere in the city? not a chance.

[polak]

I think the owners would rather continue to play in the Saddledome then sell the team at this moment. Besides the fact that the rink is old, there is nothing forcing them to build an arena. It's still profitable to play in the Saddledome.

Should Oil stay down and team performance stay at this level and attendance drop like the 90's and 00's? That threat becomes a lot more real in the next couple years.

The Flames are already our only top tier, world class entertainment option. Losing them would suck. The only thing left to put Calgary on the map is a week in July and the fact that it's close to Banff.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by polak

I think the owners would rather continue to play in the Saddledome then sell the team at this moment. Besides the fact that the rink is old, there is nothing forcing them to build an arena. It's still profitable to play in the Saddledome.

Should Oil stay down and team performance stay at this level and attendance drop like the 90's and 00's? That threat becomes a lot more real in the next couple years.

The Flames are already our only top tier, world class entertainment option. Losing them would suck. The only thing left to put Calgary on the map is a week in July and the fact that it's close to Banff.

Now, I agree, but if in 5 years and no new arena/stadium deal is signed I would be surprised if the team isn't for sale. It's going to get uglier before it gets better.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by New Era

@cappy

$300 million for a new football stadium? The last three stadiums built have come in at $720M (2008), $1.15B (2009) and $1.6B (2010). That $300M is nothing and doesn't come close to financing a new stadium.

I think you may be looking at NFL numbers. The last few CFL stadiums were closer to the $300M CDN price tag.

Regina- $278M
Winnipeg- $210M
Hamilton- $146M

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think you may be looking at NFL numbers. The last few CFL stadiums were closer to the $300M CDN price tag.

Regina- $278M
Winnipeg- $210M
Hamilton- $146M

Yeah, I was looking at NFL numbers. It was for a NFL football stadium.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fire

Now, I agree, but if in 5 years and no new arena/stadium deal is signed I would be surprised if the team isn't for sale. It's going to get uglier before it gets better.

If the Flames are forced to stay in the Saddledome they will not be a cap team. They will slide back to the middle or lower third of the pack and have a budget to live within. Especially if the Canadian dollar remains low. I don't think relocation is an option at this point, but if the Flames can't complete and the dollar is hurting them badly I could see the owners looking for greener pastures. Like it or not, a new building and the associated other opportunities for revenue is what will keep the team in town.

[nik-]

Sounds like a good reason to invest more to ensure their business then.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Fire

Now, I agree, but if in 5 years and no new arena/stadium deal is signed I would be surprised if the team isn't for sale. It's going to get uglier before it gets better.

I think time is ticking on both sides.

Public opinion in the last couple years has seemed to completely swayed over to the anti-free money for billionaires camp.

If the flames don't strike a deal soon they may get less then they ever thought.