Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by redforever

While that might be the case, at least there was a positive climate for attracting business when things turned around. That is not the case now.

Of course thats not the case now, it was not the case in the 80s either. A lot of these posts seem to assume that the future is a straight linear line where everything is predictable. Your obviously not old enough to see how quickly things have changed in the past, for the good, or for the bad.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by nickerjones

Important to note that both of these markets have had pro hockey teams and they failed. Yes they were AHL teams but pro hockey none the less. Hell Oklahoma City had trouble getting their attendance over 2,000 when tickets were $10. I'm not sure how viable either of these markets would be.

The IHL and ECHL both failed in Vegas, too.

NHL has shown itself to be something several levels greater than minor hockey at any level.

[oldschoolcalgary]

hahaha...

decided to skip the game against a team that put out a letter to justify its fire sale.... come back home to discover the Flames lost at home to said fire sale time.

no wonder they aren't trying to get a new stadium.

product sucks... no one is paying 150% more for a substandard product...can't even imagine the sentiment from non hockey fans.

laughable... move the team; doubt there'd be much of a protest.

move them. period... #### or get off the pot

[stamps]

[QUOTE=oldschoolcalgary;6607655]hahaha...

I am hopeful things will work out ..

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

It's not being left on the table. It's being left in the wallets of the tax payers and fans.

Sorry. Money is being left on the table from a flames point of view.

I think a new arena would have less seats thsn the saddledome to maximize demand.

[bizaro86]

The Flames just need to last until the end of the cable bundle. Big US markets are profitable based on a small payment for a regional sports network on every cable bill in the area. Once that dies, big US cities that aren't natural hockey markets become much less economic.

But Canadians paying high ticket prices, and with valuable national TV deals based on actual ratings will probably continue.

That will improve the relative attractiveness of Canadian markets, including Calgary.

[Matty81]

The problem is Bettman redistributes canadian national tv deal and fan ticket money to the ####ty us teams with no fans and props them up. So even if they lose their cable tv money those teams will continue to be artificially propped up with revenue sharing and we'll have to continue watching teams in places where no one gives a crap win the cup every couple years.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Matty81

The problem is Bettman redistributes canadian national tv deal and fan ticket money to the ####ty us teams with no fans and props them up.

Bettman had nothing to do with that. Until the early 1990s, national TV revenue in each country was divided among that country's teams. Then, with visions of a multi-billion-dollar U.S. TV deal dancing in their heads, the Canadian owners themselves agreed to abolish their separate revenue pool and share both national contracts equally among all teams. The fools thought they would gain more from the U.S. deal than they would lose from the Canadian one.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Of course thats not the case now, it was not the case in the 80s either. A lot of these posts seem to assume that the future is a straight linear line where everything is predictable. Your obviously not old enough to see how quickly things have changed in the past, for the good, or for the bad.

When's the last time a government has revoked a tax outright? So long as the carbon tax extortionately punishes any oil company that wants to do buisness in Alberta, there's no incentive for them to ever return and ergo no means for the O&G to ever recover the way it did 30 years ago. People, rightly or wrongly, are becoming convinced of the imminent extinction of O&G as an energy source with a level of conviction that wasn't possible of conceiving in the 80s and companies like Tesla, rightly or wrongly, are feeding into that perception in a manner that didn't exist 30 years ago.

You're right, you can't assume the future is a straight linear line - that's why it's disingenuous to claim what's happening now is exactly the same as what happened in the 80s crash. What's happening now goes so much further beyond the sterile math of percentages and output - it's an ideological war of attrition being waged against us from literally all sides that couldn't have ever been possible to wage back then.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Bettman had nothing to do with that. Until the early 1990s, national TV revenue in each country was divided among that country's teams. Then, with visions of a multi-billion-dollar U.S. TV deal dancing in their heads, the Canadian owners themselves agreed to abolish their separate revenue pool and share both national contracts equally among all teams. The fools thought they would gain more from the U.S. deal than they would lose from the Canadian one.

That was really a critical error on the Canadian owners part. There was never going to be a big US national TV deal and they should have seen that. The ratings on a national level were never going to be there.

The problem though that I have with Bettman, is that he positioned the NHL in all of these large media markets in hopes of chasing down that big national deal. He lucked out in that the regional sports cable channel market started taking off shortly after, and these franchises were able to cash in on their large media markets in this way and bring a lot of revenue to the league.

His problem is that he is doing nothing to prepare for the collapse of the cable bundle, and is going to be left with a mess sooner than later.

[Strange Brew]

I don't really follow the cable unbundling saga but assuming it does start to unravel. would the regional sports networks benefit from a la carte pricing, or be damaged by it? There won't be a hockey only channel, they would be on a channel with basketball and baseball. Wouldn't such a channel pull their weight, relatively speaking?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't really follow the cable unbundling saga but assuming it does start to unravel. would the regional sports networks benefit from a la carte pricing, or be damaged by it? There won't be a hockey only channel, they would be on a channel with basketball and baseball. Wouldn't such a channel pull their weight, relatively speaking?

The math is devastating to these American RSNs. Take the Dallas Stars as an example. They average about 10,000-15,000 households per game, which is about average for the non-hockey US markets. There are about 1.5 million cable TV households in the Dallas DMA, all paying in the neighborhood of 3 or 4 dollars a month.

They are collecting 50 to 70 million a year in carriage fee rates from 1.5 million people and only 1% of those who are paying for it are actually watching it. If they went true a la carte, and all their regular viewers were willing to pay for it, they would need to charge $300 a month for the channel.

The advertising revenue and fees charged a la carte would not pay for production costs for most American hockey franchises.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The math is devastating to these American RSNs. Take the Dallas Stars as an example. They average about 10,000-15,000 households per game, which is about average for the non-hockey US markets. There are about 1.5 million cable TV households in the Dallas DMA, all paying in the neighborhood of 3 or 4 dollars a month.

They are collecting 50 to 70 million a year in carriage fee rates from 1.5 million people and only 1% of those who are paying for it are actually watching it. If they went true a la carte, and all their regular viewers were willing to pay for it, they would need to charge $300 a month for the channel.

The advertising revenue and fees charged a la carte would not pay for production costs for most American hockey franchises.

But, it's such an attractive hockey state for the Flames to move to!!1!1!one!

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

When's the last time a government has revoked a tax outright? So long as the carbon tax extortionately punishes any oil company that wants to do buisness in Alberta, there's no incentive for them to ever return and ergo no means for the O&G to ever recover the way it did 30 years ago. People, rightly or wrongly, are becoming convinced of the imminent extinction of O&G as an energy source with a level of conviction that wasn't possible of conceiving in the 80s and companies like Tesla, rightly or wrongly, are feeding into that perception in a manner that didn't exist 30 years ago.

You're right, you can't assume the future is a straight linear line - that's why it's disingenuous to claim what's happening now is exactly the same as what happened in the 80s crash. What's happening now goes so much further beyond the sterile math of percentages and output - it's an ideological war of attrition being waged against us from literally all sides that couldn't have ever been possible to wage back then.

Oh, I am well aware of what is going on, and I only mentioned the 80s as a passing reference. Still, your projecting a linear course to disaster that is based on todays news. The difficulties in Alberta right now are much worse then they should be and are certainly exasperated by the removal of all US regulations while making Canadian regulations more stringent(for example, the next government will certainly remove the hard cap on oil sands emissions).I don't believe that the divergence in regulations will continue in the long term.

Certainly I am comfortable with disagreeing with you and moving on. Your very passionate about this topic but you seem to think that all is a forgone conclusion, thats where we disagree.

Personally, from a sports perspective I like the Green Bay Packers model, which is also very common in European football. If the Flames really are tied in to the community like some people seem to think that may be the way to go. The arena is a sore spot where the Flames ownership and Calgarians are in two completely different wavelengths, the current performance if the team will exasperate that(again a sort term influence that gets projected to the long term). Lets be clear that regardless of the economical climate, Calgarians have always been frugal when it comes to these kinds of things and the 1988 olympics are a clear example of that. What I am saying is that this would be a problem even if oil was at 100.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The math is devastating to these American RSNs. Take the Dallas Stars as an example. They average about 10,000-15,000 households per game, which is about average for the non-hockey US markets. There are about 1.5 million cable TV households in the Dallas DMA, all paying in the neighborhood of 3 or 4 dollars a month.

They are collecting 50 to 70 million a year in carriage fee rates from 1.5 million people and only 1% of those who are paying for it are actually watching it. If they went true a la carte, and all their regular viewers were willing to pay for it, they would need to charge $300 a month for the channel.

The advertising revenue and fees charged a la carte would not pay for production costs for most American hockey franchises.

And its going to slaughter a whole swath to sports probably starting with Baseball.

The definition of something that people pay for but hardly watch all of the content.

I would think that football and Nascar are going to be relatively alright due to their popularity and the fact that they just have less product.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Locke

And its going to slaughter a whole swath to sports probably starting with Baseball.

The definition of something that people pay for but hardly watch all of the content.

I would think that football and Nascar are going to be relatively alright due to their popularity and the fact that they just have less product.

NFL also doesn't really rely too much on cable for revenues with the bulk of it coming from networks.

[corporatejay]

Yes, let's move a team to Houston, where the NHL will THRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, the delay caused the game time to go past the 11 PM ET mark with just over four minutes remaining in the third period. And NBC cut away from the game for other programming, with that being the local news for most affiliates with SNL to follow. (I got In Depth with Graham Bensinger in the San Diego area instead of the news.)

NBC warned right before cutting away that they were putting the remainder of the game on NBCSN.

http://awfulannouncing.com/nbc/nbc-c...ocal-news.html

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Locke

And its going to slaughter a whole swath to sports probably starting with Baseball.

The definition of something that people pay for but hardly watch all of the content.

I would think that football and Nascar are going to be relatively alright due to their popularity and the fact that they just have less product.

It's true that baseball relies on that money. And there are definitely big problems like the Dodgers making 350 million per year on a tv deal that on one can watch! But on the other hand, they have a CBA that allows them the flexibility to curb spending on players salaries. You can see that the owners are starting to anticipated this delay by all the free agents that haven't been signed this year.

MLB also offset a lot of this by starting the very lucrative MLBAM and spinning it off to Disney. MLB also retained all local in market streaming rights to all teams instead of giving them to the teams. It will be interesting to see what their plan is for monetizing that. There's definitely a day of reckoning coming, but I think baseball has better planned for it.

MLB business accumen is a sharp contrast the NHL. Most MLB teams make an 8 figure profit every year, and that number is spread pretty evenly between the large and small markets. The NHL on the other hand has the large market teams making close to 9 figure profits, while the lower third of teams loses money.

[shermanator]

Found a good article detailing what has happened in the decade since Talen Energy Stadium (built for the Philadelphia Union) was built, and how the promises of a renewed city have not come to fruition.

Those were the grand illusions promulgated by officials to entice an ownership group with supposedly deep pockets and a track record of revamping down-on-their-luck metropolises, and to cajole Major League Soccer into bestowing an expansion franchise that would become the Philadelphia Union. That’s what the pencil sketches and press-release background said about turning Chester – then in its second decade as financially distressed – into a destination for disposable income throughout the Delaware Valley.

Now, it reads like a fever dream, where the imaginary deluge of funds — was it a $400 million or $500 million renaissance? — seemed to jump weekly. The stadium project was seeded by a generous allocation from the state, county, Delaware River Port Authority and city of Chester, $87 million in total, under the guise that a stadium would bring the economic growth that had eluded the city for decades of post-industrial decline.

http://www.delcotimes.com/sports/201...tadium-project

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The math is devastating to these American RSNs. Take the Dallas Stars as an example. They average about 10,000-15,000 households per game, which is about average for the non-hockey US markets. There are about 1.5 million cable TV households in the Dallas DMA, all paying in the neighborhood of 3 or 4 dollars a month.

They are collecting 50 to 70 million a year in carriage fee rates from 1.5 million people and only 1% of those who are paying for it are actually watching it. If they went true a la carte, and all their regular viewers were willing to pay for it, they would need to charge $300 a month for the channel.

The advertising revenue and fees charged a la carte would not pay for production costs for most American hockey franchises.

That is interesting as hell. Now the RSN's don't just carry one sport though. Dallas for example, carries hockey, NBA and MLB I'm sure. I guess that makes the RSN model a little more viable, but you wouldn't expect the NHL to get much of that revenue pie.

All that said, the appeal of the US hockey franchise is probably little to do with the TV money. In Houston, for example it would give the owner another 50 or so home dates in an arena that he controls.