Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by stone hands

have you read both proposals in depth and come to this conclusion, or are you just of the opinion that a negotiation boils down to meeting in the middle of 2 offers regardless of the content

I have the same access to information that 98% of the members of this board do (assuming some people may be more in the know).

If you are holding me to a 50/50 split, then you're being unreasonable to try and prove a point, and that's not worth responding to.

If you understand that the "middle" is a reasonable position between both starting locations that will cost the city things it doesn't want to give up, and will cost the CSEC things they want to get but won't, then yes, the middle is where they need to be.

For point of clarity, I consider both proposals completely unreasonable the way they currently are.

[wookster]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Damn, I had it pegged at 4% myself, so I guess it's nice that we have 5, but the point still stands. People get tunnel vision on the Flames but that chart really shows that there's only two franchises that matter in this country.

The only thing that chart really shows is where the majority of the population is in Canada. Those percentages are almost exact to the population ratios of the provinces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

Winnipeg has just over 3% of the population and surprise, they have 3% of Canada cheering for them. Alberta has 11.5% of the population and the two Alberta teams combined are.......11%

Every province is within a couple of % of its population so this really means nothing other than the fact that if we had more of the nations population in Alberta we would have a higher number. There is only one team that should cry when the see that chart and that's Ottawa. When you live in a province with 38% of the population and you can only muster 5% of the country as fans, that harsh. But when your so closely surrounded by original 6 teams then its probably hard to establish a fan base.

[Cappy]

I know some people on here seem to think that none of us could live in Calgary without the Flames, but in all seriousness the team leaving would probably sting alot less than it did for a team like Winnipeg.

The games are far more expensive now than they were in 1995, and most people are priced out of actually attending games. I make a good living, but cannot justify paying for my own tickets more than once or twice a year. The majority of my visits are corporate seats which, again, i wouldnt pay for. The prices for everything are going to increase 20% in a new rink. Creating further barriers to entry and few justifications.

Since 1995, access to professional sports has increased dramatically. All 82 team games are viewable in some form other than attending, and all games for other teams are viewable as well. This also extends to the increasing saturation of all other sports into previously dormant markets - NFL, NBA, MLB, MLS. We can watch all these leagues, all the games at home, on our phones, at a bar etc. I was a Flames fan living in Northern Alberta in the late 90's/early 2000's and the best i could do was catch the highlights on the score most nights...

The saturation of other sports into the market has also presented another important factor to, atleast my, willingness to not jump to apocalyptic conclusions: I cheer for teams in other cities, in leagues where Calgary has no presence. I'm a Jays fan and a Houston Texans fan. I hate the Yanks and Sox. I hate the Colts and the Titans. I get emotional when these teams do well (mostly they don't) and poorly (mostly they do) and the fact that i dont live in toronto or houston changes nothing about my allegiance to these teams (i hate the astros). Proximity has nothing to do with it either. there are closer teams (Mariners and Seahawks? yuck!)

So, the way i see it (in my subjective way) is that a group of owners want a public subsidy to keep their business (allegedly) afloat over a business model that has no... business... being a business model, and the only reason they can actually justify the subsidy is by tugging at my heart strings over the love a team.

I ain't buying it. and for the reasons above, I personally don't think its the end of the world. Will it suck? of course, but ill get over it. Will i quit watching the NHL? no, plenty of ways to watch the sport. Will i cheer for the Oil? hell no. I would probably cheer for an expansion team or maybe keep cheering for the Houston Flames (Edwards wouldn't own it anymore). Am i about to lose my collective $%#% because the team is going to move? no.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

All the people who proclaim to not care about the team leaving sure post a lot about how much they don't care about the team leaving.

I think it highly unlikely the team moves anytime, but I will absolutely not be upset if they do. I'll say "that's a shame" like Jerry Seinfeld and move on with my life.

I completely stopped watching NFL football a few years ago (I'll still normally check out the Superbowl, which serves to remind me that the football is a bad product), and it's one of the best things I've ever done.

I like following hockey...I'll probably tune in if I remember that the Flames are on, but I don't plan my life around it. If someone offers me free tix, I'll go. I'll watch lots of the playoffs, but not plan my life around it. If the Flames go on a run, I'll jump on the bandwagon.

I simply find the arena issue fascinating, and I do have strong opinions about it, but I think I'm pretty good at cutting through the emotion and rhetoric that seems to overwhelm so many people.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The Flames current financial struggles coincide with a decline in the dollar. It's not the building that has driven them to have-not status, it's the exchange rate. I'm not even convinced a new building would fix that issue.

Sure it would, do like the Oilers did and raise tickets 40%

[Mr.Coffee]

I've constantly been one of the fans throughout this thread and others that has been staunchly against public funding for an arena. And there's a lot of tough talk from fans over the last couple pages, BUT... one thing to keep in mind in my opinion here:

I find it absolutely revolting that the city would consider public funds (like, way, way, way more public funds) for the bloody Olympics and wouldn't move an inch on this Flames arena deal.

What would you rather have, 30 more years of NHL hockey, or the 2 week party that is the Olympics???

Like I'm sorry but if the City decides that it cannot support public funds to a new arena I'm 100% okay with that but I am 100% NOT okay with public funds then being redirected to the Olympics which, I find support of which anecdotally, tepid at best.

The city should conduct a plebiscite on this issue because I simply do not believe the polls and questionnaires conducted to date on the Olympics, which were a) not widely publicized IMO and b) had a very tight window to respond coupled with poorly worded questions driven at ensuring they could seem to manipulate support.

If the City has $500MM to spend on sport, I want it on the new arena. A terrible outcome is the City spends $1B+ and then the Flames leave. That is literally the worst outcome for me and I'd be pissed.

In sum, I like the tough negotiating stance with the Flames but I detest then turning around and entertaining this ridiculous Olympics bid which I highly doubt is even supported with accurate figures of what the true cost and tax increases will be to the average citizen. If you can't afford the arena, you can't afford the Olympics.

In fact the whole direction this has taken has already put a sour taste in my mouth.

[Wormius]

But if we had the Olympics then we would potentially get a new arena that the City wouldn’t have to pay for on it’s own. Hopefully some provincial and federal support.

Would the Flames like that? I don’t know. I doubt with the province and federal governments being stakeholders they would give the Flames free reign over it like they want.

[Lanny_McDonald]

So it’s okay to spend tax payer dollars on an arena, as long as it isn’t just Calgary tax payer dollars? Wow.

[Mr.Coffee]

I guess I'm just not following the logic. We can't / don't want to subsidize billionaire owners (ones who have largely been Calgary focused philanthropists and stewards and employers for decades) with public funds to the tune of anything north of $300MM on 1 building that would last the City +30 years plus a long-term massive injection of civic pride but we are willing to subsidize a widely reported corrupt organization renowned for bribery scandals, consistently underestimated pricetags in the realm of hundreds of millions of dollars, a subsidy to the tune of what will no doubt be north of $1B minimum for a two week party of civic pride injection.

Why one and not the other? Just because of federal funding? I'm saying, keep the federal funding and agree to the cheaper option if we must do any of this BS.

Where and why did City council even get the idea we wanted the Olympics anyway?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by New Era

So it’s okay to spend tax payer dollars on an arena, as long as it isn’t just Calgary tax payer dollars? Wow.

Because it isn’t being handed over for free to the Flames, and it isn’t coming entirely at the expense of the population of Calgary.

[Mr.Coffee]

But the cost to Calgary taxpayers will be like 3x the amount, for like 0.02% of the time to enjoy the entertainment?

It's just weird to support one and not the other.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

But the cost to Calgary taxpayers will be like 3x the amount, for like 0.02% of the time to enjoy the entertainment?

It's just weird to support one and not the other.

I think it depends what the total cost is and what can be reused for the Olympics if we did want to host. If Calgary doesn’t have to front all of the expense of hosting the games then we could end up with some new infrastructure and things that not have come our way otherwise. If the federal government decides it would be worthwhile to invest in some new ctrains or whatever we could make use of then great. I don’t agree with Calgary footing the bill for an arena so that the Flames reap all the benefits. If the Calgary were to build an arena then the Flames can pay rent for the 41 games they need it for. It shouldn’t be a cash cow for the CSEC.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

But the cost to Calgary taxpayers will be like 3x the amount, for like 0.02% of the time to enjoy the entertainment?

It's just weird to support one and not the other.

It's not so much about the entertainment, but about how to compound the dollars spent.

The province and feds aren't going to contribute anything to the city because of arena spending. But they might spend $2 on intfrastructure for every $1 the city spends for an Olympic bid.

So it isn't an equation of '30+ more years of the Flames vs. 2 weeks of Olympics' but 'money the majority of Calgarians don't seem to want us to give to the Flames vs. Green Line completion, Airport Connector, major infrastructure projects, etc.'

Whatever that other side of the equation is determines what makes it worthwhile for the city. The spectacle is the bonus, whether or not it is worth it financially for the city comes down to what can get built to host the spectacle. Same way it was for Vancouver (yeah they spent a lot of money for two weeks, but they got the Canada Line and Sea-to-Sky Highway done because of it. Plus a rec centre in Richmond.

That's basically why the city is still entertaining the idea. It's still in the gauging process for getting some kind of funding commitment. If the province and/or feds say 'we aren't spending anything on the Olympics' the bid dies pretty quickly.

[Mr.Coffee]

But doesn’t it speak to a completely different problem when the only way to attract critical infrastructure spending in Western Canada from the feds or province is to continually host the Olympic Games?

Like the feds won’t throw a nickel towards critical infrastructure to the highest level of competition of by far the most popular sport which has large importance in the cultural fabric of our big cities but by all means we would love for these big cities to waste even more money on a two week event?

I understand what you’re saying that it’s aboug strategically attracting more capital to our city but it is still sad that in order for key projects to happen in major western Canadian cities we have to host the Olympics every decade or two.

Is there really ZERO vested interest from the feds or province in seeing the Calgary Flames stay in Calgary? Maybe I guess but that also strikes me as odd I guess.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Is there really ZERO vested interest from the feds or province in seeing the Calgary Flames stay in Calgary? Maybe I guess but that also strikes me as odd I guess.

I think that’s a true statement. The world’s eyes aren’t focused on Calgary during Flames games and the Calgary Flames aren’t representing Canada to the world, so I don’t expect the interest from the feds or province to be very high at all.

[Roughneck]

Moreso it's hard to justify arena money for one NHL team but not the 6 others.

[Mr.Coffee]

But are the feds and province exclusively concerned with what the rest of the world thinks about it or are they governing the people that elected them, and concerned about what they think?

In this case the 4th largest city in the country and largest in the province?

And anyway even if that is true which I suspect you’re right, again isn’t it concerning that the feds or province are more concerned about optics from external sources than about properly funding its major cities for key infrastructure projects?

Here’s an idea. Fund your major cities without forcing them to go waste hundreds of millions of civic dollars on the Olympics. And if you must have this ridiculous sports cover to transfer capital to major cities at least do it under the proper sport and guise like NHL hockey that will have a more meaningful impact to the city and region you’re giving money to.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Moreso it's hard to justify arena money for one NHL team but not the 6 others.

A new arena is required every what, 30 to 40 years?

This makes no sense. Canadians are okay with giving cities federal or provincial funding if its for the Olympics but not for NHL hockey? What has more meaning to you (and by a long shot) and to other Canadians in key cities?

If federal funding only comes once every 30 to 40 years and it’s to prop up NHL hockey and comes with a large infrastructure infusion for that city, yeah, I’m okay with it for all 7 major Canadian cities.

Whether it’s Olympics or the NHL, it shouldn’t make a difference logically.

[Roughneck]

Why doesn't it make sense?

6 NHL teams built their arenas without federal funding. Why should the feds kick in for the 7th?

You might be okay with it, I don't think many others would be. Do you not remember the 90s when the very topic came up and was shot down?

Again, the money doesn't really go to "the Olympics." The money facilitates the Olympics, but it is going to major infrastructure projects that everybody uses. When it doesn't, people really hate the government for it (see; the Big O).

Canadians are okay with the Canada Line being built. They're probably okay with a legacy facility for national teams being built when it is tied to the University. They're okay with road upgrades.

Time and time again they are against money going to NHL owners. 4 of the arenas in the league weren't built with any government money at all. How can you possibly justify public dollars going to them?

[Mr.Coffee]

How can you justify money going to highly corrupt bureaucrats that is the IOC?

Money from the feds goes to infrastructure projects to facilitate the Olympics.

Money from the feds goes to infrastructure projects to facilitate the NHL.

The building can be owned and operated by the city, with a lease to the NHL team, no? In fact pretty sure the owners wanted the city to own it anyway for the liability.

It makes no sense because both are for sport and culture but one is arbitrarily decided it’s okay because there’s no precedent (which can change with one... or cash reimbursed to others to keep all whole).

$700mm. $100mm / City. Still cheaper than Olympics.

Or was the plan that whenever people in key cities need something they have to just pray for the Olympic Games?