Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[RM14]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Also the flames want the city to buy the land and demolish the dome, so there's that(to the tune of about 55M or so according to the city, unless something has changed)

The city doesn't want to buy any land. They want to trade the stampede board straight up. The stampede gets the old Saddledome site and stampede gives up the block where the building goes.

If the stampede keeps the land, there is still no rent revenue or property tax revenue to the ciry

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

What developer is going to build an arena with no anchor tenant? Their first question will be about revenues. Concerts just don't provide what teams do.

True North Sports and Entertainment did in Winnipeg. MTS Center had phenomenal occupancy (~10 days vacancy per year) the first few years after it was built and that was long before the return of the Jets.

[Freeway]

True North also owned the Manitoba Moose at the time, which gave them an anchor tenant.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Reaper

True North Sports and Entertainment did in Winnipeg. MTS Center had phenomenal occupancy (~10 days vacancy per year) the first few years after it was built and that was long before the return of the Jets.

I am genuinely curious, how does a city like Winnipeg have that low a vacancy rate at their arena? That is like MSG or Staples Center good. The Moose and concerts wouldn't be enough. Was it used as a convention centre? Are they counting things like beer league teams renting the ice?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Reaper

True North Sports and Entertainment did in Winnipeg. MTS Center had phenomenal occupancy (~10 days vacancy per year) the first few years after it was built and that was long before the return of the Jets.

They had the Moose playing there until the Jets came.

Also, it was built with the specific aim of attracting an NHL team and convincing the NHL they were viable. Calgary would be asking a developer to build an arena with not only no anchor tenant, but also three teams already playing in a different arena. There would be no prospect of a similar tenant until the Flames either cave in or move (assuming another team would move here and just pay ordinary rent). BTW, True North didn't finance it alone. It paid about 2/3 of the cost and taxpayers paid 1/3.

The capacity figures are impacted by the fact it seats only 15,321 for hockey.

[getbak]

Pollstar is an industry publication that tracks non-sports ticket sales around the world (they were recently purchased by Oak View Group).

This is their list of the busiest arenas in the world last year: https://www.pollstar.com/Chart/2018/...Venues_628.pdf

• Three of the top 4 arenas are in the UK and none have a sports team as an anchor tenant.
  
• The Forum in Inglewood is 9th overall and 3rd in the US. It has no anchor tenant.
  
• The Sprint Center in Kansas City is 32nd overall, 13th in the US. It has no anchor tenant. KC isn't much bigger than Calgary (it's the 29th largest metro area in the US) and is in the middle of nowhere.

Now, of course, I'm not suggesting the city actually build a non-arena arena. Of course, it would be built to accommodate any hockey (or lacrosse) teams that wanted to become tenants, but they could do so on the city's conditions.

I'm just saying that if the Flames aren't going to return to the table, what other choice is there? The city needs to look around for other partners who are willing to sit down and talk.

If the Flames are going to act like children throwing a tantrum, treat them like it and go about business as usual until they want to behave.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Calgary would be asking a developer to build an arena with not only no anchor tenant, but also three teams already playing in a different arena. There would be no prospect of a similar tenant until the Flames either cave in or move (assuming another team would move here and just pay ordinary rent).

The City owns the Saddledome. If they build a replacement and shutter the Dome, the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks would have two choices: Move into the new building or leave Calgary (or I suppose they could buy the Saddledome from the city).

Of course, it would never actually get to that point, which is the point.

Like I said, it's flipping the old "if you're not going to make a deal with us, I guess we'll go somewhere else" gambit that pro sports teams have been pulling for decades.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by getbak

Pollstar is an industry publication that tracks non-sports ticket sales around the world (they were recently purchased by Oak View Group).

This is their list of the busiest arenas in the world last year: https://www.pollstar.com/Chart/2018/...Venues_628.pdf

• Three of the top 4 arenas are in the UK and none have a sports team as an anchor tenant.
  
• The Forum in Inglewood is 9th overall and 3rd in the US. It has no anchor tenant.
  
• The Sprint Center in Kansas City is 32nd overall, 13th in the US. It has no anchor tenant. KC isn't much bigger than Calgary (it's the 29th largest metro area in the US) and is in the middle of nowhere.

Now, of course, I'm not suggesting the city actually build a non-arena arena. Of course, it would be built to accommodate any hockey (or lacrosse) teams that wanted to become tenants, but they could do so on the city's conditions.

I'm just saying that if the Flames aren't going to return to the table, what other choice is there? The city needs to look around for other partners who are willing to sit down and talk.

If the Flames are going to act like children throwing a tantrum, treat them like it and go about business as usual until they want to behave.

Rogers in edmonton is 77th worldwide at 256,000
Calgary is 161 at 80,000

that seems to settle the argument about calgary losing concerts and events to edmonton. that's a huge difference.

[Buzzard]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Rogers in edmonton is 77th worldwide at 256,000
Calgary is 161 at 80,000

that seems to settle the argument about calgary losing concerts and events to edmonton. that's a huge difference.

Arenas in London, ON, Saskatoon, and Abbotsford, BC. rank higher on that list than saddledome.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I wonder what the non-hockey crowd thinks? The businesses in the outlying areas that are paying through their butts (and passing it on to customers), the taxpayers everywhere who couldn't give two figs about the Oilers....

If I were one, I'd be pretty ticked off. Huge expense. Zero value (to me).

Would NOT be happy if Calgary followed the same funding model as I'm now (back) paying property taxes there.

Disagree. The amount of concerts and events that Rogers Place holds - including shows that skip Calgary - draw in people from the inner city, suburbs, and surrounding Edmonton area. Then, you have hardcore Oilers fans from all over the region - and consider the Oilers a rally cry far more than a tax burden.

Do you have any documented proof that businesses in "outlying areas" are "paying through their butts?"

[Muta]

And Saskatoon is about to build a new professional hockey arena as well.

It's sad when we're the 4th biggest city in Canada and we're falling behind in sports infrastructure to the likes of Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Quebec City and Edmonton.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by getbak

Pollstar is an industry publication that tracks non-sports ticket sales around the world (they were recently purchased by Oak View Group).

This is their list of the busiest arenas in the world last year: https://www.pollstar.com/Chart/2018/...Venues_628.pdf

• Three of the top 4 arenas are in the UK and none have a sports team as an anchor tenant.
• The Forum in Inglewood is 9th overall and 3rd in the US. It has no anchor tenant.
• The Sprint Center in Kansas City is 32nd overall, 13th in the US. It has no anchor tenant. KC isn't much bigger than Calgary (it's the 29th largest metro area in the US) and is in the middle of nowhere.

Now, of course, I'm not suggesting the city actually build a non-arena arena. Of course, it would be built to accommodate any hockey (or lacrosse) teams that wanted to become tenants, but they could do so on the city's conditions.

I'm just saying that if the Flames aren't going to return to the table, what other choice is there? The city needs to look around for other partners who are willing to sit down and talk.

If the Flames are going to act like children throwing a tantrum, treat them like it and go about business as usual until they want to behave.

Misleading post is misleading.

The O2 in London - 100% publicly funded. Was built for the Millennium Experience celebration, then leased for redevelopment as a concert event arena. Services a metro area of 14 million.

Manchester Arena in Manchester - 100% publicly funded. Was built to support an unsuccessful Olympics bid. Services a metro population of 2.85 million.

The SSE Hydro in Glasgow - 100% publicly funded. Was built as a concert hall with 360 degree viewing, only seating 13,000 maximum capacity. Services a metro population of 1.85 million.

First Direct Arena in Leeds - 100% publicly financed. Was designed as a concert hall and is not suitable for sports use. Services a metro population of 2.45 million.

The Forum in Los Angeles, was originally built for the Kings and the Lakers, and both were the primary tenants in the building for a couple decades, and the teams only left when it became obsolete for modern professional sports.

The cold harsh reality of the document you just provided is the vast majority of those facilities were built using public money, and a large number of them built with 100% public funding. Both sides need to stop acting like babies and work together to find a solution to the arena issue. With the inclusion of all elements in the master design, this is on the scope of a public works project and should be treated as such.

[Flash Walken]

lol, New Era, the argument isn't that there wn't be public money, the argument is that you can use public money in order to create revenue that goes back to the public.

Build a stadium, lease it to a private enterprise, have them hold events there and pay you a lease.

The Flames want a new building without owning it or paying rent for it or taking on any of the associated costs, but without giving up any revenue from events held there.

Like, duh?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Muta

And Saskatoon is about to build a new professional hockey arena as well.

It's sad when we're the 4th biggest city in Canada and we're falling behind in sports infrastructure to the likes of Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Quebec City and Edmonton.

it's one thing to have far lower non sports ticket sales to Edmonton.
but it is a good point to make that it's embarrassing when a tiny city like Saskatoon outsells Calgary.

I know the saddledome itself costs a few concerts here and there, but is Calgary's entertainment/promotions/event people that pathetic compared to Edmonton, Regina, etc? why are Calgary's ticket sales so pathetic?

be interesting to find out it isn't the roof of the dome, but the booking people that are costing Calgary so many events.

by the numbers, rogers has the equivalent of one event per month of 15,000 tickets sold sold that Calgary doesn't.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

it's one thing to have far lower non sports ticket sales to Edmonton.
but it is a good point to make that it's embarrassing when a tiny city like Saskatoon outsells Calgary.

I know the saddledome itself costs a few concerts here and there, but is Calgary's entertainment/promotions/event people that pathetic compared to Edmonton, Regina, etc? why are Calgary's ticket sales so pathetic?

be interesting to find out it isn't the roof of the dome, but the booking people that are costing Calgary so many events.

by the numbers, rogers has the equivalent of one event per month of 15,000 tickets sold sold that Calgary doesn't.

I think Edmonton has always had more ticket sales, even with Rexall place. Calgary has been 2nd place to Edmonton for events for a while. Good question for the Tourism board.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Disagree. The amount of concerts and events that Rogers Place holds - including shows that skip Calgary - draw in people from the inner city, suburbs, and surrounding Edmonton area. Then, you have hardcore Oilers fans from all over the region - and consider the Oilers a rally cry far more than a tax burden.

Do you have any documented proof that businesses in "outlying areas" are "paying through their butts?"

"Documented proof" = next 40 years' tax bills after building such a venue.

I have zero problem with the taxpayers of Calgary building an arena - provided that fundamentally it is structured to pay for itself out of revenues generated by the venue. I have no problem with them sharing that building with CSEC. I just don't want to see Murray Edwards, who no longer pays taxes to Canada, Alberta or Calgary (allegedly) getting it for free because he has a big....ego.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Rogers in edmonton is 77th worldwide at 256,000
Calgary is 161 at 80,000

that seems to settle the argument about calgary losing concerts and events to edmonton. that's a huge difference.

That 80,000 number seems wonky. Garth Brooks played 7 sold-out shows at the Dome last year. I'd guess that the total attendance at each show was in the 15,000 range, which would put the total for just those shows over 100,000.

Even still, being below Abbotsford on the list isn't a good look.

Originally Posted by Muta

And Saskatoon is about to build a new professional hockey arena as well.

It's sad when we're the 4th biggest city in Canada and we're falling behind in sports infrastructure to the likes of Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Quebec City and Edmonton.

From what I've read, "about to build" is an overstatement of the situation in Saskatoon. They're still pretty early in the process there. If I were a betting man, I'd say the Flames are likely to be playing in their new arena before the Blades.

We have to be cautious to not assume that every other city won't go through the same struggles that Calgary has (and every city before them) in the process to get a new arena built.

Hell, just last week, Melnyk was apparently speaking at a Senators STH event and expressed concern over the downtown arena development plan and suggested that the Sens might just stay in Kanata. At this rate, I wouldn't bet against the Flames being in their new building before the Sens.

This process doesn't go smoothly anywhere.




Also, I really dislike the whole "falling behind" argument on this.

Edmonton has had a better arena than Calgary from 1974 to 1983 and from 2016 until Calgary's new arena opens. Outside of those two windows, Calgary has had the better arena between the two cities (or, at least on par).

Looking at the Stadiums, McMahon was superior to Taylor Field, Winnipeg Stadium, Ivor Wynne, and Lansdowne Park for decades. Those stadiums' replacements have been superior to McMahon for a few years so far.

Over the balance of time, Calgary has had the superior facilities for much longer than those other cities. Unless this process drags out for decades more, that will stay true over the long term.

McMahon and the Saddledome could both improve the guest experience. Their concourses and washrooms are too crowded. It can take too long to buy food or drink during breaks so you miss part of the games. When it comes down to it, they're both still functional and neither one is falling apart. Remember the final season the Renegades were in the CFL, they had close off part of the stadium because it was considered unsafe for human occupation.

We don't need instant gratification. I'd love for the Flames and Stamps to be playing in new and shiny buildings right now, but I'm willing to wait for the best deal for the people of Calgary to get made.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

lol, New Era, the argument isn't that there wn't be public money, the argument is that you can use public money in order to create revenue that goes back to the public.

Build a stadium, lease it to a private enterprise, have them hold events there and pay you a lease.

The Flames want a new building without owning it or paying rent for it or taking on any of the associated costs, but without giving up any revenue from events held there.

Like, duh?

And go to the list provided, use your Google-fu skills, and realize the reality of the large arenas and stadiums. The public foots the bills for these things and the returns to the public is pretty much nil. These buildings are break even at best, which is why the business owners want no part of them.

[Flash Walken]

Is break even better than losing a couple hundred million?

If the argument is that the city needs a venue, which I and apparently the city agree that it does, does it make more sense to build a venue that breaks even or one that loses 15 million a year?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

The City owns the Saddledome. If they build a replacement and shutter the Dome, the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks would have two choices: Move into the new building or leave Calgary (or I suppose they could buy the Saddledome from the city).

Of course, it would never actually get to that point, which is the point.

Like I said, it's flipping the old "if you're not going to make a deal with us, I guess we'll go somewhere else" gambit that pro sports teams have been pulling for decades.

The City can't shut down the Saddledome without breaching the lease with CSEG, I suspect.