[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[corporatejay]

Have Amazon buy the flames. Give them a building in exchange for HQ2, profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rejean31]

Spector, is such a frigging idiot!! On the Fan960 right now talking about this situation and the moron doesn't even know when the Saddledome was built, has said 1986 twice now.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

So your suggesting that the league should come to the table then to help fund arenas by lowering the cap by 20 million per season and creating an arena fund to build new arenas in cities.

The day the league does that sign me up for the city to make a deal. The difference between then and now is the league recognized the value of the Canadian market and worked to protect it. Today based on all of their statements they do not care about where the markets are as long as they make profit.

So if Bettmen and the NHL want to work with munis to reduce the impact of public financing of sports team I will support that but don't try to tell me the league is working with the city because the flames and league can't afford to be here.

I would be in favor of that. Sadly, the NHLPA would not. This is not on the table, and the league has no controls over this right now, nor has plans to do this, so discussing it is irrelevant.

Yes, the league is stating that the team is in a situation where it is not viable in the long term. This is very reminiscent of the 1990's all over again. The warning signs were there, but were ignored. The warning signs are here too, but people are ignoring them. The current facilities are not capable of sustaining the revenues required by the current NHL economic landscape. The current facilities are not up to league standard for player training and maintenance. The things that will attract the best talent is missing. That needs to be resolved if we want to continue watching a competitive hockey team.

[OldDutch]

Quick thoughts:

- Flames showing that the city has been much more difficult than they thought. Throwing in the towel pretty much shows that.

- Flames trying to influence the election by using their usual clumsy hamfisted "I don't know what your talking about" method. Total denial but pretty obvious what they are doing here. They want new dance partners.

- Bettman and the Flames again are tone deaf to get this guy here to pitch for them. Going to the charity event to announce no more negotiations with the city is pretty Snidley Whiplash. Go back to NYC you weasel.

- I am sure Bettman is advising the Flames how to handle this using US style pressure politics. Will it work? According to this board no way, but the general populace that hates higher tax but is willing to buy billionaires new toys? No so sure.

- Nenshi owns a lot of this himself. I said it before earlier this year. Dude doesn't know how to help himself. As a tax payer he is in the right, but his delivery is still too adversarial and condescending. I thought the CalgaryNEXT, Uber, Real Estate, MP battles would teach him to be more diplomatic but no. He is what he is, good and bad and isn't ever going to change.

- With that said Nenshi hopefully as smart as he is saw this coming. Hopefully he ran his chess board and will throw back all the factual steps he has taken to help the Flames. His political career in Calgary may hinge on it. He has to show people the Flames are the unreasonable ones here. Else his ego and style will work against him with Joe six pack.

- It did not need to come to this but has. Lots of blame here, but glad we don't have shovels in the ground on CalgaryNEXT.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Rejean31

Spector, is such a frigging idiot!! On the Fan960 right now talking about this situation and the moron doesn't even know when the Saddledome was built, has said 1986 twice now.

Meh, he was able to clearly articulate what got this Done in Edmonton and how it differs from the situation in Calgary, for me. I haven't followed this carefully and was my primary question.

I hope they have someone from Detroit come in next and explain how a city as broke as that, got this new arena done.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Give me a break - poor deal? The Flames have had the privilege of having zero building costs and no property taxes for decades.

The Flames have no property taxes because they don't own the building or the land. However, they have been responsible for building maintenance, upkeep, renovation and repair of the building for years. I don't think back to the 1994 agreement itself, but I wanna say late 90s. So they very much do have 'building costs'.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

All I'm asking for is for people to stop the charade. Admit that they just want the city to pay for this arena because they want a new arena for their favorite sports team and stop trying to bull#### people with the same rehashed, incorrect, vague statements on the actual benefits in this.

That's all, just be honest with yourselves and with everyone else. It's a valid reason, not really a solid one, but valid. You just want a new home for your team regardless of it not making economic sense for a city. Cool. I'd rather see that than all the same old crap trotted out over and over.

So you want people who have a different opinion of you to argue a certain way? That's not how debate works.
There are indeed reasons to want the arena and have a team that go beyond economic impact.
The way you are framing your argument is a filtered view of that position based on your POV.
You can disagree, but what gives you the right to tell someone how they are allowed to argue for their side?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Meh, he was able to clearly articulate what got this Done in Edmonton and how it differs from the situation in Calgary, for me. I haven't followed this carefully and was my primary question.

I hope they have someone from Detroit come in next and explain how a city as broke as that, got this new arena done.

Spector knowing how things work in Edmonton but having no clue about anything else is exactly what I would expect from Spector.

Which is why there was no chance I'd ever buy his book.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The Flames have no property taxes because they don't own the building or the land. However, they have been responsible for building maintenance, upkeep, renovation and repair of the building for years. I don't think back to the 1994 agreement itself, but I wanna say late 90s. So they very much do have 'building costs'.

In most commercial leases, the tenant pays enough rent to cover the owner's maintenance costs, tax costs, some capital investment costs, plus a little something for profit. At least, that is the idea.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It's amazing the lengths fanboys will go to somehow legitimize this pathetic song and dance by CSEC.

Let's turn the tables and picture the city asking CSEC for money to build something with no private benefit to them. How far do you think Nenshi would get before Edwards released the hounds?

Let's roll it back a bit here. The Flames organization has given a great deal to this city over it's tenure here. Helping to building many public facilities through charitable donations and fundraisers. As well as the individual players themselves.

There is no doubt the Flames have a positive impact on the city. But their positive impact is also only maximized if they work with the cities long term development plans.

Look, I actually really liked the idea of CalgaryNext. The field-house. The riverside placement. The clean up of the creosote. Improvements for that nightmare intersection. I was all in for that. Even if their pitch wasn't absolute bonkers, the city has planning that it does. Long term planning, like decades. The idea that a sports team will just throw a huge wrench into that because they want part of the development funds but want to put the stadium wherever they want is at the very least kind of annoying.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

I would be in favor of that. Sadly, the NHLPA would not. This is not on the table, and the league has no controls over this right now, nor has plans to do this, so discussing it is irrelevant.

Yes, the league is stating that the team is in a situation where it is not viable in the long term. This is very reminiscent of the 1990's all over again. The warning signs were there, but were ignored. The warning signs are here too, but people are ignoring them. The current facilities are not capable of sustaining the revenues required by the current NHL economic landscape. The current facilities are not up to league standard for player training and maintenance. The things that will attract the best talent is missing. That needs to be resolved if we want to continue watching a competitive hockey team.

Then your sad tale of the league, city and flames working together to save the team has no relavence. The flames and NHL are holding the relocation gun to our heads and hoping the city cracks. Bettmen is here to ensure that the flames owners don't cut a deal that would set a precedent for lower support. He is actively working against the cities interests. So this situation is not analogous.

The flames ranking in league revenues begs to differ that they can't sustain revenues. If we are 25th in the league in revenues let's have this conversation.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In most commercial leases, the tenant pays enough rent to cover the owner's maintenance costs, tax costs, some capital investment costs, plus a little something for profit. At least, that is the idea.

Sure, but that's irrelevant to the point - Hot Flatus was dead wrong in arguing the Flames have no building costs. They very much do.

That said, under your lease, the tenant's costs remains static and they often end up in a fight with the landlord over improvements when they become desired or necessary. (i.e.: the Flames themselves in the early 1990s). In this case, the Flames don't have the security of a consistent rent. If there is unusual damage (i.e.: anything not covered by insurance from the flood) or a desire to improve the facility (new jumbotron, power ring, new locker rooms), then they pay the higher costs to achieve that.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by rhino

People who do not want public money put into an new arena project are wearing blinders! Even taking the Calgary Next project at the full cost the city estimates at 1.8 billion and 2/3 of the cost to taxpayers works out to less then $1000 per citizen. Now weigh that small amount per citizen versus the loss of a few thousand jobs, a few million dollars that the CSEG raises for charities and the lost revenue for small businesses such as restaurants and bars that fill up during a Flames game. Also the CSEG wants a new facility for The Stampeders and if they were to move the Flames you can bet they sell of the Stamps and Hitmen and Roughnecks as well which could very well mean the end of a couple of those teams as well.

Having wealthy business men wanting to invest money in our city is not a negative people!! Facilities like a new arena and stadium benefit the greater good so I see no issue is sharing that responsibility.

That's great and everything, so if my entire family of 4 is expected to pitch in $4000 for this arena, are we going to get at $4000 worth of perks from it? I am all in if I get maybe, say, a $5000 voucher for any events at the new arena. If the CSEG is serious at all, they would consider it, and at the end of the day they own the arena, and everybody is happy.

[Sheva #7]

anyone know what time Nenshi is scheduled to speak and where to follow it?

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Spector knowing how things work in Edmonton but having no clue about anything else is exactly what I would expect from Spector.

Which is why there was no chance I'd ever buy his book.

I will say one positive thing about the Spector interview this morning. He clearly sees the charade for what it is and called that out in the discussion. I appreciated his comment to stop the sheep from running around with their hair on fire scared that the owners are actually going to move this team.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The Flames have no property taxes because they don't own the building or the land. However, they have been responsible for building maintenance, upkeep, renovation and repair of the building for years. I don't think back to the 1994 agreement itself, but I wanna say late 90s. So they very much do have 'building costs'.

I don't dispute any of that at all and i think you're correct about 1994.

When posters start the poor flames rhetoric its pretty hard to ignore that the majority of large coporations in the world would never have such a cushy cost saving deal on prime real estate for 30 plus years. I wonder why they don't want to own the land....who would? What they've put into that building is basically zero when you consider the cost the city has incurred to build it and the tax dollars that are lost by not having that land occupied by a tax paying owner.

Fans love to talk about how this is a business investment etc but conveniently ignore the fact that most of the business principles the city would hold against a major tenant do not exist because the city is and always has been giving CSEC a huge break.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Then your sad tale of the league, city and flames working together to save the team has no relavence. The flames and NHL are holding the relocation gun to our heads and hoping the city cracks. Bettmen is here to ensure that the flames owners don't cut a deal that would set a precedent for lower support. He is actively working against the cities interests. So this situation is not analogous.

The flames ranking in league revenues begs to differ that they can't sustain revenues. If we are 25th in the league in revenues let's have this conversation.

That's a rather absurd argument, actually. Several arenas have been 100% publicly funded, several have been 100% private and several have landed in between. Whatever deal the city and the team ultimately come up with will not be precedent setting in any fashion.

Bettman is here because these pressure tactics usually yield a better deal than the team/league otherwise expected. Nothing more, nothing less.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Sure, but that's irrelevant to the point - Hot Flatus was dead wrong in arguing the Flames have no building costs. They very much do.

That said, under your lease, the tenant's costs remains static and they often end up in a fight with the landlord over improvements when they become desired or necessary. (i.e.: the Flames themselves in the early 1990s). In this case, the Flames don't have the security of a consistent rent. If there is unusual damage (i.e.: anything not covered by insurance from the flood) or a desire to improve the facility (new jumbotron, power ring, new locker rooms), then they pay the higher costs to achieve that.

Case in point is the floods of 2013.

That building looked like it may be a candidate for demolition as opposed to being brought back to functionality.

IIRC, the Flames spent in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars when it was all said and done for clean up, replacement of equipment and seats, along with all the cursory expenses of that disaster. All at a time when they weren't bringing in a penny of revenue. It was quite a display of "get er done".

[Dentoman]

I would tend to lean on the side of the Flames in this discussion, probably for selfish reasons (season ticket holder) and my growing dislike for Nenshi's inability to control his ego and his mouth. I think we would not be at this point if Nenshi could have just controlled himself and not have been so inflammatory in his comments. The owners don't strike me as the type of men who would take kindly to being berated in public as they have been.

Love them or hate them, it is obvious that King and Bettman don't give a rat's ass what people think of them ..... they will go down fighting for the guys who sign their paycheques, admirable in a way and infuriating in another.

In the end, this deal will get done, but enjoy the ride until we get there.

[Ice_Weasel]

If this all boils down the allocation of city tax dollars, how can some posters be so adamantly convinced that their OPINION on how dollars should be spend is correct? I fully support a portion of tax dollars subsidizing a new arena, because I personally see the benefit (even if intangible, and uneconomic) a new arena brings to the city. I also respect others that don't share that opinion. But this thread is filled with people getting up on a soap box and claiming that somehow their opinion is more valid than others. Its not.