Lol thanks for your feedback pal. I'm responsible for what I say, not for what you interpret.
If you really think the city has all the leverage they need and that they they'll hammer out a deal then great! My opinion is different and I don't have confidence in City Hall to get it done!
Actually thanks for that, the guy in post #748 made the same point I'm trying to make. The mayor taking to twitter and talking about the Flames walking away from a deal over a measly 1.8% of the deal probably hurts the deal more than anything and she made herself look desperate in the process. Easy to forgive a brand new mayor but why give the Flames more ammo?
This is why I'm saying I don't trust City Hall to get it done this time.
The other posts make interesting points but nothing was debunked. Thanks again.
You have to understand that if the Flames don't get a taxpayer subsidized arena, they will eventually be sold or leave town. I'd say that's an undeniable fact, too much franchise value tied up in the arena piece of team ownership and at some point, there will be deals elsewhere.
But that is so far removed from needing to succumb to every negotiating tactic. It's in the Flames best interests to remain in Calgary and the people representing the taxpayer's hopefully know this.
You have to understand that if the Flames don't get a taxpayer subsidized arena, they will eventually be sold or leave town. I'd say that's an undeniable fact, too much franchise value tied up in the arena piece of team ownership and at some point, there will be deals elsewhere.
But that is so far removed from needing to succumb to every negotiating tactic. It's in the Flames best interests to remain in Calgary and the people representing the taxpayer's hopefully know this.
I totally agree. I also think that the Flames ownership is getting a great deal by getting an arena close to 50% publicly funded. A new arena will increase the asset value by close to what the owners are spending. It's not money that is easily moveable as it will be tied up in an asset (the Flames), but the value is probably a push.
Hopefully both sides can get back to the table because it should be a good deal for both sides and it seems like they are close.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I still haven't seen a definitive summary of what the issue is, but is the following true?
The city under rising input costs asked not to be on the hook for cost over runs.
The Flames came back with fine, but then we are using our own project management.
Costs rise more and now the Flames, like the city before are getting cold feet as the city isn't raising costs on their end, just the CSEC.
The Flames then see the city push some more costs into it and decide that's the breaking point.
The mayor goes to Twitter to out line her case.
That's it right?
Can't believe we have 45 pages of polar views acting like this is one side only (from both sides).
Honestly seems childish to me.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
I still haven't seen a definitive summary of what the issue is, but is the following true?
The city under rising input costs asked not to be on the hook for cost over runs.
The Flames came back with fine, but then we are using our own project management.
Costs rise more and now the Flames, like the city before are getting cold feet as the city isn't raising costs on their end, just the CSEC.
The Flames then see the city push some more costs into it and decide that's the breaking point.
The mayor goes to Twitter to out line her case.
That's it right?
Can't believe we have 45 pages of polar views acting like this is one side only (from both sides).
"Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation -- the Flames -- have agreed to take on all cost overruns and risk of constriction cost overruns. That is a huge win for ratepayers," said Nenshi.
Right. That's the Flames. Where did the city get cold feet before?
Are you suggesting the city asked CSEC to take on 100% of the cost overruns after agreeing to a 50/50 split earlier without getting cold feet about rising costs?
I still haven't seen a definitive summary of what the issue is, but is the following true?
The city under rising input costs asked not to be on the hook for cost over runs.
The Flames came back with fine, but then we are using our own project management.
Costs rise more and now the Flames, like the city before are getting cold feet as the city isn't raising costs on their end, just the CSEC.
The Flames then see the city push some more costs into it and decide that's the breaking point.
The mayor goes to Twitter to out line her case.
That's it right?
Can't believe we have 45 pages of polar views acting like this is one side only (from both sides).
Honestly seems childish to me.
I think it's fair to say this most recent issue is a bit messy on both sides, but we don't really have enough details to make a declarative judgment.
The one-side only stuff has more to do with everyone's pre-existing views on the whole thing (myself included as an advocate for minimal public funding and/or tangible public ROI).
The thing that amazes me is how differently people view the concept of owning a pro-sports team...many seem to think it's a real "hassle" and more trouble than its worth - while concurrently thinking there are billionaires across North America who are eager to take on that "hassle" as long as their arena is at a different stage of its lifecycle.
I still haven't seen a definitive summary of what the issue is, but is the following true?
The city under rising input costs asked not to be on the hook for cost over runs.
The Flames came back with fine, but then we are using our own project management.
Costs rise more and now the Flames, like the city before are getting cold feet as the city isn't raising costs on their end, just the CSEC.
The Flames then see the city push some more costs into it and decide that's the breaking point.
The mayor goes to Twitter to out line her case.
That's it right?
Can't believe we have 45 pages of polar views acting like this is one side only (from both sides).
Honestly seems childish to me.
I don't have a horse in the race, and view this as failure from both sides dating back a decade or more. Ultimately the inability of both sides to reach an agreement and put shovels in the grounds years ago is going to cost everyone hundreds of millions of dollars as costs have risen.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
I still haven't seen a definitive summary of what the issue is, but is the following true?
The city under rising input costs asked not to be on the hook for cost over runs.
The Flames came back with fine, but then we are using our own project management.
Costs rise more and now the Flames, like the city before are getting cold feet as the city isn't raising costs on their end, just the CSEC.
The Flames then see the city push some more costs into it and decide that's the breaking point.
The mayor goes to Twitter to out line her case.
That's it right?
Can't believe we have 45 pages of polar views acting like this is one side only (from both sides).
Honestly seems childish to me.
Both sides don't see it feasible and were actively looking for an out on each side is my thought on this whole thing.
That's pretty obvious. There's no way CSEC didn't anticipate this move by the City
I don't have a horse in the race, and view this as failure from both sides dating back a decade or more. Ultimately the inability of both sides to reach an agreement and put shovels in the grounds years ago is going to cost everyone hundreds of millions of dollars as costs have risen.
Yep, its not just the Arena , lots of infrastructure projects should have been put in the works ages ago.
SEA 2022
VGK 2017 WPG 2011 (ATL 1999)
CBJ 2000
MIN 2000
NAS 1998
CAR 1997
ARI 1996
COL 1995
FLA 1993
ANA 1993
TBL 1992
OTT 1992
SJ 1991
4 relocations in 40 years; 1 in the last 25.
In those 40 years it appears every other team except BOS and CHI have changed owners at least once without moving*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...anchise_owners * it would obviously need a deeper dive to really break it down...it's a bit funny that Murray is listed with CGY at 1980 when clearly the composition of the ownership group has evolved significantly.
At least 27 ownership changes without relocation. The three most recent locations (SEA, VGK, WPG) are the only ones with "original" owners.
CBJ might fit this bill, too...
Spoiler!
...it's still the original family, though I'm not sure about all the details of the 2012 deal.
Interestingly, voters shut down public financing originally:
Quote:
In November 1996, five investors formed a partnership called Columbus Hockey Limited, who then submitted an application and a $100,000 fee to the NHL office.[4] The voters of Columbus were considering a referendum to build a publicly financed arena, a major step toward approval of their NHL bid.[9] When League Commissioner Gary Bettman visited Columbus to meet with the community's leaders about the franchise proposal, there was concern that the voters might not pass the needed referendum. The civic leaders told Bettman that they would not be willing to foot the bill for the team if the referendum failed. However, just after the meeting adjourned, John H. McConnell (one of those who entered the bid) privately guaranteed Bettman that an arena would be built, referendum or not.[10]
Columbus' hopes for the bid dimmed when the May referendum failed. However, Nationwide announced on May 31, 1997, that it would finance the $150-million arena. Subsequently, on June 25, 1997, the NHL announced that Columbus would receive a new franchise.
One would have to dig a bit deeper to see if there is any correlation between building age and sales, but there are at least 3 recent examples where old buildings haven't precluded sales:
Burkle and Lemieux bought PIT in 1999* (I know it's a bit more complicated) when the Igloo was already 38 years old and it took another decade to open a new building.
The Malkin's bought NYI in 2014 with an ugly arena situation...newly fixed.
Casting Couch Katz bought the losers in 2008 with a 34 year old building.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
