Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The conclusion is binary as the city will subsidize a new arena or the Flames will leave.

We're very lucky everyone... we have discovered the username of Nostradamus (The Nostradamus). We should hit him up for this weeks Lotto Max numbers.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Parallex

We're very lucky everyone... we have discovered the username of Nostradamus (The Nostradamus). We should hit him up for this weeks Lotto Max numbers.

Really? You are challenging that the outcome is not binary? Do you really think the Flames will 100% pay for a new arena in Calgary? Please answer because I'm interested to know why you think that's a possibility. A salty post without any substance doesn't really add to the conversation.

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by GGG

In 2017 you had 12000 cars per day on 5th st in 3 lanes. In summer you get 1400 bikes per day. So just on that street alone the bike use is 50% of the car use. This ignores all of the other roads that cars can use which they do at lower density. 1400 commuters is a significant enough volume to have a North South lane dedicated to them somewhere.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...flowmap-DT.pdf

erm....what?
I'm no mathematician but 1400 is not 50% of 12000.
It's not even 50% if you break it down on a "per lane basis".

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Really? You are challenging that the outcome is not binary? Do you really think the Flames will 100% pay for a new arena in Calgary?

I think there likely exists some manner of deal that doesn't see the City hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to what is, if we're really being honest, some billionaire beggers vanity project in exchange for absolutely nothing. And the city should play the hardest of hardball to do that deal.

Really though... do you honestly think anyone on calgarypuck.com actually doesn't want the Flames to remain? If the Flames were demanding $50,000,000,000.00 and people "eff that" do you honestly think that all the people who said "eff that" literally don't want them here? People can simultaneously want the Flames to remain and not be in favour in giving them a taxpayer handout.

You're presenting a false dilemma that doesn't really add to the conversation either.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I think there likely exists some manner of deal that doesn't see the City hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to what is, if we're really being honest, some billionaire beggers vanity project in exchange for absolutely nothing. And the city should play the hardest of hardball to do that deal.

Really though... do you honestly think anyone on calgarypuck.com actually doesn't want the Flames to remain? If the Flames were demanding $50,000,000,000.00 and people "eff that" do you honestly think that all the people who said "eff that" literally don't want them here? People can simultaneously want the Flames to remain and not be in favour in giving them a taxpayer handout.

You're presenting a false dilemma that doesn't really add to the conversation either.

You are backtracking and not answering as I'm talking about the outcome being binary. I don't care about you accusing me of false dilemmas as I am very confident the outcome is binary. Do you actually think that it's not? What indication have you seen that the ownership group has any appetite to foot the entire bill for a new arena?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It boils down to where you stand on the question; Do you want the Flames to remain in Calgary? If the answer is yes then you are pro-city funding. If the answer is no then you are anti-city funding. Anyone that wants the Flames to remain in Calgary while being anti-city funding will never see a resolution to their liking as either the Flames will stay with a city funded arena or they will leave Calgary.

I don't care to rehash the same cyclical arguments that have been going on in this thread since it's beginning nor do I care about people's opinions that the Saddledome should be fine for the Flames for another decade or two because the Flames clearly disagree and do not intend to play in the Saddledome for another decade. It's becoming clear that the city and Flames ownership will eventually come to terms on a new arena and it's the right thing if the city wants to keep the team. None of the arguments in this thread really matter when it's all said and done because it's going to happen and some people will be happy and some wont as with any city funded project.

I don't pretend to know if the owners would blink if it became apparent their business would no longer be subsidized by Calgary taxpayers. I really don't.

But what you have articulated is most definitely what the CSEC would like the debate to be about. "Do you want the Flames in Calgary or not?"

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It boils down to where you stand on the question; Do you want the Flames to remain in Calgary? If the answer is yes then you are pro-city funding. If the answer is no then you are anti-city funding.

This just makes me question your boiling methods.

[powderjunkie]

The eventual outcome may be binary (as is the case with just about anything), but there are plenty of scenarios C, D, E, F, etc.. This would be better shown with a flow chart, but here's a quick and dirty of what needs to happen before we get to EE's binary 0 option.

Scenario C - city doesn't move off of their last offer; CSEC decides to:
i. build now with offer
ii. continue to own team, try again in ~3 years
iii. try to sell team (because the league won't let them move to option iv before this):
a) if they don't get the value they want, reconsider options i. & ii. & maybe iv.
b) if they get the value they want, they sell team, and new ownership considers i. & ii. & iv.

iv. attempt to move team
a) with a tangible threat of team moving, city's offer improves (revert to step 0)
b) no improvement of city offer, NHL BOG refuses move based on sound business reasons (revert to i. or ii. or iii.)
c) no improvement of city offer, NHL BOG approves move against general business interests, but in order to make a statement that they are will continue to extort taxpayers as necessary.


Option iv-c is the only one we need to worry about. But there are a lot of things that make it highly unlikely. Which teams want new buildings soon, and how powerful are there owners? Do all of the owners want to dilute the value of the league's day to day operations by several million per year to help a few owners extort a few extra tens of millions?

It's worth noting that several powerful US owners don't really have a stake in the arena scam, as they are tenants. Assuming the Leafs are still owned by the media consortium, are they more interested in selling their annual TV product, or trying to get money when they want a new ACC (not going to be the same executives at that point; right now, skydome is the building to be replaced more urgently)? What is the average age of league owners? How many expect to want another building in their lifetime? I suppose they may want to set the stage for their kids to extort. Do the Oilers, Canucks, or Jets owners actually want us to move (a few reasons yes, a few reasons no)?

The moving threat is 99.99% hollow. If the stakes are as low as living for ~10 years without an NHL franchise, I'm more than willing to take the bet.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

Bike lanes only benefit bikers?

Bike lanes benefit anybody who commutes, I’d say most directly benefiting are commuters in cars.

Every road with bike lanes has a sharply reduced capacity for motor traffic. That doesn't benefit commuters in cars; it increases congestion and hurts commuters. (It also hurts commuters on buses, so don't try the transit angle either.)

In rush hour, those parts of the road that are now bike lanes were filled to capacity with vehicles. Now they're virtually empty. I spend a lot of time in the inner city, and I have yet to see heavy traffic in a bike lane.

Bike lanes take cars off the road.

They take a very small number of cars off the road, if you measure the actual bike traffic compared to the vehicular traffic that used to use the road.

But by all means, go on telling yourself that, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to justify narrowing the roads and worsening traffic jams as a form of virtue-signalling.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The eventual outcome may be binary (as is the case with just about anything), but there are plenty of scenarios C, D, E, F, etc.. This would be better shown with a flow chart, but here's a quick and dirty of what needs to happen before we get to EE's binary 0 option.

Scenario C - city doesn't move off of their last offer; CSEC decides to:
i. build now with offer
ii. continue to own team, try again in ~3 years
iii. try to sell team (because the league won't let them move to option iv before this):
a) if they don't get the value they want, reconsider options i. & ii. & maybe iv.
b) if they get the value they want, they sell team, and new ownership considers i. & ii. & iv.

iv. attempt to move team
a) with a tangible threat of team moving, city's offer improves (revert to step 0)
b) no improvement of city offer, NHL BOG refuses move based on sound business reasons (revert to i. or ii. or iii.)
c) no improvement of city offer, NHL BOG approves move against general business interests, but in order to make a statement that they are will continue to extort taxpayers as necessary.


Option iv-c is the only one we need to worry about.

You conveniently omitted option iv-d:

d) no improvement of city offer, NHL BOG approves move BECAUSE OF general business interests.

This has been the case with every franchise move so far. When the Whalers, Jets, Nordiques, North Stars, and Thrashers relocated, it was because there was no viable business case for leaving them where they were. You blithely assume that there will always be a viable business case for leaving the Flames in the Saddledome. That assumption needs to be questioned.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You conveniently omitted option iv-d:

d) no improvement of city offer, NHL BOG approves move BECAUSE OF general business interests.

This has been the case with every franchise move so far. When the Whalers, Jets, Nordiques, North Stars, and Thrashers relocated, it was because there was no viable business case for leaving them where they were. You blithely assume that there will always be a viable business case for leaving the Flames in the Saddledome. That assumption needs to be questioned.

IMO this ascribes too much importance to the building, and not enough consideration to what the alternative cities mean for business. QC is the only place that comes close. Which would mean we're first in line to cheer for either Barkov of Hamilton.

Much more importantly, this ignores the reality of a relocation fee. The Flames would need to find a place that offers at least $150M better arena deal than Calgary, and comparable long term business sustainabilty. That sound you hear is crickets.

Look, YYCCC didn't offer $0. Bettman et al. may want a more generous offer (and they'll probably get it, eventually), but they're not letting this team move if the current offer is on the table is the last one. They would tell Murray to suck it up and build, stay where you are, or sell to Brett Wilson, the Shaws, or any other combo of local multi-millionaires that wants a piece. If the NHL wants to admit that the Flames aren't a viable business at the city's current offer, then they might as well contract back to 12 teams, because there are 20 other markets comparable or worse than Calgary.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Muffins

erm....what?
I'm no mathematician but 1400 is not 50% of 12000.
It's not even 50% if you break it down on a "per lane basis".

Don’t you have 3 strait lanes, a left turn lane and a bike lane on twelfth?

So 12/4 = 3000. So they have 50% of the density of cars in their lane. Maybe I made a mistake somewhere in there.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GGG

Don’t you have 3 strait lanes, a left turn lane and a bike lane on twelfth?

Outside of rush hour, there are only two straight lanes for most of its length, because the third is used for parking.

(And sometimes the parking lane is on the left, sometimes on the right, so traffic is constantly changing lanes to slalom around parked cars. This is especially dangerous after a snowfall, when you can't see the lines on the road. I hate what they've done to 12th Ave.)

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

IMO this ascribes too much importance to the building, and not enough consideration to what the alternative cities mean for business. QC is the only place that comes close. Which would mean we're first in line to cheer for either Barkov of Hamilton.

You're definitely underrating the building. NHL teams are heavily dependent upon gate receipts, and will grow still more dependent as cable-cutters cause local TV revenues to dwindle. Pittsburgh is an excellent hockey market, with a history of fan support going back over 100 years, yet they nearly lost the Penguins by not having a modern arena to play in. The best market in the world is worthless if it doesn't have a building capable of tapping the available revenue.

Much more importantly, this ignores the reality of a relocation fee. The Flames would need to find a place that offers at least $150M better arena deal than Calgary, and comparable long term business sustainabilty. That sound you hear is crickets.

In a world where an owner paid a relocation fee to move a team to Winnipeg, that isn't the obstacle you think it is.

Look, YYCCC didn't offer $0.

What they offered was just enough to offset the property taxes that the Flames are not paying now but would be paying if they owned the new building. That still leaves CSEC effectively on the hook for $450 million, and no way to recoup that cost in a city of a little over a million people.

People go on about how well privately financed arenas have done in other cities. All those cities were at least twice the size of Calgary and did not have the boom-and-bust resource-based economy that makes long-term planning in this city so difficult.

Bettman et al. may want a more generous offer (and they'll probably get it, eventually), but they're not letting this team move if the current offer is on the table is the last one.

If the current offer is the last one, no new building is going to happen – and sooner or later the Saddledome will no longer generate enough revenue to support the team even if it only spends to the salary floor.

They would tell Murray to suck it up and build, stay where you are, or sell to Brett Wilson, the Shaws, or any other combo of local multi-millionaires that wants a piece.

Is there anyone who wants a piece under the current deal? As they say on Wikipedia, *citation needed.

If the NHL wants to admit that the Flames aren't a viable business at the city's current offer, then they might as well contract back to 12 teams, because there are 20 other markets comparable or worse than Calgary.

Twenty other markets. Zero other buildings. That's been the problem all along. It's the same problem that had Jim Balsillie thinking he could move the Pittsburgh Penguins to Ontario.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In a world where an owner paid a relocation fee to move a team to Winnipeg, that isn't the obstacle you think it is.

TNSE was lined up to buy the Coyotes for $170M (the amount the NHL needed to be made 'whole' on the deal) until Glendale caved and caused the league to look at the more pressing matter (the Thrashers effectively being kicked out of their building).


TNSE was willing to pay $170M for a team, so the league got their $60M fee, effectively setting the minimum price for a franchise at the time. The owner that paid the relocation fee didn't pay anything more for a team than he intended to going in.

[powderjunkie]

I'll maybe respond to your other points later, but what cities have companies & people willing to pay more money for suites & lower bowl hockey experiences [say a 5* experience in a brand new building] than what is currently being paid for the equivalent [albeit lower *] experiences at the Saddledome in Calgary?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'll maybe respond to your other points later, but what cities have companies & people willing to pay more money for suites & lower bowl hockey experiences [say a 5* experience in a brand new building] than what is currently being paid for the equivalent [albeit lower *] experiences at the Saddledome in Calgary?

Houston?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Every road with bike lanes has a sharply reduced capacity for motor traffic. That doesn't benefit commuters in cars; it increases congestion and hurts commuters. (It also hurts commuters on buses, so don't try the transit angle either.)

In rush hour, those parts of the road that are now bike lanes were filled to capacity with vehicles. Now they're virtually empty. I spend a lot of time in the inner city, and I have yet to see heavy traffic in a bike lane.



They take a very small number of cars off the road, if you measure the actual bike traffic compared to the vehicular traffic that used to use the road.

But by all means, go on telling yourself that, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to justify narrowing the roads and worsening traffic jams as a form of virtue-signalling.

In many cases it is parking capacity, not through lanes that have been utilized. Parking losses have been managed by adding spaces nearby. Sometimes it is simply squeezing lane where there is excess width in the carriageway to have the same traffic capacity. Outside the core, there are roads sometimes reduced a lane, but the capacity of the road can easily handle volumes on the remaining lanes. There are really no examples of additional lanes that have caused any material delay for vehicles, especially after a short period of adjustment to new patterns. They are not a high proportion of trips, but they have utilized an entirely proportional amount of lane Kms (and cost) too. In planning routes, an incredible amount of time is spent focused on minimizing negative impact on vehicle movement.

A lot of people really value the safety and increased freedom they have gained. My wife doesn’t drive and now she is able to commute by bike to work safely on lanes, paths and cycle tracks the whole route. She is not alone and the stats show it. Her biggest complaint on the trip is the routes are too busy on morning commute and it can be a bit intimidating.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Houston?

We'll have a better idea if that's still the case next next Tuesday...

Presumably, Dallas is as close to a perfect comparison as you can get. From a quick look on ticketmaster, mid-week night near the end of Jan, making sure the slightly better seat was always in Dallas:

4th row attacking corner: $345 CAD CGY vs. $137 US DAL
17th row behind goal: $225 CAD CGY vs. $90 US DAL
2nd level row 8 at blueline: $193 CAD CGY vs. $115 US DAL
cheapest seat: $58 CAD CGY vs. $15 US DAL

Probably pretty similar in the total number of tickets still available, but impossible to get anything between the blue lines in Calgary, while there are more decent seats avail. in Dallas.

Dallas had suite prices available, but couldn't find it for Calgary.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

We'll have a better idea if that's still the case next next Tuesday...

Presumably, Dallas is as close to a perfect comparison as you can get. From a quick look on ticketmaster, mid-week night near the end of Jan, making sure the slightly better seat was always in Dallas:

4th row attacking corner: $345 CAD CGY vs. $137 US DAL
17th row behind goal: $225 CAD CGY vs. $90 US DAL
2nd level row 8 at blueline: $193 CAD CGY vs. $115 US DAL
cheapest seat: $58 CAD CGY vs. $15 US DAL

Probably pretty similar in the total number of tickets still available, but impossible to get anything between the blue lines in Calgary, while there are more decent seats avail. in Dallas.

Dallas had suite prices available, but couldn't find it for Calgary.

Houston has more head offices than Dallas, a busier airport and tourist system too.