Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Those were completely different times and all, but that's ok, we can definitely assume the context is the same.

Oh, completely different how? Onus is on you to back that up. Explain how the great mass of Leafs, Habs, or Canucks fans would give a fart in a catcher's mitt if the Calgary Flames relocated.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Canadian dollar, sunbelt teams bleeding money, NHL desire to expand rather than move ($$$), subtracting a Canadian team from the huge Canadian TV deal.

Now your turn. How is it the same?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Oh, completely different how? Onus is on you to back that up. Explain how the great mass of Leafs, Habs, or Canucks fans would give a fart in a catcher's mitt if the Calgary Flames relocated.

The Phoenix Coyotes, Florida Panthers and Carolina Hurricanes mostly.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well the NHL awarded Rogers the big TV deal despite fully knowing that Rogers put on an inferior product. Apparently Bettman had an adversarial relationship with George Cope (Bell) to the point where TSN didn't even get a chance to match or up Rogers offer. TSN (Bell) also got shut out of the World Cup Hockey rights so the NHL is not above sticking it to those that don't play by their rules. It's safe to say Nenshi has an adversarial relationship with Bettman and the Flames and I certainly believe they could stick it to Nenshi and city council. Do I think it will happen? No. Do I think it can happen? Yes.

Would love to get a source on that Bell scoop.

Does Bettman seem like a guy who might let a grudge cloud his judgement? I could see it. But his sole job is to maximize revenue and value for his owners. There isn't an argument to be made that moving the flames could do that. It's really that simple.

Allowing the flames to move would require a collective BOG decision to lose money. It is completely out of character from what we've seen of this man and these owners in the last 25 years.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Canadian dollar, sunbelt teams bleeding money, NHL desire to expand rather than move ($$$), subtracting a Canadian team from the huge Canadian TV deal.

Now your turn. How is it the same?

Canadian dollar was low in the 1990s and is low now. That's the same.

Sunbelt teams were bleeding money then and are bleeding money now, except a few which have built solid fan bases. That's the same.

The NHL was expanding in the 1990s, and is expanding now. That's the same.

The NHL is now getting a large percentage of its national TV money from Canada. At times in the 1990s, it had no guaranteed-money deal with a U.S. network, so it was getting 100% of its national TV money from Canada. I guess that's a change, but not in the direction that helps your case.

The Phoenix Coyotes, Florida Panthers and Carolina Hurricanes mostly.

You said this:

Moving the Flames, with multiple markets in financial dire straits, would likely lead to huge fan backlash across Canada

What have the Coyotes, Panthers or Hurricanes got to do with that claim? Extremely few fans in Canada care at all about those three franchises.

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Do I really have to spell out why Canadian fans would be angry that a Canadian team that has no real financial issues can be moved, but the Coyotes who have needed like $500 million just to stay alive get to stay, and not only get to stay, but are apparently unmovable.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

What have the Coyotes, Panthers or Hurricanes got to do with that claim? Extremely few fans in Canada care at all about those three franchises.

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

But the fans have nothing to do with anything. It is only about money to them and moving the flames would cost every owner in the league.

I think that Bettman is pushing the Seattle deal to happen after CBA negotiations 2020 with the goal to remove Expansion fees from HRR. If (once) he is successful, he will let Houston expand within a few years as well. Then he'll make the case to let Quebec expand for a reduced cost. This evens everything up for the league with 8 teams in Canada and 34 total teams... Just in time for TV deals to be signed.

He could add over 1.5 billion dollars to 31, 32, then thirty 33 teams... Each with the promise that they would be included in the next round of expansion fees with the exception of subsidized Quebec (sound familiar?).

They would get every dollar, which is like double to them under today's deal. That's 50 million per team.

As much as we think about the Flames, I'm willing to bet Bettman barely thinks of us at all.

[Manhattanboy]

Logic says that the current Flames will continue to play in the oldest building in the NHL for only so many more years. And then they will not.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Logic says that the current Flames will continue to play in the oldest building in the NHL for only so many more years. And then they will not.

Correct.

Obviously, Calgary is a better hockey market than <insert any non-NHL city>. But when it comes down to negotiating hundreds of millions of dollars for a new arena, compared to some other city coughing up an arena for nothing, that tilts the scales rather significantly.

Of course they would rather remain here. But an arena deal will have to come together, or other options become viable.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Logic says that the current Flames will continue to play in the oldest building in the NHL for only so many more years. And then they will not.

Playing in the oldest building in front of 20k paying fans is way better than playing in raleigh, Phoenix, or sunrisein front of 5k fans, half of which got tickets for free. Plus the Canadian television contract is reliant on 7 Canadian teams.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Playing in the oldest building in front of 20k paying fans is way better than playing in raleigh, Phoenix, or sunrisein front of 5k fans, half of which got tickets for free. Plus the Canadian television contract is reliant on 7 Canadian teams.

Is it? Do you know that for a fact?

Because if I was Sportsnet, I would actually rather broadcast more Leafs and Habs and Nuck games, and eliminate the (lower-watched) Flames games altogether.

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

His good source is full of crap. There is absolutely no chance the Flames move, they are a cash cow for the NHL as well as the battle of Alberta. There is a better chance I will ride naked down Crowfoot on a unicycle with a giant Oilers tattoo on my back and a Canucks one on my chest at which time I will be struck by lightning 46 times in a row.

Say what you will, I obviously hope all of these rumours are false but the bottom line is until a new arena deal is struck there is always a chance.

I believe it’s all posturing and the odds a Canadian market team is just allowed to re-locate are slim to none. I was just mentioning what’s being said by the ownership group. So no, it’s not some BS orange julius rumour that someone else eluded to.

[Freeway]

If there's zero chance the Flames get a new building in the foreseeable future, they will move. Regardless of the viability of the market.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Let me ask this question.

Retrofit vs new building ... Madison Square Gardens got refurbished. I know they don’t have the same real estate constraints as NY.

Can the Saddledome not be?

* I do not profess to know the economics behind stadium renovation. I would prefer any ‘of course not’ replies to actually help understand why. For example, would a new roof shape / structure while leaving a lot of foundation intact allow them to remedy a lot of problems?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Let me ask this question.

Retrofit vs new building ... Madison Square Gardens got refurbished. I know they don’t have the same real estate constraints as NY.

Can the Saddledome not be?

* I do not profess to know the economics behind stadium renovation. I would prefer any ‘of course not’ replies to actually help understand why. For example, would a new roof shape / structure while leaving a lot of foundation intact allow them to remedy a lot of problems?

Biggest difference there is they had a normal roof. The domes roof won’t support any additional rigging, which most major acts require.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Biggest difference there is they had a normal roof. The domes roof won’t support any additional rigging, which most major acts require.

Right. So can they change the dome’s giant (and iconic) maxi pad hat out for a derby hat or top hat, give it a normal roof, put a better upper bowl on the same foundation, and without all of the excavation / foundation stuff etc?

Are the issues logistics/impossible to work with the basic dome design, budget or schedule?

Or, I guess, what would an Olympic dome refurb entail?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Well you are talking about removing a major portion of the building... I would think that would be more expensive than building a new structure all together.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Freeway

If there's zero chance the Flames get a new building in the foreseeable future, they will move. Regardless of the viability of the market.

I mean this isn’t about the Flames “getting” a new arena right? It’s about agreeing on who pays for what. So to me the question is less about what the Flames are getting but more about how hard they are prepared to work to come to an agreement that works for everybody.

The only ones who could really decide on what zero chance in the foreseeable future means are the Flames.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The renovation of MSG was $1B USD. For that coin, CalgaryNext can be built, addressing all needs of the Calgary market. Hell, for that money, Calary could build a stand alone area, a field house, and a small event arena. Renovations ar3 dumb because you have to work with the constraints of the original foundation and engineering. Better to raise the place and start all over.

[Enoch Root]

Yeah, comparing MSG is pointless. New land comes at somewhat of a premium in Manhattan. Also, as New Era pointed out, the reno cost $1B USD. Yes, the Saddledome can be reno'ed - if you want to drop a $1.3B, it can be reno'ed quite nicely.

But in Calgary, where there actually is land to be had, starting over with a new building is cheaper and more efficient.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ You may be right but ‘ar3 dumb’ because of engineering / foundation constraints is obviously more simple of a dismissal than I was hoping for.

Working within constraints is what architects and engineers do.

If reno’ing is infeasible then why is it on the table for the Olympics?

Or is a significant portion that a new arena is a vanity project?