View Poll Results: Who is winning the Arena PR battle so far?
|
Naheed Nenshi & The City
|
|
357 |
70.69% |
Ken King & The Flames
|
|
14 |
2.77% |
Neither
|
|
134 |
26.53% |
09-17-2017, 05:19 PM
|
#81
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Boca Raton, FL
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportsJunky
Blue Stratos?
Hai Karate?
|
Sex Panther
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
|
|
|
|
09-17-2017, 05:25 PM
|
#82
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Airdrie, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Is it? Let us know the economics of the project? One has to assume right now an new arena will generate massively higher incremental revenue than the suggested $5m increase in incremental cost through property taxes.
Easy solution to this problem for the Flames if this is true - open up their financial model for revenues. Are we supposed to just take their word for it, that this is a losing proposition?
|
Is there not enough comparables with 2 arenas built with private finds causing the owners abandon ship in the recent past? The one thing that no one has provided so far is to lay out how a fully private funds arena would create profit for the ownership. If it's as easy as them paying for it and then reaping the rewards why isn't the business model there to show the return on their investment?
The flames have definitely came out on the poor side of PR here, but so far nobody has called them out that their offer of paying 1/3 for the arena really isn't true. My bank have me a mortgage to buy my house when I put 5% down, but nobody would suggest that they paid 95% for my house
Last edited by Jimdon; 09-17-2017 at 05:29 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jimdon For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-17-2017, 05:30 PM
|
#83
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
To me the PR thing was lost early with an assumption of the Edmonton model.
I've said 100 times that it was a logical thing to ask for, but they didn't explain it correctly. For that they have King to blame for glib remarks but themselves to blame for not having a better strategy and/or expectation for what was coming from the city and the public.
|
Well...
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=888
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof
*snip*
Also, what we know about the timeline (roughly) is:
- CSEC starts to get serious about their vision and has a few meetings with City officials and the mayor. They are told West Village is a bad idea, based on the above, and that the City would be hesitant to support it, at best.
- CSEC goes ahead with West Village vision anyway, meanwhile mayor and coucilors put out not so subtle hints that there is no appetite for the Edmonton deal.
- CSEC holds a bad public presentation about their ill-advised West Village vision before submitting anything formal to the City in terms of either a land use application, development permit or business proposition.
The presentation is CSEC trying to jump past any formal engagement about the specific project with the City to try to garner emotional support from the populace. That's playing politics.
/*snip*
|
So if they didn't know what was coming from city hall they're just lying (or at best they're just incompetent) and if they didn't know what was coming from the public they are indeed out of touch with the city.
|
|
|
09-17-2017, 06:03 PM
|
#84
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
Well...
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=888
So if they didn't know what was coming from city hall they're just lying (or at best they're just incompetent) and if they didn't know what was coming from the public they are indeed out of touch with the city.
|
Could come down to them thinking the city representatives were being short sighted and by getting it to the masses they'd gain support.
That's my guess any way.
|
|
|
09-17-2017, 06:18 PM
|
#85
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fantasy Island
|
I ordered a Nenshi sign for my lawn and I've seen another ~5 Nenshi signs spring up within a block or two of my house in the past few days. Might be a coincidence, obviously is anecdotal, but this Ken King gong show spurred me to order a Nenshi sign myself, so other people might be doing the same.
__________________
comfortably numb
|
|
|
09-17-2017, 07:20 PM
|
#86
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North of the River, South of the Bluff
|
I have been a pretty harsh critic of the Flames here and called Nenshi out as well. I have mentioned before when the Flames were about to anounce CalgaryNext I got in a Facebook debate with Druh Farell calling her out for preemptively calling all stadiums as a waste. I stood up for the Flames then, and then subsequently felt like a buffoon a day later.
That said if next week the Flames drop some creative offer with an epic arena design I'll seriously look at supporting them again.
It's just that the odds of that given their behavior and track record is not good. I will keep an open mind however. I am sure most others will as well. In the end I think everyone just wants a great team and great stadium that doesn't hose us taxpayers.
|
|
|
09-17-2017, 07:21 PM
|
#87
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimdon
Is there not enough comparables with 2 arenas built with private finds causing the owners abandon ship in the recent past? The one thing that no one has provided so far is to lay out how a fully private funds arena would create profit for the ownership. If it's as easy as them paying for it and then reaping the rewards why isn't the business model there to show the return on their investment?
The flames have definitely came out on the poor side of PR here, but so far nobody has called them out that their offer of paying 1/3 for the arena really isn't true. My bank have me a mortgage to buy my house when I put 5% down, but nobody would suggest that they paid 95% for my house
|
But you are paying interest and principal to the bank and property taxes to the city, yet the city didn't loan you the money. If they had, and only asked you to pay property taxes that would be a helluva deal.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-17-2017, 07:47 PM
|
#88
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
Sex Panther
|
60% of the time, it works every time!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-17-2017, 07:49 PM
|
#89
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Boca Raton, FL
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
60% of the time, it works every time!
|
I guess Friday was one of the 40% for Mr. King.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-17-2017, 08:11 PM
|
#90
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimdon
Is there not enough comparables with 2 arenas built with private finds causing the owners abandon ship in the recent past? The one thing that no one has provided so far is to lay out how a fully private funds arena would create profit for the ownership. If it's as easy as them paying for it and then reaping the rewards why isn't the business model there to show the return on their investment?
The flames have definitely came out on the poor side of PR here, but so far nobody has called them out that their offer of paying 1/3 for the arena really isn't true. My bank have me a mortgage to buy my house when I put 5% down, but nobody would suggest that they paid 95% for my house
|
This might be a place where the Flames win the public perception.
That the flames have convinced people that paying property taxes is the flames reimbursing the city is a big win. Instead of it being a 185 million dollar subsidy with no tax subsidy it's framed as the city loaningbthe flames money and getting paid back.
The fact the the city is currently subsidizing the flames by giving them a tax free and almost rent free arena is lost in the conversation.
|
|
|
09-17-2017, 11:10 PM
|
#91
|
I believe in the Jays.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
That the flames have convinced people that paying property taxes is the flames reimbursing the city is a big win.
|
It would have been if they'd accepted the deal... instead I'm sure you have a bunch of homeowners incensed that the Flames think it's unfair for them to pay property tax (like every other property owner) on a building that they're getting 1/3 off.
|
|
|
09-18-2017, 03:35 AM
|
#92
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southern Alberta
Exp:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
Sex Panther
|
Made with actual bits of panther!
__________________
"You just got your asses whipped by a bunch of gawddamned nerds" - Coach Harris
|
|
|
09-18-2017, 03:44 AM
|
#93
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southern Alberta
Exp:
|
I am surprised that the fact Murray Edwards moved to the UK to minimize taxes has not been made a bigger deal. That was the moment that I lost all respect and support for CSEC (I'll be a Flames Fan for life, but as a corporation...not so much). The optics of dodging taxes out of one side of your mouth, only to demand hundreds of millions of tax dollars out of the other side of your mouth stinks. The only thing worse is the arrogance that comes from not giving a crap about what you look like because you think you have the city by the short hairs anyway
__________________
"You just got your asses whipped by a bunch of gawddamned nerds" - Coach Harris
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Pliddy For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-18-2017, 06:21 AM
|
#94
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
This might be a place where the Flames win the public perception.
That the flames have convinced people that paying property taxes is the flames reimbursing the city is a big win.
|
It is a big win for the Flames. The reason they've not managed to seemingly gain any public support is because they're acting like it's not only not a win, but some sort of insult.
https://youtu.be/-JvtlB_NzI8
Like that.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Last edited by NiklasSundblad; 09-18-2017 at 06:23 AM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to NiklasSundblad For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-18-2017, 10:44 AM
|
#95
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliddy
I am surprised that the fact Murray Edwards moved to the UK to minimize taxes has not been made a bigger deal. That was the moment that I lost all respect and support for CSEC (I'll be a Flames Fan for life, but as a corporation...not so much). The optics of dodging taxes out of one side of your mouth, only to demand hundreds of millions of tax dollars out of the other side of your mouth stinks. The only thing worse is the arrogance that comes from not giving a crap about what you look like because you think you have the city by the short hairs anyway
|
You know for a fact that the only reason he moved was to not pay taxes?
Also he still owns property here so he's paying city taxes.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-18-2017, 11:30 AM
|
#96
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
You know for a fact that the only reason he moved was to not pay taxes?
Also he still owns property here so he's paying city taxes.
|
Also, there's nothing to be gained by going out of the way to make it personal. Attack the proposal, attack the message, the arrogant tone, shoot the messenger etc. Calling out individuals on personal life decisions because they may have tangential ironic parallels to the actual issue at hand is just muddying the debate.
Last edited by NiklasSundblad; 09-18-2017 at 11:43 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to NiklasSundblad For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-18-2017, 12:56 PM
|
#97
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
This might be a place where the Flames win the public perception.
That the flames have convinced people that paying property taxes is the flames reimbursing the city is a big win. Instead of it being a 185 million dollar subsidy with no tax subsidy it's framed as the city loaningbthe flames money and getting paid back.
The fact the the city is currently subsidizing the flames by giving them a tax free and almost rent free arena is lost in the conversation.
|
I think the notion that the Flames could win the public perception battle is, at this point, highly improbable.
Over 70% of a message board comprised entirely of die hard devotees of the team think the team has #### the money bed on this one. If they can't convince us that it's a good idea, I find it difficult to believe the rest of the city is an easier sell.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-18-2017, 01:22 PM
|
#98
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
Over 70% of a message board comprised entirely of die hard devotees of the team think the team has #### the money bed on this one. If they can't convince us that it's a good idea, I find it difficult to believe the rest of the city is an easier sell.
|
I'm not 100% convinced of this sentiment.
One thing to keep in mind is that most of the fans on here are pretty engaged...they are probably better informed about the details and debates regarding the pros and cons of the arena. And I would suggest that the more informed people are about this and the general debate about new sports arenas, the more skeptical people tend to be about the Flames' plans.
The casual fan, or the man on the street, might not have the entire picture...they might just be thinking in simpler terms. Ie "Flames are good for the community. Let's support the Flames" and not know or care about the financial intricacies.
The way Ken King talks, you can tell he's trying to keep the discussion at this level, and speak to this second group of people. I'm not surprised... because it's probably the only way he can "win" this battle.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-18-2017, 01:24 PM
|
#99
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
I think the notion that the Flames could win the public perception battle is, at this point, highly improbable.
Over 70% of a message board comprised entirely of die hard devotees of the team think the team has #### the money bed on this one. If they can't convince us that it's a good idea, I find it difficult to believe the rest of the city is an easier sell.
|
I don't think they ever really had a chance to win that battle. Outside of exceptional cases, most owners are generally maligned during stadium negotiations - but they still get what they want.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:00 AM.
|
|