Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[calgaryblood]

The easy solution would be the Flames don't Jack up their prices that much and then fans would be able to still buy those tickets.

I really don't see why the Flames need to maximize their revenue to the last cent and then not want to pay their fair share of the arena that is allowing them to raise prices by that much.

[Strange Brew]

I do think there is a psychological difference between a $110 ticket and a $100 ticket with 10% ticket tax. The team can promote and market a $100 ticket and the tax is added at the end.

So definitions of HRR aside, a seller prefers tax being added separately.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I do think there is a psychological difference between a $110 ticket and a $100 ticket with 10% ticket tax. The team can promote and market a $100 ticket and the tax is added at the end.

So definitions of HRR aside, a seller prefers tax being added separately.

Absolutely. It’s the same with ticketmaster. If a friend asks me how much I paid for a concert ticket, my brain automatically comes up with the list price, so I say something like $40, and it’s implied that there are fees on top but it doesn’t really matter. I rarely if ever say $55.

Works in liquor stores too.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You do know that the ticket tax is not considered an owners contribution in Edmonton, right? You'd think this would matter this the Edmonton deal is the blueprint, right?

Don't drink the Flames kool-aid.

Actually very much in debate

5. Who gets credit for the ticket tax contribution?

The City of Edmonton contends the tax is a public contribution because it covers the amount borrowed by the city through a taxation structure imposed by a city bylaw and paid by the public. However, the EAC argues that the ticket tax should actually count as its contribution because, if not for the tax, it could charge more for the ticket and keep the additional revenue.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...w-does-it-work

So not unique at all to the discussion in Calgary.

But please drop the kool aid stuff, that is such a weak way of saying don't any one disagree with my opinion because it's right!

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I agree that a 5% GST shouldn't matter, but it does to some people. My dad once told me to make sure I removed the 5% from my bill before I did my tip calculation. I laughed. He was puzzled. I said dad 5% on a $100 bill is $5 of which you are likely only going to tip 5% anyway. You just saved yourself 25 cents!

I'm sorry but what an #######!

Back to the point though, opportunity cost is something every business needs to deal with. Paying for facilities is something every business needs to deal with. Why should the flames be any different?

[killer_carlson]

Any word on when the Flames reveal their plan?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I really wish Ken King would turn in his homework so we can get on with this. Shouldn't take this long.

Considering he got an F on his last few assignments I won't fault him taking his time on it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

I'm sorry but what an #######!

Back to the point though, opportunity cost is something every business needs to deal with. Paying for facilities is something every business needs to deal with. Why should the flames be any different?

I don't think I've stated the Flames shouldn't pay for it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Considering he got an F on his last few assignments I won't fault him taking his time on it.

The problem is he can't figure out a way to have the only owners contribution be the ticket tax and not come out like an #######. Its should have taken 5 minutes to come up with the matching graphic from the city just getting rid of repayment of property taxes, increases the city cash contribution, removing the land and saddledome and calling the ticket tax an owner contribution. I can do it in paint in about 5 minutes.

However Nenshi won the PR battle so he can't release that. I wouldn't be surprised if King just "forgets" to release his offer and lets the season start with no further comment.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Any word on when the Flames reveal their plan?

I hear KK was just about finished, but ran out of crayons

[corporatejay]

Pretty thorough article here by the score:


https://www.thescore.com/nba/news/1377415


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Any word on when the Flames reveal their plan?

King made such a big deal about releasing the plan this week and so far bubkiss. Are they waiting for Friday so Nenshi/Co can't respond to it until the following week?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

It's apples and oranges because the East Village is already being redeveloped without an arena as an anchor tenant, and would continue to be without a new arena.

There is absolutely no way you can pretend that Rogers Place's location for redevelopment is anything remotely close to what the East Village has gone through.

The east village is different in that it is so large and has been undergoing the renewal for a couple decades. But in the plan for the remainder of the east village, especially the entertainment district component, the arena plays a significant part in the execution of that plan. Without that arena, and the 1.5M customers it attracts, you have an entertainment district with an anchor tenant of the NMC, and its 100K customers. Just a minor difference in the magnitude of foot traffic, would you not say. That is the importance of the arena to the successful implementation of the district. It appears you are ignoring this and believe that the district would survive on its own.

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Pretty thorough article here by the score:

https://www.thescore.com/nba/news/1377415

I wish they had presented more facts. They went to academics, who supposedly study this stuff, but presented no data to support their claims. That to me is the greatest problem with these studies, they are short on facts. Like the claim in the article that the money being spent in the Edmonton Ice District is just money removed from some other area in the Edmonton economy. That is a great claim, but there is nothing to support it. I really wanted to see the data to support that claim.

I do think that the answer to the Calgary problem exists in that article. Nenshi should create a Calgary Arena Authority and give it the mandate to get the new arena built, and then get the Flames under contract for a 30 year lease. If the city does want to focus on cost certainty and revenue recovery, this is how they do it. The City can assume control over this, they just need to take ownership of the whole process. An Arena Authority would do that.

[Frequitude]

To those who don't believe that a ticket tax is mostly a Flames owner contribution:

If the Flames borrowed $555M from RBC at the proper market interest rate and then built the arena entirely from that money, who, in your opinion, "funded" the arena?
a) The Flames
b) RBC
c) Users (i.e. ticket buyers)

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by New Era

I wish they had presented more facts. They went to academics, who supposedly study this stuff, but presented no data to support their claims. That to me is the greatest problem with these studies, they are short on facts. Like the claim in the article that the money being spent in the Edmonton Ice District is just money removed from some other area in the Edmonton economy. That is a great claim, but there is nothing to support it. I really wanted to see the data to support that claim.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...597.x/abstract
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~bhumphre/papers/pfm2003.pdf
http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpt...s-teams-events

It's obtuse to claim this. The studies are everywhere if you have the impetus to casually search for them.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...597.x/abstract
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~bhumphre/papers/pfm2003.pdf
http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpt...s-teams-events

It's obtuse to claim this. The studies are everywhere if you have the impetus to casually search for them.

I know the research is out there, it has been posted numerous times in these discussions, it was more of a critique of the article. This is the article that people will reference for information rather than going and doing the research and reading. The author should have included the high points of the research itself.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by New Era

I know the research is out there, it has been posted numerous times in these discussions, it was more of a critique of the article. This is the article that people will reference for information rather than going and doing the research and reading. The author should have included the high points of the research itself.

... no they really shouldn't have. The information is easy to find for anyone who wants to seek it out and the folk who have zero interest in seeking it out won't want to wade through longitudinal/cross-sectional microeconomic data and discussions on p value.

It's a sports news article not a research abstract. They summed up the research conclusion in plain language.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

King made such a big deal about releasing the plan this week and so far bubkiss. Are they waiting for Friday so Nenshi/Co can't respond to it until the following week?

I'm thinking that after putting together the summary, they realized they couldn't give a good answer to the question "is this a fair deal".

[rage2]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Because if the Flames charge something in lieu of the ticket tax, it would count as Hockey Related Revenue and the NHLPA/players get 50% of that. A ticket tax is not HRR and would not require a split to the players.

Here's a solution. Instead of a $10 ticket tax, the flames should just bump the ticket prices by $20 so that it's now a Flames contribution. NHLPA/players gets half of that, so it equals to the $10 that the controversial ticket tax covers. That way we can all feel good about the deal for the low price of an extra $10 per ticket so that it's technically a Flames contribution for the exact same thing.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

To those who don't believe that a ticket tax is mostly a Flames owner contribution:

If the Flames borrowed $555M from RBC at the proper market interest rate and then built the arena entirely from that money, who, in your opinion, "funded" the arena?
a) The Flames
b) RBC
c) Users (i.e. ticket buyers)

So your question is essentially "If the Flames funded their arena in a completely different way than they've proposed, and where they pay for the whole of it by borrowing the money, who would be funding the arena?"