[News] Seattle announces $660 mil private arena deal. NHL team to be announced in July?

[jammies]

So Calgary has 1,380,000 people that won't fit into a new arena, but Seattle has 3,780,000 such people? I'm sure that is vital in funding your arena, having as many people as possible around that won't be visiting it.

[jammies]

And before the lecture, I realize a bigger market means it's easier to fill up the stadium, as only a percentage will go to any particular event, but that is only true up to a point. More importantly, this arena has 2 potential anchor tenants with basketball and hockey as targets, whereas a Calgary arena will only have 1. That's a lot of guaranteed high-volume events to add. That's why the private money is more willing to finance, and not some outdated fantasy that 1.4 million is still "small market".

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by jammies

So Calgary has 1,380,000 people that won't fit into a new arena, but Seattle has 3,780,000 such people? I'm sure that is vital in funding your arena, having as many people as possible around that won't be visiting it.

Well, there is a thing called a market. One market is substantially larger than the other. Then there is the revenue base. One revenue base is substantially larger than the other. Then there is the tax base to support some of the public costs. Again, one is larger than the other. Then there is the corporate support. One is much, much larger than the other. Can you imagine being able to say you have Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, Weyerhauser, Costco, and Starbucks as your base? Maybe that 3.78M versus 1.38M people matters?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jammies

So Calgary has 1,380,000 people that won't fit into a new arena, but Seattle has 3,780,000 such people? I'm sure that is vital in funding your arena, having as many people as possible around that won't be visiting it.

Seattle not only has three times the metro population of Calgary, it also has at least three times the rich population. This means the arena can charge higher ticket prices for big-name events, and still fill all the seats.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Seattle not only has three times the metro population of Calgary, it also has at least three times the rich population. This means the arena can charge higher ticket prices for big-name events, and still fill all the seats.

you don't know that.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Cappy

you don't know that.

Yes, I do.

[FBI]

Hot> don't think your argument is correct. There are a ton of hardcore hockey fans here in Everett (thousands go to silvertips games mid week) that would gladly drive 30-40 miles to watch an NHL team. (Especially if it had awesome players like from the flames)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Seattle not only has three times the metro population of Calgary, it also has at least three times the rich population. This means the arena can charge higher ticket prices for big-name events, and still fill all the seats.

I can basically guarantee you tickets for a hockey team in seattle will be cheaper than a hockey team in Calgary.

This is one of the easiest bets of my life.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Sweet! As I live in Victoria this is great news.

Could get a lot more Flames road games in!!!

Or maybe Flames home games!

[Badgers Nose]

For years I've been hoping Flames would do this to the Dome.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I can basically guarantee you tickets for a hockey team in seattle will be cheaper than a hockey team in Calgary.

This is one of the easiest bets of my life.

So? How about tickets for a basketball team? How about tickets for concerts?

We're looking at the total revenue potential of the building, not just one tenant. Do you still think it's that easy a bet that the Saddledome will take in more money than a brand new arena in Seattle?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So? How about tickets for a basketball team? How about tickets for concerts?

We're looking at the total revenue potential of the building, not just one tenant. Do you still think it's that easy a bet that the Saddledome will take in more money than a brand new arena in Seattle?

No I don't.

Unless the Flames are going to buy that building they won't see those revenues.

The Flames are a top 10 revenue team in one of the worst buildings in the league. There's basically no scenario that sees them make more money in the next 10-15 years than being in Calgary, even if it means playing in the dome.

Move the Calgary Flames to any other city without a team in North America right now and they make less money than they do currently. The only place where that's really debatable is Quebec City and there is no freakin' way the NHL allows a team to move from one Canadian City to another instead of granting that canadian city a new franchise or relocating a struggling american one.

THAT is what is so dishonest about all of this. Sure, let them move if they want to move, sell if they want to sell, but don't try to shine up my own turds and tell me it's for economic reasons.

[nik-]

How is "Flames" going to work with Seahawk blue and XBox green? They're definitely going to have to change the name.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

How is "Flames" going to work with Seahawk blue and XBox green? They're definitely going to have to change the name.

With an awful aquatic colour scheme no doubt.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No I don't.

Unless the Flames are going to buy that building they won't see those revenues.

The Flames are a top 10 revenue team in one of the worst buildings in the league. There's basically no scenario that sees them make more money in the next 10-15 years than being in Calgary, even if it means playing in the dome.

Move the Calgary Flames to any other city without a team in North America right now and they make less money than they do currently. The only place where that's really debatable is Quebec City and there is no freakin' way the NHL allows a team to move from one Canadian City to another instead of granting that canadian city a new franchise or relocating a struggling american one.

THAT is what is so dishonest about all of this. Sure, let them move if they want to move, sell if they want to sell, but don't try to shine up my own turds and tell me it's for economic reasons.

Revenues are only half the equation, and not the real number of interest. Profit is what matters. If the Flames make 20% less revenues, and have similar or lesser costs, they turn an extra 5-10% profit, just on exchange alone. Revenue is only half the story when you're talking about seeing your expenditures drop by a substantial amount as well. Sharing a building with a basketball team as a secondary tenant is going to drop costs dramatically and increase profitability.

[nik-]

They should jump on that then. Sounds fantastic for them.

[Senator Clay Davis]

How are the Flames expenditures going to drop substantially by moving to Seattle? Seriously I'd love to hear the argument there. They are going to make less revenue, that's obviously not up for debate. But unless they are cutting payroll (which of course means a less competitive team, which of course means lower ticket sales, which of course means...), where are these substantial expenditure savings coming from?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by New Era

Revenues are only half the equation, and not the real number of interest. Profit is what matters. If the Flames make 20% less revenues, and have similar or lesser costs, they turn an extra 5-10% profit, just on exchange alone. Revenue is only half the story when you're talking about seeing your expenditures drop by a substantial amount as well. Sharing a building with a basketball team as a secondary tenant is going to drop costs dramatically and increase profitability.

Costs are basically a fixed scenario. Expenditures in a cap league don't change a lot unless you're a perennial cap floor, noncompetitive club or if you cut front office spending for things like community outreach, marketing, scouting, and club operations. But, paying the bare minimum has its consequences too, and in a zero sum environment like a salary capped professional sports league, that kind of cost cutting gets you nowhere.

Their costs are relatively fixed.They still have to run and ice a competitive hockey club that meets the bare minimum salary restrictions, and that continues to make up the vast majority of operating expenses.

And again, this scenario involves moving the team to a privately owned building of which the Flames owners are not the owners. So now they are in a situation of paying rent? Going from Rent Seeking to Rent Paying? That's madness.

No, better to sell the team entirely to prospective owners in Seattle and wash your hands of owning a team entirely.

The money is in the real estate. The Flames apparently want something for nothing and the city isn't prepared to give it to them. The Stampede Board has been giving them a place to play in exchange for things like parking revenues, but the Flames apparently don't like that deal either.

[Robo]

The way the owners are if they do move they will fight with the NHL for years over who pays the relocation fee

[bob-loblaw]

I'd think USD ticket revenue means their current expenses would be 20% less.
That being said, I can't see two franchises wanting to split revenue. I haven't read all the details but building owner would surely want to keep a good chunk of it.