Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 07-27-2018, 04:00 PM   #61
tkflames
First Line Centre
 
tkflames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
...



So if they're not going to talk about funding what the heck can they engage the public on before any AIP?
Layouts, usage, features, location, access, concept?
__________________
Go Flames Go
tkflames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 04:03 PM   #62
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkflames View Post
Layouts, usage, features, location, access, concept?
They're gonna talk about those without a funding agreement in place?
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 04:18 PM   #63
Freeway
Franchise Player
 
Freeway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

The nice thing about having a committee involved in the negotiations is that it's not just a single body deciding what's worth taking for public engagement. And they have clearer principles when they begin this round of discussions than they had earlier.
__________________
PHWA Member // Managing Editor @ FlamesNation // Author of "On The Clock: Behind The Scenes with the Calgary Flames at the NHL Draft" // Twitter

"Does a great job covering the Flames" - Elliotte Friedman
Freeway is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Freeway For This Useful Post:
Old 07-27-2018, 05:03 PM   #64
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

With all due respect Ryan... absent an accompanying list of definitions it's as clear as mud.

Last edited by Parallex; 07-27-2018 at 06:46 PM.
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 07:45 PM   #65
tkflames
First Line Centre
 
tkflames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
They're gonna talk about those without a funding agreement in place?
I think they would be wise to discuss items related to usage, features, location and access as that information gets finalized.

If the value to the public is not sold up front and those on the fence about public funding are not properly engaged, it will be hard to negotiate the public $$. Hard liners pro and against public funding won't be swayed, but I believe there are a number of people (myself included) that would be comfortable with public funds if I can see the value to Calgarians outside NHL game hours.
__________________
Go Flames Go
tkflames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 08:43 PM   #66
Poster
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

I agree with the poster who said Flames need to open up their books. No money until then.

That said let’s not kid ourselves. The Flames will get their arena and their favourable funding, that’s how this scam works.
Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 10:01 PM   #67
Mazrim
CP Gamemaster
 
Mazrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Gary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poster View Post
I agree with the poster who said Flames need to open up their books. No money until then.

That said let’s not kid ourselves. The Flames will get their arena and their favourable funding, that’s how this scam works.
We'll see what the public appetite for "favorable funding" is when stories like this continue to come out:

https://deadspin.com/mariners-demand...-wo-1827920723
Mazrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 10:23 PM   #68
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poster View Post

That said let’s not kid ourselves. The Flames will get their arena and their favourable funding, that’s how this scam works.
Yeah it really feels like Davison is angling to really #### us taxpayers over here so that he can rub shoulders with the Flames and associated bigwigs.
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 10:42 PM   #69
Zarley
First Line Centre
 
Zarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

It’s a positive sign that the City is moving in this direction, it’s teally how things should have been handles from the outset rather than the political sideshow that occurred. As long as Nenshi is kept as far away from the process as possible I’ll be optimistic.
Zarley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 11:41 PM   #70
oldschoolcalgary
Franchise Player
 
oldschoolcalgary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Exp:
Default

and i'll be happy is Ken King isn't part of the negotiations
oldschoolcalgary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2018, 10:53 AM   #71
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuje View Post
If owning an NHL team is a money losing venture in a world where owners pay for their own arenas, well, then that's that, and the public can decide to subsidize professional sports.
I don't think that should be the rationale behind any funding...to me owning a pro sports team is like owning a rare, vintage vehicle. Although its maintenance costs can be insanely expensive, it generally appreciates in value, and always holds an intrinsic value in its scarcity, and that as a rich dude, you get to own something that very few others can.

Public money should not be just to balance the costs associated with owning this luxury item. Of course, quantifying the public benefit is the challenge, but IMO the Flames profitability should be almost irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak View Post

The Event Centre must be viable and sustainable as its own entity while contributing as part of a comprehensive master plan vision that supports The City of Calgary’s planning objectives and enhances our communities’ brand and reputation.
Two more words requiring definitions.

An event centre in Calgary does not really seem sustainable with or without the Flames as an anchor tenant.

The Flames are apparently not sustainable without a free/heavily subsidized building.

0 + 0 =/= 3

Not really sure how we get to viable and sustainable
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 10:52 AM   #72
RM14
First Line Centre
 
RM14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Pinder and John Shannon were discussing the rumor that Murray Edwards has or is close to taking on a larger percentage of ownership of the team. I wonder how that will impact arena negotiations.
RM14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 11:22 AM   #73
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RM14 View Post
Pinder and John Shannon were discussing the rumor that Murray Edwards has or is close to taking on a larger percentage of ownership of the team. I wonder how that will impact arena negotiations.
Makes it easier to sell the team.
Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 11:31 AM   #74
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
Makes it easier to sell the team.
Also involves more ownership of the Stampeders, Roughnecks, and Hitmen as well so I wouldn't read into this as necessarily making it easier to sell the team as Edwards likes being in the NHL club and I don't see him cashing out as he's already got plenty of money.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Old 08-30-2018, 11:36 AM   #75
Senator Clay Davis
Franchise Player
 
Senator Clay Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
Exp:
Default

I don't know the specifics of the ownership breakdown here, but I would imagine based off most other situations with multiple owners, that there's a threshold where once one owner acquires a certain percentage, all the other minority owners are forced to sell their share. So perhaps Murray is simply looking to take full control.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Senator Clay Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 11:38 AM   #76
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RM14 View Post
Pinder and John Shannon were discussing the rumor that Murray Edwards has or is close to taking on a larger percentage of ownership of the team.
If he's taking a larger percentage then whose taking a smaller one?
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 11:38 AM   #77
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Or maybe some of the minority owners want to cash out.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 11:42 AM   #78
cam_wmh
Franchise Player
 
cam_wmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post
Or maybe some of the minority owners want to cash out.
This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RM14 View Post
Pinder and John Shannon were discussing the rumor that Murray Edwards has or is close to taking on a larger percentage of ownership of the team. I wonder how that will impact arena negotiations.
He's probably buying out Byron. The last of the OG's.

Last edited by cam_wmh; 08-30-2018 at 11:43 AM. Reason: Checked the Flames website, and Byron Seaman isn't listed
cam_wmh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 11:58 AM   #79
Nuje
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Nuje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
I don't think that should be the rationale behind any funding...to me owning a pro sports team is like owning a rare, vintage vehicle. Although its maintenance costs can be insanely expensive, it generally appreciates in value, and always holds an intrinsic value in its scarcity, and that as a rich dude, you get to own something that very few others can.

Public money should not be just to balance the costs associated with owning this luxury item. Of course, quantifying the public benefit is the challenge, but IMO the Flames profitability should be almost irrelevant to the discussion.
Oh I agree that it shouldn't. I just think that were there, say, a plebiscite on the issue, we would have to know. I'd still be disappointed if people voted to subsidize the losses, but at least I'd be disappointed by informed people disagreeing with me. Right now they still pretend that it's a losing venture if they pay themselves. I don't believe them, but many people do.
__________________
"Correction, it's not your leg son. It's Liverpool's leg" - Shankly
Nuje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 12:23 PM   #80
Locke
Franchise Player
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post
Or maybe some of the minority owners want to cash out.
Which makes a degree of sense. These guys have made a TON of money on their investment since they purchased the team.

Theres all kinds of reasons to sell and theres just as many good reasons to consolidate ownership.

So many reasons in fact that its hard to really nail any down with any degree of accuracy.

Maybe Murray wants to relocate the Flames to London and they can play their games outdoors at Wembley and kick those No Good Tottenham Hotpurs squatters out into the rain!
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!

This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.

If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:57 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021