[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where in the world did you get THAT number?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...sion-money-too

Arizona's fees were rumored to potentially be as high as $200M and as low as $100M at the time if they moved. Even if you meet in the middle, the Flames are too cheap to put up anything close to that to build the new arena let alone move.

As far as I know this is still the case for any team that intends on moving that is actually able to get BOG approval to do so. If anyone has an actual basis for relocation fees other than via the media I'd love to see it.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I'm pretty sure they won't miss you.

They would miss idiots like me who have continued to purchase season tickets since inception.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

If hearts and minds are one of the objectives of the Flames when are the owners going to finally realize that Ken King is a PR disaster?

He may be a good ops guy but if this battle is going to be fought in the election 'arena' the owners need a new face. Perhaps one of them needs to step in front of a camera?

Ken is doing a great job and has, I think done a lot to further this process in the direction the owners want. When all is said.and done he may have saved them hundreds of millions of dollars and secured an arena deal eminently attractive to another potential buyer.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ken is doing a great job and has, I think done a lot to further this process in the direction the owners want. When all is said.and done he may have saved them hundreds of millions of dollars and secured an arena deal eminently attractive to another potential buyer.

Agreed but keep him behind the scenes. I am a KK supporter but he does not come across well on television.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Agreed but keep him behind the scenes. I am a KK supporter but he does not come across well on television.

It is the position he is put in that largely makes him look like that in my mind. Get him talking about public relations or charity events etc and he is devastatingly charming.

Make him defend things like this and it gets exceptionally more difficult to exude the same charm.

You can't gladhand your way to hundreds of millions of public subsidy from a city dealing with a recession.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...sion-money-too

Arizona's fees were rumored to potentially be as high as $200M and as low as $100M at the time if they moved. Even if you meet in the middle, the Flames are too cheap to put up anything close to that to build the new arena let alone move.

As far as I know this is still the case for any team that intends on moving that is actually able to get BOG approval to do so. If anyone has an actual basis for relocation fees other than via the media I'd love to see it.

The numbers in that opinion piece were pure conjecture. Relocation fee, I would think, would depend greatly on where the team goes. Toronto 2?, the cost would be enormous. Seattle? Not so much.

[Olsy]

A few rhetorical questions:

Why would Mayor Nenshi include an arena as the anchor of his new proposed entertainment district in his recently released mayoral election platform?

Why do large scale re-development initiatives typically include an “anchor” of some sort?

Why do “anchor’s” typically pay less than the rest of tenants at large malls and regional shopping centres?

Why are “anchor’s” typically the first to lease and then first to open at these centres?

What possible benefit could the City receive from having an arena (“anchor”) at this location (especially considering there is no public benefit in having one)?

Wouldn’t the new entertainment district take off and gentrify the currently underutilized lands in Victoria Park without an “anchor” to the district?

Who contributes more to the tax base, high density residential, restaurants/bars and hotels or what currently occupies the Victoria Park area?

[Olsy]

Double

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The numbers in that opinion piece were pure conjecture. Relocation fee, I would think, would depend greatly on where the team goes. Toronto 2?, the cost would be enormous. Seattle? Not so much.

Sure, but there are other examples of Atlanta paying something like $60M but this was quite a while now and a very lateral move. I would suspect the Flames would be on the hook for a huge number in order to pack up and leave a very profitable city.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The numbers in that opinion piece were pure conjecture. Relocation fee, I would think, would depend greatly on where the team goes. Toronto 2?, the cost would be enormous. Seattle? Not so much.

Owners will want to get paid to let a team leave a good market for a potential expansion market. They got $500m for Vegas.

Seattle builds an arena - they get an expansion team and the owners get $500m. Why let Calgary move for $200m and then have no city you want to expand to (assuming they still don't want Quebec and they aren't going to expand to Calgary without a new arena).

Think of it this way - are the Panthers/Hurricanes etc owners going to vote to let a money making team move to a big market while they are stuck scraping by.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

They've done the studies and show that, but I suspect you'd spend the money somewhere. Perhaps you'd order a pizza at home or you'd spend more on groceries, etc. It is possible you could save the money - but most likely you're going to spend it doing something.

The studies don't show that, as it is inherently unshowable. It's purely conjecture. And it is the backbone on which many of the studies draw their conclusion.

As others have said, I am not going to simply go somewhere else on a Wednesday night for pizza. What I am going to do, is spend more on travel.

It is impossible to determine how much of the foregone entertainment money will get spent locally, but the answer is undeniably: less than 100%.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Just listened to Mayor Nenshi's comments. I think this was a fair response and he did nothing to inflame a bad situation. He did say much of what I thought he would say, and that it does come down to his vision of the entertainment district. He clearly stated that the Flames asked for an articulation of the entertainment district plan, and Nenshi stated he did (its on his website). This coupled with the problems in revenue recovery for the city are probably what drove the Flames away from the table.

If there is a resolution to reached I suspect it is going to come down to these issues:

1) Flames need more say and control over the development of the entertainment district. This is a big chunk of coin that they could have a piece in, while the city maintains their revenue from taxes on these sites. This was one of the main drivers behind the WV, and should also be in play in the EV. The site in question is really limited in this regard.

2) The city needs to be realistic on revenue recovery. I think the recovery was focusing on revenues/profits, which may not be allowed under the current CBA. I have a feeling this is why Gary Bettman was in town, to deliver the message from the league that the proposed model was not acceptable under the existing CBA. I think this is something that may be a sticking point.

They appear to be close to a deal, but I sense frustration from both sides. I think the Flames are frustrated because they are being asked to give up the hopes of developing a great entertainment district with serious development possibilities. I think the city is frustrated because they are asking for a recovery schedule based on revenues and profits, and the Flames are likely saying they can't do it, and the city feels otherwise. I hope they can work past both these issues. The city needs understand the the terms of the recovery strategy may be beyond their control. The Flames need to understand that the entertainment district may not be in the cards. If there is some give and take in these two areas, a deal may still be possible. If not, we're likely at a deal killing impasse.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

Who owns the arena and land in the end? if it's the Flames then they shouldn't expect to be exempt from property tax

I don't think ownership was clear. but I agree they shouldn't be exempt.

The point is that the City's proposed contribution might not really a be a contribution, just a loan at the end of the day. The property tax thing I don't understand, unless they mean a surcharge to the ordinary property tax.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The studies don't show that, as it is inherently unshowable. It's purely conjecture. And it is the backbone on which many of the studies draw their conclusion.

As others have said, I am not going to simply go somewhere else on a Wednesday night for pizza. What I am going to do, is spend more on travel.

It is impossible to determine how much of the foregone entertainment money will get spent locally, but the answer is undeniably: less than 100%.

How is it unshowable? The Flames move to the other side of town. The restaurants around the Saddledome suffer and the ones near the new arena do better.

You are looking at it from the sense the Flames and the Saddledome don't exist. They do. So building a new arena just moves the spending from one spot to another.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don't think ownership was clear. but I agree they shouldn't be exempt.

The point is that the City's proposed contribution might not really a be a contribution, just a loan at the end of the day. The property tax thing I don't understand, unless they mean a surcharge to the ordinary property tax.

The saddledome only pays a nominal amount in property taxes because of a special deal on the 1995 renovation. The Flames pay rent as a tenant to the City.

The 1/3 discussed - it has intimated it could be recouped either through rent (I would assume this if the City owns it) or through a different structure than is current for property taxes (I would assume this option if the Flames own the building).

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Owners will want to get paid to let a team leave a good market for a potential expansion market. They got $500m for Vegas.

Seattle builds an arena - they get an expansion team and the owners get $500m. Why let Calgary move for $200m and then have no city you want to expand to (assuming they still don't want Quebec and they aren't going to expand to Calgary without a new arena).

Think of it this way - are the Panthers/Hurricanes etc owners going to vote to let a money making team move to a big market while they are stuck scraping by.

I understand they will want to be paid, but I do not see a relocation fee anywhere near that price range. Similar to the comparison to the Edmonton rink deal, sure CSES wants a similar deal, doesn't mean they have the leverage to get it. Good hockey markets backed waaay off when the expansion fee was set at $500M. If the Flames are worth $410M (I think that was reported earlier in the thread), the absolute max relocation fee would be $90M and I don't think they could extract that.

Edit: I am assuming the locals sell the team first.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The studies don't show that, as it is inherently unshowable. It's purely conjecture. And it is the backbone on which many of the studies draw their conclusion.

As others have said, I am not going to simply go somewhere else on a Wednesday night for pizza. What I am going to do, is spend more on travel.

It is impossible to determine how much of the foregone entertainment money will get spent locally, but the answer is undeniably: less than 100%.

No, the studies draw the conclusion that there is no negative economic impact to losing a team.

They use the substitution effect as an example for the conclusion.

You continue to use anecdotal evidence to attempt to trounce actual peer-reviewed sources.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by New Era

1) Flames need more say and control over the development of the entertainment district. This is a big chunk of coin that they could have a piece in, while the city maintains their revenue from taxes on these sites. This was one of the main drivers behind the WV, and should also be in play in the EV. The site in question is really limited in this regard.

The Flames don't own any of the land in either location. So why should they get control?

CMLC controls the development around there, because they're managing it on behalf of the owners. Why do you keep thinking the Flames should have any stake in developing land they don't own?

2) The city needs to be realistic on revenue recovery. I think the recovery was focusing on revenues/profits, which may not be allowed under the current CBA. I have a feeling this is why Gary Bettman was in town, to deliver the message from the league that the proposed model was not acceptable under the existing CBA. I think this is something that may be a sticking point.

Gary was in town to be 'the muscle' in legitimizing the Flames not so veiled threat of relocation by the league.

You're pulling stuff out of your ass if you think there's anything in the CBA that covers a financing deal between a city and the arena managers. Revenue and profit comes from far more than just the Flames. The NHL/NHLPA has no say over money gained from having a bunch of Garth Brooks concerts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The Flames don't own any of the land in either location. So why should they get control?

Major tenants often have a great degree of control over the entire development.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

I want people who have a different opinion to me to be honest about why they have that opinion and not continue going to the well of arguments that has been shown again and again to be dubious at best.

You are assuming that people with a different opinion than you are not being honest about why they feel that way. That is incredibly arrogant.

Originally Posted by nik-

The way I'm framing my argument is as someone who has seen the numerous commentaries and documents linked in the multiple iterations of these threads showing that this is a bad deal for cities, and now get to see the same people, who just completely ignore the above, try to trot out the same talking points again and again.

I can totally accept someone who has weighed the cost/benefit scenarios and decided in spite of them that this is something they want because they love the Flames. As I said, clearly, in my post.

As for the "what gives you the right" part, come on. You're a little tougher than that.

I think what people are challenging you on is that there is value to a sports team that goes beyond both the direct economic impacts AND ones personal love for a team.
For instance, if I lived in Calgary (as I do) and cheered for a different team (e.g. the Canes) I would still really want their to be an NHL club here because I think it adds to the broader culture of the city and the fabric of that society. And the more you start to strip that stuff away, the less interesting and compelling a city becomes.
These are the points people are trying to make and they don't deserve to be shouted down by you about them.