Evan Woolley's motion to reconsider Flames Arena funding fails 4-11

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by RM14

Of course or earnings (or losses) impact the ability to re-invest in the operations, the building, or the community. That's what should be happening.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I was posting in regards to the comments that owning the Flames hasn't been a good investment.

Not taking profit is reducing tax and earning more profit on re-investing and it is actually providing more ability to fund the events center, but investing in the events center is a bad investment and would instantly wipe out all of those gains.

Could the Flames owners have made a better return on $16 million + all other added money they have put into the corporation over time than owning the team? Maybe? Likely? I'm not an investment expert.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No, as the job market shrinks in oil there will still be jobs in the industry but all of the people working them are not going to live in Calgary given the choice between the two.

It's remarkable Calgary was able to outgrow Edmonton in the 70s.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'm not disagreeing with that. I was posting in regards to the comments that owning the Flames hasn't been a good investment.

Not taking profit is reducing tax and earning more profit on re-investing and it is actually providing more ability to fund the events center, but investing in the events center is a bad investment and would instantly wipe out all of those gains.

Could the Flames owners have made a better return on $16 million + all other added money they have put into the corporation over time than owning the team? Maybe? Likely? I'm not an investment expert.

for clarity, i wasnt implying that sports teams couldn't be a good investment,its that ROI on a sports team is not why they are purchased in the first place

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by stone hands

for clarity, i wasnt implying that sports teams couldn't be a good investment,its that ROI on a sports team is not why they are purchased in the first place

Fair point. Thanks for clarifying.

I was 1 and lived in another province at the time.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Torture

Somebody call all the economists that have studied arenas and come to the same conclusion, Matty81 thinks they forgot to capture indirect discretionary investment and spending. That will probably change the equation!

Kind of a disrespectful response but I'll take the bait... I'm not saying they forgot to calculate it, I'm saying it's impossible to ever quantify and almost impossible to estimate so the economic model excludes it. It should be a qualification on the opinion provided.

Much like another poster saying they come into Calgary for Flames games, I often do the same, and while my economic impact is not so large individually, I think there are lots of people who consider professional sports in their decision to travel, move to, or invest in a city that an assessment of the direct spend on tickets and taxes paid does not capture.

I think it's a flaw in the modelling. And frankly beyond my own sense of personal loss if the Flames left, mainly what I would feel if the Flames move because of this Woolley guy who also effectively spiked the Olympic bid is sorry for Calgary, it's another kick in the sack the city does not need right now.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by stone hands

for clarity, i wasnt implying that sports teams couldn't be a good investment,its that ROI on a sports team is not why they are purchased in the first place

It very well might be. Why did the OTPP buy into Maple Leaf Sports years ago - why did Rogers buy from them? But there are myriad reasons. Being connected to the community, really liking hockey, or making money. Your supposition was that they all want a plaything or bragging rights with other billionaires (like there's some weekly get together). That may be true for some, but I doubt for many.

[Resolute 14]

^ Nintendo famously bought the Seattle Mariners out of respect for a market that had become it's American home. There were fears the team was a relocation risk at the time too. Unfortunately, it also came at a time of some anti-Japanese sentiment, so the initial period of buying was rocky. But, perhaps ironically, the company that has made shiny toys for decades never viewed the team as a shiny toy.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

^ Nintendo famously bought the Seattle Mariners out of respect for a market that had become it's American home. There were fears the team was a relocation risk at the time too. Unfortunately, it also came at a time of some anti-Japanese sentiment, so the initial period of buying was rocky. But, perhaps ironically, the company that has made shiny toys for decades never viewed the team as a shiny toy.

Most of the cartridges were more of a matte', really.

Those rare gold, or silver editions, yeah I suppose they were shiny....

[dammage79]

When is this vote again?

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by RM14

Was told by the organization 2 years ago that the owners have never taken profits/dividends.

They lost a lot of money between 1992 and 2002 before Bettman's currency equalization plan kicked in.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Freeway

They lost a lot of money between 1992 and 2002 before Bettman's currency equalization plan kicked in.

Do we have any idea what Edwards is in for, taking all that into account?

I can buy that the owners aren’t taking out profits every year, but does the expansion money really get plowed back into the operating budget? Seems like that might be an exception.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Do we have any idea what Edwards is in for, taking all that into account?

I can buy that the owners aren’t taking out profits every year, but does the expansion money really get plowed back into the operating budget? Seems like that might be an exception.

I'm sure every organization pocketed money from expansion but that's not a year to year source of income for the team. I'm sure the Rogers TV deal has been a bit of a boon for the league as well but when that expires I see a bit of a correction there as it's highly unlikely they see a repeat of that deal.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Over and above this, with other centres such as Airdrie and Balzac increasing their commercial amenities the impetus for people living in the surrounding area to make a trip to the city is much smaller then it was. One of the only reasons I ever come to Calgary is to watch hockey or to go to a concert, and when I do I almost always eat and drink before and after, sometimes I get a hotel ect...


If the Flames, or bands I liked did not come to Calgary I might not go and visit more then once a year.

Originally Posted by Matty81

Kind of a disrespectful response but I'll take the bait... I'm not saying they forgot to calculate it, I'm saying it's impossible to ever quantify and almost impossible to estimate so the economic model excludes it. It should be a qualification on the opinion provided.

Much like another poster saying they come into Calgary for Flames games, I often do the same, and while my economic impact is not so large individually, I think there are lots of people who consider professional sports in their decision to travel, move to, or invest in a city that an assessment of the direct spend on tickets and taxes paid does not capture.

I think it's a flaw in the modelling. And frankly beyond my own sense of personal loss if the Flames left, mainly what I would feel if the Flames move because of this Woolley guy who also effectively spiked the Olympic bid is sorry for Calgary, it's another kick in the sack the city does not need right now.

Like the two of you, I also live out of the city. When I come to Calgary it is 3 or 4 times a year explicitly to see the Flames, I spend 3-4 nights in a decent hotel, I end up eating out the entire time I am in town, plus grabbing drinks with friends that are local and other entertainment. I can easily drop 1500-2000 each time I come to town for the weekend. While my few dollars might just be a drop in the bucket, when you start removing all those drops it does add up.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm sure every organization pocketed money from expansion but that's not a year to year source of income for the team. I'm sure the Rogers TV deal has been a bit of a boon for the league as well but when that expires I see a bit of a correction there as it's highly unlikely they see a repeat of that deal.

No I’m just asking if anyone has an idea of his investment in the Flames with people saying the owners aren’t taking any money out of the organization. I’d imagine they took some of that expansion money out.

[Slava]

I assume they didn't get to this yesterday and it will be voted on today?

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Slava

I assume they didn't get to this yesterday and it will be voted on today?

There is no guarantee the motion will even be voted on within the council.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by flambers

There is no guarantee the motion will even be voted on within the council.

I would put money on the motion failing if it does go up to vote.

take away the arena money and it wouldn't make a lick of difference for the LRT line and likely just get pissed away.
at least getting an arena, Calgary would have something to show for it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by flambers

There is no guarantee the motion will even be voted on within the council.

Oh really? My understanding is that he would bring the motion, it would be seconded by Farkas and then they have some discussion and vote?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Oh really? My understanding is that he would bring the motion, it would be seconded by Farkas and then they have some discussion and vote?

Filibuster?

[Wormius]

My view is just this: we could have an old arena and some other stuff - or a new arena and nothing else. I think this is what needs to be fleshed out. And why would the Flames leave if they only got to play in an older arena? Does it make any significant difference to TV deals, attendance, merchandise sales, etc. The need for the arena itself seems to be involved with non-hockey events. So why would the CSEC need to relocate a hockey team over that?