Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-17-2017, 08:29 AM   #101
Fire
Franchise Player
 
Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad View Post
For the Flames to move to Seattle the NHL would have to be willing to leave a top ten market, as well as give up 500 million is free cash as they loose an expansion market, or a relocation market as Arizona, Florida and Carolina absolutely flounder financially. This is on top of walking away from their TV deal with Rogers, and giving up all the revenue the new arena would bring in in Calgary, such as naming rights. If this is worth not swallowing their pride because Calgary Next was "mocked and ridiculed," then best of luck to them. There is no situation that realistically exists where the team is better off financially than if they just took the deal currently on the table.
Calgary is not a top ten market without a new arena. The Flames could move to Seattle, pay the relocation fee. Once the city of Calgary wakes up and builds a new arena on their own dime, a group will surface willing to pay for an expansion team or have another team relocate back to Calgary.

I doubt the TV deal that Rogers sign has any out clause. It's only a 12 year deal. If the Flames move it might not be until that is deal done or basically done anyway. It's a non-factor. The naming rights for the new arena would probably fall in the $5-$10 million/yr range. This isn't Toronto, they are not getting anything close to that deal.
__________________

Fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 09:09 AM   #102
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
Calgary is not a top ten market without a new arena. The Flames could move to Seattle, pay the relocation fee. Once the city of Calgary wakes up and builds a new arena on their own dime, a group will surface willing to pay for an expansion team or have another team relocate back to Calgary.

I doubt the TV deal that Rogers sign has any out clause. It's only a 12 year deal. If the Flames move it might not be until that is deal done or basically done anyway. It's a non-factor. The naming rights for the new arena would probably fall in the $5-$10 million/yr range. This isn't Toronto, they are not getting anything close to that deal.
Why would the NHL let any team move to Seattle? They want a 600 million expansion fee not a 200 million relocation fee. This is greater than the difference between the city and the flames

Calgary also is currently a top 10 market for revenue without a new Arena. It is also competing with other teams with new Arenas. With he Saddledome as is revenues remain stable plus inflation so do all other teams. Unless other teams who already have modern arenas find new places to get revenues the list will be relatively constant minus the ebb and flow of team success.

The value of the Flames market in the next Rogers national deal is about 15-20 million. (Assumes that you lose half of the Flames market). This is greater than the difference between the city and the flames

Seattle is not a credible relocation threat. Quebec City might be as it preserves the potential on a rogers TV deal.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 09-17-2017, 10:10 AM   #103
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
Why would the NHL let any team move to Seattle? They want a 600 million expansion fee not a 200 million relocation fee. This is greater than the difference between the city and the flames
A $600M expansion fee? That's not going to happen. $500M isn't going to happen again. Expansion fees are based on what the traffic will bear, and the last round of expansion showed there was only really one group desperate enough to pay that kind of money for a team. There are no other suckers out there willing to pay that. I would expect an expansion fee somewhere in the $250-300M range, but with weaker options in the expansion pool of talent.

You're also not going to see a $200M relocation fee. I'm not sure where some of these numbers are being dreamed up, but that just isn't reasonable either. The Jets relocation fee was $60M. I would expect something a little north of there, but no where near 330% increase. The league benefits from relocation as much as the new owner. It is in their best interest to move teams in trouble, or if it gives the league access to better ownership/markets.

Quote:
Calgary also is currently a top 10 market for revenue without a new Arena. It is also competing with other teams with new Arenas. With he Saddledome as is revenues remain stable plus inflation so do all other teams. Unless other teams who already have modern arenas find new places to get revenues the list will be relatively constant minus the ebb and flow of team success.
That's the thing, other cities are getting new arenas and access to new revenue streams. That is part of the problem. The Flames need those same revenue streams to remain competitive. With the weak Canadian buck, that just adds more pressure on the team.

I don't think this point will be driven home until the Flames start losing talent as a result of budget constraints, like they did in the 90s. Once that starts happening, then maybe you'll see people start to see the picture being painted. The salary cap helps in this regard, but if we get to the point that revenues are able to support spending to the cap, then we will see that slippery slope to player loss.

Quote:
The value of the Flames market in the next Rogers national deal is about 15-20 million. (Assumes that you lose half of the Flames market). This is greater than the difference between the city and the flames
How did you arrive at that number? I'm curious? Not saying you're wrong, just curious where that number comes from. If it is that small, that is a number the team and the league can recoup easily. That can be folded into an relocation fee.

Quote:
Seattle is not a credible relocation threat. Quebec City might be as it preserves the potential on a rogers TV deal.
Seattle is very credible. A population three times the size of Calgary's, an economy almost three times the size of Calgary's and not dependent on the price of oil, and with a history and connection to the game of hockey, they are a very serious threat. I think the league would be much better off moving Florida to Seattle, but Calgary could be an option too. The timing of everything certainly makes Seattle a credible threat, especially if the out from the Rogers contract is only $15-20M CDN. I would not discount Seattle at all, especially with Calgary being an existing team in the west, and a move to Seattle would not disrupt the divisional/conference balance.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 10:46 AM   #104
NiklasSundblad
Crash and Bang Winger
 
NiklasSundblad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
Calgary is not a top ten market without a new arena. The Flames could move to Seattle, pay the relocation fee. Once the city of Calgary wakes up and builds a new arena on their own dime, a group will surface willing to pay for an expansion team or have another team relocate back to Calgary.

I doubt the TV deal that Rogers sign has any out clause. It's only a 12 year deal. If the Flames move it might not be until that is deal done or basically done anyway. It's a non-factor. The naming rights for the new arena would probably fall in the $5-$10 million/yr range. This isn't Toronto, they are not getting anything close to that deal.
And the City is offering to pay them 155 million dollars, no strings attached, to build one. And no paying property tax is not a string. They're going to pay money to move to a market where they would be the 4th choice sports team, until the NBA returns and they become a 5th tier team in that city, where they collect arena revenue 42 nights a year instead of every night something happens in the arena, and by the way, also pay a lease on the arena? Who's broadcasting the games, Fox Sports regional? You're saying all that represents more money to the ownerships pockets than what the city currently has on the table? Really?


It's really hard if not impossible to imagine a situation in an available US market, where a hockey team owner has even close to the opportunity to make money at the same rate the Flames would if they took exactly what is on the table today.


Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Last edited by NiklasSundblad; 09-17-2017 at 10:58 AM.
NiklasSundblad is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to NiklasSundblad For This Useful Post:
Old 09-17-2017, 10:48 AM   #105
Philly06Cup
Closet Jedi
 
Philly06Cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

If Flames move to Seattle: would we prefer the Coyotes or the Hurricanes?

I'd vote Hurricanes so that we can still have one Stanley Cup in franchise history
__________________
Gaudreau > Huberdeau AINEC
Philly06Cup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 10:52 AM   #106
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
I doubt the TV deal that Rogers sign has any out clause. It's only a 12 year deal.
Said no one, ever.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 11:23 AM   #107
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
A $600M expansion fee? That's not going to happen. $500M isn't going to happen again. Expansion fees are based on what the traffic will bear, and the last round of expansion showed there was only really one group desperate enough to pay that kind of money for a team. There are no other suckers out there willing to pay that. I would expect an expansion fee somewhere in the $250-300M range, but with weaker options in the expansion pool of talent.

You're also not going to see a $200M relocation fee. I'm not sure where some of these numbers are being dreamed up, but that just isn't reasonable either. The Jets relocation fee was $60M. I would expect something a little north of there, but no where near 330% increase. The league benefits from relocation as much as the new owner. It is in their best interest to move teams in trouble, or if it gives the league access to better ownership/markets.



That's the thing, other cities are getting new arenas and access to new revenue streams. That is part of the problem. The Flames need those same revenue streams to remain competitive. With the weak Canadian buck, that just adds more pressure on the team.

I don't think this point will be driven home until the Flames start losing talent as a result of budget constraints, like they did in the 90s. Once that starts happening, then maybe you'll see people start to see the picture being painted. The salary cap helps in this regard, but if we get to the point that revenues are able to support spending to the cap, then we will see that slippery slope to player loss.



How did you arrive at that number? I'm curious? Not saying you're wrong, just curious where that number comes from. If it is that small, that is a number the team and the league can recoup easily. That can be folded into an relocation fee.



Seattle is very credible. A population three times the size of Calgary's, an economy almost three times the size of Calgary's and not dependent on the price of oil, and with a history and connection to the game of hockey, they are a very serious threat. I think the league would be much better off moving Florida to Seattle, but Calgary could be an option too. The timing of everything certainly makes Seattle a credible threat, especially if the out from the Rogers contract is only $15-20M CDN. I would not discount Seattle at all, especially with Calgary being an existing team in the west, and a move to Seattle would not disrupt the divisional/conference balance.
You responded to my post where I derived the value of the rogers deal. Pick any number you want. It's more than the 5 million separating the teams. But my number is the Flames market is about 2.5 million people and viewership will cut in half in that region if the flames move.

We can use your numbers for relocation and expansion if you like. Why would the league accept a 60 million relocation fee instead of a 330 million expansion fee when it is clear they are looking to expand to 32 teams. Though there is no way they drop the fee just after Vegas paid it. And it is unlikely that the combined relocation fee plus franchise purchase fee will be less than 500 mil as well after Vegas just paid it.

The majority of the teams have already realized the revenue increases from their new arenas. Only Detroit remains. So if in an aging Saddledome we are still top 10 in revenues or even top 15 then their is no economic necessity for a new building to compete.

I agree with you that instead of moving at some point the flames will say they no longer can spend to the cap to create public pressure for a new building. It should have been their threat from day one.

Seattle is a credible location for an NHL team. It is not a credible relocation threat. The math for the NHL doesn't make sense.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 03:05 PM   #108
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
Why would the league accept a 60 million relocation fee instead of a 330 million expansion fee when it is clear they are looking to expand to 32 teams.
Because to get an expansion fee you need an owner that is willing to foot the bill. If there is not an owner in the market interested in coughing up the $250-300M expansion, and the league wants to get into that market, relocation is the only other option.

From the last round of expansion talks there were only two teams willing to think about submission of the $10M application fee - Las Vegas and Quebec City. Las Vegas had very deep pockets and was desperate to get a team before the other leagues could push their way into the market. Quebec couldn't come up with the $500M. As a result, Quebec has been suggested the landing place a relocation.

Now, with a $250-300M expansion fee Quebec may again become a serious expansion locale, as might a couple of other cities, including Seattle. If the league is smart, they float that and see if they can get parties interested at a lesser cost, but with the knowledge they are going to be selecting from a dramatically smaller talent pool from the existing franchises. If Quebec steps up, they should then put an expansion team there, then focus on moving at least one team from the east to the west coast.

Frankly, the best option here is to go expansion with Quebec City for 2020, then look at possible relocations, do them at the same time, or in 2021 or 2022. If the league can get Seattle interested in a team, the next logical location is Portland, to finish up the Pacific Coast tour. Relocation has some interesting options, including Houston, Kansas City and Oklahoma City. Not primary markets, but locations where owners can use the NHL as a secondary revenue stream and not have to be concerned about being the primary draw. The relocation fee is a lot easier pill to swallow for a owner who is looking at the hockey team as a secondary draw. The established team, and the immediate ability to be competitive is well worth going that route.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 03:17 PM   #109
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

They have well monied interests in Seattle that are part of their Arena Consortium in Bruckheimer and Bonderman (Celtics minority owner). Seattle Arena deal wasn't really formed enough to be involved in the expansion process. Quebec is a prime relocation market as the market just isn't worth the 500 million the NHL is asking so they will get a last minute Winnipeg deal if Florida, the Islanders, or Carolina need a midnight move.

I agree with you that Arenas with NBA teams in them already are more attractive cites and if the NHL is threatening to move for Houston or Oklahoma City or Quebec City I think their is a valid discussion on where could you make more money and where your expenses would be the least. So a discussion around thise cities is at least interesting but Seattle won't happen.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 04:31 PM   #110
Hockey Fan #751
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad View Post
For the Flames to move to Seattle the NHL would have to be willing to leave a top ten market, as well as give up 500 million is free cash as they loose an expansion market, or a relocation market as Arizona, Florida and Carolina absolutely flounder financially.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that the NHL leave Calgary. The NFL left a TOP TWO market in Los Angeles. In fact, both LA teams in the same year departed and football didn't come back for 20 years.

The NBA leaving a top market like Seattle is another example. They're still years away from getting an NBA team back.

On the flip side, the NHL is actually not losing an expansion market or a relocation market since Calgary would become one.
Hockey Fan #751 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hockey Fan #751 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-17-2017, 04:53 PM   #111
cal_guy
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751 View Post
It's not out of the realm of possibility that the NHL leave Calgary. The NFL left a TOP TWO market in Los Angeles. In fact, both LA teams in the same year departed and football didn't come back for 20 years.

The NBA leaving a top market like Seattle is another example. They're still years away from getting an NBA team back.

On the flip side, the NHL is actually not losing an expansion market or a relocation market since Calgary would become one.
The NHL is much more of a gate-driven than the NFL because the NFL has a monstrous tv deal and they play much less than the NHL(41 home games in the NHL versus 8 in the NFL).
cal_guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 12:20 AM   #112
Macindoc
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad View Post
And the City is offering to pay them 155 million dollars, no strings attached, to build one. And no paying property tax is not a string. They're going to pay money to move to a market where they would be the 4th choice sports team, until the NBA returns and they become a 5th tier team in that city, where they collect arena revenue 42 nights a year instead of every night something happens in the arena, and by the way, also pay a lease on the arena? Who's broadcasting the games, Fox Sports regional? You're saying all that represents more money to the ownerships pockets than what the city currently has on the table? Really?


It's really hard if not impossible to imagine a situation in an available US market, where a hockey team owner has even close to the opportunity to make money at the same rate the Flames would if they took exactly what is on the table today.


Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Paying property tax certainly is a string. Arenas in small markets are not profitable with a single major tenant and the relatively low number of other events that can be booked. An arena in Seattle, once they get an NBA team in it, will be booked for two to three times as many nights an arena in Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg, and therefore potentially have twice to three times the gate, merchandise, and concession revenue. This is not to say that we should pay for an arena, but rather to say that the economics of an arena in Calgary differ so much from the economics of an arena in Seattle or Toronto that it makes little sense for us to compare them. Basically, if we want a modern arena, and in the long term, a venue to host the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks, and to be a keystone in a potential Winter Olympics bid, then the city will have to foot some of the bill, and not just as a loan, which is essentially the economic model the city is proposing. If we don't want to pay the price for that, then eventually the team won't be able to compete with others that have a substantially higher revenue stream and will either become a budget team with its player signings or will move somewhere that is economically more viable. That's OK too, we just shouldn't expect to be able to have it both ways.

Last edited by Macindoc; 09-18-2017 at 12:23 AM.
Macindoc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 01:13 PM   #113
Demzy84
Backup Goalie
 
Demzy84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post

Calgary also is currently a top 10 market for revenue without a new Arena. It is also competing with other teams with new Arenas. With he Saddledome as is revenues remain stable plus inflation so do all other teams. Unless other teams who already have modern arenas find new places to get revenues the list will be relatively constant minus the ebb and flow of team success.
Flames are definitely not a top ten market. According to 2016 numbers, they ranked 18h in revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if they fall a few more spots in the next few years as they have most likely maximized the amount of revenue they can generate out of the Saddledome
Demzy84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 01:18 PM   #114
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis View Post
Well since neither of us can offer proof, I'll make my argument instead. Even if you wanna be generous and say there's 150,000 diehard hockey fans in Seattle, there are still at least that many in Calgary.
Posted before: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-stanley-cup/

__________________
https://www.mergenlaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 01:21 PM   #115
thymebalm
#1 Goaltender
 
thymebalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
Best fans in the league.
__________________
Death by 4th round picks.
thymebalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 01:25 PM   #116
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demzy84 View Post
Flames are definitely not a top ten market. According to 2016 numbers, they ranked 18h in revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if they fall a few more spots in the next few years as they have most likely maximized the amount of revenue they can generate out of the Saddledome
I'm confused. I know that a new arena will generate more revenue, but I was pretty sure our current standing had to do with a lack of playoff success in in the last ten years.

When we were a regular playoff team we were easily a top ten revenue generator in the league.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 01:38 PM   #117
Hockey Fan #751
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cal_guy View Post
The NHL is much more of a gate-driven than the NFL because the NFL has a monstrous tv deal and they play much less than the NHL(41 home games in the NHL versus 8 in the NFL).
Right, but even with that said the NFL is hugely driven by TV and they said goodbye to both teams in the second-largest TV market in the whole country.
Hockey Fan #751 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 01:45 PM   #118
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
The method alone is ridiculous, let alone the leap in logic required to come to the findings.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 09-18-2017, 01:51 PM   #119
OldDutch
#1 Goaltender
 
OldDutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North of the River, South of the Bluff
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
If those numbers are accurate the Flames are cornered and they know it. You don't leave a city of a million fans to a quarter of that. Even with USA location and higher salaries.
OldDutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 01:57 PM   #120
Hockey Fan #751
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDutch View Post
If those numbers are accurate the Flames are cornered and they know it. You don't leave a city of a million fans to a quarter of that. Even with USA location and higher salaries.
You can argue that a big reason there's only 250,000 hockey fans is because they don't have a team. I'll bet Nashville has way more than 150,000 now.
Hockey Fan #751 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 01:08 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




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