09-22-2017, 12:35 PM
|
#2241
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Just out of curiosity, does the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede pay property taxes?
|
Do they own the land they operate on for 10 days a year?
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:38 PM
|
#2242
|
First Line Centre
|
It seems like the impasse lies in the 2 sides bring incapable of recognizing the others' proposal as a starting point for negotiation. There is a giant gulf between the two.
If you take out the personalities, looking at the 2 offers. One seems poorly thought out, incomplete, not researched and is insulting to anyone who may be looking at coming to a reasonable partnership.
The other includes all pertinent details, is full but concise, and seems absolutely ripe to negotiate off. Maybe it seems slanted towards the presenter, but that should be expected in a negotiation.
Stop wasting time and energy, you idiots (and I mean that sincerely). Counter the city's proposal and see how far it gets you. You might be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:40 PM
|
#2243
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Totally agree. At the same time, they aren't going to support a deal where they pay greater than the cost of it when its all said and done, which is how they view the city's current proposal. That is a position that I hope the city comes slightly down from, personally. I don't expect them to give into the Flames' current demand, which has taxpayers funding about 40% of the ultimate cost of the arena, but I do personally support a number greater than 0%.
|
How is the City's current proposal 0%? I don't understand how it can be characterized as such?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:43 PM
|
#2244
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
|
I offer to mediate free of charge. Please read Ken and Naheed.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:45 PM
|
#2245
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Could CSEC sell the Flames to a local group that would be willing to take the City's offer? If the answer is no, which I believe it is, then the city needs to make a better offer if they want an NHL team long term.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:45 PM
|
#2246
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
Do they own the land they operate on for 10 days a year?
|
I do believe they own the grounds, though iirc there is a trust or some mechanism involved.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:46 PM
|
#2247
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
Do they own the land they operate on for 10 days a year?
|
The non profit exemption makes sense. But not owning land doesn't stop a person from having to pay property tax (and I don't mean just as absorbed into a global rent amount). Most commercial leases are triple net, so a renter is given the tax bill and pays it (divided per month). On the other hand, being a non-profit doesn't exempt a party from paying rent (of course).
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:49 PM
|
#2248
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
Could CSEC sell the Flames to a local group that would be willing to take the City's offer? If the answer is no, which I believe it is, then the city needs to make a better offer if they want an NHL team long term.
|
So the real solution here is community ownership like the Green Bay Packers, and run as a non-profit. That would be interesting and an idea I could get behind, if longsuffering is okay with that of course.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:52 PM
|
#2249
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
So the real solution here is community ownership like the Green Bay Packers, and run as a non-profit. That would be interesting and an idea I could get behind, if longsuffering is okay with that of course.
|
It really would be an interesting model (especially for the small Canadian NHL markets). I'm going to guess that Flames ownership has zero interest in divesting themselves from Flames ownership this way (I'll let people draw their own cynical conclusions from that).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:52 PM
|
#2250
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
Could CSEC sell the Flames to a local group that would be willing to take the City's offer? If the answer is no, which I believe it is, then the city needs to make a better offer if they want an NHL team long term.
|
The city aren't the ones refusing to negotiate. Do you expect them to just start throwing offers at the flames? They'd be negotiating against themselves at that point, the city is in no rush to get this done, nor should they be. Remember the flames are the ones asking the city for money, not the other way around.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:53 PM
|
#2251
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Major
It seems like the impasse lies in the 2 sides bring incapable of recognizing the others' proposal as a starting point for negotiation. There is a giant gulf between the two.
If you take out the personalities, looking at the 2 offers. One seems poorly thought out, incomplete, not researched and is insulting to anyone who may be looking at coming to a reasonable partnership.
The other includes all pertinent details, is full but concise, and seems absolutely ripe to negotiate off. Maybe it seems slanted towards the presenter, but that should be expected in a negotiation.
Stop wasting time and energy, you idiots (and I mean that sincerely). Counter the city's proposal and see how far it gets you. You might be pleasantly surprised.
|
The reason for this is that CSEG does not have any interest in actually building an arena in Victoria Park. Barnes' "CP Historical Record" thread is very useful because it shows that in 2012 the Flames' interest shifted with their purchase of the Calgary Stampeders. From that point Victoria Park was no longer part of the conversation. The reason CSEG's response is so laughable and insulting is because the endgame from their perspective is still CalgaryNEXT.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Textcritic For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:54 PM
|
#2252
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
Could CSEC sell the Flames to a local group that would be willing to take the City's offer? If the answer is no, which I believe it is, then the city needs to make a better offer if they want an NHL team long term.
|
This is really a key question. I'm not at all convinced that the answer is no. And there's only one way to really find out. But, personally, I don't think Flames ownership is interested in putting the franchise up for sale.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:56 PM
|
#2253
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir
Because the Flames are evidently demanding veto powers that would give them the ability to torpedo the city's economic plans for the area? Why would any city accept a deal with a clause that gives a private entity free reign to go over it's collective heads?
|
Airport Tr not allowed to be extended to Stoney Tr, until the city builds interchanges along Airport Tr. Kind of a distant comparison but a stupid thing the city agreed to in the past.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Drummer For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:56 PM
|
#2254
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRCboicgy
|
The best part is how he calls the city "disingenuous"? What? Really? Every time we've heard Ken King speak on this topic he essentially said they wouldn't be corporate grifters.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 01:02 PM
|
#2255
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
How is the City's current proposal 0%? I don't understand how it can be characterized as such?
|
Keep in mind that I am looking at this from the Flames POV.
The city expects them to pay 1/3 up front, to repay 1/3 out of ticket revenues, and to repay 1/3 (with "interest") on the "city's" contribution via property tax, a lease or rent.
The Flames goal is to pay <100% of the cost of the arena in the end (based on their current proposal, <60%). The city's is that the Flames pay >100%. Which, absent all other considerations, is pretty much to be expected. Both sides wish to come out ahead on this deal. It is also why we are currently at a stalemate.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 01:02 PM
|
#2256
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
The Flames public proposals have drifted from being disingenuous to being dishonest.
Quote:
Chabot wasn't the only mayoral hopeful to speak out against the Flames deal. Incumbent Naheed Nenshi said Thursday the deal CSEC released was somewhat misleading.
"The proposal I read about this morning was a little bit news to me. It wasn't quite what we thought was on the table," Nenshi said.
Specifically, he took issue with what was being called "up-front" funding. Nenshi said a portion of what the Flames classified as the $275 million they had been willing to pony up consisted of a user fee or "ticket tax" of $150 million.
Nenshi said that $150 million would have been financed by the city.
"In their proposal they pay zero rent, zero property tax, and they get 100 per cent of all of the revenues from all sporting events, concerts and special events," Nenshi said.
"I'm not sure where that turns into a 50/50 partnership."
|
The Flames Public proposal obviously differs from what they presented to Council. Based on reporting from news outlets outside of the Big 2 in Calgary, some of the components left out of what the Flames have disclosed publicly include some pretty substantial costs incurred by the city.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 01:03 PM
|
#2257
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
This is really a key question. I'm not at all convinced that the answer is no. And there's only one way to really find out. But, personally, I don't think Flames ownership is interested in putting the franchise up for sale.
|
We have seen this played out in other markets, though. I believe that if the Flames indeed decided that they had to sell the team the BoG would insist that they exhaust every opportunity to find local ownership before selling to a group that would relocate. The reason that relocation is such an empty threat at this point is because 1) the Calgary market is presently a healthy NHL market, and 2) the $500 m expansion fee is so far a major obstacle to relocation.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 01:03 PM
|
#2258
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
double post
Last edited by Flash Walken; 09-22-2017 at 01:17 PM.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 01:04 PM
|
#2259
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
The reason for this is that CSEG does not have any interest in actually building an arena in Victoria Park. Barnes' "CP Historical Record" thread is very useful because it shows that in 2012 the Flames' interest shifted with their purchase of the Calgary Stampeders. From that point Victoria Park was no longer part of the conversation. The reason CSEG's response is so laughable and insulting is because the endgame from their perspective is still CalgaryNEXT.
|
If that is still their end game they are welcome to finance it themselves. No one in the city forced them to buy the stampeders, and if they really feel that entitled to calgaryNext I think CSEG seriously need to give their heads a shake.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 01:05 PM
|
#2260
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRCboicgy
|
I have never understood how Eric Francis has held a position as a journalist for so long. It becomes very clear in his opinion pieces that he hasn't done the necessary research that you need in order to back up the opinion that he presents in his articles.
Eric Francis is an incredibly unintelligent person. It blows my mind how dumb someone can be. [MODS: if you think we might have to edit it, maybe don't post it.] I apologize in advance if it's breaking the rules, but it's how I feel.
That article is insulting every Calgarian's intelligence.
Last edited by Iowa_Flames_Fan; 09-24-2017 at 06:45 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to robaur For This Useful Post:
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:52 PM.
|
|