Right. What did the Flames owners buy the team for? It was $16M in 1980.
Sure, they may have hemorrhaged cash for operations in the meantime but that initial $16M investment has grown!
Brand new teams with nothing are worth $500M.
So they've made some money on their investment. Thats how it works.
And if they believe that the investment has topped out at that price, they'll want to sell. They won't be satisfied with a zero return just because they made money in the past. That's also how it works.
‘Past performance is no indicator of future results.’ How often have we all seen that phrase?
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
not asking for sources, but just curious: does that mean that some of the higher ups with the City are now getting into the discussions and are positive with the initial discussions?
generally, a lot of the preliminary legwork gets done prior to bringing in their superiors. Everything seems very hush hush, which is what should have happened the first time around imo... the public will have a chance to scrutinize the proposal, but only after both sides feel that the deal is fair for both sides (again if there is one)
I've never been against an arena, but have always felt there's a number that could be palatable to the majority of taxpayers...for me, that's around 33% that said, the optimism suggests that number has changed from the previously disclosed numbers.
And if they believe that the investment has topped out at that price, they'll want to sell. They won't be satisfied with a zero return just because they made money in the past. That's also how it works.
‘Past performance is no indicator of future results.’ How often have we all seen that phrase?
Not necessarily, theres all kinds of reasons to hold an asset, dont forget, its an ownership group, not a single owner. I know Edwards gets most of the credit and stick, but its a group.
The fact of the matter is that they own an asset that has appreciated in vlue over time, kind of like a house, you can use it as collateral (not that they need it) you can borrow against its value and invest, hell, you can keep it as a shiny bauble if you want.
The fact of the matter remains that the money from the Calgary Flames is insignificant in comparison to the owners' other ventures.
I dont think the Calgary Flames' value is going to significantly decrease any time soon.
__________________ 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
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Remember the city feels they already had a deal that was 33%, while CSEC feel the deal was 0%. Similarly the deal CSEC thought was 50/50 the City felt was 0%.
The Following User Says Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
Remember the city feels they already had a deal that was 33%, while CSEC feel the deal was 0%. Similarly the deal CSEC thought was 50/50 the City felt was 0%.
That is an issue. Yes.
__________________ 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
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Remember the city feels they already had a deal that was 33%, while CSEC feel the deal was 0%. Similarly the deal CSEC thought was 50/50 the City felt was 0%.
yup; that was an issue wrt to the property taxes iirc
again, personally, i see property tax simply as a function of what businesses and people pay normally; i don't see it as loan repayment.
if the CESC are seeking a deal w/o property tax, that's fine, but i just don't like the way they imply its loan repayment...I think most other property tax payers in the city of calgary are not repaying anything back to the City
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
Not sure what the above poster meant by higher ups at the City but my understanding is that a committee of three councillors including Sutherland and Davison has met with CSEC. The mayor is nowhere near the discussions and this in intentional on the part of both sides.
And if they believe that the investment has topped out at that price, they'll want to sell. They won't be satisfied with a zero return just because they made money in the past. That's also how it works.
We're not talking about owning a box factory, mutual fund, or gas station. Franchises are a luxury purchase that happen to provide a pretty darn good ROI.
Beyond the dollars and cents, you have to factor the intrinsic value of owning a team - including the chance to have your name engraved on the cup, the guaranteed owner's box to every event, the rounds of golf with your best players, the competition/camaraderie you get to have with the other old white dude's that own teams, the envy you can relish from other rich dudes that aren't in this elite 123 member club in N.A., the way you can be both loved and hated by your fanbase.
Many of us pay ~$80 each year for an EA video game that gives us the chance to artificially experience a tiny element similar to the above - owning a team is getting to do it in real life (but there are only a few teams you can fleece in trade mode, not all of them).
So many times people in this thread have stated that Murray will want to get rid of the 'hassle' of owning the team. I suppose it's possible, just like another rich guy might get tired of the maintenance required on his vintage Ferrari. But when it comes down to it, they get to own something that very few others can, and there are few thrills in life like pressing down that gas pedal, or watching your team win a playoff game. Especially for people who can already own nearly anything, go anywhere, or experience anything they want to.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Beyond the dollars and cents, you have to factor the intrinsic value of owning a team - including the chance to have your name engraved on the cup, the guaranteed owner's box to every event, the rounds of golf with your best players, the competition/camaraderie you get to have with the other old white dude's that own teams, the envy you can relish from other rich dudes that aren't in this elite 123 member club in N.A., the way you can be both loved and hated by your fanbase.
If we're talking about it as an investment, which Locke was doing, none of that matters a rat's arse. Of course there are non-monetary reasons to own a team – but as such, they do not affect the monetary calculation of whether the asset is appreciating or not.
If the asset value has topped out (as it may have done, as there is a distinctly limited appetite for teams at $500m+), then the expectation of future capital gains is not a reason to hold onto the team. The non-monetary reasons are still there, but they don't magically put money in your pocket.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Many of us pay ~$80 each year for an EA video game that gives us the chance to artificially experience a tiny element similar to the above - owning a team is getting to do it in real life (but there are only a few teams you can fleece in trade mode, not all of them).
And if an NHL owner wants to negotiate player contracts, make trades, and be his own general manager, you know what he does? He buys the same EA game, because he's damned sure not going to try to do the job himself with a real team.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
And if an NHL owner wants to negotiate player contracts, make trades, and be his own general manager, you know what he does? He buys the same EA game, because he's damned sure not going to try to do the job himself with a real team.
When you have to make trades with one hand tied behind your back it's going to be tough to come out on top.
Different owners might have different demands for when trades are happening. How many times have we heard the Flames owners refusal to allow Iginla to be traded earlier hurt the return we got? An owner saying they can't take back any salary will affect how deals happen in a cap world, or the desire to stay competitive now, or whatever else. Obviously no owner will tell a GM to make a bad deal, but that doesn't mean they can't create an environment where they are prevented from being able to make a good one.
But whether or not he did create that environment is pure speculation on my part (albeit I think it's fair speculation. But what isn't refutable is that Melnyk was responsible for this:
He could have just hired somebody to come up with pre-game entertainment and let them do their job. But he just had to meddle, and did something worse for the psyche of the organization and their fans than any poor trading of a superstar could possibly do.
What, then? You believe Melnyk actually ordered his GM to get ripped off? Lol, Flash, come on now.
I would bet that almost every team's owner gets involved in transactions from time to time. It might only be that they request the GM move in one direction or another, or decline to let the GM move in a direction, but I think some teams definitely have owners that meddle more than that. Melnyk being one for sure. The oilers picked Yak because the owner (and/or his kid) wanted him, even thought the scouts and management wanted Ryan Murray.
