Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stone hands

how is it extremes

Seriously? This is what you said: "Imagine if your firm had 2 different offices, one being successful by most metrics and another being an absolute tire fire."

are the flames not succesful by most accounts? do they not sell out the majority of their games?

are there not a number of franchises that one could say are far less successful, bordering on tire fires like arizona?

I already explained how they are not franchises in the normal business sense (about 10 posts up)

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Imagine if your firm had 2 different offices, one being successful by most metrics and another being an absolute tire fire. You get the opportunity to expand into a *potentially* lucrative market, but you must relocate one of your existing offices. Why on earth would you move the office that performs well while keeping the failure? Why would you put move yourself from a position of having 1 known good franchise and 1 POTENTIALLY successful franchise to one known bad office and one potentially succesful franchise. it makes absolutely no sense to me, and these guys are by all accounts much more business savvy than i am

For one a 15% increase on 100 million successful operation is much better then a 15% increase on a 20 million tire fire when it comes to profitability.

I don’t think that example really applies in this situation however because the facilities are the issue here and the facilities moving forward not just the profitability. I would imagine the current arena devalues the brand as does situation that an arena development is in.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by karl262

USD vs CAD

Still a lot higher than any of them would be paying. Probably by close to double. And that's provided they don't have any deductions or ways of minimizing the taxes themselves.

[stone hands]

I dont speak for any other STH other than myself. I dont find it nearly as ridiculous as you think. Just because I won't be attending flames games doesnt mean i'm getting any extra vacation days at work to go travelling with

that extra 4 grand isn't just going to be spent on restaurants, i could buy a new garmin that i've been meaning to get for a few years, maybe a new video card for my computer, etc. I think its a more unreasonable expectation to have that STH will be spending their otherwise flames allocated dollars to travelling as opposed to other hobbies they have and now need to invest more time into

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I dont speak for any other STH other than myself. I dont find it nearly as ridiculous as you think. Just because I won't be attending flames games doesnt mean i'm getting any extra vacation days at work to go travelling with

that extra 4 grand isn't just going to be spent on restaurants, i could buy a new garmin that i've been meaning to get for a few years, maybe a new video card for my computer, etc. I think its a more unreasonable expectation to have that STH will be spending their otherwise flames allocated dollars to travelling as opposed to other hobbies they have and now need to invest more time into

Okay, so you agree that you won't be spending it on entertainment in Calgary. Good talk.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Okay, so you agree that you won't be spending it on entertainment in Calgary. Good talk.

Last i checked, bow cycle and memory express are businesses that provide entertainment, located right here in calgary

[Tyler]

Greg Wyshynski‏ @wyshynski

Bettman said he’s “not wading into the political scene in Calgary anymore. Not to say I waded in to being with. I just answered the questions I was being asked.”

LOL

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Do you really think that STHs are going to take than $10K and just go to Applebee's more often?

Well... they will go to Applebee's more often... with some of it. Some more might go into buying an offroad vehicle, some more might go into Stampeder tickets, some more might go into a family dinner and a movie night (so Cineplex after Applebee's).

I really have no idea (and frankly neither do you) exactly how all the revenue that would otherwise be spent on Flames game night will be otherwise spent but it will be spent... it's not going out of circulation so you (or rather Karl) can't just say "if the team goes we lose $1.5B in taxes".

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by stone hands

how is it extremes

are the flames not succesful by most accounts? do they not sell out the majority of their games?

are there not a number of franchises that one could say are far less successful, bordering on tire fires like arizona?

None of that is relevant. If the owners are willing to sell what happens in the other 30 cities means nothing, they've leapfrogged over all those other tire fires. That's why Winnipeg claimed the Thrashers and not the Coyotes. Saying "yeah but look at X" doesn't guarantee anything.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Society has already said it’s acceptable. If you have ever spent a dime on a pro-sport item or ticket, you have already said that it’s ok for these billionaires to continue to profit at extreme rates via their franchises. To say “No” now is simply
Hypocrisy.

Out here on the island I see tons of “No LNG” signs for the coastal communities but they all have LNG running to their house. I see this as a similar hypocrisy.

This kind of money from tax payers is going to get gouged by the Municipality, Province and Feds anyway.. to think that if your dollar doesn’t go to the Flames that that’s where it ends. But that’s naive, your dollars are going to be gouged by a tax in some way or another. Perhaps a useless blue ring or a facility that a very small number of the population uses. Someway or another your dollars are going to leave your pocket without you having much of a say in the matter.
Why not have it be for something you claim you love? Like Calgary Flames Hockey?

That analogy doesn't make sense. Neither does your argument.

Because other cities continue to bend over to private sports teams means that those of us saying no to public dollars are hypocrites? I fail to follow your logic.

Was the French Revolution full of hypocrites because every nation on earth was a monarchy and "that's how its always been"?

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

For the fan that goes to one or two games a year, yes I agree that they will simply spend their entertainment dollars elsewhere within the city.

But for STHs (the vast majority of the revenues), I disagree with this sentiment. The average pair of seats runs between $8 and $10 thousand a year. Do you really think that STHs are going to take than $10K and just go to Applebee's more often?

I, for one, will spend 100% of it on travel. And while I am not suggesting for one second that all STHs will spend all of it on travel, I would certainly posit that a good chunk of that foregone revenue is not going to be spent at Applebee's or the local Irish pub.

I totally agree that most STHs (including myself) will spend that money on other experiences and that travel would be a massive component.

There is really nothing else in Calgary that would justify spending that kind of money.

Further to that, the Flames road games are currently a great excuse to go out to the local pub and watch the local team. If anything I would spend less money at local pubs without a team to get behind.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Of course a sale is what would be done. I think for most people "moving the team" just means moving the franchise, not with the same ownership.

I think the owners understand the difference. Are they tired of owning a pro sports team? All of KK's veiled threats were around moving which is going to be very hard. Most franchise relo's in every other major sport were not sales.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

For now. Will it still be a red herring in five years? Ten? If Calgary's economy continues to trend downhill under a hostile federal government and an exodus of the corporate support necessary to a pro team? When that oh-so-ironclad canadian TV deal expires and is subject to renegotiation?

It's a red herring until the moment it's not. Expect the QC treatment when that happens.

If that happens, Calgary wouldnt be able to support a team PERIOD.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Please explain. I am not arguing I am just a firm believer that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour and the owners have green lit several relocations. I think This isn’t just about a team moving this is all the owners making a statement that if the public works will not support arenas in a cost structure they will move to an area that does. It sets a precedent for how they want to run the business going forward and shows that they are in control not the municipality. I would think approving a team like Calgary to move only improves their position in the future when it comes to them needing a new arena.

Again I am not arguing because I am far from an expert in this and I would love to hear why you so strongly think the owners would NEVER allow the team to move so I can be more informed on the subject.

Regardless of how much money the flames do make, it is not debated that there are many teams in the NHL that are bleeding money... Profusely. No one will claim that Calgary's financial situation is dire, nor are they claiming so. Just that they could be doing better. Fine, and I hope they do.

Now, some teams in the league are losing 10s of millions of dollars per year, and Carolina specifically is speculated to be for sale. The opportunity for a BIG loser in cash to move to a profitable situation is a huge infusion of cash for the whole league. Asking your shareholders to vote for an option that would would make them less profitable as a business would be impossible.

However, making it very clear to them that they will threaten to move teams to leverage new buildings is nothing new and would be widely accepted practice.

To argue that Calgary should move would be to go against the profit worship and squeezing every penny possible philosophy that bettman has made his living on. It simply makes no sense.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Last i checked, bow cycle and memory express are businesses that provide entertainment, located right here in calgary

But how much of that money stays in Calgary, in Alberta or even Canada for that matter?

Buying products imported from other countries is way different than paying local salaries that are taxed here

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

I don't know why I keep checking this thread - it's the exact same arguments for 197 pages now.

If they truly are done negotiating and are "holding on as long as they can" I'd rather them just move now, rather than hanging around like a separated couple where nobody moves out.

If not, then quit running through all the plays in the public money for arena extortion playbook.

I guess to be fair to Flames ownership they haven't really done anything since their "we're done negotiating" proclamation. The Houston stuff is just a result of Fertitta saying he wants an NHL team. Or was there something I missed?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

None of that is relevant. If the owners are willing to sell what happens in the other 30 cities means nothing, they've leapfrogged over all those other tire fires. That's why Winnipeg claimed the Thrashers and not the Coyotes. Saying "yeah but look at X" doesn't guarantee anything.

The Coyotes situation is still a tire fire, and still the league's most pressing issue. Hell, the league had to step in to take over security because the last ownership groups was letting things go so badly, and Glendale is broke.

The deal that saved the Coyotes to allow a safe landing spot for the Thrashers is gone. Barroway needs a new arena to keep the Coyotes in Arizona.


Between the Coyotes in the situation they are in, and the Hurricans also being far from a sure thing, that eats up the need for at least two safe landing spots, and probably wants a decent expansion market to keep things balanced as well.


I don't disagree that the league would definitely move a team to make a point. But they won't take away their safety nets for their worst situations out of spite.

[The Yen Man]

Lets be perfectly honest, there is no way Calgary relocates before Carolina, Florida, or Arizona. At this point, its just an empty threat. Threat or no threat though, as a Calgary tax payer, I'm ok ponying up some cash to get the new arena built. Just wish both sides would stop with the grandstanding, and get a deal done already.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Lets be perfectly honest, there is no way Calgary relocates before Carolina, Florida, or Arizona. At this point, its just an empty threat. Threat or no threat though, as a Calgary tax payer, I'm ok ponying up some cash to get the new arena built. Just wish both sides would stop with the grandstanding, and get a deal done already.

Yeah the threat isn’t about right now. It’s why the Flames aren’t actively out there doing what Katz did. The Flames have simply walked away from the arena deal as it was being discussed, and will ride the Dome out until the requirement for a new arena is more pressing. If the City of Calgary hasn’t come around to a deal structured much closer to what other comparable markets have done, then it’s not going to be a threat at that stage - it’ll just be a relocation.

[Flamenspiel]

Yes, thats the thing. From a revenue standpoint they already have arena issues in Raleigh and Arizona that are also accompanied by a lack of demand and unfeasible financial scenarios(The Hurricaines owner is desperate to sell).

The only reason the Flames move/sale would be completed would be out of spite and/or to set an example that they(NHL) are in control. That could still happen, and why be rich if you cannot do what you want with your money at a whim, but it becomes too expensive as a city to fight against something like that.