Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-22-2017, 12:35 PM   #2241
calgaryblood
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
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?
calgaryblood is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 12:38 PM   #2242
Major Major
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

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.
Major Major is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 12:40 PM   #2243
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
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."
Makarov is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 12:43 PM   #2244
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

I offer to mediate free of charge. Please read Ken and Naheed.
__________________
https://www.mergenlaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966
troutman is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Old 09-22-2017, 12:45 PM   #2245
Fire
Franchise Player
 
Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

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.
__________________

Fire is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 12:45 PM   #2246
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood View Post
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.
Lanny_McDonald is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 12:46 PM   #2247
GioforPM
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood View Post
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).
GioforPM is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 12:49 PM   #2248
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
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.

Lanny_McDonald is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 09-22-2017, 12:52 PM   #2249
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
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."
Makarov is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 12:52 PM   #2250
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
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.
iggy_oi is online now  
Old 09-22-2017, 12:53 PM   #2251
Textcritic
Acerbic Cyberbully
 
Textcritic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
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.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
"The Lying Pen of Scribes" Ancient Manuscript Forgeries Project
Textcritic is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Textcritic For This Useful Post:
Old 09-22-2017, 12:54 PM   #2252
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
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."
Makarov is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 09-22-2017, 12:56 PM   #2253
Drummer
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir View Post
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.
Drummer is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Drummer For This Useful Post:
Old 09-22-2017, 12:56 PM   #2254
Boreal
First Line Centre
 
Boreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRCboicgy View Post
Just read the Eric Francis piece, and it's horrible. Wow. Not surprised, but still.

Travis Yost on Twitter: "Holy Moly"
https://twitter.com/travisyost/statu...87722034454528
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.
Boreal is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 01:02 PM   #2255
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
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.
Resolute 14 is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 01:02 PM   #2256
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

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.
Flash Walken is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 01:03 PM   #2257
Textcritic
Acerbic Cyberbully
 
Textcritic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
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.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
"The Lying Pen of Scribes" Ancient Manuscript Forgeries Project
Textcritic is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 01:03 PM   #2258
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

double post

Last edited by Flash Walken; 09-22-2017 at 01:17 PM.
Flash Walken is offline  
Old 09-22-2017, 01:04 PM   #2259
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic View Post
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.
iggy_oi is online now  
Old 09-22-2017, 01:05 PM   #2260
robaur
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRCboicgy View Post
Just read the Eric Francis piece, and it's horrible. Wow. Not surprised, but still.

Travis Yost on Twitter: "Holy Moly"
https://twitter.com/travisyost/statu...87722034454528
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.
robaur is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to robaur For This Useful Post:
Closed Thread

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 09:21 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




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