[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Three of the last four arena projects in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) were built with private money. Some owners manage to extort public funding for their private businesses. Others don't.

and two of the three owners who built those buildings lost their shirts on the building. Only Toronto was able to make it work without losing LOTS of money...

I don't get why people keep bringing this up... It would be like saying it was a victory that the Flames led 4-1 in game 3 last year, and ignoring the fact that the Ducks won 5-4 in OT?!?

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The smoking gun here to me is that lack if public facing by Flames ownership.

Having King on point and bringing in Bettman to be the bad guy illustrates the lack of appetite they have for the public opinion attached to this posturing.

Aren't these guys supposed to be pillars of the community. They were there at city hall in the gallery when King gave his presentation to council. Where are they now? Why don't they want to formally attach their names to this? Why don't they want to appear in public or on camera if they feel so strongly about this process that they would walk away from negotiating with the city?

Allan Markin is a former Citizen of the Year for the city of Calgary. Why isn't he front and center here selling his vision to Calgarians?

Seems... cowardly. They want the city to bend over for them but aren't willing to attach their own public reputations to the proposal.

Because that's what King and Bettman get paid to do

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ad hominem.

Originally Posted by New Era

Yes, this was.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=943

How about you debate the point rather than attack a poster? If you want to hold someone to a high standard, please do the same for yourself.

How about both of you just step it back? Discuss the issue. None of us are interested in how each of you get digs in against one another.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Redlan

lol. You really really really like the mayor don't you? I don't have distaste...I have distrust. His role is to look after the best interest of the city and the taxpayer, I see it as looking after his best interest and selling it as working for the city and the tax payer.

Trying to not spend 800M+ on a privately run business ran by billionaires who can finance their own pet sports team (remember, being a business owner means there are risks involved) is looking out for his best interests?

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Locke

Doc Seaman would be rolling in his grave hearing crap like this from King.

His brother's voice works....

[Vinny01]

There is blame to go around on both sides.

King gettingnpissy about the city sitting on this for 2 years is certainly throwing stones while living in a glass house. I was st STH meetings in 2012 and 2013 where King made it seem like we were far down the road on a new building. It was clear in 2015 when the presentation was made that they were quite far behind.

Then when we look at Nenshi and he has plenty of blame in this. 2 years ago he claimed there is no reason to replace the Dome. He was frosty in his meeting with Bettman whoc is classic Nenshi style similar to the Uber issue last year.

Listening to King at the STH event he stressed if an arena deal was not in place prior to the election that things would be delayed 2 years at least. It seems like Nenshi is making the building part of his campaign plan which proves nothing will be done before the election (not surprising as we are in September with an October election)

The Flames making this statement has made the arena one of the biggest campaign issues facing candidates. An arena deal will get done it is just unfortunate it has gone this way.


It really feels like a typical NHL CBA negotiation which isn't surprising with Bettman being involved. At the beginning you think all parties will be reasonable and get a deal done. Then deadlines approach and we quickly see that this won't be resolved until things get really ugly.

The end result is the Flames will get what they want, the City will cave, and the fans/citizens will be left twisting in the wind with a roller coaster ride of hopes and fears.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

and two of the three owners who built those buildings lost their shirts on the building. Only Toronto was able to make it work without losing LOTS of money...

I don't get why people keep bringing this up... It would be like saying it was a victory that the Flames led 4-1 in game 3 last year, and ignoring the fact that the Ducks won 5-4 in OT?!?

Doesn't that prove the point? An arena is a bad investment for both sides. The team can't make it work without "free" government money. The city can't make it work without some sort of return or payback on their investment. There's a reason people aren't investing in these things other than governments that have been "held hostage". They don't make much financial sense at all for both sides.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by New Era

So this does boil down to Nenshi wanting to move forward with his vision and establishment of his legacy in Victoria Park rather than coming to an agreement that will work for all parties. That wasn't too hard to read into based on Nenshi's own re-election website.

Bold declaration for someone that hasn't seen the CSEC proposal.

But you're keeping an open mind.



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I like what Jay Random had to say in this thread.

Subsidizing arenas for billionaire owners is bad. There's no economic benefit for the taxpayer, and all we get in return is higher ticket prices and less bang for our entertainment budget buck. Billionaires should be able to fund their own rinks.

However, almost all other billionaire owners have, in one way or the other, received money from the public coffer for their arena or stadium. It's impossible for the Flames to pay their staff (salary floor) if they are completely 100% privately funded when their competitor franchises are publicly subsidized.

It sucks, but if you like NHL hockey, public money is going to the rink in some form or another because all other NHL/NFL/MLB/MLS cities have ruined it for the rest of us. Calgary can't be the only city out of dozens that doesn't help their pro sports club with a new rink.

Thank said, King is being a dink about this whole thing and bring in the Bettman to try influence the election was tasteless.

In this argument you'd have to compare other billionaires in other sectors. Is the (i don't know) housing billionaire asking for government funded condos and tax breaks? Is the theatre asking for a new one funded by the government?

Is the sports/entertainment billionaire unreasonably trying to rape the city more than billionaires in other industries?

What are the comparables other than Amazon maybe coming here.

[Flash Walken]

Interesting to bring up a comparison to the cba negotiations as it is well established that Edwards was perhaps the most Hardline lockout supporter among the board of governors.

The same tactics being used in the negotiating of a new building taking on the same appearance maybe shouldn't be that surprising.

[corporatejay]

I mean if we are going to use anecdotal evidence, one group of friends I roll with probably spends the most money on going out and drinking and eating and other than me and one other guy (who is a canucks fan) no one gives two ####s about the flames so......

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Can you provide some evidence there is some value? This study suggested it was a negative value:

https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/...winners-cities

And that study was likely paid for by the city...you can have a study say what you like depending on the result you want to present.

I've read that article before and there are no 'facts' presented in this study, nly economic academics conjecturing a very flawed statement that folks would move their entertainment dollars elsewhere.

For me, I spend a significant amount of my entertainment dollars on hockey. If it wasn't there, I'm not replacing all that money spent with something else because hockey is what I want to watch. I'm not going to a movie every other night for a week and I'm not going out to eat every other night for a week.

To say there would be no economic benefit to doing this I think is fundamentally wrong. But...assuming there is no incremental economic benefit to a stadium, just building a stadium and revitalizing an area will produce a tremendous amount of construction jobs. is that not an economic benefit that Liberal and NDP governments tend to put forth? It's what they run their platforms on for the most part.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by calf

Doesn't that prove the point? An arena is a bad investment for both sides. The team can't make it work without "free" government money. The city can't make it work without some sort of return or payback on their investment. There's a reason people aren't investing in these things other than governments that have been "held hostage". They don't make much financial sense at all for both sides.

I think I agree with you in that it proves the following:
- neither side would want to do this on their own and lose all the money themselves.

They need to do this together, in some sort of realistic partnership agreement, or need to accept that the Flames will "eventually" have to be sold/leave town.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Interesting to bring up a comparison to the cba negotiations as it is well established that Edwards was perhaps the most Hardline lockout supporter among the board of governors.

The same tactics being used in the negotiating of a new building taking on the same appearance maybe shouldn't be that surprising.

Having dealt with CNRL on numerous occasions, this does not surprise me in the least. At some point, the parties will get together (not sure it should be any of Edwards, King or Nenshi) and more concrete proposals will be offered. Until that time, I can't see this going anywhere.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

In this argument you'd have to compare other billionaires in other sectors. Is the (i don't know) housing billionaire asking for government funded condos and tax breaks? Is the theatre asking for a new one funded by the government?

Is the sports/entertainment billionaire unreasonably trying to rape the city more than billionaires in other industries?

What are the comparables other than Amazon maybe coming here.

Why compare to other sectors? It's irrelevant.

Pro sports is purely entertainment. It's grouping of 31 billionaire ownership groups that collude to extort money from local governments, and they've done a mighty fine job over the years.

Calgary can't be the lone white knight who finally stands up to all of pro sports and says NO!. Calgary isn't just fighting Murray Edwards, et al. Calgary is fighting a (losing) battle against all 31 clubs who have colluded, as well as a North American tradition of cities subsidizing pro sports.

I don't like it at all. But I love hockey. So I'm at a crossroads, but I think I know what will happen. The city will eventually pony up, just like the dozens or hundreds of other cities have. That's pro sports, and I hate that aspect.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is such a false narrative. Bettman bent over backwards in the 90s to keep Canadian teams and prop them up. Did he push US expansion? Sure. Did he work against Canadian teams? Nope.

My issue with Bettman isn't this - because I agree with you here - my issue is that he (and the Flames owners) are attempting to bully the electorate and the taxpayers, and the elected government, with threats if they don't get their way. That's pretty deplorable all around.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by New Era

Hmmm, and wasn't someone just speaking about high minded rhetoric and not being aggressively disingenuous? And then they roll out these turd blossoms? Flash, you needn't worry about looking like an embarrassing hyper partisan with the kind of simple minded rhetoric presented above, you just proved to be everything you just claimed someone else to be.

You can't attack the message so you resort to attacking the messenger.

Weak

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Trying to not spend 800M+ on a privately run business ran by billionaires who can finance their own pet sports team (remember, being a business owner means there are risks involved) is looking out for his best interests?

Show me 1 funding model that suggested the city pays for the entire venture. If you are referring to the contaminated soil clean-up costs for CalgaryNext (?)...it is going to have to be done, and the sooner the better, the cost of which will continue to raise, costing the tax payer A LOT more. (not that I am behind any of the proposed projects as presented to date)

[Flash Walken]

How much do the interests of Save Calgary coincide with getting a favourable Calgary next slate of politicians on council?

Are the councilors targeted by Save Calgary also prominent opponents of CalgaryNext type developments?

[dustygoon]

Opinions are so polarized! How can both sides on here not see there is some room for public funding? There is some benefit to the local economy even if small to having a team here. Fully private deal is ridiculous. Also a massive injection of public money (over 50% of cost) would be just as ridiculous.