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

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Sure....a private business like Amazon comes along and you know Nenshi is all over giving up tax breaks - land deals but a sports franchise is looking for public money and some how its so different. I call bull####.

There is but one problem with your post: the City has reportedly offered the Flames more than just tax breaks and land deals. It has offered to give the Flames land and actual money. Lots and lots of money (something in the 150 million dollar ballpark).

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bunk

At a minimum the Red Strip here for commercial uses (they could also probably go vertical on the corners of the site for hotels and stuff) is surplus to the needs of the arena itself. I think this was part of the intent to give the Flames some real estate to work with for long term revenue. Now, if the Flames want some more - maybe negotiate the stuff across the street on Olympic Way abutting the casino?

This may be the most ridiculous thing introduced in this thread. This is your idea of a reasonable parcel of land for development of anything? Did you actually look and see how big that parcel is? It is eight cars wide. And on that you're going to build "hotels and stuff?" That's going to be quite the entertainment district.

Originally Posted by Bunk

They really apparently willing to give land and 1/3 of cost, so that's a pretty tangible indication of what the proportion they are viewing as widely public benefit. Ticket tax is also a 1/3 component, which is a direct user pay model - so an indication of the direct user benefit. And 1/3 owner benefit which seems more than fair - since they will see most of the revenue upside directly.

Except that the city isn't putting up anything. They are basically co-signing the loan and waiting for the money to be paid back. The post where you claimed to be so right, when you were so wrong, proved that in spades. There are so many here that are pissed about the Flames using the ticket tax as a means to pay for a chunk of their portion, but that is their long term revenue they using for the project. This is revenue they are giving up on every ticket sold. Conversely, the city is just covering a loan with their 1/3 commitment. The Flames have to pay that back. So in reality, the team is paying 1/3 up front, 1/3 in ticket revenues, and then 1/3 in a co-signed loan they are paying back to the city. The Flames pay for it all, and get to do so on a piece of land where there are no other enrichment opportunities, unless you think a piece of land 8 cars wide is suitable for anything but frontage.

Originally Posted by getbak

The Flames will see the biggest benefit from a new building. Why shouldn't they shoulder a significant amount of the cost?

They are. IN almost every deal that has been made public the Flames are paying the largest share, and to the tune of two thirds. The major caveat being the external costs of infrastructure improvements and site remediation, which should go to the interests responsible for those assets.

Also, originally, the Flames were simply a tenant of the Saddledome and paid rent to the city for the use of the building. The Stampede board operated the building. The Flames received the revenue from in-arena advertising and ticket sales.

Do you think there's any chance the Flames would agree to go back to that arrangement if the city paid for the whole new building?

No, they wouldn't, and they shouldn't. There are other opportunities out there where they wouldn't subject themselves to similar situations. The city and the Flames should put their egos aside and negotiate in good faith. I think both sides have been to blame in this mess, but the latest leaked offer, the one Bunk erroneously credited as being a fair deal, is the biggest and most underhanded move by either side. I can see the city wanting to limit the funds spent on this, especially when they have to concern themselves with assets like another downtown library, a music museum, and an expansion of the performing arts center, but they should be a little more on the up-and-up than the charade they just tried to pull.

Also, what's going to happen in the next five years to suddenly kill the Flames' revenue? They still have one of the largest arenas in the league and have some of the highest ticket prices. Concession prices keep climbing too.

It isn't just about revenues, its about expenses. The cost of doing business keeps going up too. As that cap rises, it puts pressure on the Flames spending to keep pace. As the league changes, the Flames have to keep up to remain competitive. Players have greater demands for training now than they have in the past. New facilities are needed to support this. Hockey operations is becoming more expensive in that scouting requires more investment. Player development is more expensive with changes in those leagues. Costs continue to increase and the team needs to continue to find new ways to generate revenues.

I'm waiting for the many pissed off season ticket holders in this thread to do the right thing here. If they are so pissed off with the way the club is operating, they should be demanding refunds or turning their tickets in and recouping their money through the ticket exchange. But these people won't do that. Their invested in the team and deep down they know that if this team leaves it will be a very long time, if ever, before NHL hockey graces Calgary again. And for that to happen, it will be the citizens of Calgary paying full boat for a new arena, not the 33% of a new arena suggested by the hockey team.

Most of this board cannot remember what it was like to NOT have the Flames. Most of this board doesn't know what it is like to have the Stampeders (remember that third rate football league?) as the big sense of civic pride. As an old fart I can tell you that those days were pretty bleak and I wouldn't wish them on anyone. Talk tough all you want, but if Calgary loses the Flames they will lose a big chunk of the spirit behind the city. I guarantee you won't ever see a "shirts off for Rachmaninoff" movement when the CPO moves into their new tax-payer funded concert hall. You won't see a parade through downtown when a new exhibition is established in the tax-payer funded National Music Center. You're not going to see car flags adoring every second vehicle when the business incubator produces a new start up that withers and dies 18 months later. There is something about sports that brings us all together, that allows us to find common bonds, even when we are so different. That brings values to the community and gives a spirit to mass of humanity that makes up the city. Don't let the city lose that. For those of us old enough to remember Calgary with out that, it was a very different place, and it really sucked.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Sure....a private business like Amazon comes along and you know Nenshi is all over giving up tax breaks - land deals but a sports franchise is looking for public money and some how its so different. I call bull####.

Public money for public benefit. If the subsidies proposed were equal you would get a lot more out of subsidizing amazon than subsidizing the flames. There is not an economic case for subsidizing the flames. There may be an economic case for subsidizing Amazon

[BurningSteel]

So after reading this thread in its entirety im still confused. Are we getting Iginla or Jagr?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Sure....a private business like Amazon comes along and you know Nenshi is all over giving up tax breaks - land deals but a sports franchise is looking for public money and some how its so different. I call bull####.

I must have missed the part where the Flames were providing 50,000 jobs. There would be way more public benefit to just give Amazon 1/2 billion to built their HQ here than to put any money into a stadium.

Decades of gainful employment for 1000s of Calgarians vs Hockey and concerts. You really don't see a difference there?

[rhino]

Originally Posted by GGG

Public money for public benefit. If the subsidies proposed were equal you would get a lot more out of subsidizing amazon than subsidizing the flames. There is not an economic case for subsidizing the flames. There may be an economic case for subsidizing Amazon

No economic case for subsidizing the Flames??? You may want to rethink that statement

[calgaryblood]

Very happy Nenshi is the mayor because it's clear from this thread, a lot of people only thinking with their heart.

Our mayor only thinks with his brain and does what's best for Calgary.

Best mayor we've ever had.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I must have missed the part where the Flames were providing 50,000 jobs. There would be way more public benefit to just give Amazon 1/2 billion to built their HQ here than to put any money into a stadium.

Decades of gainful employment for 1000s of Calgarians vs Hockey and concerts. You really don't see a difference there?

CSEC employs a lot of Calgarians. There's also trickle down effects in that the 960 guys (I don't know how many people 960 employs but it's still local livelihoods and they all count) would be let go and some local businesses in the area will suffer. I have no issues in trying to lure Amazon but at the end of the day it's a pipe dream.

[TheFlamesVan]

And people were worried Iginla would be a distraction.

[rhino]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Very happy Nenshi is the mayor because it's clear from this thread, a lot of people only thinking with their heart.

Our mayor only thinks with his brain and does what's best for Calgary.

Best mayor we've ever had.

you cannot be serious with that comment? Nenshi was voted one of the worst Mayors in North America if I am correct.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by getbak

Yeah, I can't think of anything that's different about that...

Yeah there are differences but ultimately not everyone who pays taxes will get employed there as a tech person, or in the construction business. So it is public funds going to something that not everyone benefits from. That's the nature of public funds.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Uhh, Clay. It is common knowledge that the Saddledome's design makes it unsuitable for most larger arena shows. You're resorting to massive hyperbole and disingenuous twisting of arguments to try and sidestep that fact.

Pretty sure I didn't say the building isn't a factor in getting skipped, simply that it's not the only factor. And when the new arena is built and Calgary still gets skipped, then it'll be clear that's the case. There is obviously more that goes into where a band decides to play besides the arena is simply my point, and that a new arena ensues nothing.

[taco.vidal]

Is Eris Francis going to move to Seattle or stay in Calgary to focus on his diner?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by rhino

you cannot be serious with that comment? Nenshi was voted one of the worst Mayors in North America if I am correct.

Voted by who exactly?

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by New Era

It isn't just about revenues, its about expenses. The cost of doing business keeps going up too. As that cap rises, it puts pressure on the Flames spending to keep pace. As the league changes, the Flames have to keep up to remain competitive. Players have greater demands for training now than they have in the past. New facilities are needed to support this. Hockey operations is becoming more expensive in that scouting requires more investment. Player development is more expensive with changes in those leagues. Costs continue to increase and the team needs to continue to find new ways to generate revenues.

Why do we need a new arena to raise ticket prices? If the Flames need more revenue to keep up, seems plausible that a ticket price increase would still get them there?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by rhino

you cannot be serious with that comment? Nenshi was voted one of the worst Mayors in North America if I am correct.

You aren't correct.

Where do you even get this kind of fake news? He was voted best mayor in the world... like literally complete opposite to your reality.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...rize-1.2940729

[getbak]

Originally Posted by rhino

you cannot be serious with that comment? Nenshi was voted one of the worst Mayors in North America if I am correct.

No, not "worst" mayor, WORLD Mayor: http://www.worldmayor.com/contest_20...4-winners.html

[troutman]

Originally Posted by rhino

you cannot be serious with that comment? Nenshi was voted one of the worst Mayors in North America if I am correct.

In the Calgary Sun?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Voted by who exactly?

Who knows? He was actually awarded the 2014 World Mayor Prize, for whatever that is worth (probably not much).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Pretty sure I didn't say the building isn't a factor in getting skipped, simply that it's not the only factor. And when the new arena is built and Calgary still gets skipped, then it'll be clear that's the case. There is obviously more that goes into where a band decides to play besides the arena is simply my point, and that a new arena ensues nothing.

No, but you did invent an argument that people who realize we need a new arena if we're going to have any hope of getting more large shows are actually saying that "Calgary will never be skipped for concerts ever again" if we got a new arena. That is not what the person you replied to said, and that is not what anyone has said. The argument being presented is that the state of the arena is the single largest factor in why Calgary often gets skipped. Since you can't counter that argument, you instead invented a strawman position to attack.