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

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And yet you are 100% certain that it doesn't make economic sense.

And yet you can't see that you too are talking from an emotionally charged position.

You're right, but I also can't prove that ghosts don't exist, doesn't mean you can equally claim they do.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ken is doing a great job

Well, we don't know his marching orders from ownership.

What we can see, since 2001:

5 GMs
9 coaches
7 farm teams
4 playoff series won
2 failed third jerseys
2014-15 sell-out streak ends
1 half-baked arena proposal

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

You're right, but I also can't prove that ghosts don't exist, doesn't mean you can equally claim they do.

Nice false equivalency there.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The Flames don't own any of the land in either location. So why should they get control?

When I say control I would think they would be looking for an option to purchase and develop.

CMLC controls the development around there, because they're managing it on behalf of the owners. Why do you keep thinking the Flames should have any stake in developing land they don't own?

Because they have a desire to make money from the spinoff of their enterprise. I would much rather have them do it than CMLC.

Gary was in town to be 'the muscle' in legitimizing the Flames not so veiled threat of relocation by the league.

That's one way of looking at it.

You're pulling stuff out of your ass if you think there's anything in the CBA that covers a financing deal between a city and the arena managers. Revenue and profit comes from far more than just the Flames. The NHL/NHLPA has no say over money gained from having a bunch of Garth Brooks concerts.

Uh, nope. When it comes to revenues generated by the Calgary Flames they need to be carefully accounted for so they are compliant with the CBA. If the city tried to make connections to hockey related revenues, this would be a major no-go, regardless of what the team could agree to. You're right that the Garth Books revenues have little bearing on things, but if the formula used by the city was dependent on total revenues, including HRR, that would be a big no from the team and the league. Based on the team's response, and the hedging by Nenshi is his press gathering, I would bet that the formula was based on monies the team does not have full control over.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Major tenants often have a great degree of control over the entire development.

Examples?

[s_procee]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Examples?

Any commercial site that a walmart is in

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by New Era

Uh, nope. When it comes to revenues generated by the Calgary Flames they need to be carefully accounted for so they are compliant with the CBA. If the city tried to make connections to hockey related revenues, this would be a major no-go, regardless of what the team could agree to. You're right that the Garth Books revenues have little bearing on things, but if the formula used by the city was dependent on total revenues, including HRR, that would be a big no from the team and the league. Based on the team's response, and the hedging by Nenshi is his press gathering, I would bet that the formula was based on monies the team does not have full control over.

Any agreement can easily include HRR - it would just come out of the owners 50%. Which is likely why they wouldn't be interested in going that route.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by New Era

When I say control I would think they would be looking for an option to purchase and develop.

They have that option now.

Because they have a desire to make money from the spinoff of their enterprise. I would much rather have them do it than CMLC.

Why? What have the Flames ever done to inspire any sort of desirable development? Flames Central was their attempt at an entertainment spinoff, and it has reverted back to the Palace. Their latest attempt at a development was a crappy power point presentation for a building they wouldn't own, on land they don't own, funded partially by a CRL that couldn't possibly be fulfilled.

The Flames might be even less desirable as a development lead than the Stampede Board, who is being saved from itself by having the CMLC thrust upon them.

Uh, nope. When it comes to revenues generated by the Calgary Flames they need to be carefully accounted for so they are compliant with the CBA. If the city tried to make connections to hockey related revenues, this would be a major no-go, regardless of what the team could agree to.

Why would it be a major no-no? The revenue is tracked so the players know how much they're getting. The city and Flames having a deal based on revenue doesn't change that, the Flames would still get the revenue, it would still get tracked and tallied as HRR, the city would get what it is owed, and the players get what they're owed. All that changes is the profit taken in by the Flames at the end of those transactions.

And that's assuming this is what the city is even asking for. It doesn't make a difference. It would be like the league telling a bank that expecting their loan to be paid back via revenue to the team is a no-no because of the CBA.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by s_procee

Any commercial site that a walmart is in

Are there any sports and entertainment districts whose developments are centres around a Walmart?

[Bigtime]

The Flames organization more competent in urban development than the CMLC? C'mon now.

[CF84]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's not that they disagree, it's using untrue information to do so. If they're trying to use economic impact as the hub of their argument, they are being dishonest. It's never been proven, and will never be proven. It's based on vague, intangible assumptions. There's two decades of examples of this all across North America.

And I already said other arguments are valid, but at least be up front about them and don't try to couch them in the above. No one is shouting down anyone.

Now I don't fully disagree with you, but I also do know that it does make some sort of positive difference in the economy.

Most of these studies are done using NFL as a base which is the worst example anyone can use in an argument like this.


Here are some of the small ways Calgary is effected positively by events at an arena:

-it does, and always will, bring people from out of city into the city

-people go early so they can shop at their favorite stores in Calgary

-people from out of town buy supper

-vehicles need fuel for the return trip


I know many season ticket holders that live hours away from Calgary so please don't pretend it makes no difference at all, even if it is small.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CF84

Now I don't fully disagree with you, but I also do know that it does make some sort of positive difference in the economy.

Most of these studies are done using NFL as a base which is the worst example anyone can use in an argument like this.


Here are some of the small ways Calgary is effected positively by events at an arena:

-it does, and always will, bring people from out of city into the city

-people go early so they can shop at their favorite stores in Calgary

-people from out of town buy supper

-vehicles need fuel for the return trip


I know many season ticket holders that live hours away from Calgary so please don't pretend it makes no difference at all, even if it is small.

*citation needed*

The way you feel about something and some personal anecdotes really don't mean much when there's still no tangible proof of these supposed benefits. This is hundreds of millions of dollars, I'd like a little more than fuzzy feelings.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Examples?

Many major tenants (and some minor ones) have a non-compete in their lease. They also may have negative covenants against businesses that are in some way disreputable. They can often control signage and parking to a degree.

And the Flames would be more than a major or even anchor tenant. Anchor tenants are replaceable - Zellers becomes Target (becomes Lowes in some places). The Flames, not so much.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by WinnipegFan

As a Winnipeger who watched their team leave as a teenager this situation in Calgary saddens me. People have no idea the affect losing a team that is this ingrained in a city's heritage can have until it is gone. Both sides need to sit down to hammer this out, egos need to be left out of it and people need to realize it easy to chastise the team while they are here. However, the void they will leave behind will haunt this city. The quick response of anger will fade, the "see you later" attitude will subside and then all we will be left with a silent arena and a piece of the city will die. A team can unite a city in victory and defeat, it inspires our children with heroes, it offers hope to thousands near and far, and it lightens a cold day with a warm flame. Don't be so quick to say goodbye Calgary fans, you don't know what you have until it is gone.

- a Jets Fan

I wanted to comment on this because I too was in Winnipeg, and was a STH, when the Jets left town.

WinnipegFan is right. It is devastating. After the anger and the blaming subsides, what is left is a huge void. It doesn't matter to everyone of course, but having an NHL hockey team matters to a lot of Canadians - probably most. It certainly matters to me.

And what it meant for me and my family was that it was the catalyst that prompted our move to Calgary. I am not suggesting it was the only reason, but it definitely helped make the decision final. It meant the end of the line for Winnipeg, as far as me and my family were concerned.

A pro sports team adds to the community aspect of a city. In an increasingly anonymous society, where we don't even know all our neighbours anymore, sports teams bring us together. They give the city identity. The simple fact of the matter is that we are all here communicating with each other because the Flames exist.

My wife recruits globally for a national firm. Anyone who thinks city reputations don't matter, has clearly never recruited from outside Canada. The vast majority of people considering moving to Canada (we're talking people with choices, not refugees) suggest that they want to go to one of three places: Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary (and Montreal if they can speak French).

I bring this up to tie it back to Winnipeg. If the Flames left, it wouldn't turn that upside down all on its own. But I have no doubt that it would be a major catalyst that would in fact move Calgary in the wrong direction with respect to that impression. It would without a doubt change Calgary's status, relative to other cities. And not in a good way.

For anyone that talks about the Flames leaving town with a flippant, good riddance attitude, I would suggest that you be careful what you wish for.

Having said all that, I think there is little to no chance that the team will leave. We shouldn't bend over backwards or be held hostage to a terrible deal. But nor should we we be arrogant and flippant with respect to what the team means for the city.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The Flames organization more competent in urban development than the CMLC? C'mon now.

Personally I think one of the conditions should be that CMLC gets to do all the design/planning/execution of the development based on some mutually agreed on parameters. Everything they've done has knocked it out of the park. It would probably make the Flames look great, and be something that we as citizens can be proud of.

I really really really don't want Ken King to be leading the design of any sort of urban development.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CF84

Now I don't fully disagree with you, but I also do know that it does make some sort of positive difference in the economy.

Most of these studies are done using NFL as a base which is the worst example anyone can use in an argument like this.


Here are some of the small ways Calgary is effected positively by events at an arena:

-it does, and always will, bring people from out of city into the city

-people go early so they can shop at their favorite stores in Calgary

-people from out of town buy supper

-vehicles need fuel for the return trip


I know many season ticket holders that live hours away from Calgary so please don't pretend it makes no difference at all, even if it is small.

If you want to play anecdote the money spent on tickets by people living in Calgary leaves the province at a greater rate than money spent on other options. Hockey is a wealth concentrator. The hockey players wealth is then spent on luxury goods with a large component that is out of market. If you look at one of the best ways to stimulate an economy it is to give money to average people and let them spend it as it has a multiplier effect as its spent from business to business. This is the opposite of the flames when a large number of average people spend large sums of money concentrating it into a small number of people which then leaves the province through investments, vacations and luxury goods.

So if you get rid of the flames yes a small % of less money comes into the city but a larger amount of money stays in the city as people eat out more and spend the money in the local economy instead of flames tickets.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And if I didn't, I would spend that money on travel.

That would be relevant if 100% of the money you currently spend on the Flames recycled directly into the local economy. But it doesn't.

For example, the Flames' scouts are paid with money earned here, but live and work elsewhere. So a portion of your season ticket money leaves the city for that. Johnny Gaudreau buys an island for his mom? That money, much of it originally derived from ticket holders in Calgary, is now exported. And so on - the money you are paying into the Flames gets redistributed locally at a certain efficiency, and likely not a particularly high one.

So you would be less locally efficient with your cash, by now prioritizing travel, but others would offset that by being more locally efficient - or so the studies say. You theoretically shifting your habits to travel instead of season tickets is therefore still just one data point and not conclusive evidence of anything.

PS: You know what else the Flames spend millions and millions a year on? Travel. Way more money than you'll ever spend, waving its little moneyhands goodbye.

[s_procee]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Are there any sports and entertainment districts whose developments are centres around a Walmart?

Tons

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Personally I think one of the conditions should be that CMLC gets to do all the design/planning/execution of the development based on some mutually agreed on parameters. Everything they've done has knocked it out of the park. It would probably make the Flames look great, and be something that we as citizens can be proud of.

I really really really don't want Ken King to be leading the design of any sort of urban development.

I totally agree. Based on the CSEC's jersey design, I don't trust them to design a parking lot.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again, assumptions need to be made in order to come to that conclusion.

My point is that those studies are quoted as fact, when they are highly dependent on assumptions.

But I don't expect anyone who quotes them to ever accept that, so I'll leave it at this point.

So we should ignore the conclusions drawn by all these studies and do the complete opposite??