Agreed on the Oilers stupid deal giving the Flames the greenlight to push and push year after year for a deal that wasn't coming from Calgary.
But just to note, I didn't agree with the hardline stance of "just say no" to public funding, but did agree with the overall message that cities should not be paying hundreds of millions towards public stadiums while city infrastructure and programs crumble around a billion dollar stadium.
The point about Detroit declaring bankruptcy a few months before agreeing to spend $324mil towards the area project was absurd.
Oh! I completely agree on that point! No arguments here.
You want to see batcrap insane arena deals?
FIFA World Cup Brazil 2014. They built enormous arenas in places you can only access by boat or plane. It was nuts.
FIFA World Cup Qatar 2023. I think they have more stadium capacity than that country has residents, and more stadiums than that country even has teams to play in them. They're even supposed to be manufactured piecemeal so they can be dismantled and donated to other countries afterwards, thats nuts!
But I digress.
I think you and I are on the same page more or less.
Governments are generally not setup to function or operate as businesses, nor generally should they be. Their functions in that regard are entirely at cross purposes.
However, I acknowledge that pro sports teams provide benefits to a City and that those benefits are very difficult to accurately ascertain and quantify, which is why if a Government of any jurisdiction is going to get involved in one of these deals it isnt the funding model that has to be acknowledged, its the revenue model.
Have some method of, at the very least, being certain to get your money back over the lifetime of the investment. If you're pouring in too much and arent going to make your money back then perhaps....do not do that thing.
If your City is on the verge of insolvency then...perhaps...do not do that thing.
For example, if a City invests $500M in a major project and is in someway (ticket tax, property tax, rents, etc) is made whole by the 'End of Life' of the project then thats probably a good deal. Because ancillary property taxes in the local area have also likely increased (and existed and been paid), there has been employment, revenues to local establishments like hotels from visiting teams, real estate from local players, etc, etc, will have benefited the locality.
But it has to be reasonable and realistic. I dont think this is all that hard.
You are dealing with two entities that have an astounding access to available Capital, you just have to strike a reasonable and practical balance.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Yep, American sports owners have gone absolutely crazy in holding cities hostage with threats of their teams leaving to get hundreds of millions in handouts. And Canadian cities by proxy and being part of major American sports leagues get brought into the craziness as well.
I wonder if everyone in here has watched this segment with Jon Oliver? Nenshi was awesome for how he stood up to these guys, so much so that he was making the news in the US during the last round of negotiations with the Flames. Frustrated American cities took notice and loved it, as all municipalities need to start saying enough is enough.
I agree with Oliver, but it's kind of funny that the 3 NFL examples he points to did actually move (2 to LA!).
All because of new stadiums.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mass_nerder For This Useful Post:
This is incorrect. The flames more or less break even with roughly a 80 million dollar payroll. A 30 million dollar payroll cut pays for the arena quite easily. Just change HRR to 20% arena, 50% owner, 30% players.
I am asking the flames and the NHL as a business to manage their payroll so they don’t need public subsidies. Now you might argue that the demand for players makes them worth what they are paid but in that case we shouldn’t have any cap whatsoever. So if you are pro cap then the cap should be set such that competitive balance is achieved and the league can afford the run it’s business.
The flames could move to a bigger market and build a new arena on private economics. Or just move to a market where such an arena already exists.
I don't believe public money was required in Vegas or in Seattle. Because they're big markets and the business case justifies itself. The business case does not justify itself in Calgary.
Realistically, if you're a small market and you want a team, you pay for it via higher ticket prices and arena subsidies. Like Winnipeg, like Nashville, like Edmonton.
And if youre a small market and don't want a team, you don't need to have one. There are 32 teams and I'm willing to bet Calgary isn't in the 32 top metro areas of Canada/US. The NHL doesn't need to have a franchise here. An owner doesn't need to operate here either.
The fact that Murray Edwards operates the team at breakeven here rather than sell it for $500m to someone who can profitably run it in Houston, is charity and community service in and of itself.
He doesn't owe you or the city anything at all. The fact that you expect him to spend more money out of his own pocket for your happiness is insane.
Reading some of these posts is like reading the fable about the golden goose.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to GullFoss For This Useful Post:
The flames could move to a bigger market and build a new arena on private economics. Or just move to a market where such an arena already exists.
I don't believe public money was required in Vegas or in Seattle. Because they're big markets and the business case justifies itself. The business case does not justify itself in Calgary.
Realistically, if you're a small market and you want a team, you pay for it via higher ticket prices and arena subsidies. Like Winnipeg, like Nashville, like Edmonton.
And if youre a small market and don't want a team, you don't need to have one. There are 32 teams and I'm willing to bet Calgary isn't in the 32 top metro areas of Canada/US. The NHL doesn't need to have a franchise here. An owner doesn't need to operate here either.
The fact that Murray Edwards operates the team at breakeven here rather than sell it for $500m to someone who can profitably run it in Houston, is charity and community service in and of itself.
He doesn't owe you or the city anything at all. The fact that you expect him to spend more money out of his own pocket for your happiness is insane.
Reading some of these posts is like reading the fable about the golden goose.
The flames could move to a bigger market and build a new arena on private economics. Or just move to a market where such an arena already exists.
I don't believe public money was required in Vegas or in Seattle. Because they're big markets and the business case justifies itself. The business case does not justify itself in Calgary.
Realistically, if you're a small market and you want a team, you pay for it via higher ticket prices and arena subsidies. Like Winnipeg, like Nashville, like Edmonton.
And if youre a small market and don't want a team, you don't need to have one. There are 32 teams and I'm willing to bet Calgary isn't in the 32 top metro areas of Canada/US. The NHL doesn't need to have a franchise here. An owner doesn't need to operate here either.
The fact that Murray Edwards operates the team at breakeven here rather than sell it for $500m to someone who can profitably run it in Houston, is charity and community service in and of itself.
He doesn't owe you or the city anything at all. The fact that you expect him to spend more money out of his own pocket for your happiness is insane.
Reading some of these posts is like reading the fable about the golden goose.
If it was as simple as population = profit, then Atlanta wouldn't have failed - twice - Houston would already have a team, and Phoenix would be an above average revenue team.
CGY is about 44th in metro population among US/CAD cities, slotting between Oklahoma City and Milwaukee (though it can be hard to compare apples to apples...a lot of US metro areas are actually a lot bigger land area than CGY's).
Houston and Atlanta are the only two much much larger cities without a team.
San Diego/Orlando/Baltimore/Charlotte/San Antonio/Portland are in the 2.5-3.3M range (again, I think some of these encompass huge land area)
Sacramento/Austin/Cincinnati/Kansas City/Indianapolis/Cleveland are 2-2.5M
then there are only Virginia Beach/Providence/Jacksonville/Milwaukee as 1.5-2M
A real murderer's row of hockey cities I'm sure a new owner would recover their 200M relocation fee in no time.
The fourth option is the NHL/NHLPA gets its house in order so it can afford to pay players and also pay for a facility.
That will never happen, because the NHL doesn't own the teams and does not benefit from their profits.
Quote:
It's disingenuous to suggest your options are the only ones.
They are the only ones. The NHL is not in the business of building arenas. It never has been, and there are no indications that it will ever even consider getting into that business.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Houston has been supporting minor pro hockey for half a century. The main reason it hasn't got an NHL team is that the only viable arena in town was long owned by a man who didn't like hockey and didn't want a team in his building. That only changed five years ago, too late for anyone to put in a viable bid for the last round of expansion.
Portland is in a similar situation. Paul Allen was often approached about the idea of adding a hockey team as a joint tenant with the Trail Blazers, but he just wasn't interested. The existing arena is suitable for NHL hockey and the sport has been supported in the area for over a century.
Don't kid yourself. There are several places in the U.S. with the ability to support an NHL team, and they already have arenas significantly superior to the Saddledome.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The flames could move to a bigger market and build a new arena on private economics. Or just move to a market where such an arena already exists.
I don't believe public money was required in Vegas or in Seattle. Because they're big markets and the business case justifies itself. The business case does not justify itself in Calgary.
Realistically, if you're a small market and you want a team, you pay for it via higher ticket prices and arena subsidies. Like Winnipeg, like Nashville, like Edmonton.
And if youre a small market and don't want a team, you don't need to have one. There are 32 teams and I'm willing to bet Calgary isn't in the 32 top metro areas of Canada/US. The NHL doesn't need to have a franchise here. An owner doesn't need to operate here either.
The fact that Murray Edwards operates the team at breakeven here rather than sell it for $500m to someone who can profitably run it in Houston, is charity and community service in and of itself.
He doesn't owe you or the city anything at all. The fact that you expect him to spend more money out of his own pocket for your happiness is insane.
Reading some of these posts is like reading the fable about the golden goose.
How many of those are or would be rabid hockey markets? Since 2012-13, Calgary has been:
7th
7th
6th
7th
10th
8th
10th
6th
-
25th
in overall NHL attendance. Unless you assume last year is the norm you'd be hard pressed to find a more reliable fan base, despite middling teams.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Houston has been supporting minor pro hockey for half a century. The main reason it hasn't got an NHL team is that the only viable arena in town was long owned by a man who didn't like hockey and didn't want a team in his building. That only changed five years ago, too late for anyone to put in a viable bid for the last round of expansion.
Portland is in a similar situation. Paul Allen was often approached about the idea of adding a hockey team as a joint tenant with the Trail Blazers, but he just wasn't interested. The existing arena is suitable for NHL hockey and the sport has been supported in the area for over a century.
Don't kid yourself. There are several places in the U.S. with the ability to support an NHL team, and they already have arenas significantly superior to the Saddledome.
Maybe once the Coyotes finally get moved people will believe the threat.
That will never happen, because the NHL doesn't own the teams and does not benefit from their profits.
They are the only ones. The NHL is not in the business of building arenas. It never has been, and there are no indications that it will ever even consider getting into that business.
The NHL, its players and its franchise owners sure look silly for not factoring facility costs into their operating budgets.
Maybe they should reconsider how they utilize their revenue so that they are not at the whim and mercy of taxpayers.
The NHL, its players and its franchise owners sure look silly for not factoring facility costs into their operating budgets.
It isn't the league's job, and it sure as hell isn't the players' job. Of the franchise owners, some (like MSG Sports) own and operate their own bulidings, some lease; some of the arenas were built with private money, some with public subsidy. There is no one business model used by all of the 32 independent businesses that constitute the league.
Quote:
Maybe they should reconsider how they utilize their revenue so that they are not at the whim and mercy of taxpayers.
The teams that are at the mercy of taxpayers are precisely the ones that don't produce enough revenue to build their facilities privately. The ones that can afford their own privately-owned facilities are under no obligation to give away their profits to those that can't, and their directors have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders not to give their money away.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
How many of those are or would be rabid hockey markets? Since 2012-13, Calgary has been:
7th
7th
6th
7th
10th
8th
10th
6th
-
25th
in overall NHL attendance. Unless you assume last year is the norm you'd be hard pressed to find a more reliable fan base, despite middling teams.
What matters is not how reliable the fan base is, but how effective the facilities are at extracting money from their pockets.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
It isn't the league's job, and it sure as hell isn't the players' job. Of the franchise owners, some (like MSG Sports) own and operate their own bulidings, some lease; some of the arenas were built with private money, some with public subsidy. There is no one business model used by all of the 32 independent businesses that constitute the league.
The teams that are at the mercy of taxpayers are precisely the ones that don't produce enough revenue to build their facilities privately. The ones that can afford their own privately-owned facilities are under no obligation to give away their profits to those that can't, and their directors have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders not to give their money away.
In one post you claim that the broken economics are not the responsibility of the league. And in the next post you claim that the broken economics are not the responsibility of the teams.
So whose fault is it that some significant portion of the league cannot afford both payroll and the costs to rent or build a facility?
Further, whose responsibility should it be to ensure that the economics get fixed?
I agree with Oliver, but it's kind of funny that the 3 NFL examples he points to did actually move (2 to LA!).
All because of new stadiums.
And therein lies the problem. If you don't want to provide, someone else will.
This is why cities will end up paying either way. You can have the owner of a pro team chip in to help share the costs, or you could be like Kansas City and Quebec City, and build it 100% with your own taxpayers funds, while hoping for a team to come. Calgary definitely doesn't want to be in the latter position when they do got a partner already that's willing to share costs halfway. (Or close too; last deal CSEC was putting in more than 50%, which should be viewed as a win for cities in this game.)
The Following User Says Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
Houston has been supporting minor pro hockey for half a century. The main reason it hasn't got an NHL team is that the only viable arena in town was long owned by a man who didn't like hockey and didn't want a team in his building. That only changed five years ago, too late for anyone to put in a viable bid for the last round of expansion.
Portland is in a similar situation. Paul Allen was often approached about the idea of adding a hockey team as a joint tenant with the Trail Blazers, but he just wasn't interested. The existing arena is suitable for NHL hockey and the sport has been supported in the area for over a century.
Don't kid yourself. There are several places in the U.S. with the ability to support an NHL team, and they already have arenas significantly superior to the Saddledome.
What about the relocation fee?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
It isn't the league's job, and it sure as hell isn't the players' job. Of the franchise owners, some (like MSG Sports) own and operate their own bulidings, some lease; some of the arenas were built with private money, some with public subsidy. There is no one business model used by all of the 32 independent businesses that constitute the league.
The teams that are at the mercy of taxpayers are precisely the ones that don't produce enough revenue to build their facilities privately. The ones that can afford their own privately-owned facilities are under no obligation to give away their profits to those that can't, and their directors have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders not to give their money away.
What teams are publicly traded?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
And therein lies the problem. If you don't want to provide, someone else will.
This is why cities will end up paying either way. You can have the owner of a pro team chip in to help share the costs, or you could be like Kansas City and Quebec City, and build it 100% with your own taxpayers funds, while hoping for a team to come. Calgary definitely doesn't want to be in the latter position when they do got a partner already that's willing to share costs halfway. (Or close too; last deal CSEC was putting in more than 50%, which should be viewed as a win for cities in this game.)
Bolded is absolutely not true. They simply excluded a bunch of relevant costs (demolition, land, insurance, etc) that were disproportionately borne by the city to make a nice 275/275 infographic.
IIRC city was somewhere between 308-320M (not including overrun, and still missing some significant costs like insurance); CSEC was 275M, but a huge chunk of that was ticket tax - which is fair to debate whether should be truly considered a CSEC contribution or a 3rd slice of the pie called 'user fees'.
Bolded is absolutely not true. They simply excluded a bunch of relevant costs (demolition, land, insurance, etc) that were disproportionately borne by the city to make a nice 275/275 infographic.
IIRC city was somewhere between 308-320M (not including overrun, and still missing some significant costs like insurance); CSEC was 275M, but a huge chunk of that was ticket tax - which is fair to debate whether should be truly considered a CSEC contribution or a 3rd slice of the pie called 'user fees'.
I'm not referring to the one from Summer of 2019. I mean the one during covid where CSEC agreed to cost overruns and putting in more upfront costs since city had concerns they couldn't go through with the deal anymore.
The fact that Murray Edwards operates the team at breakeven here rather than sell it for $500m to someone who can profitably run it in Houston, is charity and community service in and of itself.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
The fact that Murray Edwards operates the team at breakeven here rather than sell it for $500m to someone who can profitably run it in Houston, is charity and community service in and of itself.
Reading some of these posts is like reading the fable about the golden goose.
I'm sure a new owner would recover their 200M relocation fee in no time.
