Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[GGG]

And it's revenue based not profit based and only Flames NHL revenue based not Arena operations based. So things like the annual rent subsidy and the arena management business are not included in these revenue number.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fire

Well it doesn't. It's trying to claim King is going around trying to convince people that the Flames are a bottom 10 revenue team. What else would bottom feeder mean? Just shows the biases of the writer or editor.

It does, actually. You’re forgetting that what is common knowledge on here (that revenue-sharing receiver does not equal financially struggling), is not common knowledge to the average fan and certainly not to non-fans.

There’s no bias, why would there be? What does the writer care? The fact is that King was specifically trying to portray the Flames in a particular way using a fact that, in reference to their economic viability, is actually completely meaningless and stupid to bring up.

Also, try reading the article past the headline. It’s spot on.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It does, actually. You’re forgetting that what is common knowledge on here (that revenue-sharing receiver does not equal financially struggling), is not common knowledge to the average fan and certainly not to non-fans.

There’s no bias, why would there be? What does the writer care? The fact is that King was specifically trying to portray the Flames in a particular way using a fact that, in reference to their economic viability, is actually completely meaningless and stupid to bring up.

Also, try reading the article past the headline. It’s spot on.

Article is fine, but the headline is BS and they should change it. A lot of people are against giving any money to private business for any reason, so obviously bias can be a factor.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Lovin' the new Flames ticket campaign. Ken King is a marketing genius.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fire

Article is fine, but the headline is BS and they should change it. A lot of people are against giving any money to private business for any reason, so obviously bias can be a factor.

I think if Ken King were to have made these comments about the flames receiving revenue sharing at a time when the flames weren't in the middle of a very public stalemate with the city over funding for a new arena, then I might be a bit more inclined to agree with your statement. However given the timing of it, King's statement is clearly the flames attempting to cry poor publicly when the reality is they are currently making a decent profit(especially considering many sports franchises lose money).

Trying to imply to the public that you are struggling financially when you aren't, in an effort to gain public support($) for an arena that you say you need in order to address your decrease in revenue which are more the result of a local recession and weak Canadian dollar than the current arena, fits the billing of being both misleading and disingenuous. Wouldn't you agree?

[Tyler]

I am almost certain that he has previously stated that we received revenue sharing before the Chamber speech

[Fire]

The Canadian dollar isn't weak. It's currently really close to it's average value since 1990. The current local economy is most likely the new normal in Calgary. So don't expect the Flames to be a top 10 team in revenue again unless they have long playoff runs (or get a new arena).

Many of the anti-CSEC group have been saying the Flames were a top ten team for revenue and was using that as an argument against them on why they don't need funding. Now Ken King tells them otherwise and the same group gets defensive and proclaim that CSEC is misleading the public because they are still making a profit. Even though they never said they weren't making a profit. I'm sure if the Flames end up losing money in the future the same group will tell us they are still misleading us because the increase in franchise value makes up for any losses.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fire

The Canadian dollar isn't weak. It's currently really close to it's average value since 1990. The current local economy is most likely the new normal in Calgary. So don't expect the Flames to be a top 10 team in revenue again unless they have long playoff runs (or get a new arena).

Many of the anti-CSEC group have been saying the Flames were a top ten team for revenue and was using that as an argument against them on why they don't need funding. Now Ken King tells them otherwise and the same group gets defensive and proclaim that CSEC is misleading the public because they are still making a profit. Even though they never said they weren't making a profit. I'm sure if the Flames end up losing money in the future the same group will tell us they are still misleading us because the increase in franchise value makes up for any losses.

The arguement wasn't that they were top 10 revenue. Per the Forbes number they have been midpack for a while. The argument was that they were top 10 profit. Yes people mixed the two up but it was incorrect to say top 10 revenue.

[sureLoss]

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...medium=twitter

Gary Bettman said he knew six months ago an arena deal would not get done in Calgary under the city’s current administration.

Bettman said a meeting in Calgary with Naheed Nenshi in March made it crystal clear where the mayor’s head is at with regards to the importance of pro sports in a city.

“When I was with the mayor on March 15, he was describing to me the terms of a deal that I knew were just not from the real world,” said the NHL commissioner in a phone interview from his New York office, mere hours after updating the NHL’s board of governors on the Calgary situation.

“We were having a theoretical conversation about the importance of arenas and major league sports franchises to a city, which he indicated he didn’t believe in. I said, ‘Well … what if the end result of this is that the Flames have to move?’ And he said to me, ‘Then they’ll have to move.’”

“Based on that meeting, I knew (the Flames owners) had no prospect of getting a new building on any terms that made sense. And that being the case, I completely understood their decision to disengage.”


Bettman was in Calgary two weeks ago to be informed by Flames ownership they too couldn’t see a resolution and would cease attempts to negotiate with the city.

When asked how the various impasses in Edmonton’s arena negotiation compared to the stalemate in Calgary, Bettman pointed out the big difference stems from the will of the respective mayors.

“(Reports of the Edmonton arena deal being dead) was the media reporting – the fact of the matter was I was in constant contact with Mayor (Stephen) Mandel and (Oilers owner) Daryl (Katz), and I always believed that would get done,” said Bettman.

“This couldn’t be more opposite.”

Nor could the financial outlook of the two Alberta clubs given the significant disadvantage the Flames are at without all the revenue streams a new building like Rogers Place provides over the 34-year-old Saddledome.

“I think that’s the critical element,” said Bettman, when asked how big a role the Flames’ aging arena has played in the team’s demise from being a top-10 revenue generator in the league to being a recipient of revenue-sharing cheques.

“This has been happening over the last couple years. We’re going down a road — we’ve already started on it — and it’s heading in the wrong direction.”

Which begs the question, how long can the Flames realistically expect to stay in Calgary without a new arena?

“They’re not moving this season, but I don’t know how long they can hang on,” said Bettman.

“This isn’t an imminent issue, but it’s something that’s coming around the bend at some point. I’m not a soothsayer, and I’m not going to prognosticate other than to say the situation will continue to deteriorate.”

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fire

The Canadian dollar isn't weak. It's currently really close to it's average value since 1990. The current local economy is most likely the new normal in Calgary. So don't expect the Flames to be a top 10 team in revenue again unless they have long playoff runs (or get a new arena).

Many of the anti-CSEC group have been saying the Flames were a top ten team for revenue and was using that as an argument against them on why they don't need funding. Now Ken King tells them otherwise and the same group gets defensive and proclaim that CSEC is misleading the public because they are still making a profit. Even though they never said they weren't making a profit. I'm sure if the Flames end up losing money in the future the same group will tell us they are still misleading us because the increase in franchise value makes up for any losses.

Its gone up to around the average in the last month or two. It was low last season when they were last paying players. No idea how they calculate revenue for revenue sharing, but assuming they take currency into account the Flames will go up 5%-7% this year without doing anything differently.

EDIT: That assume the current ~0.8 rate stays in effect for the season and last year's average was ~0.75 (which was just an eyeball estimate from a chart, not calculated)

[Fire]

Originally Posted by GGG

The arguement wasn't that they were top 10 revenue. Per the Forbes number they have been midpack for a while. The argument was that they were top 10 profit. Yes people mixed the two up but it was incorrect to say top 10 revenue.

Very unlikely they are still a top 10 team in profit. The last list I saw was from before the Oilers got their new arena. Flames were #10 and the Oilers #11.

[SweepToTheCup]

Originally Posted by Fire

Very unlikely they are still a top 10 team in profit. The last list I saw was from before the Oilers got their new arena. Flames were #10 and the Oilers #11.

I'm clearly on one side of this debate (skeptical of ownership) but I thought this was an interesting article. Speaks a bit to the mechanics of equalization payments, the exchange rate, attendance, and King's portrayal of the situation.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...g-disingenuous

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...medium=twitter

My interest in the NHL has been steadily eroding over the years due to a number of factors, the only thing keeping me engaged was the Flames. But now King, the owners, and now Bettman have completely turned me off. I have zero excitement for the new season now, and as far as I'm concerned if they keep threatening to leave then good riddance. I'm not giving them a single dime of my money from here on out

[Ozy_Flame]

Sounds like Bettman didn't like the fact that the City wasn't going to bend over for his royal ass. Now they are taking the most arrogant approach, and saying "negotiations are finished".

And also from that Bettman story, if it wasn't obvious they want a regime change in City Hall, it most certainly is now. Even the NHL Head Cheese wants Nenshi out.

[Tyler]

Props to Nenshi standing up to Bettman. Not an easy thing to do. Dude is an absolute shark.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...medium=twitter

Nor could the financial outlook of the two Alberta clubs given the significant disadvantage the Flames are at without all the revenue streams a new building like Rogers Place provides over the 34-year-old Saddledome.

“They’re not moving this season, but I don’t know how long they can hang on,” said Bettman.

[Table 5]

On Wednesday he insisted, “I don’t weigh into politics.”

Lol.

Screw off and fix your league, Gary.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by GGG

The city offered to continue the current rate of subsidies to the team for the next 35 years. You can't discount the change from the current agreement but you also count discount the fact that a current subsidy exists either.

Credit to Campbell for pointing out King was... "Answering questions from a team-friendly moderator..."

[Wormius]

Good God. Does Bettman somehow think that made their position look any better with anybody? So Bettman "hypothetically" asking what would happen if the Flames had to move was somehow less egregious than Nenshi responding that they could just move then?

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Lol.

Screw off and fix your league, Gary.

lmao.. Bettman not getting into politics must be a recent policy!
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/spo...beandmail.com&

From the 13th

Bettman's message to Calgary voters was, "You need to make your voice heard if you think the city is moving in the wrong direction."