Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Dion

Problem for me is where would the Flames go and would that market have greater fan support. Seattle is a basketball city and fans would flock to see their Sonics before they shell out out bucks to see the Flames. Then you have multiple American teams that are struggling to fill their arenas and make a profit.

If the Flames were going to move they would have done it long ago. That's my belief. Frankly I think the owners know they have a great hockey market in Calgary and will do whatever it takes to make a deal and it will get done.

Agree 100%. The only reason the Flames feel like they can make such bombastic, unrealistic requests and expect the citizens to lap it up, is because they're well aware of how favourable the market is for them here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

I almost want the Flames to pack up and move just to put some fans in check. Just ask a hometown Oakland Raider fan or a SD Charger fan how they felt about how quickly their team packed up and left.

The Chargers have had a consistent negotiation with real proposals stating in 2009 with talk starting in 2003.

Oakland started talking in 2009 and had real noegotiations in 2012.

They both moved in 2017. So it seems like we shouldn't panic until at least 2020 and the Seattle arena is hanging over our heads. Plenty of time to wait out the flames and drive the best deal for Calgary.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The Chargers have had a consistent negotiation with real proposals stating in 2009 with talk starting in 2003.

Oakland started talking in 2009 and had real noegotiations in 2012.

They both moved in 2017. So it seems like we shouldn't panic until at least 2020 and the Seattle arena is hanging over our heads. Plenty of time to wait out the flames and drive the best deal for Calgary.

You do recognize they both left the cities they were in?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

You do recognize they both left the cities they were in?

Did you read the quoted post. He said ask them how quick it happened. And the answer was very slowly.

[MBates]

I wonder whether anyone is willing to give King / Flames credit for this aspect of his presser - the suggestion that if you take the Flames completely out of the equation an arena / event centre is going to be built in Calgary anyway (the premise being there's enough public demand for such a piece of public infrastructure in a city the size of Calgary).

If that is the case, what other private business would help the taxpayers out in the way that the city is currently proposing the Flames do?

If the answer is - nobody, the city would have to build at 100% their cost, then in that context, the current city proposal is as unfair to the Flames as King says it is...is it not?

I don't profess to have nearly the detailed grasp of the whole battle that others here seem to have, but this seemed to me like a potentially valid point so I'm interested what others think.

Also, King is a poor speaker who uses parenthetical 'by the way' anecdotes to not answer any questions and that is extremely frustrating for people wanting to know actual information. But I didn't see a guy being completely condescending / arrogant etc. as others did. I saw a guy using what can actually be a very effective negotiating technique - the whole 'hey, if it can't work because your view is very different from mine then that's fine.'

Coupled with the earlier commitment to carry on in Calgary as long as possible - just not pursuing a new arena - can go a long way to disarming someone like the mayor from suggesting the owners are being infinitely unreasonable.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Did you read the quoted post. He said ask them how quick it happened. And the answer was very slowly.

Ah, okay. The question I guess is when was the seed planted and what caused the idea to germinate? The outcome, regardless of speed is disastrous.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

I'm genuinely asking, but what does that mean exactly.

Exactly what it sounds like. Property tax exists on commercial property as well as your residence. And not just for commercial property owners, for lessees under a triple net lease.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

He doesn't want to answer genuinely and wants to let you know he owns another property in Calgary which he knows isn't helpful to your question.

Sorry, I was away from the net for a few hours. Does my answer satisfy you? How is not a genuine answer?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by MBates

If the answer is - nobody, the city would have to build at 100% their cost, then in that context, the current city proposal is as unfair to the Flames as King says it is...is it not?

In this world the city would get to keep 100% of the revenue, so it's not as unfair as he says, no.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Agree 100%. The only reason the Flames feel like they can make such bombastic, unrealistic requests and expect the citizens to lap it up, is because they're well aware of how favourable the market is for them here.

I didn't buy what King was selling.

King says the ticket surcharge is their revenue and shouldn't be a part of the equation/negotiation

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Was it the part where land shouldn't be counted and the inane rambling when asked if they need money from the city that doesn't get paid back?

I can see his point on the land. If it remains their land, which appears to be the case, how is it a contribution? As for his long winded rambling answer, I was more talking about his statement. But yeah, he should have been direct and said, yes, we were hoping the city would actually participate in a non-lending sense.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Dion

I didn't buy what King was selling.

King says the ticket surcharge is their revenue and shouldn't be a part of the equation/negotiation

Think he more said it was a Flames contribution. That depends entirely on whether the ticket price goes up of course, which we all expect it will. In that case, it's a contribution from neither. If they didn't raise prices, they'd be supplying the funds because they'd be taking less profit. Or, I suppose it could be somewhere in the middle.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I can see his point on the land. If it remains their land, which appears to be the case, how is it a contribution? As for his long winded rambling answer, I was more talking about his statement. But yeah, he should have been direct and said, yes, we were hoping the city would actually participate in a non-lending sense.

Without the land the Flames would have to purchse some for themselves. To me that's a savings for the Flames and a contribution.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Dion

Without the land the Flames would have to purchse some for themselves. To me that's a savings for the Flames and a contribution.

Except then they'd own the asset (the land), so it's a wash. In this case, they save money, but they don't own any land.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Think he more said it was a Flames contribution. That depends entirely on whether the ticket price goes up of course, which we all expect it will. In that case, it's a contribution from neither. If they didn't raise prices, they'd be supplying the funds because they'd be taking less profit. Or, I suppose it could be somewhere in the middle.

I see it as a spin on the part of King and the ownership group. If the tax is above and beyond the ticket price it could be argued that the fans are making the contribution. Or have the Flames always had a ticket surcharge hidden in the price of a ticket. I'm torn on this.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except then they'd own the asset (the land), so it's a wash. In this case, they save money, but they don't own any land.

I would assume that any savings would benefit the ownership group. They'd take the land and by their own admission/wants/needs, would not pay any property taxes. At the same time the land that is offered up to the Flames could be sold to to a developer who would pay those taxes. City loses on this.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by GGG

The Chargers have had a consistent negotiation with real proposals stating in 2009 with talk starting in 2003.

Oakland started talking in 2009 and had real noegotiations in 2012.

I agree the Flames will explore all avenues and all solutions before they would move and hopefully they don't.


They both moved in 2017. So it seems like we shouldn't panic until at least 2020 and the Seattle arena is hanging over our heads. Plenty of time to wait out the flames and drive the best deal for Calgary.

Oakland started talking with LV loosely in 2015. But when the NFL screwed them in 2016 about LA they quickly turned to LV in 2016 and in less than 6 months
they announced to Oakland a deal had been reached.
The only reason they are not leaving next year and playing at UNLV is they sold out ST this season at The Oc The fans have rallied because they love their Raiders but they hate Mark Davis and the mayor Libby Schaaf for not coming to an agreement.
They will be physically moved by 2020.

As a Raiders fan I thought there is no way in hell the NFL would agree to have a team in LV as they have been dead against it for the gambling reasons and I thought there was no way Oakland would be that team yet it happened and quickly.
Point being anything is possible when a city and a sports franchise ownership can't be reasonable with each other.

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except then they'd own the asset (the land), so it's a wash. In this case, they save money, but they don't own any land.

Except the Flames don't want to own the land or building!

They just want to occupy and receive all benefits, while paying nothing (no property taxes, no profit share, or revenue share of any non-hockey events, etc). Oh, and they want a 9 figure check too, just as a Christmas gift!

You know, kinda like an adult child moving back home to live in their parents basement, and use their parents car, while paying no insurance....but we'll put gas in it, and maybe do an oil change once in a while! It's ok if I base my business out of your basement too right? And deliver pizzas with your car as well?

We're just supposed to be ok with it, cause "their presence enhances our lives"!

[calgarybornnraised]

So "We Calgarians" pay the "Ticket Tax"portion and the "Cities" portion comes from us too?

Then Ken King Says the Flames will be paying for everything because they have to pay a portion back?
All while the owners make money off of the tickets,the concessions,concerts and anything else to do with the new arena.

I'm pretty sure "We Calgarians" are the last thing on either sides minds.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

Except the Flames don't want to own the land or building!

They just want to occupy and receive all benefits, while paying nothing (no property taxes, no profit share, or revenue share of any non-hockey events, etc). Oh, and they want a 9 figure check too, just as a Christmas gift!

You know, kinda like an adult child moving back home to live in their parents basement, and use their parents car, while paying no insurance....but we'll put gas in it, and maybe do an oil change once in a while! It's ok if I base my business out of your basement too right? And deliver pizzas with your car as well?

We're just supposed to be ok with it, cause "their presence enhances our lives"!

That's true that the Flames don't want to own. On the other hand, the City wants to own the land but also get rent and/or property tax. So the City would be having the tax paid on land and a building it owns. Fair enough, but it takes away from it being some donation of land.

And in your analogy, the parents still own the basement and the car. So the use of them is a contribution, but probably worth less than the actual value of ownership.