Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-13-2017, 07:48 PM   #221
tvp2003
Franchise Player
 
tvp2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demzy84 View Post
Calgary Operating income - $18M (EBITDA)
Oh great. Somebody let in the advanced stat guys.

Bring on the HERO charts
tvp2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tvp2003 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 07:56 PM   #222
Demzy84
Draft Pick
 
Demzy84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Calgary
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvp2003 View Post
Oh great. Somebody let in the advanced stat guys.

Bring on the HERO charts
Hahaha, just thought I'd include the fine print that Forbes had on their site
Demzy84 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:13 PM   #223
MisterJoji
First Line Centre
 
MisterJoji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The toilet of Alberta : Edmonton
Exp:
Default

I haven't waded through every post in both threads so don't know if this has been touched on but could the city offer up a scenario where they make the same percentage in revenue generated by the new facility as the cost they're willing to commit? I.E. City puts up 33% of the project cost (not a loan) but then get 33% of all revenue generated by the new arena.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
MisterJoji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:27 PM   #224
calf
broke the first rule
 
calf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
I haven't waded through every post in both threads so don't know if this has been touched on but could the city offer up a scenario where they make the same percentage in revenue generated by the new facility as the cost they're willing to commit? I.E. City puts up 33% of the project cost (not a loan) but then get 33% of all revenue generated by the new arena.
It's possible but a few things would have to be negotiated, which is really what this standstill comes down to.

First, it would have to be earnings, not revenues (account for operating expenses, interest, taxes, etc).

Second, whoever operates/manages the facility won't do so for free. That fee has to be high enough to make the effort worthwhile. It also has to be low enough to not cut into the 'silent partners' share of the profits too much. And the formula has to be agreed on. Flat amount + inflation each year? Thats not lucrative enough. . A cut of concessions, parking, advertising? Determining that share is tough but possible, but can fluctuate each year too. Or a hybrid of both. But the Flames will want to keep it all, but the City wants a fair share for what they invest, even if they don't operate it.
calf is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to calf For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 09:02 PM   #225
GioforPM
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer2 View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbar...of_RJR_Nabisco

A great book describing one of the largest deals ever made.
Well, sure details can come out if people breach confidences. But you were, I thought, asking that the details of offers come out now, before a deal is done. I would sure not want to negotiate in public like that. I can't think of much good that comes out of that. It becomes a PR game and not a business deal. Participants try harder to spin than to bargain.
GioforPM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 09:13 PM   #226
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
I haven't waded through every post in both threads so don't know if this has been touched on but could the city offer up a scenario where they make the same percentage in revenue generated by the new facility as the cost they're willing to commit? I.E. City puts up 33% of the project cost (not a loan) but then get 33% of all revenue generated by the new arena.
I doubt the Flames would be on board for that anyway, but I don't really want the city getting into the arena business.
__________________
If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 09:30 PM   #227
bob-loblaw
Powerplay Quarterback
 
bob-loblaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I'm looking forward to hearing what the Flames proposed. I imagine it's a copy of the Katz deal.
bob-loblaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 10:16 PM   #228
Snuffleupagus
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Snuffleupagus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo View Post
Thought I was saying the same thing ... 2/3 on owners and fans

1/3 + 1/3
Owners won't pay much if any in the end, In Edmonton the city is suppose to get some of their money back from 9.5% of ticket sales but (drumroll...) the ticket prices went up anywhere between 15% and 60%

In the end Katz not only won't pay a dime in rent he'll make a huge profit
Snuffleupagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 10:24 PM   #229
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus View Post
Owners won't pay much if any in the end, In Edmonton the city is suppose to get some of their money back from 9.5% of ticket sales but (drumroll...) the ticket prices went up anywhere between 15% and 60%

In the end Katz not only won't pay a dime in rent he'll make a huge profit
Well yah. The whole reason for a new arena is to remove the cheap seats, add more seats you can charge more money for, add more luxery seats, and raise all ticket prices.
Weitz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 12:11 AM   #230
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo View Post
I just suggested that the city has clearly defined gains in this that makes it less simple.

They want a building down town.
They have an arena featured in their East Village plan.
They have an olympic bid that features a new building and proximity to the old one for security cost savings.
But if the things the city wants are the best choice the Flames have anyways, then from their perspective there's no need to pay the Flames to do what they'd be doing anyways. And actually, if you compare this plan to CalgaryNext, it seems the city actually will get more of what it wants by taking money off the table. Furthermore, because the Flames are dependent on the city for supporting infrastructure, and subject to the city's zoning regulations, the city has the means to influence the project without paying to do so.

If the Flames had a business case for Balzac that was better than the one for Victoria Park, then you might see the city needing to make a contribution that tips the balance.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 12:15 AM   #231
GioforPM
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
The city just voted to disclose the negotiations is I think what he is referring to.
That's amazing. I get they want to gain support, but who would ever negotiate with them in the future?
GioforPM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 12:38 AM   #232
Kjesse
First Line Centre
formerly Delgar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

Bingo, I don't think I can accept the approach even though I agree EBITDA is needed to compare to top line revenue.

Only because the approach suggests private owners in Vancouver sunk 200 million with full knowledge of doing so. Doesn't there have to be another explanation? Are they true philanthropists?

Also, isn't Ottawa privately funded? By your calculation, over $400 million. Who spends money on that? It doesn't pass the smell test. There has to be more to explain the figures.

One reason I used top line figures is, that's probably the most reliable estimation Forbes can obtain. Although its interesting they claim EBITDA knowledge. And I would agree in general that EBITDA is as important to the equation as the top line, or even moreso, as it informs real profit or losses.
Kjesse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 12:40 AM   #233
Kjesse
First Line Centre
formerly Delgar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM View Post
That's amazing. I get they want to gain support, but who would ever negotiate with them in the future?
Yeah, kind of a big problem. If they're only disclosing their OWN offer, that's one thing. They had better not be disclosing details of the Flames' offer. So much for negotiating without the media or public involved.

That being said, King kind of invited it, as did Nenshi, by Nenshi first making a publicity release. With Jon Cornish of all people also.

Nenshi says, "we're going to do this". Flames say, "Really, you agree with us". Nenshi's staff says "No". So Flames respond, what they are proposing is not acceptable to us and is being used for political purposes.

This has some parallels to the Nenshi defamation debacle with the home builder.

Last edited by Kjesse; 09-14-2017 at 12:45 AM.
Kjesse is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
Old 09-14-2017, 01:29 AM   #234
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM View Post
That's amazing. I get they want to gain support, but who would ever negotiate with them in the future?
I'm sure you could have non disclosure agreements that are beyond councils ability to disclose them. It's definately wierd. But King not stating the flames offer andvtge city ready to state theirs on the surface leads me to believe the city is more palatable.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 01:39 AM   #235
Conroy4Mayor
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: PL13
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustygoon View Post
Why would CSEC go for repaying the 1/3 to city? They can go get a loan for that 1/3 in a heart beat and then own the whole damn thing.
CSEC doesn't want to own the arena because they'd have to pay property tax, which for commercial buildings runs about 2% of their assessed value.

So we're talking $8 million a year. This is the deal breaker.

CSEC wants the City to own the arena so they save the property tax. The City wants someone to pay the property tax to recoup the $200 million gift to the team, plus the land value, plus any infrastructure improvements.
Conroy4Mayor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Conroy4Mayor For This Useful Post:
14
Old 09-14-2017, 01:49 AM   #236
Flame On
Franchise Player
 
Flame On's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Exp:
Default

So let me get this straight.
The 1/3 that the city is going to come to the table with has to be paid back to them by the Flames, and for this they get a new stadium in their city which they'll shove all over their tourism Calgary videos and point to as a visual landmark.

They already want a stadium, Flames or not, and even include it in their East village Entertainment plans. (you know cause it's nice to not have a Stadium that can't actually entertain due to age and design layout). Plus it's part of their legacy building Olympic Bid plans.

Not to mention any jobs, construction jobs, revenues from the obvious bars and lrt fairs and non-flames related events that will bring people to town and hotels + whatever other intangibles their are annnnnnnd the Flames will pay all the upkeep and maintenance costs. And all eventually, for nothing after the loan is repaid!?
__________________
Canuck insulter and proud of it.
Reason:
-------
Insulted Other Member(s)
Don't insult other members; even if they are Canuck fans.
Flame On is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 01:56 AM   #237
kunkstyle
Franchise Player
 
kunkstyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame On View Post
Not to mention any jobs, construction jobs, revenues from the obvious bars and lrt fairs and non-flames related events that will bring people to town and hotels + whatever other intangibles their are annnnnnnd the Flames will pay all the upkeep and maintenance costs. And all eventually, for nothing after the loan is repaid!?
- don't think they'll have too many more ticket checkers or beer vendors because of a new arena
- construction jobs are good, but will last, what? Two years?
- already discussed, that's a finite pool
- I don't know what an LRT fair is.
- Yes, the 6 concerts a year we don't get that every one is tripping over themselves to earn that lost revenue over. Hotels are booked here far more often for Stampede, the Oil Expo, and other random conferences than the Flames will provide.
kunkstyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 02:50 AM   #238
Robbob
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Lrt fare I think. If I had to guess at least 6000 people take transit to the game. Probably adds close to 50k per game/event for calgary transit. Maybe add a little more to the coffers for cpa.

I also think you underestimate the amount of rooms one nhl game brings in. CBA mandates vets get their own room, so team plus coaches, plus support staff, plus traveling media, plus scouts, plus traveling fans adds up when you multiply by at least 50 plus days.
Robbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 03:17 AM   #239
kunkstyle
Franchise Player
 
kunkstyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default Calgary arena deal scuttled over tax exemption, recouping city investment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbob View Post
Lrt fare I think. If I had to guess at least 6000 people take transit to the game. Probably adds close to 50k per game/event for calgary transit.
6000 people taking transit both ways per game is $37,800. If absolutely none of those same users have a monthly pass or ticket books. So maybe 30k?

Hotel rooms for 3/4 of an NHL team and support staff are... 28?

Travelling media that would stay here is... 6?

So for 1.5/10 of the year we have less than 40 extra hotel rooms booked, plus the odd out of town fan.

And it's not 50+ days. Since you can barely convince STH to go to pre-season games, we sure aren't getting tourism dollars here in October.

Free park passes bring more tourism dollars to Calgary than the Flames do.

Last edited by kunkstyle; 09-14-2017 at 03:26 AM.
kunkstyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 03:29 AM   #240
Bill Bumface
My face is a bum!
 
Bill Bumface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame On View Post
So let me get this straight.
The 1/3 that the city is going to come to the table with has to be paid back to them by the Flames, and for this they get a new stadium in their city which they'll shove all over their tourism Calgary videos and point to as a visual landmark.
Like the Bow? Or the Calgary Tower in its day? What did the city pay for those?
Bill Bumface is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:45 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016