Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Here's a legit question. Why don't they just add a 50 dollar ticket tax to every event that comes to the Saddledome to help pay for it? Then it's an actual USER PAY system.

really? $50 per event, on top of ticket prices and the other fees?
that's one heck of a lot of money to add to the price of a ticket.

way too much. bad idea.

you'll also have every concert skip the new flames arena and go to Edmonton because big name stars are not going to let you add $50 per ticket where none is going to them. musicians now make most of their money by touring.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

really? $50 per event, on top of ticket prices and the other fees?
that's one heck of a lot of money to add to the price of a ticket.

way too much. bad idea.

you'll also have every concert skip the new flames arena and go to Edmonton because big name stars are not going to let you add $50 per ticket where none is going to them. musicians now make most of their money by touring.

So everyone in calgary should subsidize that for the people who go? We should all pay extra property tax so my concert tickets are cheaper? That seems like horse####.

Good point on the second.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GGG

That's a charitable way of putting the cities offer and isn't really factual because it does not consider the current situation of the Flames and implies the city be giving the Flames new money.

A better way to describe the city offer is that the city will continue to subsidize the Flames by the same amount they currently and are willing to advance this subsody into subsidy a lump sum payment to assist with the capita costs of building an arena.

The city did not put any new money on the table.

Right. The City has generously been sharing the benefits of having an arena primarily paid for by the federal and provincial governments with the Flames. Essentially the arena fairy dropped a free arena in Calgary and the City let the Dlames use it for free. The arena fairy has gone awol. Yet the Flames want a new arena. The City has, I think quite generously, offered to step in for the arena fairy and offer the same sort of subsidy. No one has been able to really articulate why the City should do more than this. Why isn't the arena fairy good enough for the Flames?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

So everyone in calgary should subsidize that for the people who go? We should all pay extra property tax so my concert tickets are cheaper? That seems like horse####.

Good point on the second.

jus think $50 is too much. there will be enough traffic in a new rink to have it at $10 a ticket.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Here's a legit question. Why don't they just add a 50 dollar ticket tax to every event that comes to the Saddledome to help pay for it? Then it's an actual USER PAY system.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not a STH.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not a STH.

I've had an 8 game pack since 2002-2003 and I attend about 15 games a year a couple of hitmen games and probably 10-15 concerts.

Doesn't matter if I'm a season ticket holder or not. You are asking the general public to subsidize your hobby because you find the true cost too expensive. This is a complete bust in the free market. If adding 50 bucks a ticket is too much then the cost of tickets should probably go down.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

So everyone in calgary should subsidize that for the people who go? We should all pay extra property tax so my concert tickets are cheaper? That seems like horse####.

Good point on the second.

You are suggesting STHers pay for the entire thing, which is far more ridiculous.

Why do you care that there is an arena if you don't go to games? The answer, I would assume, is because you are a fan and enjoy watching the games and cheering for the team.

Do you not think there is any value in that? Do you not think you (and all fans) should contribute something?

I ran some numbers at one point - I can't remember the amount of city contribution I was assuming - but it worked out to about $15 per person per year.

I that unreasonable? Should STHers pay $50 per night, every game and event for 20 years, while everyone else pays nothing?

Edit: wrote this before I saw your last post. It isn't a question of whether that $50 is affordable to STHers or not, it's a question of what is fair and reasonable.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Are they not putting up the cost of demolition and about 150 million of cash?

Even though the Flames are asking for the demo, it's arguable that the demo cost would be an inevitable expense for the City. It's their property and would be pretty much useless anyway. They can benefit with a demo and construction of something more useful. The $150M is part of the amounts described above.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You are suggesting STHers pay for the entire thing, which is far more ridiculous.

Why do you care that there is an arena if you don't go to games? The answer, I would assume, is because you are a fan and enjoy watching the games and cheering for the team.

Do you not think there is any value in that? Do you not think you (and all fans) should contribute something?

I ran some numbers at one point - I can't remember the amount of city contribution I was assuming - but it worked out to about $15 per person per year.

I that unreasonable? Should STHers pay $50 per night, every game and event for 20 years, while everyone else pays nothing?

Edit: wrote this before I saw your last post. It isn't a question of whether that $50 is affordable to STHers or not, it's a question of what is fair and reasonable.

I think I'm simply pointing out that the entire system is busted. Yes, i get enjoyment from watching it on TV, so then maybe I should be charged more for my cable. The average flames game on Snet gets 150,000 viewers. Why are the other million calgarians paying for a rink for a team they don't cheer for.

Anyway, I guess it's not going to change, but it probably should. The salaries, profits, TV Contracts etc... are all inflated because of government subsidy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think I'm simply pointing out that the entire system is busted. Yes, i get enjoyment from watching it on TV, so then maybe I should be charged more for my cable. The average flames game on Snet gets 150,000 viewers. Why are the other million calgarians paying for a rink for a team they don't cheer for.

Anyway, I guess it's not going to change, but it probably should. The salaries, profits, TV Contracts etc... are all inflated because of government subsidy.

Yes, I think most of us agree more or less that the whole system is broken.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Quebec was moved almost literally overnight the moment it stopped making money, the fact it was in the black the entire time leading up to that moment meant nothing. The rhetoric that Calgary's ownership has been using sounds very familiar and leads me to believe they're contemplating a similar type of exit plan.

It wasn't that Quebec stopped making money....it was because the city wouldn't budge on the arena deal.
http://montrealgazette.com/sports/ho...turn-to-quebec

Aubut had finally run into a financial brick wall two decades ago, unable to rally support for a new arena to replace the Nordiques’ too-small, almost antiquated Le Colisée.

Then-Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau said at the time that he wanted the Nordiques to remain in Quebec, “but not at any price.”

In the end, after three years of fruitless fighting for a new building, Aubut saw no future for the team and sold it to a consortium that moved the team to Colorado.

Originally Posted by stone hands

They're also the only other team to move period in the last 20 years besides the whalers.

Which the Whalers did so because the Governor wouldn't support the building of a new arena.

Another controversy gripped the team in 1997. The Whalers wanted a new arena in Hartford, but many people did not support using taxpayer dollars to fund the new project. Negotiations between Karmanos and Governor Rowland over the $147.5 million arena eventually fell apart.

The Whalers left Hartford after the 1997 season and headed to North Carolina. With a new name (the Carolina Hurricanes) and a new home, the Whalers were done with Connecticut.

------------------------
The most common reason, pretty much any modern day relocation with the exception of the Thrashers, has been that the arena wasn't paid for (enough) by the government. And it's easy to say that the BoG wouldn't approve a move because Calgary is a good market, but they also have their own interests at stake. A lot of these teams want the government to also pay for their future arena in 10 or 15 years so don't kid yourselves, there's a reason Bettman - the face of the BoG - is so clearly on the Flames side.

[Oling_Roachinen]

And inversely, the reason that the NHL supported the Coyotes staying in Glendale so much was because of the Glendale Arena being subsidized by public money. They wanted to mitigate the perception that they would up and leave any failing franchise even after tax money was put into the arena because they still want other cities to feel comfortable building arenas for NHL teams.

[Table 5]

At the next CBA negotiations, the NHL really needs to link its infrastructure costs to the salary cap. A $70 million cap is not realistic if your revenues can't support the very building you do business out of.

I'm no business surgeon, but if you can't afford rent, you can't afford to pay your employees an exorbitant salary.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GGG

That's a charitable way of putting the cities offer and isn't really factual because it does not consider the current situation of the Flames and implies the city be giving the Flames new money.

A better way to describe the city offer is that the city will continue to subsidize the Flames by the same amount they currently and are willing to advance this subsody into subsidy a lump sum payment to assist with the capita costs of building an arena.

The city did not put any new money on the table.

Right. The City has generously been sharing the benefits of having an arena primarily paid for by the federal and provincial governments with the Flames. Essentially the arena fairy dropped a free arena in Calgary and the City let the Dlames use it for free. The arena fairy has gone awol. Yet the Flames want a new arena. The City has, I think quite generously, offered to step in for the arena fairy and offer the same sort of subsidy. No one has been able to really articulate why the City should do more than this. Why isn't the arena fairy good enough for the Flames?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Table 5

At the next CBA negotiations, the NHL really needs to link its infrastructure costs to the salary cap. A $70 million cap is not realistic if your revenues can't support the very building you do business out of.

I'm no business surgeon, but if you can't afford rent, you can't afford to pay your employees an exorbitant salary.

Absolutely this. Every team contributes to a general fund. They all finance each other's buildings at the appropriate time.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Table 5

At the next CBA negotiations, the NHL really needs to link its infrastructure costs to the salary cap. A $70 million cap is not realistic if your revenues can't support the very building you do business out of.

I'm no business surgeon, but if you can't afford rent, you can't afford to pay your employees an exorbitant salary.

Yup, if you dropped every team's payroll by $20 million (matched to inflation), the players would still be obscenely overpaid, and you'd easily have enough money for every team to build a new arena every 30 years with no public money.

[Demzy84]

Originally Posted by GGG

Isn't it cheaper to buy and move about 5 other teams before Calgary?

Possibly, but depends who is open to being sold in the next few years. Besides, how many chances do you get to move a playoff contending team with a good core to a new city? May be worth it in the end to spend the extra cash.

I just think ownership has stopped dealing for a new arena in Calgary because they intend to just sell the team and move on. Let the arena issue become the new owners problem.

[Demzy84]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The city of calgary suggested a user fee.

1/3 City
1/3 Flames
1/3 users for all events concerts and games

fair right?
Nope. Calgary Flames want more.

Incorrect, the city is not putting 1/3 of the cost to the arena. The money the city is putting in will be paid back.

If city was offering to just pay 1/3 of the cost with no strings attached, this arena deal would be done.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Demzy84

Incorrect, the city is not putting 1/3 of the cost to the arena. The money the city is putting in will be paid back.

If city was offering to just pay 1/3 of the cost with no strings attached, this arena deal would be done.

Question: you think it's fair for the Flames to use the arena without paying rent, or property tax? Because that's what you're viewing as the pay back. Keeping in mind, that Flames take 100% of revenue of what events take place in the arena, aside from possibly Stampede concerts.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Demzy84

Incorrect, the city is not putting 1/3 of the cost to the arena. The money the city is putting in will be paid back.

If city was offering to just pay 1/3 of the cost with no strings attached, this arena deal would be done.

Care to cite that?