[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Well, do tell. Do tell. What is central to civic pride? What makes Calgary so much different from other cities that makes the heart of all Calgarians swell to five times larger beyond the tribalism associated with competition?

Do you think the people of Detroit overcome their crumbling city and massive crime problem because of the pride they have of new facilities and competing in all four big North American sports leagues? I get you hate Calgary, but it's part of your hatred of the city that you think the Flames are the be all and end all. Imagine thinking one of the most mediocre franchises in world sport is the driver of civic pride. Interesting theory, at least.

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by Wormius

… or the CSEC could get a loan and pay it back with money from ticket sales and tv deals.

People just really seem to want to give their own money to this building for no benefit, just trying to give them a way to

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Good news that the Flames are going nowhere and this is a negotiation tactic then eh?

I agree with you. Just commented with the inference to Calgary being a “viable” expansion candidate. Quebec City would jump at an expansion opportunity with public money of course.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Tell me, what in your post history remotely shows you as a Flames fan. I see a poster that only posts when they can shake up the nest about something or trying to bait someone. Yes, you are a Flames fan yet you want to see the team move, makes perfect sense. I think the board has seen your posts long enough to know what you are about.

I don't want to see the team move. I just don't want tax dollars going to their asset value. This is a really easy concept to understand, why are you struggling with it?

Oh, is it because you're actually the dramatic one so you're trying to turn every level of opposition to this to 11?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

People don't realize that an NHL team in your city is not a god given right even in Canada. You need an owner that's going to invest his own money in it and one that's not a flake like what's been going on in Arizona and some other markets. This isn't the NFL where owners are making sizeable profits. The TV deals are weak and half the league plays in half empty arenas. This isn't about the rich getting richer. It's about a partnership to keep the NHL in the city of Calgary.

So I spoke with a few of my contacts at the Stampede this morning and their take is that this has many layers, all to do with uncertainty and the viability of the business model going forward. The new restrictions imposed, 50% capacity, no food/beverage revenues, etc. are a very big deal. The team is not discounting the possibility that restrictions could be in place for a long time. And that season ticket holders may not renew post-pandemic.

The Stampede folks are quite shaken and when I flippantly said well the Flames would never leave the City, their reaction was don't be so sure.

Sad times.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by taffeyb

I agree with you. Just commented with the inference to Calgary being a “viable” expansion candidate. Quebec City would jump at an expansion opportunity with public money of course.

Calgary would be a relocation candidate. And honestly relocation might just best for the city to maybe, finally, get decent ownership.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Cappy

The self-declared libertarians love spending money on private sport venues...

I'm starting to think libertarianism is just the ideology of the selfish

Ayn Rand would agree with that statement.

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

So I spoke with a few of my contacts at the Stampede this morning and their take is that this has many layers, all to do with uncertainty and the viability of the business model going forward. The new restrictions imposed, 50% capacity, no food/beverage revenues, etc. are a very big deal. The team is not discounting the possibility that restrictions could be in place for a long time. And that season ticket holders may not renew post-pandemic.

The Stampede folks are quite shaken and when I flippantly said well the Flames would never leave the City, their reaction was don't be so sure.

Sad times.

Didn’t the Flames become a “have not” team a couple of years ago where they received funds from the league? Not as profitable as people think…

The Stampede’s plan also require more dates where people are drawn into the area. Concerts keep bypassing Calgary and if CSEC moves….

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Calgary would be a relocation candidate. And honestly relocation might just best for the city to maybe, finally, get decent ownership.

This is so stupid.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by taffeyb

Didn’t the Flames become a “have not” team a couple of years ago where they received funds from the league? Not as profitable as people think…

That was 20+ years ago.

[shogged]

Day two of visceral reactions to this news lol

[Northendzone]

Would be a sad statement on the game if the flames left calgary and the coyotes remained in phoenix

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

That was 20+ years ago.

No. Definitely recent. I’ll have to search that out…

Edit. From 2017….Ken King (rip!)

He said the team used to be among the top 10 revenue-earning teams in the NHL who, under the league’s revenue-sharing agreement, contribute funds to the lower-earning teams.

“We have now crossed the line. We are now receivers. We’ll get a cheque this year. Isn’t that ridiculous, in this beautiful market?” he said.

“And I can say, sadly, that we have crossed one of the remedies off the list, and that is the new facility.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I get you hate Calgary, but it's part of your hatred of the city that you think the Flames are the be all and end all. Imagine thinking one of the most mediocre franchises in world sport is the driver of civic pride. Interesting theory, at least.

Barking up the wrong tree here friend. I love Calgary and will always be proud of being born and raised there, and living longer in Calgary than most of the posters on this board have been alive. I may have left Calgary, but I will always have a very soft spot for the Calgary I knew and love. The current city isn't the same as I remember, but it is still a city I point to with pride. Even though moving away, I still am attached and invested in Calgary. I recognize what Calgary is and how it compares elsewhere. Without the Flames, Calgary will be recognized by outside observers for only the Stampede and being the gateway to the Canadian Rockies. Just like without the Jets, Winnipeg was recognized as being... a desolate outpost in the middle of no where?

Again, since I'm so detached from Calgary, what exactly is that instills this incredible civic pride? What would bring people together the same way that the tribalism of sports does?

[SuperMatt18]

Yeah I'm not a fan of Murray Edwards the person...but all this talk of better ownership, and finally having a good ownership group is quite ridiculous.

These guys stepped up to save this team when nobody else wanted to, continue to spend to the cap every season, try to put a good product on the ice, and actually were willing to put more of their own money into a rink than Katz and the ownership group in Edmonton.

Really in the end I think the deal the city came to with the Flames was quite fair, especially with the Flames covering cost overruns.

Trying to add these additional costs is a bad move by the city IMO. They had a deal that was fair for both sides, and won the battle in July when the Flames agreed to cover cost overruns. This is the city getting greedy at this point IMO.

[Toonage]

Look on the bright side. If the Flames move to Kansas City, Tkachuk will be closer to home and sign that 8 year extension!

[Wormius]

We have a beautiful city, why do you need tribalism?

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

So because the majority owner of CSEC is a billionaire, he needs to be shaken down at every turn and pay for whatever garbage the planning commission at the direction of the mayor and city council insists?

Shaken down?

Dear god

Where do I sign up to have the city of Kelowna pay for half of my Warehouse building, I'm tired of being shaken down

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Calgary would be a relocation candidate. And honestly relocation might just best for the city to maybe, finally, get decent ownership.

You mean as opposed to the current ownership, who have shown that they're willing to spend to the cap every year for the team to be competitive? Guess most people just conveniently forget the 90's and early 2000's, when Flames were pretty much a glorified farm team for big market teams. This from a city of about 1M population. I don't know what else people want from owners.

And for the people who talk about Flames leaving as no big deal. Ask the people of Quebec how awesome it is to not have a team? The basically fully funded a $400M with public money to build an arena, as opposed to having a partner willing to put in 50%+.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by rohara66

Every developer in the city knows that the city pulls this stunt all the time. City asks for stupid #### and forces developers to pay for it. Except in this case there is a deal in place and the city has to pay for it and wants help.

That is exactly it. I'm in development and the city is NOTORIOUS for this. Even if CSEC said no, they would have threatened to not approve the permits. This is the definition of scope creep, typical of the city.

To put into perspective, I have also developed in Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks, Edmonton, Leduc,Winnipeg, and Regina and Calgary is by far the worst.