10-19-2017, 08:47 AM
|
#3621
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
No, that'd be a no. It's not an apt analogy.
|
So the Flames can expect to see a return on their capital investment but that's just doing business.
The city expecting to see a return on their capital investment and is "getting paid back?"
Then what's the ticket tax? Is that not 'getting paid back' either?
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 08:51 AM
|
#3622
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stone hands
if thats the model the flames take, 100% yes
From this thread, i really dont think you grasp that some people genuinely do not care about hockey or the flames. this is a luxury entertainment item people like you and me voluntarily pay for to consume
|
This is the entire negotiation in a nutshell as far as I'm concerned. Arena supporters think it is a privilege for all Calgarians to have a new building in their city and deem the city a dump without it. It would suck to lose the Flames (which I cannot see happening) but Calgary would go on.
This city has borderline catastrophic infrastructure, transit and schooling shortfalls to deal with amongst other things that I'm not willing to kick to the curb in lieu of Murray Edwards new playhouse (and this is coming from a lifelong Flames fan). What do some people expect the vast majority of fringe NHL fans in this city to say to these negotiations?
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
|
|
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-19-2017, 08:56 AM
|
#3623
|
CP Gamemaster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Gary
|
Meanwhile, in Detroit... https://www.nhl.com/video/recap-tbl-...674/c-53563803
You may have noticed lots of empty seats for the Red Wings home games in their brand new arena. Is that what $863 Million ($324 Million of that being Public funding) buys you? Overpriced seats people can't actually afford?
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 09:07 AM
|
#3624
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
So the Flames can expect to see a return on their capital investment but that's just doing business.
The city expecting to see a return on their capital investment and is "getting paid back?"
Then what's the ticket tax? Is that not 'getting paid back' either?
|
I'm unclear why you are arguing the position of the city being paid back for initial capital investment?
That is exactly the position of the city, unless I misunderstand. There will be no capital investment that does not provide directly proportional public good, or is not recouped.
There are saying they want to be paid back their investment.
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 09:08 AM
|
#3625
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
So the Flames can expect to see a return on their capital investment but that's just doing business.
The city expecting to see a return on their capital investment and is "getting paid back?"
Then what's the ticket tax? Is that not 'getting paid back' either?
|
If it's rent/property tax, then it's not a capital investment return. If the Flames lose money does the City get no property tax or rent? Unless a different deal than usual is done, then they do, so it's not a return on capital investment.
The ticket tax is not "getting paid back". It's a surcharge for an express purpose. That can't be considered a return, nor is it a contribution from either party.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-19-2017, 09:10 AM
|
#3626
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
LCA was an Edmonton type of scenario where a chunk of downtown was being rebuilt at the same time. 863mil isn't the cost of the arena alone.
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 09:27 AM
|
#3627
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
I'm unclear why you are arguing the position of the city being paid back for initial capital investment?
That is exactly the position of the city, unless I misunderstand. There will be no capital investment that does not provide directly proportional public good, or is not recouped.
There are saying they want to be paid back their investment.
|
The point is all sides want to be paid back.
Pretending like the Flames don't expect their contribution to be paid back is, to put it bluntly, ####ing ridiculous.
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 09:40 AM
|
#3628
|
I believe in the Jays.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
The point is all sides want to be paid back.
Pretending like the Flames don't expect their contribution to be paid back is, to put it bluntly, ####ing ridiculous.
|
Honestly, I dislike the fact that they've succeeded in getting the word "contribution" used so loosely. The Flames are proposing that they "contribute" $0.00 to the construction of the new arena... it's just at the same time they're proposing that, should the city build a new one, that they pay $100M in lifetime rent for a lifetime lease.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-19-2017, 11:18 AM
|
#3629
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim
Meanwhile, in Detroit... https://www.nhl.com/video/recap-tbl-...674/c-53563803
You may have noticed lots of empty seats for the Red Wings home games in their brand new arena. Is that what $863 Million ($324 Million of that being Public funding) buys you? Overpriced seats people can't actually afford?
|
This is the part that I don't think people are factoring in. This new arena is going to cost the average fan who goes to Flames games a ton of money. Very likely your new seat isn't going to be any bigger or more comfortable than your current seat, very likely you'll end up just as far or further from the action. But you'll pay a ton more per ticket and likely for concessions - in return - you'll get a bigger concourse (so people will go out there more and spend more money).
Unless you hate the Saddledome - as ticket paying fan - this new building is not going to improve anything for you and cost you a ton more money per game.
|
|
|
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
|
1991 Canadian,
Art Vandelay,
badger89,
I-Hate-Hulse,
ken0042,
Sert,
Stillman16,
Suave,
tripin_billie,
woob,
Wormius
|
10-19-2017, 11:31 AM
|
#3630
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
This is the entire negotiation in a nutshell as far as I'm concerned. Arena supporters think it is a privilege for all Calgarians to have a new building in their city and deem the city a dump without it. It would suck to lose the Flames (which I cannot see happening) but Calgary would go on.
This city has borderline catastrophic infrastructure, transit and schooling shortfalls to deal with amongst other things that I'm not willing to kick to the curb in lieu of Murray Edwards new playhouse (and this is coming from a lifelong Flames fan). What do some people expect the vast majority of fringe NHL fans in this city to say to these negotiations?
|
I share your views in the rest of this post, but come on man, that is some serious
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 11:35 AM
|
#3631
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
This is the part that I don't think people are factoring in. This new arena is going to cost the average fan who goes to Flames games a ton of money. Very likely your new seat isn't going to be any bigger or more comfortable than your current seat, very likely you'll end up just as far or further from the action. But you'll pay a ton more per ticket and likely for concessions - in return - you'll get a bigger concourse (so people will go out there more and spend more money).
|
I think the reality is that a new stadium will simply price a lot of existing fans out of the game. It's the new entertainment business model... cater to a smaller, but better-off, audience to be able to extract more profit per seat.
It's just another reason why public money going to sports teams doesn't sit well with me.
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 12:01 PM
|
#3632
|
I believe in the Jays.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
This is the part that I don't think people are factoring in. This new arena is going to cost the average fan who goes to Flames games a ton of money. Very likely your new seat isn't going to be any bigger or more comfortable than your current seat, very likely you'll end up just as far or further from the action. But you'll pay a ton more per ticket and likely for concessions - in return - you'll get a bigger concourse (so people will go out there more and spend more money).
Unless you hate the Saddledome - as ticket paying fan - this new building is not going to improve anything for you and cost you a ton more money per game.
|
I've forgotten... what kind of ticket price increase (percentage relative to the current price) would we expect to see on a new arena?
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 12:29 PM
|
#3633
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
I've forgotten... what kind of ticket price increase (percentage relative to the current price) would we expect to see on a new arena?
|
I think Edmonton went up around 25%?
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 01:10 PM
|
#3634
|
I believe in the Jays.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I think Edmonton went up around 25%?
|
Did the concessions go up by a similar percentage (if that's the right amount... I vaguely recall seeing 40% but don't remember for certain)?
Last edited by Parallex; 10-19-2017 at 01:15 PM.
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 01:53 PM
|
#3636
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbob
|
Not just a new rink - you also get to see McDavid in the new arena!!
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 01:56 PM
|
#3637
|
I believe in the Jays.
|
Then I don't see why the ticket tax is being set so low. Edmonton's ticket tax is at 7% so if the city were to set it at say 15% the Flames should still be drawing more revenue on just ticket sales then they otherwise would at the 'Dome along with making more from concessions (assuming a price bump there as well).
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 02:52 PM
|
#3638
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
Then I don't see why the ticket tax is being set so low. Edmonton's ticket tax is at 7% so if the city were to set it at say 15% the Flames should still be drawing more revenue on just ticket sales then they otherwise would at the 'Dome along with making more from concessions (assuming a price bump there as well).
|
If the two sides actually negotiated you might get there. But so far I don't consider what's happened to far to be any kind of negotiation - just an exchange of positions and a meeting where they sniped at each other, with no real back and forth discussions.
|
|
|
10-19-2017, 03:21 PM
|
#3639
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lethbridge
|
Apparantly the Canadian Bar Association is putting on an event with Ken King to offer tips and tricks in effective negotiation.
I want to know how he negotiated himself from a popular member of the community to someone who many Flames fans wouldn't help if he fell into a well.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to ToraToraTora For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-19-2017, 03:25 PM
|
#3640
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToraToraTora
Apparantly the Canadian Bar Association is putting on an event with Ken King to offer tips and tricks in effective negotiation.
I want to know how he negotiated himself from a popular member of the community to someone who many Flames fans wouldn't help if he fell into a well.
|
I'd help him out of the well, I just don't want to have to do 120% of the work to get him out.
__________________
Death by 4th round picks.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to thymebalm For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 AM.
|
|