[News] Seattle announces $660 mil private arena deal. NHL team to be announced in July?

[saXon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Another hint that a Seattle expansion bid is a "go."

https://calgarysun.com/sports/hockey...box=1536278672

Not clicking on that classless rag, sorry

[FlameX]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

At this point, we don't actually know what the Flames want. CalgaryNext is dead, so there's no point going back to it. Haven't heard yet what they would be looking for for an NHL arena only proposal.

I'm pretty sure they know how important the Flames are to the city so they probably will actually do something this year instead of acting like a bunch of kids. I do agree on CalgaryNext being dead but I could see them agreeing on a deal sometime soon if they don't become ######s.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by saXon

Not clicking on that classless rag, sorry

Sounds personal

or you just work for the other rag that King built

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by FlameX

I'm pretty sure they know how important the Flames are to the city so they probably will actually do something this year instead of acting like a bunch of kids. I do agree on CalgaryNext being dead but I could see them agreeing on a deal sometime soon if they don't become ******.

Don’t use that word please.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Don’t use that word please.

"CalgaryNext"?

yeah. it is a pretty dirty word.
I don't like it either.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

"CalgaryNext"?

yeah. it is a pretty dirty word.
I don't like it either.

No. I was politely asking someone to not use the "R" word, as it is a word we should not be using. It has huge negative connotations to many people.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by saXon

Not clicking on that classless rag, sorry

Nobody cares.

[FlameX]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Don’t use that word please.

Sorry I did not realize it was a word you shouldn't be using on this site. I apologize

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by getbak

I came up with this alignment a few months ago...



Figuring out the best way to split up the eastern teams is harder than the western. There's no perfect answer that will make everyone happy.

An expanded playoff has been talked about for a long time now. Expanding to 32 teams, and having 24 teams qualify for the playoffs seems like a good way to do it (and it's about the same percentage of teams making the playoffs as it was when 16 of 21 teams made it). Personally, I don't like series that are less than a best-of-5, but a best-of-3 could also work for the first round (a one-game play-in seems like a waste).

They could do an accelerated schedule in the first round (2 - travel - 2 - travel - 1 -- done in 7 days / a best-of-three could be done in 4 days) and start the second round once the match-ups are set, even if all the first round series aren't done. The extra rest is just a perk of winning your Group.

If they limit the number of breaks in the other rounds too, the season won't need to end any later than it already does.

I would put BOS, BUF, MTL, and OTT

TOR, PIT, CBJ, DET

PHI, NYR, NYI, NJ

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by FlameX

Sorry I did not realize it was a word you shouldn't be using on this site. I apologize

Much appreciated.
It is just a word that really should be removed from all speech and writing.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No. I was politely asking someone to not use the "R" word, as it is a word we should not be using. It has huge negative connotations to many people.

I know.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Much appreciated.
It is just a word that really should be removed from all speech and writing.

Well... there are proper uses of the word... it means to "obstruct" and when used in that context, it has a place in the English language. Example: Fire ######ant. Because the word was used as a slang phrase in a disparaging and offensive way in the past (and we should keep it that way - in the past - I AGREE) - it doesn't make the word invalid. I did cringe when I read that post like you did- I didn't like the way it was used here also.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I know.

As do I.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

Well... there are proper uses of the word... it means to "obstruct" and when used in that context, it has a place in the English language. Example: Fire ######ant.

Another example: Engine ######er brake.

As a writer, I'm not in favour of banning words. I am even less in favour of giving some Yahoo the power to ban words. Such power is never used well, and the people who most want to hold it are least fit to be trusted with it.

[driveway]

Seattle City Coucil votes to approve the plan:

https://deadspin.com/seattle-somehow...bly-1829284068

The stadium deal is distinguished from other recent stadium projects in that demolition and construction costs will be paid for by investors, and not by taxpayers. The Seattle Arena Company will reportedly spend $700 million demolishing the existing arena and building a new one on the same site, and will reportedly pay the city about $5 million a year for the land, an arrangement that one Seattle councilperson described as “a big deal.”
...
Given how deeply ####ed stadium deals have become, that Seattle was able to hammer out a deal that spares taxpayers the kind of insane longterm debt inflicted on, say, Cobb County, Georgia, feels like a major accomplishment, even while detractors will rightly point out that capping the city’s share of ticket tax revenue and exempting the ownership group from property tax is tantamount to providing an expensive public subsidy.

I feel like the Seattle deal is pretty seriously undercutting any argument Flames ownership has regarding the City of Calgary's 'need' to share in demolition and/or construction costs.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by driveway

Seattle City Coucil votes to approve the plan:

https://deadspin.com/seattle-somehow...bly-1829284068



I feel like the Seattle deal is pretty seriously undercutting any argument Flames ownership has regarding the City of Calgary's 'need' to share in demolition and/or construction costs.

The Seattle metropolitan area houses 3.5 times the population of Calgary. The stadium will eventually host both a hockey team and a basketball team. The arena will have a ticket, concession, parking, and advertising revenue 300 days a year. In spite of this, the Seattle Arena Company will pay only $5 million a year for the property and will be exempted from property tax.

A new arena in Calgary will generate significant revenue about 150 days a year. City council has offered CSEC a loan, to be paid back to the city through a combination of ticket and property taxes. So yes, what Calgary is offering (loan, to be paid back through taxes) is in a way comparable to what Seattle gave the SAC (no loan, but no taxes), but for a facility that will earn half the revenue. From the investors' point of view, how are these two situations comparable?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

The Seattle metropolitan area houses 3.5 times the population of Calgary. The stadium will eventually host both a hockey team and a basketball team. The arena will have a ticket, concession, parking, and advertising revenue 300 days a year. In spite of this, the Seattle Arena Company will pay only $5 million a year for the property and will be exempted from property tax.

A new arena in Calgary will generate significant revenue about 150 days a year. City council has offered CSEC a loan, to be paid back to the city through a combination of ticket and property taxes. So yes, what Calgary is offering (loan, to be paid back through taxes) is in a way comparable to what Seattle gave the SAC (no loan, but no taxes), but for a facility that will earn half the revenue. From the investors' point of view, how are these two situations comparable?

It is an interesting method of taking an upfront cash hit for a long term sweetheart deal; "Hey we will pay for the building but we want the property free and tax exempt." I assume the annual property taxes on a large arena and parking lot would be quite large so to not have to pay that over say a 25 year life of the facility could be an attractive alternative method of getting these new buildings done without the city having to put up large sums of cash up front.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

From the investors' point of view, how are these two situations comparable?

They aren't, really (from either investor or public side). In one situation, a group already owns their $500M asset and already has a building to play in, and already generates 150 nights of revenue.

The other situation hasn't yet used $500M+ to acquire an asset that will generate brand new revenue.