Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[_Q_]

I think everyone would just end up following another team if the Flames moved. It's not like NHL hockey will no longer exist to hold us through the dark Canadian winters.

I think it would royally suck to lose the Flames, but life would move on.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I think everyone would just end up following another team if the Flames moved. It's not like NHL hockey will no longer exist to hold us through the dark Canadian winters.

I think it would royally suck to lose the Flames, but life would move on.

I would absolutely not pick a new team. I would be done. it would hurt too much...but who knows. I may have to take a cheese grater to my flames tattoo though.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Society has already said it’s acceptable. If you have ever spent a dime on a pro-sport item or ticket, you have already said that it’s ok for these billionaires to continue to profit at extreme rates via their franchises. To say “No” now is simply
Hypocrisy.

...what? There is absolutely no equivalence between voluntarily paying for entertainment(spending a dime on a pro sports item or ticket) and government subsidizing of a for-profit business. absolutely no hypocrisy here as the two statements arent even remotely related

Out here on the island I see tons of “No LNG” signs for the coastal communities but they all have LNG running to their house. I see this as a similar hypocrisy.

This kind of money from tax payers is going to get gouged by the Municipality, Province and Feds anyway.. to think that if your dollar doesn’t go to the Flames that that’s where it ends. But that’s naive, your dollars are going to be gouged by a tax in some way or another. Perhaps a useless blue ring or a facility that a very small number of the population uses. Someway or another your dollars are going to leave your pocket without you having much of a say in the matter.
Why not have it be for something you claim you love? Like Calgary Flames Hockey?

the difference is i dont have to pay to use public services. i can go to a library, i can drive on roads, i can use bike paths, i can do all of these things without the proceeds going towards a private entity who is also receiving subsidies

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

Ownership will SELL the team to new owners not RELOCATE. Houston/Seattle whoever will gladly pay Flames owners for the franchise, and pay relocation fees (to NHL) to bring NHL to their own markets and fill their newer building for another 45 nights a year.

Flames owners are entitled to sell off their asset. They carried losses for a long time before salary cap etc.

They make way more money in their other businesses. Flames will continue in Calgary as long as the community (including city) supports it. But if there isn't enough support then owners will sell it off. A lot of people think this is a big bluff, but I don't.

Now, does anyone think another ownership group in Calgary would be dumb enough to outbid Seattle/Houston/whoever with a 40 year old Saddledome?
All while the community's most outspoken seem to resent owners/players for being billionaires/millionaires while Calgary's roads are simultaneously in disrepair?

And... .after the NHL is gone the city will still end up needing to spend millions in order to build (and maintain annually) an entertainment centre of some sort for a city of this size.

There is a critical hole in your logic that you think is so sound. The league, as in 31 owners who all want to maximize their bottom line, just like Edwards, will NEVER allow the flames moving.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Parallex

You can't honestly say that you can't see N. Murray Edwards menacingly stroking a Persian Cat from his tax sheltered faux-home/evil lair on the Isle of Man (or wherever).

But I'll grant you the others. They seem like guys who would hate having their names spat in public disgust.

I doubt many people with that much money really cares what the average joe thinks of them.

they live in a different world.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Major Major

There is a critical hole in your logic that you think is so sound. The league, as in 31 owners who all want to maximize their bottom line, just like Edwards, will NEVER allow the flames moving.

I think the only way the ownership group will allow Calgary to move is if they want to use it as an example to warn other cities about what happens when they grow a pair.

The problem for the NHL is that if they ownership group here is forced to build an arena with much less (never mind non-existent) public funding than the norm, every other city that needs an new arena will follow. In the big picture, Calgary may be sacrificed to keep the scam going.

[username]

Originally Posted by Major Major

There is a critical hole in your logic that you think is so sound. The league, as in 31 owners who all want to maximize their bottom line, just like Edwards, will NEVER allow the flames moving.

And why would that be? The Flames are currently a team losing money so why would the other owners NEVER allow the Flames to move?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by username

And why would that be? The Flames are currently a team losing money so why would the other owners NEVER allow the Flames to move?

correction, the flames are not losing money, they just dont make the top 10 in revenue anymore

ken kings statements on equalization payments is a red herring

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by username

And why would that be? The Flames are currently a team losing money so why would the other owners NEVER allow the Flames to move?

This is such a load of BS.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is such a load of BS.

So present a counter argument then. This post is useless and doesn't advance the conversation.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Major Major

There is a critical hole in your logic that you think is so sound. The league, as in 31 owners who all want to maximize their bottom line, just like Edwards, will NEVER allow the flames moving.

Please explain. I am not arguing I am just a firm believer that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour and the owners have green lit several relocations. I think This isn’t just about a team moving this is all the owners making a statement that if the public works will not support arenas in a cost structure they will move to an area that does. It sets a precedent for how they want to run the business going forward and shows that they are in control not the municipality. I would think approving a team like Calgary to move only improves their position in the future when it comes to them needing a new arena.

Again I am not arguing because I am far from an expert in this and I would love to hear why you so strongly think the owners would NEVER allow the team to move so I can be more informed on the subject.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

BoG has to approve the sale which they won't. There are at least five other ownership groups ahead of the Flames in the queue to move.

It's just as easy to say BoG will approve the sale. I think it would be foolish to rely on BoG to force an NHL team to stay in Calgary with Saddledome.

It's not like Calgary is a massive media market.

Ownership will only have to show the BoG that they have exhausted all reasonable efforts to get a building done.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by Major Major

There is a critical hole in your logic that you think is so sound. The league, as in 31 owners who all want to maximize their bottom line, just like Edwards, will NEVER allow the flames moving.

I am not following your "logic" at all.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Please explain. I am not arguing I am just a firm believer that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour and the owners have green lit several relocations. I think This isn’t just about a team moving this is all the owners making a statement that if the public works will not support arenas in a cost structure they will move to an area that does. It sets a precedent for how they want to run the business going forward and shows that they are in control not the municipality. I would think approving a team like Calgary to move only improves their position in the future when it comes to them needing a new arena.

Again I am not arguing because I am far from an expert in this and I would love to hear why you so strongly think the owners would NEVER allow the team to move so I can be more informed on the subject.

The "stick it to municipalities who stand up to the nhl" angle is the only one that actually has any weight. The reason its unlikely that the flames will be sold is because while they arent the rangers, leafs or canadiens in terms of revenue, they at least make money and sell out most games. There is a list of teams that quite literally cost the owners millions of dollars a year because they operate at a loss. There is no sense in putting a team that actually makes money(the flames) at the top of the queue for relocation when there is a list of teams that have very poor public support AND cost you money to run already there for the picking. Relocation needs to be approved by the board - I cant imagine a bunch of successful businessmen folding/relocating a franchise from a known good market that makes money already into an unknown market over relocating a toxic franchise

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Like it or not the minute the city of Edmonton bowed to Katz negotiations between the Flames and Calgary were in big trouble, why on earth would Murray offer a "fair" deal after that robbery 200 miles north?

They're free to go to Edmonton and ask for the same deal. Hell, they're free to go find any other city in the world that will give them the deal they want.

When they find out that deal isn't on the table anywhere, they can come back and get serious.

[karl262]

$50m CAD per year in taxes collected off of the players salaries alone will leave, using todays dollars/salary cap. If a building will secure them for 30 more years, lets see, carry the one, $1.5B in tax revenue is gone. Anyone OK with that?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by karl262

$50m CAD per year in taxes collected off of the players salaries alone will leave, using todays dollars/salary cap. If a building will secure them for 30 more years, lets see, carry the one, $1.5B in tax revenue is gone. Anyone OK with that?

those taxes are paid federally and provincially, not to the city.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

those taxes are paid federally and provincially, not to the city.

tax dollars are tax dollars

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by karl262

tax dollars are tax dollars

then you must be irate about Murray Edwards leaving the country.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

I am not following your "logic" at all.

As for why the other owners wouldn't allow them to move (any time soon)...

http://www.espn.com/nhl/attendance

... take a look at that list. Are the BOG really going to allow a top 10 attendance team to just up and move when there are several bottom 10 teams (By my count at least 4) that have either ownership problems or arena problems?