New Downtown Calgary Arena

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I think it sends a pretty clear message that in spite of all the weight CSEC pulled in this election citizens turned out in never before seen numbers to ensure that their puppet didn’t get elected. Their biggest mistake was having that sleazeball Bettman come and lecture us about ousting our non compliant mayor.

It wasn't just CSEC. This was an all out war against Nenshi which consolidated pretty much all conservative elements in the city (including CSEC, developers like Wenzel, and so on) - behind Bill Smith. How many parrots did we have to endure this election cycle calling Nenshi "arrogant" as if that was a bad thing? It was insane.

It was a huge coordinated effort, and Nenshi still delivered a plurality of the vote rendering vote splitting a total non factor.

This was a rebuke, where an energized electorate came out in force to support their man.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Expansion fee has been set at 500M to be split among the other owners. Relocations fees are much lower. Why would they allow the Flames to move to one of the few possible expansion cities when they would be giving up their share of 500M for a share of say, 200M? Why the Flames when teams like the Coyotes or Florida are losing money hand over fist every year? Furthermore, If the Flames have all this money to relocate, why would they not use it to build themselves a new arena in Calgary...? ...Having said that, even if it was 100% guaranteed that the Flames would move unless the taxpayer gave them everything they are asking for, I would sadly wave goodby.

Because the NHL is eager to expand the NHL into more American teams to try to build revenue and interest south of the border.

On the flip side, owners would like 500M over 200M, but then again, even if Seattle pays the 200M to move the team, Calgary is such a guaranteed market that someone is going to come along and pay that 200M (or 500M) to get a Calgary market team. It's almost guaranteed. So in that sense, why would anyone care that Calgary Flames leave? Someone else paying to set up another team in Calgary is a foregone conclusion, basically money in the bank.

With a move to Seattle, the team gets a two for one. An empty lucrative market they can dangle in front of another team which is losing money to move towards, and they get another test at a brand new American market in Seattle, which could be quite lucrative even if it isn't as lucrative as Calgary.

All things considered, I wouldn't mind the Flames moving. It's kind of annoying we have the same name as a failed American expansion team already. I think we as a market deserve our own name and our own team.

To top it all off, the behaviour of CSEC has been absolutely beyond the pale. Threatening our mayor, threatening the fans, meddling in our elections, and every subsequent public announcement from them just insults our entire city's intelligence more and more. Calgary Flames fans have been extremely good to them for decades and they just threw all that goodwill away in the span of a few months.

What a train wreck of an organization and the silence over this behaviour from them over this chain of events is the most damning thing of all.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I don't see how the election results have empowered Nenshi at all to drive a hard bargain regarding a new arena. The percentage of the vote he won was down by about 45% from 2013 and he likely would have lost against someone who had indicated what they planned on doing. As for the Flames person who made that tweet, what an idiot. The team screwed up not denouncing that tweet.

Interestingly, he was way above in terms of actual votes from 2013, and his percentage was wayyyy higher than 2010.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I don't see how the election results have empowered Nenshi at all to drive a hard bargain regarding a new arena. The percentage of the vote he won was down by about 45% from 2013 and he likely would have lost against someone who had indicated what they planned on doing. As for the Flames person who made that tweet, what an idiot. The team screwed up not denouncing that tweet.

They did issue a statement denouncing the tweet. Something along the lines of "employees are entitled to their opinion but they don't reflect the official stance of CSEG".

I agree that the reputation of CSEG and the owners has been pulverized over the course of the last couple of months. And I don't know why they thought bringing in Bettman would help their cause.

[DoubleK]

Ya but they went and signed Jagr, which makes it good-good in my books.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I don't see how the election results have empowered Nenshi at all to drive a hard bargain regarding a new arena. The percentage of the vote he won was down by about 45% from 2013 and he likely would have lost against someone who had indicated what they planned on doing.

If Smith had been more specific about what he wanted to offer CSEC, I speculate he may have had less support. By not stating his position clearly, people were able to assume all kinds of things about what he might do, and not have to take a stand against a specific position.

Further, when all incumbents were returned to council, there's obviously some level of support for the city's latest offer to CSEC. Clearly there's many more issues at play in an election than the arena, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that council's hand is weakened.

(Though if Smith had been clearer about a broader range of topics, he may well have been more popular... plenty of people couldn't stomach his complete lack of plans, other than his plan to disrupt green line and BRT.)

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

If Smith had been more specific about what he wanted to offer CSEC, I speculate he may have had less support. By not stating his position clearly, people were able to assume all kinds of things about what he might do, and not have to take a stand against a specific position.

Further, when all incumbents were returned to council, there's obviously some level of support for the city's latest offer to CSEC. Clearly there's many more issues at play in an election than the arena, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that council's hand is weakened.

(Though if Smith had been clearer about a broader range of topics, he may well have been more popular... plenty of people couldn't stomach his complete lack of plans, other than his plan to disrupt green line and BRT.)

It doesn't sound like the arena was much of an issue for voters. Taxes, Nenshi's attitude and arrogance, and Bill Smith's past and near total lack of plans were what drove the election. As for all of the incumbents being reelected, a lot of that has to do with the ridiculously short campaign periods we have in this country. Unless you go out of your way to research the candidates it's very likely you will have no idea what they stand for or plan to do. Most people don't have the time or care enough to look into this stuff so they just vote for the face they know or they don't bother voting at all.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It doesn't sound like the arena was much of an issue for voters. Taxes, Nenshi's attitude and arrogance, and Bill Smith's past and near total lack of plans were what drove the election. As for all of the incumbents being reelected, a lot of that has to do with the ridiculously short campaign periods we have in this country. Unless you go out of your way to research the candidates it's very likely you will have no idea what they stand for or plan to do. Most people don't have the time or care enough to look into this stuff so they just vote for the face they know or they don't bother voting at all.

I don't disagree with any of that -- but I'll go out on a limb and claim that "the area not being much of an issue for voters" means implicit approval of the council's existing direction. I'm not going to tell you it's strong approval, but I dare say that most Calgarians are okay with a mushy middle ground of "Give something. Not too much. Not too little."

[patm]

Originally Posted by Socguy

As for the flames leaving: highly unlikely. It would take a majority of 29 other owners voting to allow the Flames to move for it to happen. Expansion fee has been set at 500M to be split among the other owners. Relocations fees are much lower. Why would they allow the Flames to move to one of the few possible expansion cities when they would be giving up their share of 500M for a share of say, 200M? Why the Flames when teams like the Coyotes or Florida are losing money hand over fist every year? Furthermore, If the Flames have all this money to relocate, why would they not use it to build themselves a new arena in Calgary...? ...Having said that, even if it was 100% guaranteed that the Flames would move unless the taxpayer gave them everything they are asking for, I would sadly wave goodby.

The NHL has shown willingness to move Canadian teams without issue. They have showed zero willingness to move struggling sunbelt teams.

It's an ego thing and an American presence thing most likely. The american presence is what legitimizes the league south of the border.

I would be shocked if the owners blocked a move to Seattle or Houston. I have zero doubt that all of them would prefer to have a presence in both of those cities over Calgary. Again, I doubt that CSE would keep the team, they will sell so they don't care how the team does and the NHL owners will gladly take having an NHL presence in either city and then move a team to Calgary if they want to later on. Again, our best bet is a local ownership group stepping up and buying the team.

The only reason I think this would really suck is cause the team is actually looking like they might contend. We could face a Quebec situation where the team leaves and wins multiple cups in their new city. A team like the one we have could build a fan base in Seattle or Houston really quickly. It's actually a dream situation for any potential new owner and the NHL.

The arrogance that Calgary is some special market is misplaced. They're middle of the line with little recognition outside of the Calgary. I'd expect the Flames to announce that they're selling as soon as an Olympic bid decision is made.

And yes this is all speculation based on the facts we know and how the team has carried themselves. Anyone who thinks that CSE is negotiating in good faith is blind. They clearly don't have much of an interest in staying on good terms with the other party.

Oh and as for the expansion fee? NO one is paying that. The NHL had two people willing to pay it, Vegas and Quebec (which, unsurprisingly they turned down, Even though it's a rabid hockey market, see? They don't care). No one else submitted a bid and both groups in Seattle and Houston could have if they wanted to.

200 Million Relocation is at least something.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by patm

The NHL has shown willingness to move Canadian teams without issue. They have showed zero willingness to move struggling sunbelt teams.

It's an ego thing and an American presence thing most likely. The american presence is what legitimizes the league south of the border.

I would be shocked if the owners blocked a move to Seattle or Houston. I have zero doubt that all of them would prefer to have a presence in both of those cities over Calgary. Again, I doubt that CSE would keep the team, they will sell so they don't care how the team does and the NHL owners will gladly take having an NHL presence in either city and then move a team to Calgary if they want to later on. Again, our best bet is a local ownership group stepping up and buying the team.

The only reason I think this would really suck is cause the team is actually looking like they might contend. We could face a Quebec situation where the team leaves and wins multiple cups in their new city. A team like the one we have could build a fan base in Seattle or Houston really quickly. It's actually a dream situation for any potential new owner and the NHL.

The arrogance that Calgary is some special market is misplaced. They're middle of the line with little recognition outside of the Calgary. I'd expect the Flames to announce that they're selling as soon as an Olympic bid decision is made.

And yes this is all speculation based on the facts we know and how the team has carried themselves. Anyone who thinks that CSE is negotiating in good faith is blind. They clearly don't have much of an interest in staying on good terms with the other party.

Oh and as for the expansion fee? NO one is paying that. The NHL had two people willing to pay it, Vegas and Quebec (which, unsurprisingly they turned down, Even though it's a rabid hockey market, see? They don't care). No one else submitted a bid and both groups in Seattle and Houston could have if they wanted to.

200 Million Relocation is at least something.

Massive overriding factor is that moving the team from Calgary to the USA will contravene the $5.2B contract with Rogers that is specific to the Canadian teams. The NHL TV rights contract for the six Canadian teams is wayyyy larger than the $2B contract for the 25 teams in the USA. Rogers will not allow the Canadian market to shrink.

Further, the contract includes the need for three teams in Western Canada, so Quebec City is not a move option for Calgary. It can only easily be a move from the USA or an expansion. In large part, that $5.2B gets mailed out straight to the six Canadian teams.

The Canadian markets are clearly seen by the media companies as way more valuable than the USA markets. $5.2B / 6 Canadian teams is $867M the NHL gets per team (of which the Canadian teams get a big chunk). $2B / 25 American teams is only 80M per team. That means the Canadian markets, even with the medium sized cities like Calgary, are seen as over 10 times as valuable for media companies, and this is not an opinion but based on the actual dollars the NHL owners reap from the media companies.

[patm]

I really don't think that the Calgary market is that big of a concern for Rogers. I'd imagine it's one of the lowest rated teams outside of Calgary and Calgary is hardly a big market.

If Rogers really got their panties in a bunch over it they'll get some sort of compensation. We would have to see the contract to know for sure.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by patm

I really don't think that the Calgary market is that big of a concern for Rogers. I'd imagine it's one of the lowest rated teams outside of Calgary and Calgary is hardly a big market.

If Rogers really got their panties in a bunch over it they'll get some sort of compensation. We would have to see the contract to know for sure.

It is a massive market and hugely important. The contract stipulates three Western Canadian teams.

Hard to be dismissive about the biggest piece of revenue for the entire league.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by patm

They have showed zero willingness to move struggling sunbelt teams.

The NHL moved the Atlanta Thrashers pretty quickly in 2011.

I take your point about saving face on teams like Phoenix and Florida though.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by wave46

The NHL moved the Atlanta Thrashers pretty quickly in 2011.

I take your point about saving face on teams like Phoenix and Florida though.

Moved the Atlanta Flames even quicker, only 8 years.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It doesn't sound like the arena was much of an issue for voters. Taxes, Nenshi's attitude and arrogance, and Bill Smith's past and near total lack of plans were what drove the election. As for all of the incumbents being reelected, a lot of that has to do with the ridiculously short campaign periods we have in this country. Unless you go out of your way to research the candidates it's very likely you will have no idea what they stand for or plan to do. Most people don't have the time or care enough to look into this stuff so they just vote for the face they know or they don't bother voting at all.

You really want election periods to be made longer? Wasn't the 2015 8 week federal campaign tortuously long already, to say nothing of the Americans' almost constant campaign season? I personally think 4 weeks is plenty, with 6 weeks being an almost absolute maximum.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

You really want election periods to be made longer? Wasn't the 2015 8 week federal campaign tortuously long already, to say nothing of the Americans' almost constant campaign season? I personally think 4 weeks is plenty, with 6 weeks being an almost absolute maximum.

I want it to be much longer so as much information gets out as possible. I'm tired of being surprised after the fact by all the dirt that comes out. No limits on spending either or contributions BUT all donations and amounts have to be released in full BEFORE the election.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I want it to be much longer so as much information gets out as possible. I'm tired of being surprised after the fact by all the dirt that comes out. No limits on spending either or contributions BUT all donations and amounts have to be released in full BEFORE the election.

We don't require an election for news. 'Dirt' comes out all the time. If people can't be bothered to read a newspaper, or listen to the radio for the other 11 months out of the year too bad. All extending an election period will do is make people tune out even more.

As for no spending limits, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I would be willing to debate what's a reasonable limit, however, no limits is in the realm of madness.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Socguy

As for no spending limits, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I would be willing to debate what's a reasonable limit, however, no limits is in the realm of madness.

When it comes to contribution limits, I'm not sure how well we are even doing when it comes to accounting for contributions. Cal Wenzel in that notorious video was borderline bragging about engaging businesses to deliver 6+ figure's worth of contributions to support campaigns. There were Bill Smith ads all over the Saddledome - was his campaign charged fair market rates for those ads, and is there a paper trail that the city is following to ensure there were no special favors there?

How much did it help Bill Smith that the CSEC dominated headlines just before the election talking trash about Nenshi? Not sure how to interpret those moves as anything other than election meddling to gain invaluable press attention in support of their own choice for candidate.

Laws about campaign contributions are all fine and good, but like laws about not using the left lane for anything other than passing, if these laws aren't enforced, or have no enforcement mechanism available to law enforcement, they aren't worth anything.

[Socguy]

I don't often read the National Post but I felt this article is worthwhile!

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jen-gers...-every-city-blackmailed-by-a-sports-team

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Socguy

We don't require an election for news. 'Dirt' comes out all the time. If people can't be bothered to read a newspaper, or listen to the radio for the other 11 months out of the year too bad. All extending an election period will do is make people tune out even more.

As for no spending limits, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I would be willing to debate what's a reasonable limit, however, no limits is in the realm of madness.

There's a lot more that people need to know about to make an informed decision besides dirt. You need a lot more than a month to understand candidates platforms and they need a lot more than a month to get their messages out. They also need to spend a lot of money to get their messages out. Reducing our campaigns to the level of a high school election is not a good thing. It only helps to keep incumbents in office until they decide to move on.

You seem to be concerned with having no spending limits. Is it because you think elections can be bought? That is complete nonsense that keeps getting propagated by the media because they want to be the ones to have the biggest say in who wins. I'll give some relatively recent examples of where spending the most did not result in a victory: Bill Smith (2017 Calgary Mayoral Race), Kassam (sp? 2007 Calgary Mayoral Race), Hillary Clinton (2008 Dem Race, 2016 Presidential Election), CPC (2015 Canada federal election), PCs (2015 Alberta provincial election), etc. Money doesn't buy elections, ideas or lack of them do. If a party or SIGs want to spend a ton of money trying to buy an election let them. If their ideas suck people will know what they stand for and not vote for them.