New Downtown Calgary Arena

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by count0

All the less reason for the government to be involved. Flames are profitable enough to do this without government support.

I'm not really sure this is the case, but it is really hard to tell. I doubt they are generating enough free cash flow to pay for an arena without raising ticket prices, especially if the Saddledome stayed around.

200 events a year over 30 years to pay maybe $600 million (with very favourable interest, $1 billion). Around $10 a seat as a capital charge gets it done, if you can sell more than 16k tickets to every event.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by Tills13

And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/anderson/micro-principles/stadiums.pdf

http://www.amazon.ca/Sports-Jobs-Taxes-R...sr=8-1&keywords=sports%2C+jobs+and+taxes

Show me a study that says they are an "economic benefit".

[93JC]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I'm not really sure this is the case, but it is really hard to tell. I doubt they are generating enough free cash flow to pay for an arena without raising ticket prices, especially if the Saddledome stayed around.

200 events a year over 30 years to pay maybe $600 million (with very favourable interest, $1 billion). Around $10 a seat as a capital charge gets it done, if you can sell more than 16k tickets to every event.

You're counting ticket revenue as the only revenue. Parking, concessions, merchandise, advertising, broadcast agreements: all of these things bring in a great deal of money.

[Jay in Cowtown]

Originally Posted by Tills13

the thing about Calgary, though, is the Saddledome is the premier venue for the Stampede, which brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It's not that there wouldn't be a Stampede without it, but let's face it - the 'dome brings high profile names to Calgary during that time.

The Stampede has a premeire venue for concerts during the Stampede... it's called the Grandstand! If they'd take a page out of the Cheyenne Frontier Day's or Rodeo Houston's playbook and add a main stage act to the wagon races every night instead of that ridiculous 'young Canadians' show... they'd be golden!

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by 93JC

You're counting ticket revenue as the only revenue. Parking, concessions, merchandise, advertising, broadcast agreements: all of these things bring in a great deal of money.

Just their cut of the $5.2B Roger's deal is quite material. Parking is virtually all gravy, and mark-up on food and concessions is huge also.

Don't forget that at the same time, the value of the Flames has gone up markedly. Was purchased for $16M in 1980, which at 3% inflation per year would be $43.7M in 2014 dollars. According to Forbes, it is currently valued at $420M
http://www.forbes.com/teams/calgary-flames/

Gate receipts of $39M, which is less than 45% of total revenue, which is $89M. Yearly profit is $11.5M. Those numbers, I believe, are before the huge up-tick from the Roger's deal. Remember that all of this is in parallel to the value of the team having gone up 1000%.

[Fuzz]

Here is a good summary of the team value, tickets etc.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/calgary-flames/

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Tills13

the thing about Calgary, though, is the Saddledome is the premier venue for the Stampede, which brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It's not that there wouldn't be a Stampede without it, but let's face it - the 'dome brings high profile names to Calgary during that time.

Okay, so there are 13-15K people attending a Saddledome concert, and four of those per Stampede. So that's generously 60K people who go to Saddledome concerts. Annual Stampede attendance is 1.2 million; 20 times greater - the Saddledome is a drop in the bucket. And that's assuming that the people who go to a Reba McEntire concert would otherwise have no interest in a cowboy festival. From this perspective, this argument is like saying that New Orleans needs the Superdome for Mardi Gras, or Munich needs the Allianz Arena for Oktoberfest.

But of course, the most common rumours of arena locations are not on the Stampede grounds, but in the west downtown area. Were we to get a new arena, it would diminish the Stampede as a singular event as these big name performers are performing somewhere away from the Stampede grounds. So from this perspective, this argument is more like saying that New Orleans needs Yankee Stadium for Mardi Gras.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by 93JC

http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/anderson/micro-principles/stadiums.pdf

http://www.amazon.ca/Sports-Jobs-Taxes-R...sr=8-1&keywords=sports%2C+jobs+and+taxes

Show me a study that says they are an "economic benefit".

Not a study but through first-hand experience and knowledge, I can say that the Flames Foundation (which wouldn't exist if there was no arena/NHL team or stadium/CFL team) contributes a lot of money back to a wide variety of non-profit organizations - that, to me, would be an economic benefit as for many of these non-profit organizations, it's their major source of funding. Take away the Flames/Stampeders and the economic impact to these non-profit organizations would be huge.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by speedog

Not a study but through first-hand experience and knowledge, I can say that the Flames Foundation (which wouldn't exist if there was no arena/NHL team or stadium/CFL team) contributes a lot of money back to a wide variety of non-profit organizations - that, to me, would be an economic benefit as for many of these non-profit organizations, it's their major source of funding. Take away the Flames/Stampeders and the economic impact to these non-profit organizations would be huge.

Agree that the Flames Foundation facilitates people making donations, and they'd have to donate directly to causes if that Foundation didn't exist.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by speedog

Not a study but through first-hand experience and knowledge, I can say that the Flames Foundation (which wouldn't exist if there was no arena/NHL team or stadium/CFL team) contributes a lot of money back to a wide variety of non-profit organizations - that, to me, would be an economic benefit as for many of these non-profit organizations, it's their major source of funding. Take away the Flames/Stampeders and the economic impact to these non-profit organizations would be huge.

Is one stadium enough, or do we have to buy a new one every 30 years indefinitely in order to keep the team in town?

We got an LRT around the same time as the Saddledome, and its value is higher than ever, and we don't have to blow up the old line to build a new one, and it can never move to another market. I don't see what additional value to the city a new stadium would offer that the old one doesn't. Surely, we could develop the West Village with less than $600M if that is the only benefit (We could probably do that for $60M and not even have to give up the land that the stadium would need). It would be ideal if we could keep the Flames without needing to buy them a new stadium.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

No kidding. There's a huge gap between bidding on and actual hosting the Olympics.

When Ken decides to finance a bid and wins, sure, but only then on a break even basis, Olympic stadium rarely need boxes in the number or quality that the Flames organization wants.

If they want money, they need to give up equity in the operating organization that will pay back the investment at a high hurdle rate (15%+) and within 10 years become a revenue stream to the city. Is that excessive? Sure, but so is a bunch of million/billionaires asking for a bailout because they decided they didn't want to spend their money. Make this like Enmax (i.e. positive cash flow), then you might get some support.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Agree that the Flames Foundation facilitates people making donations, and they'd have to donate directly to causes if that Foundation didn't exist.

So the Foundation adds red tape to a donation process? Seems unnecessary.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

So the Foundation adds red tape to a donation process? Seems unnecessary.

Well they fund-raise via the 50/50 and direct donations. Then they assess applicants and make decisions on donations. Some of their regular donors are also the players (though the players should not be confused with the organization). I don't know the organization's part in this - it is possible the office costs might be covered. There has to be something.

Anyway - in my view, the Flames Foundation is not a reason to pay for a stadium.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary Flames Foundation:

Revenue
Receipted donations $104,370 (4%)

Non-receipted donations $2,273,389 (93%)

Gifts from other charities (0%)

Government funding $16,274 (1%)

All other revenue $42,820 (2%)

Total revenue: $2,436,853

Expenses
Charitable program (0%)

Management and administration $216,077 (8%)

Fundraising $370,476 (13%)

Political activities (0%)

Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $2,252,506 (79%)

Other $1 (0%)

Total expenses: $2,839,060

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Calgary Flames Foundation:

So is that ROR better than the charities that they gift money too?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by speedog

Not a study but through first-hand experience and knowledge, I can say that the Flames Foundation (which wouldn't exist if there was no arena/NHL team or stadium/CFL team) contributes a lot of money back to a wide variety of non-profit organizations - that, to me, would be an economic benefit as for many of these non-profit organizations, it's their major source of funding. Take away the Flames/Stampeders and the economic impact to these non-profit organizations would be huge.

No doubt it would be huge to these non-profit organizations, but Flames Foundation donations are penny-ante in the scale of an arena project; as MalcolmTucker shows, $2.5 million a year. I'd be much closer to okay for an arena if the public spending was under $2.5 million per year, rather than orders of magnitude higher.

But even then; to pick an oilpatch company at random, Suncor donated $21 million dollars to charity last year. Should taxpayers be footing the bill for their headquarters? I'm sure that the charities they donate to are equally dependent as a major source of fundraising.

The Olympics idea is BS, plain and simple. The Winter Olympics seem to pretty consistently alternate between Europe and the rest of the world, and the rest of the world alternates pretty consistently between the US, Canada and Asia. 2018 is in Korea, and 2022 will be in Europe. I would expect the US (i.e. the major IOC sponsor) to want a games, given that 2026 will be 24 years without hosting an Olympics, which means that Canada is on track for 2034 or so, maybe later if someone in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. Santiago or Christchurch) puts together something credible. And I would expect Quebec City to be the next city Canada puts forward; they've been wanting one a long time, and the politics are better for another Quebec Olympics. By the standards of the owners, who have been arguing for a new arena for years already, if an arena is built now, then it will be hopelessly out of date by they time any prospective Olympics rolls around.

[MalcolmTucker]

Quebec still hasn't had a hill certified for ski racing. Apparently none are up to snuff in the vertical department. The difficulty had organizers even theorizing about a joint bid with Vermont.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

No doubt it would be huge to these non-profit organizations, but Flames Foundation donations are penny-ante in the scale of an arena project; as MalcolmTucker shows, $2.5 million a year. I'd be much closer to okay for an arena if the public spending was under $2.5 million per year, rather than orders of magnitude higher.

But even then; to pick an oilpatch company at random, Suncor donated $21 million dollars to charity last year. Should taxpayers be footing the bill for their headquarters? I'm sure that the charities they donate to are equally dependent as a major source of fundraising.

The Olympics idea is BS, plain and simple. The Winter Olympics seem to pretty consistently alternate between Europe and the rest of the world, and the rest of the world alternates pretty consistently between the US, Canada and Asia. 2018 is in Korea, and 2022 will be in Europe. I would expect the US (i.e. the major IOC sponsor) to want a games, given that 2026 will be 24 years without hosting an Olympics, which means that Canada is on track for 2034 or so, maybe later if someone in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. Santiago or Christchurch) puts together something credible. And I would expect Quebec City to be the next city Canada puts forward; they've been wanting one a long time, and the politics are better for another Quebec Olympics. By the standards of the owners, who have been arguing for a new arena for years already, if an arena is built now, then it will be hopelessly out of date by they time any prospective Olympics rolls around.

Great assessment. Except, I think Calgary actually has a chance for an Olympic bid in 20-30 years, even before Quebec. Anything could happen.

That said, decent transport to the Airport would do more for a bid than a new stadium. I'm a little offended that the Flames' owners think talk of an unlikely olympic bid can win over popular opinion so they can build a stadium with more boxes.

On another note, I looked up the net worth of a few owners...
Edwards 2.2 Billion
Libin ?
Markin 0.76 Billion
McCaig ?
Riddell 3.5 Billion
Seaman ?
They don't seem like the kind of people who should be asking the government for a hand out. Some of these guys could donate hundreds of millions of dollars every year (which, to their credit, they do) until they die and still die rich. What do you buy for the man who has everything? A (new) stadium.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

So is that ROR better than the charities that they gift money too?

improbable.

Someone is paying for the overhead ( answer queries, assessment of funding requests, verification of funds spent, etc,) except they aren't expressing the costs through the flames foundation

[red_179]

I came across this article on Calgary Puck. Talk about a multipurpose stadium for the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid and the Stamps.

(Note: The rendering in the article is apparently Farmers Field in LA, don't get too excited)

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/03/26/new...ore-in-common-with-bigfoot-than-football