New Downtown Calgary Arena - Page 213

Calgarian · #**4241** Posted **Sep 25, 2017, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McMurph

People seem to forget that we have an arena. The desire for a new arena is entirely so that the flames can make more money.

This is 100% what is happening. The Saddledome could easily host the flames for another 20 - 30 years, it's just not the shiny new toy with all the bells and whistles.

Socguy · #**4242** Posted **Sep 25, 2017, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46

1. I'm sure many NHL team owners would be petitioning the NHL for a move to Calgary the instant the Flames decided to move.

2. The fear of 'losing' a pro sports team has driven all sorts of stadium spending by governments at the expense of the local taxpayers. I think there's a time when the population has to say 'no' to subsidizing what is essentially a for-profit business. Quebec City and Winnipeg are no better or worse for having NHL teams or not. Pride should not be a substitute for logical decision making.

100% agree and I'm a huge hockey fan. If the Flames are willing to spite their face by cutting off their nose and move I would say: 'Don't let the door hit you on the way out!'

In terms of international prestige (a nebulous concept for sure) Calgary would be better off with an NBA team.

Socguy · #**4243** Posted **Sep 25, 2017, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patm

I think that's the issue.

They're filling the building and selling a lot of merchandise, interest in the Flames is as high as it has been since '07 and the team is as good as it ever has been in the last 28 years but the Flames are not seeing increased profits and are still a middling team revenue wise that received revenue sharing from the league.

They clearly don't think that a 500 million dollar investment into keeping this team in Calgary is a good move and will probably sell the team if they don't get a sweetheart deal like Edmonton.

Your final paragraph was a bit confusing so I'll leave it alone. I would argue your first paragraph though. All the info I have seen, (not a lot since Flames won't open their books to prove otherwise) is that the Flames are top half to top third in the league in terms of revenue. They are making money hand over fist. A new arena just allows them to make even more. And they are doing this in a low dollar environment. If the dollar ever reaches parity again, it will be an instant 30% boost to their bottom line since all NHL revenues are calculated in USD.

O-tacular · #**4244** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patm

I think that's the issue.

They're filling the building and selling a lot of merchandise, interest in the Flames is as high as it has been since '07 and the team is as good as it ever has been in the last 28 years but the Flames are not seeing increased profits and are still a middling team revenue wise that received revenue sharing from the league.

They clearly don't think that a 500 million dollar investment into keeping this team in Calgary is a good move and will probably sell the team if they don't get a sweetheart deal like Edmonton.

Then let them sell the team. Get some new owners that aren't such stingy extortionists.

Western Spaghetti · #**4245** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 4:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Then let them sell the team. Get some new owners that aren't such stingy extortionists.

Let them sell the team to another group who won't have much, if any loyalty to Calgary and then have them move it to another city. As an Oilers fan I think that would be awesome.

Acajack · #**4246** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 1:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46

1. I'm sure many NHL team owners would be petitioning the NHL for a move to Calgary the instant the Flames decided to move.

.

That's nowhere near a sure thing.

I don't think the Flames are likely to move over this but if they do it could be a while before a team comes back to the city. A long while.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It's much easier to keep an existing team than to try and get one back after losing another. Especially for a Canadian city in a US-dominated league.

milomilo · #**4247** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 2:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Western Spaghetti

Let them sell the team to another group who won't have much, if any loyalty to Calgary and then have them move it to another city. As an Oilers fan I think that would be awesome.

Loyalty to Calgary, lol. The Flames/CSEC are loyal only to their owners - literally the sole purpose of these entities is to extract as much money from the local population as possible for the benefits of it's owners - that's not a slur, it's how capitalism is supposed to work. But why people follow these companies religiously and gladly allow themselves to be screwed over by them is beyond me.

I've posted it before but it's worth bringing to light again. Here's a video showing how senior people in the Flames feel about the City of Calgary. He didn't quite say it, but might as well have said that Calgary is stupid for not having bent over and accepted the (garbage) offer CSEC gave them with Calgary Next.

• Video Link

It's a tough video to watch, because not only is the man visually repulsive, his opinions towards Calgary and the way he treats people in the room is even more repulsive. The presented views of Ken King et al. may be more professionally stated, but I'm quite confident the internal conversations that go on will be similar to the views shown by Brian Burke here.

jc_yyc_ca · #**4248** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Loyalty to Calgary, lol. The Flames/CSEC are loyal only to their owners - literally the sole purpose of these entities is to extract as much money from the local population as possible for the benefits of it's owners - that's not a slur, it's how capitalism is supposed to work. But why people follow these companies religiously and gladly allow themselves to be screwed over by them is beyond me.

Because some people don't care if they're a profitable organisation or not, they only want the end result, and that's to be able to go see an NHL game or a major entertainment act, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than people wanting an art gallery.

milomilo · #**4249** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 4:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Because some people don't care if they're a profitable organisation or not, they only want the end result, and that's to be able to go see an NHL game or a major entertainment act, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than people wanting an art gallery.

How many art galleries cost $185m+ of public money in Calgary?

Almost everyone is OK with some (a lot of) public money being used for a new arena, but it's the sheer extent of the greed which is the problem. The Flames paying a third of the cost is a steal of a deal for them and any other normal business would jump at it.

O-tacular · #**4250** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 4:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

How many art galleries cost $185m+ of public money in Calgary?

Almost everyone is OK with some (a lot of) public money being used for a new arena, but it's the sheer extent of the greed which is the problem. The Flames paying a third of the cost is a steal of a deal for them and any other normal business would jump at it.

That's exactly it. I'm not against the city helping to pay some of it. I'm against CSEC demanding the city take a bath and carry the majority of the expense. This argument needs to be re-framed. People seem to think the city doesn't want to spend anything or contribute in any way. That is simply untrue.

O-tacular · #**4251** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Loyalty to Calgary, lol. The Flames/CSEC are loyal only to their owners - literally the sole purpose of these entities is to extract as much money from the local population as possible for the benefits of it's owners - that's not a slur, it's how capitalism is supposed to work. But why people follow these companies religiously and gladly allow themselves to be screwed over by them is beyond me.

I've posted it before but it's worth bringing to light again. Here's a video showing how senior people in the Flames feel about the City of Calgary. He didn't quite say it, but might as well have said that Calgary is stupid for not having bent over and accepted the (garbage) offer CSEC gave them with Calgary Next.

• Video Link

It's a tough video to watch, because not only is the man visually repulsive, his opinions towards Calgary and the way he treats people in the room is even more repulsive. The presented views of Ken King et al. may be more professionally stated, but I'm quite confident the internal conversations that go on will be similar to the views shown by Brian Burke here.

I had to stop a minute in. Only Donald Trump is as much of a grating asshole as Brian Burke. Like nails on a chalkboard.

Calgarian · #**4252** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 5:19 PM**

So this has probably been asked before but I don't remember the answer. Nenshi says we are 10 years into a 20 year CRL for East Village, does that include East Vic Park in the area around the saddledome?

jc_yyc_ca · #**4253** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

How many art galleries cost $185m+ of public money in Calgary?

Almost everyone is OK with some (a lot of) public money being used for a new arena, but it's the sheer extent of the greed which is the problem. The Flames paying a third of the cost is a steal of a deal for them and any other normal business would jump at it.

The Library, while not a gallery was $245 million. The music centre was $100 million.
Also the city isn't paying a third. Their fronting 2/3rds but want that paid back via property tax and ticket surcharge.

jc_yyc_ca · #**4254** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

That's exactly it. I'm not against the city helping to pay some of it. I'm against CSEC demanding the city take a bath and carry the majority of the expense. This argument needs to be re-framed. People seem to think the city doesn't want to spend anything or contribute in any way. That is simply untrue.

The city is fronting the money, but wants it paid back via property taxes and ticket surcharge, so in essence, they aren't actually paying anything.

DizzyEdge · #**4255** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlaineN

Whatever happens, I hope a happy medium can be worked out. Losing the team would really suck for Calgary, and I agree fully with Habanero, Calgary might look good to the leftist crowd for a while, but over time the loss of a team and no prospects for being part of the concert loop would suck. Coming from a city that didn't have an NHL team it was great to come here and have that option.

Wait, avoiding government subsidies to business is leftist now?

DizzyEdge · #**4256** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 5:36 PM**

Is there any referenceable info on whether the Flames would also want non-hockey revenue, like from concerts and the like?

O-tacular · #**4257** Posted **Sep 26, 2017, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

The city is fronting the money, but wants it paid back via property taxes and ticket surcharge, so in essence, they aren't actually paying anything.

And the Flames' way sees 175 million of "their" portion come from ticket tax and the city carrying the loan. In addition the $275 million contribution is simply considered 30 plus years of rent. Isn't property tax the price of doing business? It sure is for my business. Why should the Flames be above any other business in this regard? To say nothing of the free land and demolition of the Saddledome the city is providing.