New Downtown Calgary Arena - Page 228

lubicon · #**4541** Posted **Feb 12, 2018, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwi

Does anyone know what year Edwards purchased the flames and at what price?

Not sure of the year or price but it's important to note he is not the sole owner but rather part of a partnership that owns the team. Current ownership structure has been on place since 2012 but I believe the group ( in some form) has been involved longer than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_Sports_and_Entertainment

suburbia · #**4542** Posted **Feb 13, 2018, 4:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon

Not sure of the year or price but it's important to note he is not the sole owner but rather part of a partnership that owns the team. Current ownership structure has been on place since 2012 but I believe the group ( in some form) has been involved longer than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_Sports_and_Entertainment

Wasn't it 1994 for most pieces of the current group? I think Edwards has biggest piece of the current pie. Previously the Flames were purchased for I think $16M - that purchase involved Nelson Skalbania, Doc and B.J. Seaman, Harley Hotchkiss, Norm Green, Ralph Scurfield, and Norman Kwong.

kiwi · #**4543** Posted **Apr 14, 2018, 2:53 PM**

So what's the latest update on the arena situation?

speedog · #**4544** Posted **Apr 15, 2018, 3:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwi

So what's the latest update on the arena situation?

There's been no changes or at least nothing has been reported anywhere.

DoubleK · #**4545** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:17 PM**

Does anyone think that restarting talks on a new arena are going to produce anything?

My $0.02, Nenshi is absolutely toxic to this whole endeavour. He can't help himself from running his mouth even when they are talking about restarting talks. His comments/rhetoric to the media the other day were not helpful.

HomeInMyShoes · #**4546** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:37 PM**

If I was in Nenshi's position I would probably have the same attitude given the BS Bettman and King were doing. Although while hopefully phrasing things a little more diplomatically, my brain would be in a similar place.

suburbia · #**4547** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Does anyone think that restarting talks on a new arena are going to produce anything?

The billionaires need to get off their high horses and start accepting that they will not be handed hundreds upon hundreds of millions to line their pockets. King might not be the best foot forward for them either.

Policy Wonk · #**4548** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 7:03 AM**

Back around Christmas I asked someone who was tangentially involved what the real sticking point was and they simply said the Flames were so outraged by Nenshi's cultural and entertainment district campaign video and the city was so outraged by the threats of relocating the team and attempts to swing the election that now both sides will settle for nothing less than a humiliating public capitulation by the other side as a starting point.

milomilo · #**4549** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 1:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Back around Christmas I asked someone who was tangentially involved what the real sticking point was and they simply said the Flames were so outraged by Nenshi's cultural and entertainment district campaign video and the city was so outraged by the threats of relocating the team and attempts to swing the election that now both sides will settle for nothing less than a humiliating public capitulation by the other side as a starting point.

• Video Link

This video? Why was it seen as offensive?

I hope a solution can be found that is fair to Calgary. But if the Flame's want a public apology, fuck em. No arena, no flames, whatever. It would make me proud to be a Calgarian for them not to capitulate to a private company.

rotten42 · #**4550** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 2:14 PM**

The problem is you have egomaniacs on both sides of the equation so I have no faith anything will get done.

HomeInMyShoes · #**4551** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 2:37 PM**

^Agreed. Going to need a reset of who's involved on one of the sides or maybe both. That would be cool.

MalcolmTucker · #**4552** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 3:42 PM**

Until the city accepts that its contribution will be a contribution, not a loan, there isn't a path forward.

esquire · #**4553** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Until the city accepts that its contribution will be a contribution, not a loan, there isn't a path forward.

If that's the case then it sounds like the Flames have a whole lot more to lose. Life will go on for the City whether a deal is reached or not.

DoubleK · #**4554** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

King might not be the best foot forward for them either.

For clarity, I feel both Nenshi and King should step away from the talks. I singled out Nenshi because King's most recent media comments were actually reasonable. Quite a change for him.

If Calgary's starting point is CSEC foots the entire bill, plus all the servicing plus property tax, and end point is their contribution is a loan as MT points out, there's no deal there.

If CSEC's staring point is CalgaryNEXT as previously described and the end point is the Edmonton/Detroit arena agreements, there's no deal there either.

Is a three way split between Calgary/CSEC/Ticket Tax that undesirable?

MalcolmTucker · #**4555** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

If that's the case then it sounds like the Flames have a whole lot more to lose. Life will go on for the City whether a deal is reached or not.

That assumes that after the Flames leave (might be 10 or 20 years, but they have said they will) the city won't have to put a similar or more amount into an arena that has no lead tenant — in both operating and capital.

Unless the city is prepared to not have an arena at all, it is the city in a worse (or at the very least, equal) position.

milomilo · #**4556** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 5:03 PM**

Well we'd still have the Saddledome, wouldn't we?

MalcolmTucker · #**4557** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well we'd still have the Saddledome, wouldn't we?

Yes, but it would require a yearly subsidy of $10 million+ (it was estimated without the Flames the Dome would run an $8 million deficit a year in the 90s), plus it is getting old, and it will need a capital infusion to stay as capable overtime.

It wouldn't take that long to add up to $200 million and I'd rather the city get a new arena if we are going to spend $200 million in public money.

esquire · #**4558** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yes, but it would require a yearly subsidy of $10 million+ (it was estimated without the Flames the Dome would run an $8 million deficit a year in the 90s), plus it is getting old, and it will need a capital infusion to stay as capable overtime.

What is the basis for the $10 million estimate? I find it hard to believe that if the Flames left that even with all the concerts and other sports events (junior hockey, lacrosse) that would take place there, that the Saddledome would still be in the hole that much.

Corndogger · #**4559** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

What is the basis for the $10 million estimate? I find it hard to believe that if the Flames left that even with all the concerts and other sports events (junior hockey, lacrosse) that would take place there, that the Saddledome would still be in the hole that much.

Calgary is missing out on a lot of big concerts because the Saddledome roof can't handle the weights of modern stage setups. It's one of the big reasons why we need a new arena. As for the other sports teams, don't forget that CSEC owns them as well. If the Flames leave I could see them taking the Roughnecks with them and possibly the Hitmen as well depending on where they went. Nenshi's the biggest roadblock to a new arena and has been since Day 1.

MalcolmTucker · #**4560** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

What is the basis for the $10 million estimate? I find it hard to believe that if the Flames left that even with all the concerts and other sports events (junior hockey, lacrosse) that would take place there, that the Saddledome would still be in the hole that much.

On a City Hall report from the late 90s, when the city decided it was cheaper and better to exempt the dome from property taxes than take on operations themselves without the Flames.

I bet it would be revealing that facilities that are largely subsidized all across the world are really big money pits, even on the operations side.

For a facility like the dome, you end up with a huge adverse selection problem if you try to operate it on even a breakeven basis, without a huge block of guaranteed use nights (as you get less events, you need to raise fees, which leads to less events). Lets say it costs $20 million to keep it going if there are no bookings for the entire year. 120 events a year means each event shares a fixed cost of $166 thousand or so, event without any other costs. Now, how many events a year can handle lets say $16 bucks a person (since concerts don't fill the bowl, not all sell out, Calgary misses out on some concerts due to the roof), plus the variable cost for having ushers, security, etc.

43 WHL and Lacrosse games still leaves 77 event nights.

There are only 10 arenas reported in the world that sell that many non-sport tickets (77 event nights worth at 10,000 tickets per event).

https://www.pollstar.com/Chart/2018/01/2017YearEndWorldwideTicketSalesTop200ArenaVenues_628.pdf

Plenty of arenas are in the 300 range, and an NHL teams 44 nights can do a lot to bridge the gap, plus the sell out nature of high level teams helps the economics even more.