cross16

And to be fair until all the details are released, if they are, some of this is speculation but this is what I understand so far. From what I understand on the Cities proposal is that they would front 2/3 of the project (their portion and the ticket tax portion) and Flames pay the other 3rd. The city expects the ticket tax to repay a portion of the money they fronted which would obviously come via a loan and i read that City will pay interest (unconfirmed). City then expects the Flames to pay property tax on the building, or share in the revenue it generates.I think the confusion on the cities portion revolves around being made "whole". Does that mean they want CESC to repay the entire amount or are they wanting just the ticket tax portion to be made whole and their portion remains? I think it would be fair to expect the Flames to repay the portion of the ticket tax. Sounds like CESC is refusing to negotiate any deal that involves them paying property taxes or sharing in the revenue but why is that? Could be a bit of a greed in that they want to keep the profits and are claiming that they need to in order to be economically viable (Druh Farrell hinted on Twitter yesterday that this could be a sticking point) or does the relate to the city being made "whole". If the City is saying we will front you 2/3 but then pay us back via a ticket tax and property tax revenues for 30 years so we get all our $ back (less land and interest cost) but we own the building then I could see CESC points about that not being all that fair a deal. Think long story short more details need to come out before we have a firm understanding of what is going on but it does sound like CESC is adament that they shouldn't pay property taxes or share revenue and I think that's an unreasonable position.

That isn't quite accurate. City would basically be donating the land, by-passing any other development dollars they could make off it (which would be more profitable to them than an arena) and also paying the interest on it which would likely wind up being 10s of millions of dollars. Everything I've read suggests the City is only asking CESC to pay back the principle amount. I get your saying the may not have as much capital investment in the project but that's too narrow minded of a focus IMO when you are dealing with a project this size. Is CESC paying more? for sure. But given they stand to reap the vast majority of the profits why shouldn't they?

Well and there is the obstacle as well that if the Flames were move on Bettman's watch and with his support how likely is it going to be he lets another team just waltz right back in? Would seem very hypocritcal of him to say Flames can't survive but then have another owner come in a disagree. But the reason I keep coming back to the idea is the Flames are in the top 10 in terms of tickets prices in the NHL and basically sell out every night with great corporate support as well. I get the benefits to places like Seattle but IMO it's pretty much impossible to find another market like that in North America.

I was thinking the would pre negotiate a deal with the city to start building an arena then move and play out of the saddledome while it's being built. As much as we can complain about The dome I think it can easily support NHL hockey for years to come and I think given the increase in fan base it would still make a ton of sense for owners of the panthers, hurricanes etc. still not a likely scenario mind you

Depends on the owner. If i was the owner of the Panthers and drawing no fans I would be very interested in what the city has proposed. The city is not saying we won't build you a new area an in fact are saying they opposite. They are saying we will build you an arena but we want you to pay us back. I think teams like Carolina, Florida, Pheonix etc would have much better situations by looking into Calgary and taking that deal than what they are currently dealing with.

Really good post. I agree 100% but you laid it out perfectly. to be clear I don't want the Flames to leave and I don't think they will, but I also think that if they did Calgary would get phone calls from other owners wanting to move here. This is an extremely attractive market for hockey and the NHL isn't going to leave it untouched. Edit: Good summary in this article I think about the pros and cons of public funding towards arena projects and some of the issues I think CESC needs to overcome asking for sure a high amount of public funds http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/sports-facilities-subsidies-1.4289149

I hope they can clarify the ticket tax/surcharge. I've heard Ken King talk about it before and the way he explained it was the Flames already have one and right now it's just kept as local revenue and doesn't get included as part of their general revenue reporting (in terms of the CBA i mean). To pay for the building they would be essentially moving the money from that tax from their own revenue to stream over as payments towards the building but it would not result in a new tax. I mean let's be honest tickets will go up with a new building as it is anyway but depending on the structure the Flames may not actually "lose" money if that makes sense but he only touched on it briefly so i'm not sure I heard him correctly or not. From what I can gather the City would be fronting the Flames their 2/3 of the project as essentially an interest free loan and then expecting CESC to basically pay back principle only via the ticket tax and rent payments over 30 years on the building. So while Nenshi was making it sound like the City would be paying 1/3 that doesn't really appear accurate based on what i've read/heard. Sounds like the Flames have no interest in paying 1/3 AND making rent payments which I personally find pretty unreasonable. That's not an unfair deal. Slants towards the city but IMO it should and I think CESC is not going to look good for walking away here. They will end up paying for the vast majority of it and given what happened in Edmonton I can see why they would be frustrated and walk away but as I said before I don't think the Edm deal is fair to the city and they should realize that. End of the day is if this is enough for CESC to break off talks and look into moving then CESC will lose all of my respect.

Yup. If arena deals like this were so profitable and beneficial you'd have investors lining up to get a piece. Fact that its beocme the norm for pro sports teams to need so much public money tells you how economically viable these projects are. I"m sure the Flames have their version of "facts" and i'll wait to see everything but so far it sure looks like Flames are walking away from a fair process here. Sounds to me like King and co only want an arena on their terms and have used take it or we'll leave tactics.

Council just voted 8-4 to make details of the negotiations public. Sounds like in the next few days we will learn details of both sides the proposal but rumors are, and Nenshi confirmed this was part of it, was the breakdown was a 1/3 -1/3-1/3 cost split between Flames - City - and a ticket surcharge/tax. https://twitter.com/meyer_lucas/status/908030850121351168

This is why I completely understand and side when the City when they say we need a made in Calgary deal. This was a horrible deal for the taxpayers of Edmonton and while I can understand why King and co want the same deal, just because Edmonton made a bad deal doesn't mean Calgary should too. Katz and co basically got Edmonton to build a fully tax payer funded arena and that is not something I want to see Calgary do. Both sides just need to put their egos aside and get back to work and the Flames need to be prepared to pony up a lot more money.

Actually should be known I've disliked Ken King for years, the arena situation is just another reason it's not the cause. Oh and I won't be voting for Nenshi either. Thanks.

Astounds me the Flames owners can review kings performance ever year and still think this guy is the right person for the job. All the talk about how he was gojng to be different and wouldn't threaten to leave etc, he's done the exact same thing all presidents/owners do. Disappointing that the best the Flames can give us is king. Im not concerned. flames won't be going anywhere they just want to make this an election issue and get the public on their side because so far they've done a pretty poor job of that. No coincidence that they waited until Seattle announced their plans to make this "announcement"

Personally I doubt the Pens and Flames talked. It sounds like Vegas and the Pens worked out a deal before the trade deadline to deal Fleury to Vegas which was, and should have been, plan A for the Pens because even thought it cost them a 2nd round pick it allowed them to protect and keep all their dmen. I think Rutherford did a smart thing to give up an asset to keep his roster together rather than try and get assets for Fleury.

As part of his re-election campaign Nenshi is proposing a large culture and entertainment district and pledging his support for an arena in Victoria Park but also says nothing will happen until after the municipal election. Which at this point was basically a given. http://www.nenshi.ca/district

Nope not at all. Smith was at the time and remains, imo at least, a bad draft pick. I never liked that one.

Dvorak is a really tricky one because he shredded his knee in his draft year. So not only were you taking a player with limited experience you were taking a major injury risk. Good on the Coyotes for taking it but when it comes to hindsight you have to factor that in too. Could have easily gone the other way if his knee never recovered so that is a medical issue as much, or more, than a scouting one.

Why I consider it pretty impressive that the Flames are where they are today and in their rebuild considering how little Treliving was really handed and how the previous regime basically blew all good opportunities they had to rebuild this team. Save for drafting Gaudreau, Feaster set this rebuild back and luckily Treliving rescued it with deals like Dougie Hamilton. Usually a quick turn around in a rebuild is preceded but some very good drafting but that wasn't the case in Calgary.

He's got time. 2 out of 3 years in the playoffs, brand new deals, has the franchise moving in the right dirction on several fronts, good trades for the most part and some very promising changes to scouting that are looking very good. He's not perfect but he has a high batting average IMO. I think the Flames would have to have back to back poor season (ie out of the playoffs) for his job security to come into question.

I'm happy with what I see defensively yes. Offensively, not at all.

5 on 5 the Flames were: 10th best in Corsi - so controlled the puck at a top 10 level 6th best in Shots against 12th best in GAA 3rd best in scoring chances against 8th best in High danger scoring chances against That's 5 on 5 but the rankings don't change much if you want to include PK and PP. I don't because I think 5 on 5 gives you your best look at what caliber of team you have. That is also the full season so if you give them a break while they were adjusting to the new system and look from Nov 15th on, the rankings are better. Everyone has their own standard but by the ones I really care about, including my own eyes, the Flames were a top 10 defensive unit last year. While I would agree if it was imply shots against the Flames were good at, its difficult to single out goalies but when this many categories point to the defensive performing at a high level its impossible for me to dismiss.

Don't see how that conclusion is reached. My point is that goaltending wasn't great last year and the fact that the Flames have a top 10 defensive team and yet were that bad in save % points to the fact the goalies weren't great, my point. If the goalies really weren't great last year then you are far more likely to get the same or better than you did last year and much less likely to get worse as its difficult to get much worse. But to each his own.

Well sure, if you think there is a perfect correlation, or even a high one, between save % and team defensive play you'll likely always be unsure.

I don't share your view on the track record. I did defend the acquisition and still would. Didn't work out as well as we hoped but that does not mean it was a failure. Flames went from a lottery pick team to the playoffs and played at a very high level during the season which goaltending was a bit part of so I do not consider that a failure. Concern was could Elliott handle a starter load and turns out that concern was valid but given the Flames did not risk a ton (2nd rounder) I still defend that as a good acquisition. I don't think the Smith acquisition is a good one, based on what they gave up for the level of play I expect them to get, but I also don't think they got worse. I just think they could have filled the spot in FA without giving up an asset I really like in Hickey but I don't need to beat a dead horse there. You also were adamant that new goalies and a new coach was a failed strategy that never works and would not yield results but yet the Flames turned out to be a top 10 defensive unit last year. So i'm not sure where track record plays into this at all.

So Garth Brooks is going to play 7 concerts, as of now, in Calgary in September. Played 9 in Edmonton. so much for all that missed revenue Calgary lost on because Edmonton will get all the good shows now and Calgary won't.... Big blow to the whole economic debate for a new area. Not saying a new arena is not needed, it is, but really gets tougher and tougher to justify a large use of public money or that there will be a huge public benefit at least economically.

Well I guess to be fair, you can always make the argument just depend on how flimsy it is. Flames as a team had a save % of 90.7 last year and were 10th worst in the NHL. Given that out of his 6 years in Pheonix Smith was only ever below that number once I think its fair to say the Flames will at worst get similar calibre goaltending next year but as I said it is fair to question whether or not they got an upgrade. The argument about shots against comes down to an issue of quality shots against. While I completely agree with you that some goaltenders can pad their stats, particularly save %, but facing a high number of shots that would depend on the quality. Robin Lehner is a great example of this. People argue that Robin Lehner is a great goalie becuase they assume the Sabres are poor defensively, and his save % is impressive but if you look closer Robin Lehner is not that great a goalie, see below. However, contrast that with Smith who while yes he puts up a slightly above avg save % he does so while facing more quality of shots. So while I agree with your theory, I don't in terms of the application to trying to explain Smith's numbers. To be fair to your overall point though JJ, i'm not expecting anything more than avg level goaltending from Smith. I jsut happen to believe an Avg level is better than what the Flames got last year when you look at the whole season.