The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[CheersMan]

17 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

I could only listen to that for so long. Everytime King talks about the arena deal all I hear is "Whah whah the city won't give my billionaire owners as much free money as they want, Whah whah". There is almost no monetary benefit for the city to pay for a building. In fact most publicly funded arenas lose money. If a new arena was going to make lots of money the billionaire sport franchise owners would just build it themselves. But the new thing in sports is for the owners to blackmail the city into paying for half an arena and flush money down the toilet, or they might move the team to a city that will pay for the arena. 

 

I don't even live in Calgary, and it is frustrating to hear Ken King speak. I say if they think they can make more in Seattle let them try, but I doubt they make near as much money there as they do in Calgary. 

 

Which is precisely why the gibberish you type on this matter means nothing.  Dropping landmines in ones home town from afar is not much appreciated.

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I don't think the City's proposal's is perfect but it should be the basis for negotiations and I thinks its quite disappointing that CESC seems to think it's completely unreasonable. 

 

When you have two sides so far apart, how are you able to negotiate?  The city has maintained all along that they would only do a deal that worked for both sides, but their position is 100% private payment.  A loan that has to be paid back is still a loan.  I don't see where the city has budged at all.  

 

I see both sides as being too stubborn to budge at all.  CSEC wants some investment in the building, while Cagary does not want to pay any of that.  I know it's not that simple, but the concepts are where the divide is.  Some vs none.

 

 

[cross16]

9 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

When you have two sides so far apart, how are you able to negotiate?  The city has maintained all along that they would only do a deal that worked for both sides, but their position is 100% private payment.  A loan that has to be paid back is still a loan.  I don't see where the city has budged at all.  

 

I see both sides as being too stubborn to budge at all.  CSEC wants some investment in the building, while Cagary does not want to pay any of that.  I know it's not that simple, but the concepts are where the divide is.  Some vs none.

 

 

 

Well first off, if the Flames are going to receive 100% of the profits why is that an unreasonable request from the City that the recoup the investment? If you look at CESC position they expect the City to partake in the risk but are basically excluded from the upside so why is that position fair?

 

Secondly I don't agree with King that they would wind up paying for the whole thing and I don't view the city's offer as 100% private payment. It sounds like the numbers thrown around was around 5 million per year in tax payment and over 30 years that would not pay back the City's initial investment anyway, never mind the fact that the City would face interest costs, plus the lost opportunity cost of what else they could do with the land. Is CESC paying the bulk of this, absolutely, but is it 100%? No I don't see it that way. 

 

To be clear I am not suggesting this is all on CESC either nor am I suggesting that they call up the City and say accept. I understand some of their frustrations and I get why they havn't said yes yet but for them to flat out say there is nothing there they can even work off of I think is an unreasonable position. Yes both sides need to flex, but from a fundamental perspective I side with the City's approach to this and not CESC's. I think CESC is still looking for an Edmonton style deal and are basically saying "here is our proposal, it will work so accept it" and that's all. neither approach is reasonable IMO. 

[JTech780]

33 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

 

Which is precisely why the gibberish you type on this matter means nothing.  Dropping landmines in ones home town from afar is not much appreciated.

 

Calgary is my home town, I was born in Calgary. I just don't live there now. What I am saying isn't gibberish, it's the truth the city gains nothing financially from paying for an arena. It gains culturally from it and that has a dollar value attached to that, but we are talking 100's of millions of dollars that the city of Calgary isn't going to get back.

[The_People1]

So the city wants the Flames to pay property tax for using the arena but the city of Calgary owns the building?  That would be like saying Garth Brooks has to pay property tax for using the new arena for a concert?  

[CheersMan]

11 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

Calgary is my home town, I was born in Calgary. I just don't live there now. What I am saying isn't gibberish, it's the truth the city gains nothing financially from paying for an arena. It gains culturally from it and that has a dollar value attached to that, but we are talking 100's of millions of dollars that the city of Calgary isn't going to get back.

 

and that's where you're wrong.  Lets wait and see what the Flames proposal is first before we draw conclusions and toss the team to an American city for them to reap the benefits from for decades to come.

[JTech780]

2 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

 

and that's where you're wrong.  Lets wait and see what the Flames proposal is first before we draw conclusions and toss the team to an American city for them to reap the benefits from for decades to come.

 

How is that wrong? 

 

I also don't believe for a 2nd that the Flames are going anywhere, those are about as empty of threats as you will ever see. 

[xmiika]

9 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

So the city wants the Flames to pay property tax for using the arena but the city of Calgary owns the building?  That would be like saying Garth Brooks has to pay property tax for using the new arena for a concert?  

 

Could you show me where it says that the City of Calgary will own the new arena? I haven't seen it anywhere.

[CheersMan]

10 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

How is that wrong? 

 

I also don't believe for a 2nd that the Flames are going anywhere, those are about as empty of threats as you will ever see. 

 

The benefits the Flames bring to this city is far greater than what people pretend to understand.

 

That's what the mayor of Baltimore said the night before the Colts pulled out unannounced and moved to Indianapolis.

[cross16]

31 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

So the city wants the Flames to pay property tax for using the arena but the city of Calgary owns the building?  That would be like saying Garth Brooks has to pay property tax for using the new arena for a concert?  

 

According to Nenshi the city is open to both. If City owns the building, Flames pay rent, if the Flames own the building they pay property tax but the end goal is that the city should share in the upside and revenues the building creates. 

[JTech780]

19 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

 

The benefits the Flames bring to this city is far greater than what people pretend to understand.

 

That's what the mayor of Baltimore said the night before the Colts pulled out unannounced and moved to Indianapolis.

 

Culturally sure, financialy the impact isn't that big.

[Cowtownguy]

One would think that if the City is offering 33% and the Flames want them to pay 50%, then it would not be terribly difficult to find common ground. Split the difference somewhere down the middle. I suspect that it is about future development and real estate profits as much as up front funding for the arena. Perhaps that is why the East Village location does not excite CSEC.

 

After watching Nenshi and King speak today, I will reiterate my contention that King is not the person to communicate with the public about this. He does not have Nenshi's political acumen and is seriously being outplayed. He and Bettman are using the old NHL play book while Nenshi and the City have given significant thought on how to counter their moves.

[travel_dude]

50 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Secondly I don't agree with King that they would wind up paying for the whole thing and I don't view the city's offer as 100% private payment. It sounds like the numbers thrown around was around 5 million per year in tax payment and over 30 years that would not pay back the City's initial investment anyway, never mind the fact that the City would face interest costs, plus the lost opportunity cost of what else they could do with the land. Is CESC paying the bulk of this, absolutely, but is it 100%? No I don't see it that way. 

 

I don't know if you classify a contribution that is totally paid back through tax and other benefits as paying a 1/3 of the cost.  Nenshi has not shared the amount that would be coming back, but said that it would more than cover the investment.  He used a hypothetical amount of $5m.  It's all perspective I guess.  

 

Anyway, I am opposed to there being no willingness to get a deal done by either side.   Willingness has to be willing to budge, which neither side seems to be displaying.  The unfortunate thing to all of this is that it doesn't give as much benefit to eith side that the original proposal would have.  Clean up an environmental disaster in your city, provide a field house, and allow for two venues to be combined into one.  

[cross16]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't know if you classify a contribution that is totally paid back through tax and other benefits as paying a 1/3 of the cost.  Nenshi has not shared the amount that would be coming back, but said that it would more than cover the investment.  He used a hypothetical amount of $5m.  It's all perspective I guess.  

How is it not? What investors in the world do you know that are willing to pay upfront cost with no chance at repayment? City views themselves as an investor in this project and why shouldn't they? Don't the Flames plan to recoup the 2/3 they are paying towards the project? (under the city's proposal)

 

i understand that yes the City is making themsevles out to be the better of the two here and are playing the PR game but that doesn't mean their philosophy is incorrect. 

 

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 The unfortunate thing to all of this is that it doesn't give as much benefit to eith side that the original proposal would have.  Clean up an environmental disaster in your city, provide a field house, and allow for two venues to be combined into one.  

 

Don't think we need to re debate the merits of CalgaryNext but keep in mind it was almost 4 times the price tag of the new arena. Don't see an improved benefit/cost in Calgarynext versus this Victoria Park option especially considering I would argue Victoria Park is the better location anyway (closer proximity to DT, will have 2 C Train stations and close to Stampede so can still hold Stampede concerts etc).

[ABC923]

Don't let Ken King twist the facts here.  The Flames are not paying '120%' of the cost as he suggests.  The deal offered by the city was the Flames pay 1/3 of the cost upfront with the city putting the other 2/3.  The city then wants to recoup 1/3 of the total cost through a ticket surcharge, something that even Edmonton is doing and is completely normal.  But the Flames see that ticket surcharge as their money, rather than the customer's money.  The only way that makes sense is if they were planning on charging so much for tickets in the new building that the surcharge would prevent people from coming to the games and other events.

 

The city then wants to recoup the rest of the costs by collecting property taxes over 30 years or so.  Again, not an unreasonable request.  Even the oilers are paying rent.  Overall the deal works out to the city offering 2/3 of the money as an interest free loan to be paid back over 30 years.  Considering it is the team and not the city demanding a new facility, this seems like a reasonable starting point for a deal.

 

The flames on the other hand seem to want the city to contribute 1/2 the money, while forgoing any method to recoup the investment.  No rent, no property tax, and no ticket surcharge.  This is nothing more than asking for free money to increase the profitability of their business, and does not seem like a reasonable starting point for a deal.

 

I'm not saying the city's offer is perfect.  It could easily be shifted somewhat toward the team's perspective.  But of the two proposals (as best we know to this point), it is the city's proposal that seems grounded in a fair compromise position, not the Flames.  Perhaps it's just King's ineptitude in delivering his message, but this is the distinct impression I have of the situation so far.

[travel_dude]

The debate over the cost of the Next proposal comes down to the cost of the cleanup.  The Flames say one thing and the city says closer to $1B.  Oh well, no point in discussing the cost of a cleanup effort that doesn't want to be tackled.

 

I'm going to sit out the rest of this debate of use of public funds.  If the city wants the arena built, they will come to the table.  Same holds true for the Flames.  One side of the facts are out, so there isn't any point on coming down on one side right now.     

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, xmiika said:

 

Could you show me where it says that the City of Calgary will own the new arena? I haven't seen it anywhere.

 

It was something I heard on the radio.  Cross clarifies it well,

 

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

According to Nenshi the city is open to both. If City owns the building, Flames pay rent, if the Flames own the building they pay property tax but the end goal is that the city should share in the upside and revenues the building creates. 

 

Ya that makes more sense.  

 

Whoever owns the building should be able to market the facilities for concerts and such to make extra money on days off.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:

After watching Nenshi and King speak today, I will reiterate my contention that King is not the person to communicate with the public about this. He does not have Nenshi's political acumen and is seriously being outplayed. He and Bettman are using the old NHL play book while Nenshi and the City have given significant thought on how to counter their moves.

 

Nenshi has earned the ranks of being one of the best public speakers we have ever seen.  Right up there with other greats like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

 

Give him a mic and an audience.  He will charm with his command of the English language, perfect choice of words, timely jokes, lovable persona, and his sincerity for the common good.  

 

When King went public a couple days ago, it made Nenshi out to be the bad guy... And then it was Nenshi's turn to speak.  The tables turned instantly.

[cross16]

18 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

When King went public a couple days ago, it made Nenshi out to be the bad guy... And then it was Nenshi's turn to speak.  The tables turned instantly.

 

This isn't meant to criticize but I am wondering what CESC's plan was when they started this. Was it to make it an election issue? win the PR campaign? Kickstart negotiations? Get fans on their side?

 

I only wonder because I think CESC is getting killed in the PR game here. I've very surprised that the majority of people i've taked to the in the last few days have not changed their mind and are sticking with the city and want CESC to pay more. I just find it very interesting and was really expecting people to turn on Nenshi but that doesn't appear to be happening. King certainly didn't help things with his mess of a press conference today. 

[xmiika]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This isn't meant to criticize but I am wondering what CESC's plan was when they started this. Was it to make it an election issue? win the PR campaign? Kickstart negotiations? Get fans on their side?

 

I only wonder because I think CESC is getting killed in the PR game here. I've very surprised that the majority of people i've taked to the in the last few days have not changed their mind and are sticking with the city and want CESC to pay more. I just find it very interesting and was really expecting people to turn on Nenshi but that doesn't appear to be happening. King certainly didn't help things with his mess of a press conference today. 

I know, eh? They totally underestimated their own fanbase and that includes their spokesman E. Francis. Though he was kind of backtracking already the next day.

 

I too have talked to several people at work, among friends and no one is siding with CSEC. Even many Nenshi haters have said they agree with the Mayor and a couple haters actually are considering voting for him and these people used to severly hate the Mayor. They said that they feel Nenshi is the only one who can properly look after the City's interests in this matter. We want a new arena but with a reasonable deal.

[conundrumed]

Frustrated by bureaucracy? I'm guessing could be one cause.

The said, King is right. Victoria Park is a terrible plan.

The CSEC is right with their location, just overshooting an all-in-one plan.

Build your arena, do some extraneous development of restaurants and hotels, if it turns into a football/field house down the road great.

One burning question.

Do we have to host a multi-bilion dollar Olympics every time our own home city's most popular team needs a new arena?

 

But you're right cross, KK, that statement was a trainwreck. Very apparent when the 1st question was, "why don't the billionaires and millionaires just pay for it"?

This is definitely political now. It's definitely off the tracks.

2nd burning question. Why is city council dictating location? East side of downtown Calgary? Really?

That's a bigger seedy area than even the west side of downtown Calgary, I've been around.

Our team needs a new arena. Incompetence ensues from all involved is what it boils down to for me.

Pump you're chests out boys, you're both, and likely all, too enamoured with yourselves.

Again, this isn't remotely considered an investment, nor does it seem any attempt is being made to make it one.

[stubblejumper1]

I find it insulting that Ken King thinks people are stupid enough to believe that the ticket surcharge would/should be Flames revenue.  That is like complaining that:

 

1. GST charged on tickets should be considered Flames revenue.

2. Ticketmaster fees charged on tickets should be considered Flames revenue.  

 

A surcharge is a way to pass on the arena cost to consumers who choose to attend Flames games (a very reasonable idea, in my opinion.)

 

The math is simple:

 

[(expenses  - other revenue) + (capital investment)*(1+ROR)]/[(# games per year)*(avg attendance)] = avg ticket price

 

where:

 

expenses = salaries, travel, equipment, advertising, etc. for the year

 

other revenue = beer, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc. for the year

 

capital investment = what the owners paid for the team

 

ROR = the rate of return the Flames owners want on their investment

 

# games per year = 41 + 4 (because they charge full price for all the exhibition games)

 

avg attendance = average number of tickets sold per home game

 

avg ticket price = the average price per ticket the Flames need to charge to make the owner's investment profitable.  

 

The ticket surcharge, Ticketmaster fees and GST are added to the cost of the ticket.  Consumers then decide whether or not they are willing to pay to go to a Flames game. 

 

Anyone one who is siding with Ken King/the Flames ownership needs to consider this:

 

Eric Francis is siding with Ken King and the owners.  That Takes all credibility away from KK and the owners.

[conundrumed]

But by most report's, Kid Rock opened Little Caesar's Arena (Detroit boy), to huge positive reviews about the venue.

I'm hoping to catch the Piston's home opener there Oct 18th. I'll post pictures.

It's not just about Garth Brooks. That venue is getting EVERYONE.

Build it, and they will come.

Don't cheap out, be a world class venue.

[conundrumed]

5 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

I find it insulting that Ken King thinks people are stupid enough to believe that the ticket surcharge would/should be Flames revenue.  That is like complaining that:

 

1. GST charged on tickets should be considered Flames revenue.

2. Ticketmaster fees charged on tickets should be considered Flames revenue.  

 

A surcharge is a way to pass on the arena cost to consumers who choose to attend Flames games (a very reasonable idea, in my opinion.)

 

The math is simple:

 

[(expenses  - other revenue) + (capital investment)*(1+ROR)]/[(# games per year)*(avg attendance)] = avg ticket price

 

where:

 

expenses = salaries, travel, equipment, advertising, etc. for the year

 

other revenue = beer, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc. for the year

 

capital investment = what the owners paid for the team

 

ROR = the rate of return the Flames owners want on their investment

 

# games per year = 41 + 4 (because they charge full price for all the exhibition games)

 

avg attendance = average number of tickets sold per home game

 

avg ticket price = the average price per ticket the Flames need to charge to make the owner's investment profitable.  

 

The ticket surcharge, Ticketmaster fees and GST are added to the cost of the ticket.  Consumers then decide whether or not they are willing to pay to go to a Flames game. 

 

Anyone one who is siding with Ken King/the Flames ownership needs to consider this:

 

Eric Francis is siding with Ken King and the owners.  That almost automatically makes KK and the owners wrong.  

I side for neither side, if that was directed at me.

But I sense your rage (best yoda voice).

And if you don't mind,can you just call him EF, his full name sears my eyes.

[stubblejumper1]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

I side for neither side, if that was directed at me.

But I sense your rage (best yoda voice).

And if you don't mind,can you just call him EF, his full name sears my eyes.

 

My post wasn't directed at anyone, just venting.  ?