Discussion in 'Calgary Flames' started by InfinityIggy, Sep 24, 2017.
I added a premium though - Forbes has them valued around $430 million (USD)
"Hey you, make me a sandwich!"
(to media) "It's not looking like I'm going to be able to eat lunch today. :'-( "
I just wanna add something of note. I think that the Flames Arena issue will become an election issue in the next Provincial election.
I do recall Notley saying that any cost would have to be measured against school, hospitals, etc. In other words they are against it.
Anyone wanna take a guess where they think the UCP will stand on this issue?
If I were to rank sandwich analogies from best to worse, this would be in the middle.
I thought it was upper crust myself.
Shots fired? (smells more like desperation)
Calgary could use Saddledome for 2026 Olympics, IOC signals to local bid project team
This is more the IOC trying to piss the NHL off and trying to tell the city of Calgary what they want to hear so they’ll host. It doesn’t mean we don’t need a new rink
They're such drama queens.
I feel like Bettman wants us to move just make an example out of us.
I fully support Bettman without even reading the article.
Thanks for the laughs Bettman, this isn't America. If our deep pocket owners want a new rink, then pony up the cash.
You mean it hasn't improved after ownership already took their proverbial ball and went home?
Wonder why Gary.
They keep re-iterating, "financially deteriorating" yet provide no evidence or proof that it's happening, no stats to back it up, nothing. Just words that mean nothing.
I'm not saying a new arena wouldn't be better for them financially, it obviously will because ticket prices will go up, concessions will skyrocket up, etc.
The Flames saying how a new arena will do wonders for the city though is a joke. Blow it out your ass Flames owners.
I'd like to say the over the top blatant stupidity of this board surprised me, but sadly it doesn't anymore.
Bettman is doing his annual around the league, which means Q&As with media and season ticket holders. But yes, let's make this out to be more than him just answering questions asked.
Not exactly. He took a side and lobbied on the Flames' behalf, just as he did last time he waded into this. Not all of his comments resemble answers to questions. Some of them, yes, but he goes beyond simple answers to more spin.
Are you serious with this? Took a side? Literally all he's doing is his ****ing job. If Bettman was not biased towards the Flames, he'd lose his job. That's like complaining that a lawyer for Green Peace defends the environment.
But he is also 100% right, but people have their heads too far up their own asses to see it.
Sports teams in small cities never pay for their own arena completely like the HF brain-trust thinks is a good idea. This is because they simply don't make enough money to make it feasible. This rhetoric that "the owners are rich, they should pay for it", to put simply is the epitome of stupidity. The money they make in other businesses, should have no bearing on this conversation. The money the Calgary Flames make should.
To simplify this, let's say a new arena is $600m, the Flames put down $200m in "cash". The Flames took out a 30 year mortgage for the remaining $400m. Now let's pretend the Flames get an amazing mortgage/loan rate of 1%. The Flames would need to pay back about $1.285m per month ($15.42m per year) to pay that off in 30 years. This does not include any arena maintenance. This does not include them trying to restock their "cash" reserves, this is just the cost of the $400m to be re-paid per month at a near impossible interest rate. If you think the Flames make $15m in profits each year to repay a laon that size, you are not being honest with yourself.
The reasons for needing new a arena are plentiful. Here are just a few:
1. They need to improve the quality of the experience at the live event because we are reaching an era where people would prefer to watch games at home than go to an arena.
2. The older the Saddledome gets, the more it will cost to keep it operational; combine that with rising salaries and the money needs to come from somewhere.
3. Free agents are drawn more to modern facilities.
TL;DR: If you expect the Flames to pay for an arena alone, you are not being realistic. If you are complaining that Bettman is "taking sides", I wonder if you even understand what his job is.
The Arena for the Islanders is going to be be 100% privately funded. It's doable, but why do that when you can squeeze money out of the city?
That isn't the situation, though. The city's offer did not involve the team paying 100%. That was a ridiculous lie told by Ken King. The details of the plan were disclosed.
I actually don’t really mind Bettmans comments here. I think he is wrong, but what he is doing is poking the team/city with a stick to try and move the ball down field.
I don't expect the Flames to pay it all. But if they expect 100% of buildings revenue, yet the city to own it and therefore pay no property tax or anything at all, I do think they should pay for a significant chunk of it. The deal they proposed was ridiculous and them saying they wouldn't move to anything more period means I have no sympathy for them. If they move, they move. It would suck, but I can live with it
Both deals were completely ridiculous IMO. Meet half way. Is that so hard?
On one hand you had Murray Edwards trying to screw the city over and on the other you have the city trying to pay basically only the interest.
Why are people so greedy? I’ll never understand it.
And if you think the City’s offer of:
- several hundred millions of dollars up front,
- a low interest rate loan for another several hundred millions of dollars
- providing additional transportation infrastructure (green line lrt) for another several hundreds of millions of dollars, and
- reclaiming the old Saddledome site for what will probably amount to another hundred million dollars,
Is the Flames paying for an arena alone, you’re delusional.
In that stupid thing the Flames wrote, didn't they say they ended up paying like 110% because of the interest? And if I am remembering incorrectly and it was only 100%, it's still beyond hilarious how they can print/say that with a straight face when it's so incredibly wrong, a straight up lie, and they look like amateurs.
It was property tax. They were essentially claiming that property tax should be factored into the building cost, and thus they were paying for 125% or something ridiculous like that.