Ken King; Flames Ownership no longer pursuing new arena in Calgary

[blueandgoldguy]

Where arena negotiations should re-commence is in the value engineering of the proposed arena. I am quite confident you could build a $450 - $475 million arena that seats 18,000, has 80 -100 suites, 2000 - 3000 club seats, 500 - 800 loge seats, has 600,000 - 700,000 square feet. That should provide the Flames with all the revenue they need to keep up with the Joneses. But no, Calgary can't possibly have a cheaper and less attractive arena than Edmonton - that's not an option, is it?

 

[djpatm]

If they were negotiating in good faith, that would be a logical step. Try to reduce the cost of the overall project.

They're not negotiating in good faith though. I know I keep beating the same drum but I do not believe that the ownership group wants the team anymore unless they get their sweetheart deal.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

According to Darren Dreger, the Flames are receiving revenue sharing, which now puts the number of Canadian teams on assistance at 3... at least. It would be a no-brainer for the Calgary owner to explore relocation to a market like Houston if a deal for a new building can't be made.

 

[InfinityIggy]

According to Darren Dreger, the Flames are receiving revenue sharing, which now puts the number of Canadian teams on assistance at 3... at least. It would be a no-brainer for the Calgary owner to explore relocation to a market like Houston if a deal for a new building can't be made.

Receiving revenue sharing != unprofitable team.

It just means the have dipped out of the top 10 teams. Despite what picture King may be trying to paint.

 

[ResilientBeast]

According to Darren Dreger, the Flames are receiving revenue sharing, which now puts the number of Canadian teams on assistance at 3... at least. It would be a no-brainer for the Calgary owner to explore relocation to a market like Houston if a deal for a new building can't be made.

Every source I've seen says they are no longer contributing to revenue sharing (ie Vegas is making more). That doesn't mean they aren't making money

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Receiving revenue sharing != unprofitable team.
It just means the have dipped out of the top 10 teams. Despite what picture King may be trying to paint.

Every source I've seen says they are no longer contributing to revenue sharing (ie Vegas is making more). That doesn't mean they aren't making money

Nowhere in my post did I mention that the Flames are losing money, that's just an attempt to strawman the argument.

Remember when recieving revenue sharing was bad and meant you were a bad market? I remember.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Nowhere in my post did I mention that the Flames are losing money, that's just an attempt to strawman the argument.

Remember when recieving revenue sharing was bad and meant you were a bad market? I remember.

Nor did mine. Apparently you don't know what a strawman is either.

Anyway. The point being, the Flames could be more profitable than ever (we don't know). All we know is some number of teams passed them in terms of profitability. That's what I am pointing out.

 

[Mike Jones]

Every source I've seen says they are no longer contributing to revenue sharing (ie Vegas is making more). That doesn't mean they aren't making money

They're probably using more creative accounting to help get the city to think they really need tax dollars to build the arena. The more money they can bury or move somewhere else (I wonder how the Roughnecks are doing) the more they can say to the city "Look how poor we are - you have to help us!"

Boo hoo.

 

[Mike Jones]

According to Darren Dreger, the Flames are receiving revenue sharing, which now puts the number of Canadian teams on assistance at 3... at least. It would be a no-brainer for the Calgary owner to explore relocation to a market like Houston if a deal for a new building can't be made.

Dreger and the other talking heads shouldn't fall for their crap. The Flames owners just want lots of free money so that they can get richer at the expense of city services. This is a lucrative market and the Flames will make money once they build, finance and start running their own arena.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Nor did mine. Apparently you don't know what a strawman is either.

Anyway. The point being, the Flames could be more profitable than ever (we don't know). All we know is some number of teams passed them in terms of profitability. That's what I am pointing out.

Yeah, they could be more profitable if they get a new building or the team is relocated to a better market. But as things are now their profits if any are so low that they are receiving revenue sharing.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Yeah, they could be more profitable if they get a new building or the team is relocated to a better market. But as things are now their profits if any are so low that they are receiving revenue sharing.

There is no evidence of their profits being 'low'. Literally none. Receiving revenue sharing doesn't indicate anything about how profitable they are relative to the past, it only tells us at least 10 teams are now more profitable than the Flames.

If the Flames were losing money, you can bet they would be using it as an argument as to why they need a new arena. They aren't though, they aren't showing any numbers. Instead they are using 'revenue sharing' to try and convince people they are a 'have not' (Ken King's own words).

I can't blame him though, apparently it's working.

 

[vancityluongo]

I think this discussion is happening in part because of a bigger issue than the NHL or the Calgary arena itself; the entertainment landscape is changing, and sports hold less appeal than they used to. From personal anecdotes I've heard, kids growing up now are spending more time watching Minecraft videos on YouTube than they are watching hockey games. The growth of the NHL in general is really at question here.

If that's the case, certainly don't think this is going to be resolved any time soon. Who wants to build a $700m arena when they might not generate a return to break even? That goes for both Edwards and the City. Re-location is a ridiculous threat though; it may have held some water for Seattle against a smaller market in Edmonton, but then it was discovered that it didn't. Houston might have more people, but they sure as hell wouldn't have more hockey fans.

 

[pucky]

So, the city nor the franchise owners (claim to) have the money to finance the new arena yet Calgary says they can host the Olympic Games and cover costs? LOL! That's insane.

As for Vancouver the poster (who is a Nucks fan, I presume) thinks it was a success in Vancouver? Another.....chance for laughs and giggles.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/10/olympics-financial-disasters/
http://www.news1130.com/2015/02/11/five-years-after-vancouver-2010-the-price-of-the-party/

Let's get real, fellas. ;-)

 

[MNNumbers]

Concerning revenue sharing. Up thread you will find that the Flames fell from 10 to 11 because the Oilers passed them.

That's no crisis, and says nothing negative about the market.

It's just a point of argument and then negotiation.

 

[Mightygoose]

Yes, it's all part of the negotiation. The fact that they're saying no longer paying into revenue sharing as opposed to just say they're losing money tells me their crying poor leg won't stand.

If they can't afford the city's offer (doesn’t mean it can be improved) then show them the books.

The Flames won't do that. By not paying into revenue sharing by being 11th might show they're actually MORE profitable than being at 10th.

There is no place the Flames can move to, retain ownership and improve their bottom line. Not Houston, not Seattle, not Quebec City. They would have to sell in any of those cases. Considering ownership has allot of business ties including 3 other sports teams, I don't think they're anywhere close to that decision.

 

[StreetHawk]

According to Darren Dreger, the Flames are receiving revenue sharing, which now puts the number of Canadian teams on assistance at 3... at least. It would be a no-brainer for the Calgary owner to explore relocation to a market like Houston if a deal for a new building can't be made.

Flames just can't pick up and leave town.

I believe the rules within the league requires to flames owners to try to sell the team to another party that would keep the team in Calgary. If they can't find one, then they can with the approval of the league go and find another city to play in.

However, you also have to look at the cities that are available and ask if the flames are going to be better off in that city. Assuming that the flames not for sale, its a move with the Calgary owners.

Seattle, a group is willing to spend $650 million to redo key arena. They aren't going to be handing over the keys to the revenue streams to a hockey team. Plus they want an NBA team.

Portland, Houston have NBA teams where the NBA team owner controls the revenues of the building. So, the flames will be a tenant.

KC, they operate profitably without a pro team. So it has to make sense for them to let the flames in.

It's a different story if the flams are for sale and the rockets new owner wants to buy them. Paul Allen, don't think he is interested as he has not bid for an expansion team in the past 2 rounds.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

According to Darren Dreger, the Flames are receiving revenue sharing, which now puts the number of Canadian teams on assistance at 3... at least. It would be a no-brainer for the Calgary owner to explore relocation to a market like Houston if a deal for a new building can't be made.

But wouldn't it make more sense to move a team like Arizona to Houston when the Coyotes are at the bottom of league revenues with barely $100 million US - that's with max or near max. revenue-sharing? Compare that to the Flames who have had over a $120 million US in total revenues in 2016 with a tidy $18 million profit. This is with a depressed Canadian dollar too.

Overall, the league would see a far greater increase in total revenues by relocating the Coyotes - a bottom -revenue team for its entire existence - than moving a team like Calgary - still a mid-revenue team despite a mediocre dollar and older arena - who was a top 12-14 revenue generator just a few years ago.

https://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#tab:overall

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45fjdge/13-calgary-flames-3/#237cd97563ac

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/563a47c8e4b0ffa7afe6b3cf/15-calgary-flames/#57fc2e2a2c9d

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Yeah, they could be more profitable if they get a new building or the team is relocated to a better market. But as things are now their profits if any are so low that they are receiving revenue sharing.

According to the 2016 Forbes report, the Flames had an operating income of $18 million US. How is this so low? Meanwhile, the Coyotes lost $8 million US with one of the lower payrolls and far greater subsidies.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

According to the 2016 Forbes report, the Flames had an operating income of $18 million US. How is this so low? Meanwhile, the Coyotes lost $8 million US with one of the lower payrolls and far greater subsidies.

Great, good to know that even the welfare queens are profitable, it just shows how well the NHL as a whole is doing.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Great, good to know that even the welfare queens are profitable, it just shows how well the NHL as a whole is doing.

So are you saying most of the NHL teams are welfare queens since most are net recipients of revenue sharing?

 

[Bixby Snyder]

So are you saying most of the NHL teams are welfare queens since most are net recipients of revenue sharing?

That's what I've been told, at least about the sunbelt teams but it all okay now I guess.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

That's what I've been told, at least about the sunbelt teams but it all okay now I guess.

Well, you seem to be forgetting an important distinction between certain sunbelt teams and some of these other franchises besides the obvious fact that they are located below a certain latitude.

 

[Mike Jones]

According to the 2016 Forbes report, the Flames had an operating income of $18 million US. How is this so low?

The NHL team's parent entity has other teams (In different sports and leagues) with which they can share and spread the revenue from things like arena parking and concessions. The accounting would look very different if Flames' owners only had the one team to manage. I'm sure one of the things the City of Calgary did was insist on seeing the books for the entire organization. At least I'm hoping they did that.

 

[powerstuck]

It's okay guys...everyone knows that NHL makes all of it's money below the 49th parallel. All the 7 teams in Canada are on welfare and just subsist because of how kind Uncle Gary is with us Canadians.

Lets just ignore that 3 of the top 10 teams NOT receiving revenue share are in Canada and that those 3 teams on their own contribute about as much in revenue sharing as the other 7 teams.

2 of the 3 biggest money makers are Canadian teams (and those top 3 make at least the double of team #4).

 

[Mike Jones]

It's okay guys...everyone knows that NHL makes all of it's money below the 49th parallel. All the 7 teams in Canada are on welfare and just subsist because of how kind Uncle Gary is with us Canadians.

I assume you're being sarcastic. If Gary had his way he'd move each and every Canadian franchise to each and every available southern US desert.

I don't know why - it's probably just one of his weird things.