OT Non-Ski Resort Thread - Part I - New Beginnings

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
notice how flames players never wear a hat at the draft
Flames had a "tradition" whereby the "unsung hero" of the game would be given a "fireman's hat". That was of at least a season or two ago - not sure if they continue with that policy.

But who cares. **** the Flames.

:)

Looks like Naheed Nenshi got re-elected despite the best efforts of the Flames. LOL, guess they'll threaten to move now right? Nah, more like the people of Calgary aren't dumb enough to give corporate welfare to billionaries.

**** the Flames.

ah, I feel better now. Oh yeah......**** the Flames...
 
Last edited:

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
I actually don't see anything wrong with a city subsidizing some of the cost of an arena. There is an economic benefit the city receives by having that team there.
 

vancityluongo

curse of the strombino
Sponsor
Jul 8, 2006
18,561
6,216
Edmonton
I actually don't see anything wrong with a city subsidizing some of the cost of an arena. There is an economic benefit the city receives by having that team there.

That isn't really true.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/calgary-saddledome-arena-ken-king-naheed-nenshi/

I took a couple classes taught by one of the people mentioned in the article, and his expanded work shows pretty clearly that any "economic benefits" are either grossly exaggerated, misinterpreted or simply non-existent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I in the Eye

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
That isn't really true.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/calgary-saddledome-arena-ken-king-naheed-nenshi/

I took a couple classes taught by one of the people mentioned in the article, and his expanded work shows pretty clearly that any "economic benefits" are either grossly exaggerated, misinterpreted or simply non-existent.

Interesting article. I did a quick search and read a couple scholarly papers and it seems to be consistent with what you've suggested. I still think there are items like tax revenues generated from that sports team (and the players) that need to be considered, property taxes on homes those players purchased in the area, etc.; however, it does sound like the general consensus is that if there is an economic benefit it's fairly negligible. Interesting.
 

vancityluongo

curse of the strombino
Sponsor
Jul 8, 2006
18,561
6,216
Edmonton
Interesting article. I did a quick search and read a couple scholarly papers and it seems to be consistent with what you've suggested. I still think there are items like tax revenues generated from that sports team (and the players) that need to be considered, property taxes on homes those players purchased in the area, etc.; however, it does sound like the general consensus is that if there is an economic benefit it's fairly negligible. Interesting.

Most of that was considered in the model. The argument is essentially that while businesses within a proximity of the arena make more profits, it's just taking an essentially fixed household entertainment budget and re-directing it within a centralized area. New homes also aren't built for all of the 30 or so multi-millionaires that a professional team brings in, so property taxes alone change by a negligible amount.

Unless it's an unique situation like Edmonton, a similar proposal to get the arena Kanata to downtown Ottawa/Glendale to Phoenix or one where the city gets a portion of revenues and profits...it's usually a burden on taxpayers that is never re-couped on the aggregate, while the demographic of people that are least likely to use the facilities are impacted even more. Which is disproportionately those who don't have the disposable incomes required to attend NHL games.

Not mentioned in the article, but the more important question in my mind is whether or not the economics behind sports arenas will continue to deteriorate in the future. The entertainment landscape is changing. Watching hockey is not the only thing to do on a Saturday night like it may have been 30 or 40 years ago.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
Most of that was considered in the model. The argument is essentially that while businesses within a proximity of the arena make more profits, it's just taking an essentially fixed household entertainment budget and re-directing it within a centralized area. New homes also aren't built for all of the 30 or so multi-millionaires that a professional team brings in, so property taxes alone change by a negligible amount.

Unless it's an unique situation like Edmonton, a similar proposal to get the arena Kanata to downtown Ottawa/Glendale to Phoenix or one where the city gets a portion of revenues and profits...it's usually a burden on taxpayers that is never re-couped on the aggregate, while the demographic of people that are least likely to use the facilities are impacted even more. Which is disproportionately those who don't have the disposable incomes required to attend NHL games.

Not mentioned in the article, but the more important question in my mind is whether or not the economics behind sports arenas will continue to deteriorate in the future. The entertainment landscape is changing. Watching hockey is not the only thing to do on a Saturday night like it may have been 30 or 40 years ago.

Very good points. Thanks for mentioning this. You've definitely changed my outlook on these arena subsidy deals.

I think what it will come down to is if other cities are willing to subsidize a new arena, does the city of Calgary value the Flames enough to match that? And does ownership value the Calgary market as much as they would Seattle, or perhaps even Quebec? I think they could make as much profit in Quebec, Seattle I'm not so sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vancityluongo

vancityluongo

curse of the strombino
Sponsor
Jul 8, 2006
18,561
6,216
Edmonton
Very good points. Thanks for mentioning this. You've definitely changed my outlook on these arena subsidy deals.

I think what it will come down to is if other cities are willing to subsidize a new arena, does the city of Calgary value the Flames enough to match that? And does ownership value the Calgary market as much as they would Seattle, or perhaps even Quebec? I think they could make as much profit in Quebec, Seattle I'm not so sure.

I think the willingness of cities to start these subsidies is going to decrease rapidly. From my understanding, the City of Calgary has a decent bit of leverage in this situation in that there really isn't a similar precedent of an NHL city subsidizing more than what is already on the table and the Flames don't have any credible re-location threats. That professor I mentioned earlier actually did a feasibility study for the City of Edmonton when Katz threatened to move to Seattle and found that re-location would be a disaster for the Oilers. That report allowed the CoE to tell Katz to f*** off and within a couple days he issued an apology in the newspaper hahah. Seattle has obviously changed since then, but Calgary is a bigger market than Edmonton so I can't imagine the situation being entirely different. Not sure about Quebec, and they already have an arena which helps... but that's a significantly smaller market. Houston might have a shot, but it's not certain by any means and the optics of moving a mid-sized Canadian franchise to a non-hockey city would probably be too risky for the NHL to allow.

Unless the Flames are willing to accept what was basically a referendum on public support of a better arena deal, this could definitely drag on for a while. To be fair, I also understand their end of things; who the hell wants to take on the brunt of the costs on a $700m investment that might not break even for decades?
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
I think the willingness of cities to start these subsidies is going to decrease rapidly. From my understanding, the City of Calgary has a decent bit of leverage in this situation in that there really isn't a similar precedent of an NHL city subsidizing more than what is already on the table and the Flames don't have any credible re-location threats. That professor I mentioned earlier actually did a feasibility study for the City of Edmonton when Katz threatened to move to Seattle and found that re-location would be a disaster for the Oilers. That report allowed the CoE to tell Katz to **** off and within a couple days he issued an apology in the newspaper hahah. Seattle has obviously changed since then, but Calgary is a bigger market than Edmonton so I can't imagine the situation being entirely different. Not sure about Quebec, and they already have an arena which helps... but that's a significantly smaller market. Houston might have a shot, but it's not certain by any means and the optics of moving a mid-sized Canadian franchise to a non-hockey city would probably be too risky for the NHL to allow.

Unless the Flames are willing to accept what was basically a referendum on public support of a better arena deal, this could definitely drag on for a while. To be fair, I also understand their end of things; who the hell wants to take on the brunt of the costs on a $700m investment that might not break even for decades?

Agreed. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

I'm not too familiar with either sides proposals, but I recall the city proposed subsidizing 1/3rd of the arena, 1/3rd to be paid for by Flames ownership, and 1/3rd to be paid for through a ticket surcharge. If that's the case I really don't see what the problem with that is. Ownership basically would be on the hook for $233M, the city would take on $233M in debt, and the fans would pay the remaining amount through that surcharge. I recall Ken King mentioning that the surgecharge comes out of their revenues, which is something I disagree with. It would be an additional charge that they shouldn't be already charging.
 

yvrtojfk

Registered User
Aug 13, 2016
3,213
1,279
Canada
I know you all been wondering and I ended with Shaw.

I got small TV and internet 150 for $67 w/ tax.

Shout out to Nuckles.
 

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
Okay, this piece of shit website is becoming unusable. It's slower than shit, I try to make a post, and something keeps on behaving as though I've clicked off the page, something keeps reloading every time I try to read threads, I keep being logged off for some reason, and embedded tweets still only show halfway down after this problem was briefly fixed.

Xenforo sucks ass.
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,741
23,893
Okay, this piece of **** website is becoming unusable. It's slower than ****, I try to make a post, and something keeps on behaving as though I've clicked off the page, something keeps reloading every time I try to read threads, I keep being logged off for some reason, and embedded tweets still only show halfway down after this problem was briefly fixed.

Xenforo sucks ass.

It's gotta be just you - it's super fast for me.
 

member 290103

Guest
Disgusting posts on the main board denigrating the Tragically Hip.
 

Eddy Punch Clock

Jack Adams 2028
Jun 13, 2007
13,126
1,823
Chillbillyville
Buy a Mac.

Enjoy your porn.

wBe4W.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->