News Article: Flames Not-So-New Arena, The Saga Continues

[Anglesmith]

Why is it melodramatic? It's a statement of facts.

Is it? Here are the statements I would classify as melodramatic:

No one is paying the NHL another 500 Million expansion fee. That isn't happening and it's really the only thing that would realistically keep the Flames where they are. If the Flames become motivated sellers, they will be sold. All we can hope is that it's to a local buyer who is committed to keeping the team here and willing to work with the city to do so.

This isn't a fact, this is melodramatic hyperbole. An expansion team wouldn't keep the Flames from moving, but besides that, getting a new arena deal is the much more likely way to keep the Flames in Calgary.

The Flames are a middling franchise that makes a nice little profit but is currently capped at what they can earn and Calgary is a market that is in deep recession with an extremely bleak long term outlook. The BOG is a cartel. They do not need to answer to shareholders or anyone else. If the Flames ownership wants to sell they will get their relocation fee and move on with life. They will not miss one of their smallest markets in Canada and having a team in Seattle is infinitely more desirable for a league that is under a lot of competition in the American sports market.

These aren't facts either. You're dramatically building up a grass is greener argument that no one actually believes. The grass really isn't greener in Seattle, and factoring in the relocation fee, it would be a horrible business move.

Everything coming from the Flames side in this situation, the arrogance, the misrepresentation of facts, the blunt threats, all of it screams that they have little interest in maintaining a good relationship with the city.

Is this a statement of facts, too? Because it sure seems like your own dramatic interpretation of a big-league negotiation.

Frankly, as much as I love the Flames, let them go. The ownership group is one of the worst in the league and their clear lack of commitment to the city and disregard for the struggles of the average Calgarian during this recession is a punch in the gut.

Hopefully we have some wealthy Calgarians that will step up and be more willing to negotiate in good faith with the City to bring another team here.

Another statement of facts, where you're already bemoaning the fact that the Flames have already left.

 

[djpatm]

It does work if it actually brings supporting retail development (hotels, restaurants, and so on) as that's the entire premise - there is a new robust tax base to collect from. Not just parking lots / vacant land.

The current Saddledome hasn't brought that retail base, so why would Saddledome 2.0 do it in the same location? It might have done in the west village as there's bigger opportunity for that type of development, where Vic park might be tapped out (and a bit sketchy).

That's what I mean. If it was 2010? Hell yeah, bring it on. You could easily sell a booming development in Vic Park around the new arena that could pay back the CRL without the Flames contributing. But that was 7 years ago. Office vacancies are through the roof, no one is going to build even more downtown condos in a soft market and retail alone is drop in the bucket compared to what the Flames want to avoid paying.

If this is the best the Flames have to offer and they're really done negotiating, this is without a doubt in my mind, the end of this ownership group having a team in Calgary.

 

[Anglesmith]

That's the thing, though. They aren't done negotiating. Why would they be releasing these details to the public before the election if they were done negotiating?

 

[djpatm]

Is it? Here are the statements I would classify as melodramatic:



This isn't a fact, this is melodramatic hyperbole. An expansion team wouldn't keep the Flames from moving, but besides that, getting a new arena deal is the much more likely way to keep the Flames in Calgary.

Does it really sound to you like the Flames are negotiating in good faith?

These aren't facts either. You're dramatically building up a grass is greener argument that no one actually believes. The grass really isn't greener in Seattle, and factoring in the relocation fee, it would be a horrible business move.

You're assuming that it would be this ownership group moving the team. More likely, they will just unload the team and if that owner wants a team some where else, 200 million for relocation is exactly how you avoid paying that BS expansion fee.

Is this a statement of facts, too? Because it sure seems like your own dramatic interpretation of a big-league negotiation.

Considering the events that have unfolded in the last two weeks, yes I'd say it is.

Another statement of facts, where you're already bemoaning the fact that the Flames have already left.

Unless someone caves, which is looking quite unlikely, I would say they're as good as sold because the only lifelines that exist are olympic funding or some crazy council being elected that takes a complete 180 from the current position.

Considering that the olympic bid plan is awful and there are other serious bids on the table, that is unlikely and considering the overall sentiment about the arena in Calgary has turned against the Flames, the new council is also unlikely to change anything.

That's the thing, though. They aren't done negotiating. Why would they be releasing these details to the public before the election if they were done negotiating?

And thats the crux to the whole debate. We're being told that this is it. If it's not and one of them cave, or they actually grow up and meet in the middle then this was all a moot point and we will laugh about it in a couple years.

I do think the next move by CSEC is to be seen in Seattle or to invite the Seattle group to Calgary. Literally the only move they have left besides returning to the negotiations.

 

[Flameshomer]

Y'all are silly- this proposal has been dead from the get go, and this "flames side of the argument" just proves how badly they don't actually want it in Vic park.

I've said it before, but IMO this is all about the real estate around the arena. In the Vic Park plan, there's no room for the owners to own and develop the land around it, which is what Katz is making an actual killing on right now in Edmonton.

 

[JPeeper]

Y'all are silly- this proposal has been dead from the get go, and this "flames side of the argument" just proves how badly they don't actually want it in Vic park.

I've said it before, but IMO this is all about the real estate around the arena. In the Vic Park plan, there's no room for the owners to own and develop the land around it, which is what Katz is making an actual killing on right now in Edmonton.

I agree with your last paragraph. I feel this is way more than just an arena, Flames want to build a community type area (which I am 100% for) opposed to just an arena. The problem I see is the owners want to pay no tax on any of this and want to be given land for nothing (it seems from previous reports).

In my opinion the only way the Flames actually make money through the arena deal (if they were to pay a ****load of money for it) is to develop the surrounding area and do what ever they want with it (real estate, restaurants, etc.). They won't make back $300-500 mil + on an arena in 30+ years, it won't happen. They can make money though with other ventures in the area (potentially, everything still has a chance to fail). I understand why the City doesn't want to give the Flames a lot of land for this, because the Flames don't seem to want to pay tax ever or pay for the land, which is ludicrous.

 

[FlamerForLife]

 

[Kranix]

Ken King on the fan today, was that the shortest interview they've ever done?

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Thanks for that post. The city's proposal is very fair IMO. The Flames proposal is absolutely despicable. Not surprised Murray.

To put that in perspective, the ownership gets about ~70 million dollars in revenue after player salaries annually just from the NHL. That's just league average. The Flames are likely higher even with the recession.

~185 million over 35 years is equivalent to 5.2 million per year. Then the city tax in the proposal is probably what, another 5? So you're telling me Ken King/Murray Edwards that you can't afford 10 million a year. Give me a break. Obviously scouting and coaching are another large cost. As are hotels and what not.

Owners being greedy, nothing to see here.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Thanks for that post. The city's proposal is very fair IMO. The Flames proposal is absolutely despicable. Not surprised Murray.

Yeah, having the Flames pay for 100% of the project seems like a deal they can’t say no to

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Yeah, having the Flames pay for 100% of the project seems like a deal they can’t say no to

Actually the Flames owners aren't paying for nearly that much, but go ahead and drink Ken's Kool-aid.

A) the owners are not paying the ticket surcharge. The city is covering the financing (interest) and the rest of the money comes from a hiking of ticket prices. Hence the reason it's called a ticket surcharge.

B) the city is paying another 55 million for construction/demolition

C) while they will be charging taxes to get the money they spent back. Due to inflation that 5 million dollars they get every year will go down by inflation every year (which is about 3%)

Ken King in his interview said and I'm paraphrasing. We are going to make this work as long as we can. Of course you are, it's a lucrative business and there are several other owners that would jump to calgary in the drop of the hat. It's a business. Buisnesses are designed to create money. Business is good despite our terrible rink. That's the key to this deal. The City has the power.

The Flames will put in 185 million upfront. And another 185 over time through taxes (but like I said that annual 5 million dollar payment will diminish in value annually by the inflation rate)

 

[Mobiandi]

I have to say, my favourite thing about the article detailing the Flames' offer is the passive aggressive 'X' and new pie chart they put next to the pie chart of the city's offer. They are really dedicated to their little charade

 

[Anglesmith]

The thing I really don't understand is how they can say the ticket surcharge is a Flames cost. It's paid (mostly) by the citizens, and hence the city. How are they able to say that with a straight face?

The other thing is that property tax (or rent) is not a cost pertaining to a new arena. That's just a normal cost of doing business, and it's independent of whether there is a new building. If you are factoring in that a cost, then profits should also be included. What will the city be making in profit? How about the team.

It's disappointing that this proposal was tabled by adults, it's put to other adults, is being announced to the adults in the public, and they can't discuss the proposals without being completely dishonest in their description of the contributions.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I have to say, my favourite thing about the article detailing the Flames' offer is the passive aggressive 'X' and new pie chart they put next to the pie chart of the city's offer. They are really dedicated to their little charade

Well, people are falling for it so I can’t blame them too much. I also laughed when I saw that this morning as well though.

 

[lightstorm]

I agree with your last paragraph. I feel this is way more than just an arena, Flames want to build a community type area (which I am 100% for) opposed to just an arena. The problem I see is the owners want to pay no tax on any of this and want to be given land for nothing (it seems from previous reports).

In my opinion the only way the Flames actually make money through the arena deal (if they were to pay a ****load of money for it) is to develop the surrounding area and do what ever they want with it (real estate, restaurants, etc.). They won't make back $300-500 mil + on an arena in 30+ years, it won't happen. They can make money though with other ventures in the area (potentially, everything still has a chance to fail). I understand why the City doesn't want to give the Flames a lot of land for this, because the Flames don't seem to want to pay tax ever or pay for the land, which is ludicrous.

IMO this is where it gets stupid and also this is where Katz is making money hand over fist.

The city should subsidize the arena construction cost by a flat amount (just as the city/province/fed gov subdidizes a bunch of random stuff), pay for the infrastructure and thats it. The rest is simply private business of Murray and company and should be treated as such.

Buy land, build your arena (partially paid by city cash upfront subsidy), own the building, pay property taxes on it, buy land for your condos, hotels or space rocket launching pads. I dont see why that should be treated any differently than any other investment group.

 

[1989]

The other thing is that property tax (or rent) is not a cost pertaining to a new arena. That's just a normal cost of doing business, and it's independent of whether there is a new building. If you are factoring in that a cost, then profits should also be included. What will the city be making in profit? How about the team.

Buy land, build your arena (partially paid by city cash upfront subsidy), own the building, pay property taxes on it, buy land for your condos, hotels or space rocket launching pads. I dont see why that should be treated any differently than any other investment group.

I just don't get why Murray and company think they can escape paying property taxes. Said it before:
Hockey/the Flames are a business. Businesses build headquarters. They pay for their buildings, they pay for the usage of property, and they provide a service. How is this project any different from the new Telus Sky building currently under construction on Centre Street? Telus provides communications networking, CSEC provides live entertainment. But only one of then demands the municipality bend over and accomodate to their financial desires in order to fund a new business centre.

And yet you have people defending the Flames who are essentially asking for a handout? Ridiculous! The only difference I can see is that it's more difficult to become emotionally bonded to my cellphone contract, other than when I have unexpected charges. CSEC is preying on sentimentality of the population to its product is all.

The further this goes on, the less interested I become in the rhetoric. It's petty, unprofessional, and unappealing.

 

[Jihadi Flames Fan]

Yeah, having the Flames pay for 100% of the project seems like a deal they can’t say no to

They should pay 100%. Most of the other buildings in the league (at least in Canada) were paid for by the teams themselves.

Air Canada Centre - Toronto
Bell Centre - Montreal
Rogers Arena - Vancouver
Canadian Tire Centre - Ottawa

Screw Ken King. Don't want to pay for your arena? RELOCATE! It's not like this organization has given us anything to cheer for in the last quarter century.

 

[Lunatik]

I just don't get why Murray and company think they can escape paying property taxes. Said it before:
Hockey/the Flames are a business. Businesses build headquarters. They pay for their buildings, they pay for the usage of property, and they provide a service. How is this project any different from the new Telus Sky building currently under construction on Centre Street? Telus provides communications networking, CSEC provides live entertainment. But only one of then demands the municipality bend over and accomodate to their financial desires in order to fund a new business centre.

And yet you have people defending the Flames who are essentially asking for a handout? Ridiculous! The only difference I can see is that it's more difficult to become emotionally bonded to my cellphone contract, other than when I have unexpected charges. CSEC is preying on sentimentality of the population to its product is all.

The further this goes on, the less interested I become in the rhetoric. It's petty, unprofessional, and unappealing.

If you are naive enough to believe that other businesses don't receive tax subsidies and other benefits to building in Calgary, I have some magic beans to sell you.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

The city doesn’t have a single field house. Not one which the public needs and they are no immediate plans to do anything about it. Our football stadium is beyond old, our hockey arena is old as well. It’s clear that none of these things are a priority to Nenshi and I have a problem with that. Again the Flames could improve their offer but I feel that when you look at the overall patterns by the mayor and the city, it’s pretty clear what their intentions are and they do not place a ton of emphasis on having professional sport teams remain in the city.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

If you are naive enough to believe that other businesses don't receive tax subsidies and other benefits to building in Calgary, I have some magic beans to sell you.

Certainly, but not to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The city doesn’t have a single field house. Not one which the public needs and they are no immediate plans to do anything about it. Our football stadium is beyond old, our hockey arena is old as well. It’s clear that none of these things are a priority to Nenshi and I have a problem with that. Again the Flames could improve their offer but I feel that when you look at the overall patterns by the mayor and the city, it’s pretty clear what their intentions are and they do not place a ton of emphasis on having professional sport teams remain in the city.

This is one of the biggest reasons I want to see Calgary Next revived.

Aside from the fact that the CRL makes sense in the west village - not for the Flames arena use, but for creosote cleanup and transportation upgrades.

 

[Lunatik]

Certainly, but not to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Maybe not, but I would argue that the Flames have more of an impact on the city both from an economical and social standpoint and thus are entitled to more as a result.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Maybe not, but I would argue that the Flames have more of an impact on the city both from an economical and social standpoint and thus are entitled to more as a result.

More than who? Show me a private company in Calgary that received the kind of funding the Flames are requesting.

 

[Flameshomer]

Maybe not, but I would argue that the Flames have more of an impact on the city both from an economical and social standpoint and thus are entitled to more as a result.

The bolded is just not true and has been proven so time and time again by economists. The flames do not increase or provide any notable economic gain to the city.

Using Telus (and Telus sky as an example) from above, they bring 1000s of jobs to the city at an average income level higher than that of a concession attendant. They also own and operate a ton of telecom infrastructure that spins off other jobs.

Socially, would you be effected if you had far slower internet access and spotty telephone service? Probably quite a bit. Would you be affected if you couldn't attend to flames games per year? No, you'd probably do something like go skiing, maybe even something cultured like going to the opera, or studio bell.

Point is, this is far too much of a hand out for something so intangible. The City's proposal is fair. The city DOES need to contribute, but shouldn't be in a position to lose on something like this. The city certainly doesn't need to help turn the CSEG ownership group into property developers either.

I agree with AS above too. The suggestion that the ticket surcharge is flames contribution is despicable. They're going to double the cost of tickets (like in Edmonton) for the new arena anyways. They want it all as profit.

 

[Anglesmith]

Maybe not, but I would argue that the Flames have more of an impact on the city both from an economical and social standpoint and thus are entitled to more as a result.

That 33% is a massive increase over the 0% the city normally gives to a business opening a new location in the city. And yes, it makes sense. You can think of the city as a consumer, and the arena as a product they want. It's perfectly reasonable for the city to pay to get something it wants.

The question is really what amount is fair. Considering how profitable the Flames are in Calgary, there's really no doubt that the Flames are going to make back the cost of the arena in pretty short order. That's why I think demanding that the city dump in money and never see any of it return is unfair.

 

[Mobiandi]

https://m.metronews.ca/#/article/ne...ctoria-park-developments-parking-revenue.html

Sources say CSEC release on their offer to the city lacked some details

The Calgary Flames owners asked for a veto on future Victoria Park developments and a cut of Stampede parking revenue as part of a new arena deal, Metro has learned.

Really pushing for that Edmonton deal

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...-for-a-new-555-million-arena/article36276378/

The Calgary Flames, in negotiations with local politicians over a new $555-million arena, demanded the city pick up the tab for extra police needed at games and let people ride transit to the facility for free when the team is playing, according to multiple municipal sources.

Yeah, not even Katz went this far.

I don't understand how someone can side with the Flames when they're asking for the city to capitulate like this