HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Gary Bettman on Flames / Bruins TV Broadcast asks City of Calgary for new Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-17-2017, 01:08 PM
  #51
CorbeauNoir
Registered User
 
CorbeauNoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
So you are saying that lets say in 5 years Flames owners are in front of these two choices :

a) Pay $400M to build their own arena in Calgary
b) Move to Seattle in a brand new arena and get some incentive doing so

I know what I would chose.
They're already literally spending billions of dollars banking on Calgary's local economy, even with the price of oil being what it is. Flipping all of that and running to Seattle because of an arena makes zero sense, it compromises the health of all of their other, larger, Alberta-focused investments. Better local economy = more cash for people to spend = more willingness for people to direct that cash towards the Flames and their facilities, which they also own. How does moving to Seattle and permanently severing that chain benefit them?


Last edited by CorbeauNoir: 03-17-2017 at 01:14 PM.
CorbeauNoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2017, 01:18 PM
  #52
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dartmouth,NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir View Post
They're already literally spending billions of dollars banking on Calgary's local economy, even with the price of oil being what it is. Flipping all of that and running to Seattle because of an arena makes zero sense, it compromises the health of all of their other, larger, Alberta-focused investments. Better local economy = more cash for people to spend = more willingness for people to direct that cash towards the Flames and their facilities, which they also own. How does moving to Seattle and permanently severing that chain benefit them?
It doesn't and they won't but they will just hang that threat out there to try and lure the city of Calgary into giving them a stadium because that is what owners do lol Murray Edwards has more then enough money to fund this stadium...but if he thinks he can get the tax payers to build it for him why wouldn't he go for it. City after city gets roped in by it in North America seemingly every year.

TheBeastCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2017, 01:28 PM
  #53
DowntownBooster
Registered User
 
DowntownBooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by varano View Post

Outside of Calgary, I've never seen him involved in a process that puts pressure on a city to build a new building.
Wasn't that tactic used to get Edmonton a new arena? Calgary's building will be fine for many years to come. There's nothing stopping the Flames owners from proceeding with a new facility using their own money. As it is, the Flames are profitable and aren't going anywhere including Seattle, Hamilton or Quebec.

DowntownBooster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2017, 01:41 PM
  #54
Chief Nine
Registered User
 
Chief Nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 61
vCash: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by varano View Post
Truthfully, Why is Bettman being asked that question?
Sounded to me like it was "I'm glad I asked you to ask me that question"

Chief Nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2017, 05:43 PM
  #55
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoyleG View Post
Yet the people who complain that money needs to go to roads are a little silent when roads are being dug up for transit projects.

The city response might be good PR, but bad economics. Deferring projects on that basis only adds to the cost the taxpayers will pay in the future when they have little choice.
Transit is a need, though. Sports are a nice to have.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2017, 05:44 PM
  #56
SK13
Kack Zassian
 
SK13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,492
vCash: 241
Personally, I think Edmonton set down a pretty good blueprint for Calgary to follow.

A mix of public/private funds. Use the same CRL option, employ a ticket tax and make the arena pay for itself without ever using property taxes. It never becomes an issue of using money that should go to infrastructure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownBooster View Post
Wasn't that tactic used to get Edmonton a new arena? Calgary's building will be fine for many years to come. There's nothing stopping the Flames owners from proceeding with a new facility using their own money. As it is, the Flames are profitable and aren't going anywhere including Seattle, Hamilton or Quebec.
Bettman repeatedly spoke publicly about the cities need for a new building, and when tensions between the Katz Group and the City got to their highest point, he personally mediated a meeting between the two.

SK13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2017, 05:48 PM
  #57
CorbeauNoir
Registered User
 
CorbeauNoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Transit is a need, though. Sports are a nice to have.
Plus digging up the roads means the roads have to be rebuilt - which ultimately fixes them.

CorbeauNoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 07:55 AM
  #58
jason2020
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13 View Post
Personally, I think Edmonton set down a pretty good blueprint for Calgary to follow.

A mix of public/private funds. Use the same CRL option, employ a ticket tax and make the arena pay for itself without ever using property taxes. It never becomes an issue of using money that should go to infrastructure.



Bettman repeatedly spoke publicly about the cities need for a new building, and when tensions between the Katz Group and the City got to their highest point, he personally mediated a meeting between the two.
Edmonton is really not the a good model as it what 20% private and 80% public it should be more 50/50.

jason2020 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 08:00 AM
  #59
Headshot77
Bad Photoshopper
 
Headshot77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 2,023
vCash: 455
Why was Calgary Next nixed anyway? It seemed like a good idea to turn some unusable land into a usable space, even if it added a lot to the construction costs.

Headshot77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 08:52 AM
  #60
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir View Post
Plus digging up the roads means the roads have to be rebuilt - which ultimately fixes them.
Exactly, which is critical on cold weather cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason2020 View Post
Edmonton is really not the a good model as it what 20% private and 80% public it should be more 50/50.
Yeah, I can't believe the oilers used so much public money.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 09:04 AM
  #61
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dartmouth,NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headshot77 View Post
Why was Calgary Next nixed anyway? It seemed like a good idea to turn some unusable land into a usable space, even if it added a lot to the construction costs.
Because they were asking the city for over 1 billion dollars lol

TheBeastCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 09:41 AM
  #62
USAUSA1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
Sooner or later just for the safety of the building, the city will have to pay some money. Better off building a new building that can last for another 40 years or longer.

USAUSA1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 10:28 AM
  #63
Toma
Registered User
 
Toma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason2020 View Post
Edmonton is really not the a good model as it what 20% private and 80% public it should be more 50/50.
That's not entirely correct. Here is the framework of the final agreement for funding;

https://web.archive.org/web/20160304...-approved.aspx

Council approved the following capital profile (see backgrounder) for the arena project and associated infrastructure:

$279-million from Community Revitalization Levy (CRL) and other incremental revenues (increased parking revenue, reallocation of existing subsidy paid to Northlands and new taxes from business in the arena)
$125-million from ticket surcharge on all events in the new arena
$137.81-million from lease revenue for the Arena
$23.68-million in cash from EAC
$25-million from other government sources

The City will repay its share through the CRL and other sources that do not include property tax increases (new parking revenues, reallocation of current subsidy paid to Northlands).The Katz Group’s portion will be repaid through an annual lease payment while revenue from the ticket surcharge will be used to cover $125-million and associated interest.


The Katz group also covered the cost overruns towards the end of the project.

The arena has been confirmed to have increased economic development in the area by $2.5 billion. This is primarily due to a decaying downtown core being revitalized by the activity in the Ice District.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Place
https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...agreement.aspx


Last edited by Toma: 03-18-2017 at 10:31 AM. Reason: added link
Toma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 10:41 AM
  #64
USAUSA1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
The whole the public shouldn't pay money for arenas thing is dumb. You have to spend money at some point to maintain.

USAUSA1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 10:44 AM
  #65
Rick74
Registered User
 
Rick74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,175
vCash: 500
Small market needs to put up or shut up

Support your club Calgary.

Rick74 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 10:50 AM
  #66
CantHaveTkachev
No More Next Year
 
CantHaveTkachev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. OILbert
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,327
vCash: 143
the difference between Calgary and Edmonton is substantial

City of Edmonton will benefit greatly from the revitalization of the downtown arena because our downtown was such a mess

Calgary's downtown doesn't need such revitalization.

CantHaveTkachev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 11:07 AM
  #67
Nordskull
WAITING FOR NORDS
 
Nordskull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Saguenay, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
Any of you guys got that? It just happened. Here's what Bettman just said on air on the Sportsnet Bruins / Flames TV in-between periods broadcast:

- "Obviously the Flames... the City of Calgary... need a new building. This one is out of date, it's important for the team, it's future and stability. And it's important for the community, it's quality of life... it's a work in progress. And I think with the right commitment from the City... I know Flames ownership is working real hard, and hopefully it'll be a reallity much sooner rather then later."

This is ridiculous. The Saddledome isn't that old, and is plenty large enough.

But I guess Mr. Bettman is going to be shaking them down too for some sweet public money. I wonder how long until the smile fades and he's straight up threatening the City of Calgary with relocation during Flames broadcasts instead of making subtle insinuations!

I watch Hockey to unwind in the evening. Not see Bettman shake down another City on live TV! And I bet Gary's patience with the City of Calgary with Calgary will be a lot shorter then it is with the Islanders...

Simply reply to him theres one empty in Qc city.

Pfff.

Nordskull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 11:29 AM
  #68
SgtToody
Registered User
 
SgtToody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoyleG View Post
Yet the people who complain that money needs to go to roads are a little silent when roads are being dug up for transit projects.

The city response might be good PR, but bad economics. Deferring projects on that basis only adds to the cost the taxpayers will pay in the future when they have little choice.
Most times when politicians talk about "roads" transportation and people/goods moving, that includes other transit projects as well.
What the real problem is when a private and well-heeled industry like the NHL demands new facilities, it stinks of corporate welfare. There are ways to work w/ various stakeholders, community groups, that could make this request more palatable and an open discussion, but that's not Bettman's style.

SgtToody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 11:35 AM
  #69
SgtToody
Registered User
 
SgtToody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
Sooner or later just for the safety of the building, the city will have to pay some money. Better off building a new building that can last for another 40 years or longer.
Certainly that's the talking point; until 25-30 years later when the team/NHL demand a new facility now because it's so old/decrepit/unsuitable for their millionaires to be seen in. Yet you go to most small cities/ towns and they are using rec centres 10-20 years past the date of life expectancy because the 10-30M is needed elsewhere.

SgtToody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 11:38 AM
  #70
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dartmouth,NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick74 View Post
Small market needs to put up or shut up

Support your club Calgary.
Yes so a billion dollar decision with tax payer money should be decided on because they need to "support" the club. That is a bunch of bull ****. If that was the kind of support they are demanding I would tell them to kick rocks. That is such a close minded way of thinking

TheBeastCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 12:14 PM
  #71
CorbeauNoir
Registered User
 
CorbeauNoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headshot77 View Post
Why was Calgary Next nixed anyway? It seemed like a good idea to turn some unusable land into a usable space, even if it added a lot to the construction costs.
Because it's a **** proposal. It's excessive considering the state of the local economy, it's overly intrusive to local residents, transit and parking aren't adequate to accomodate two facilities of that size right next to one another. Even if the owners put up every cent towards CalgaryNext it wouldn't make it any better of a project.

As mentioned before, putting a new arena adjacent to the Saddledome in Victoria Park makes vastly more sense, both for arena events and for the Stampede.

CorbeauNoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 12:28 PM
  #72
CorbeauNoir
Registered User
 
CorbeauNoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick74 View Post
Small market needs to put up or shut up

Support your club Calgary.
Where else are they going to go? Seattle will likely snap up the Coyotes within a year or so and then what? Nowhere else out west is prepared or even willing to be saddled with an NHL team. The fans have already been doing their part. They've paid for the tickets, they've paid for the merch, they've tuned in on TV. They've attended Stampeders/Hitmen/Roughnecks games, gone to events at Flames Central, and booked playtime at Flames Community Arenas, all of which are also part of the same ownership group. They're putting substantial, profitable amounts of money into THEIR investment in a bad economy, in what universe is that not considered 'putting up'?

I ****ing called it in the QC expansion/relocation thread. The slightest suggestion of an issue (which isn't even an issue, unless as mentioned before these owners are magically prepared to abandon the BILLIONS of dollars and the multifaceted revenue streams they've seen fit to put into Calgary's economy) and people are every bit as parasitical and vulture-like as they are to the southern teams.


Last edited by CorbeauNoir: 03-18-2017 at 12:38 PM.
CorbeauNoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 02:02 PM
  #73
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toma View Post
That's not entirely correct. Here is the framework of the final agreement for funding;

https://web.archive.org/web/20160304...-approved.aspx

Council approved the following capital profile (see backgrounder) for the arena project and associated infrastructure:

$279-million from Community Revitalization Levy (CRL) and other incremental revenues (increased parking revenue, reallocation of existing subsidy paid to Northlands and new taxes from business in the arena)
$125-million from ticket surcharge on all events in the new arena
$137.81-million from lease revenue for the Arena
$23.68-million in cash from EAC
$25-million from other government sources

The City will repay its share through the CRL and other sources that do not include property tax increases (new parking revenues, reallocation of current subsidy paid to Northlands).The Katz Groupís portion will be repaid through an annual lease payment while revenue from the ticket surcharge will be used to cover $125-million and associated interest.


The Katz group also covered the cost overruns towards the end of the project.

The arena has been confirmed to have increased economic development in the area by $2.5 billion. This is primarily due to a decaying downtown core being revitalized by the activity in the Ice District.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Place
https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...agreement.aspx
Confirmed by who? Rest assured these new arena developments and their anicillary benefits to the community are largely exaggerated. It's dubious to claim the arena resulted in $2.5 billion in new economic development when these projects would have gone on in some form either in the same location or elsewhere in Edmonton. Do people honestly think an skyscraper largely composed of office space is dependent on a pro hockey team? Give me a break!

Residential development would have happened regardless of the Oilers arena scheme. People buy housing largely based on their employment and income. Any benefits from restaurants and entertainment are not the result of any net gains either. They are just shifted around from other communities/subuurbs restaurant and entertainment options. People are not all of a sudden spending additional money because the hockey is now downtown.

There is an opportunity cost involved with the CRL in Edmonton. There is also the glossed over detail of money borrowed by the city to pay for their portion of the project which of course is much greater than the numbers you posted above when interest is accounted for. Overall, this deal will serve as a template for other Canadian cities to follow for future arena deals because of the perceived economic benefits to the immediate surrounding location and the supposed minimal risk to the taxpayer with benign sounding funding schemes like TIFs and CRLs. The reality is these funding schemes were largely a bad deal for taxpayers in Edmonton. The ownership group really pulled the wool over the eyes of many hockey fans there.

As for Calgary, given that is the corporate headquarters of Western Canada and pushed well above it's 1.5 million weight with regards to head offices, there should be minimal public involvement needed for the funding of a new arena. It is not necessary.

I also doubt a new arena in Seattle would serve as much of a threat to Calgary given it is likely to built only with the provision of an NBA team being granted to the city. If that happens, the Seattle NHL team will not have access to all the revenues in the arena including suites, advertising and naming rights. Given they will not be able to charge the high prices for tickets as those in Calgary (and this is a substantial portion of revenues) it is all but a certainty a team in Seattle will pull in similar or less revenues than what the Flames currently receive in their current location.

blueandgoldguy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 03:03 PM
  #74
Pizza the Hutt
Top Cheddar
 
Pizza the Hutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,250
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
The whole the public shouldn't pay money for arenas thing is dumb. You have to spend money at some point to maintain.
No, it really isn't dumb at all. The Public should not subsidize private capitalist ventures. If hockey games were free, then we could talk about public subsidy. Otherwise, it's public coffers being fleeced through extortion.

If they want to play hardball, let them leave. Calgary will not fold and bankrupt itself like so many weaker cities have in the past.

Pizza the Hutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2017, 04:11 PM
  #75
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 17,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza the Hutt View Post
No, it really isn't dumb at all. The Public should not subsidize private capitalist ventures. If hockey games were free, then we could talk about public subsidy. Otherwise, it's public coffers being fleeced through extortion.

If they want to play hardball, let them leave. Calgary will not fold and bankrupt itself like so many weaker cities have in the past.
On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I think it's in the municipal government's interest that it has a stake in any building that sees millions in attendance each year.

I never can land in one place on this topic.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.