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.

Flames will move without a new Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-01-2017, 11:34 AM
  #51
adsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by End on a Hinote View Post
That's not so much the case with more recent arenas. Back then arenas were pretty much just slabs of concrete with seats that were intended for you to come in, watch the game, then go home. Where as today they are built to be more like actual establishments. Rexall Place cost $17 million to build. At $83 million in 2017 dollars that's still incredibly cheap.

Reunion Arena in Dallas was demolished after only 29 years. That would be like, in only 6 years time the Canucks being told they need a new arena.

Today's arenas hold much more longevity than the ones from 40 years ago.
The Bradley Center opened Oct 1, 1988. It will be gone in about 1 year. That will make 30 years. It was designed wrong, with 10,000 seats upstairs and 8,000 downstairs. The new arena will reverse that to have more club seats etc...

After 28 years in the BC, the Milwaukee Admirals moved across the street this season into their old arena, opened in 1950. It will be 68 years old, and looking better than I remember it from 1981, when the BC is rubble. The UWM Panther Arena, as it is now known, seats about 11,000 for basketball and 9,000 or more for hockey.

I respectfully disagree.


Last edited by Fugu: 04-01-2017 at 02:20 PM. Reason: quote
adsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:37 AM
  #52
iFan
Horvat to Virtanen
 
iFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Igloo View Post
The NHL is a copycat league, and if the NFL could have three teams move in just over a year, the NHL will happily let the Flames move to Seattle, Portland, Houston, or Atlanta to prove their gun is loaded too.
And what do they do about all the lost support, money, advertising and fans the league would lose? Those cities won't match what Calgary brings to the league, bye bye to the battle of Alberta marketing the NHL likes to put out, and with both being upcoming young teams, would the NHL will be ok with losing playoff battles between Edmonton and Calgary?

I'm not a Flames fan, I'm a Canucks fan, it would rub me the wrong way if the NHL did this and I would lose interest in the league and I'm not a Flames fan...

iFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:37 AM
  #53
dilbert719
Registered User
 
dilbert719's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
This is my attitude exactly. If the rich whiney billionaires want a new rink they can build it themselves. I've said as much in letters to both my local city councilor and the mayor's office.

If they want to turn their back on an extremely lucrative market then they should simply go. There must be an American desert jonesan for an NHL team - they can go there.
Not saying you guys should be paying for the arena here, so don't get me wrong on this, but which is more lucrative? Continuing to play in Calgary, making whatever amount of money they make there (I have no figures handy other than the Forbes team valuation, which shows them as middle of the pack), but having to pay a billion dollars to build an arena, or losing money elsewhere, but having the billion dollar arena built for you?

dilbert719 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:37 AM
  #54
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoop View Post
King is being shrewd. I suspect this is a plan to find an alternative candidate to run against Neshi in the fall.

It's tough timing with the economy in the sewer in Calgary. This is the Flames ever threatened to move so explicitly.

fwiw there are cities that could do it. KC has a rink. Seattle is a possibility. They would both be Western conference.
One: I would be really surprised if the Flames didn't try and donate piles of money to candidates in the upcoming civic elections. Hopefully Calgary voters are smart enough to sniff all of this out.

Two: KC has a rink but I don't think there's much interest in renting it out to an NHL franchise. Calgary should say the same thing to the Flames: "If we build a new arena we won't be able to rent to you because of your revenue demands. We're better off booking concerts, etc."

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:39 AM
  #55
Elephant Igloo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iFan View Post
And what do they do about all the lost support, money, advertising and fans the league would lose? Those cities won't match what Calgary brings to the league, bye bye to the battle of Alberta marketing the NHL likes to put out, and with both being upcoming young teams, NHL will be ok with losing playoff battles between Edmonton and Calgary?
Well, every [mod: poster] on this board has assured me that Quebec City doesn't need a team because it's "maxed out" in terms of its NHL support by dint of the Canadiens' existence: everyone's already buying sweaters and watching TV. By their logic, the existence of the Oilers makes Calgary maxed out. They'll just support other teams! Grow the game! Hated six!


Last edited by Fugu: 04-01-2017 at 02:22 PM. Reason: no, not at all, plus you need to try saying things without flaming
Elephant Igloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:39 AM
  #56
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,935
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
One: I would be really surprised if the Flames didn't try and donate piles of money to candidates in the upcoming civic elections.
I really don't think that would be a smart move on their part.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:43 AM
  #57
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
Not saying you guys should be paying for the arena here, so don't get me wrong on this, but which is more lucrative? Continuing to play in Calgary, making whatever amount of money they make there (I have no figures handy other than the Forbes team valuation, which shows them as middle of the pack), but having to pay a billion dollars to build an arena, or losing money elsewhere, but having the billion dollar arena built for you?
It's more lucrative for them to stay here, build their own arena and live off the profits of that. And they would have to pay all of their taxes to the city and that would be lucrative for us Calgarians.

What isn't lucrative is paying all kinds of tax dollars for an arena someone else is going to profit from.

I like the idea of creating a co-op (I think someone suggested this a way back) so that fans can invest their money in a company that will help finance the new arena and save us taxpayers the burden. Fans can invest in a company that helps finance the new arena and receive a share of the revenues and profits.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:46 AM
  #58
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I really don't think that would be a smart move on their part.
I wasn't speculating on their intelligence - I was merely saying it's something they may try. Like I said, hopefully an effort like this would be sniffed out and dealt with quickly.

We'll be watching King!

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:49 AM
  #59
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 71,644
vCash: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason2020 View Post
Ottawa and Toronto.
Montreal as well was completely privately financed.

Although the costs for these buildings was far lesser in the 90's compared to now.

Marc the Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:50 AM
  #60
Nullus Reverentia
Registered User
 
Nullus Reverentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Periphery
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 17,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iFan View Post
How does moving the Flames out of Calgary benefit the league?
I literally said in one of my posts that it won't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Igloo View Post
The NHL is a copycat league, and if the NFL could have three teams move in just over a year, the NHL will happily let the Flames move to Seattle, Portland, Houston, or Atlanta to prove their gun is loaded too.
They copycat good decisions. Three teams moving in a year was an awful decision for the NFL and a massive blow to their prestige. It solidified the popular perception of them as only being interested in money with no concern to their fans, players, or markets.

Nullus Reverentia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:50 AM
  #61
adsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iFan View Post
And what do they do about all the lost support, money, advertising and fans the league would lose? Those cities won't match what Calgary brings to the league, bye bye to the battle of Alberta marketing the NHL likes to put out, and with both being upcoming young teams, would the NHL will be ok with losing playoff battles between Edmonton and Calgary?

I'm not a Flames fan, I'm a Canucks fan, it would rub me the wrong way if the NHL did this and I would lose interest in the league and I'm not a Flames fan...
I would like to see the 7 Canadian teams remain in place, if not in Canada. I told my daughter many years ago that the nation in the National Hockey league is Canada, not the US. All of the teams can't be down here in the United States.

Some of those 7 teams could use a little help. I was shocked when none of them made the playoffs last year. I can't remember when that happened previously. The NHL needs to help out some teams with loans.

adsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 11:51 AM
  #62
iFan
Horvat to Virtanen
 
iFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Igloo View Post
Well, every brain surgeon on this board has assured me that Quebec City doesn't need a team because it's "maxed out" in terms of its NHL support by dint of the Canadiens' existence: everyone's already buying sweaters and watching TV. By their logic, the existence of the Oilers makes Calgary maxed out. They'll just support other teams! Grow the game! Hated six!
They would support the Stampeders... I think you underestimate how bitter people would be towards the NHL, I think the people of Calgary would back the city on this and be turned off of the NHL, people hate paying for rich people to get richer off the taxes of their hard work, that's the angle the city takes. I think it would rub fans of other teams the wrong way as they will think, when will my team be in this spot? The league will hurt its trust among fans, me as a Canuck fan would be annoyed as the old day rivalry between the two teams and the League would take that away, this would lose my support for the league.

iFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:10 PM
  #63
RainierBeat
Foster the People
 
RainierBeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pingtung City
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 2,836
vCash: 500
Discounting the current economy, if the owners promise to the Calgarians that if they use their taxpayer money and they will make the FLames literally icons for the city in the sense that they get the Flames community to do more than just regular charity work in the league. Literally going to schools teaching kids and teens things like coding, sciences, etc. Doing a lot of food bank, volunteering, etc. and finding a way to really boost the economy, I'd be much more in support of this decision. Otherwise I am not in support of using tax payer money.

RainierBeat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:23 PM
  #64
AnAceOfKidneys
Registered User
 
AnAceOfKidneys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Country: St Pierre and Miquelon
Posts: 1,402
vCash: 50
If the city of Calgary is blackmailed into funding a new arena, they should be given part ownership of the team. Ken King is an arrogant person. **** him.

AnAceOfKidneys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:30 PM
  #65
ResilientBeast
Moderator
ATD Draft Czar
 
ResilientBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,157
vCash: 50
No they wont

ResilientBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:37 PM
  #66
LEAFANFORLIFE23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,417
vCash: 500
Calgary isn't going anywhere the mere thought is laughable

LEAFANFORLIFE23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:39 PM
  #67
sharkhawk
Registered User
 
sharkhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Aurora, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc the Habs Fan View Post
Montreal as well was completely privately financed.

Although the costs for these buildings was far lesser in the 90's compared to now.
The United Center was built by the Hawks and Bulls. They got tax breaks but no public money was used.

sharkhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:43 PM
  #68
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainierBeat View Post
Discounting the current economy, if the owners promise to the Calgarians that if they use their taxpayer money and they will make the FLames literally icons for the city in the sense that they get the Flames community to do more than just regular charity work in the league. Literally going to schools teaching kids and teens things like coding, sciences, etc. Doing a lot of food bank, volunteering, etc. and finding a way to really boost the economy, I'd be much more in support of this decision.
I wouldn't. I don't want charity from the Flames. If my tax dollars help pay for the arena I want an ownership share of the organization of at least 40% (The $800 million requested for Calgary Next has to be almost half of what the overall organization is worth) with at least one City councilor representing city interests among the owners. I also want the organization to pay stiff taxes and help the city recover the money spent on the building. If there's an ownership share of the entire Flames organization and increased taxes on the table then I'd consider supporting tax dollars for a new arena.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:43 PM
  #69
Kirikanoir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi View Post
Is there any team in the league that has built their rink without taxpayer money? I'd love to know the list.
Rogers Arena in Vancouver.

Kirikanoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:49 PM
  #70
Randy Marsh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 179
vCash: 500
This isn't that hard.

It has nothing to do with means, it's the fact that no owner wants to set a precedent of willing to building an arena with their own money.

Randy Marsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:50 PM
  #71
Gotaf7
Registered User
 
Gotaf7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,213
vCash: 50
They will have to get in line behind Arizona, Carolina, Florida........

Gotaf7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:55 PM
  #72
BLNY
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,236
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to BLNY Send a message via Yahoo to BLNY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi View Post
The city is going to cave sooner or later. Sad that they need taxpayer money to get this done. Oilers threatened and got their way as well.

Is there any team in the league that has built their rink without taxpayer money? I'd love to know the list.
Canadiens/Molson Family built the Molson/Bell Centre without public funding iirc.

BLNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:57 PM
  #73
Sigh
Blidh for me
 
Sigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,725
vCash: 470
Rich Albertans asking for tax dollars always makes me laugh.

Sigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 12:57 PM
  #74
lomiller1
Registered User
 
lomiller1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi View Post
The city is going to cave sooner or later. Sad that they need taxpayer money to get this done. Oilers threatened and got their way as well.

Is there any team in the league that has built their rink without taxpayer money? I'd love to know the list.
There is public money and there is taxpayer money. MTS Center was built with public money in the form of low interest loans and loan gaurentees, essentially giving TNSE access to Government lending rates as opposed to the rates they would have paid borrowing on their own. This money was fully repaid by the end of 2009 so no actual taxpayer money was used.

There was also (and still is) public money generated by the MTS Center itself that is handed back over to TNSE. This is mainly the entertainment tax collected on events at MTS Center and VLT's run by TNSE at an adjacent facility. Manitoba hasn't legalize gambling, so the proceeds from the VLT's are public money but the Provence then transfers it back in the form of a grant. Until the loans were repaid this money was kept by the Provence and counted as loan repayment instead.

So MTS center was built with public money but no taxpayer money, nor any money not generated by the MTS center was involved. I don't know enough about the Edmonton/Quebec deals or what the Flames are asking for but given the $1 billion number I would guess it's probably taxpayer money involved.

lomiller1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 01:01 PM
  #75
InfinityIggy
Moderator
No Longer Flammable
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,247
vCash: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebs View Post
Typical stuff. Empty threats, but eventually the city will give money, happens everytime.
Yep. City will put its counter offer forth, sides will go back and forth and a deal will get done. King's comments aren't surprising, the guy isn't the brightest bulb.

__________________
XI
InfinityIggy 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 03:14 AM.

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.