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, 03:29 PM
  #101
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
If the Flames carry through with the threat--24 hours after they leave a struggling US team will move into the city--take the same deal the oilers made and that will be that
I'm sure there will be a few people lining up applying for an expansion team (At least they should be). The market is too lucrative to leave alone.

But this is the NHL we're talking about.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 03:34 PM
  #102
ujju2
Registered User
 
ujju2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,913
vCash: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
The answer is yes the rich billionaire owners have the resources to do it - they just don't want to. They want money for nothing as the song says. They want all of the benefit with little or no risk.

If we really did live in a capitalist system (Which we don't) then they'd be expected to take the risk, pay for everything and either reap the profits or suck up the losses.
Well said. Finally someone who doesn't blame capitalism.

ujju2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 03:35 PM
  #103
syc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not Europe
Posts: 2,814
vCash: 500
Another "hockey town" that needs public or gambling related funds to be profitable. If you removed public and gambling money from NHL teams you would have 8 teams making a profit every year.

Yet the league can sell expansion teams for half a billion. so who is not telling us the truth?

you know those idiots will cough up the money eventually and that money will be taken from services that help average albertans. Shame on you bettman and company, you're all ********.

syc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 03:42 PM
  #104
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by syc View Post
you know those idiots will cough up the money eventually and that money will be taken from services that help average albertans. Shame on you bettman and company, you're all ********.
People who don't want their tax dollars going to lining rich people's pockets should write their mayors and city councilors. They need to know that this thinking is out there.

Calgary's mayor Nenshi may be called up and down for many things but he is not stupid or an economic weakling (He tells us this every time he has a mic in his hand ). If he knows the people are against it he'll know where the votes are going to fall later this year and then act accordingly. These people are politicians and job one is getting re-elected - they aren't going to go against the grain on this one. But for the system to work properly people have to communicate with Nenshi and the councilors.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 03:42 PM
  #105
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 2,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason2020 View Post
If you count in loans etc then take Toronto they got a sweet heart deal for the land they only paid $1 which is equal to a loan.
Point being your post was grossly inaccurate. Ottawa received a sweetheart loan as well for financing. They also required the province to fund the interchange to the arena in the middle of nowhere.

Buying land for $1 is not equal to a loan to matter how much you want it to be in an attempt to equate the Leafs with the Senators.

blueandgoldguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 03:46 PM
  #106
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 2,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
MLSE has been expert in "partnering" with government of various levels for many of their endeavors, see BMO field.

Of course when it comes to taxpayer ripoffs nothing in Canada even comes close to the Skydome boondoggle .
Initial funding of BMO was largely funded by public dollars. The Expansion of the building was $150 million in private funding with an additional $10 million coming from the government.

blueandgoldguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 04:07 PM
  #107
DoyleG
Mr. Reality
 
DoyleG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: YEG--->YYJ
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,210
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy View Post
Initial funding of BMO was largely funded by public dollars. The Expansion of the building was $150 million in private funding with an additional $10 million coming from the government.
Irrelevant given that, without public money, BMO Field wouldn't exist.

The govts knew that. MLSE knew that. TFC supports know that.

DoyleG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 04:14 PM
  #108
DoyleG
Mr. Reality
 
DoyleG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: YEG--->YYJ
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,210
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Method Man View Post
He did not say they will move without an arena. He said they would not threaten to leave, they would just leave because they do not want to be in a place they are not wanted. Right now the biggest problem is a Mayor that is Trump-esque (not politically, but the way he loves the sound of his own voice), Nenshi is more worried about a good soundbite than actually trying to reach an agreement.
Pretty Much.

He's well aware, however, that he could take the decision to fund the arena and face little political consequence.

Don Iveson seemed to be a reluctant backer, but it didn't cost him as he was elected as mayor. Neither for Sohi, who became not only a Liberal MP but a member of the Trudeau cabinet.

Basically, the Edmonton Arena vote was a repeat of the City Centre Airport battle that dominated a few years earlier. Opponents can show themselves to be loud, but they lack the numbers to back them up.

DoyleG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 04:14 PM
  #109
blueandgoldguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greg's River Heights
Posts: 2,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoyleG View Post
Irrelevant given that, without public money, BMO Field wouldn't exist.

The govts knew that. MLSE knew that. TFC supports know that.
Oh, I will agree with that. They were sneaky smart in requesting the public money by piggybacking on the World Cup under-21 tournament.

Calgary's only hope for significant public funding will be a successful Winter Olympic bid. There would be funding from the feds in that case.

Offhand, it is interesting that up to this point Boomtown Canada has been incapable of ever providing significant private funding for a pro hockey arena. I believe the Saddledome was 100% publicly funded. That's rather disappointing for a city with a vast amount of private and corporate wealth.

blueandgoldguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 04:15 PM
  #110
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lord of HFBOARDS
Country: United Nations
Posts: 73,581
vCash: 2660
Flames just have to do the way the oilers did it

__________________
**Avatar approved by the powers that be***

I am the KING of Alternative Facts as any hockey fan is
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 04:21 PM
  #111
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,709
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
I'm sure there will be a few people lining up applying for an expansion team (At least they should be). The market is too lucrative to leave alone.

But this is the NHL we're talking about.
Agreed. NHL is gate driven, so you still need to be in a market that will support hockey. Is an owner going to make more money moving a team into a market like Glendale, Portland, Houston, Milwaukee, KC, etc? Plus, some of those options are out of the question given the current lease agreements that the arena has with an NBA team, like in Houston/Portland for example. Unless, Ken King and co. plan on selling the Flames to those NBA owners.

And some of these arenas in the US that are being built or have been built are not build to accommodate hockey. Like Barclay's. Same for the Chase Centre where the GS Warriors will be moving to in 2 years. It looks like it's basketball only given the sight lines from the 3D imaging I have seen. That's something that NBA owners are trying to get when they are making deals with the local gov. They want it basketball only to keep hockey out and thus they can keep more of the operating profits from other events.

Reality is that the Flames and Alberta government will come to an agreement, much like what Edmonton got. No matter how much tax payers hate it, it's the reality of how these things work. Just a matter of the arena deal.

As other posters have said, Canucks/Senators/Habs/Leafs their arenas have hit the 2 decades mark. So, they constantly have to reinvest money into renovations to keep their rinks current. Ottawa is planning on building a new rink in the downtown core.

As a Canucks fan, if the viaducts around Rogers Arena get taken down, I would imagine that the Canucks would love to be able to expand the concourse area. It's pretty tight right now. I can't even imagine where the Canucks could or would be able to find another plot of land in downtown that they could build a new arena.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:03 PM
  #112
DowntownBooster
Registered User
 
DowntownBooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 550
vCash: 500
They should call the Flames bluff. There's no way the team will leave Calgary. The Flames just have arena envy because the Oilers got a new one.

DowntownBooster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:04 PM
  #113
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 15,597
vCash: 500
Coyotes to Calgary.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:05 PM
  #114
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
It's more lucrative for them to stay here, build their own arena and live off the profits of that.
If you legitimately think that they will make more than a billion dollars more in Calgary than they would elsewhere (which is what it'd take to make more money in Calgary, after building a billion dollar arena, than to move somewhere that the arena was paid for), more power to you. It might be true, I dunno, but that's a hell of a big number.

dilbert719 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:18 PM
  #115
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,507
vCash: 500
Okotoks and Airdrie are always options

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:29 PM
  #116
Gotaf7
Registered User
 
Gotaf7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,213
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
Tax breaks are public money. Who do you think has to make up the shortfall from the reduced revenue?
I would guess every team in the league gets some sort of Civic monies, whether it comes as a tax break or direct subsidy.

Gotaf7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:30 PM
  #117
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
If you legitimately think that they will make more than a billion dollars more in Calgary than they would elsewhere (which is what it'd take to make more money in Calgary, after building a billion dollar arena, than to move somewhere that the arena was paid for), more power to you. It might be true, I dunno, but that's a hell of a big number.
If the arena is going to be around for 30 years then why not? If it's going to be such a wonderful venue for concerts and events then the profits should just come rolling in.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:31 PM
  #118
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotaf7 View Post
I would guess every team in the league gets some sort of Civic monies, whether it comes as a tax break or direct subsidy.
Doesn't matter. Just because other teams get tax dollars to line ownership pockets doesn't mean I want mine to do the same here in Calgary.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:32 PM
  #119
CorbeauNoir
Registered User
 
CorbeauNoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert719 View Post
If you legitimately think that they will make more than a billion dollars more in Calgary than they would elsewhere (which is what it'd take to make more money in Calgary, after building a billion dollar arena, than to move somewhere that the arena was paid for), more power to you. It might be true, I dunno, but that's a hell of a big number.
Considering how much the owners have been spending on their sports franchise network as well as on Calgary's economy generally over the decades, they clearly see a return that makes sense. Maybe not in the billions but I doubt it's as much of an exaggeration as you make it out to be. I've mentioned it in the previous thread about this, it makes no sense for the owners to kick out the keystone of all their calgary-centered investments for the sake of an arena payment, even if there was a soft landing spot in the west that gave their threats any kind of teeth.

How about this, could I extract however much of my taxes are being used towards funding the CBC and redirect it towards an arena instead? I'd be alright with that.

CorbeauNoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:34 PM
  #120
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Reality is that the Flames and Alberta government will come to an agreement, much like what Edmonton got. No matter how much tax payers hate it, it's the reality of how these things work.
Like I've said before, tax payers have elections where they can flush the toilet and get new people on councils who will show some respect for their money.

I'm not clear on the timeline here but the Oilers may have been dealing with a different provincial government when their deal was made. I don't think our current NDP government is as keen on spending money on arenas as the previous government may have been. But I could be wrong on the timing.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:36 PM
  #121
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir View Post

How about this, could I extract however much of my taxes are being used towards funding the CBC and redirect it towards an arena instead? I'd be alright with that.
You'd have to talk to the Feds. I think the Zoolander government has already made it's budget for this coming year.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:36 PM
  #122
Rick74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,536
vCash: 500
Empty threat, not gonna happen. The nhl without the Calgary Flames would ****ing suck.

Rick74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:37 PM
  #123
Kalost
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,005
vCash: 50
flames are 10th in attendance, so the "threat" is that they will find another city with a new arena that will not have questionmarks about attendance?


Last edited by Major4Boarding: 04-01-2017 at 07:51 PM. Reason: We don't LOL here
Kalost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:38 PM
  #124
CorbeauNoir
Registered User
 
CorbeauNoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
Like I've said before, tax payers have elections where they can flush the toilet and get new people on councils who will show some respect for their money.

I'm not clear on the timeline here but the Oilers may have been dealing with a different provincial government when their deal was made. I don't think our current NDP government is as keen on spending money on arenas as the previous government may have been. But I could be wrong on the timing.
Don't know if they've clarified arenas specifically but they're clearly happy to spend

CorbeauNoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2017, 05:54 PM
  #125
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir View Post
Don't know if they've clarified arenas specifically but they're clearly happy to spend
I agree with their willingness to spend but I'm not sure if that largesse is directed at the kinds of projects the Flames have in mind. If you live in Alberta you might want to check with your local MLA or the current provincial budget.

Mike Jones 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.