Calgary city council approves arena deal (UPD: new deal upcoming?)
- Thread starter cbcwpg
- Start date
- Status
CorbeauNoir
Registered User
- Apr 13, 2010
- 933
- 165
There's an overarching Calgary arena thread buried somewhere in BoH... perhaps it'd be better to resurrect that?
rabbitca
Registered User
It's pretty disgusting the league sticks to this same tired old script.
hatterson
Registered User
In fairness, why change what works?
Almost universally (in all of sports, not just the NHL), owners cry poor, the team is threatened in some way, and then the taxpayers/politicians knuckle under and get out the check book.
Spartachat
Registered User
So did the revenue fall out of the top ten into past couple of years just because of the aging arena? I don't get it.
Selling 18000 tickets a night in a old barn is still way better that selling 12000 in a recent one but its the nhl so different rules apply for Canada
Selling tickets doesn't matter much, nor it being the NHL doesn't matter much. Las Vegas will build the Oakland Raiders a new stadium, so the Raiders will leave Oakland. This isn't unique to Canada/hockey. Happens in every sport.
sawchuk1971
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2011
- 1,521
- 557
blame on the declining canadian dollar......
We are midway between CBA negotiations. The league needs to start crying poor on every front they can find in order to set the ground for Gary's next lockout.
In the old Calgary arena thread, someone compared the Sharks revenues against the Flames.
IIRC, the Sharks revenue was $137m and the Flames was $129m according to Forbes. By pointing it out, it was believed that the Flames didn't need a new arena.
However, of that revenue, the Sharks get about $8m in local TV revenue, while the Flames get $35m. Therefore, the only conclusion is that gameday revenues are much better for the Sharks than the Flames.
This is manifested by the amount of spots Edmonton just jumped over Calgary due to the opening of Rogers Place last year.
IIRC, the Sharks revenue was $137m and the Flames was $129m according to Forbes. By pointing it out, it was believed that the Flames didn't need a new arena.
However, of that revenue, the Sharks get about $8m in local TV revenue, while the Flames get $35m. Therefore, the only conclusion is that gameday revenues are much better for the Sharks than the Flames.
This is manifested by the amount of spots Edmonton just jumped over Calgary due to the opening of Rogers Place last year.
DowntownBooster
Registered User
The Raiders are still profitable in Oakland. They should be showing loyalty to the fans that have been supporting them through all the years.
The Raiders are still profitable in Oakland. They should be showing loyalty to the fans that have been supporting them through all the years.
These owners don't become rich by being loyal. It's all about the almighty dollar. Look what Stan Kroenke did to St. Louis......
I don't think Calgary will lose there team, but council has to realize, you have to pay to play. Edmonton just got a sweetheart deal, Calgary council and the Flames will have to get back to the table and meet somewhere in the middle
powerstuck
Nordiques Hopes Lies
Dear Uncle Gary,
We've built you a 370 million $ (CAD) arena in Quebec City, arena that you still haven't filled with an NHL team. Calgary doesn't need to spend a dime on a new arena because you don't keep your promises.
Sincerely,
The 30+ millions of Canadians
We've built you a 370 million $ (CAD) arena in Quebec City, arena that you still haven't filled with an NHL team. Calgary doesn't need to spend a dime on a new arena because you don't keep your promises.
Sincerely,
The 30+ millions of Canadians
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,416
- 9,730
Never heard him talk that way about his beloved Islanders. Just scheming.
How's those newly built subsidized arenas in Sunrise and Glendale working for you? Look pretty empty. Probably couldn't support the growing expenses of the NHL without a helping hand from Canada.
He is crooked enough to pry Calagary into Houston, while Rogers is paying his league's bread and butter. That would be like retribution for Atlanta losing two franchises to Canada. I just wonder if Calgary has the owners that would fight for their market.
LOL, you guys talk like it is Gary that decides where franchises are placed. Couldn't be any more wrong, the other 31 franchise owners decide that.
Gnashville
HFBoards Hall of Famer
You can never get some to understand this!! Bettman is the mouthpiece for the owners he is only saying what the owners in Calgary already have said and what they want him to say. If Florida’s owners want him to threaten relocating to Quebec then he will do it. He and Daly certainty had no issues telling Atlanta fans to stick it.
Gnash....
I totally agree with you. Bettman is just the mouthpiece. In that last Calgary thread, someone looked and found that Calgary was now 11th, instead of 10th, in revenue. That's not much. Only thing that changed was Edmonton hopped over them with their new arena. However, since the 10/11 split is where revenue sharing starts and ends, it gives the ownership there the perfect opportunity to suggest that they are going poor.
The last negotiations about a new arena there met this impasse:
Calgary city offered:
We pay 1/3
Fans pay 1/3, through ticket tax
Team pays 1/3. Team owns arena pays property tax.
Flames said: No way. We end up paying the whole thing through our fans (because that's ticket money we would get otherwise) and the property tax.
Team offered:
City pays 1/2
Team pays 1/2
City owns arena, no tax. Team gets operating rights.
You would think there would be a 1/2 way point there somewhere, but the city doesn't want to spend anything, really, so if the team stays firm on no property taxes, it's an impasse.
Bettman's comments are nothing more than negotiation in public.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,416
- 9,730
Bettman is the guy selecting that club of owners. He's the guy that markets the game, for them, increasing their revenues. He's in the back pocket of Jacobs. Jacobs sells concessions in the U.S., not Canada. He and a few others are in the inner circle, like any council. Snider was one. Jacobs wants Houston. Gary starts negotiating with Houston for a team.
I feel like Calgary is being pinched. Bad climate, Liberal government in Ottawa, NDP in Edmonton. Conservative stronghold in Calgary. Hard to see them been financed. So it's hold on. Owners can take a payout elsewhere. No taxes in Texas. Still the Flames are a successful franchise. I don't see why they should feel the heat. Guarantee their arena still generates more revenue than most teams. If they fall into the bottom tier, should they be moved? Wouldn't Arizona be 1st. Team is bankrupt, run arm's length from the league, from one owner to the next. That's unstable. Flames may become underdogs, like the Jets, but still remain ahead of Winnipeg in terms of revenues. So why posture with their municipality, threatening them. Like I said New York never got that ultimatum in Long Island. Two sets of rules. Because Canadians only matter, if the pay the premium.
I feel like Calgary is being pinched. Bad climate, Liberal government in Ottawa, NDP in Edmonton. Conservative stronghold in Calgary. Hard to see them been financed. So it's hold on. Owners can take a payout elsewhere. No taxes in Texas. Still the Flames are a successful franchise. I don't see why they should feel the heat. Guarantee their arena still generates more revenue than most teams. If they fall into the bottom tier, should they be moved? Wouldn't Arizona be 1st. Team is bankrupt, run arm's length from the league, from one owner to the next. That's unstable. Flames may become underdogs, like the Jets, but still remain ahead of Winnipeg in terms of revenues. So why posture with their municipality, threatening them. Like I said New York never got that ultimatum in Long Island. Two sets of rules. Because Canadians only matter, if the pay the premium.
SImpelton
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2018
- 602
- 742
Co-signed by the cities of St. Louis, Portland and KC, IIRC.
^^^,
There is a difference between NYC and any other market. The Islanders new arena will be full all the time, and make the owners money. NHL is really just going along for the ride there. Owners don't need that kind of gov't subsidy in NYC. I understand your frustration, but that's the wrong place to choose to vent it.
Next.....It's an empty threat, and even if it weren't the whole situation is like this:
AZ is losing far more money than CGY, and AZ is losing it on the league's dime. They would move first for sure. After Houston, where else is there to go? One place: Quebec.
Second with respect to that: Houston is not the sure thing many want to think it is. Fertitta doesn't NEED hockey for his arena, so he doesn't have to pay more than he wants, and he might well balk at a 500M+ price tag. I sure would.
I really think this whole business is nothing more than the owners trying to exert political pressure to get what they want, and it won't work in this case.
There is a difference between NYC and any other market. The Islanders new arena will be full all the time, and make the owners money. NHL is really just going along for the ride there. Owners don't need that kind of gov't subsidy in NYC. I understand your frustration, but that's the wrong place to choose to vent it.
Next.....It's an empty threat, and even if it weren't the whole situation is like this:
AZ is losing far more money than CGY, and AZ is losing it on the league's dime. They would move first for sure. After Houston, where else is there to go? One place: Quebec.
Second with respect to that: Houston is not the sure thing many want to think it is. Fertitta doesn't NEED hockey for his arena, so he doesn't have to pay more than he wants, and he might well balk at a 500M+ price tag. I sure would.
I really think this whole business is nothing more than the owners trying to exert political pressure to get what they want, and it won't work in this case.
Bixby Snyder
IBTFAD
I wish it were true, I'd love to see a team in Houston but that is not how things work in the NHL. Gary is doing the bidding of Calgary ownership. If Bettman talks relocation in regards to the Flames it's because that's what ownership has decided is the best way to persuade the city to build them a new arena.
That plays a role. However, the drop in the Canadian dollar vs. the US Dollar from near par or .90 US from 4 years ago to below .80 US now plays a significant role.
garnetpalmetto
Jerkministrator
I'd disagree here, voyageur. While Bettman may be akin to a concierge or valet here, it's ultimately the owners who are selecting who actually gets in the club and who doesn't. They'll use him as a mouthpiece but at the end of the day it's an old boys club and they choose who they let in and if you don't play by their rules they don't let you in.
Where did you find the TV revenues for the Flames? I haven't seen that $35 million figure anywhere.
The age of the arena and its structure and facilities do play a role of course. And not just for hockey. Check out PollStars top 200 arenas over the past 4-5 years. San Jose arena's typical sells nearly 500,000 in tickets per year while Calgary was around the 150,000 mark...before slipping to approx. 80,000 tickets sold for concerts in 2017. I suspect that would result in a great gap between the two teams in ancillary revenues.
Last edited:
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,416
- 9,730
Las Vegas, Seattle, and the murmurings of interest in Houston aren't random. There is a U.S TV deal to negotiate. Houston adds traction. What I don't know is how the NHL is entangled legally with Glendale. It just seems strange the comments about Calgary. Maybe it is posturing for the owner. I hate the Oilers as much for Katz, and his threats to go to Seattle, as anything else about them. Ken King was one of the guys who saved the Flames when the recession of the 90's was jeopardizing every Canadian team outside of the big 3. I don't think he would be so threatening to get his way. Needs a political change only to get what he needs from the city and province.
Strangely Bettman was very positive about Ottawa, when Melnyk was trying to negotiate his deal. Not threatening at all. Maybe because he would rather have the team there than in Quebec. Quebec is the one city that does not need the NHL to forge a hockey identity. Still deserves a team though.
- Status
