tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Still, just as a matter of common sense you don't build a roof that blocks the view of the scoreboard.
Calgary city council approves arena deal (UPD: new deal upcoming?)
- Thread starter cbcwpg
- Start date
- Status
Still, just as a matter of common sense you don't build a roof that blocks the view of the scoreboard.
Like I said, it was the 80's. Things were different.
If the Flames don't like it theycan fix things when they build, pay for and pay taxes on their new arena. And if fans feel strongly about the sight lines they can offer to help the Flames pay for it through shares, or bonds, or whatever.
muddywaters
GO FLAMES GO
She claims to be a capitalist yet is now demanding corporate welfare for billionaires who can easily pay their own way. I thought she knew better but apparently not.
edog37
Registered User
way of the world. Never said it was right, just how it is.
It has to stop. Tragically, it probably won't be in Calgary here. We have way too many demented loons from different levels of government telling us to throw our tax money away to people more than capable of paying their own bills.
One of the threats the Flames are making is that if they don't get a new arena they'll move. I say let them. The way the NHL treats cities is appalling and we don't need them. There are lots of events and concerts that could fill an arena's calander and all the money would come to the city instead of a greedy, selfish tenant like the NHL.
Last edited by a moderator:
then what happens to the white elephant that is the Saddledome, if CSEC is no longer involved..... adios pro hockey or junior hockey then because doesn't CSEC control the Hitmen, the Flames and the Wranglers, Mike, good luck getting replacement events or concerts
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
You were never promised an NHL franchise. Bettman said that up front and repeated it several times.
You should be pointing your anger at PKP, who conned the taxpayers out of that $370M (CAD) by guaranteeing you'd get a franchise and when the time came for him to open his wallet he disappeared.
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
Only takes a matter of time before the typical Canadian inferiority complex comes out and Arizona is mentioned, no matter how little it has to do with the subject at hand.
Lets see for Calgary specifically:
- Hitmen games that probably fill the lower bowl at absolute best, and this is with knowledge that the Hitmen are one of the top attendance draws in the entirety of the WHL
- Calgary Wranglers who, CHRDAN already mentioned, only exist in the Saddledome because Calgary saw fit to abandon (yet another) acrimonious AHL market split and put their farm team in the big arena because it was cheaper and more beneficial to the team in terms of player development and travel costs / time spent on the road in busses and planes, with said AHL team leaving the market the second an arena deal isn't struck
- USports / Canada West hockey tournaments that can barely fill university barns at the best of times considering how much of a non-factor Canadian university hockey is to the normal Canadian hockey fan compared to major junior or even NCAA D1
- Concerts that, as previously mentioned, skip over Calgary or play smaller venues because of the inherent acoustics problems with the saddlerope roof design
- The odd arena show
You know as well as I do that isn't enough to fill out dates to justify leaving the Saddledome as a venue with no solid tentpole occupant.
So all of this bluster (which, for the record, I agree with on a base level) about letting the Flames go pound sand and for Calgary to decide their own destiny in a move to shun the NHL and Flames ownership basically runs up very quickly against the wall that if you don't have a solid tentpole occupying that arena, that you'll struggle to get any real profits from the supposed extra dates you believe will come with the Flames packing up and leaving, especially when you take the concerts issue into the mix. So what point is there in this pipe-dreaming when the reality basically swats down any point you make?
How much of this comes from the owners specifically, and *not* the NHL? Because frankly, unless it is an Arizona type situation that requires them to have an opinion and step in, they are content on letting the team owners do the political stumping. If you're going to kill messengers, make sure its the right one.
Lets see for Calgary specifically:
- Hitmen games that probably fill the lower bowl at absolute best, and this is with knowledge that the Hitmen are one of the top attendance draws in the entirety of the WHL
- Calgary Wranglers who, CHRDAN already mentioned, only exist in the Saddledome because Calgary saw fit to abandon (yet another) acrimonious AHL market split and put their farm team in the big arena because it was cheaper and more beneficial to the team in terms of player development and travel costs / time spent on the road in busses and planes, with said AHL team leaving the market the second an arena deal isn't struck
- USports / Canada West hockey tournaments that can barely fill university barns at the best of times considering how much of a non-factor Canadian university hockey is to the normal Canadian hockey fan compared to major junior or even NCAA D1
- Concerts that, as previously mentioned, skip over Calgary or play smaller venues because of the inherent acoustics problems with the saddlerope roof design
- The odd arena show
You know as well as I do that isn't enough to fill out dates to justify leaving the Saddledome as a venue with no solid tentpole occupant.
So all of this bluster (which, for the record, I agree with on a base level) about letting the Flames go pound sand and for Calgary to decide their own destiny in a move to shun the NHL and Flames ownership basically runs up very quickly against the wall that if you don't have a solid tentpole occupying that arena, that you'll struggle to get any real profits from the supposed extra dates you believe will come with the Flames packing up and leaving, especially when you take the concerts issue into the mix. So what point is there in this pipe-dreaming when the reality basically swats down any point you make?
Last edited:
The concerts and events are there. How many times has the media reported concerts and events moving to Edmonton because of the Saddledome. A new, city-owned arena could fill those dates and we keep the revenue. The Flames want everything for nothing and that has to be a deal breaker for the city.
It won't take many dates for the arena to make money for the city and one main reason would be that we wouldn't have an NHL tenant siphoning everything off and leaving nothing but a shell for taxpayers.
Again. the Flames want everything for nothing and we, as taxpayers, simply cannot afford to hand it over to them. If they don't like building and paying for their own arena they can leave. We'll be fine.
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
Re-upping this, as to set a base line with what we have now. Sure doesn't seem like a good place to start off with in your scenario. Especially considering what I outlined is probably what would be around in the case that the Flames left - CSEC would drop the Hitmen in a flash, and you're looking for local owners. Same applies to the Roughnecks too, who in my post I completely forgot, but are basically small fry even in the market Calgary is in.
For how much you go on about having a new city owned venue or arena, the fact that you unironically suggest building *another* new arena, with likely government and city money while the problems within Calgary you have mentioned in your time in this thread go unfixed is a real headscratcher.
Governmental ills you seem to believe are exacerbated by the Flames getting a free ride also apply to non-sporting events and venues. You can't be so naïve to think that the sort of cronyism and graft you apply to the Flames is somehow not applied to large scale concerts and events.
Again, read back to the post that TheLegend made, that I have re-quoted. Especially take into consideration that while the numbers the Flames pump up probably are nowhere near close to the actual reality, the money made by the Flames is significant enough that it leaving, alongside the steady amount of dates every year, in the cold of winter, is something to be placated with by giving CSEC and Flames ownership sweetheart deals to stay and get a new home.
It sucks, absolutely. But the reality that you seem to ignore with your ideas is that the amount of dates, and money made, is a large enough hit for the Flames to have the upper hand. CSEC knows this, and so does Calgary city council, and hell, even the Alberta federal government when they aren't beating the war drum about how the unvaccinated are the most discriminated against peoples ever, and try unsuccessfully to secede from the confederation.
Once more, your suggestion about a city owned arena to make up the event / money difference of the Saddledome closing completely ignores the fact that this will likely need to be done with provincial/city money. Can they afford *that*?
Considering the fact that, even with the federal government dumping loads of money into the natural resources/oil and gas sector, Calgary oscillates between 'living high on the hog' and 'business leaving en masse, city on the brink' it sure seems like they won't be fine, and will have a lot of trouble on the horizon that trickles down to entertainment options when your likely only event options are National Lacrosse League, major junior hockey and the odd big name concert. And with green tech and electric vehicles growing, that on the brink attitude will only grow.
For me it's either or - either the Flames build, pay for and pay taxes on a new arena or the city builds an arena without an NHL tenant. My preference is for the Flames (and their investment partners) to build and pay for their own arena. Plan B would be a city arena and that would mean that we cannot have an NHL tenant - especially if we want to make money on that arena.
There's no point building a city-owned arena where the Flames are a tenant. It simply won't work as all the money would go to the Flames and we'd be stuck paying for their toy. That isn't fair to taxpayers.
If we're going to build a city-owned arena we have to be the ones who get the money and benefit and that means no NHL.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Cities are better off leaving these leagues to fend for themselves and spend tax dollars on important things like emergency services, etc. Here in Calgary we need to expand both our police and fire departments; expand our outreach to marginalized communities; replace several outdated and obsolete buildings, etc etc.
The Flames can pay their own way - we have more important things to do than build and pay for their toys.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
I agree. Unite and tell them to pay for their own stuff. But they won't, and these leagues will use divide and conquer tactic.
I feel better knowing my team had its arena funded privately and have no qualm paying $17 for beer. Teams that charge outrageous price for concessions and still demand tax money for arenas are extra, extra scums.
Too true. The only thing we can do is insist that the city we live in avoids the money pits and focuses on higher priorities.
nope... if there's no tenant, Mike, why would fans waste time and effort going to an arena for trade shows or concerts, no matter who runs the facility..... if an arena runs RED..... it's gone..... just like the Nassau Coliseum before the deal w/ Belmont, no matter the size, shape, age or capacity
The people who go to concerts and events are not always the same people who go to games so having a tenant is irrelevant. The key is filling dates and generating revenue that goes straight to the city. Without an NHL team sucking up all the revenue Calgary would have a chance to pay off the arena and make a profit so that we can hire more fire fighters, police officers, outreach workers, etc.
If the Flames want to remain in Calgary they have to build their own arenas and pay their taxes while they're at it.
nope....the Saddledome has no revenue if there's no tenant..... and at last check weren't there 3 major tenants vying for arena dates now that CSEC added the Wranglers into the mix alongside the Flames and Hitmen.... the point stands, when have there been trade shows or concerts in Calgary since 3/2020....... and 95% of the arena had no fans allowed to attend games since 2019
That's not how arenas work.
You have so many dates to fill and it really doesn't matter how you do it. You don't need a tenant if your dates are filled up with other events.
If anything, having an NHL tenant is worse than having no tenant at all. They demand all the revenue while giving the city pennies on the dollar. That's BS. If you fill your calendar with concerts and events you don't need to hand money over to the team. The money goes to the city instread.
That's what we need in Calgary - an arena where we get the money and not the team owners.
If the Flames want an arena they can build one themselves and pay all the taxes assessed by the city.
nope..... you have a prime tenant that just happens to own 3 teams that just happen to share the Saddledome, no one brought up conceerts and trade shows.... no arena makes money nor does the arena operator.....
AGAIN, Mike:
what happens if the Flames relocate..... good luck getting another ownership group at the Saddledome or any other arena.... it'll be schorched territory just like how CSEC has treated the last 8 cities that have hosted the Flames or their affiliates since 2003, how many of those markets survived what Calgary's ownership has done to them, and that has been CSEC's public perception since 2003, in Saint John, Omaha, The Quad Cities of Illinois/Iowa , Abbotsford, and Stockton.... does Calgary want to be the 9th market burned.....
TNSE has shown you it can be done successfully without that public perception.
Again, you don't know how an arena works. You don't need a tenant. You need to fill dates and that's how you make your money.
We can't make money off an arena where the Flames are the main tenant because they demand all the revenue and leave us with pennies on the dollar. If the city builds an arena we need to make money from it and that means no NHL.
nope, that means no Flames, no Wranglers, and no Junior Hitmen which is owned by WHO, Mike...... CSEC, AKA THE Flames...... in essence, the Saddledome is a white Elephant if there's no tenant because you're not making the arena or arena operator whether it's Spectra or ASM Direct solvent, no matter what event you're attracting there, whether it's the NHL/AHL/WHL/Concerts or other ancillary events..... good luck replacing those tenants, whether it's the Saddledome or a new arena, because the arenas need a primary tenant unless they're anti-business see Hy-Vee Arena in Kansas City
A new city-owned arena won't need tenants to make money. If the city builds an arena we can fill the dates with concerts and events and make a lot of money. It will be money we can use to fund priority areas within the city. Having the Flames as a tenant would mean that we get nothing so what's the point?
If the Flames want a new arena and be the main tenants they can build one themselves and pay taxes when it's opened.
I don't know why that is so hard.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | The Oilers Biggest Roster Need Is?
- Latest: Tobias Kahun
-
-
Salary Cap: Pens '24-'25 Salary Thread: The Crosbicles Volume XIX- Latest: Honour Over Glory
