Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
DirtyDeeds

The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BRT2017 said:

I agree 100% - getting a little tired of hearing this plea of poverty coming out of the mouths of billionaires and the likes of the NHL mouth from the South Mr. Bettman. If the finances are as bad as Bettman seems to want to imply - let's take a look at the P&L and Balance Sheet.

One would think some numbers have been used already. If indeed the operating costs of the Saddledome have become prohibiting then it makes sense to address a new facility. I don't think Calgary Next was the way to go about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that just when I am warming just a little to shovelling metric Satoshi Nakamoto tonnes of tax dollars for a new arena, Bettman comes in and turns me off the idea more than ever. If the Flames want a new arena, he really should stay away from this city IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2018 at 5:17 PM, The_Snowbear said:

You seem to forget that the team is paying for a Building that was also Flooded not that long ago now yest it is fixed but there is always residual Effects left

Flooding repairs was/is covered by insurance. Flames put up money for some initial repairs only until insurance came up with a number on cost to repair. They had to start the process or not start season in Calgary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only would I love to look at the books, never going to happen, I'd love to compare how the Flames finances compare to other Canadian teams and compare the reductions in the last 5-6 seasons. 

 

A new arena is needed yes but I'm thinking the Canadian dollar and a recession have more to do with the Flames financial picture than an arena. It's amazing to me how bad of sales people Bettman and Ken king are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not only would I love to look at the books, never going to happen, I'd love to compare how the Flames finances compare to other Canadian teams and compare the reductions in the last 5-6 seasons. 

 

A new arena is needed yes but I'm thinking the Canadian dollar and a recession have more to do with the Flames financial picture than an arena. It's amazing to me how bad of sales people Bettman and Ken king are. 

Timing can be everything at times. I am not sure King or Nenshi are the ones to be working this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2018 at 3:24 PM, MAC331 said:

Timing can be everything at times. I am not sure King or Nenshi are the ones to be working this out.

Neither one is.. Too stubborn. Both of them. 

King wanted the West end proposal to be his legacy to Calgary.... 

Nenshi wants the East end to be his vision and legacy.. With or without the Olympics.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off-topic. To me the best new arena, would be one with a combined 2,000 seat, 8,000 seat, and 20,000 seat rinks. With this arrangement, concerts/events could be held in the arena that best suited the crowd size. For example, it may make more sense for the Hitmen/Roughnecks to play in the 8,000 seat rink some nights. I know some cities have built arenas with a practice ice sheet included in the building. Does anyone know of a facility with multiple ice sheets with different seating capacities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to watch a series called Taken watch last weeks kinda funny what the episode was all about and what takes place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zima said:

I like to watch a series called Taken watch last weeks kinda funny what the episode was all about and what takes place.

 

Does this apply to the Flames arena?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda yes and know it is a show that has a interesting play on a rich owner ship trying to manipulate a way to get there Arena built . Watch it or not just thought I would mention it thought it was funny considering it kinda reminded me of whats going on in Calgary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, zima said:

Kinda yes and know it is a show that has a interesting play on a rich owner ship trying to manipulate a way to get there Arena built . Watch it or not just thought I would mention it thought it was funny considering it kinda reminded me of whats going on in Calgary.

 

Well, to be fair, you didn't mention anything about the episode.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cross16 said:

Flames responded fairly quickly....

 

 

 

What else are they going to say.

The mayor may be involved in a new discussion where the mayor was as stubborn as the ownership group.

Nothing new in the approach other than saying they want to talk.

Talk, bit start with the same message they gave ownership last time.

 

Sounds like the councilors want to continue the Olympic bid and have the Flames involved in funding a site for the Olympics.

If you want to build an arena for the Olympics, build one like last time.  Worse case, you collect revenue from the Flames and any other event it gets used for.

 

Forgive me if I am not an expert in the topic, I just get tired of hearing people talking about things you are going to do that seem to have little basis in reality. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

What else are they going to say.

The mayor may be involved in a new discussion where the mayor was as stubborn as the ownership group.

Nothing new in the approach other than saying they want to talk.

Talk, bit start with the same message they gave ownership last time.

 

Sounds like the councilors want to continue the Olympic bid and have the Flames involved in funding a site for the Olympics.

If you want to build an arena for the Olympics, build one like last time.  Worse case, you collect revenue from the Flames and any other event it gets used for.

 

Forgive me if I am not an expert in the topic, I just get tired of hearing people talking about things you are going to do that seem to have little basis in reality. 

 

 

To me it sounds like both are bickering and this is a horrible response from the Flames representation. If you want to negotiate in good faith, you can’t get anywhere with responses like that. 

 

Why not just say, “we are interested to hear what they have to say?”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

To me it sounds like both are bickering and this is a horrible response from the Flames representation. If you want to negotiate in good faith, you can’t get anywhere with responses like that. 

 

Why not just say, “we are interested to hear what they have to say?”

Your right But With The Garbage Ownership has taken from nenshi i cant say i would be to patient either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

To me it sounds like both are bickering and this is a horrible response from the Flames representation. If you want to negotiate in good faith, you can’t get anywhere with responses like that. 

 

Why not just say, “we are interested to hear what they have to say?”

 

Other than sound bites and press, what has the "group" that may or may not include Nenshi actually said new?

Nothing has changed from the city perspective, yet a soured negotiation should begin with the exact same position it ended on?

The mayor does not support a new arena, yet he is part (or isn't part) of the group?

 

The timing of this is bizarre.  Wait till they are announcing a new coach.  Ask about it there.

 

I neither support the city nor the Flames on this.  I do think this is pure political grandstanding.

You want to negotiate or talk about how to re-start it?  Send someone to meet in private with the ownership group and ask.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Other than sound bites and press, what has the "group" that may or may not include Nenshi actually said new?

Nothing has changed from the city perspective, yet a soured negotiation should begin with the exact same position it ended on?

The mayor does not support a new arena, yet he is part (or isn't part) of the group?

 

The timing of this is bizarre.  Wait till they are announcing a new coach.  Ask about it there.

 

I neither support the city nor the Flames on this.  I do think this is pure political grandstanding.

You want to negotiate or talk about how to re-start it?  Send someone to meet in private with the ownership group and ask.   

 

It sounds like the NHL CBA negotiation. For some reason it’s how the NHL works. I think the Flames original plan was quite pretentious and pushy. They started off by giving a huge lowball with high expectations. 

 

Not to say Nenshi is innocent, just that it set precedent. Someone has to give and I just feel like the attitude just prolongs the process and further wastes valuable resources. 

 

I would say the same if it was Nenshi and the city saying the same.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

It sounds like the NHL CBA negotiation. For some reason it’s how the NHL works. I think the Flames original plan was quite pretentious and pushy. They started off by giving a huge lowball with high expectations. 

 

Not to say Nenshi is innocent, just that it set precedent. Someone has to give and I just feel like the attitude just prolongs the process and further wastes valuable resources. 

 

I would say the same if it was Nenshi and the city saying the same.

 

 

 

You can't enter into a negotiation with set boundaries.

You start that way, and someone has to "lose".

Pretty much have to walk in with the idea that everything is on the table.

That goes for both sides.

 

The Flames came in with a grand plan that was about 2 years too late.  The economy sucked.

The Flames included a plan for a fieldhouse, which was supposedly in the plans of the city.

The pushback from the city was that the cleanup cost was underestimated and could reach $1b.

And that they were only considering a fieldhouse, but other things need to come first.

So, here is plan B for the Flames to think about.

You build where we say and we give you no input to the area's development.

We'll delay it till after the election, so as not to create sides.

At the same time, we'll show a vision of a new arena in that somehow gets built according to the cty's plans.

The Flames balked, as the funding model was Flames build and own the arena, in the city's location.


Very much turned into Bettman vs Fehr.

If the city is sincere, then the Flames will meet with them. 

The underlying theme is just the city wanting to discuss again after the Flames saying they were done.

Nothing new being tabled, just somebody calling it something new.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days, ski hill operations are more about land development than selling lift tickets. Without the real estate, there is insufficient interest in skiing. Katz has a pretty sweet deal in Edmonton given his real estate possibilities. He is going to invest billions more into the downtown core. The Flames may not get such a lucrative deal if the arena is located where the city wants to put it. If the Flames are more than just an owner of a hockey team, then what kind of funding model should be generated? Should the City of Calgary invest in a developer? If the city has a plan for an entertainment sector, what kind of influence should the Flames have on altering the plan? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

To me it sounds like both are bickering and this is a horrible response from the Flames representation. If you want to negotiate in good faith, you can’t get anywhere with responses like that. 

 

Why not just say, “we are interested to hear what they have to say?”

Maybe because they have grown tired of hearing Nenshi tell them that zero tax dollars are available?

 

31 minutes ago, The_Snowbear said:

I Have Come to the Conclusion calgary is relocating untill i hear something convincing i stay with that

I was standing in a line up the other day behind two old but elegant ladies who were whispering back and forth.  Well, they thought they were whispering but I think they were just hard of hearing.  They were saying that Murray Edwards has had enough, he wants out.  He is willing to sell his share of the team, which is believed to be the largest portion to the other 4 partners and they are free to continue on down this path.  If the partners can’t come up with the cash, he’s willing to buy them out instead.  If Edwards buys them out, he would then sell the team to Fertitta in Houston who is standing by, waiting patiently for his turn to play in the billionaire’s sandbox, also known as the NHL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

These days, ski hill operations are more about land development than selling lift tickets. Without the real estate, there is insufficient interest in skiing. Katz has a pretty sweet deal in Edmonton given his real estate possibilities. He is going to invest billions more into the downtown core. The Flames may not get such a lucrative deal if the arena is located where the city wants to put it. If the Flames are more than just an owner of a hockey team, then what kind of funding model should be generated? Should the City of Calgary invest in a developer? If the city has a plan for an entertainment sector, what kind of influence should the Flames have on altering the plan? 

 

 

 

If you can build a building and have part of that deal housing city employess, then you have a sweet deal.  We won't go into the EDM deal, since it's beyond what any modern concil should have approved.  It benefits the city because they don't care about revitalizing unless there is a reason to do it.

 

CGY did not want to have anything to do with the creosote site.  I can understand that.  It's wrong, but that is social conscience talking.  They place a bigger focus on libraries and artwork, which is fine in for a limited number of people that would enjoy it.  

 

Anyway, I'm out on this topic.  I was just responding to the negatives about perception and what I felt was a political agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...