This day on December 9
Departed: Marty McSorley (1999)

Happy Birthday To: Jeff Petry, OILERBOI, Hancock

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 NHL » Flames will move without a new arena - Ken KingPages (3): [1  2  3  >  »]
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #689980]
Sat, 01 April 2017 09:29 Go to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14311
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ken-king-calgary-flame s-arena-next-1.4050989

Quote:

Calgary Flames president and CEO Ken King says the team will move if it can't strike a deal for a new arena.

"There would be no threat to move, we would just move, and it would be over. And I'm trying my level best to make sure that day never comes frankly," King said during an interview on Sportsnet Fan 590 in Toronto on Wednesday.

"If people smarter than us in more powerful positions than ours don't feel that we're a critical piece of the social, economic and cultural part of our city then who are we to argue with that?"

Earlier this week, Mayor Naheed Nenshi said the proposed CalgaryNEXT project in the West Village — which includes an arena, stadium and fieldhouse — is dead. King disagreed, saying the project is "resting."



Taking the Katz approach to negotiations. Wonder if he will be going on tour to other cities now.

(If this is an April Fools joke, it's a pretty mean one. Doubting it is though)



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #689981 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Sat, 01 April 2017 09:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pseudoreality  is currently offline Pseudoreality
Messages: 567
Registered: December 2002
Location: Yellowknife

No Cups

Taxpayer money should not go to these arenas, but there is always someplace where they'll do it.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690176 is a reply to message #689981 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 12:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 4814
Registered: January 2016

4 Cups

Pseudoreality wrote on Sat, 01 April 2017 09:41

Taxpayer money should not go to these arenas, but there is always someplace where they'll do it.


If you believe that, then you must be against City's paying for things like Rec centers, sports fields, parks. Those are called City amenities. A City is only as good as the amenities it provides its citizens.

When the City builds a new Rec center in the north west corner of a City to service that particular surrounding area using tax payers money. Is it fair to the tax payer you lives in the south east corner of the City who may never set foot in it to have to pay for part of it?

The lead tenant for a building is a major sports team. If you didn't have a major sports team, you are probably not building a rink of that size just to have. You need a major tenant to guarantee someone is using it. Without that large rink, you aren't getting major concerts coming to your City. I live in Red Deer, we have the Centrium, it seats just over 7000. Garth Brooks doesn't come to Red Deer. Keith Urban doesn't come to Red Deer. Lady Gaga doesn't come to Red Deer. The PBR doesn't come to Red Deer. Those acts don't come because our rink isn't big enough. Red Deer isn't building a 18K seat arena just in case Garth Brooks comes back to Alberta.

Every time your City hosts a major event, it generates major revenue. Even if you never go to a hockey game or a single concert, or event at the rink, if you own a business in the City, a huge chunk of the businesses in the City get financial benefit from it. Part of the revenue a major event generates goes to the City by way of fees, taxes, etc. So even if you don't get a direct financial benefit from an event in the new rink or if you set foot in the building. Every citizen still gets a benefit from the rink because the City generates more money from taxes associated with the building. Which means they can fix more pot holes and build that rec center in the far corner of the City that only a small portion of the City's people will ever use.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690200 is a reply to message #690176 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 18:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 2283
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:53

So even if you don't get a direct financial benefit from an event in the new rink or if you set foot in the building. Every citizen still gets a benefit from the rink because the City generates more money from taxes associated with the building. Which means they can fix more pot holes and build that rec center in the far corner of the City that only a small portion of the City's people will ever use.



Well, that's really only true if you assume the City is going to generate $300+ million in net new taxes because of the arena. And there's a lot of evidence to show that doesn't happen.



Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 pace: 254 GF / 243 GA (+11) after 30 games

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690232 is a reply to message #690200 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 11:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 4814
Registered: January 2016

4 Cups

Goose wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 18:05

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:53

So even if you don't get a direct financial benefit from an event in the new rink or if you set foot in the building. Every citizen still gets a benefit from the rink because the City generates more money from taxes associated with the building. Which means they can fix more pot holes and build that rec center in the far corner of the City that only a small portion of the City's people will ever use.



Well, that's really only true if you assume the City is going to generate $300+ million in net new taxes because of the arena. And there's a lot of evidence to show that doesn't happen.


I see that your location is Vancouver. Have you actually been to Rogers Arena in Edmonton and seen all the development that's going on around it right now vs what was there before? Before there was nothing there. Literally it was open space generating next to nothing in tax revenue. I've been to the rink for games 10 times this year. Before this rink was built, there was a run down casino with vacant space around it. Now there is the rink, a practice rink, a brand new casino. A JW Marriott is being built directly across the street from the rink. There are office towers being built right there. That doesn't even include all the smaller development around those new buildings. None of that is going up without that rink being there. There was no draw for any development there. http://icedistrictproperties.com/ice-district/district-map/ That development is worth huge money to the City in the way of taxes. I do engineering for a living and I am blown away every time I go how much that area has changed in such a short period of time. I don't remember what the City's initial estimated time line was to repay the rink (in the grand scheme of things, I didn't think it was that long) but I do know they keep recalculating what they are making off the surrounding new development and that time line keeps shrinking. If a person gets over the whole BS attitude "building a rink for a billionaire so millionaire hockey players can play", it's a huge win for the City of Edmonton. I don't know how many millions and millions in entertainment and tourist dollars Garth Brooks and his 9 shows brought to the City of Edmonton. But Garth Brooks isn't doing 9 shows in Rexal.

Maybe in the case of Calgary it would be slightly different. Where the current Dome is now, it's not exactly downtown as in the center but it's just barely outside of the center. It's not like Rexal where it was a 15 min drive just to get to downtown. So if they want to cut down on cost. Engineering wise I would be looking to put it at the corner of McLeod & 12th. There is a parking lot that I assume services the casino and this BMO center. You should have the underground services right there. There is a train station right there. It's on the corner of a main road. If not there, right in that area as there is a ton of open parking lot space right there.


[Updated on: Tue, 04 April 2017 11:31]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690247 is a reply to message #690232 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 13:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Babaganoosh  is currently offline Babaganoosh
Messages: 1128
Registered: January 2009
Location: Medicine Hat,AB

1 Cup

An arena properly managed and planned for can be a huge money maker for the city. The Flames only use it 41 nights a year. That leaves 300 some dates they can book out for their own profit. Besides Calgary is skipped by most big events and concerts due to the simple fact their gear won't work with that stupid roof configuration. I think it could be a good thing. It's nice to see the were going to move shoe going up someone else's ass on the other hand. I remember hearing so much crap from flamers over that.


" If you have anything good to say, say it off!"

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690251 is a reply to message #690247 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 14:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 4814
Registered: January 2016

4 Cups

Babaganoosh wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 13:24

An arena properly managed and planned for can be a huge money maker for the city. The Flames only use it 41 nights a year. That leaves 300 some dates they can book out for their own profit. Besides Calgary is skipped by most big events and concerts due to the simple fact their gear won't work with that stupid roof configuration. I think it could be a good thing. It's nice to see the were going to move shoe going up someone else's ass on the other hand. I remember hearing so much crap from flamers over that.


Exactly. Garth Brooks did 9 shows in Edmonton, zero in Calgary. If Calgary has a decent rink, Garth Brooks might have done 8 or 9 shows in Alberta split between the 2 Cities, not 9 in Edmonton. I looked up what's coming to Rogers Place and checked ticked master to see if they were going to Calgary.
Queen, Lady Gaga, Cold Play twice, Bruno Mars twice are all going to Rogers in the next 6 months. Zero shows in Calgary. So if you live in Calgary and want to see those acts, every one of them are huge acts, you have to drive to Edmonton, eat and drink in Edmonton and with it being over 3 hours drive, probably get a hotel in Edmonton because your rink is substandard. Those acts have nothing to do with a hockey team.

[Updated on: Tue, 04 April 2017 14:07]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690254 is a reply to message #690251 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 14:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 11768
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Whether you believe that the city should be involved with building the rink or not, can we all agree that it's ultra-douchey to suggest that you're going to move the team if you don't get your way?

Does it need to be said publicly? I mean, it's always a danger to a certain extent, but Calgary is a pretty good market. They're not going to get a better fan base in Seattle or Portland (and there's no building there either).

Negotiate behind closed doors, and don't say things that are going to piss people off and entrench opposition.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690255 is a reply to message #690254 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 15:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm  is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 3026
Registered: May 2009
Location: Saskatoon

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 14:58

Whether you believe that the city should be involved with building the rink or not, can we all agree that it's ultra-douchey to suggest that you're going to move the team if you don't get your way?

Does it need to be said publicly? I mean, it's always a danger to a certain extent, but Calgary is a pretty good market. They're not going to get a better fan base in Seattle or Portland (and there's no building there either).

Negotiate behind closed doors, and don't say things that are going to piss people off and entrench opposition.



But, but it worked for Edmonton...

The Flames won't be moving from YYC. There will be a deal worked out one way or another for a new building. The market is too big for the NHL to not step in to some capacity.



Survivor 52 CHAMP

#MUSTWIN

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690542 is a reply to message #690254 ]
Fri, 07 April 2017 19:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 2965
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 14:58

Whether you believe that the city should be involved with building the rink or not, can we all agree that it's ultra-douchey to suggest that you're going to move the team if you don't get your way?

Does it need to be said publicly? I mean, it's always a danger to a certain extent, but Calgary is a pretty good market. They're not going to get a better fan base in Seattle or Portland (and there's no building there either).

Negotiate behind closed doors, and don't say things that are going to piss people off and entrench opposition.


They are repeating everything Edmonton did, both the good, and much of the bad.

Calgary needs a plan that works for Calgary. They need a new hockey arena, and likely a new football stadium too. But it can't be the same strategy as Edmonton because there are different goals and different situations. Also, the estimated cost for Calgary NEXT isn't even close to what Rogers Place cost.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690541 is a reply to message #690251 ]
Fri, 07 April 2017 19:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 2965
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 14:04

Babaganoosh wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 13:24

An arena properly managed and planned for can be a huge money maker for the city. The Flames only use it 41 nights a year. That leaves 300 some dates they can book out for their own profit. Besides Calgary is skipped by most big events and concerts due to the simple fact their gear won't work with that stupid roof configuration. I think it could be a good thing. It's nice to see the were going to move shoe going up someone else's ass on the other hand. I remember hearing so much crap from flamers over that.


Exactly. Garth Brooks did 9 shows in Edmonton, zero in Calgary. If Calgary has a decent rink, Garth Brooks might have done 8 or 9 shows in Alberta split between the 2 Cities, not 9 in Edmonton. I looked up what's coming to Rogers Place and checked ticked master to see if they were going to Calgary.
Queen, Lady Gaga, Cold Play twice, Bruno Mars twice are all going to Rogers in the next 6 months. Zero shows in Calgary. So if you live in Calgary and want to see those acts, every one of them are huge acts, you have to drive to Edmonton, eat and drink in Edmonton and with it being over 3 hours drive, probably get a hotel in Edmonton because your rink is substandard. Those acts have nothing to do with a hockey team.


There's a LOT of major tour skipping Calgary right now in favour of at least one, sometimes two shows in Edmonton. Some are only playing Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver; others are doing a fuller Canadian tour and doing Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, but still skipped Calgary.

John Mayer, Matchbox Twenty, Future, Ed Sheeran (x2), Lionel Richie / Mariah Carey, Roger Waters, Depeche Mode, Sarah McLachlin, Kanye West, Drake (x2), Carrie Underwood, and The Lumineers are all names you can add to your list of artists who have booked Edmonton and skipped Calgary since Rogers Place opened in September.

[Updated on: Fri, 07 April 2017 19:26]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690258 is a reply to message #690232 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 15:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gator21  is currently offline Gator21
Messages: 479
Registered: February 2016
Location: Kelowna, BC

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 11:25

Goose wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 18:05

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:53

So even if you don't get a direct financial benefit from an event in the new rink or if you set foot in the building. Every citizen still gets a benefit from the rink because the City generates more money from taxes associated with the building. Which means they can fix more pot holes and build that rec center in the far corner of the City that only a small portion of the City's people will ever use.



Well, that's really only true if you assume the City is going to generate $300+ million in net new taxes because of the arena. And there's a lot of evidence to show that doesn't happen.


I see that your location is Vancouver. Have you actually been to Rogers Arena in Edmonton and seen all the development that's going on around it right now vs what was there before? Before there was nothing there. Literally it was open space generating next to nothing in tax revenue. I've been to the rink for games 10 times this year. Before this rink was built, there was a run down casino with vacant space around it. Now there is the rink, a practice rink, a brand new casino. A JW Marriott is being built directly across the street from the rink. There are office towers being built right there. That doesn't even include all the smaller development around those new buildings. None of that is going up without that rink being there. There was no draw for any development there. http://icedistrictproperties.com/ice-district/district-map/ That development is worth huge money to the City in the way of taxes. I do engineering for a living and I am blown away every time I go how much that area has changed in such a short period of time. I don't remember what the City's initial estimated time line was to repay the rink (in the grand scheme of things, I didn't think it was that long) but I do know they keep recalculating what they are making off the surrounding new development and that time line keeps shrinking. If a person gets over the whole BS attitude "building a rink for a billionaire so millionaire hockey players can play", it's a huge win for the City of Edmonton. I don't know how many millions and millions in entertainment and tourist dollars Garth Brooks and his 9 shows brought to the City of Edmonton. But Garth Brooks isn't doing 9 shows in Rexal.

Maybe in the case of Calgary it would be slightly different. Where the current Dome is now, it's not exactly downtown as in the center but it's just barely outside of the center. It's not like Rexal where it was a 15 min drive just to get to downtown. So if they want to cut down on cost. Engineering wise I would be looking to put it at the corner of McLeod & 12th. There is a parking lot that I assume services the casino and this BMO center. You should have the underground services right there. There is a train station right there. It's on the corner of a main road. If not there, right in that area as there is a ton of open parking lot space right there.





http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/garth-brooks-concerts-pump -42m-into-edmontons-economy/

About $42 million it looks like



Death by a Thousand Cuts

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690268 is a reply to message #690258 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 17:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 11768
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Gator21 wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 15:53

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 11:25

Goose wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 18:05

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:53

So even if you don't get a direct financial benefit from an event in the new rink or if you set foot in the building. Every citizen still gets a benefit from the rink because the City generates more money from taxes associated with the building. Which means they can fix more pot holes and build that rec center in the far corner of the City that only a small portion of the City's people will ever use.



Well, that's really only true if you assume the City is going to generate $300+ million in net new taxes because of the arena. And there's a lot of evidence to show that doesn't happen.


I see that your location is Vancouver. Have you actually been to Rogers Arena in Edmonton and seen all the development that's going on around it right now vs what was there before? Before there was nothing there. Literally it was open space generating next to nothing in tax revenue. I've been to the rink for games 10 times this year. Before this rink was built, there was a run down casino with vacant space around it. Now there is the rink, a practice rink, a brand new casino. A JW Marriott is being built directly across the street from the rink. There are office towers being built right there. That doesn't even include all the smaller development around those new buildings. None of that is going up without that rink being there. There was no draw for any development there. http://icedistrictproperties.com/ice-district/district-map/ That development is worth huge money to the City in the way of taxes. I do engineering for a living and I am blown away every time I go how much that area has changed in such a short period of time. I don't remember what the City's initial estimated time line was to repay the rink (in the grand scheme of things, I didn't think it was that long) but I do know they keep recalculating what they are making off the surrounding new development and that time line keeps shrinking. If a person gets over the whole BS attitude "building a rink for a billionaire so millionaire hockey players can play", it's a huge win for the City of Edmonton. I don't know how many millions and millions in entertainment and tourist dollars Garth Brooks and his 9 shows brought to the City of Edmonton. But Garth Brooks isn't doing 9 shows in Rexal.

Maybe in the case of Calgary it would be slightly different. Where the current Dome is now, it's not exactly downtown as in the center but it's just barely outside of the center. It's not like Rexal where it was a 15 min drive just to get to downtown. So if they want to cut down on cost. Engineering wise I would be looking to put it at the corner of McLeod & 12th. There is a parking lot that I assume services the casino and this BMO center. You should have the underground services right there. There is a train station right there. It's on the corner of a main road. If not there, right in that area as there is a ton of open parking lot space right there.





http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/garth-brooks-concerts-pump -42m-into-edmontons-economy/

About $42 million it looks like


I wish articles like that would explain how they are calculating that number. There's just nothing to verify that that's the case, or how that breaks down. They've simply parroted some number that the Oilers Entertainment Group has spat out, and who knows how they've come up with that number. How much of that is the revenue it generated for the Oilers Entertainment Group?



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690270 is a reply to message #690268 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 18:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14311
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 17:44

Gator21 wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 15:53

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 11:25

Goose wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 18:05

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 03 April 2017 11:53

So even if you don't get a direct financial benefit from an event in the new rink or if you set foot in the building. Every citizen still gets a benefit from the rink because the City generates more money from taxes associated with the building. Which means they can fix more pot holes and build that rec center in the far corner of the City that only a small portion of the City's people will ever use.



Well, that's really only true if you assume the City is going to generate $300+ million in net new taxes because of the arena. And there's a lot of evidence to show that doesn't happen.


I see that your location is Vancouver. Have you actually been to Rogers Arena in Edmonton and seen all the development that's going on around it right now vs what was there before? Before there was nothing there. Literally it was open space generating next to nothing in tax revenue. I've been to the rink for games 10 times this year. Before this rink was built, there was a run down casino with vacant space around it. Now there is the rink, a practice rink, a brand new casino. A JW Marriott is being built directly across the street from the rink. There are office towers being built right there. That doesn't even include all the smaller development around those new buildings. None of that is going up without that rink being there. There was no draw for any development there. http://icedistrictproperties.com/ice-district/district-map/ That development is worth huge money to the City in the way of taxes. I do engineering for a living and I am blown away every time I go how much that area has changed in such a short period of time. I don't remember what the City's initial estimated time line was to repay the rink (in the grand scheme of things, I didn't think it was that long) but I do know they keep recalculating what they are making off the surrounding new development and that time line keeps shrinking. If a person gets over the whole BS attitude "building a rink for a billionaire so millionaire hockey players can play", it's a huge win for the City of Edmonton. I don't know how many millions and millions in entertainment and tourist dollars Garth Brooks and his 9 shows brought to the City of Edmonton. But Garth Brooks isn't doing 9 shows in Rexal.

Maybe in the case of Calgary it would be slightly different. Where the current Dome is now, it's not exactly downtown as in the center but it's just barely outside of the center. It's not like Rexal where it was a 15 min drive just to get to downtown. So if they want to cut down on cost. Engineering wise I would be looking to put it at the corner of McLeod & 12th. There is a parking lot that I assume services the casino and this BMO center. You should have the underground services right there. There is a train station right there. It's on the corner of a main road. If not there, right in that area as there is a ton of open parking lot space right there.





http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/garth-brooks-concerts-pump -42m-into-edmontons-economy/

About $42 million it looks like


I wish articles like that would explain how they are calculating that number. There's just nothing to verify that that's the case, or how that breaks down. They've simply parroted some number that the Oilers Entertainment Group has spat out, and who knows how they've come up with that number. How much of that is the revenue it generated for the Oilers Entertainment Group?



You telling us this isn't a face you can trust?

http://assets2.sportsnet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/nicholson_bob_640.jpg

And this one:

http://wpmedia.edmontonjournal.com/2008/07/lowe_3.jpg

And this one:

https://albertaventure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/005_story_002.jpg


Sorry, my point was lost for humour reasons. Bob Nicholson rules :)



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690272 is a reply to message #690270 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 18:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently online CrusaderPi
Messages: 9499
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

That looks like an off brand episode of WKRP.


This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690340 is a reply to message #690272 ]
Wed, 05 April 2017 10:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
K.McC#24  is currently offline K.McC#24
Messages: 3837
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

3 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 18:42

That looks like an off brand episode of WKRP.


I got that.
icon_wink icon_biggrin



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690271 is a reply to message #690232 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 18:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 2283
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 10:25


I see that your location is Vancouver. Have you actually been to Rogers Arena in Edmonton and seen all the development that's going on around it right now vs what was there before? Before there was nothing there. Literally it was open space generating next to nothing in tax revenue. I've been to the rink for games 10 times this year. Before this rink was built, there was a run down casino with vacant space around it. Now there is the rink, a practice rink, a brand new casino. A JW Marriott is being built directly across the street from the rink. There are office towers being built right there. That doesn't even include all the smaller development around those new buildings. None of that is going up without that rink being there. There was no draw for any development there. http://icedistrictproperties.com/ice-district/district-map/ That development is worth huge money to the City in the way of taxes. I do engineering for a living and I am blown away every time I go how much that area has changed in such a short period of time. I don't remember what the City's initial estimated time line was to repay the rink (in the grand scheme of things, I didn't think it was that long) but I do know they keep recalculating what they are making off the surrounding new development and that time line keeps shrinking. If a person gets over the whole BS attitude "building a rink for a billionaire so millionaire hockey players can play", it's a huge win for the City of Edmonton. I don't know how many millions and millions in entertainment and tourist dollars Garth Brooks and his 9 shows brought to the City of Edmonton. But Garth Brooks isn't doing 9 shows in Rexal.

Maybe in the case of Calgary it would be slightly different. Where the current Dome is now, it's not exactly downtown as in the center but it's just barely outside of the center. It's not like Rexal where it was a 15 min drive just to get to downtown. So if they want to cut down on cost. Engineering wise I would be looking to put it at the corner of McLeod & 12th. There is a parking lot that I assume services the casino and this BMO center. You should have the underground services right there. There is a train station right there. It's on the corner of a main road. If not there, right in that area as there is a ton of open parking lot space right there.



Totally agree that the arena has helped to spur development in the surrounding area, no question about that. And I don't even need to have been to a game there to recognize that. Go figure.

But that's not what I was saying. I was responding to your comment that, " Every citizen still gets a benefit from the rink because the City generates more money from taxes associated with the building."

I originally used the number of $300M+, but that's just the upfront money that the City is on the hook for (technically they paid almost the whole $600M+ up front but I'll assume the Oilers pay them back on the timeline that they agreed to). I'm not exactly sure how the City financed that the money for the arena, but that $300M could easily become double that after factoring the interest over time.

So, to make that money back the City needs to generate new revenues that would not have existed without the Arena.

You mentioned the Marriott being built. Research has shown that when sports franchises leave a city or are inactive for a period of time (eg. during a lockout - thanks NHL), there is often zero impact on hotel occupancy rates.


Quote:

But one 2005 study, conducted by University of Ottawa researchers, looked at the economic impact of professional sports teams on hotel occupancy rates between 1990 and 1999 in eight Canadian cities, including Toronto, Edmonton and Montreal.

The research, published in the Journal of Sports Economics, found that in 11 out of 17 cases, when a city with a major league franchise goes through a period without a team — due to a league lockout, for example, or when a team such as the Winnipeg Jets leaves — it "had no statistically significant impact" on the hotel occupancy rates in that city.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-funding-new-sports-stadium s-can-be-a-losing-bet-1.1378210

So the Marriott may very well be a success, but it will be at the expense of other higher end hotels in the city, not because there is suddenly an influx of new people coming to stay in Edmonton.

The other developments are in a similar situation. The City of Edmonton employees moving to Katz's new tower is another prime example of this. Katz gets an anchor tenant that is taking up 2/3 of his new office building and it looks like another success for the arena district. They can use the property taxes generated by Katz's new tower to bump up the economic impact of the arena and everyone is happy. But where did those 2,300 people come from? They were spread across 9 other buildings in the City that now have vacant space that they can't rent out. So again, you're not generating new value, you're just shifting it from one area of the city to another. Unless the argument is that, because of the arena, businesses are going to move 2,300 employees from other cities to fill those now vacant spaces.

And I think it's great that Garth Brooks played 9 shows in Edmonton, ridiculous banner notwithstanding. And you're totally right that he isn't going to Red Deer to play in front of 7,000 people and that he probably wouldn't have played 9 shows in Rexall. So yes, a ton of people came down to the arena for those shows and went to restaurants, etc. But most of them were from Edmonton, and most of them would have spent that money elsewhere if they didn't go to the concert.

Take someone like yourself as an example. You said you've been to 10 games there. Again, for the argument that the arena drives new economic growth, the new arena, and not the Oilers would have to have been the reason that you went to all those games (or at least more than you would have went to without the new arena). Maybe that's true for you, but it's probably not true for most people. And even if it is in year 1, that impact is going to decrease over time as the arena isn't such a shiny new toy anymore.

And again, the vast majority of users of the arena are from Edmonton. So take someone that went to 10 games and spent $200 in the arena district each time. That's $2,000 of economic impact that the Oilers and the City would say the arena generated. But, the research shows that if the arena wasn't there, those people would have spent that money elsewhere. So it's not a new economic impact, it's just shifted from other areas of the City.

My point isn't to bash the arena. I spend a good portion of my day on here talking about the Oilers, so I'm obviously a huge fan. I think it's great that the team got a new arena, and that it's helping to revitalize downtown and I really hope that redevelopment is sustainable. But let's not pretend that there's not a real cost to the City for that development.



Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 pace: 254 GF / 243 GA (+11) after 30 games

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690274 is a reply to message #690271 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 20:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 11768
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Goose wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 18:31



I originally used the number of $300M+, but that's just the upfront money that the City is on the hook for (technically they paid almost the whole $600M+ up front but I'll assume the Oilers pay them back on the timeline that they agreed to). I'm not exactly sure how the City financed that the money for the arena, but that $300M could easily become double that after factoring the interest over time.



I don't disagree with the bulk of your argument, but the city can borrow money very cheaply - think government bond type rates. The interest they are paying is quite small (and I believe that the interest on the debt is part of what Katz Group agreed to pay?)




"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690345 is a reply to message #690271 ]
Wed, 05 April 2017 12:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 4814
Registered: January 2016

4 Cups

Goose wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 18:31

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 04 April 2017 10:25


I see that your location is Vancouver. Have you actually been to Rogers Arena in Edmonton and seen all the development that's going on around it right now vs what was there before? Before there was nothing there. Literally it was open space generating next to nothing in tax revenue. I've been to the rink for games 10 times this year. Before this rink was built, there was a run down casino with vacant space around it. Now there is the rink, a practice rink, a brand new casino. A JW Marriott is being built directly across the street from the rink. There are office towers being built right there. That doesn't even include all the smaller development around those new buildings. None of that is going up without that rink being there. There was no draw for any development there. http://icedistrictproperties.com/ice-district/district-map/ That development is worth huge money to the City in the way of taxes. I do engineering for a living and I am blown away every time I go how much that area has changed in such a short period of time. I don't remember what the City's initial estimated time line was to repay the rink (in the grand scheme of things, I didn't think it was that long) but I do know they keep recalculating what they are making off the surrounding new development and that time line keeps shrinking. If a person gets over the whole BS attitude "building a rink for a billionaire so millionaire hockey players can play", it's a huge win for the City of Edmonton. I don't know how many millions and millions in entertainment and tourist dollars Garth Brooks and his 9 shows brought to the City of Edmonton. But Garth Brooks isn't doing 9 shows in Rexal.

Maybe in the case of Calgary it would be slightly different. Where the current Dome is now, it's not exactly downtown as in the center but it's just barely outside of the center. It's not like Rexal where it was a 15 min drive just to get to downtown. So if they want to cut down on cost. Engineering wise I would be looking to put it at the corner of McLeod & 12th. There is a parking lot that I assume services the casino and this BMO center. You should have the underground services right there. There is a train station right there. It's on the corner of a main road. If not there, right in that area as there is a ton of open parking lot space right there.



Totally agree that the arena has helped to spur development in the surrounding area, no question about that. And I don't even need to have been to a game there to recognize that. Go figure.

But that's not what I was saying. I was responding to your comment that, " Every citizen still gets a benefit from the rink because the City generates more money from taxes associated with the building."

I originally used the number of $300M+, but that's just the upfront money that the City is on the hook for (technically they paid almost the whole $600M+ up front but I'll assume the Oilers pay them back on the timeline that they agreed to). I'm not exactly sure how the City financed that the money for the arena, but that $300M could easily become double that after factoring the interest over time.

So, to make that money back the City needs to generate new revenues that would not have existed without the Arena.

You mentioned the Marriott being built. Research has shown that when sports franchises leave a city or are inactive for a period of time (eg. during a lockout - thanks NHL), there is often zero impact on hotel occupancy rates.


Quote:

But one 2005 study, conducted by University of Ottawa researchers, looked at the economic impact of professional sports teams on hotel occupancy rates between 1990 and 1999 in eight Canadian cities, including Toronto, Edmonton and Montreal.

The research, published in the Journal of Sports Economics, found that in 11 out of 17 cases, when a city with a major league franchise goes through a period without a team — due to a league lockout, for example, or when a team such as the Winnipeg Jets leaves — it "had no statistically significant impact" on the hotel occupancy rates in that city.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-funding-new-sports-stadium s-can-be-a-losing-bet-1.1378210

So the Marriott may very well be a success, but it will be at the expense of other higher end hotels in the city, not because there is suddenly an influx of new people coming to stay in Edmonton.

The other developments are in a similar situation. The City of Edmonton employees moving to Katz's new tower is another prime example of this. Katz gets an anchor tenant that is taking up 2/3 of his new office building and it looks like another success for the arena district. They can use the property taxes generated by Katz's new tower to bump up the economic impact of the arena and everyone is happy. But where did those 2,300 people come from? They were spread across 9 other buildings in the City that now have vacant space that they can't rent out. So again, you're not generating new value, you're just shifting it from one area of the city to another. Unless the argument is that, because of the arena, businesses are going to move 2,300 employees from other cities to fill those now vacant spaces.

And I think it's great that Garth Brooks played 9 shows in Edmonton, ridiculous banner notwithstanding. And you're totally right that he isn't going to Red Deer to play in front of 7,000 people and that he probably wouldn't have played 9 shows in Rexall. So yes, a ton of people came down to the arena for those shows and went to restaurants, etc. But most of them were from Edmonton, and most of them would have spent that money elsewhere if they didn't go to the concert.

Take someone like yourself as an example. You said you've been to 10 games there. Again, for the argument that the arena drives new economic growth, the new arena, and not the Oilers would have to have been the reason that you went to all those games (or at least more than you would have went to without the new arena). Maybe that's true for you, but it's probably not true for most people. And even if it is in year 1, that impact is going to decrease over time as the arena isn't such a shiny new toy anymore.

And again, the vast majority of users of the arena are from Edmonton. So take someone that went to 10 games and spent $200 in the arena district each time. That's $2,000 of economic impact that the Oilers and the City would say the arena generated. But, the research shows that if the arena wasn't there, those people would have spent that money elsewhere. So it's not a new economic impact, it's just shifted from other areas of the City.

My point isn't to bash the arena. I spend a good portion of my day on here talking about the Oilers, so I'm obviously a huge fan. I think it's great that the team got a new arena, and that it's helping to revitalize downtown and I really hope that redevelopment is sustainable. But let's not pretend that there's not a real cost to the City for that development.

It's the City's job to provide amenities to it's citizens. Without amenities its nothing. Like it or not, Rogers Place is an amenity, no different than building a museum or that expensive art galley or a rec center in some corner of the City. I am sure there will be thousands of Edmontonian's who will never set foot in the art gallery. Yet their tax money paid for it. Same goes for a rec center built in one corner of the City. The tax payer in the farthest opposite corner of the City will probably never set foot in that rec center, but some of his tax money went to pay for it.

So I don't get why its all of a sudden different with a sports arena. The pro hockey team happens to be the lead tenant but there are all kinds of other non hockey events related to that pro sports team that will use the rink more than the pro team. But in order to justify building the rink, you need a lead tenant. The City of Red Deer built the Centrium as soon as they knew the Sutter's secured a junior hockey team for the City. They didn't build it just in case they got on one day. NO one bats an eye when they build a new bridge which all it does is cost money and generates nothing. But people get all up in arms as soon as you talk about a sports arena that actually makes money for the City.

In the case of Rogers Place. The private citizen bought the non tax generating land and I assume bought it from the City. So he paid them for that. (anyone know who he bought the land from). Then he contributed whatever they agreed he would chip in. I think it was a 100 mill. Then the private citizen true to his word, spearheaded all the surrounding private development. So he's out of pocket more money for this private development. The City isn't building hotels or casino's or all the private development or new residences. But they are getting all this brand new tax money from it. If the City built the rink then Katz said thanks and did nothing to the development around, then the City is getting screwed. But Katz invested his money into all of the surrounding areas around the rink. The City spent their money on the rink. As a result, Katz makes money but so does the City. Nothing is for free in this world. Both parties have significant cake invested but both are going to get significant returns.

[Updated on: Wed, 05 April 2017 13:02]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690411 is a reply to message #690345 ]
Thu, 06 April 2017 18:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 2283
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 05 April 2017 11:56


It's the City's job to provide amenities to it's citizens. Without amenities its nothing. Like it or not, Rogers Place is an amenity, no different than building a museum or that expensive art galley or a rec center in some corner of the City. I am sure there will be thousands of Edmontonian's who will never set foot in the art gallery. Yet their tax money paid for it. Same goes for a rec center built in one corner of the City. The tax payer in the farthest opposite corner of the City will probably never set foot in that rec center, but some of his tax money went to pay for it.


You seem to be under the impression that I am against the Oilers getting a new arena, or that I think the City shouldn't be involved in any way. That's not true at all.

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 05 April 2017 11:56


So I don't get why its all of a sudden different with a sports arena... NO one bats an eye when they build a new bridge which all it does is cost money and generates nothing. But people get all up in arms as soon as you talk about a sports arena that actually makes money for the City.


This is where I think we actually disagree, on a couple of points. It took them 100 years to replace the Walterdale bridge in Edmonton. Should they have just let it fall into the water? I don't think we're really comparing apples to apples here.

But I totally disagree that the arena will generate any revenue for the City, and there is evidence that schemes like the CRL are actually a drag on growth for the City overall, as it focuses all the resources and development in one small area (in the study posted below they call it Tax Increment Financing (TIF), but it's essentially the same thing).

Quote:


In summary, the empirical evidence suggests that TIF adoption has a real cost
for municipal growth rates. Municipalities that elect to adopt TIF stimulate the
growth of blighted areas at the expense of the larger town.



http://americandreamcoalition-org.adcblog.org/landuse/TIFsin Illinois.pdf

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 05 April 2017 11:56


In the case of Rogers Place. The private citizen bought the non tax generating land and I assume bought it from the City. So he paid them for that. (anyone know who he bought the land from).


The City bought the land for the arena, not Katz, and the City "owns" the arena, so it's still non-tax generating (a neat little ancillary benefit for Katz that is not really talked about).

Quote:

The City bought the land for the arena project, which is included in the $613.7-million cost for the entire project. The cost of the land was $26.5-million.


https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_plans/rogers_place/the-agre ement.aspx

What bothers me about this whole project is that the Oilers and the City sold this whole deal as if it would somehow be like found money for the City. That the $600M (or $300M that they aren't getting back out of arena/ticket tax revenues) that the City put up front would magically pay for itself through increased tax revenues, despite zero evidence that this has happened in other cities. So there is no opportunity to debate if that was the best use of the City's money because they pretend that the cost to the City is $0. It's also used to justify the fact that Katz isn't even fully paying back the City, despite the fact he is getting 100% of revenues from the building. It really is an amazing deal when you think about it, and in any other context would have been unanimously criticized.

If the main goal was to revitalize downtown, there are many ways the City could have spent that money. In this respect, I think you actually have it backwards. Do you think there is any way that if the City of Edmonton had said that they were going to give away $300M to various businessmen not attached to the Oilers to revitalize downtown that they wouldn't have been laughed out of office?



Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 pace: 254 GF / 243 GA (+11) after 30 games

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #689982 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Sat, 01 April 2017 09:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm  is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 3026
Registered: May 2009
Location: Saskatoon

3 Cups

Remember when Lames fans had commented on how childish Katz was with forcing the hand of the City of Edmonton by threatening a move? It's funny how things come full circle. Understandable from the City of Calgary to shoot this development down right now though. In economically hard times, their NHL Franchise is demanding a new arena. Where's the money going to come from? I know I'm in Sask and not too connected to the Alberta economy, but seriously, where's the money come from right now? Unless the Flames Sports Entertainment Council (or whatever they call themselves) is footing a large portion of the bill, where does the City of Calgary or Province of Alberta find the money to support such a project?


Survivor 52 CHAMP

#MUSTWIN

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690002 is a reply to message #689982 ]
Sat, 01 April 2017 16:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 2965
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

OilMJMOil wrote on Sat, 01 April 2017 09:41

Remember when Lames fans had commented on how childish Katz was with forcing the hand of the City of Edmonton by threatening a move? It's funny how things come full circle. Understandable from the City of Calgary to shoot this development down right now though. In economically hard times, their NHL Franchise is demanding a new arena. Where's the money going to come from? I know I'm in Sask and not too connected to the Alberta economy, but seriously, where's the money come from right now? Unless the Flames Sports Entertainment Council (or whatever they call themselves) is footing a large portion of the bill, where does the City of Calgary or Province of Alberta find the money to support such a project?


Budgeted in to an Olympics bid perhaps.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690106 is a reply to message #690002 ]
Sun, 02 April 2017 09:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jakey  is currently offline Jakey
Messages: 362
Registered: November 2007
Location: Leduc

No Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Sat, 01 April 2017 16:39

OilMJMOil wrote on Sat, 01 April 2017 09:41

Remember when Lames fans had commented on how childish Katz was with forcing the hand of the City of Edmonton by threatening a move? It's funny how things come full circle. Understandable from the City of Calgary to shoot this development down right now though. In economically hard times, their NHL Franchise is demanding a new arena. Where's the money going to come from? I know I'm in Sask and not too connected to the Alberta economy, but seriously, where's the money come from right now? Unless the Flames Sports Entertainment Council (or whatever they call themselves) is footing a large portion of the bill, where does the City of Calgary or Province of Alberta find the money to support such a project?


Budgeted in to an Olympics bid perhaps.


That is exactly how they should do it. Just like they did for the 88 games.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690114 is a reply to message #690106 ]
Sun, 02 April 2017 12:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
WhoreableGuy  is currently offline WhoreableGuy
Messages: 1567
Registered: August 2006
Location: Calgary

1 Cup

When you pitch something that looks half assed and renderings that look like they were done in MS Paint you're not going to get the full support from the average citizen.

If they came out prepared and pitched a new state of the art hockey arena in the same Stampede area (a perfect location) I think it would have picked up more steam.

The location they were pitching for Calgary Next was met with mixed reviews since there is contamination in the soil there that would have tacked on millions of dollars that the Flames were not going to pay for.

A lot of my friends that are Flames fans are pissed at Mayor Nenshi because "Calgary needs a new rink" but there's a lot more to it than that.




"Bah Gawd! Would somebody stop the damn draft!"

- Jim Ross calling the NHL Draft Lotto 2015 as the Oilers win

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690117 is a reply to message #690114 ]
Sun, 02 April 2017 12:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently online CrusaderPi
Messages: 9499
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

The only place where the flames might make more money in a new building than the saddledome is Quebec City. If that's the threat is take it seriously, otherwise I call their bluff.


This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690211 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Mon, 03 April 2017 20:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 5927
Registered: February 2011

5 Cups

To be fair, the cowpokes do need a new arena, because the Saddledome is a hole that was just poorly designed to begin with. What the hell were they thinking creating an arena with a roof design that would automatically limit the sight lines of people sitting in the upper tiers of seats? I've been there for games, and it's hilarious that they have to have TV screens up there in case fans can't see the ice when people below them stand up in their seats.

Hey Calgary, there's a reason why arena roofs are not CONCAVE in design. icon_rolleyes



"There's no greater springboard to development than failure." - Craig MacTavish, April 13/15.

5-14-6-1

"Sabres think the suck is their ally? They merely adopted the suck. The Oilers were born in it...molded by it."

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #690257 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Tue, 04 April 2017 15:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
K.McC#24  is currently offline K.McC#24
Messages: 3837
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Sat, 01 April 2017 09:29

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ken-king-calgary-flame s-arena-next-1.4050989

Quote:

Calgary Flames president and CEO Ken King says the team will move if it can't strike a deal for a new arena.

"There would be no threat to move, we would just move, and it would be over. And I'm trying my level best to make sure that day never comes frankly," King said during an interview on Sportsnet Fan 590 in Toronto on Wednesday.

"If people smarter than us in more powerful positions than ours don't feel that we're a critical piece of the social, economic and cultural part of our city then who are we to argue with that?"

Earlier this week, Mayor Naheed Nenshi said the proposed CalgaryNEXT project in the West Village — which includes an arena, stadium and fieldhouse — is dead. King disagreed, saying the project is "resting."



Taking the Katz approach to negotiations. Wonder if he will be going on tour to other cities now.

(If this is an April Fools joke, it's a pretty mean one. Doubting it is though)


If that's King's remark, then he's probably a fair amount more blunt than Katz was.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695245 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 13:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14311
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

copied from hf:

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Ok. Brian Burke just said the thing that the Flames said they wouldn't say. Told season ticket holder the Flames could leave w/o new rink.

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Burke also says Flames would be able find a place to relocate to.

Dan McGarvey @DanMcGarvey
Burke gets into it with guest on threatening to take the #flames out of Calgary. Says Quebec is one place they could go. #yyc #nhl



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695247 is a reply to message #695245 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 13:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently online CrusaderPi
Messages: 9499
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 13:49

copied from hf:

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Ok. Brian Burke just said the thing that the Flames said they wouldn't say. Told season ticket holder the Flames could leave w/o new rink.

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Burke also says Flames would be able find a place to relocate to.

Dan McGarvey @DanMcGarvey
Burke gets into it with guest on threatening to take the #flames out of Calgary. Says Quebec is one place they could go. #yyc #nhl


Ballsy. It's nice to see the idea of Quebec City being used to hijack money out of Calgary for once.



This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695248 is a reply to message #695247 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 14:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14311
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 13:52

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 13:49

copied from hf:

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Ok. Brian Burke just said the thing that the Flames said they wouldn't say. Told season ticket holder the Flames could leave w/o new rink.

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Burke also says Flames would be able find a place to relocate to.

Dan McGarvey @DanMcGarvey
Burke gets into it with guest on threatening to take the #flames out of Calgary. Says Quebec is one place they could go. #yyc #nhl


Ballsy. It's nice to see the idea of Quebec City being used to hijack money out of Calgary for once.


How in the world are they gonna get a new arena funded? Even if they had a mayor that would consider it (I think Nenshi is hardcore against public funds for an arena?). It's just an unrealistic ask from the Flames right now with this economy, especially some of these nutty projects they come up with like a $1B super everything you can imagine complex.



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695251 is a reply to message #695248 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 14:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 11768
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 14:03

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 13:52

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 13:49

copied from hf:

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Ok. Brian Burke just said the thing that the Flames said they wouldn't say. Told season ticket holder the Flames could leave w/o new rink.

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Burke also says Flames would be able find a place to relocate to.

Dan McGarvey @DanMcGarvey
Burke gets into it with guest on threatening to take the #flames out of Calgary. Says Quebec is one place they could go. #yyc #nhl


Ballsy. It's nice to see the idea of Quebec City being used to hijack money out of Calgary for once.


How in the world are they gonna get a new arena funded? Even if they had a mayor that would consider it (I think Nenshi is hardcore against public funds for an arena?). It's just an unrealistic ask from the Flames right now with this economy, especially some of these nutty projects they come up with like a $1B super everything you can imagine complex.


How much money does the Quebecor guy have? He wanted to spend lots on bringing back the Nordiques before...



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695261 is a reply to message #695247 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 15:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
K.McC#24  is currently offline K.McC#24
Messages: 3837
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

3 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 13:52

Kr55 wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 13:49

copied from hf:

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Ok. Brian Burke just said the thing that the Flames said they wouldn't say. Told season ticket holder the Flames could leave w/o new rink.

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
Burke also says Flames would be able find a place to relocate to.

Dan McGarvey @DanMcGarvey
Burke gets into it with guest on threatening to take the #flames out of Calgary. Says Quebec is one place they could go. #yyc #nhl


Ballsy. It's nice to see the idea of Quebec City being used to hijack money out of Calgary for once.


HA! Dripping with irony.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695252 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 14:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14311
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

CTV - Chris Epp‏ @CTVchrisepp
BRIAN BURKE: Most intelligent people get this argument.
GUY IN AUDIENCE: Most intelligent people know how to tie a tie.



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695277 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 18:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14311
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Video of Burke's little whining session.

http://www.tsn.ca/video/labelled~1141218

Why even have the tie at all? Seriously...



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695281 is a reply to message #695277 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 19:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pseudoreality  is currently offline Pseudoreality
Messages: 567
Registered: December 2002
Location: Yellowknife

No Cups

Ha, Burke is such a tool. Maybe he should challenge that guy to a barn fight?


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695283 is a reply to message #695277 ]
Wed, 07 June 2017 22:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 11768
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

You know, watching that video, I can't say I completely disagree with him.

I think it was foolish to bring it up. I'm not sure why he'd go there at all. But I don't disagree with his message, and the Flames certainly would have options to move.

I think the whole "you don't want concussions, you should become a swimmer" comment was probably worse...



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695302 is a reply to message #695283 ]
Thu, 08 June 2017 10:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rocksteady  is currently offline Rocksteady
Messages: 2363
Registered: March 2007

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 22:01

You know, watching that video, I can't say I completely disagree with him.

I think it was foolish to bring it up. I'm not sure why he'd go there at all. But I don't disagree with his message, and the Flames certainly would have options to move.

I think the whole "you don't want concussions, you should become a swimmer" comment was probably worse...


It's not disagreeing with him that is bothersome, it's the tone he had. Calgary is smarter (clearly saying that Calgary is dumber), the audacity saying that Flames fans would rather go to a game than pay their bills (he didn't say that, rather he says when Joe loses his job the first thing he'd cut are season tickets to the Flames but he hasn't seen that in Calgary, people are instead in groups of 2 3 or 4 to keep their tickets) - kind of a back handed complement to the fans.

The guy in the crowd was on point giving the same shade Burke did.

First thing first, you don't design a plan for a building and then give it to Calgary and say here, build this..

At the end of the day, they will need a new building soon. Where that is? I'm not sure but someone private has to put more change in the kitty.



The very definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing expecting different results.

Generally Disappointed.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695311 is a reply to message #695302 ]
Thu, 08 June 2017 12:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 4814
Registered: January 2016

4 Cups

I am a firm believer that a City is only as good as it's amenities. Like it or not, a stadium or arena is an amenity. If the Flames didn't exist in Calgary, they would still need a reasonably large arena. Garth Brooks did 9 shows in Edmonton, zero in Calgary. I have no clue what the economic spin off that Garth brought to the City of Edmonton, taking Katz out of the equation but I am sure it was significant. Calgary gone none of that thanks to their lousy arena. There are have a ton of big acts flooding Edmonton especially since Rogers opened and not a one went to Calgary.

Does having the Flames be the lead tenant make it so you have to probably make an arena bigger and better than if it was just for concerts, probably. But because of that, that is the reason you come up with a partnership between the private Flames owner and the City. Regardless the Flames ownership and the City both stand to benefit financially from a new arena so they both should be involved in paying for it.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #695313 is a reply to message #695302 ]
Thu, 08 June 2017 12:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 11768
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Rocksteady wrote on Thu, 08 June 2017 10:33

Adam wrote on Wed, 07 June 2017 22:01

You know, watching that video, I can't say I completely disagree with him.

I think it was foolish to bring it up. I'm not sure why he'd go there at all. But I don't disagree with his message, and the Flames certainly would have options to move.

I think the whole "you don't want concussions, you should become a swimmer" comment was probably worse...


It's not disagreeing with him that is bothersome, it's the tone he had. Calgary is smarter (clearly saying that Calgary is dumber), the audacity saying that Flames fans would rather go to a game than pay their bills (he didn't say that, rather he says when Joe loses his job the first thing he'd cut are season tickets to the Flames but he hasn't seen that in Calgary, people are instead in groups of 2 3 or 4 to keep their tickets) - kind of a back handed complement to the fans.

The guy in the crowd was on point giving the same shade Burke did.

First thing first, you don't design a plan for a building and then give it to Calgary and say here, build this..

At the end of the day, they will need a new building soon. Where that is? I'm not sure but someone private has to put more change in the kitty.


Yeah, I don't know why he felt it was a good idea to wade in to that one. It was not ever going to go well.

Speaking of which, spoke recently to someone who was at another event that Burke was at where he threw a lot of shade at the Oilers. Apparently went on at length about how embarrassing it was that the Oilers got good by sucking for ten years, and took some potshots about how crappy management still couldn't get it right with Yakupov, Nugent-Hopkins, etc. Suggested that if the Oilers management were better, they would have taken Larsson first overall in 2011 and had both him and Hall.

Grudgingly said that the team was good and would be really good for a while though.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740906 is a reply to message #695302 ]
Tue, 23 July 2019 09:21 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Rocksteady  is currently offline Rocksteady
Messages: 2363
Registered: March 2007

2 Cups

Rocksteady wrote on Thu, 08 June 2017 10:33

First thing first, you don't design a plan for a building and then give it to Calgary and say here, build this..

At the end of the day, they will need a new building soon. Where that is? I'm not sure but someone private has to put more change in the kitty.



So I was partially right the private sector gave more, I think the deal is a better one than we got because the Stampede/Flames putting in 50% of the cost and our arena we the public shouldered about 73%, and the city of Calgary gets a cut from naming rights. Other than that, it's the exact same deal as we got.

Could that have happened in yeg? Maybe.. probably not. Good for them!



The very definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing expecting different results.

Generally Disappointed.

Send a private message to this user  

Pages (3): [1  2  3  >  »]  
Previous Topic:NYR buy out Shattenkirk
Next Topic:NHL Players filing for Arbitration 2019
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright © OilFans.com 1996-2019.
All content is property of OilFans.com and cannot be used without expressed, written consent from this site.
Questions, comments and suggestions can be directed to oilfans@OilFans.com
Privacy Statement


Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca