the admiral

NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator

Recommended Posts

bosrs1    646
2 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Let's not forget thet Arizona is tarping their UD corners, this season.

 

How much longer until the Arizona experiment is ended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeerGuyJordan    876
1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

How much longer until the Arizona experiment is ended?

Objectively, I'd say we're past time.

 

I'm going to keep hoping they figure it out, though. Three reasons.

 

1. I'm dating a die-hard Coyotes fan. She's probably it for me, too. I can't root for something that'd break her heart, as a sports fan.

 

2. The Coyotes are a pretty inexpensive way to see the Preds at least once a season.

 

3. I'm a Roadrunners STH. There's no way Tucson has AHL hockey without the Coyotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosmic    2,504
On 9/11/2017 at 1:39 PM, bosrs1 said:

 

How much longer until the Arizona experiment is ended?

Now that they're actually trying to win, I think it's the final thing that hasn't been tried yet (well, not in a long time). If things don't start to resolve in the next few years, I don't really see how it can go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,244

So what this is is this was the mayor who pretty much told Bettman to stick it and now Bettman and the Flames are trying to get him voted out of office. Say the right things when electioneering!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sodboy13    2,557

Someone needs to inform Sportsnet's Eric Francis that they fixed all the flood damage at the Saddledome years ago, so there's no need for him to be carrying all this water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,244

Thing of it is, the Saddledome probably does need to be replaced in the next six years. I guess one of the downsides of an idiosyncratic, non-cookie-cutter indoor facility like the Saddledome is that it can't really do much in a world where everything is designed for cookie-cutter indoor facilities. I read that the acoustics for concerts suck when they can actually book concerts because the setups are too sophisticated now and need a support system in the ceiling that a dome in the style of a saddle cannot have. Also, the seating bowls are all wonky and don't seem to be optimal for hockey. I wouldn't say the situation is as dire as it was in Quebec City, where the Colisee had no air conditioning and was falling apart from being old and jury-rigged three times too many, but it's probably a building that's facing down obsolescence sooner than it should be.

 

That being said, the Flames should pay for it. It's their tenants, their concerts, their profit. They've never negotiated in good faith on this. The idea of a giant building that pivoted between hockey and stupid Canadian football was even more doomed than an arena with a concave roof. Like the failed Charaiders stadium, it was to be built on a toxic waste dump. It was a stupid demand and they should have come forth with something reasonable and offered to pay for most of it, if not all of it.

 

So yeah, pulling for Calgary and Flames fans here, but screw these oil barons who own the team and their dumbass posturing. "We'll run the team as long as we can." I guess it's a good thing they're a pretty high-revenue team, then. Should be able to run an NHL team in a major Canadian city for a pretty long time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcj882000    382

One thing I found from a different article on the situation is that the Flames lease with the Saddledome doesn't expire until 2033. The Saddledome's owned by the city, and while I know leases aren't always ironclad, I don't see the city being very eager to let the Flames loose from the lease just to see them leave town. Just based on that, before you get into whether they'd even make more money in a place like Seattle, I don't see them moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcj882000    382

Sorry for the double post, but I was thinking about something in Francis' article that stuck out to me:
 

Quote

It’s a jarring response from a frustrated Flames group that had offered to pay $200 million of the arena’s cost as part of their CalgaryNext building in the west end of downtown. They were willing to make a similar contribution for the city’s east side counter proposal.


Oh my, $200 million, that's an awful lot of money they offered! I wonder why the city turned that down-
pCFm7dE.png
oh

And just for some quick math:
95ijku1.png kO3RIZA.png

Basically the Flames offered to pay anywhere from 11-24% of this complex's steep price, depending on which projection was more accurate, and that's why the city told them to stuff it. I wonder why Eric didn't mention that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeypower    644

No the Saddledome isn't falling apart but it is showing its age and lacks a lot of the ameneties of all these newer arenas, same with McMahon (so much concrete), so admiral is right in saying Calgary is due for a new arena/complex. But what the Flames want from the city isn't going to work.

 

The admiral's also right about the concerts. Calgary gets skipped over for Edmonton all the time because of the Saddledome and its limitations. And if acts do come, it's often stripped down a bit and the acoustic aren't the greatest. (Keep in mind, I've never been to a concert at the Dome. This is just the common knowledge in Calgary).

 

I will say I never found the Saddledome's bowls wonky though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeypower    644
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Who cares about McMahon Stadium?

 

Plenty of people.

 

Quote

The CFL isn't worth building a billion-dollar stadium.

 

Probably not, especially not the CalgaryNEXT proposal. Cost being only one of the multiple reasons that proposal wasn't good.

 

The last three new CFL stadiums to be built cost $278 million (Regina), $145.7 million (Hamilton) and $210 million (Winnipeg).

 

But it will be interesting to see if and when the Flames go back to the city to see if they still include the Stamps in a proposal because the hockey arena will include three out of the four CSEC teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeypower    644

And here's Nenshi's response,

 

Quote
There has been a lot of discussion about the proposed arena over the last couple of days and I wanted to take the time to clarify a few things. The City has been negotiating in good faith with the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC), the owners of the Flames, for months with respect to a new arena in Victoria Park. Our goal has always been to reach an agreement that would be a win for taxpayers and a win for CSEC.
Back when CSEC introduced CalgaryNEXT, I proposed a number of principles (which were unanimously adopted by Council) to guide our work with respect to any new arena. The most important tenet was that public money must be used for public benefit, particularly with many Calgarians still struggling during this fragile economic recovery. Furthermore, I have always maintained that there must be public engagement on any proposed agreement prior to Council making a decision.
I keep hearing people say that ‘the Mayor doesn’t want an arena’. This is simply not true. I recently released my vision for a cultural and entertainment district in the River’s District, in the eastern part of downtown, and a new arena is a vital part of that plan. We know, however, that it takes more than just an arena to make a vibrant community (after all, the Saddledome has been there for 34 years without spurring much additional real estate development) and I have outlined a solid plan to make a cultural and entertainment district a reality.
There is no doubt that the Flames are a crucial part of our city’s cultural fabric and a new arena will have a positive impact on our city. Everyone understands this. That is why the City has devoted considerable time and money to advancing discussions with CSEC on this project.
That is also why I am surprised that CSEC has walked away from the table. It’s true that negotiations have been long and difficult, but that is to be expected given the amount of public money at stake. The City has a fair and reasonable proposal on the table and we were expecting negotiations to continue after our August break.
It is disappointing that the ownership group has unilaterally determined that there is no deal here. CSEC was told as recently as Monday that the City is still at the table and willing to negotiate. The City has not and will not ever leave the table as long as I am Mayor. We will continue to search for a win-win deal: a win for citizens and taxpayers and a win for the Flames’ owners.
Yesterday, Council authorized me to share details of the proposal that the City has on the table now. You will hear more about the details of the proposal later this week. I think the City’s proposal is eminently reasonable and a good mix of public money and public benefit--where taxpayers and the owners share in the risk and in the upside. I hope you look on this proposal with a fresh perspective and the knowledge that I am fighting for you, even if it becomes difficult. Nothing of value, like building a great city, comes easy, and we must be wary of those who pretend that it is.
The City is ready to talk and ready to engage with CSEC. We have before us a path to a win-win for our community, but it requires partnership and goodwill.
I thank you for your support and I look forward to sharing the details of the city’s proposal shortly.
Naheed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeerGuyJordan    876

Me, Re: Calgary/CSEC drama

 

popcorn_stephen_colbert.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeerGuyJordan    876

 

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

why, exactly

 Was that meant for me?

 

If so, it's because I love that the Mayor, and city, for that matter, aren't taking this lying down. Team owners have been getting away with holding teams hostage, to get free stadiums and arenas for far too long. I'd prefer owners to finance their own damn venues, but I can stomach mutually beneficial arrangements. When an ownership group storms away from negotiations, like a petulant child, it's nice to see them called out, for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,244

It''s not labeled "cannot be shared" because it's proprietary information, it's labeled "cannot be shared" because it's Ken King flipping people off with one hand and grabbing his balls with the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DG_Now    3,884

I want to learn how to pay 33% but get 100% control of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,244
2 hours ago, DG_Now said:

I want to learn how to pay 33% but get 100% control of something.

And one of the benefits for the taxpayers is that some guys can own a business. Who started this crap?

 

The chart reminds me of the infamous Washington Nationals meeting where the district proposed a two-thirds/one-third split in funding for the new park, and Jerry Reinsdorf replied "we were thinking more along the lines of three thirds, no thirds."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now