HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 12:46 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EDM ->->-> Okanagan
Posts: 10,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post
A great article from The Hockey News about the Calgary arena:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...-his-own-arena
I have no doubt that Calgary will be able to pull a deal together that's not anywhere as sleazy as the one Edmonton signed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 1:11 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,244
It's odd to hear even minor rumblings about the Flames potentially relocating. After the big three, I always thought they were the most solid of the "next four" Canadian NHL clubs.
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 1:17 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
It's odd to hear even minor rumblings about the Flames potentially relocating. After the big three, I always thought they were the most solid of the "next four" Canadian NHL clubs.
If Calgary leaves there will be at least one or two teams willing to relocate there or even a new ownership group applying for expansion.

The current owners are just greedy and trying to leverage wayy too much against the tax payers. They think they can swindle an Edmonton type deal but there's less and less appetite to fund pro arenas for billionaire owners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 1:17 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 52,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240glt View Post
I have no doubt that Calgary will be able to pull a deal together that's not anywhere as sleazy as the one Edmonton signed
Give it a rest.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 1:18 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 5,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
It's odd to hear even minor rumblings about the Flames potentially relocating.
Probably because it's extremely unlikely they relocate. This recent news is merely a negotiating tactic to either strongarm the City or to influence municipal elections. Fans in Calgary should be absolutely cognizant of what this ownership is trying to do to the City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 1:20 PM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,439
So the city of Edmonton had to come up with almost $440 million - did they have this in cash laying around or was it all financed? $313 for city's portion plus the $125 ticket recovery levy or something.

Also of the $166 put up by the Oilers owners of which a bit is cash but most is to be recovered from rent payments to the city - who has funded this portion initially?
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 1:35 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
It's odd to hear even minor rumblings about the Flames potentially relocating. After the big three, I always thought they were the most solid of the "next four" Canadian NHL clubs.
That's the issue here... the usual small market holding your team hostage thing beggars belief in a city like Calgary which everyone and his dog knows to be an extremely lucrative hockey market.

I mean come on, given that Winnipeg got its team back then I think we all know that if the Flames announced they were leaving, some other franchise would be ready to move to Calgary as soon as they could break their lease.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 1:50 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,244
I also highly doubt the current Flames team will move out of Calgary, but if it ever did the relocation/expansion game is fraught with uncertainty. I wouldn't be so sure the city would get back in the league in no time at all.

How long was the NFL out of LA for?
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 1:54 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is offline
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 16,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I also highly doubt the current Flames team will move out of Calgary, but if it ever did the relocation/expansion game is fraught with uncertainty. I wouldn't be so sure the city would get back in the league in no time at all.

How long was the NFL out of LA for?
Or Quebec City for that matter........
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 2:04 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 16,471
There are plenty of examples of cities being awarded expansion clubs not long after a team has left. Minnesota comes to mind in the NHL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 2:04 PM
Berklon's Avatar
Berklon Berklon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hamilton (The Brooklyn of Canada)
Posts: 2,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Or Quebec City for that matter........
Even Winnipeg. Took them 15 years to get their team back, and that was only because the NHL were backed into a corner with the owners of the Thrashers not wanting the team and no other city with an available arena with a willing owner with deep pockets.

If Calgary loses their team, it won't be easy to get it back.

One factor helping them is that Rogers won't be happy losing a Canadian team after paying so much for the TV rights with 9 years still left on the deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
There are plenty of examples of cities being awarded expansion clubs not long after a team has left. Minnesota comes to mind in the NHL.
The difference is that it's an American city. Like I said with Winnipeg - you can bet the NHL wasn't exactly thrilled to give them a team back.
The only Canadian cities the NHL really wants to protect are the 3 major markets (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) simply because of their size (and for Toronto's and Montreal's history)... and maybe Edmonton (because of Gretzky and it's success).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 2:20 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,550
Winnipeg and Quebec are far more marginal markets to the NHL than Calgary, though. And both had to get over the hurdle of replacing 1950s era buildings which offered next to nothing in terms of modern pro sports revenue generating amenities.

By contrast, Calgary is a pretty lucrative market with a high earning population base and a large corporate sector. And for all the Saddledome's supposed faults, it is equipped with at least the basics as far as modern arena amenities go. So to suggest that Calgary could go down the same road as Quebec is nonsensical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 2:20 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berklon View Post
Even Winnipeg. Took them 15 years to get their team back, and that was only because the NHL were backed into a corner with the owners of the Thrashers not wanting the team and no other city with an available arena with a willing owner with deep pockets.

If Calgary loses their team, it won't be easy to get it back.
I think this is true. Line up a willing owner plus an arena in either Seattle or KC at that time and there would be no Jets in Winnipeg today. The Thrashers franchise would have stayed in the US.
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 2:21 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Probably because it's extremely unlikely they relocate. This recent news is merely a negotiating tactic to either strongarm the City or to influence municipal elections. Fans in Calgary should be absolutely cognizant of what this ownership is trying to do to the City.
I am of the opinion that it is a tactic that plays relatively poorly in Canada. Maybe if Calgary was in some sunshine state it might work, but generally strong-arm techniques don't go over well here.

Yes, the NHL is important here, but this country has let teams go when their markets couldn't support them.

Also, they run the risk of alienating Nenshi more if he is re-elected. If he's offered them a decent deal (three-way split), why would he bother offering anything better post-election since the Flames made a public hissy fit in order to work against him in the election?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 2:22 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Winnipeg and Quebec are far more marginal markets to the NHL than Calgary, though. And both had to get over the hurdle of replacing 1950s era buildings which offered next to nothing in terms of modern pro sports revenue generating amenities.

By contrast, Calgary is a pretty lucrative market with a high earning population base and a large corporate sector. And for all the Saddledome's supposed faults, it is equipped with at least the basics as far as modern arena amenities go. So to suggest that Calgary could go down the same road as Quebec is nonsensical.
It would likely have a much better chance than Quebec City has had in getting its team back, but as the LA-NFL situation shows... a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 2:24 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,550
One thing LA has in common with the Winnipeg/Quebec examples though is a lack of a modern venue. If Los Angeles had a reasonably modern purpose-built NFL stadium, even if it wasn't necessarily the latest and greatest (say, like the one in Miami), they probably would have gotten a team years ago. The LA Coliseum is basically a 1920s college stadium, and the Chargers are playing in a MLS park on par with BMO.

That's not really an issue in Calgary. A team could probably play out of the Saddledome for years and years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 2:34 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berklon View Post
Even Winnipeg. Took them 15 years to get their team back, and that was only because the NHL were backed into a corner with the owners of the Thrashers not wanting the team and no other city with an available arena with a willing owner with deep pockets.

If Calgary loses their team, it won't be easy to get it back.

One factor helping them is that Rogers won't be happy losing a Canadian team after paying so much for the TV rights with 9 years still left on the deal.



The difference is that it's an American city. Like I said with Winnipeg - you can bet the NHL wasn't exactly thrilled to give them a team back.
The only Canadian cities the NHL really wants to protect are the 3 major markets (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) simply because of their size (and for Toronto's and Montreal's history)... and maybe Edmonton (because of Gretzky and it's success).
I don't believe the NHL has proven itself to be anti-Canadian with its business decisions and desire to grow the league in the Sunbelt. The conspiracy to erase all traces of the WHA seems more plausible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 3:09 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 5,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
There are plenty of examples of cities being awarded expansion clubs not long after a team has left. Minnesota comes to mind in the NHL.
After they built a new rink with a solidified ownership group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berklon
The difference is that it's an American city. Like I said with Winnipeg - you can bet the NHL wasn't exactly thrilled to give them a team back.
The only Canadian cities the NHL really wants to protect are the 3 major markets (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) simply because of their size (and for Toronto's and Montreal's history)... and maybe Edmonton (because of Gretzky and it's success).
The Oilers, Flames, and Sens have all been spared from relocation in the past twenty years. It's absurd to think the NHL is anti-Canada - it's pro franchise stability for the sake of valuation. The more teams move around the less valuable they are.

If the NHL was relocation-happy do you honestly think the Coyotes/Panthers/Islanders would still be in their current locations?

Last edited by JHikka; Sep 14, 2017 at 3:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 3:16 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
One thing LA has in common with the Winnipeg/Quebec examples though is a lack of a modern venue. If Los Angeles had a reasonably modern purpose-built NFL stadium, even if it wasn't necessarily the latest and greatest (say, like the one in Miami), they probably would have gotten a team years ago. The LA Coliseum is basically a 1920s college stadium, and the Chargers are playing in a MLS park on par with BMO.

That's not really an issue in Calgary. A team could probably play out of the Saddledome for years and years.
LA was used as a extortion play for other cities during the Stadium boom. Also, the league held LA ransom as they intended to suck expansion fees which st it's peak would of brought in $1 billion to the league.

Rams owner ruined all that when he essentially strong armed himself into the LA market with enough owners support to do it on his terms. The league also wanted to try and use it to fix the Raiders situation (they don't want Mark Davis owning the team much longer).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 3:18 PM
Berklon's Avatar
Berklon Berklon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hamilton (The Brooklyn of Canada)
Posts: 2,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
I don't believe the NHL has proven itself to be anti-Canadian with its business decisions and desire to grow the league in the Sunbelt. The conspiracy to erase all traces of the WHA seems more plausible.
I wouldn't call the NHL "anti-Canadian", but I would say they don't have as much interest in Canada as they do the US. They understand that to keep the NHL alive, they need teams in Canada... where they get a massive amount of TV money from and a nice chunk of talent come from Canada. However, I'm sure they're only concerned with the bare minimum (ie. major markets) that won't effect their revenue streams from Canada and talent pool.

The US has always been their main concern - trying to build a much bigger US fan base and get that elusive monster US TV deal... both of which will NEVER happen. But dreamers gotta keep dreaming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.