Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[240glt]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

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

[Acajack]

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.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by 240glt

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.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

[speedog]

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?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

[Acajack]

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?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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........

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

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.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

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).

[esquire]

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.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Berklon

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.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

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.

[esquire]

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.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Berklon

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.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

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.

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?

[osmo]

Originally Posted by esquire

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).

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

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.