Calgary Flames MEGA THREAD 2017-2018 Edition

[suntan]

Maybe if the team didn't suck donkey balls for so long they wouldn't be in this predicament. But any team that hires Doug Risebrough as GM deserves what they get.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In the same way that Ticket Master adds their fees to any sports or concert tickets, or, when you book a hotel, and you have to pay the hospitality tax. It's not the Flames money. They set their ticket prices, and then the city adds the levy. If the flames want that extra $8, they can charge $108 instead of $100, but then you still have to tag on the levy so it becomes $116.

or, just describe it like GST. The store sets the price, GST is added to it, collected, and then remitted to the government. Is GST the store owners?

I don't think it is that confusing...

If the market can only bear total cost of $100, the Flames would charge $80 + fees and taxes to get to $100. Are you telling me that if you had $100 to buy a ticket, you would buy a $100 ticket which ends up costing say $120 because fees and taxes don’t count?

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe if the team didn't suck donkey balls for so long they wouldn't be in this predicament. But any team that hires Doug Risebrough as GM deserves what they get.

Fair enough.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why wouldn’t they? If the Flames needs these subsidies to thrive in our market, clearly they wouldn’t go for a worse deal. They paid $20m to get this deal by buying out the stampede contract. Before that, the Flames actually paid meaningful rent for the Saddledome. Even with this deal, during the lean years, they were losing money.

It makes zero sense to get into a worst deal and taking on all the risk and have the city control how much they want to extract from the team via taxes.

But that's how business works. They take on risk, and the tax man takes a cut. Property taxes are not risk-adjusted anywhere.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But that's how business works. They take on risk, and the tax man takes a cut. Property taxes are not risk-adjusted anywhere.

Sure, but if there’s a better deal elsewhere for a business, they can go elsewhere. Bringing this back to Flames context, the question is can Calgary sustain an NHL team without subsidy?

I guess we’ll know when a deal is finally ironed out, or the team gets sold and moved.

[Buster]

A sports subsidy is giving money to people who are willing to spend the money, by taking from people who are not interested in the team enough to spend money. I don't see how that makes sense.

The question is: Can the ownership raise ticket prices or ad/broadcast revenue so that they can afford a new building?

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A sports subsidy is giving money to people who are willing to spend the money, by taking from people who are not interested in the team enough to spend money. I don't see how that makes sense.

The question is: Can the ownership raise ticket prices or ad/broadcast revenue so that they can afford a new building?

It makes zero financial sense. I explained it earlier.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is little to no financial benefits for having a pro hockey team in Calgary. Life goes on. Sure there are some effects at the micro level, but the big picture, nothing changes. The benefits of a pro hockey team are purely social. The question is, is that worth $200-300m that the Flames are asking for? If you're looking at it from a purely financial perspective, it's clear that it makes zero sense for Calgary.

As for raising ticket and tv prices, sure it would work but why go that route when there are markets such as Seattle that is lucrative enough today to privately fund an arena as well as own teams?

[suntan]

Build a cheaper arena. Have an on-ice product that doesn't suck so that ticket sales are stable and so they can raise prices but not lower demand.

Tall order, that second part.

[spikerS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the market can only bear total cost of $100, the Flames would charge $80 + fees and taxes to get to $100. Are you telling me that if you had $100 to buy a ticket, you would buy a $100 ticket which ends up costing say $120 because fees and taxes don’t count?

The market bears GST, the market bears double the ticket price for flights, the market bears Ticket Master's fees, the market bears hospitality taxes, etc, etc....

All these things are monies above and beyond the value of the ticket, and collected and remitted to or by a 3rd party.

And with the exception of airline fees, i don't think any of them are a make or break towards a purchase.

If the levy ended up doubling the cost of a Flames ticket...well then yeah, I can support your point about what the market will bear for a ticket price.

[Tik-Tok]

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but the city proposal that 1/3 of the cost comes from ticket levee's. Where is that money initially coming from anyways? Is that a loan from the city?

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The market bears GST, the market bears double the ticket price for flights, the market bears Ticket Master's fees, the market bears hospitality taxes, etc, etc....

All these things are monies above and beyond the value of the ticket, and collected and remitted to or by a 3rd party.

And with the exception of airline fees, i don't think any of them are a make or break towards a purchase.

If the levy ended up doubling the cost of a Flames ticket...well then yeah, I can support your point about what the market will bear for a ticket price.

Well maybe I’m doing it wrong then. When I buy stuff online, I figure out how much above and beyond the price of the item I’m purchasing before going ahead. Shipping, customs, brokerage. But I guess that’s why those cheap eBay items with huge shipping markups sell so well? I know I don’t fall for that scam.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but the city proposal that 1/3 of the cost comes from ticket levee's. Where is that money initially coming from anyways? Is that a loan from the city?

The Flames had several problems with that 1/3. It was inflated with land value as well as demolition costs. Take those out it’s more like 1/5. The city was recouping that from property tax on the Flames, something they don’t currently pay, hence from the Flames perspective the city’s contribution was bullshit and really didn’t contribute anything at all.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Flames had several problems with that 1/3. It was inflated with land value as well as demolition costs. Take those out it’s more like 1/5. The city was recouping that from property tax on the Flames, something they don’t currently pay, hence from the Flames perspective the city’s contribution was bullshit and really didn’t contribute anything at all.

No, I mean the 1/3 that "Users Pay" (per this CoC photo). Where is that coming from upfront?

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

. But I guess that’s why those cheap eBay items with huge shipping markups sell so well? I know I don’t fall for that scam.

Oh come on now, this isn't remotely comparable because there is nowhere else to get the product from. So you either pay the price, or you don't get to see the flames. Hockey tickets are a perfect example of inelastic pricing, people will.pay what is necessary to see the flames.

As someone else said, would double the price in fees be reasonable? No, of course not. But exactly 0 people are going to give a shit (in a meaningful way ie not biy tickets) over a $10 fee. And those people, like yourself, are the ones that want the sports team/stadium.so.you should pay for it anyways. Pretty simple, if there wasn't the levee, it comes out of OUR pockets ran than yours.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why wouldn’t they? If the Flames needs these subsidies to thrive in our market, clearly they wouldn’t go for a worse deal. They paid $20m to get this deal by buying out the stampede contract. Before that, the Flames actually paid meaningful rent for the Saddledome. Even with this deal, during the lean years, they were losing money.

It makes zero sense to get into a worst deal and taking on all the risk and have the city control how much they want to extract from the team via taxes.

How do we know they were losing money? Have they ever opened their books to actually show they're not competitive without a subsidy?

[Buster]

The argument seems complex, but it's simple.

Flames+Fans: "I want a hockey team and a new arena."

Taxpayer: "You can't afford it without raising tickets prices a lot"

Flames +Fans: "But I want it."

[spikerS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well maybe I’m doing it wrong then. When I buy stuff online, I figure out how much above and beyond the price of the item I’m purchasing before going ahead. Shipping, customs, brokerage. But I guess that’s why those cheap eBay items with huge shipping markups sell so well? I know I don’t fall for that scam.
.

No, I agree with you, I look at those things too. If I am going to order something off ebay for $40, and they want to tack on $25 for shipping, I will skip it too. But when you are gonna spend $150 on a pair a tickets, $150 or $166 isn't going to make a difference to the average person when they pay for the levy.

Either way you cut it, I just think it was a fairly arrogant statement for King to make and say that levy was theirs. I point to all the people saying they don't pay attention to gas prices, and "who cares, it's an extra $5 per tank..." people.

[ExtraSlow]

In the end, the flames and the city are both arrogant for claiming that the levy is "theirs". It's not, it's the fans that end up paying it. Although I assume though all this that the city pays up front and is paid back fro the levy?

Lets face it, expecting either side to be open, forthcoming and honest is kind of naive. They are both selling us something for personal gain. Us poor fans and taxpayers need to be careful who we believe when everyone lies.

[Thaco]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Flames had several problems with that 1/3. It was inflated with land value as well as demolition costs. Take those out it’s more like 1/5. The city was recouping that from property tax on the Flames, something they don’t currently pay, hence from the Flames perspective the city’s contribution was bullshit and really didn’t contribute anything at all.

the demolition cost is only because the flames require that as a stipulation of the deal.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In the end, the flames and the city are both arrogant for claiming that the levy is "theirs". It's not, it's the fans that end up paying it. Although I assume though all this that the city pays up front and is paid back fro the levy?

Lets face it, expecting either side to be open, forthcoming and honest is kind of naive. They are both selling us something for personal gain. Us poor fans and taxpayers need to be careful who we believe when everyone lies.

Actually, every last bit of funding for this entire project comes from the people. Edwards can only pay for it since people are buying tickets, and all of the tax money obviously comes from us.

[nzwasp]

So where is the site of this new arena - because if its exactly the same as the saddledome then demolishing that would leave them no where to play. I could see them building it north of the saddledome but thats just moving it further away from everything.