New Downtown Calgary Arena

[MalcolmTucker]

Though it should be said: our governments spend lots of money on things with no discernible returns. In fact, if they had discernible returns, there would be no reason to use public money!

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Though it should be said: our governments spend lots of money on things with no discernible returns. In fact, if they had discernible returns, there would be no reason to use public money!

Well it could be argued that almost everything the city spends money on does have a discernible return, just that the return might be quality of life vs monetary.

That said, although you could argue the above for a public park, harder to make the argument for something the public has to pay a high ticket price to enjoy.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Though it should be said: our governments spend lots of money on things with no discernible returns. In fact, if they had discernible returns, there would be no reason to use public money!

There are discernible returns though - for the very rich owners, just not so much for the city and it's residents. That makes it a pretty tough pill to swallow.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Well it could be argued that almost everything the city spends money on does have a discernible return, just that the return might be quality of life vs monetary.

That said, although you could argue the above for a public park, harder to make the argument for something the public has to pay a high ticket price to enjoy.

What about the national parks? Where public support reduces the cost of going while simultaneously protecting something that otherwise wouldn't be protected.

All of our rec centres have very high fees compared to other Canadian cities, yet there is still support for them, even when they have fully private competitors.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I wonder if this proposal can start a war in our own media? The sports guys are all for it and wondering why the city just won't get behind it, while other reporters and such are questioning it and the public dollar ask.

It also seems that the one thing economists seem to agree on is that there is no discernible return on public dollars being used to build arenas/stadiums for private sports enterprises.

Really? On that other Calgary forum there is only 25% support. I'd suspect if it was well supported by sports fans, I'd expect it to be much higher.

Poll at top.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=151776&page=13

[Bigtime]

I'm referring to the sports journalists in Calgary, not the CP'ers. Just listening to the drive home show on 960, Eric Francis and his tweets, and some others speak to my point.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

What about the national parks? Where public support reduces the cost of going while simultaneously protecting something that otherwise wouldn't be protected.

All of our rec centres have very high fees compared to other Canadian cities, yet there is still support for them, even when they have fully private competitors.

I don't think national park fees are very high, especially if you consider you get 24 hrs of use vs 3 hrs at a hockey game.

I think there is an argument that if rec centres have high fees that maybe private industry should not be competed with.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I don't think national park fees are very high, especially if you consider you get 24 hrs of use vs 3 hrs at a hockey game.

I think there is an argument that if rec centres have high fees that maybe private industry should not be competed with.

Or a years worth of use for about the same price as a hockey ticket. The National Parks also aren't primarily there for the profit of a single multi million dollar company.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Or a years worth of use for about the same price as a hockey ticket. The National Parks also aren't primarily there for the profit of a single multi million dollar company.

But if they were ... Have you heard of Brewster?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But if they were ... Have you heard of Brewster?

I had to re-word that post from what I had written originally, of course there are big companies profiting from within the national parks (Sunshine Village was my obvious one), but they are not the main reason for them.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the main reason for the arena was concerts, would you be closer to ok?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the main reason for the arena was concerts, would you be closer to ok?

Definitely. And I know that's a slightly irrational position to take, but I hate the emotional attachment that many people have for sports teams, in this case the Flames, which is just a company that happens to be based in Calgary at this moment in time. They do not deserve the fawning they get from the public, nor our money.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ I am glad you can acknowledge it is irrational.

[hulkrogan]

Originally Posted by Cage

Something I learned at the luncheon, NHL revenues have grown from $400 million to over $4 billion under Bettman's 23 year tenure. I would estimate that inflation and league growth by 6 teams would account for natural rise in revenue to $1.5 to $2 Billion. The other $2 billion has to come from revenue expansion realized in part by newer stadiums.

That sounds like a great reason for the NHL and its owners to reinvest some of that revenue in new stadiums in cities like Calgary to grow it even further.

I bet the league laughs to themselves behind closed doors how much they've been able to grow league revenue based on the investment of municipalities.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ I am glad you can acknowledge it is irrational.

We are all irrational by nature! I believe it is just as irrational for people to justify this by the Flames threatening to leave if they don't get their way. So what if they do?

[Socguy]

Over the noon hour, CBC radio had David Staples as a guest. He's a columnist with the Edmonton journal. He made several interesting points about arenas, comparing both Calgary to Edmonton's deal. I don't know if it's up yet on the CBC website, but I'll try to recount as much as I can remember.

1st. The Flames are in no danger of becoming unsustainable even if they stay in the Saddledome. Taking their proposed contribution to the new arena and putting some/all towards the 'dome will provide most of the benefit of building a new building for the Flames.

2nd. Arena deals aren't really about the sustainability of the team. These days they are mostly a real estate play by the owners where they make huge $$$ by selling off condos and so on around the arena.

3rd. Edmonton and Calgary are in different situations. Edmonton didn't have a downtown arena and was in a situation where their downtown was languishing. Calgary already has a downtown arena and no trouble attracting business and people. The business case for Calgary building a new arena is thin.

4th. Columbus was the best example so far of an arena district that worked. Public money was rejected by plebiscite 4 times before the developers finally gave up and paid for 95% of the cost themselves.

5th. In his opinion, what has been proposed so far is very one sided to the benefit of ownership.

6th. A new building provides an instant valuation increase to a team. In the Oilers case, the new arena under construction increased the value of the team by $200 million.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ What he doesn't say about Columbus is even on a $147 million arena the team lost money on the head lease, and the arena owner was taken over by the state, to be bailed out by casino money which never materialized.

Hardly an example of success.

[lineman]

Going to a NHL hockey game is one of my favourite things to do. A new arena would be awesome too.

That said, I'm not at all convinced that what's been thus far presented is a good deal for Calgary. Bettman's dog and pony touting entrepreneurship, then pushing for a meeting to wrestle a disproportionate share of public funds is just crass.

[bt04ku]

It would be great to see polling numbers for the public's support of CalgaryNEXT pre and post-Bettman visit, because I have a suspicion that he did a lot more harm than good on his visit.

[ggopher]

I am a Flames season ticket holder, and I don't think there is a desperate need for a new arena. And I don't think the should be a major contribution of public funds.

The Flames WANT a new arena for the following reasons:
-More lower bowl seats to increase revenue
-More luxury boxes to increase revenue
-Better concessions to increase revenue
-Complete control of the parking to increase revenue
-Improved jumpotron will increase the fan experience

Most of those things are not going to increase the value that I get out of going to a Flames game. In fact, it is just going to end up costing me more money.

The Flames are profitable in their current state. If they want to increase their revenue further, that is fine, but they can then pay for the new arena themselves. If a new arena isn't built what are the Flames going to do? Move? Good luck finding a better market or business case anywhere else.

Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa all financed their new arenas privately.

Any public money needs to go towards a public benefit. The City's contribution of $200 million towards the football stadium in exhange for a field house is a , which is a resonable request for public funds from the Flames. But above that, they need to provide more of a benefit. It will take a lot of free skating nights to pay the area back.