New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Socguy]

Seattle doesn't have an arena capable of hosting an NHL team, and won't have till 2021 at the earliest. So no danger there. Quebec city has the problem of being in the eastern conference and the NHL is loathe to move a team from the west to the east and the unbalancing problems that would come with it. They didn't even want an expansion team there. Besides, if the NHL did want a team to move there, why would would it be the Flames? How many teams does this league have that are perennial money losers?

A new arena will not reduce legacy costs of the saddledome since it would still not generate property tax and it would then have to compete with the new building, unless it's torn down. Instead, a new arena will occupy land that could be better utilized with almost anything else.

Calgary is in the drivers seat here. They have a functional NHL arena already built in the right place. Really, the only excuse to build a new one is the roof. Still, it's pretty thin as it only costs the city a tiny handful of acts in a given year. Even Ken King admits that this alone doesn't justify a new building. If the Flames are serious about a new building, they will have to substantially sweeten the pot.

[MalcolmTucker]

And Seattle's arena deal has some weird tax provisions:

OVG seeks to negotiate a deal with the city to repurpose some of the tax revenue collected each year on admissions, retail sales, parking, and the leasehold excise taxes they would pay in lieu of property taxes for use of a private building on public lands. The plan calls for these revenues to provide credit towards the base rent they would pay the city each year.
http://www.sonicsrising.com/2017/5/3/15528668/ovg-keyarena-seattle-proposal-more-public-funding

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Governments fund all sorts of non essential things. And 'inevitably comes along' could be never. Certainly few places with similar populations have privately funded arenas.

But you're trying to make it sound inevitable that the City of Calgary is going to build a new arena either way. I don't see why that is the case at all. The Saddledome can handle just about all the events Calgary needs it to... you don't build a new arena because Justin Bieber or a couple of other acts require more rigging than the Saddledome's roof can support.

If the Flames left, the Saddledome would be good for at least another 20 years.

[MalcolmTucker]

I do believe the city will build a new arena or substantially renovate the current arena . 10 or 20 years from now after a good portion of city subsidy to keeping the thing open, there is a capital expense, or a capital expense up front, with 2 extra revenue streams (Flames and concerts we can't host right now).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I do believe the city will build a new arena or substantially renovate the current arena . 10 or 20 years from now after a good portion of city subsidy to keeping the thing open, there is a capital expense, or a capital expense up front, with 2 extra revenue streams (Flames and concerts we can't host right now).

How many concerts are there that can't be hosted at the Saddledome? When I look at the event calendar there is a pretty long of events scheduled there... it can't be more than a handful of acts that won't play there by the looks of things.

But even setting that aside, an operating subsidy for basic maintenance is still a far easier pill for the City of Calgary to swallow than ponying up the capital costs for what would essentially be someone else's new rink.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by esquire

How many concerts are there that can't be hosted at the Saddledome? When I look at the event calendar there is a pretty long of events scheduled there... it can't be more than a handful of acts that won't play there by the looks of things.

But even setting that aside, an operating subsidy for basic maintenance is still a far easier pill for the City of Calgary to swallow than ponying up the capital costs for what would essentially be someone else's new rink.

Don't be fooled, this thing happened with Garth Brooks once, and that is the most important factor to consider.

[patm]

Edmonton has already established itself as the go-to Concert venue for Alberta. The damage from the roof AND the stupid NIMBY's has already been done.

City Hall's response to Burke's comments sounded positive. Saying that they have a deal framed up and it should be public in a few weeks. Made it sound like negotiations are going smoothly and I laughed at the "Don't know why no one told Burke" line.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by esquire

How many concerts are there that can't be hosted at the Saddledome? When I look at the event calendar there is a pretty long of events scheduled there... it can't be more than a handful of acts that won't play there by the looks of things.

But even setting that aside, an operating subsidy for basic maintenance is still a far easier pill for the City of Calgary to swallow than ponying up the capital costs for what would essentially be someone else's new rink.

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

Don't be fooled, this thing happened with Garth Brooks once, and that is the most important factor to consider.

Calgary's arena is under performing concert wise. Worst of the major venues in Canada by far, from Pollstar:

[esquire]

^ Is adding 175,000 more concertgoers a year to bring Calgary up to the same level as Edmonton (what is that, maybe about an extra concert per month? Maybe two some months?) really a good reason for your municipal government to dump close to half a billion dollars into a new building? I mean, I like music as much as the next guy, but that is literally what you are talking about here.

Also, if concerts are such a big deal then at what point do concert promoters bear some of the responsibility here? Municipalities don't go in and kick Cineplex some scratch if their theatres miss out on hot releases for lack of the latest and greatest sound systems or 3-D projection systems or whatever.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, it sure makes it a lot easier to fund a larger portion of the arena from user fees versus the Saddledome's current user base.

And I don't see a problem with the state funding theatres for huge companies touring multi million dollar broadway shows. Do you?

And no, I don't think the government is going to dump anywhere close to that into the arena. I doubt the city will even be at a 50% share.

[patm]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Is adding 175,000 more concertgoers a year to bring Calgary up to the same level as Edmonton (what is that, maybe about an extra concert per month? Maybe two some months?) really a good reason for your municipal government to dump close to half a billion dollars into a new building? I mean, I like music as much as the next guy, but that is literally what you are talking about here.

Also, if concerts are such a big deal then at what point do concert promoters bear some of the responsibility here? Municipalities don't go in and kick Cineplex some scratch if their theatres miss out on hot releases for lack of the latest and greatest sound systems or 3-D projection systems or whatever.

Like I said the damage has already been done. The promoters are all focused around Edmonton. Less BS to deal with and Calgarians will drive up for any show they really want to see.

It'll take the new arena and some time for that to shift if Calgary still remains the bigger city for the foreseeable future. Or a new major promoter.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Brian Burke is a blowhard .. Enough said. Needless posturing to the press IMO.

An arena deal will get done regardless

[Socguy]

All these people who seem to want a new arena should start ponying up now. Slap a $20 ticket tax on every ticket sold at the 'dome to start accumulating a new arena fund. That way the users pay by lay-a-way.

Added bonus: If a new arena does get built they can just roll that $20 tax into the inevitable 50% ticket price hike and it won't seem quite so big.

[Fuzz]

What is the next step here? Brett Wilson said the city is dragging its heels. What does the city need to do right now? Or are we waiting for a new proposal from CSEC?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by patm

Like I said the damage has already been done. The promoters are all focused around Edmonton. Less BS to deal with and Calgarians will drive up for any show they really want to see.

It'll take the new arena and some time for that to shift if Calgary still remains the bigger city for the foreseeable future. Or a new major promoter.

Promoters are continental based and will shift to a new venue if it will bring them more money. There is no civic loyalty in the business.

Originally Posted by Socguy

All these people who seem to want a new arena should start ponying up now. Slap a $20 ticket tax on every ticket sold at the 'dome to start accumulating a new arena fund. That way the users pay by lay-a-way..

The problem with the ticket tax is that the city is calculating the tax portion as civic public money contribution rather than user pay contribution.

The major problem, IMHO, is the player collective bargain agreement that puts all ticket receipts to the club into the cap room and pay calculations. If there was a mechanism to segregate a portion of the ticket revenue to the building fund and not go into player salary calcs, then CSEC could manage the ticket tax themselves.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What is the next step here? Brett Wilson said the city is dragging its heels. What does the city need to do right now? Or are we waiting for a new proposal from CSEC?

The city (council and administration) needs to come up with their own list of specific conditions that will either get an arena built or provide certainty that a new arena is not in the cards. Particularly relevant is how much debt room the city is willing to commit? This is relevant as the city wants to do a lot of capital dollar projects over the next 10-15 years and these projects won't be paid off for 15-30 years.

The big question the city needs to answer, does the city (council and administration) want a new arena? Yes or no answer. If the answer is no, then any further negotiation is just wasting everyone's time.

Specific to the comment of "public money for public benefit", does this include the city fronting money that will be recovered through a ticket tax. I can see both sides to the arguement but it needs to be explained in a clear unambiguous manner that defines what is public money.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary Flames: 767,829
Calgary Hitmen: 273,564
Calgary Roughnecks: 104,598
Concerts: 120,000-250,000

Total:
1,265,991 (at the low side)

Amount needed to carry a $200 million loan per year, 30 year time frame: $10,201,813.38

$8 a ticket.

Probably can go to $10 without totally causing a downward spiral of events not being held.

[Fuzz]

Thanks Cage. Are those issues scheduled to be delt with, or is Bret correct that the city is dragging? I kind of thought the next step would be for CSEC to come up with a Victoria Park proposal similar to Calgary NEXT. Then Council would be in a position to say 'yes this is an idea we can fund or work with' or go pound sand.

[artvandelay]

I heard a very interesting confidential tidbit that leads me to believe there is significant traction with the Victoria Park location.

It also suggests that the decision to utilize the Victoria Park site will be significantly more expensive to taxpayers than the WV alternative when all is said and done.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I heard a very interesting confidential tidbit that leads me to believe there is significant traction with the Victoria Park location.

It also suggests that the decision to utilize the Victoria Park site will be significantly more expensive to taxpayers than the WV alternative when all is said and done.

Why is that? Flood protection? West Village was going to be hugely expensive for reclamation and road alignment, I can't see how a site could be worse than that.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Calgary Flames: 767,829
Calgary Hitmen: 273,564
Calgary Roughnecks: 104,598
Concerts: 120,000-250,000

Total:
1,265,991 (at the low side)

Amount needed to carry a $200 million loan per year, 30 year time frame: $10,201,813.38

$8 a ticket.

Probably can go to $10 without totally causing a downward spiral of events not being held.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders imposed a $12 a ticket facility surcharge to help pay off the team's share of New Mosaic Stadium. I think Calgary can easily handle that much.