New Downtown Calgary Arena

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Northern

What a stupid ass post. It's idiots like you two who helped get Trump elected.

Originally Posted by Northern

Congratulations on the stupidest post of the year award. Let's get one thing straight right off the bat, public art is a nice to have, not a need to have. All of you people who insist that there is a need for public art need to step up and pay with your own god damn money. For example maybe try putting your money where your mouth is!

Originally Posted by Northern

What is it with you guys?? the guy tries to make a legitimate point and he's labeled as stupid and ignorant. He's pointing out that there are pitfalls with owning a condo (which is true btw) and people take suck attacks.

given you've only posted a couple dozen times, you sure are setting a trend.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Northern

What a stupid ass post. It's idiots like you two who helped get Trump elected.

What a ridiculous statement. Can you please explain your logic for this?

[craner]

Originally Posted by Socguy

they are in the West. The league is unbalanced already by too few teams in the West. If a team must move, it will be East to West.

In the incredibly unlikely event that the Flames did decided to move, The only plausible destination would be Seattle. But once in Seattle they suddenly find themselves playing 3rd fiddle to both a NFL team and a expansion NBA team. Hmmm.... doesn't actually seem like such a sweet landing spot especially after paying an exorbitant relocation fee...

Just to clarify - with Vegas coming into the NHL there is only one more team in the East than there is in the West so if a team moved from East to West then you would have the same unbalenced problem.

To your last point - as others mentioned, an NHL team in Seattle would be behind the Seahawks, Mariners, new NBA team, U of Washington, and the Sounders (IMO). I hope Seattle gets a hockey team - just not the Flames.

[Corndogger]

Braid: Flames asked city to cover more than half arena cost, King says 'it's very fair'

The Calgary Flames wanted the city to pay 52 per cent of the total cost of a new $500-million to $600-million arena north of the Stampede grounds, say sources connected to city hall.

That’s sharply at variance with the city proposal, to be unveiled Friday, which called for one-third from the city, one-third from Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corp., and one-third from a ticket surcharge.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi has already indicated the Flames wanted a higher than one-third percentage from the city, without giving details.

He called the Flames’ position “eminently unreasonable,” apparently in reference to the 52 per cent.

But Flames CEO Ken King says nobody should be surprised the Flames want both parties to pay roughly equal share. “That’s basically what we proposed with CalgaryNEXT — 50-50. It’s very fair.

“So, it should come as no surprise that any model we could put forward in Victoria Park is similar to the one put forward in CalgaryNEXT.”

CalgaryNEXT was the grand multi-facility proposal for the west end, no longer in negotiation but still technically on the table.

King also says the city’s proposal — one-third each from the Flames, the city and a ticket surcharge — “means that we actually pay three-thirds. Calgary Sports and Entertainment would ultimately pay the whole thing.”

He says the city wants to be repaid its share of the cash and also capture the ticket surcharge revenue.

Full article at: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...-half-arena-cost-king-says-its-very-fair

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Braid: Flames asked city to cover more than half arena cost, King says 'it's very fair'

The Calgary Flames wanted the city to pay 52 per cent of the total cost of a new $500-million to $600-million arena north of the Stampede grounds, say sources connected to city hall.

That’s sharply at variance with the city proposal, to be unveiled Friday, which called for one-third from the city, one-third from Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corp., and one-third from a ticket surcharge.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi has already indicated the Flames wanted a higher than one-third percentage from the city, without giving details.

He called the Flames’ position “eminently unreasonable,” apparently in reference to the 52 per cent.

But Flames CEO Ken King says nobody should be surprised the Flames want both parties to pay roughly equal share. “That’s basically what we proposed with CalgaryNEXT — 50-50. It’s very fair.

“So, it should come as no surprise that any model we could put forward in Victoria Park is similar to the one put forward in CalgaryNEXT.”

CalgaryNEXT was the grand multi-facility proposal for the west end, no longer in negotiation but still technically on the table.

King also says the city’s proposal — one-third each from the Flames, the city and a ticket surcharge — “means that we actually pay three-thirds. Calgary Sports and Entertainment would ultimately pay the whole thing.”

He says the city wants to be repaid its share of the cash and also capture the ticket surcharge revenue.

Full article at: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...-half-arena-cost-king-says-its-very-fair

Seems like the land being provided is being valued at zero?

[blacktrojan3921]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

That's what I think. Isn't the main reason the Super Sonics left is because Key Arena sucks compared to most (all?) other NBA arenas? The Flames need to sell a new arena based on being competitive with other teams and on all of the non-sports events were missing out on. It's not the number of seats that matters it's the revenue per seat. Does anyone know the number for the Saddledome for all events and for just the Flames?

They left because the city council did not want to use taxpayer money to help fund for a new arena, ESPECIALLY after just doing that for the Sehawks and mariners stadium.

[Northern]

You might be in for some disappointment. Nenshi's numbers aren't that great. If he ends up running against one main candidate he might not make it.

Originally Posted by Socguy

I'm going to vote for Nenshi again just so I can watch Ken K tuck tail between his legs and slink back to the table to try to salvage something from this debacle.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Northern

You might be in for some disappointment. Nenshi's numbers aren't that great. If he ends up running against one main candidate he might not make it.

Curious - who are you supporting Northern? The communists who will provide the entertainment group a multi-hundred-million-dollar handout, or the ultra-Cons who will not support the arena at all, or are we now changing definitions and calling the people who will dole out hard-earner money to Murray Edwards UK billionaire "conservative"?

Northern responds:
• Video Link

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Curious - who are you supporting Northern? The communists who will provide the entertainment group a multi-hundred-million-dollar handout, or the ultra-Cons who will not support the arena at all, or are we now changing definitions and calling the people who will dole out hard-earner money to Murray Edwards UK billionaire "conservative"?

Northern responds:
• Video Link

my god you are an idiot!

[Habanero]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

What a ridiculous statement. Can you please explain your logic for this?

It's not really ridiculous. A number of people who have studied the American election have said that a good number of Trump voters were not voting for Trump but rather were voting against the liberal elites, and Fishbow's statement comes across as one of those liberal elites. Not the fact that he supports art, but it's the way he expresses it.

[Habanero]

Anyhow is far as the arena goes. I have no doubt this is all political posturing. It has happened in multiple cities over the years, including Edmonton not too long ago. I'm not happy with either camp. Half of this is on Nenshi and the way he started these negotiations in the beginning, he's been better lately, but it's only because an election is coming and he wants votes.... which is why he won't be getting my vote.
If someone else becomes mayor, I hope the person takes a similar stance as Nenshi, but with a better attitude.

[suburbia]

Calgary isn't falling for the old new-arena trick
City seems determined not to repeat others' mistakes
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames-arena-1.4290319

"They all follow the same script. There is an owner playbook for extracting subsidies," says Brad Humphreys, a professor of business and economics at West Virginia University.

"You first declare your arena is unplayable and immediately in need of replacing. If that doesn't get you the tax dollars you want, then you threaten to leave, usually at an opportune time — say, just a few weeks before a mayoral election. And then you have the league commissioner come in and say there are going to be consequences if there's not a new subsidy.

"Usually, at that point, the local decision-maker caves."

Coun. Brian Pincott, who is not running for re-election, says the Flames have been unable to answer two fundamental questions: How would the city's investment be repaid? And what kind of use would the general public get out of the new building?

"How is the public going to access it so that it isn't just limited to people that can fork out 200 bucks a ticket," Pincott asks. "They answered and we didn't like the answer and they don't like that we didn't like the answer."

Pincott says people understand the city's position.

"I think people are comfortable we aren't just opening up the cheque book. Our polling tells us they don't want us to pay for a for-profit hockey team."

Research suggests that's a wise move. Municipal investments in stadium and arena projects typically don't end well, most economists agree. And yet, the North American landscape is littered with cities that are barely able to deliver basic services but, at the same time, have decided to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to building and maintaining facilities for pro sports teams.

I'm glad national media is reaching out to experts and knowledgeable commentators who are not politically involved or have a gazillion bucks to be made on the decisions.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by craner

Just to clarify - with Vegas coming into the NHL there is only one more team in the East than there is in the West so if a team moved from East to West then you would have the same unbalenced problem.

However, if a team was to move from the West to the East, then the unbalancing problem would be magnified whereas a move from the East to the West would keep things at the the same level of imbalance. This is why league owners will offer much more resistance to any move reducing teams in the West. This means that in the thought experiment of 'where could the Flames conceivably move to' Cities like Quebec are basically a non-starter, new arena or not. They would be much more of a threat to perennial money losing Tampa bay or Florida. Vegas entering the league just removes a potential landing spot from the board. Seattle is really the only city that fits and Bettman likely favors expansion anyway over any possible relocation.

[SteveP]

Three things wrong with that article, it's the CBC for starters and they're getting info from Brian Pincott and an American university.

It's not even that all the points are wrong, it's that I don't care. I want to see a new arena, and if it comes out of taxpayer money I'm okay with that.

And those cities also fund money into arts, which like sports is not a basic service.

Research suggests that's a wise move. Municipal investments in stadium and arena projects typically don't end well, most economists agree. And yet, the North American landscape is littered with cities that are barely able to deliver basic services but, at the same time, have decided to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to building and maintaining facilities for pro sports teams.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Calgary isn't falling for the old new-arena trick
City seems determined not to repeat others' mistakes
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames-arena-1.4290319




I'm glad national media is reaching out to experts and knowledgeable commentators who are not politically involved or have a gazillion bucks to be made on the decisions.

[Northern]

What a stupid article.

Hey Pincott, people weren't comfortable open there wallets for the Peace Bridge either.

Pincott says people understand the city's position.
"I think people are comfortable we aren't just opening up the cheque book. Our polling tells us they don't want us to pay for a for-profit hockey team."

This quote shows why the people who wrote the article are idiots. Yes, it's 100% true, North American Cities who can't deliver basic services shouldn't spend money on sports stadiums...so is that us?? The same city who put money into a Peace Bridge, a music centre, and an art sculpture made of rebar?

Research suggests that's a wise move. Municipal investments in stadium and arena projects typically don't end well, most economists agree. And yet, the North American landscape is littered with cities that are barely able to deliver basic services but, at the same time, have decided to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to building and maintaining facilities for pro sports teams.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Calgary isn't falling for the old new-arena trick
City seems determined not to repeat others' mistakes
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames-arena-1.4290319

I'm glad national media is reaching out to experts and knowledgeable commentators who are not politically involved or have a gazillion bucks to be made on the decisions.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by SteveP

Three things wrong with that article, it's the CBC for starters and they're getting info from Brian Pincott and an American university.

It's not even that all the points are wrong, it's that I don't care. I want to see a new arena, and if it comes out of taxpayer money I'm okay with that.

And those cities also fund money into arts, which like sports is not a basic service.

Well, then you should be in favor of an entirely user paid arena. Triple the ticket tax because the people who pay 200+ per ticket are the only people in Calgary who could afford it.

FYI NHL hockey is not a 'basic service', (though we already have it). If you're taking about recreational sports then I would be slightly more inclined to agree with you. Come to think of it, spending the proposed arena money on community sporting/recreational facilities would be a much better use of that money don't you think?

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Northern

What a stupid article.

Hey Pincott, people weren't comfortable open there wallets for the Peace Bridge either.


This quote shows why the people who wrote the article are idiots. Yes, it's 100% true, North American Cities who can't deliver basic services shouldn't spend money on sports stadiums...so is that us?? The same city who put money into a Peace Bridge, a music centre, and an art sculpture made of rebar?

I wish people would stop trying to conflate radically different projects with each other. Each project must be assessed on its individual merit. You don't spend tax dollars on a tit-for-tat basis where billionaires get to argue for a giant subsidy because a library was built.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Calgary isn't falling for the old new-arena trick
City seems determined not to repeat others' mistakes
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames-arena-1.4290319

I'm glad national media is reaching out to experts and knowledgeable commentators who are not politically involved or have a gazillion bucks to be made on the decisions.

This article touches on a good point... the inaccessibility of NHL hockey to vast swaths of society.

When I was a kid, the cheap seats for a Winnipeg Jets game were the same price as a movie ticket. These days, tickets here start around $65 a pop. Only the upper middle classes and up can really afford to do that on anything resembling a regular basis. So what business does the city have pumping public dollars into what is essentially an entertainment venue for a certain segment of society?

What would people say if the city sank $100 million to put towards a new private golf and country club where you had to pay either $125 a round or $6,000 for an annual membership to get inside the gates? Because that's not far off what the outlay is for NHL games.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by SteveP

Three things wrong with that article, it's the CBC for starters and they're getting info from Brian Pincott and an American university.

And all this for a UK tax payer in Murray Edwards!

[suburbia]

Great synopsis of the City's proposal:

• Video Link

Three way split of $555M - $185M each for City, owners and users. It is not a loan as some incorrectly suggested - the full amount contributed for construction/land that does not need repaying. Interestingly, the cost to the owners is LESS than they already had on the table for the West village debacle. Further, the City absorbs a heck of a lot of interest costs including bringing utilities, building an LRT station, extending 17th Avenue, etcetera. That's all on top of the full 1/3rd contribution. The Flames Owners get 100% of all revenues from the new arena, including for all their non-sporting events that actually make them more money than the Flames do. I'm flabbergasted that Ken King walked away from such a deal. They need to have at least that 1/3rd skin in the game. The citizens of the city are not going to go for any subsidy beyond that. It is more than fair as the mayor mentioned in the video.