New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Great synopsis of the City's proposal:

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.

If the city is selling this like you are to us no wonder the Flames walked away. The LRT station, etc. have nothing to do with the new arena. I'm surprised you didn't claim that the city is spending $4.56++++ on the Green Line solely because of this project.

If the Flames don't have to pay the city's share back then there must be something else involved. At one point the Flames floated the idea of being given a veto on all development in the area. Do the owners have some grand unannounced plans to develop the area and profit from it? Maybe that is where the real money is for them. If they don't then it is puzzling why they wouldn't take the deal if it is as you stated it here.

[O-tacular]

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.

Screw facts and figures! I vote with my gut!

[O-tacular]

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?

If you added up all those pet peeve projects of yours together it still wouldn't come close to the amount the Flames want the city to spend.

The Peace bridge has become an icon of the city and has been massively successful. The National Music Centre was funded by all three levels of government and is helping to bring new life to the East Village. I won't argue with you about the public art piece.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Socguy

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.

YES! Thank you for highlighting how absurd these arguments have become.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Am I hearing Ken King correctly? That if the Flames have to pay property taxes on this arena, that the city is "contributing nothing in the end"?

By analogy, if the city buys my house for me, but insists that I pay the same property taxes that I otherwise would, I should be indignant about that arrangement because the city isn't really buying my house for me????

Good luck selling that line. If he wants to say "we shouldn't pay property tax because certain other NHL teams don't either", say so. (Doesn't mean I'll accept that argument, but at least it's sensical.)

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

If the city is selling this like you are to us no wonder the Flames walked away. The LRT station, etc. have nothing to do with the new arena. I'm surprised you didn't claim that the city is spending $4.56++++ on the Green Line solely because of this project.

If the Flames don't have to pay the city's share back then there must be something else involved. At one point the Flames floated the idea of being given a veto on all development in the area. Do the owners have some grand unannounced plans to develop the area and profit from it? Maybe that is where the real money is for them. If they don't then it is puzzling why they wouldn't take the deal if it is as you stated it here.

If you look at the city's actual proposal, they acknowledge indirect costs, but certainly don't count them in with the 1/3 portion that the city would be putting in. The city certainly would have to consider the arena's presence when designing the nearby station (likely making platforms wider). It's not included in the city's third, but it's certainly a cost to the city.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Haven't seen this posted here yet:



The city's offer seems very fair. KK and company continue to look like asshats.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

Haven't seen this posted here yet:



The city's offer seems very fair. KK and company continue to look like asshats.

Seems incredibly reasonable, more than any other business venture would get for their place of business. Is the City portion a loan?

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Seems incredibly reasonable, more than any other business venture would get for their place of business. Is the City portion a loan?

Nope, not a loan. Under the city's proposal, they are giving the Flames 9 figure worth of free money, and also likely giving them a discount on property tax.

It's a generous offer by the City, probably a bit more than it should have required to get a deal done.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

Haven't seen this posted here yet:



The city's offer seems very fair. KK and company continue to look like asshats.

What infrastructure are they talking about that would cost $150 million? The train station, etc. seem to be separate items so that can't be it.

Overall the offer does seem very fair. Does CSEC have plans to publicly disclose their proposal? We need to see that to have a better idea of who's being unreasonable.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

What infrastructure are they talking about that would cost $150 million? The train station, etc. seem to be separate items so that can't be it.

Overall the offer does seem very fair. Does CSEC have plans to publicly disclose their proposal? We need to see that to have a better idea of who's being unreasonable.

Again, the $150 million is lifted as indirect costs, and therefore not part of the 1/3 1/3 1/3 calculation. It's costs that are for the area, related to the arena but not directly.

The city didn't really need to put that on this Document, but it is fair to point out to the population that there are additional costs incurred by the city when a project like this goes ahead

[bt04ku]

This exchange pretty much sums up the day well

https://twitter.com/meyer_lucas/status/908770098868973569

[craner]

The City offer seems more than fair, they are willing to anti up more than I thought they would. Ken King is spinning this that the Flames are paying three thirds because they have to pay:
1. Their own 1/3 share.

2. Property tax that will eventually equal the cities 1/3 share. I would argue this is a cost of doing business that every other company has to pay. Just curious if the Oilers have to pay property tax ?

3. The ticket tax from Flames revenue. I don't honestly know how King says this with a straight face. Wouldn't the Flames set their ticket prices and then the surcharge is added on top of that ? How is that coming out of Flames revenue ?

I love the Flames and would be devastated if they left but they are looking like spoiled children with what has transpired. They better be careful as they risk losing a lot of support if they carry on like this. It will be interesting to see what their last offer was.

I wish the City would offer up a similar amount $185M for a new stadium for the Stamps but I imagine that is wishful thinking.

[O-tacular]

It just gets more and more ridiculous. They also wanted free transit on game nights - at a cost of $10 million in annual lost revenue, and the city to cover security.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/al...//www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

It just gets more and more ridiculous. They also wanted free transit on game nights - at a cost of $10 million in annual lost revenue, and the city to cover security.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/al...//www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

Those demands are ridiculous. The team has been here since 1980 (?) and now they need the city to cover extra security costs and provide free transportation? Are they trying to lose as much support as they can so they can justify moving the team?

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

This exchange pretty much sums up the day well

https://twitter.com/meyer_lucas/status/908770098868973569

What a long nonsensical straw man to a simple question. Fucking tool.

KK and his buddies are certainly ones who just want to stick it to the city and avoid paying them any sort of money. It's incredibly petty.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by craner

3. The ticket tax from Flames revenue. I don't honestly know how King says this with a straight face. Wouldn't the Flames set their ticket prices and then the surcharge is added on top of that ? How is that coming out of Flames revenue ?

That part I can accept, actually. To a point. Even under city proposal, Flames organization gets all revenue from all events. So... whether the cost of the arena is 100% "hidden" in increased ticket prices, or partially exposed in an explicit "ticket tax", really doesn't make a difference in the end.

Flames and other events will charge what they believe the market will pay - let's say that's $100 a seat, for the sake of argument. If there's a required $10 ticket tax, they're really going to charge $90, it's still $100. If there's no ticket tax, they'll still charge $100, because they think people will pay it.

Where his argument loses steam is... ok, suppose the city ponies up an additional <whatever> instead of a ticket tax. Well, Flames are still going to try to charge $100 anyway. So now you've made more through property taxes, and you're still paying $100 for your ticket. Ugh.

I wish they'd keep the ticket tax out of the discussion, it really just muddies up the waters. Either way, the ticket buyers ultimately pay for the ticket tax AND the Flames' portion. If somebody other than the Flames were going to operate the arena, or if there were multiple distinct users of the arena making a contribution, it might make sense. Here it just makes the pie charts look different.

[craner]

^Very good explanation CTT - you should be the one answering questions for Flames ownership instead of KK

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

That part I can accept, actually. To a point. Even under city proposal, Flames organization gets all revenue from all events. So... whether the cost of the arena is 100% "hidden" in increased ticket prices, or partially exposed in an explicit "ticket tax", really doesn't make a difference in the end.

Flames and other events will charge what they believe the market will pay - let's say that's $100 a seat, for the sake of argument. If there's a required $10 ticket tax, they're really going to charge $90, it's still $100. If there's no ticket tax, they'll still charge $100, because they think people will pay it.

Where his argument loses steam is... ok, suppose the city ponies up an additional <whatever> instead of a ticket tax. Well, Flames are still going to try to charge $100 anyway. So now you've made more through property taxes, and you're still paying $100 for your ticket. Ugh.

I wish they'd keep the ticket tax out of the discussion, it really just muddies up the waters. Either way, the ticket buyers ultimately pay for the ticket tax AND the Flames' portion. If somebody other than the Flames were going to operate the arena, or if there were multiple distinct users of the arena making a contribution, it might make sense. Here it just makes the pie charts look different.

The ticket tax was a part of their CalgaryNEXT proposal from the start, they just have it as the 'private contribution' from the Flames side rather than as a 'user pay' or public portion like the city breaks it down.

Whether the city backstops the loan or the Flames do, having an amount lent against a ticket tax is happening either way, it is directly being passed onto the user to pay back a loan. If the Flames didn't want this distinction, they shouldn't have included it in their own proposal either.

So I'd say the city's breakdown is much more accurate in that it doesn't count the ticket tax as either a 'public' or 'private' contribution, but as it's own contribution by the users as it will have a very trackable number. The Flames could have just charged more for tickets and financed all that money themselves, but there's a reason they didn't.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

It just gets more and more ridiculous. They also wanted free transit on game nights - at a cost of $10 million in annual lost revenue, and the city to cover security.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/al...//www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile