New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Meikkhaell

(1) Personally I don't believe the Flames' players want to leave. They seem pretty integral to our city, don't they? And a city with a metro population of 1.5~ million, steadily growing, shouldn't be a city one wants to leave.

(2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have strong belief this Ken King guy should get a pole shoved up his ass and make HIM leave. Him stirring up this negativity and having the audacity to threaten Calgarians whilst we have just overcome a recession, is mind boggling to me.

(3) I'm sure he's well-payed enough that he can contribute a large portion of his wealth to this project if he's so heavily attached to it, otherwise he should keep to himself.

(4) City council has discussed and reviewed ideas on several arena designs and locations, and this bastard is so blinded by his own whimsical fantasy, he seems he'll do whatever it takes to make his a reality. Classic "my-way or the high-way." Literally.

(5) And yet, his arena design doesn't even seem to be that functional. Having a similar capacity to the Saddledome on the arena portion, and (imho) looking like a broken sandwich, this CalgaryNEXT design seems to provide little for neither the fans nor the franchise.

(6) And that's not to mention the ridiculous cost of the project, as well as cleanup that has to be made.

(1) Current batch of NHL players have no affiliation with the city they are currently billeted. Iginla left Calgary and has played couple cities since his departure. Gaudreau wanted to be a franchise player until he recently figured out there is no salary premium attached to the unofficial designation where as being a highly sought after player willing to be the hired gun has a premium salary.

(2) I get that most of Calgary is super pissed the Flames have pulled the leave town trump card. However, what other argument can be presented against the No public money side? Both parties need to move beyond their opening positions if a compromise is to be reached.

It is true that if the city continues to deny CSEG, eventually the Flames will leave town.

(3) The entire wealth of Ken King would only pay for 1-2% of the new arena complex.

What is needed from the City is to get off the gravy train of getting 100% of the property tax dollars from assets that are productive only 30-50% of the year. Golf courses, stadiums, arenas, etc. all should have market valuation adjustments for the amount of use in a given year.

(4) Point of correction, but city council has only ever discussed the CalgaryNext proposal. Only thing city administration has ever floated is the idea of relocation to Victoria Park (Plan B), but even then they were just spit-balling suggested locations.

Ken King is paid to put forward the agenda of Calgary Sports and Entertainment Group (CSEG). That is his "one job" to do. He is the go between for all stakeholder groups.

(5) The difference between a smaller arena/stadium and larger building is in the cheap seats. However costs and complexity rise exponentially for the larger building. So if an extra 2000 seats are desired by the fan base, they must be willing to accept much higher cheap seat costs. To put into perspective, $35 for press level seats would rise to $50-60.

(6) My viewpoint on the cleanup costs for West Village is that they are not commercially viable under any scenario.

Just like Dale Hodges sent councillors a bunch of emails concerning Highland Park Golf Course redevelopment, so to will a retired Nenshi be emailing a future council regarding West Village clean up. FOr the records, Dale Hodges sent council emails stating that Highland Park was repeatedly brought up and each conclusion is that the valley and river is not commercially viable for development because costs to fix slope and drainage are too high.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by craner

I will say I'm surprised Nenshi has been so aggressive with his anti-arena stance. He definitely comes off to me as not wanting this project to happen at all and he is happy if it doesn't.

He's aggressively anti-CalgaryNEXT. Which makes sense, because it's a terrible deal proposed in a terrible way.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by speedog

Well Ken King has raised the ante, build the Flames an arena or they'll just move - link. Most likely this will be a prominent issue what with the upcoming municipal election, good timing Ken.

Haha! Maybe if the Flames had won more than one cup we could take King's words a little more seriously.

It is different when owners threaten to move a dynasty, as opposed to the lovable losers.

[Design-mind]

I find this whole situation a little on the ludicrous side. Here is Ken King as well as Gary Bettman threatening Calgary because of the arena we currently use. Both Ken and Gary are business men who have made the game more of a business than a sport. Everything is business to these men which I am okay with. The part that burns me is when it is time to spend their own money, then they turn in to whiny little babies who need government help. I am not opposed to them getting government help, but they should be laying down the lion share since they have been taking it from us in ticket sales over the many years of support. This city has shown support even during the times the Flames were not earning their keep, which you do not see in most other cities in the franchise.

[Rollerstud98]

What is really lost in all this is how much the players themselves and the teams give back to cities through charities and the like. Sure not all players donate $10 million to the childrens hospital like PK but players do give a lot back to the community that most on here probably never see because of being more fortunate than those who receive.

I don't advocate threatening to move though. Very frustrating.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

What is really lost in all this is how much the players themselves and the teams give back to cities through charities and the like. Sure not all players donate $10 million to the childrens hospital like PK but players do give a lot back to the community that most on here probably never see because of being more fortunate than those who receive.

I don't advocate threatening to move though. Very frustrating.

It's not lost, it's irrelevant. Building arenas using public money at vast cost, so that a corporation can vastly overpay its employees who might give a portion of that money back to a charity which could maybe, possibly, probably not benefit Calgarians is an incredibly inefficient way to create public good using our money.

[MalcolmTucker]

We can either subsidize the current arena without an NHL tenant (city at least in the 90s said this way more than supporting an NHL tenant, was around $9 million then, going from memory), or subsidize a new one. Eventually the Saddledome will need more than just the yearly maintenance, and what then? Go from missing some concerts to missing most concerts? Put in a couple hundred million to keep it up? Put in $400m to build a concert focus facility that the city still needs to subsidize?

Is that mandatory renovation 10 years off or 20 years off? Does it really matter?

Unless the city is willing to go without an arena, there will inevitably be yearly subsidies and periodic large capital spends on a large concert facility.

The city can make similar investments in an arena that is good for an NHL tenant as well, and everyone benefits. That one side benefits more is irrelevant - there is what is it - $400 million, $450 million on the table from the ownership group? The city still benefits by likely having to invest less over time.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's not lost, it's irrelevant. Building arenas using public money at vast cost, so that a corporation can vastly overpay its employees who might give a portion of that money back to a charity which could maybe, possibly, probably not benefit Calgarians is an incredibly inefficient way to create public good using our money.

So toss out the alternative you think would work as well if not better for creating public good using our money.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Haha! Maybe if the Flames had won more than one cup we could take King's words a little more seriously.

It is different when owners threaten to move a dynasty, as opposed to the lovable losers.

Like the New York Islanders or the Saskatchewan Oilers ???

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

What is really lost in all this is how much the players themselves and the teams give back to cities through charities and the like. Sure not all players donate $10 million to the childrens hospital like PK but players do give a lot back to the community that most on here probably never see because of being more fortunate than those who receive.

I don't advocate threatening to move though. Very frustrating.

I'd be happier if they donated nothing, and used that money to pay for the arena and government money was used to cover the loss of donations to pay for things government should be paying for.

Everyone involved in professional sports makes way to much money to be coming cap in hand to municipalities with thin budgets. After seeing what Rogers Centre looks like, including all the cushy players areas, training centres etc, maybe the players SHOULD be paying for this massive upgrade? They are the ones who get to enjoy it.

Here's an idea. A Players tax. 10% of yearly salary goes to the arena. That's, what, 7 million a year? A good start.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by speedog

So toss out the alternative you think would work as well if not better for creating public good using our money.

I'm OK with some public money being used, but I was responding to the argument that we should be happy spending money on an arena because the employees will be so well paid that they can comfortably afford to give money to charity.

[Rollerstud98]

I just had to read my post again because I didn't remember posting anything like that and nope, I didn't post anything like that. Just putting your own spin on it is all. As to taxing the players salaries that would never work. In doing that you cut off any players desire to come play here.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

I just had to read my post again because I didn't remember posting anything like that and nope, I didn't post anything like that. Just putting your own spin on it is all. As to taxing the players salaries that would never work. In doing that you cut off any players desire to come play here.

Why mention it then? You said it was lost, I said it's irrelevant.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by speedog

So toss out the alternative you think would work as well if not better for creating public good using our money.

Not provide anything? Seriously, when did it become the responsibility of the municipal government to provide a venue for professional sports or concerts? Will these concerts be free if we do build it? Not everyone would agree that it is a public good, many would think that simply saving their own money (as opposed to being forced to fund any project through taxation) is a greater public good, as it leaves them control over their own earnings.

As I read this debate more and more, I can't help but think the solution to all of it is a well promoted kickstarter campaign. Those who feel that their tax dollars should go to a new arena can donate to a new arena. Those who don't, won't have to.

[MalcolmTucker]

Seriously, when did it become the responsibility of the municipal government to provide a venue for professional sports or concerts?

When there is a market failure, governments should intervene to help provide the optimal amount of goods.

When did it become the responsibility of government to provide X? Usually the answer is a market failure.

The city would struggle to even break even on operating costs on our existing arena without a lead tenant guaranteeing 80+ nights a year, and that would be with a property tax exemption!

That means that no arena would ever be built on a commercial basis in a market as small as ours. Might we get a smaller concert optimized space, and a smaller WHL optimized space? Maybe? But it would still likely see part of the market not being served - large arena shows.

Now is that worth a subsidy to fix the market failure? Would instead of a subsidy the city increase welfare more by cutting a $20 cheque to every citizen every year? That is a very different question.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Not provide anything? Seriously, when did it become the responsibility of the municipal government to provide a venue for professional sports or concerts? Will these concerts be free if we do build it? Not everyone would agree that it is a public good, many would think that simply saving their own money (as opposed to being forced to fund any project through taxation) is a greater public good, as it leaves them control over their own earnings.

As I read this debate more and more, I can't help but think the solution to all of it is a well promoted kickstarter campaign. Those who feel that their tax dollars should go to a new arena can donate to a new arena. Those who don't, won't have to.

We should do that for facilities like the NMC and Jube too right? Just supporting fancy people seeing their fancy culture! And those artists! Many are millionaires! And the owners of touring companies — did you hear many are billionaires?

[H.E.Pennypacker]

The new arena will likely go on the parking lots north of the Stampede Grounds (land acquired via a land swap). One issue would be the demolition of the 'dome and who pays for it. It's in both parties' interest to stop the media posturing and actually get a deal done so that there's a new facility done within the next several years when the 'dome is really obsolete.

While I don't advocate public dollars going to fund a private arena, I will say if the City is willing to contribute money that would mostly go towards building a nice new LRT station within the new facility (along the Green Line) that would justify some of the cost. That could help contribute to some of the costs of the superstructure of the new rink otherwise paid for by the Flames.

As there are loose plans to redevelop that corridor along the Stampede Grounds, to include high density mixed use (commercial/residential), a new area can be a good catalyst to kick start development in this area. The potential tax revenues are much greater here than the West Village. That's a potential benefit to the City in terms of contributing money to a new arena. Essentially is piggy backs off the success of the East Village and carries further south of the tracks into East Vic Park with spillover onto Macleod Trail (which is already seeing some good growth).

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We should do that for facilities like the NMC and Jube too right? Just supporting fancy people seeing their fancy culture! And those artists! Many are millionaires! And the owners of touring companies — did you hear many are billionaires?

I can see agreeing to that (without the unneeded snark). Why not? If society truly values those institutions, they will fund them. If not, should government be forcing people to fund it? It really is just making democracy more efficient, and simplifying political platforms.

If there is fear about people benefiting who didn't contribute, that could probably be resolved by giving those who did contribute a discount on their admission ticket.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

Hey Calgarians, don't worry - if there's a 2026 Winter Olympics bid in the works, I wouldn't rule out a convey of Brinks trucks full of federal and provincial cash for a new arena and stadium.

Olympics - another entity Bettman and the NHL have been giving the middle finger to.
https://twitter.com/HLundqvist30/sta...03718876049408

Disappointing news, @NHL won't be part of the Olympics 2018. A huge opportunity to market the game at the biggest stage is wasted.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

The new arena will likely go on the parking lots north of the Stampede Grounds (land acquired via a land swap). One issue would be the demolition of the 'dome and who pays for it. It's in both parties' interest to stop the media posturing and actually get a deal done so that there's a new facility done within the next several years when the 'dome is really obsolete.

The city (via the Saddledome Foundation) owns the Dome and the land as far as I know so I'd assume 100% of the obligation for demolition would be with them and not the Flames.


But depending on what happens with a 2026 Olympic Bid I think the Dome would be a key part of that (figure skating and short track while the new arena takes hockey) so it would have to stick around until then. And how could you demolish a building that is not only an iconic part of the city's skyline but would also be one of the few venues to host events in two different Olympics? Worst case it starts to crumble and we have some modern ruins to match the Rundle Ruins.