New Downtown Calgary Arena

[suburbia]

I think keeping it in the Stampede vicinity does make sense, partially bridging the current grounds with East Village.

Originally Posted by bt04ku

Worst case [Saddledome] starts to crumble and we have some modern ruins to match the Rundle Ruins.

Purposefully deconstructing half of it after the Olympics so it can still function as an amphitheater but look like ruins sounds like a great plan. But I digress.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

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.

It is just a lot easier to not try to run an accounting for these things.

Let us say we have your system, and you figure out how to deal with the scalping problem. You then end up with the market failure again, those who have not bought in would face ticket prices high enough that not enough tickets for the year would be sold to cover the maximum potential facility fee earnings. A classic adverse selection issue.

You end up making less money for the operating pot by trying to collect more for the capital pot.

You end up without a stadium because who would build it with that kind of market failure?

And how to you charge people for fringe benefits they receive even without paying for tickets? Extra hotel nights?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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

No, it was the IOC that gave the middle finger to the NHL. Why should the IOC benefit at the NHL's expense? Do you think if basketball was part of the Winter Olympics that the NBA wouldn't ask for the same things the NHL did? This is going to hurt the IOC way more than the NHL. You'll see after the Olympics in South Korea that the IOC will have a new attitude and will ask the NHL to come back. Bettman should tell them to fuck off unless they get a deal that fairly compensates the league for their loses and potential revenue losses due to injuries.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

No, it was the IOC that gave the middle finger to the NHL. Why should the IOC benefit at the NHL's expense?

Hmmm ... why should NHL owners benefit from the tax payers' expense? Good point - they should not.

Participating in an Olympics is not about enriching anything other than a sport, so the question you ask just reinforces the central reason public dollars should not help NHL owners make even more money. The NHL is not about sport, it is about making more money.

And yeah - you've convinced me. The Olympics should not benefit the NHL. Even if the city gets federal/provincial funding for a new arena, we should still charge the Flames ownership a much higher proportion of the cost.

[ST1]

I think the Olympic committee is soon going to find out how important it is to have NHL players in the Olympics. Just about everybody who is a hockey fan just lost interest in the winter Olympics, with hockey being the main draw.

Sure, the NHL is all about money, I won't argue that, but so are the Olympics. These days the Olympics are nothing more than a big money scheme run by a bunch of European cronies.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Hmmm ... why should NHL owners benefit from the tax payers' expense? Good point - they should not.

Participating in an Olympics is not about enriching anything other than a sport, so the question you ask just reinforces the central reason public dollars should not help NHL owners make even more money. The NHL is not about sport, it is about making more money.

And yeah - you've convinced me. The Olympics should not benefit the NHL. Even if the city gets federal/provincial funding for a new arena, we should still charge the Flames ownership a much higher proportion of the cost.

[suburbia]

As reported here:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/wi...pics-1.4053479

Statement from Hockey Canada

"Today's statement by the NHL is not what we were hoping for because, ultimately, we want best-on-best at the 2018 Olympic Winter Games which, for us at Hockey Canada, includes the participation of NHL players"

Statement from NHL Players Association

"The players are extraordinarily disappointed and adamantly disagree with the NHL's shortsighted decision to not continue our participation in the Olympics.

Any sort of inconvenience the Olympics may cause to next season's schedule is a small price to pay compared to the opportunity to showcase our game and our greatest players on this enormous international stage."

<>

Moreover, it is doing so after the financial issues relating to insurance and transportation have been resolved with the IOC and IIHF. The League's efforts to blame others for its decision is as unfortunate as the decision itself. NHL players are patriotic and they do not take this lightly. A decent respect for the opinions of the players matters. This is the NHL's decision, and its alone. It is very unfortunate for the game, the players and millions of loyal hockey fans."

While some are pointing to the IOC, it is clear that the players themselves want to play in the Olympics. But the billionaire owners don't want to give up in a penny. The sport and the players be damned!

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It is just a lot easier to not try to run an accounting for these things.

Let us say we have your system, and you figure out how to deal with the scalping problem. You then end up with the market failure again, those who have not bought in would face ticket prices high enough that not enough tickets for the year would be sold to cover the maximum potential facility fee earnings. A classic adverse selection issue.

You end up making less money for the operating pot by trying to collect more for the capital pot.

You end up without a stadium because who would build it with that kind of market failure?

Now you are getting it. If there is market failure, why would we ever build it? I guess we won't agree, because you seem to be of the opinion that the government MUST provide this stadium (and auditoriums, theatres, insert other form of niche entertainment). I am of the opinion that life would go on in Calgary just fine without a stadium (and even without a Saddledome, if no substantial re-investment were ever made and it had to be shuttered). I personally feel the market will correct. There is only market failure because the terms by one side have not budged. BUT, if the Flames owners decided to take a smaller return on their investment, there probably wouldn't be "market failure" for them to pay for a new arena.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

And how to you charge people for fringe benefits they receive even without paying for tickets? Extra hotel nights?

That would be up to the individuals to figure out for themselves. For instance, if I own a hotel, and figured I would see an increase in business if there is a new arena built, it would be worth my time to figure out what that increase would be, and determine what an appropriate amount to invest in the arena is, to help ensure my additional business is captured.

I could take the gamble of not investing anything in the arena, but then it might not come to fruition, and I don't get the increased business. Either way, completely my decision.

[Coldrsx]

Too much risk, ie. not enough compensation for a market the NHL does not care about...if only they were going to China in a few years.

[MalcolmTucker]

If there is a market failure, that is the reason for government action. For government intervention. Just like phones, cable, natural gas, electricity, airports.

If you think without government action in the space a stadium will be built then there is no market failure.


I just haven't seen any evidence to support that there is a huge untapped or unseen to outsider profit being made here that can be used to cover another couple hundred million in capital cost.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If there is a market failure, that is the reason for government action. For government intervention. Just like phones, cable, natural gas, electricity, airports.

There we go again. Comparing ridiculous items that are clearly just a want (heat, communications, transportation), to something way more important - the need for a Tegan and Sara concert with gigantic lego pieces strung from the ceiling.

[MalcolmTucker]

Lol.

So want to show your work others on here? How do you get to $600 million/$40 million a year for the capital spend, then around $15 million for operations (probably a low ball). Need 200 sell outs a year or seats sold equivalents to make it an average of $15.30 per ticket. In our small market it induces adverse selection imo.

[Socguy]

According to a sports economist, it's doubtful the Flames would ever move. Basically, Calgary is a decent sized hockey market and the league needs it to help subsidize all the money losing teams down south with their fancy arenas.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...move-1.4054145

Calgarians pride themselves on being savvy business people. They know Ken King is trying to line his pockets with public money. It's why Nenshi can (and should!) confidently tell the Flames to stuff it.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Socguy

According to a sports economist, it's doubtful the Flames would ever move. Basically, Calgary is a decent sized hockey market and the league needs it to help subsidize all the money losing teams down south with their fancy arenas.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...move-1.4054145

Calgarians pride themselves on being savvy business people. They know Ken King is trying to line his pockets with public money. It's why Nenshi can (and should!) confidently tell the Flames to stuff it.

Since when did Ken King become an owner?

If Quebec City offered the Flames a good deal they would move this summer. I can see a lot of teams in the east being in favor of such a move to cut down on travel time on western road trips. Nenshi would be stupid to tell the Flames to stuff it. The Flames have options, Calgary doesn't. If the Flames leave the NHL will not come back here not matter what people think. Reminds me of oil--most thought we had the U.S. by the balls forever but look at how that turned out.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Lol.

So want to show your work others on here? How do you get to $600 million/$40 million a year for the capital spend, then around $15 million for operations (probably a low ball). Need 200 sell outs a year or seats sold equivalents to make it an average of $15.30 per ticket. In our small market it induces adverse selection imo.

How does Rogers Arena survive? Vancouver wasn't much bigger than Calgary when that facility opened. Disposable incomes in that market are far lower than in Calgary.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The Flames have options, Calgary doesn't.

Only if you believe that "not having an NHL hockey team" isn't an option. Personally, I sure hope it doesn't come to that, but I can think of a few things I'd rather do with 500-1,000 million public dollars than CalgaryNEXT (whatever the actual cost of creosote remediation and other infrastructure changes would be required right NOW if it were to be built.) I hope we can find some middle ground.

[MalcolmTucker]

Lower relative capital cost (construction inflation outpacing normal inflation, plus the Alberta premium), that was lowered further when passed to a new owner after the economics changed with the loss of NBA iirc. Same with Ottawa and Montreal minus the NBA part iirc.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Only if you believe that "not having an NHL hockey team" isn't an option. Personally, I sure hope it doesn't come to that, but I can think of a few things I'd rather do with 500-1,000 million public dollars than CalgaryNEXT (whatever the actual cost of creosote remediation and other infrastructure changes would be required right NOW if it were to be built.) I hope we can find some middle ground.

Well the flames have ~$400 million on the table, can probably count on a similar or only slightly discounted amount for an arena only structure. Can probably come in south of $600 million of inside the property line costs.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If there is a market failure, that is the reason for government action. For government intervention. Just like phones, cable, natural gas, electricity, airports.

If you think without government action in the space a stadium will be built then there is no market failure.


I just haven't seen any evidence to support that there is a huge untapped or unseen to outsider profit being made here that can be used to cover another couple hundred million in capital cost.

Again, our definition of need vs want is different. I suppose we will see how most other people align during the next election (as I am pretty sure this will be a big issue for this years municipal election). Utilities, critical transportation infrastructure, etc... are needs in my opinion. Entertainment venues are wants.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Again, our definition of need vs want is different. I suppose we will see how most other people align during the next election (as I am pretty sure this will be a big issue for this years municipal election). Utilities, critical transportation infrastructure, etc... are needs in my opinion. Entertainment venues are wants.

Just because something is a want, doesn't mean it isn't important. We spend lots of money supporting high income skiers travelling on roads that wouldn't need to be anywhere nearly as high capacity save for ski rush hour.

Is that a need or a want?

I would argue that without a stadium, the city would end up building one anyways. So why wait to realize what we may lose.

You might think a city like ours could exist without these want facilities: no jube, no arena, no arts commons and its theatres. But would we then be a work camp except with a more white collar vibe and children?

[Calgarian]

Does anyone know if the grade in the West Village needs to be built up like it did in East Village? I'm sure the question has come up, but I can't recall.