[News] Calgary, Alberta, & CSEC agree in principle to $1.223bn Event Centre + infrastructure

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yet she is sure there are some secret side deals that havent been announced as of yet...im just curious how she knows that but not enough to commit to the deal.



Accountants AND experts? Cool.

And who did she "learn" this information from? Apparently every councillor voted for it, so it wouldn't make sense one of them leaked this secret clause.

It certainly didn't come from CSEC or the UCP.

Im not a huge fan of the deal myself but also live in reality and understand it was always going to break down to something along these lines. Expecting the ownership group to build it entirely on there own dime was pie in the sky fantasy at best once the Edmonton deal was agreed too.

Its why I cannot understand the viotrol being hurled at Smith (well i can but its pretty clear its because its her and little to do with this agreement) while the city/Gondek aren't being roasted for agreeing to it.

If its such a bad deal....why sign it? I'm guessing they figured out that getting some private investment was better than nothing and know this needs to get done or its pretty likely the club would be movin on at some point.

I've never read Oedipus Rex but I can tell you it is about a guy who ####s his mom. You can be suspicious that it is a bad deal even if you haven't read it's contents. Right now Notley is the leader of the opposition it is her job to scrutinize the party in power.

RE: frustration with Smith. I am frustrated because of the political timing of the announcement. Turning the Arena deal into more of a political game than it already was is frustrating to watch.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I've never read Oedipus Rex but I can tell you it is about a guy who ####s his mom. You can be suspicious that it is a bad deal even if you haven't read it's contents. Right now Notley is the leader of the opposition it is her job to scrutinize the party in power.

RE: frustration with Smith. I am frustrated because of the political timing of the announcement. Turning the Arena deal into more of a political game than it already was is frustrating to watch.

Smith says the provincial government had no control over the timing of the negotiation and the agreement between CSEC and the City, and wished it got done sooner

You could say that makes sense, based on the nature of the contributions from each of the 3 parties

I can’t see how the provincial government were the major bottleneck

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I've never read Oedipus Rex but I can tell you it is about a guy who ####s his mom. You can be suspicious that it is a bad deal even if you haven't read it's contents. Right now Notley is the leader of the opposition it is her job to scrutinize the party in power.

RE: frustration with Smith. I am frustrated because of the political timing of the announcement. Turning the Arena deal into more of a political game than it already was is frustrating to watch.

She can be as suspicious as she likes, and even have legit reasons to do so. At this point i wouldn't be surprised by anything.

But she categorically stated there is some secret agreement that she was made aware of yesterday.

Well....what is it? Who benefits? Why not just disclose what she knows?

She is playing politics just as much as Smith is, and its pretty obvious as to why. She/NDP have been backed into a corner. Politically is was a very shrewd move by UCP to make this an election issue whether you like the move or not.

Also I believe this had to be announced before tomorrow or it would have to be shelved til after May 29.

Its actually pretty fascinating to be a spectator to this whole thing.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Unclear what the revenue sharing is which is part of the issue.

Given how miniscule the rent CSEC pays per year ($17mm growing 1% per year) is vs the value of the building/land ($17mm rent implies value of only $300mm which is obviously too low), we should be able to safely assume non-hockey event revenue does not go to CSEC.

If this is not the case, get a rope.

[Yeah_Baby]

Yeah, if Notley and NDP were against it they'd say so. They're trying to strike the right balance by going 'scary hidden details oogie boogie Smith lady bad' and while knowing they can't back out if they form government because Calgary is essentially decided the election.


edit: I do think Smith is terrible, but it's been fascinating watching the NDP have to scramble when the Province gets to come in to the deal late and play hero optically right before an election.

[AFireInside]

Are you really comparing a public library that you can use anytime, or cheap public transportation to a billionaires pet project that most families can't afford to use? If the public library were owned by a billionaire that charged people ridiculous prices to use it, then you'd have a point.

Odd to expect people to be happy with this deal, especially with the breakdown of the deal.

Absolutely bizarre position to take.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im not a huge fan of the deal myself but also live in reality and understand it was always going to break down to something along these lines. Expecting the ownership group to build it entirely on there own dime was pie in the sky fantasy at best once the Edmonton deal was agreed too.

Its why I cannot understand the viotrol being hurled at Smith (well i can but its pretty clear its because its her and little to do with this agreement) while the city/Gondek aren't being roasted for agreeing to it.

If its such a bad deal....why sign it? I'm guessing they figured out that getting some private investment was better than nothing and know this needs to get done or its pretty likely the club would be movin on at some point.

I think people would be less upset about the deal if the CSEC were paying their fair share. They aren't. I can at least understand why Edmonton put money up to get their arena built.

People aren't upset because it's Smith. This government constantly complains about the NDP spending too much. We currently have fundraisers going on in this province for school supplies yet we're handing a billionaire money for his toy, to buy votes, which Danielle Smith has previously said she's against.

She's and idiot and this deal is terrible. Both are true.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Smith says the provincial government had no control over the timing of the negotiation and the agreement between CSEC and the City, and wished it got done sooner

You could say that makes sense, based on the nature of the contributions from each of the 3 parties

I can’t see how the provincial government were the major bottleneck

I see it as pretty naked politicking from Smith. On record in the past saying governments shouldn't pay for arenas and then all of sudden gets on board in a big way right before the election but then says the full deal can't get released till after the election and the mean NDP might cancel it. It just as believable to me that she put pressure on the city with provincial funds as the carrot to rush it before the full details could be released.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yet she is sure there are some secret side deals that havent been announced as of yet...im just curious how she knows that but not enough to commit to the deal.



Accountants AND experts? Cool.

And who did she "learn" this information from? Apparently every councillor voted for it, so it wouldn't make sense one of them leaked this secret clause.

It certainly didn't come from CSEC or the UCP.

Im not a huge fan of the deal myself but also live in reality and understand it was always going to break down to something along these lines. Expecting the ownership group to build it entirely on there own dime was pie in the sky fantasy at best once the Edmonton deal was agreed too.

Its why I cannot understand the viotrol being hurled at Smith (well i can but its pretty clear its because its her and little to do with this agreement) while the city/Gondek aren't being roasted for agreeing to it.

If its such a bad deal....why sign it? I'm guessing they figured out that getting some private investment was better than nothing and know this needs to get done or its pretty likely the club would be movin on at some point.

Not quite true. Some are throwing vitriol at Smith because she's in charge of a government that is giving our provincial tax dollars to help finance a hockey arena where a billionaire is getting all the profits.

On top of that, she has previously come out and said that the province should NEVER financially support a deal like this.
She deserves every bit of the vitriol hurled.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Given how miniscule the rent CSEC pays per year ($17mm growing 1% per year) is vs the value of the building/land ($17mm rent implies value of only $300mm which is obviously too low), we should be able to safely assume non-hockey event revenue does not go to CSEC.

If this is not the case, get a rope.

Assuming around a 6% cap?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

If a Flames fan forum is divided on this, just imagine what the rest of the province is thinking. Is there any chance this thing ever gets off the ground? And we thought we had problems with this team on the ice?

We are truly cursed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not so sure that the province is 'divided', and I am not so sure the forum is divided. There are a couple dozen posters here who post the same concerns over and over, and I think they are more a vocal minority than a divided fanbase.

However, it is still true that we are cursed.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Why is Notley saying there is a "secret" land deal. It's written pretty clearly in agreement;

CSEC:
 Options to acquire four potential commercial development parcels
 Right of first offer on prospective development opportunities on the lands currently
housing the Victoria Park Bus Maintenance Facility

Already posted, but here it is again;

https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...tre-Update.pdf

I have no opinion whether or not this portion of the agreement is good or bad, but it's certainly not secret.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Given how miniscule the rent CSEC pays per year ($17mm growing 1% per year) is vs the value of the building/land ($17mm rent implies value of only $300mm which is obviously too low), we should be able to safely assume non-hockey event revenue does not go to CSEC.

If this is not the case, get a rope.

want to bet? If I had the extra money to risk, I'd bet my paycheque that CSEC is getting all the non hockey revenue from the event centre.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Given how miniscule the rent CSEC pays per year ($17mm growing 1% per year) is vs the value of the building/land ($17mm rent implies value of only $300mm which is obviously too low), we should be able to safely assume non-hockey event revenue does not go to CSEC.

If this is not the case, get a rope.

The last deal had CSEC as the operating partner that collected non-hockey revenue. I assume it is remaining that way otherwise the city would have released details to the contrary so that they could point towards concessions by CSEC. It can definitely swing the deal from bad to terrible to okay.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sorry, friend.

If you take 27.58 M, escalate 1% for 35 years (the basis of the figures presented) and calculate the NPV of that payment stream using 5% IRR, what do you get?

Only one person here is showing they don’t understand

Retweet and appeal to authority is fine. No further questions

Yes, if you taxed people 27.58 million dollars total every single year for the 35 year lease you would generate enough income so that at the end of the 35 year lease the city would have the same amount of money as if they did not spend a dime on the Flames. If that is what you are saying then I would agree with you.

Presumably Tombe did his math based on residential taxpayers and that would likely come out to 88 bucks a person every single year for the next 35 years.

I guess the question is whether the Flames are worth over 3,000 bucks to every single household in the city over the next 35 years.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by transplant99

She can be as suspicious as she likes, and even have legit reasons to do so. At this point i wouldn't be surprised by anything.

But she categorically stated there is some secret agreement that she was made aware of yesterday.

Well....what is it? Who benefits? Why not just disclose what she knows?

She is playing politics just as much as Smith is, and its pretty obvious as to why. She/NDP have been backed into a corner. Politically is was a very shrewd move by UCP to make this an election issue whether you like the move or not.

Also I believe this had to be announced before tomorrow or it would have to be shelved til after May 29.

Its actually pretty fascinating to be a spectator to this whole thing.

No #### Notley is playing politics, hence my frustration with the timing. I don't see how waiting 30 days to ensure stability would have been a bad thing.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Why is Notley saying there is a "secret" land deal. It's written pretty clearly in agreement;



Already posted, but here it is again;

file:///C:/Users/OCL196.COSCL-OCL196...date%20(1).pdf

I have no opinion whether or not this portion of the agreement is good or bad, but it's certainly not secret.

It would depend on what the option price is. A dollar a parcel would be a very good price. Whatever the land is worth 2 years after the city builds the arena would not be a good price. I suspect the price is locked in at a basement price.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It seems like the old deal was probably better for taxpayers, but that deal is dead, due mostly to the cost increases (on materials, not the curbs/solar stuff). I do want this thing built and think there is a legit public component to the development. I have no idea how much is too much, but it seems to me if the ire is raised by taxpayers, it should be moreso toward the city and not the province. Smith is a moron, but I feel Notley took the bait and is handling this rather poorly. The conspiracy bit comes off as a little unhinged. Would have been much better to say they would approve the deal as presented to them. If this version is not accurate, they can always scuttle it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by transplant99

She can be as suspicious as she likes, and even have legit reasons to do so. At this point i wouldn't be surprised by anything.

But she categorically stated there is some secret agreement that she was made aware of yesterday.

Well....what is it? Who benefits? Why not just disclose what she knows?

She is playing politics just as much as Smith is, and its pretty obvious as to why. She/NDP have been backed into a corner. Politically is was a very shrewd move by UCP to make this an election issue whether you like the move or not.

Also I believe this had to be announced before tomorrow or it would have to be shelved til after May 29.

Its actually pretty fascinating to be a spectator to this whole thing.

Obviously she doesn't know what it is, or who benefits, hence "secret". Clearly there is more to the deal, becuase there is not any certainty.

That includes, said Notley, the secret financial details of who is on the hook for what in the deal involving the province, the City of Calgary and the owners of the Calgary Flames hockey team.

“It’s a confidential agreement between all three parties that outline additional financial exposure, additional financial obligations and opportunities for all three parties, including the potential of more exposure for the public and for taxpayers,” Notley said.

“People on my team were advised (about) that by officials today.
“When we asked for more detail (and) if we could get a copy of the agreement, we were told no. All parties have agreed that agreement must remain confidential for six to eight weeks.”

https://www.albertaprimetimes.com/ca...-issue-6914739

So, how can you have an agreement in principle if some of the big pieces are unknown? You are aiming blame at the wrong party, here.

How do we vote on this without the details?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

No #### Notley is playing politics, hence my frustration with the timing. I don't see how waiting 30 days to ensure stability would have been a bad thing.

depending who you talk to the Prentice government before the 2015 election was talking to CSEC and the City, then the election happened, and I don't think with massive tire fire that was the Bill 6 roll out, the NDP really cared to pick up those talks.

I can see CSEC also pushing for it to be out now to back Notley into matching it, if the NDP win, and also because it gives them some positive news in teh face of the tirefire that was this season and game of thrones behind the scenes with the Flames

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Yeah, if Notley and NDP were against it they'd say so. They're trying to strike the right balance by going 'scary hidden details oogie boogie Smith lady bad' and while knowing they can't back out if they form government because Calgary is essentially decided the election.


edit: I do think Smith is terrible, but it's been fascinating watching the NDP have to scramble when the Province gets to come in to the deal late and play hero optically right before an election.

This is why I ultimately think this deal will proceed - because that is a part of how this looks, and the NDP would kill their party in Calgary if they actually did come into power and then kill this deal (resulting in the Flames moving).

Regardless of what happens politically, I still believe this deal gets done - because the NDP does not want to be the government that gets labeled as the government that cost Calgary the Flames.