If the CoC were to invest ~$200MM into sports, it should go into local arenas or pools or fields at $10MM/. Not to a professional team that makes tens of millions of profit per year. Taxpayer dollars fund public facilities. Private dollars should fund venues that paying customers attend for pure entertainment.
That's fine, your opinion and your are entitled to it. But if we aren't willing to support pro teams, or state of the Art entertainment facilities there are other cities that do, and will. You are seeing that in more and more in Pro Sports (3 relocations ongoing in the NFL), teams are going to where the money is. If the city doesn't want to support the Flames I think they have every right to move the team to someplace that will, they are for profit as you say.
And with the Team owner living in London now because he doesn't want to pay NDP taxes I wouldn't hold my breath on his loyalty to Calgary.
Pro sport owners are only loyal to money. Why would they ever leave one of the most profitable markets in the NHL for a building? If the flames left expect to see the Calgary hurricanes or coyotes shortly after
Look Plan B Arena is gonna get built unless the Flames go crazy and actually try and get $200 million for it. The ticket tax and their contribution is enough for a nice arena. It's the Stamps who ultimately will be the losers not getting CalgaryNEXT, but most people care about the arena more than anything.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
That's fine, your opinion and your are entitled to it. But if we aren't willing to support pro teams, or state of the Art entertainment facilities there are other cities that do, and will. You are seeing that in more and more in Pro Sports (3 relocations ongoing in the NFL), teams are going to where the money is. If the city doesn't want to support the Flames I think they have every right to move the team to someplace that will, they are for profit as you say. .
Supporting pro teams doesn't mean buying them things their billionaire owners can afford themselves.
Quote:
And with the Team owner living in London now because he doesn't want to pay NDP taxes I wouldn't hold my breath on his loyalty to Calgary
Murray Edwards is one of six (iirc) Flames owners and he has a billion less then Clayton Riddell last I checked.
Seriously... billionaires... BILLIONS of dollars. And they want you to pay for their arena, which you will then have to pay money to get into.
Eff that.
The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
Pro sport owners are only loyal to money. Why would they ever leave one of the most profitable markets in the NHL for a building? If the flames left expect to see the Calgary hurricanes or coyotes shortly after
And the reality is, the owners will make far more money playing in a decrepit Saddledome than they will at the Sprint Center, or Seattle, or Milwaukee.
Rogers Arena in Vancouver, The ACC, and the Bell Centre were completely privately financed. The Corel Centre got 26 million from the province of Ontario. The MTS Centre got $40M from all three levels of government.
The Edmonton arena deal is unprecedented in this country. And that's because Edmonton is no good. Our ownership group contains multiple billionaires - take out a loan and build your venue.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
I really shouldn't have brought up the library, this should be a discussion on the new arena. But to call library's a "essential service" like the police or fire fighers" is laughable. Anyway, I am not suggesting the city close library's or stop funding them I am just suggesting a new $250 million dollar library, 2 blocks away from the existing one, and a block away from another one at Bow Valley College might be a worse use of taxpayer money than funding redevelopment of Victoria Park and a new sports/entertainment arena.
Many, many people depend on the library for many reasons. Yes, it is essential. Not for the same reasons as police or fire fighters, but essential none the less. It provides many programs, connects people to knowledge, and better enfranchises lower income people to have access to things others take for granted. We need good libraries, and that goes way beyond how many books they can hold.
An arena is not essential, it makes the city better, but it essentially makes rich people richer. To equate an investment in an arena to an investment in the city's main library is a tone deaf argument and weakens your case a lot.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to WesternCanadaKing For This Useful Post:
That's fine, your opinion and your are entitled to it. But if we aren't willing to support pro teams, or state of the Art entertainment facilities there are other cities that do, and will. You are seeing that in more and more in Pro Sports (3 relocations ongoing in the NFL), teams are going to where the money is. If the city doesn't want to support the Flames I think they have every right to move the team to someplace that will, they are for profit as you say.
And with the Team owner living in London now because he doesn't want to pay NDP taxes I wouldn't hold my breath on his loyalty to Calgary.
If the Flames leave Calgary because I don't want my tax dollars spent on them, but rather on facilities that my daughter and I can actually use, I wont even wave goodbye. Granted, I'm a tier 2 fan. I've only attended a few hundred games over the 30 years I've been a fan. My property taxes pay for overpasses and pedestrian bridges, and I'm ok with that because everyone in Calgary, driver or pedestrian, is free to use them. Not the same with an arena that is privately operated.
Now if the City were to manage the facility with a team of people that are juggling the Flames and Hitmen, charging CSEC a fee per game, and then booking concerts and trade shows and monster trucks and dildo conventions, and the profits were going into the coffers of the CoC, then yeah, I'd be interested to see whether the numbers justify the CoC spending taxpayer dollars on such a venture. I highly doubt it would justify an ~18,000+ seat arena, so when it's chipping in on a barn for the local pro team, and said team gets to operate the venue, charge and collect the money, not pay property taxes because they don't actually own it, and also charge a ticket tax to the fans of the main tenant? Um, no thanks.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
I really shouldn't have brought up the library, this should be a discussion on the new arena. But to call library's a "essential service" like the police or fire fighers" is laughable. Anyway, I am not suggesting the city close library's or stop funding them I am just suggesting a new $250 million dollar library, 2 blocks away from the existing one, and a block away from another one at Bow Valley College might be a worse use of taxpayer money than funding redevelopment of Victoria Park and a new sports/entertainment arena.
You realize that once the new library is open, the old current one will be closed? Possibly demolished or converted into something else.
__________________
Stanley Cup - 1989
Clarence Campbell Trophy - 1986, 1989, 2004
Presidents Trophy - 1988, 1989
William Jennings Trophy - 2006
The Following User Says Thank You to The Familia For This Useful Post:
The Flames and the City of Calgary would require a new arena in one way or another in the near future, that really isn't that much up for debate. Everybody loves new but it comes down to who should own it and who should pay for the majority of it and contribute.
We hear from the like's of the Flames and Gary Bettman that the Dome isn't suitable for the long term health of the franchise and that Calgary won't get marque events such as All-Star game/NHL draft. Fair enough, I could see the ARGUMENT for that in some sense what about the World Jr's from a few years ago? What about the potential for the World Cup going to Calgary and Edmonton as is the rumor?
So when it comes down to it and the fact that a city like Calgary will 100% support a World Jr's with what I believe was the highest grossing tournament until the first Toronto/Montreal tournament and the fact that the World Cup may come here, than at that point the Dome is suitable? Seems kind of interesting to me than when need be we are suitable as a venue.
As for all the concerts that are bypassing Calgary and all the other shortcoming of the Dome, I am sure there are some renovation work that could at least ASSIST with improving the experiences. As for the roof, I am sure there may be an engineering option the Flames could look at but I am not sure it's financially viable for them but I am not sure that is the taxpayers concern to be honest.
At the end of the day the Flames have a strong enough bid to pay for the arena given the current funding model give or take. $200 mil from ownership, free land from the city and $250 million in ticket tax should be close enough to getting a quality rink.
Hopefully we hear some information sooner rather than later.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to curves2000 For This Useful Post:
Why? It's still $250mil dollar of taxpayer money going into something for the people of the city to use. And it is free to enter because, we again as taxpayers, pay $50mil ($43mil city /$6mil provincial in 2015) per year to keep it running.
nm.
others made the argument much better than I did.
Last edited by GordonBlue; 03-16-2017 at 07:26 AM.
After reading this thread I went looking for examples of lost net economic benefit on cities due to teams leaving. I found this instead, which I found interesting. It is from 2015 and deals with the environmental impact of a new stadium in Seattle. Specifically the appendix F which is the economic impact. Its a bit long but fortunately I have a real love of appendix F's, specifically ones over 500 pages. And before I get roasted for it, I get it that this is not apples-to-apples stuff. But some of it is relevant.
It has a lot of great examples of benefits derived from developments in other cities. If you have a passionate opinion on the subject it may be worth at least a skim. A library will not stimulate the subsequent jobs, area investment and tax revenue that an arena will. However it will provide other, non-tangible benefits that may be just as important. Voters/taxpayers need to decide which is more important.
Because Calgary is one of the NHL's top markets I personally feel that the owners can threaten to move but ultimately will not. I agree that on the surface, why should the average tax payer pay for a building they may never enter because of the cost? That being said, although I can enter a library downtown, I may never do so. And I help pay for it. The difference is that I can, if I want to, and get benefit from it at no cost. That is a big difference.
I don't believe there is a right answer here. Why should the city give the owners $200MM or whatever to build an arena that will line the owners pockets? At the expense of the tax payers. On the flip side, owners argue that although there is a short term cost to the city, it should definitely be a long term win. If the city can't see that, there are other cities that do. They own the team and it is their prerogative to move it.
I think its undeniable that Calgary will suffer more if the team makes like a tree and gets out of here, vs taxpayers shelling out $200MM for them to stay. However the real question is can the city play a game of chicken with owners and win? I think we can.
On a final note I have a friend who worked for the consultant that the Oilers hired to 'explore' the option of moving to Seattle. He said Katz never intended to move the team. It wasn't happening. But his group was hired to explore the option, gather some material facts that could be put out to the public, and also provide insight on how the perception of the team moving could build leverage to get cash from the city and/or province. Main point was, regardless of public money or not, they were not leaving.
EDIT - its worth noting that the majority of the report was a 2013 report, but it was updated for assumptions such as impact on parking, train logistics, etc.
That's fine, your opinion and your are entitled to it. But if we aren't willing to support pro teams, or state of the Art entertainment facilities there are other cities that do, and will.
That's ridiculous. We are willing (and do) support pro teams. It's called ticket sales, on-site concession purchases, merchandise sales, and television ratings that contribute to broadcast rights sales.
The Calgary Flames are a business and a product... they should be supported as such. If they want to pursue a PPP with the City of Calgary I'm ok with that but the last "P" in PPP stands for Partnership and thus far no such Partnership has been offered.
There is no way the Flames are leaving and I don't think the Flames would make the threat. I think the owners are to ingrained in the community. You have the Flames foundation, the numerous charitable donations to hospitals, arena, baseball field (Okotoks), swaths of land for preservation, heritage park etc.
The Flames have a pretty good relationship and have done a great deal of work within the city and surrounding communities. The key is not to get too political and start lobbing insults that would burn bridges, just keep it civil.
I personally don't have an issue with the city and province chipping because a new venue will be a win for the city. For each extra concert/event that rolls through the city it means more money is spent in the city on hotels and restaurants. Is that not a win for the city?
The stampede is said to have an economic benefit around 345 million each year. Would it be that far fetched that 4 or 5 extra events could equal a tenth of the economic benefit that the stampede would generate.
That's fine, your opinion and your are entitled to it. But if we aren't willing to support pro teams, or state of the Art entertainment facilities there are other cities that do, and will. Y
I can't think of many markets in North America that are ready, willing and able to accept an NHL franchise. I would call the owner's bluff on any threat like that. Even if there was such a market, Bettman would fight heard to keep the team here and make it difficult to move.
Unfortunately the outsiders looking in (like Bettman and other owners) are probably thinking the sister Alberta team can make a deal with the City for local funding a la what the Oilers did. Just give it time and patience. And I have a feeling the Flames owners are looking for that same thing, and are expecting a Hail Mary to come through.
As much as I love the Flames, this is not something we should ever - EVER - be funding with taxpayer money, unless the public derives significant benefit from it directly.
If anything I'm hoping the provincial and federal governments jump in, see a new arena as part of a serious Olympic bid, and the Flames as part of the Stampede and in association with Tourism Alberta are the long-term strategy to sustain a new building. But without the fieldhouses and associated community benefit, I just can't see this coming to light.
But if we aren't willing to support pro teams, or state of the Art entertainment facilities there are other cities that do, and will. You are seeing that in more and more in Pro Sports (3 relocations ongoing in the NFL), teams are going to where the money is.
So your argument is other cities are stupid, so we should rush to match their stupidity before it's too late for us?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
And man did Bettman come across as a dic in that TSN article.
If you're talking about the one from yesterday I'm not sure I'd say he came off as a dick (or at least not as much as he has in the past)... I do really wish he'd stop insulting our intelligence by trying to Lyle Lanley us into buying an arena.
