[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by New Era

Cappy and company convinced me in the CalgaryNEXT thread, no tax money for any billionaire's playhouse. Just say no to city money in this mess. This is a Flames arena, they should pay for all of it.

Governments entice and pay for business to locate and operate in their cities, provinces, states, countries all the time. They do this because because there is a benefit to having these businesses operate in their jurisdictions.

Anyone who thinks the city and province aren't interested in having the Flames and the type of facility required located here in Calgary...........are very very much kidding themselves. There's a desire, all that's left to determine is what is that desire worth.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by KingMoo

How many cities actually have purely Private stadiums? I think it's common knowledge to people living in major league sport team cities that they pay for a little of the stadium. The only people that can complain are the people that lived here before the Saddledome was built. They didn't sign on for that but were on the hook for to pay for it.

The problem is all cities are idiots who fall victim to the leverage that teams move when another jurisdiction sweetens the pot. All cities should quit funding stadiums and 10% of league revenues can go to easily financing them every 30 years. However since you can steel a team by your city being the biggest idiot (Glendale) we could look at this in terms of how to keep the team.

If one deems the flames a public good than the city should do an economic analysis of what it would take keep the flames here. Let's put a reasonable arena at 500 million dollars. If the flames tried to move there likely would be a relocation fee attached say 200 million. So assuming you could get an absolutely free Arena from wherever you are moving and own all ancillary revenues from it your incom would need to be within 30 million per year if you are looking for a 10% return or 15 million per year if you want a 5% IRR

Are there any markets who are giving out free arenas and would have revenues within 15 million of the flames? NO

Therefore no public money is required to keep the flames in Calgary

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by getbak

What are your thoughts on facilities like the Jubilee Auditorium?

#### em. Complete waste of public money. Spend no tax money on anything that isn't essential service. If Calgarians want concerts, form a corporation and build a facility privately. Same goes for public athletic facilities, libraries, and hospitals. Time to let the market address needs. Am I right!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

You are talking about a negotiation that hasnt even begun.

I think I fundamentally agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that the Flames started the negotiation so far away from 'reasonable' that the counter-offer by nature had to be equally ridiculous and at that point it becomes a boondoggle.

They did not table a plan with any realistic possibility of a counter offer.

They way I see it they started the negotiation with the exact deal the Oilers got which is a pretty logical place to start in my mind.

That doesn't mean they are going to get it, but wouldn't you want and expect the same thing if you were an owner?

If they had doubled the Edmonton City offer as a starting point I think you'd be spot on, but they didn't.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by New Era

#### em. Complete waste of public money. Spend no tax money on anything that isn't essential service. If Calgarians want concerts, form a corporation and build a facility privately. Same goes for public athletic facilities, libraries, and hospitals. Time to let the market address needs. Am I right!

No

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by New Era

#### em. Complete waste of public money. Spend no tax money on anything that isn't essential service. If Calgarians want concerts, form a corporation and build a facility privately. Same goes for public athletic facilities, libraries, and hospitals. Time to let the market address needs. Am I right!

nm

[Senator Clay Davis]

Edmonton should not be used as a comparable for Calgary at all. Edmonton is much closer to Winnipeg than to Calgary. The threat of Edmonton moving is a lot more real than Calgary. Threatening to leave Canada's second biggest corporate market is a mega bluff. Kinda ballsy actually when you think about it. But a bluff nonetheless.

I guess the easiest way to think about it is no matter what, this whole situation will cost the Flames a couple hundred million. Whether it's paying for the arena themselves, moving (and the loss of team value + relocation fee), or selling to someone who wants to move (which will be for a couple hundred million less than market value). It's pretty much up to the Flames how they wanna play it. Calgary has no reason to cave here.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Gotta phrase it in a way to get as many yes' as possible since every previous funding poll has been a resounding no

That wasn't my intent and I even acknowledged that I wasn't sure how to word it. If you have an alternate way of wording it that you feel is more balanced I'll repost it.
But to be clear the question I'm seeking answers on is not if people think public funding should be a part of the plan but rather is they feel that strongly enough that they would be ok if the Flames move

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

i think the poll could have suggested amounts or % of total construction budget...

ie how much would you think is a reasonable amount of public funds that ought to be spent to help the Flames with a new hockey arena?

$0
10M - 50M
51M - 100M
101M-200M

etc... % could easily be used as well... i think some of us see CalgaryNext as eye watering figures...some public contribution isn't unreasonable, just a question of how much imo

Sure but again that's not the question I was asking

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jammies

I can't believe the poll is framed as two choices: spend public money, keep the Flames; don't spend public money, lose the Flames. How about: spend as little public money as possible (preferably zero) while keeping the Flames? That's where my vote would go.

That question is just as loaded and pretty much certain to get most the votes.

[Sakic19]

(I didn't read the thread) The question is confusing. Are you asking if there are no public funds should the flames move to a different city or to a new arena in the city?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bingo

They way I see it they started the negotiation with the exact deal the Oilers got which is a pretty logical place to start in my mind.

Sure, and the City started their negotiation with a "LOL no thanks". For many of us, considering how awful these deals tend to be for the public, that's a pretty logical place to start too.

Originally Posted by Bingo

They way I see it they started the negotiation with the exact deal the Oilers got which is a pretty logical place to start in my mind.

That doesn't mean they are going to get it, but wouldn't you want and expect the same thing if you were an owner?

Ok, and now think about it from the other side. If you were the City, what is your incentive here?

If you're trying to run a cash-strapped city in the midst of a huge economic downturn, and are asked to contribute a massive amount of money that you know you'll never get back... how would you respond to a request by a group of billionaires with a half-assed plan and bad math?

Why even enter that "negotiation"? Where's the incentive? Perhaps if the Flames offered the City a cut of the ownership or profits or some semblance of getting their money back... you might call this negotiation. Until then, it's just extortion dressed up as civic boosterism.

[Thunderball]

Reality is, Calgary has pathetic sports facilities and is going to need ~$800m in facilities to catch up to Edmonton for pro and amateur sport and event facilities, let alone to surpass our mullet wielding friends in the north. Anyone thinking the public should pay nothing are kidding themselves. Anyone thinking the City/Province should pay it all are equally deluded. The reality is somewhere in between.

The Flames won't move, but lets face it, this is not Calgary circa 2006. This is a depressed Calgary with a lousy provincial government and is a much higher taxed place than it was in 2006, with no signs that we're getting back to the good ol' days any time soon... there are definitely equal or better markets now that will play ball (and no... Quebec is definitely not one of them) and we can't pretend that relocation is an idle threat.

At the end of the day I see it shaking down this way (after everyone puts their rulers away and gets to it):

New Arena: $400m (City portion $50-75m + using city loan facilities to get lower rates on ticket tax portion, Flames $325-350m ($175m + ticket tax))
McMahon Upgrade/Rebuild (including 1-2 years of temp stadium somewhere): $200m (City portion $140-150m, UofC $10-20m, Flames/Stamps: $30-50m (this is roughly in line with Winnipeg and Sask)
Fieldhouse/Mid-range UofC Soccer/Football/Track Facility: $200m (All public)

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

That wasn't my intent and I even acknowledged that I wasn't sure how to word it. If you have an alternate way of wording it that you feel is more balanced I'll repost it.
But to be clear the question I'm seeking answers on is not if people think public funding should be a part of the plan but rather is they feel that strongly enough that they would be ok if the Flames move

There needs to be more nuance to the answers, because it's too complex of an issue for such simple black and white options. As has been suggested, a staggered amount of funding, or even answers that speak to the type of funding would be more appropriate. Because just like I'd be fine with chipping in $1 in extra taxes if it kept the Flames, I'm sure you'd pass too if it meant you personally had to pay $10k.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Sure but again that's not the question I was asking

I think the tiered choices are a good idea. I would phrase the question as follows.

I would support up to X million dollars of public funds being used to fund an arena to prevent the flames from moving to a different market.

Then have your choices.

This is a significantly different question than I support x million dollars of public funds being used to fund the arena because it asks the person to assume that the flames will leave if they don't get x amount.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

But to be clear the question I'm seeking answers on is not if people think public funding should be a part of the plan but rather is they feel that strongly enough that they would be ok if the Flames move

But nobody can answer that question without knowing the amount of public funding that will be required to make a deal with the Flames.

Is it $20M? Or is it $900M?

If $20M worth of public funds would get the deal done, I'd imagine the poll would have 90%+ approval. If $900M in public funds was the number, I wouldn't be shocked to see approval below 20%.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

No

Oh, so there is a difference? So where do you draw the line on public funding?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by KingMoo

How many cities actually have purely Private stadiums? I think it's common knowledge to people living in major league sport team cities that they pay for a little of the stadium.

In Canada: Vancouver (Rogers Arena), Toronto (Air Canada Centre), Montreal (Bell Centre), Ottawa (Canadian Tire Centre).

MTS Centre was ~25 % public.
Saddledome was 100% public
Rogers Place was ~40% public

In the U.S: Madison Square Garden, TD Garden, StubHub Center, Wells Fargo Center, Staples Center, and the Pepsi Center were privately financed.

Some have property tax breaks and other perks, as well as associated costs with infrastructure and the like (TD Garden being on the public transit lines) but it seems like all the construction was privately financed.


Stadiums are a different story, StubHub is a rare place in that regard.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

i think the poll could have suggested amounts or % of total construction budget...

ie how much would you think is a reasonable amount of public funds that ought to be spent to help the Flames with a new hockey arena?

$0
10M - 50M
51M - 100M
101M-200M

etc... % could easily be used as well... i think some of us see CalgaryNext as eye watering figures...some public contribution isn't unreasonable, just a question of how much imo

I could wrap my head around up to $100m in Land/Cash/CRL if there was a demonstrated public benefit and return on investment. That seems reasonable on what will be a $450m-$500m project. I would also rather the CSEC retain ownership, not the City unless there was some revenue sharing.

[4X4]

What a terrible poll question. If I have to read it twice just to make sure I pick the answer I really mean, then it's not worth voting on.

Also, I thought this was the unofficial Flames messageboard. Questions like that really change the vibe.

Edit... I see the wording complaint has already been registered. Didn't mean to pile on, but it kinda deserves it, so whatever.