[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I actually think that no public news is good news. That probably means the wheels are turning behind the scenes.

We've thought that for years...actually pretty close to a decade I think. And what did it get us? A CalgaryNEXT Proposal that looked like it was drawn up on MS Paint and someone's first day with PowerPoint.

[Bingo]

Really glad this got bumped

Looking forward to the snide polar remarks from both sides ... sigh

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really glad this got bumped

Looking forward to the snide polar remarks from both sides ... sigh

Stuff it, paste eating troll!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really glad this got bumped

Looking forward to the snide polar remarks from both sides ... sigh

Hey, dont get me wrong, I'm as shocked about it as anyone else. CSEC has always been tight-lipped but Professional and it would take a lot to change my take on that but we've seen it.

I have no idea what they're doing, but to me the logical step would be to engage a firm with experience in the construction of arenas and negotiations with the local council, give them your specifications and desires and then remove yourselves.

It seems to me that big egos on both sides seem to be the major obstacle at the moment.

CSEC is in the Sports Entertainment industry, not the arena building industry and at the moment its showing.

[getbak]

The problem with doing anything publicly right now is that it's so close to the election that Council is likely to kick it down the street for the next Council to deal with and the Flames likely don't want this to become a big issue during the campaign.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Do you think for a second that the NHL BOG is going to approve a move to relocate Calgary, a top 10-15 revenue generating team and a Canadian Dollar that is probably going to climb higher in the next few years, when you have bottom 30 franchises like Carolina or the Islanders who would jump at the chance to relocate to Seattle?

The NHL likes money and moving a team like Calgary would be very contrary to that philosophy, arena or not.

I thought the Flames received money from revenue sharing last season. The longer they go without a new arena the worse financially they will become. Plus it's probably no more than 50/50 that the CDN dollar will climb higher the next few years. Nobody really knows.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Locke

We've thought that for years...actually pretty close to a decade I think. And what did it get us? A CalgaryNEXT Proposal that looked like it was drawn up on MS Paint and someone's first day with PowerPoint.

While we haven't publicly seen any of the work being done, I kind of get the impression that there's been more tangible progress made in terms of getting an arena since this thing has gone public , than there was the previous half decade of the Flames "working behind the scenes". Even with the public sniping, I think the City (and especially CMLC, ie someone with actual development experience) being involved has been a positive to actually getting something done.

[JBR]

I have heard rumblings that the CMLC and Stampede are scheduled meet in late September to start hashing out the details of the land swap.

Mods feel free to PM to verify my source.

[Freeway]

Probably a good place to mention this (and please forgive the soft plug): I've put together a questionnaire for the mayoral candidates and sent it to the campaigns, with the goal of having a piece comparing the stances of the eight campaigns on the arena issue for FlamesNation. We'll see if everyone gets back to us, or even has a nuanced stance.

[Dr. Pepper]

http://deadspin.com/want-to-avoid-ge...o-s-1800657108

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pepper

http://deadspin.com/want-to-avoid-ge...o-s-1800657108

Interesting story. I read the article top to bottom and found the following statement a bit odd.

In coming weeks, the city council is set to decide between two plans for new or refurbished arenas, both of which would involve some public money, but in either case far, far less than the 75 percent that is typical of modern sports facility deals.Whatever happens, Seattle is not going to get royally hosed, and as things go these days, that’s a not insignificant accomplishment.

Are they planning on going ahead with a new or refurbished arena without a tenant? If that's the case how does that happen without significant public money?

[rage2]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Are they planning on going ahead with a new or refurbished arena without a tenant? If that's the case how does that happen without significant public money?

Both groups have deep ties to the NHL, so it won't be without a tenant for long. Hopefully, it won't be at our expense.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Probably a good place to mention this (and please forgive the soft plug): I've put together a questionnaire for the mayoral candidates and sent it to the campaigns, with the goal of having a piece comparing the stances of the eight campaigns on the arena issue for FlamesNation. We'll see if everyone gets back to us, or even has a nuanced stance.

Probably should have sent it to council candidates as well...

Ward 11 (Where I live... don't care to find out the position of the Wards where I can't vote):

Linda Johnson (Per Twitter)
Looking forward to having a conversation about a new arena. I'm more comfortable with a land use transfer, rather than public funds. If tax payers are going to saddle a portion of the investment risk, they need to be directly exposed to the upside.I'll have a more detailed explanation of my stance on my web site in the near future.

Robert Dickinson (Per Reddit)
When it comes to public dollars (taxes, other city revenue), I believe that investment of public dollars should provide public benefit. We need to see a return on the investment in some way. At this stage without being privy to the discussions and options before Council related to funding methods, land needs or other topics it is challenging to have a really detailed position on investing into an arena. I think the Flames are good for our City and a new space is needed, but the deal needs to make sense for the City as a whole.
I feel that the arena in Victoria Park, logistically makes the most sense and investing in that area would stimulate growth and provide economic benefits to businesses beyond just the Flames. I struggle with the idea of providing direct funding to sports teams, as I don't feel that in most situations public dollars should subsidize private business. That said, when you look at the big picture,the Flames provide value to our community. I think our city is better off having them as part of it. How they are supported is the big question and I would be more inclined, with limited information before me, to support them with a land deal that ultimately benefits growth in the Victoria Park area. Again, I need to have a better idea of what the Flames organization is looking for in terms of assistance, and then would need to determine if there is a good business case to support that. I think there is potential, if we make the right deal, to have a great new facility and revitalize an area which would benefit residents, local businesses and tourism.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Interesting story. I read the article top to bottom and found the following statement a bit odd.



Are they planning on going ahead with a new or refurbished arena without a tenant? If that's the case how does that happen without significant public money?

I think the proposal is from a private firm/owner who would then seek to bring a NBA team to Seattle.

[Reneeee]

Does anybody think we hear anything about arena negotiations this Monday at the last city council before the election or are we now into post election territory?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Does anybody think we hear anything about arena negotiations this Monday at the last city council before the election or are we now into post election territory?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Not necessarily related to Monday's meeting, but I bet we see things heat up very soon.

[getbak]

Here's something I noticed at the Garth Brooks concert (not my photo, I found it on Twitter)...

Spoiler!

None of the lighting/speakers/video screens were attached to the building itself. Everything was hanging under this large rigging setup around the stage. There were four large metal poles at the corners of the stage with a huge lighting grid between them up top.

As far as I can tell, this setup hasn't been used in other buildings where Garth has played on this tour (here's a photo of the stage in Edmonton: http://thebexfactor-28b0.kxcdn.com/w...tput_5d5e.jpeg), nor has it been used for any previous concerts at the Dome.


I wonder if this was a one-off setup just for the Garth shows, or if this is a longer term solution for the roof-load problem that caused them to cancel that concert earlier this year?

[GGG]

At the concert Garth made a comment amount needing to get the hangers designed and that was why it took him longer to get here.

Not sure who would own it but if it isn't something that is used elsewhere it would be a useful piece of kit for the saddledome to own.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by GGG

At the concert Garth made a comment amount needing to get the hangers designed and that was why it took him longer to get here.

Not sure who would own it but if it isn't something that is used elsewhere it would be a useful piece of kit for the saddledome to own.

It could also be Garth's new outdoor stage apparatus.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

It could also be Garth's new outdoor stage apparatus.

That's what I thought at first, but the only outdoor shows he's played on this tour were at Yankee Stadium and he had a completely different stage setup there.

Spoiler!