[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Aren't the Chargers & Rams playing in a privately financed stadium though?
I believe the stadium being built in Vegas will be paid by the taxpayer, but IIRC, it will also be owned by the state, not by the Raiders' owner.

I don't follow the NFL very closely though, so perhaps I'm off here.



There is not an available market in North America where these owners could make as much money as they are/will in Calgary. As well, when the league has teams that are still losing millions annually, I don't believe they'll allow the owners of one of their most profitable teams to relocate to a lesser market.

Correct on every front here. Especially the moving part. Moving or selling the team to someone who will move the team will cost the Flames owners millions anyway.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So here's the obvious question: If Calgary builds a new arena, and it still gets skipped for Edmonton more often than not, then what? People are acting like a new arena is the silver bullet, that Calgary will never get skipped again, and in fact bands will start skipping Edmonton for Calgary. It's been discussed in the concert thread, but Edmonton promoters are apparently much easier to work with than Calgary ones. There's a lot more to bands skipping Calgary than just the building. Quite a bit more actually. So when the new building doesn't change that, then what?

It WILL change with a new building...I am not saying there will never be another act to skip Calgary. (scheduling ect.)

I know for a FACT that acts are skipping the dome because of the restrictions of the roof. With a new building Calgary will have more "big draw" events that will bring money into the economy...its a fact

did you miss the latest country star (name escapes me) that had to do an acoustic set last week because they were worried his sound system would pull down the roof? lol


We can debate who pays for the thing, there is no debate that a new building would bring more arts and entertainment to the city

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

Not sure about that... you're saying that a team that has been losing boatloads of money will think they best way to stem that will be to move to a location where they can spend hundreds of millions more to build an arena so they can start making money back?

Besides, maybe it's just me, but doesn't the arena have to exist already before the NHL OKs the move? Someone would have to build the arena before they get a team, and they buy/move someone else.

Just not as simple as some people make it out to be.

Either way, I still don't think the Flames are moving anywhere.

Agreed, it's an empty threat IMO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Torture

Agreed, it's an empty threat IMO.

Have the Flames even said anything about moving?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by dino7c

It WILL change with a new building...I am not saying there will never be another act to skip Calgary. (scheduling ect.)

I know for a FACT that acts are skipping the dome because of the restrictions of the roof. With a new building Calgary will have more "big draw" events that will bring money into the economy...its a fact

did you miss the latest country star (name escapes me) that had to do an acoustic set last week because they were worried his sound system would pull down the roof? lol


We can debate who pays for the thing, there is no debate that a new building would bring more arts and entertainment to the city

Well you used you word fact, so go ahead and post all your factual, non-anecdotal evidence. The roof argument is bizarre, he, you know, booked to play here, so the roof didn't prevent him from coming. The snow simply prevented the show. So that wasn't a good example.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

Not sure about that... you're saying that a team that has been losing boatloads of money will think they best way to stem that will be to move to a location where they can spend hundreds of millions more to build an arena so they can start making money back?

You're assuming that the owners in said losing market will move along with the team. An ownership group losing money will cut their losses and an ownership group that sees it being worth the investment to do so buys it on their own dime. Like Winnipeg.

Besides, maybe it's just me, but doesn't the arena have to exist already before the NHL OKs the move? Someone would have to build the arena before they get a team, and they buy/move someone else.

Yes. Like Winnipeg.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by dino7c

It WILL change with a new building...I am not saying there will never be another act to skip Calgary. (scheduling ect.)

I know for a FACT that acts are skipping the dome because of the restrictions of the roof. With a new building Calgary will have more "big draw" events that will bring money into the economy...its a fact

did you miss the latest country star (name escapes me) that had to do an acoustic set last week because they were worried his sound system would pull down the roof? lol


We can debate who pays for the thing, there is no debate that a new building would bring more arts and entertainment to the city

Eric Church.
From what I understand, part of the issue with his show in particular was the snow load on the roof. I would imagine that when a tour is booking venues, they check venue restrictions beforehand, so had we not had all that snow, it wouldn't have been a problem.
Your point still stands though. I've definitely heard it cited many times that we miss concerts due to the Dome's structure.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well you used you word fact, so go ahead and post all your factual, non-anecdotal evidence. The roof argument is bizarre, he, you know, booked to play here, so the roof didn't prevent him from coming. The snow simply prevented the show. So that wasn't a good example.

No he gave a scaled back show due to the roof and the fact it snowed (in Calgary what are the chances lol)

IT IS A FACT that acts are skipping Calgary due to the roof of the dome

In the past 3 years

Maroon 5, Paul McCartney, Madonna, Metallica, AC/DC, Roger Waters, Justin Timberlake, Jonas Brothers, Britney Spears, Pink, Drake...I'm sure there are more

have all skipped the dome citing issues with their equipment and the roof

again who pays for it is up for debate, Calgary losing events due to the dome is not up for debate

how many examples do you need...sheeeeeeeit

[CorbeauNoir]

I think there's more to it than just the roof, for the simple fact that smaller acts that aren't playing arena-sized venues where the condition of the Saddledome is irrelevant are also snubbing Calgary the same way. I don't know what kind of magic the Sled Island organizers have to conjure up to bring in the acts that they do, but the other 360 days of the year really feel dire compared to the touring acts other cities of similar size can draw in. I can't stand these big arena-sized concerts and haven't been one to years, but the pinch as far as touring music goes definitely is felt beyond that scale of show.

And it's the same story going the other way with massive stadium-scale shows not performing in MacMahon the way they will in Commonwealth or at BC Place. No doubt the Saddledome roof plays a role but something about the organizers or the bylaws (or christ forbid the politics...) is handicapping Calgary's ability to draw in acts in a more fundamental way than just a quirk of one venue.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Have the Flames even said anything about moving?

Of course not, however listen carefully to Gary Bettman from his interviews

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...gary-1.4026931


"Bettman called building a new arena "vitally important.""

"People are going to have to decide what's it worth, what do they want, what's the quality of life in Calgary going to be without a new arena," he said.

"I'm hopeful the city and Flames can be on the same page so this can move forward as quickly as possible," he said.

"I think everybody knows a new arena is important on a whole host of levels for a whole host of reasons."

[Bear]

Originally Posted by polak

No, they're down because there's too much supply with more supply coming online as technology advances.



They'll keep playing in the Dome until they no longer can instead of selling either the team or their assets.

Deny it all you want, I seriously doubt these guys want to be more invested in this oil economy than they already are. Hence why they're requesting that the government eats some of the risk as well.

Crazy notion.

I haven't been following this thread so apologies if I'm missing your point Polak...

Is your concern that the flames ownership group don't want any more exposure to the economy in Calgary / Alberta and this will hinder the development of the new arena?

Does that not conflict with the move by Murray Edwards / CNRL last week? Looking at his portfolio it appears Edwards is all in on the future of Alberta. While the rest of the energy sector is taking the diversification route Edwards seems content to take on as much exposure to the local market as possible. The new stadium in Calgary will cost the ownership group a fraction of the outlay on the Shell Assets purchased last week.

While I personally thought the CalgaryNext project wasn't presented as professionally and slickly as it could have been we have to accept that there is a large amount of posturing from all stakeholders right now. One thing I'm not concerned with is the commitment of our ownership group to the local area and economy.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

I think there's more to it than just the roof, for the simple fact that smaller acts that aren't playing arena-sized venues where the condition of the Saddledome is irrelevant are also snubbing Calgary the same way. I don't know what kind of magic the Sled Island organizers have to conjure up to bring in the acts that they do, but the other 360 days of the year really feel dire compared to the touring acts other cities of similar size can draw in. I can't stand these big arena-sized concerts and haven't been one to years, but the pinch as far as touring music goes definitely is felt beyond that scale of show.

And it's the same story going the other way with massive stadium-scale shows not performing in MacMahon the way they will in Commonwealth or at BC Place. No doubt the Saddledome roof plays a role but something about the organizers or the bylaws (or christ forbid the politics...) is handicapping Calgary's ability to draw in acts in a more fundamental way than just a quirk of one venue.

That may be all true, but the laundry list of bands I posted all skipped Calgary citing concerns with the roof capacity of the dome

Metallica for example played a scaled down show for the death magnetic tour, skipped Calgary the next arena tour and only did Edmonton

They don't want to adjust their entire stage show for one stop...

again I am not saying every act that skips Calgary is because of the roof, but there are many examples

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

Also as an FYI, the provincial government already committed funding to Rogers Arena. So technically, some of our tax dollars helped build that arena. I think it’s only fair we make them do the same for us when the time comes lol

I don't think that's correct.
If you have a link to anything that shows the PC government diverted funds over and above what the city was already going to receive, specifically to build the arena, I would love to see it.

I believe the provincial government didn't give Edmonton money to help build an arena.
Edmonton directed funds from the provincial government towards the arena. big difference.

If the city didn't choose to do that, maybe some of the crappy roads could have been fixed or some other infrastructure use.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Second team in Toronto, Hamilton, Other golden horse shoe locations. These never get off the ground.

What are you talking about in Quebec City? They have a brand new 18,500 seat stadium that has been waiting for a tenant since they put the shovels in the ground. They would easily have corporate support, and on top of that, the Quebec City franchise would get a level of Provincial Government support that doesn't exist in Alberta and most teams would be envious of.

The NHL thinks so little of more NHL teams in Canada that they didn't even consider Quebec City for expansion when Quebec would have handed them a blank cheque. Not sure how people here think that they'd be willing to move a franchise to Calgary when they don't have a rink, the dollar hovering around 70 cents with no signs of receovery, and the local economy is the toilet and is based even in good times on a form of energy that world is trying to shift away from.

This team isn't going to relocate, but we'd be screwed if they ever did.

The NHL considered a bid. It was deferred not rejected and there are rumours that Quebecor was going to have difficulty in accessing the capital required to pay the expansion fees anyways. This #### doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is an entire business and 30 existing franchises to consider. Is the NHL going to add another Eastern team and force Detroit and/or Columbus back into the west? Those owners would love that.

QC is the perfect relocation destination for one of the struggling east teams and if the expansion fees were an issue, the lower re-location fee would be a lot more palatable for Quebecor and the NHL would not have to set the precedent of tiered expansion fees.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by dino7c

No he gave a scaled back show due to the roof and the fact it snowed (in Calgary what are the chances lol)

IT IS A FACT that acts are skipping Calgary due to the roof of the dome

In the past 3 years

Maroon 5, Paul McCartney, Madonna, Metallica, AC/DC, Roger Waters, Justin Timberlake, Jonas Brothers, Britney Spears, Pink, Drake...I'm sure there are more

have all skipped the dome citing issues with their equipment and the roof

again who pays for it is up for debate, Calgary losing events due to the dome is not up for debate

how many examples do you need...sheeeeeeeit

Keep naming examples of bands, all you want. It doesn't justify the city spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars on the venue.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by polak

Deny it all you want, I seriously doubt these guys want to be more invested in this oil economy than they already are. Hence why they're requesting that the government eats some of the risk as well.

Mar 9, 2017
http://www.bnn.ca/he-doesn-t-follow-...sands-1.692535

Murray Edwards takes CNRL deeper into the oil sands

[polak]

Even more reason he wouldn't want to invest in Calgary real estate

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

I think that has a large part to do with the whole situation. From the league and owner point of view, if Edmonton can do it, why can't Calgary? Most of the important economic, political and social externalities are very similar for both cities. They set a pretty strong precedent for a municipally funded arena.

Also as an FYI, the provincial government already committed funding to Rogers Arena. So technically, some of our tax dollars helped build that arena. I think it’s only fair we make them do the same for us when the time comes lol

The Province gave no money to Rogers Arena. The City of Edmonton covered that shortfall.

I think comparing the relevant factors between edmonton and calgary, it shows that Edmonton was far more desperate for a new arena.

Rexall was out of downtown. Edmonton's downtown is weak, with little exonomic and social activity. They were desperate to revitalize the area and Katz offered to spend millions on the surrounding area (the stuff that actually makes money)

Calgary doesn't have this issue.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Maybe it's that I haven't slept in 4 days, but I'm failing to see why the city can't contribute a percentage of the building cost and then recoup that as as percentage of revenues from the building until the original payment is repaid.

IE: Arena costs $800million, city pays $200million. That's 25%.

Have an independent auditor check the books and assess fair market value for rent to the Flames, Hitmen, Roughnecks combined with any private rentals (concerts, conventions, etc) then take either 25% of profits of the year or something like 10% of revenues and repay the city until the $200million is repaid. Economic spinoff would equate payment of interest not payment of interest and principle.

Billionaires get their new arena, city gets repaid, economy gets a boost, everyone wins.

I don't think sports owners have ever made this type of arrangement and i think they want to keep it that way. They would be setting a revenue sharing precedent that other cities would try to copy. They would be forced to open their books for public scrutiny. They would have to make up that shortfall with the league who takes a percentage of certain profits.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Keep naming examples of bands, all you want. It doesn't justify the city spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars on the venue.

The fact of the matter is, the City of Calgary needs an Arena whether they have an NHL team or not. The Flames could leave town, the NHL could dissolve, and that wouldn't change the fact that Calgary needs a new arena. One of these times here something is going to happen at that rink that can't be fixed by some patch job. What are we going to do than? There's 1.3M in this City, a venue is needed. I'm not saying the City/Province should pick up the tab, but they are damn lucky to have a tenant like the Flames and ability to share costs when a new venue is constructed.

I tell you one thing, the fact that 11 cm of snow over a few days span made the Saddledome Roof unacceptable for a pretty light stage setup, kind of freaks me out. How much longer does this building have left if that's the case?