Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

Calgary4LIfe · 09-15-2017, 11:11 AM

I think what the issue with is that the Flames see the funding model that Nenshi released as 2/3 Flames and 1/3 City. Let's face it, the Flames are more than likely going to gouge us fans with increased pricing. Imposing a ticket tax above and beyond what the market dictates won't work, so of course the Flames will be 'eating' that ticket tax themselves.

Of course they are not going to come out in public and say as much. They of course do not want the fans to think at this point as to how much more the costs will be for tickets. I do think that is how the Flames are seeing this, and they are wanting the city to fund a larger portion of it.

As for the infrastructure costs, isn't this a normal thing for developers? Don't developers usually have to pay for access roads, utility connections and so on, as part of their costs of development? I can't imagine a new C-Train station going up that will provide direct access for the building will come cheap.

I think the way the deal is structured is fair from a tax payer standpoint (sort of - I still think that public dollars shouldn't be used to help a for-profit corporation), and at the end of the day I can probably guess that the Flames will be generating a lot of revenue here if the structure stays at "property tax being paid, but Flames get all revenues".

Really, what I find disgusting is that the Flames don't want to take a loss (in fact, seem fixated on making a good profit here) and are adamant that the city takes a net loss on their 'investment'.

As a tax payer, I FOR SURE want the City's 'investment' returned. How the Flames seem so set on ensuring that the city completely donate cash to help them make more money is beyond me. This is the sticking point to me here. Flames will make more money here on this deal, not to mention will have a substantially higher valuation in their net worth. To do so on the backs of the tax payers is what bothers me.

I don't care what the funding model looks like, as long as the city recoups the investment and interest on the 30 year (hopefully longer) term.

09-15-2017, 11:11 AM	#574
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	I think what the issue with is that the Flames see the funding model that Nenshi released as 2/3 Flames and 1/3 City. Let's face it, the Flames are more than likely going to gouge us fans with increased pricing. Imposing a ticket tax above and beyond what the market dictates won't work, so of course the Flames will be 'eating' that ticket tax themselves. Of course they are not going to come out in public and say as much. They of course do not want the fans to think at this point as to how much more the costs will be for tickets. I do think that is how the Flames are seeing this, and they are wanting the city to fund a larger portion of it. As for the infrastructure costs, isn't this a normal thing for developers? Don't developers usually have to pay for access roads, utility connections and so on, as part of their costs of development? I can't imagine a new C-Train station going up that will provide direct access for the building will come cheap. I think the way the deal is structured is fair from a tax payer standpoint (sort of - I still think that public dollars shouldn't be used to help a for-profit corporation), and at the end of the day I can probably guess that the Flames will be generating a lot of revenue here if the structure stays at "property tax being paid, but Flames get all revenues". Really, what I find disgusting is that the Flames don't want to take a loss (in fact, seem fixated on making a good profit here) and are adamant that the city takes a net loss on their 'investment'. As a tax payer, I FOR SURE want the City's 'investment' returned. How the Flames seem so set on ensuring that the city completely donate cash to help them make more money is beyond me. This is the sticking point to me here. Flames will make more money here on this deal, not to mention will have a substantially higher valuation in their net worth. To do so on the backs of the tax payers is what bothers me. I don't care what the funding model looks like, as long as the city recoups the investment and interest on the 30 year (hopefully longer) term.