A new arena is a certainty, sooner or later (3 yrs or 20). While a lot of people like to characterize hosting 2026 as a certainty, there are a lot of variables that could torpedo it. My read is that the initial bid design is being done with this in mind to avoid compromising leverage related to the certain negotiation of an arena.
Scenario 1. If a bid is won and approved without explicitly stating a new arena (though I have little doubt that it has been channelled to IOC that it will be built), then the Flames could lose some leverage ("the Dome is good enough for the IOC, who are known to be sooooooo particular, why isn't it good enough for the Flames?").
Scenario 2. If the bid is unsuccessful, the negotiation positions are largely unchanged.
Including the arena at this point simply throws away all leverage. The Flames can't have it both ways - sitting on the sidelines/not taking any initiative completely undermines their assertions that a new arena is critical to their long term sustainability. King can't moan about not being included in the process, because the ball was already put back in his court. I am sure they would have been welcomed to participate (but not explicitly invited), but they chose to maintain radio silence.
If the Flames are seeking a Katz type of deal to develop the surrounding area (which I'm not 100% is true), they would have had much better luck if they stepped up with their own proposal for the Vic Park arena that killed two birds with one stone (ie. satisfied some requirements for an Olympic bid, such as housing). As it stands now, it is more likely that CMLC will be in the driver's seat, and CSEC has no one to blame but themselves for being passengers.
|