CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

hahaha,

There are less registered posters on this board than it would take to fill the dome.

If there were 3 times as many readers as posters, you'd be talking roughly 50 000 people out of Calgary's population.

Yep and just a small fragment of the overall fanbase.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yep and just a small fragment of the overall fanbase.

Right, but not all of us are even from Calgary and would neither benefit or disadvantage from an arena

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by RM14

I would imagine a field house within a $800 million dollar facility will have access to much greater resources, personnel and amenities.

$200M towards a stand alone field house would be very much less awesome to play/train in by the general public and amateur atheltes.

I have such a hard time buying this. When I think of amateur athletes, I think of Jr high, and high school elite athletes who practice or train several days a week. As a parent, I would think that putting that training in the middle of a giant arena/stadium/field house would be about the least awesome thing I could imagine. Not to mention that you are driving through rush hour to get your kid to and from downtown after school. You get there, navigate to a distant parking spot, and walk 20 minutes to get into your training area. Your 1.5 hour training sessions all of a sudden take 3 hours of your evening.

Most well run pro/college sports around here build a kick ass practice facility off site so they don't have to deal with all the going-ons of their stadiums/arenas.

A much cooler thing of the Flames/Stamps to do would to be to build a big multi-use field house/training/practice area somewhere off site that is more convenient to families in exchange the city financing their stadium.

[upperloge77]

Originally Posted by rayne008

I've wondered before if they could combine a stadium with the track, and make the football field the rodeo grounds for stampede week? Have the chucks finish line right at the 50 yard line. Pretty far fetched, but would see the area used more. Plus then you could have some mother big outdoor concerts.

The rodeo infield should technically fit within the confines of a CFL field. You'd basically have to wrap one end of the track on the backside of the other set of bleachers, and both endzones would need to be entirely free and clear. On one hand, decent, as all seats would be within the field of play (no crappy endzone seats), but you'd only ever see half the race. Then again, it's not like you can really see the .25-.75 parts of race very well anyway, that's what big honking huge video boards are for (although with those usually in the endzone, you'd need to have that elevated....maybe a +15 type system that links the 2 grandstands and allows the Chucks to pass underneath).

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I have such a hard time buying this. When I think of amateur athletes, I think of Jr high, and high school elite athletes who practice or train several days a week. As a parent, I would think that putting that training in the middle of a giant arena/stadium/field house would be about the least awesome thing I could imagine. Not to mention that you are driving through rush hour to get your kid to and from downtown after school. You get there, navigate to a distant parking spot, and walk 20 minutes to get into your training area. Your 1.5 hour training sessions all of a sudden take 3 hours of your evening.

Most well run pro/college sports around here build a kick ass practice facility off site so they don't have to deal with all the going-ons of their stadiums/arenas.

A much cooler thing of the Flames/Stamps to do would to be to build a big multi-use field house/training/practice area somewhere off site that is more convenient to families in exchange the city financing their stadium.

This nails is. The Flames are taking advantage of us.

Ohhh we have a grey cup to plan - sorry, all the amateur sports need to be cancelled for a couple months.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Sorry.

total cost of the project is $890,000,000.

So why do they need 890 million?

$200M is from the Flames themselves, so they want the city to take on $690M, $200M of which has no plans for reimbursment (because it is for the fieldhouse).

They need the rest because they want the city to hold the risk on the money coming from a CRL that won't be funded to cover it, and the money from the ticket tax because not having to hold that loan themselves means they can start making a profit sooner while the city hopes the ticket surcharge generates enough to cover the loan each year.

This also doesn't include costs associated with cleaning up the site (which is what the CRL should be paying for, ala East Village, instead of funding construction).

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

$200M is from the Flames themselves, so they want the city to take on $690M, $200M of which has no plans for reimbursment (because it is for the fieldhouse).

They need the rest because they want the city to hold the risk on the money coming from a CRL that won't be funded to cover it, and the money from the ticket tax because not having to hold that loan themselves means they can start making a profit sooner while the city hopes the ticket surcharge generates enough to cover the loan each year.

This also doesn't include costs associated with cleaning up the site (which is what the CRL should be paying for, ala East Village, instead of funding construction).

Flames ownership's proposed contribution is $450M. Public contribution would be $440M. Not sure why you would assume that the ticket surcharge necessarily involves the City.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Flames ownership's proposed contribution is $450M. Public contribution would be $440M. Not sure why you would assume that the ticket surcharge necessarily involves the City.

Who do you think will be on the hook if a ticket surcharge fails to pay for the "owners" additional 250 million or if the Flames pull a st.Louis Rams and decide in 15 years they still can't "stay competitive" in a Calgary Market?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Flames ownership's proposed contribution is $450M. Public contribution would be $440M. Not sure why you would assume that the ticket surcharge necessarily involves the City.

Because that is generally how funding models hide public risk as private investment, because why would a team need to charge a ticket tax on their own project when they collect all the ticket money anyway?

The government helps out because they can get a better loan rate and need something they can back it against that is easily accounted for (ticket charge x tickets sold is easy) but because it paid for by users you can call it a privately contributed fund because it is meant to only be paid for by the specific users and not the general public, even though the general public is who is holding the risk.

So why do I assume? Because that is generally the way they have always worked.

[Enoch Root]

So which is it?

Are the Flames at risk of leaving or aren't they?

So many of you argue that the Flames would never leave. Then the moment the conversation turns to the ticket tax, you lament that it is a huge risk for the city, especially since the Flames could leave.

I will concede to you that the threat of the Flames leaving is zero. That being the case, the risk of the ticket tax becoming a burden for the city is also pretty much zero.

[TheScorpion]

The Flames certainly aren't leaving. We managed to save the Flames in the late '90s when our stars were Rene Corbet and Cory Stillman - we can save them now.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The Flames certainly aren't leaving. We managed to save the Flames in the late '90s when our stars were Rene Corbet and Cory Stillman - we can save them now.

God damn it!!! It's René Corbet!!! Get it right!

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So which is it?

Are the Flames at risk of leaving or aren't they?

So many of you argue that the Flames would never leave. Then the moment the conversation turns to the ticket tax, you lament that it is a huge risk for the city, especially since the Flames could leave.

I will concede to you that the threat of the Flames leaving is zero. That being the case, the risk of the ticket tax becoming a burden for the city is also pretty much zero.

The Flames are not leaving. I was just taking a shot at all those suggesting they would if we didn't buy them their shiny new billion dollar arena/stadium. It's ridiculous either way but if you can use it to argue for, I thought i'd use it to argue against. Goose meet Gander?

[JohnnyT]

Have a buddy that at the roughnecks game that says there's pipes above the concourse leaking down at and at one point it was a steady stream of water. He works in the concourse during Flames games and says that this happens probably once every other week

They have garbage cans out to collect the water... http://imgur.com/a/p3Gdg

[powderjunkie]

Do we want the city to be on the hook for long term maintenance costs too?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Do we want the city to be on the hook for long term maintenance costs too?

I'd like to think even in a less than ideal 'city owned arena' situation the arena management deal the Flames have would mean they're on the hook for maintenance costs, just like now.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I'd like to think even in a less than ideal 'city owned arena' situation the arena management deal the Flames have would mean they're on the hook for maintenance costs, just like now.

That's a double edged sword. The agreement would have to factor in some variables.

What if the Flames do a poor job with the maintenance, don't spend the money, then we see the pipes are leaking and the Flames say "look, our arena is falling apart!" we need a new one!

It has worked before: http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/0...-replaced-yet/

[Otto-matic]

doug vaessen ‏@dougvaessen 40m40 minutes ago
#yyc #stampede #east village. CMLC to help Calgary Exhibition and Stampede to develop new projects

doug vaessen ‏@dougvaessen 22m22 minutes ago
#yyc #stampede #eastvillage. Does new agreement for stampede development open doors on option for new arena? #flames

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Because that is generally how funding models hide public risk as private investment, because why would a team need to charge a ticket tax on their own project when they collect all the ticket money anyway?

The government helps out because they can get a better loan rate and need something they can back it against that is easily accounted for (ticket charge x tickets sold is easy) but because it paid for by users you can call it a privately contributed fund because it is meant to only be paid for by the specific users and not the general public, even though the general public is who is holding the risk.

A big reason for having a Ticket Tax, as opposed to the Flames simply increasing prices and contributing more funds, is that it is advantageous to the users of the building to pay the Ticket Tax rather than an increased ticket price. The reason is that ticket prices are revenue that the Flames would be taxed on and would constitute Hockey Related Revenue that is shareable with the NHLPA (roughly 50-50). So for every one dollar of ticket increase the user pays, probably around $.30 - $.40 would go towards towards the arena cost, which means the Flames would have to increase ticket prices by over twice as much as the ticket tax will be. With the Ticket Tax each dollar goes solely towards the cost of the arena.

[hockey.modern]

Where exactly is the boundaries for the Stampede? 12 St SE to Macleod Trail SE?

Let's hope they create a proposal for an arena that creates competition with CalgaryNEXT.