CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by herashak

look at hamilton to see roughly what 150 million gets you for a stadium.

So something perfect for the CFL?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You have 13 more posts in this thread than I do.

Touché. I'm impressed you were willing to put that work in. My comment still stands though as you have beaten the horse to death.

[nik-]

Some people still buy the sales pitch on the economic benefits that an arena brings to a city, so there's meat on that horse yet!

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by karl262

If season ticket prices rise to where they are in Edmonton then I don't want a new arena. I'm assuming that the 200 mil the Flames are putting up will be paid for by borrowing against future revenues generated by a 30% price increase.

I love the saddledome!

I don't think it's really a question of "if" the prices might rise to the level of Edmonton's...

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

Some people still buy the sales pitch on the economic benefits that an arena brings to a city, so there's meat on that horse yet!

I'm all for CalgaryNEXT. Don't care about the same economic benefits debate. Flames and Stampeders have been a big part of my life since I've been a kid. Bigger than any other Calgary institute by a long shot and I expect there are thousands in this city that have lived here most of their life that feel the same way. I'm now in my 40's and have never seen them play a game in Calgary that wasn't in the Dome or McMahon. It's time for new facilities in Calgary.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm all for CalgaryNEXT. Don't care about the same economic benefits debate.

That's an easier position to take when you don't live here and have to face financial consequences.

Assuming you still live in CA and haven't moved back.

[nik-]

I agree they could use new facilities. I'll never agree to the practice of leveraging civic pride to get a massive handout so they can make even more money.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by nik-

I agree they could use new facilities. I'll never agree to the practice of leveraging civic pride to get a massive handout so they can make even more money.

this is pretty much my position to a tee. You want us to chip in? Give us a working interest in your business to share in the risk and reward. Don't just ask for money and expect people to deliver it to your house and deliver it with a smile. It's the lunacy of the appeal to emotion and apparent entitlement.

You stand to make an absolutely obscene amount of money on franchise valuation? You're already a billionaire and this is all basically a game for you? You can pay for your toy then. Or at the very least, the lion's share.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Touché. I'm impressed you were willing to put that work in. My comment still stands though as you have beaten the horse to death.

It takes literally 15 seconds to find out. He put in as much effort as Ken King did the first CalgaryNEXT presentation.

[Tinordi]

Is a new facility contingent on public money? I don't think it is. Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto arenas were all privately financed. The strategy for the Calgary tax payer is to just stare the Flames down. I don't think people understand who has the upper hand in negotiations here. The Flames need Calgary a lot more than Calgary needs the Flames. So if you understand that you just sit and wait and sweat the owners out until they come with reasonable offers. Choosing not to waste money on a new arena is a political winner. Wasting hundreds of millions so Estrada can watch a game in a brand new cathedral is a political loser.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm all for CalgaryNEXT. Don't care about the same economic benefits debate. Flames and Stampeders have been a big part of my life since I've been a kid. Bigger than any other Calgary institute by a long shot and I expect there are thousands in this city that have lived here most of their life that feel the same way. I'm now in my 40's and have never seen them play a game in Calgary that wasn't in the Dome or McMahon. It's time for new facilities in Calgary.

God forbid a building in North America ever lasts more than 40 years...

[TheScorpion]

The Flames have been in Calgary for 36 years now. I guess it's coming time to move to a new place, since nothing can exist in its current location for over 40 years.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Table 5

That's an easier position to take when you don't live here and have to face financial consequences.

Assuming you still live in CA and haven't moved back.

Well I mean to be fair a lot of the most vocal opponents on this board don't even live in Alberta, nevermind being actual City of Calgary municipal tax payers.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Not trying to mix hockey and politics, but where have all the Keynesians gone?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Well I mean to be fair a lot of the most vocal opponents on this board don't even live in Alberta, nevermind being actual City of Calgary municipal tax payers.

That is quite the assumption

[DiracSpike]

Not really, I've seen their posts talking about living in BC and elsewhere

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Not really, I've seen their posts talking about living in BC and elsewhere

Damn foreigners. Probably aren't even hockey fans...

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Is a new facility contingent on public money? I don't think it is. Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto arenas were all privately financed. The strategy for the Calgary tax payer is to just stare the Flames down. I don't think people understand who has the upper hand in negotiations here. The Flames need Calgary a lot more than Calgary needs the Flames. So if you understand that you just sit and wait and sweat the owners out until they come with reasonable offers. Choosing not to waste money on a new arena is a political winner. Wasting hundreds of millions so Estrada can watch a game in a brand new cathedral is a political loser.

There have been arenas built privately. However, no CFL stadiums to my knowledge, which was part of this deal.

Also, Montreal was private, but ended up being sold at a $170M loss. Ottawa was sold at $145 loss. Vancouver was sold for a $90M loss. Toronto is the only successful one.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Architectual cache, drawing professional games (Grey cup, world cup, soccer exhibitions), drawing concerts, providing jobs, being a site for recreational sports...lots of reasons.

The potential stadium would be used for a lot more than just 10 or so stamps games. I play touch football games at Mcmahon, I imagine a new indoor stadium would host adult league football and soccer games throughout the year. There's a civic benefit to that, and you don't have to compromise with the goofy retractable seating, fixed seating would be just fine.

People don't want public dollars flowing to this...fine. But don't act like it would be a white elephant with zero use. I believe the statement that stadiums aren't a net revenue generator but you'd have to point me to any city project that is. That's not the point of Government spending.

A couple of things:

Architectual cache - I find this kind of funny since the most iconic piece of architecture in this city is a pedestrian bridge that, to that point, had been the most controversial piece of government spending in the history of Calgary.

Rec Leagues - McMahon is fine for that, there is simply no need to upgrade to a new stadium so old men can play flag football.

Government Spending - Agreed, but I can assure you that the point of government spending isn't to make an already profitable private business MORE profitable at the expense of taxpayers.


My solution? Build the fieldhouse as planned.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Not trying to mix hockey and politics, but where have all the Keynesians gone?

They're all still around, but they have nothing to add to this discussion besides that it's a bad idea.