[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Darkknight]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

you keep saying the provincial government gave Edmonton a pile of money towards the arena, but that isn't true. they did give 7 million for the community rink, but that's about it.

here's the agreement with all the attached documents.

https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...agreement.aspx

while the oilers may have bent over the city, I don't see provincial funding. I do see where Edmonton may is directing money the CRL, but that's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

So I do agree with you that Calgary should get as much money as Edmonton did from the provincial and federal government towards the building of a new arena.

So looking at that breakdown of the funding the Oilers received, how on earth can anyone be upset that the flames are also seeking public funds? Why should that joke of a franchise receive what they did, while the Flames are expected to foot the entire bill? While I do agree that the city of Edmonton got bent over in that deal, it doesn't make it any easier a pill to swallow for CSEC to have Nenshi tell them that the City is not interested in making a deal work.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Are folks OK losing the Flames over the building issue? That is - if the owners don't think they can get a good deal here and choose to go elsewhere where they can get public support - are folks OK with that?

It was quoted in the thread earlier how one of the flames' owners just recently bought something to the tune of 8.5 billion dollars in assets from Shell. These are people gambling hard on Calgary's economy even in tough times, knowing full well that more disposable income means more of it will inevitably get directed back into the sports/entertainment network they also own. How does it benefit them severing the keystone of that whole network by moving it?

Where will they even move to? They can't go anywhere east, Seattle will likely be an expansion or Phoenix relocation candidate (if they can even get their own arena issues sorted out) , Vegas is claimed, Phoenix is salted earth if the coyotes move, KC and Houston aren't interested, Portland is setting their price tag too cheap. There's no option that realistically makes up for the long term investment they've already put in relying explicitly upon CALGARY as a market. They're bluffing with nothing to really enforce it.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

First of all what BS? Seriously I want to know. The Flames are looking at what Edmonton did and what the province did for the Oilers in Edmonton which was to pretty well fully fund that rink and saying, hey in the province of Alberta that's the deal that was made.

I think the Flames are also savvy enough to know that they're not going to get that. But going from a fully paid rink to a screw you pay for it yourself is frankly going to convince the owners to go elsewhere, its that simple, they're not stupid at all, and they know by looking at it scientifically that fully privatized buildings will leak money, whereas the hybrid models of public and private money stand a better chance of being positive for both sides.

Frankly what you want is irrelevant to be honest based on what you said, because clearly the dome is not adequate in the NHL, and not adequate for the long term survival of the NHL in Calgary, and at some point as they can't upgrade the dome and replacing the ice plant for example and moving into the future information age in the dome we have to ask the question. Is Calgary an NHL city at that point, because if the city isn't willing to give some percentage of public funding like the majority of other major league cities, then it won't be a NHL city.

Because the Dome isn't anywhere near a long term home for the Flames and its not about shiny.

And frankly if the city is adamant on no public funding, then this whole exercise is done. Get the mayor to stand up and say, absolutely no public funding, no bond issues will happen, and have the province say the same thing , get it out and get it clear so the Flames can stop negotiating and make up their mind on what they're going to do, because I tend to think that the idea of a 100% privately building is going to be a non starter.

And then we can get to the business of converting to Oiler fans if we want to follow an Alberta NHL team, and maybe we can get a nice AHL team or ECHL team to play out of the come.

But sitting here and saying, well the dome is good enough for you is a showing a massive misunderstanding of the business and future business of the NHL.

Like I've said before, I'm not a public funding guy. That deal in Edmonton was ridiculous. But I'm also a realist in that the Flames owners won't sole fund a building and the Flames will eventually leave if the City doesn't provide any incentive to stay.

That's just simple business.

Okay, so let's say CalgaryNEXT is dead forever, and the city also refuses to pay a dime on Plan B.

Do you think the Flames will actually pick up and move if they don't get a new building? I don't. I don't for a second think there is a city out there where the Flames can bail to today and make more money than they are now. So they can puff their chest and threaten to leave, but I really don't see them pulling the trigger. That, to me, is the BS.

So then the question is the long term sustainability of the club. To me, it comes down to whether the Flames will no longer have the ability to make a profit given their current building, as opposed to the "we make a profit but we want to make more profit" argument that is posed. So the questions are:

- Do the Flames make money now, even in non-playoff seasons?
- Will staying in the Saddledome mean that at some point, the Flames will not be able to make a cent in profit?

If the answer to the second is yes, then yes I agree that the building will not sustain the club.

I can get on board with a hybrid model for Plan B depending on what the numbers in the hybrid model are. But I don't think any numbers have been presented yet.

[Darkknight]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Okay, so let's say CalgaryNEXT is dead forever, and the city also refuses to pay a dime on Plan B.

Do you think the Flames will actually pick up and move if they don't get a new building? I don't. I don't for a second think there is a city out there where the Flames can bail to today and make more money than they are now. So they can puff their chest and threaten to leave, but I really don't see them pulling the trigger. That, to me, is the BS.

So then the question is the long term sustainability of the club. To me, it comes down to whether the Flames will no longer have the ability to make a profit given their current building, as opposed to the "we make a profit but we want to make more profit" argument that is posed. So the questions are:

- Do the Flames make money now, even in non-playoff seasons?
- Will staying in the Saddledome mean that at some point, the Flames will not be able to make a cent in profit?

If the answer to the second is yes, then yes I agree that the building will not sustain the club.

I can get on board with a hybrid model for Plan B depending on what the numbers in the hybrid model are. But I don't think any numbers have been presented yet.

I think Quebec could be a good place to start for potential, I think Seattle is another massive metropolitan area that is north enough to support a hockey team. I'm not entirely sold on Kansas, but once again their population could easily support a team and they have the desire top build a new arena. Maybe the Flames owners sell to another buyer and just get out of the whole thing. The simple fact of the matter is, the Flames need a new building, the city need s a newer venue for out of town acts, and there is no way the Flames are going to pay for it entirely after the deal the Oilers got. If the city feels the Flames are an important aspect in the culture of this city, they had better pony up the dough.

[Frequitude]

Please send invoice to frequitude, care of Bingo.

[Darkknight]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Please send invoice to frequitude, care of Bingo.

Kind of hard to make out everything here, but are you suggesting that a new stadium be built where the current grand stand is on the stampede grounds? I thought one of the big sticking points for the Flames was that they didn't want to be on the stampede grounds anymore?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I imagine the name will be one of the following....

Rogers Saddledome
Rogers Pavilion
Rogers Garden
Rogers Forum
Rogers Coliseum

Roger's jeans

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Completely agree with this list. But that doesn't mean that the current CalgaryNEXT basis is any good. CalgaryNEXT is a bad concept.

It's bad from a city planning perspective because a) it took too much prime river front land for a big box and left too little developable land to repay a CRL with incremental taxes, and b) it was scheduled to happen before the West Village was done filling out.

It's bad from a financing perspective because it pretty much equated to the Flames kicking in about $450M and the taxpayer kicking in $900M when you consider the full scope. Note that those numbers are based on CSEC's response to the City's response to the original CalgaryNEXT proposal (link to my finance breakdown of CSEC's response)

It's just a bad concept.

And that's what I'm talking about.

Lets get tangible about this. the city doesn't want a big facility on the river is a great reason to not do it. They have another vision with a smaller foot print for an anchor tenant ... have no problem with that.

The funding though ... counter then. Counter with the city doing nothing but infrastructure and creosote clean up and the rest is the CSE's issue.

That funding model is an opening volley, that's all it was every stated to be.

But for the love of pete just stop with the rhetoric Nenshi, we're all tired of it.

[Torture]

Ken King has got to be the worst proponent of this project. How does he still have a job?

We just need a place to play. We want to participate, we want to be partners in that. I think we'll be successful."

Poor flames owners just want somewhere for the team to play but the city won't co-operate. If you need a place to play so badly maybe you need to take some ownership of that rather than blaming the city?
Also, last I checked you have a place to play, it's called the Saddledome.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well if no one ever has a vision or a plan then nothing happens, I feel like I'm watching Finding Nemo.

So the city just said no, or at least Nenshi did. No counter at all. No real explanation other than doesn't work.

Is it that they don't want development in west village?
Don't want to deal with the Creosote issue that they took on under Bronconier?
Don't want a field house down town?
Want a smaller anchor tenant in the area?
Have a different vision that they've already got their hearts set on?

All of that would be better than the name calling we've seen, which to me has been a real sad add to this situation.

To me this has always come down to a bullet list of logic that hasn't changed.

• the football and hockey facilities are old
• it's probably a good idea to build new ones
• there are plenty of facilities that have been built in Canada with public funding
• it would be silly for the Calgary group not to ask for the same
• the city doesn't have to do what the other public funding models have done

Just keep the rhetoric out of this, it's hurting the process.

And I dont disagree with any of that. And I have no problem having some Public funds involved.

I dont agree in just footing the bill, but at the end of the day it isnt the rhetoric that hurt the process it was two sides that were so far apart that meeting in the middle was impossible.

CalgaryNEXT was doomed from the start.

Partly the fault of an under-fire and arrogant Mayor and partly the fault of an inherently flawed plan.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

I think Quebec could be a good place to start for potential, I think Seattle is another massive metropolitan area that is north enough to support a hockey team. I'm not entirely sold on Kansas, but once again their population could easily support a team and they have the desire top build a new arena. Maybe the Flames owners sell to another buyer and just get out of the whole thing. The simple fact of the matter is, the Flames need a new building, the city need s a newer venue for out of town acts, and there is no way the Flames are going to pay for it entirely after the deal the Oilers got. If the city feels the Flames are an important aspect in the culture of this city, they had better pony up the dough.

Seattle is having trouble getting their own new arena proposal approved, and the NBA is going to be a bigger priority for them even if they get it built. Plus with Phoenix being such a tire fire it's a logical relocation spot. KC has no interest in the NHL, their arena is already profitable without a pro tenant.

Again, the "ultimatum" of relocation is completely toothless, just as much as it was when the Oilers used it to get their arena built. There's already too many problem markets and too few landing spots, there's no leverage behind the demands.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Seattle is having trouble getting their own new arena proposal approved, and the NBA is going to be a bigger priority for them even if they get it built. Plus with Phoenix being such a tire fire it's a logical relocation spot. KC has no interest in the NHL, their arena is already profitable without a pro tenant.

Again, the "ultimatum" of relocation is completely toothless, just as much as it was when the Oilers used it to get their arena built. There's already too many problem markets and too few landing spots, there's no leverage behind the demands.

Yep. Phoenix has been in trouble for how long and they haven't moved. Calgary's just going to pick up before them and land somewhere else? Yeah right.
The NHL wants stability and to grow the game, they're not going to relocate out of a successful and profitable market over arena disputes.

[CaptainCrunch]

The threat of relocation will be used. Katz used it with a fair degree of effectiveness and it did help unjam the talks for him.

I would expect that there will be very little discussion between the Flames and the City for a while. But we'll get subtle leaks of the Owners at NHL headquarters for meetings with Bettman, doing arena tours etc.

the battle for dollars is going to become a major public relations battle. We'll get pictures of Flames owners in the rinks in Kansas and Quebec and Seattle anyways with hardhats on pointing to the scoreboard.

They'll start leaking little news stories and doing interviews where they show how wretched the Saddledome is and how out of date it is.

And Nenshi will bluster like usual.

Its going to be a very unpleasant war for public support.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Torture

Yep. Phoenix has been in trouble for how long and they haven't moved. Calgary's just going to pick up before them and land somewhere else? Yeah right.
The NHL wants stability and to grow the game, they're not going to relocate out of a successful and profitable market over arena disputes.

The NHL wants stability and revenue streams, and as Bettman has indicated NHL calibre buildings and that day is pretty much fading out for the dome thanks to the new level of buildings being used or constructed.

leaving the Flames in a building that's moving beyond its shelf life isn't stability.

[northcrunk]

Pretty pointless to even discuss this until after the next civic election. Nenshi seems dead against money going to anything local but he is more than willing to spend $25,000 on foreign aid. Might as well wait and see who is left standing after the next election because you might be starting over anyway.

[CaptainCrunch]

We know who's going to win the election. That's a given even though Nenshi has seen his approval rating plummet he's still going to win it.

So its irrelevant this whole discussion is dead for the next 5 years if Nenshi continues to insist on no public money.

I would think that right now, the relationship between the Flames and City hall is going to become pretty frosty.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And that's what I'm talking about.

Lets get tangible about this. the city doesn't want a big facility on the river is a great reason to not do it. They have another vision with a smaller foot print for an anchor tenant ... have no problem with that.

The funding though ... counter then. Counter with the city doing nothing but infrastructure and creosote clean up and the rest is the CSE's issue.

That funding model is an opening volley, that's all it was every stated to be.

But for the love of pete just stop with the rhetoric Nenshi, we're all tired of it.

It's not the city's job to counter a CalgaryNEXT with a Victoria Park based concept. It was the city's job to counter CalgaryNEXT with a study showing what it would actually cost. They did that.

It is CSEC's job to come up with a new concept and put it forward much like they did CalgaryNEXT. It will then be the City's job to counter/respond to that new concept.

The city doesn't go to Brookfield and say "hey I designed this building for you what do you think". Brookfield comes to them and says "hey I want to build this building what do you think". Why should it be any different here?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And that's what I'm talking about.

Lets get tangible about this. the city doesn't want a big facility on the river is a great reason to not do it. They have another vision with a smaller foot print for an anchor tenant ... have no problem with that.

The funding though ... counter then. Counter with the city doing nothing but infrastructure and creosote clean up and the rest is the CSE's issue.

That funding model is an opening volley, that's all it was every stated to be.

But for the love of pete just stop with the rhetoric Nenshi, we're all tired of it.

I'm with Nenshi on this one. I don't think I disagree with anything he said.

Public funds for public benefit and the onus is on the flames to demonstrate the public benefit.

When the original proposal tries to sell it being a 200 million dollar contribution for a field house you were going to build anyway I can see why he would be mad. CalgaryNext was a dishonest pitch that in no way close to reflected the real costs. Even if you say it was an opening offer at least come in and say its a 1.3 billion dollar project with 900 million in city contributions which we propose that the city could fund in the following ways. And this 900 million in city contributions gets the following benefits for the public.

If the presentation released to the public was requesting funds from a BOD the person would have been fired for incompetence.

[OldDutch]

Good article I read today on the bad deal in Vegas. Has some similarities to the CalgaryNEXT situation. In the end, I am very happy with Nenshi on this one. He is doing his job, standing up for the tax payers of Calgary over a small minority.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...r_subsidy.html

[Smartcar]

I'm a long time STH and I voted yes in this BS poll. I'd be ok with some public money for infrastructure and land but not for the building, and not anywhere close to half a billion bucks we don't have. Notwithstanding the endless complaints I don't think the Saddledome is *that* bad, I don't want the cost of tickets and property taxes to jump, and if saying no means the Flames will go elsewhere then don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Without qualification on how much public money and for what this poll is meaningless.