[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[calgaryblood]

Why did I spend the last 5 minutes reading about Google searches?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Why did I spend the last 5 minutes reading about Google searches?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+did+I+spend...le+searches%3F

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Why did I spend the last 5 minutes reading about Google searches?

Because there is zero credible documentation for the positive economic impacts of an Arena.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Why did I spend the last 5 minutes reading about Google searches?

Because otherwise you'd have to do some work?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Define "paid for". Because so far I've just heard about loans/fronting the money, etc, but with a 100% repayment.

Really? I've only critics use the term loan.

The City views it as an INVESTMENT - one that will show a return of more than -100%. It sounds to me like the city hopes to be 'breakeven' at the end of 30 years.

The Monsters!

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I have no idea what you are arguing about any longer.

I was responding to a guy who said its easy for people from outside the city to sit and spend others money...in response i said it was just as easy for those not living in the city to tell people what they shouldnt want their money spent on.

My personal opinion is such,

I live here and I don't mind the city picking up a chunk of the price at all. What that is and how it happens is yet to be determined in my mind, but I have zero issue with the city helping get a new arena built. Its something I will use. Things get built all the time in this city on the taxpayer dollar that i will never ever use so I feel its ok if i want something built that I can enjoy and I will use. I feel the same about a football stadium as well.

No one is saying the city should pay for all of it, much to the chagrin of a certain poster and not even the Flames have asked for such.

I do know that if a deal isn't struck, and sooner rather than later, those screaming at the top of their lungs that the team relocating is an empty threat, are playing a very dangerous game and one they will very likely lose. As I stated yesterday, not many, and certainly not city council, will win a stare down against guys like Riddell and Edwards.

I hope there is a sizable shake up on city council as its clear a change is needed among the two sides, and the ownership group isnt going anywhere. If Nenshi is re-elected as I suspect he will be, I hope he can swallow his ego just a little bit and understand this is a high stakes proposition and him being at all adversarial in it (not saying he has been thus far cause i dont know but its starting to appear that way with CSEC's declaration on Tueday) wont help.

Which all brings me to my final point on this, a new arena will get built....at some point. My preference is that it gets done with the existing franchise and their ownership. Should that not happen my guess is the team is sold and relocated. At which point another group will want to come in and set up shop in Calgary...but only if there is a new arena for them to do so. Then we are back to square one and likely to get an even worse deal for the city than anything the Flames are willing to be a part of.

My opinion only but also one that is shared by some who are very much in the know with both the league and the city itself.

I do suspect it does get done and it will be a fair deal for both sides, though those that have entrenched themselves on either side wont see it that way.

Even though you seem to be in agreement with the majority of CP, and even the mayor/city council, that an arena needs to get built and that the city should pay for a portion of it, your post and position seems like your are trying to pretend to be neutral but actually fully support CSEC's current position.

You state that Flames ownership will win in a stare down, that Nenshi is the problem with his ego, that Council needs a shake up (ie some people need to lose their jobs as elected officials over this) and that it will be a fair deal.

But you reference people on "either side". Sounds to me like you clearly are on one side and that is the anti-nenshi, pro-ownership side of public money being used.

You should at least be honest about your position. Not to mention that your notion of "fair" is totally undefined at best and at worst just means that your side gets their way.

I'm not sure how the city should pay for this arena. There are so many factors to consider. It isn't just about an upfront dollar figure. We also have to consider property taxes, ownership etc.

What I do know is that it does not make Nenshi or the city council in need of an ego check or a shake up just because they won't just hand over $200 without any conditions. If the Flames don't have to pay property tax, get to keep all the extra profit, don't have to pay back any of the money etc, then all the taxpayers are getting is the promise that "concerts and stuff" will bring enough money back into our economy to help businesses thrive and fund city tax revenues, which can then help us taxpayers with services.

That doesn't sound like a fair deal to me though. The ROI for taxpayers just isn't worth the $200m. I think there needs to be more from the Flames.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by New Era

Juvenile insults aside, tell me what you know about Guangzhou, China.

Where is the first place you are going to go to look for information? Is it on your computer and does it rhyme with noodle?

Which is more reliable? The anecdotal evidence from Cappy, or the most powerful search engine in the world?

Point made? Move along.

The fact that you mention Guangzhou kind of plays into the argument that international prestige is not a good indicator of a city's success.

Guangzhou is the third largest city in China, and thriving (by Chinese standards). People and businesses aren't moving there because of the Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao football club.

The fact that we know nothing about Guangzhou means nothing to Guangzhou...ans(?)

[longsuffering]

I'd like to propose a Poll.

Which of the following scenarios reflects your current view on public funding of the new Arena Project.

For the purposes of this poll, the ticket tax will be considered to be a CSEC contribution and the City will provide the land. The City will own the building and will not collect property taxes.

1. No public funding should be provided to the Flames excepting the site.

2. 25% cash funding of the building design and construction costs with no mechanism in place for repayment of those monies.

3. 25% cash funding of the building design and construction costs which includes a mechanism in place for repayment of those monies.

4. 33% cash funding of the building design and construction costs with no mechanism in place for repayment of those monies.

5. 33% cash funding of the building design and construction costs which includes a mechanism in place for repayment of those monies.

6. 50% cash funding of the building design and construction costs with no mechanism in place for repayment of those monies.

7. 50% cash funding of the building design and construction costs which includes a mechanism in place for repayment of those monies.

8. 65% cash funding of the building design and construction costs with no mechanism in place for repayment of those monies.

9. 65% cash funding of the building design and construction costs which includes a mechanism in place for repayment of those monies.

10. Fund the building 100% if necessary. The Flames are THAT important to the community.

Not perfect but at least we'd have an idea where people stand.

[GGG]

I think Nenshi's get paid back proposal is fair if the city owns the arena so that the flames do not pay property taxes. If Nenhsi is asking to get paid back plus receive property taxes that would seem like an unreasonable offer to me.


On a 650 million dollar building property taxes work out to 11 million. about 3 million provincial and 8 million city.

So if the city pays 200 million and the flames/ticket tax pay 400 million and the city owns the building and the flames pay no rent but maintain the building as part of there contract to operate. It seems reasonable that the city could recoup their investment through the taxes that the flames would normally be paying.

Or put another way. The city could give the flames 200 million no strings attached to build an arena but then they own it and pay taxes on it like any other business.

I suspect any King ask is for 200 million plus the city owning it so that they get an 11 million per year tax break. Which over a 30 year period makes the city contribution 450 million or so.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

You should at least be honest about your position.

I see no dishonesty in Transplant's position. Articulated quite well in fact.

[GGG]

Who pays for maintenance in your poll and do the flames pay rent?

Also would like the option of negotiate a hard line until the day before the flames will agree to move and strike a deal then. Say sometime in 2020.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Even though you seem to be in agreement with the majority of CP, and even the mayor/city council, that an arena needs to get built and that the city should pay for a portion of it, your post and position seems like your are trying to pretend to be neutral but actually fully support CSEC's current position.

You state that Flames ownership will win in a stare down, that Nenshi is the problem with his ego, that Council needs a shake up (ie some people need to lose their jobs as elected officials over this) and that it will be a fair deal.

But you reference people on "either side". Sounds to me like you clearly are on one side and that is the anti-nenshi, pro-ownership side of public money being used.

You should at least be honest about your position. Not to mention that your notion of "fair" is totally undefined at best and at worst just means that your side gets their way.

I'm not sure how the city should pay for this arena. There are so many factors to consider. It isn't just about an upfront dollar figure. We also have to consider property taxes, ownership etc.

What I do know is that it does not make Nenshi or the city council in need of an ego check or a shake up just because they won't just hand over $200 without any conditions. If the Flames don't have to pay property tax, get to keep all the extra profit, don't have to pay back any of the money etc, then all the taxpayers are getting is the promise that "concerts and stuff" will bring enough money back into our economy to help businesses thrive and fund city tax revenues, which can then help us taxpayers with services.

That doesn't sound like a fair deal to me though. The ROI for taxpayers just isn't worth the $200m. I think there needs to be more from the Flames.

My position is quite clear.

I really dont care one iota what you think.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by transplant99

My position is quite clear.

I really dont care one iota what you think.

lol stuck a nerve I see.

Very well thought out response though. Fits in well with your take.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If this is so, it sure contextualizes the argument IMO.

Then why do people get worked up over a blue ring and some steel girders?

Why is art spending always under scrutiny?

Perhaps the principles matter. Perhaps the opportunity costs matter. Perhaps people feel that a private company should pay for it's infrastructure and charge the consumers for it's use.

[BurningSteel]

What if the Flames threw in a larger scaled peace bridge from the new arena to nowhere??

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

How many "give them anything they want" supporters do you think there actually are?

It's hard to quantify because the posters using the emotional argument "the Flames give the City it's identity", etc. aren't very forthcoming about what they think is fair. Not a single one of their posts mentions an upper limit.

I doubt many would confess to be in that camp but they arguably so passionately against the economic arguments that they seem willing to make any deal.

The 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 deal is the City's offer. According to Jason Markusoff in Macleans and Twitter sources CSEC's offer is for the City to closer to 50% and return nothing. Is that their bottom line?

That's why I proposed a poll. I'd like to understand everyone's bottom line.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by dino7c

far less than $50

Wrong. The city would be footing the entire bill upfront and be scrambling to recover for years if not decades. Deals like the Katz deal show that the ownership group is only going to front a minimal amount like $30M to the entire process. The rest of their share will be conveniently spread out over decades if they get their way (which essentially amount to a billionaires yearly interest earnings).

People love to assume three equal thirds are just magically deposited into an account one day. Tax payers would need to recoup the entire cost of the building ($600M) initially from the current tax budget as the ticket tax would take years to amount to anything as well. This would amount to numerous roadway and transit cuts, who knows how many other public job cuts. The burden on a tax payer goes well beyond the simple dollars and cents on the yearly tax bill.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The Hart Foundation?

It might sound funny, but it's sorta true at least in my case. I manage a large team in India, and wrestling is the first thing that comes to mind when they think Calgary. Huge following there. When we have people from my team coming up to visit, one of the big attractions I end up driving them to is the Hart House. It's like visiting the Vatican for Catholics for them.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

lol stuck a nerve I see.

Very well thought out response though. Fits in well with your take.

No nerve struck, I just dont care what you think or believe.

My position is quite clear, and i suspect it is the same for many others.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I see no dishonesty in Transplant's position. Articulated quite well in fact.

It just doesn't fit his narrative so he will attack me instead of the clearly laid out position that is there. Its been his style for years and years.