Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

It better have a life span of >30 years. Cities need to stop building anything that has a lifespan of less than that. Would anyone buy a house that needs to be demolished in 30 years? Fifty years should be the bare minimum that this building should be in service with at most one major and a couple minor renovations.

So PLEASE PLEASE include a 30,000sq ft teleportation deck.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by frodo_t_baggins

Nenshi said that CSEC refused to move forward unless the Saddledome was demolished and could no longer host concerts

Sure, but the Flames don't own the building. Or the land. It would be like the city including some green line LRT charges, those things were going to happen anyway.

[sureLoss]

Nenshi says he has seen the projected money that a new arena will generate over the Saddledome and that it is very substantial. $5 million/year in property taxes is a drop in a bucket compared to that. He could not share the exact numbers because of a NDA.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by frodo_t_baggins

Nenshi said that CSEC refused to move forward unless the Saddledome was demolished and could no longer host concerts

In that case demolition charge... justified.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

Then it is officially part of the cost of building a new arena. Case closed.

Ha, I hadn't thought of this. Excellent point.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Sure, but the Flames don't own the building. Or the land. It would be like the city including some green line LRT charges, those things were going to happen anyway.

Then the don't have to tear it down, either!

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm not sure why that would be a sticking point. King said it couldn't host concerts anymore anyway

It still shouldn't be it the city contribution. To me it should be in that outside infrastructure component because at some point the Saddledome goes down. I suspect it is where it is because that 25 million can be converted to cash as a negotiating point.

So the city's final offer is likely 155 cash plus 30 land plus we own you pay us property tax equivalent in rent on the city portion of property tax (until 155 is repaid without interest) and no one pays the provincial portion of the property tax.

Technically, it would come off the total price tag too, so more like 16 million extra cash.

[Vinny01]

My guess is the Flames proposal is this

City - 50%
Flames -25%
Ticket tax - 25%

Claiming a 50/50 split but really they pay a quarter and the user pays a quarter. I agree that money comes from the Flames if they don't increase ticket prices but I assume this will be a ticket tax above and beyond the current cost to go to the Dome

[Otto-matic]

It just feels like the CSEG was set on CalgaryNEXT and now they're just throwing a massive adult temper tantrum about not getting that arena. The city seems 100% reasonable with the offer and its a melon scratcher why the Flames came out this week.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Objecting to it is fine, and you're right it's kind of bogus. But stomping their feet and walking away from the table is just childish. Come back with a proposal that removes it and keep the talks moving.

No that part's fair. I guess I've found myself on the "pro-flames" camp on this board but I believe that what King pulled on tuesday was ####ing stupid and the 1/3 1/3 1/3 framework is the most equitable.

Also agree with others that I'm nervpus if the Flames are the one designing the arena, they can't even get a jerseys or anniversary patches right.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

My guess is the Flames proposal is this

City - 50%
Flames -25%
Ticket tax - 25%

Claiming a 50/50 split but really they pay a quarter and the user pays a quarter. I agree that money comes from the Flames if they don't increase ticket prices but I assume this will be a ticket tax above and beyond the current cost to go to the Dome

Plus no property tax.

Maybe I'm out to lunch here, but isn't there some risk taken by the CSEG over the course of those 35 years? I mean it seems to be that the city is guaranteed their money back but like any business, couldn't the CSEG face all those risks associated with running a sports franchise? They may make money, they may not.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

My guess is the Flames proposal is this

City - 50%
Flames -25%
Ticket tax - 25%

Claiming a 50/50 split but really they pay a quarter and the user pays a quarter. I agree that money comes from the Flames if they don't increase ticket prices but I assume this will be a ticket tax above and beyond the current cost to go to the Dome

oh, sweet summer child

[Table 5]

Interesting that the Flames wanted to ensure that the Saddledome was demolished...it makes sense as you don't really need the competition around (although we may need that Saddledome for the Olympics!). But I agree if that's CSEC demand, then it's part of the math.

It does hilight though why don't really want to own an arena in the first place...you're the one left holding a pretty expensive bag at the end of it's life cycle.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by nik-

oh, sweet summer child

I should have clarified. They will increase their typical % but with the ticket tax will we see a double digit increase as STH?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Nenshi says he has seen the projected money that a new arena will generate over the Saddledome and that it is very substantial. $5 million/year in property taxes is a drop in a bucket compared to that. He could not share the exact numbers because of a NDA.

Well it's easy for him to say that when the Flames would be owning the building. I wondering what his comment would be if the city owned it and the Flames were paying rent.

I'll take this comment with a grain of salt unless the projected numbers are released.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Maybe I'm out to lunch here, but isn't there some risk taken by the CSEG over the course of those 35 years? I mean it seems to be that the city is guaranteed their money back but like any business, couldn't the CSEG face all those risks associated with running a sports franchise? They may make money, they may not.

The city does not get there money back at all here. The city collects property tax on a business like any other business in the city. They are not providing a tax subsidy in addition to a land and capital study.

[TheFlamesVan]

Drop the puck!!!!

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Well it's easy for him to say that when the Flames would be owning the building. I wondering what his comment would be if the city owned it and the Flames were paying rent.

I'll take this comment with a grain of salt unless the projected numbers are released.

Not really. My takeaway from that press conference was that barring a revenue sharing deal, the Flames will still get 100% of the revenue regardless if the city owns or the Flames own the arena.

The only way city gets money is via rent or property tax.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

No that part's fair. I guess I've found myself on the "pro-flames" camp on this board but I believe that what King pulled on tuesday was ####ing stupid and the 1/3 1/3 1/3 framework is the most equitable.

Also agree with others that I'm nervpus if the Flames are the one designing the arena, they can't even get a jerseys or anniversary patches right.

I think we're on the same page. I've been pro-flames as well, prior to this week. I can't stand disingenuous posturing or threats in a negotiation. Combined with other stupid things from the flames lately, like the incompetent calgaryNEXT proposal and the jerseys, I'm just really frustrated.