[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by getbak

I saw this hilariously awful rendering from Global of what the skyline would look like without the Saddledome...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1154904429767905280

Apparently, not only will the Saddledome be torn down, but so will the Corral and the entire BMO Centre and the Casino. Good news though, for some reason, the Enoch Sales house will be rebuilt and put in the middle of the BMO Centre land. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be rebuilt to the state it was in before it burned down.

Of course, this also ignores the fact that the new arena (and the BMO Centre expansion) will become a significant part of the skyline before the Saddledome is demolished.

Some arenas aren’t part of the skyline at all and are more meant to blend in. I wouldn’t hate that personally. I don’t know the plan here but can’t really argue that the Dome has been an iconic feature of the skyline that will be hard to be replaced.

[djsFlames]

I'm glad they're making it happen with very little public consultation. The few that were the catalysts here clearly learned from the Calgary Next debacle how to make this happen, as it needed to. Keeping talks under wraps was the only way it got done in the next half decade. Involve the people and they'll argue and nit pick it back into the womb. Particularly the non fans that would undoubtedly claim that this isn't 'for them' overlooking the fact that it will be used for all kinds of events (some or which they would likely attend over a 35 year span) and have larger benefits to the city and downtown.

Even if some of the estimates seem generous like the demolition cost for the city, I'm glad they went ahead and expedited the approval process.

I do hope they don't cut out the extra rink though, as it would be really useful to have for the flames and the community.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

seems like ppl wanting to validate their own confirmation bias to me...

the reality is those against the arena will continue to be against the arena two weeks from now or 2 months from now. Those for the arena will, barring some nefarious clause buried deep in the contract language, will still be for the arena.

its an odd thing that people, with no expertise in finances, believe that an extra couple of weeks is going to make a difference, when ppl who are experts in this have already negotiated a deal that they think is fair to the City and to the Flames ownership.

its not a perfect deal, for either side, hence it is probably a decent compromise - exactly what you aim for in a negotiation...

No kidding...the guy who wants more time is 100% voting no. Just dragging his feet

[Bunk]

So, on the vote tomorrow.

There’ll surely be some that will try to delay the vote for consultation - or at least try and make a political point - certainly, Woolley, Farkas and Farrell. I don’t think that’ll happen, so they will probably vote against. I could see Chu and Demong voting against, as well but I am not totally sure.

So I think

Yes:
Nenshi
Sutherland
Magliocca
Gondek
Chahal
Davison
Carra
Jones (if he is well enough to be there)
Keating
Colley-Urquhart

No:
Woolley
Farrell
Farkas
Chu
Demong

Something like 10-5 (perhaps 9-6 or 11-4)

I think there's at least 9 solid yes.

[Fire]

Farkas already said he would vote no.

[JBR]

Originally Posted by Fire

Farkas already said he would vote no.

King of the CAVE people. What a shock. Political grandstanding to announce this through the media.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Bunk

So, on the vote tomorrow.

There’ll surely be some that will try to delay the vote for consultation - or at least try and make a political point - certainly, Woolley, Farkas and Farrell. I don’t think that’ll happen, so they will probably vote against. I could see Chu and Demong voting against, as well but I am not totally sure.

So I think

Yes:
Nenshi
Sutherland
Magliocca
Gondek
Chahal
Davison
Carra
Jones (if he is well enough to be there)
Keating
Colley-Urquhart

No:
Woolley
Farrell
Farkas
Chu
Demong

Something like 10-5 (perhaps 9-6 or 11-4)

I think there's at least 9 solid yes.

Chu told CTV he'd vote yes.

[sleepingmoose]

Hasn’t the vote been moved to Tuesday afternoon? One of the reasons consultation was extended.

[Luder]

Just vote yes and get it over with.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Fire

Farkas already said he would vote no.

Cool.
But you know, he can go Farkas himself.

[Roughneck]

Of course Farkas would vote no to $275M being invested into his ward, when he was pushing for another private enterprise to get city subsidies, and is lamenting the operational budget cuts despite voting for more sprawl.

Oh dear, the YYC Off Topic Forum is leaking...

[Roughneck]

Of course Farkas would vote no to $275M being invested into his ward, when he was pushing for another private enterprise to get city subsidies, and is lamenting the operational budget cuts despite voting for more sprawl.

Oh dear, the YYC Off Topic Forum is leaking...

[Wormius]

Though I am not really cool with the deal, I do have to wonder what kind of city Farkas wants to create and live in. Is it essentially a parking lot?

[getbak]

It is kind of funny that the three councillors most-likely to vote no are the one whose ward the building will be built in and two of the three councillors whose wards are within walking distance of the building location.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by Fire

Farkas already said he would vote no.

Those voting yes be like

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by getbak

It is kind of funny that the three councillors most-likely to vote no are the one whose ward the building will be built in and two of the three councillors whose wards are within walking distance of the building location.

These are "principled" people. They weighted this on its merits carefully. No future political ambitions or ideological bias factored in. Yup 100% on merits....honest engine.

[powderjunkie]

I love that so many people's main reason for support seems to weariness and fatigue. More likely just dumb luck, but the Flames may have actually played this long-con brilliantly.

[sureLoss]

The Star has obtained a confidential report prepared for CMLC that estimates the Flames annual operating revenue will increase by $48.7 million with a new arena. This report was done without any financial information from CSEC nor does it take into account operating expenses.

https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2019...=&utm_content=

The CMLC contracted Rosentraub, the director of the Center for Sport and Policy at the University of Michigan, in 2016. He consulted with the CMLC and gave several presentations, including a closed-door briefing to city council, offering insight into considerations for the city and the Flames as they negotiate and plan for a new arena.

Rosentraub has served as a consultant for numerous sports teams and cities as they consider new sports and entertainment venues. For his work in Calgary, he wasn’t given the financial information of the CSEC, which also owns the CFL’s Stampeders, the Western Hockey League’s Hitmen and the Roughnecks of the National Lacrosse League.

On Friday, CSEC’s vice-president of communications Peter Hanlon said they’re aware that Rosentraub prepared a report, but disputed the accuracy of his estimates.

“Mr. Rosentraub’s estimates were put together without the benefit of financial data from CSEC,” Hanlon said. “It is our understanding from the limited information we have on his report that his estimates are grossly inaccurate.”

[Strange Brew]

If only there was some way to access that data to have a more reliable calculation. Good for the city for doing some homework to understand the other party’s financial benefit.

[sureLoss]

Some poll figures:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ium%3Dsharebar

on the deal as it sits now:
47% of Calgarians approve
6% unsure
47% disapprove

60% polled say 1 week is not enough time to engage citizens