Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

To me the Edmonton situation almost makes sense for the city. They moved the arena to an area where they could build up around it. Calgary isn't doing that. They are building the arena where the arena currently is. They aren't improving much about that area overall, that couldn't have already been done. Sure there will be some more stuff down there, but it's not going to drastically improve a dead area, like Edmonton.

If its a good investment you wouldn't have billionaire investors fighting to not invest. Case closed. It's a bad investment, especially for the city. I'd find it much easier to accept the original deal where the City paid a third, but still, I find it aggravating.

The cost in the long run is a big issue as far as I'm concerned, we're cutting money, jobs, increasing taxes and now we're handing billionaires money for something that doesn't have a ton of benefit when it's all said and done. Families can't really afford to go to games, and they will still spend their money, it's not like people spend their money at flames games or nothing.

I've also been a flames fan my whole life, so I understand the other side, of the argument, but just looking at it with no bias, it's not a good deal.

I don't know that the buildup around Stampede Park wouldn't happen anyway. But the "build up a dead area" was the Flames pitch for the west side, and that one was rejected.

[getbak]

Project paused...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1382411193483096064

https://twitter.com/user/status/1382411689467932673

https://twitter.com/user/status/1382412212992569344

[Monahammer]

Have to wonder how bad the cost overruns on BMO are.

[getbak]

This also confirms that this is the "in camera" issue discussed by City Council yesterday.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1382413423011532801

No massive coverup, just letting the appropriate people make the announcement.

[Fuzzy14]

Have to wonder how bad the cost overruns on BMO are.

No inside knowledge, but presumably prices were locked in during procurement and so wouldn't be drastically affected. As they are about to enter that phase for the Events Center, that's likely why they've decided to pump the breaks a bit and let things settle down a bit.

[neo45]

100M dollar shortfall is what I’ve heard

They had a contractual agreement on how to split up to a certain $$$ figure of budget overages (20 million maybe?) but not this high

The really bad news that I have heard is the greyhound station site is very much back on the table by the car dealerships... I don’t know how they think that’s a good arena spot

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by neo45

100M dollar shortfall is what I’ve heard

They had a contractual agreement on how to split up to a certain $$$ figure of budget overages (20 million maybe?) but not this high

The really bad news that I have heard is the greyhound station site is very much back on the table by the car dealerships... I don’t know how they think that’s a good arena spot

If the flames are keen for $150m+ environmental cleanup costs, that's an attractive site. It would be far more expensive, not less.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Bunk

If the flames are keen for $150m+ environmental cleanup costs, that's an attractive site. It would be far more expensive, not less.

Just passing on my info

I don’t know how they plan to make the logistics work, split the costs, or why they possibly think it’s a good spot for an arena.

[uofaflamesfan]

Originally Posted by neo45

100M dollar shortfall is what I’ve heard

They had a contractual agreement on how to split up to a certain $$$ figure of budget overages (20 million maybe?) but not this high

The really bad news that I have heard is the greyhound station site is very much back on the table by the car dealerships... I don’t know how they think that’s a good arena spot

Any insight into if the shortfalls are due to increased material costs as speculated? Or something else?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Just speaking about me personally as a taxpayer, I'm way more willing to have my tax dollars go towards the arena vs. the public library. Again, I get the greater good argument. I get way more usage out of MY tax dollars from an arena than I would out of the library. I've visited it once since it was built, and the only reason was solely so I can say I've seen where part of my tax dollar went.

Maybe you personally do get more use out of your tax dollars than a library, but does the library turn around and charge you and everyone else $150.00 - $250.00 to rent a book or use its children programs?

[shadowlord]

Noob question here. Is the "Calgary Event Centre" the same as the new arena? Since I moved to Vancouver, I try to follow Calgary news where I can, but I haven't heard of it referred to by this term.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by shadowlord

Noob question here. Is the "Calgary Event Centre" the same as the new arena? Since I moved to Vancouver, I try to follow Calgary news where I can, but I haven't heard of it referred to by this term.

Yeah it's the arena

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by neo45

Just passing on my info

I don’t know how they plan to make the logistics work, split the costs, or why they possibly think it’s a good spot for an arena.

Sounds like a move just to cause delays and eventually kybosh the whole thing.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Have to wonder how bad the cost overruns on BMO are.

Two different projects with two different operators.
CMLC is managing both projects, but I don't think cost overruns on one would affect the other.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by shadowlord

Noob question here. Is the "Calgary Event Centre" the same as the new arena? Since I moved to Vancouver, I try to follow Calgary news where I can, but I haven't heard of it referred to by this term.

Slick marketing to try and not upset people who don’t want taxpayer money to build a facility for the flames.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by uofaflamesfan

Any insight into if the shortfalls are due to increased material costs as speculated? Or something else?

No, sorry didn’t even think to ask what the root cause was to the budget overages

[Mr_Pilot]

Even though i'm a die-hard Flames fan, i'm a Calgarian first. Pushing this thing back a couple months doesn't bother me (and frankly shouldn't bother anyone).

Let all parties do their due-diligence. No one wants this thing to spiral out of control due to current global instability with supply chain and/or material procurement.

The 'Dome seems to be serving it's purpose just fine for now.

[rohara66]

Material costs are mental right now.... makes sense to pump the brakes.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by rohara66

Material costs are mental right now.... makes sense to pump the brakes.

It’s not going to drop any time in the next several years

[The Familia]

Well that's VERY disappointing. I agree that this will basically kill the project or at best give us a cheap tin shed. I am of the belief that if it can't be built properly and as originally conceived than it's best to pull the plug. This is what happens when politicians and business leaders drag their feet on an issue for well over a decade. The idea of a new arena first popped up in the early 2000's ( I remember them talking about a new arena during the Flames Stanley Cup run). 17 years later and we are no further ahead. There were so many opportunities to build over the years that would have ensured this project remain or come under budget. Costs will continue to escalate and I doubt there will ever be a good time to build. Very disappointed that Calgary will continue to be the black-hole of sporting facilities in this country. This will surly kill the field house and revamp to Foothills park as well. My only hope is that they were able to lock in their material costs for the BMO expansion months ago. They are supposed to break ground this month so hopefully that project is still a go.