Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future... - Page 134 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

shutout · 11-25-2014, 12:47 PM

Not sure why the issue has to be so black and white. There have to be "funding" scenarios that wok for both sides. My issue with the city based on the article is that Nenshi comes across as a jerk and is not interested in having any type of relationship with the Flames group. Like it or not there is an economic benefit and a social benefit to the citizens of the city to having these facilities for concerts, events, sport teams.

Why does the land have to be given away? Why can it not be leased?

If the city provided the land in the West Village on a 50-75 year lease they would not be giving anything away. Work out the particulars around property taxes and lease payments and that is what the city provides.

Not unreasonable for a project like this to be given property tax breaks for the first five years. Three years no property taxes and an escalating increase of 20% over the next five years. The lease payments for the land can be based on the usage of the facilities. Add $10 to each ticket for each event depending upon the number of concerts is about $15M.

Plus if the developed area is expected to have restaurants and bars in the area than you charge a percentage surcharge on all tabs that goes to the city. Make it a user tax for those that are going to use the facilities.

If you want to reduce the infrastructure requirements that the city needs to pay out you make sure that the development is only allowed to have a parkade that has one way in and one way out onto 9th Ave and that it has a maximum capacity of 5000 vehicles. Everybody else needs to take transit, walk, or take a cab. Because it is so close to downtown there are lots of parking opportunities and cab rides are $5. The city can also get a percentage of the parking rates that are charged for the events, along with a percentage of the parking rates that will be charged for the daily parking permits sold.

No city handouts. No valuable land given away. Make people like Muta or myself pay for the facilities that we want and need in the city. If you never use them, then there is nothing out of your pocket for them. But there needs to be some sort of partnership in a project such as this. Refusing to work with the Flames is just ignorant.

Bigtime · 11-25-2014, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taffeyb

...and he has a bad habit of throwing in bad jokes when he is in front of said microphones...

...and Ralph had a habit of throwing change at people on the street.

What does this have to do with a new arena?

liamenator · 11-25-2014, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taffeyb

I hate how people keep referring to the use of public money. Let's make it real easy. Let use zero public dollars and give right of first refusal for ALL events held the new arena and/or stadium to existing season ticket holders of the Flames' organizations. Any leftover scraps can then be offered to the public. Little do people realized, lots of people use the Dome. I'm sure that they'll be screaming then.

Having 'lots of people' use it does not make the Saddledome a public space. Those who do not pay a fee and agree to terms of use are barred entry. That is literally the definition of non-public space.

taffeyb · 11-25-2014, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamenator

Having 'lots of people' use it does not make the Saddledome a public space. Those who do not pay a fee and agree to terms of use are barred entry. That is literally the definition of non-public space.

True. However, I never said that the Dome is public. The point of the matter is that there are a lot of events that go through the Dome that the public may wish to partake in

People would not hesitate to use public money to fund transit. Yet, the public is not allowed to use transit unless they also pay a fee. Same for leisure centres. It gives opportunities for people to partake.

Weitz · 11-25-2014, 01:00 PM

I think the bottom line thing is a new building will probably raise average price of tickets by a decent amount.

I would say most people in this city feel the Flames are too expensive as it is. Why would most people want to commit their tax money into something that will likely make it even harder for them to enjoy?

liamenator · 11-25-2014, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taffeyb

True. However, I never said that it is public. The point of the matter is that there are a lot of events that go through the Dome.

People would not hesitate to use public money to fund transit. Yet, the public is not allowed to use transit unless they also pay a fee. Same for leisure centres.

Yes, lots of events go through the dome. That doesn't add anything to the argument. Lots of events go through every single nightclub in the city. They do not and should not receive public funds or free land for development.

User fees for publicly-owned transit and leisure centres go back into the public purse. Ticket fees and other revenue generated at privately-owned facilities like the Saddledome go into bank accounts of their owners.

Frequitude · 11-25-2014, 01:20 PM

Who currently holds the reclamation liability for the Greyhound/GSL area?

JBR · 11-25-2014, 01:24 PM

This is great conversation to follow, regardless of one's opinion on funding, location, design etc.

I can't wait until announcement date and seeing this thread break the internet.

RM14 · 11-25-2014, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamenator

Ticket fees and other revenue generated at privately-owned facilities like the Saddledome go into bank accounts of their owners.

No they don't. The Flames reinvest all their revenues back into the franchise. The Flames owners don't withdrawl "profits" from the franchise.

Bunk · 11-25-2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Who currently holds the reclamation liability for the Greyhound/GSL area?

City. It owns all these lands (minus the Mercedes dealership).

ExiledFlamesFan · 11-25-2014, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM14

No they don't. The Flames reinvest all their revenues back into the franchise. The Flames owners don't withdrawl "profits" from the franchise.

Not sure about how much "reinvesting" the team is doing with the second lowest payroll in the league.

We'll see the true reinvestment level when the arena financing plans are released.

liamenator · 11-25-2014, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM14

No they don't. The Flames reinvest all their revenues back into the franchise. The Flames owners don't withdrawl "profits" from the franchise.

Oh come on. They're not making a cent, eh?

RM14 · 11-25-2014, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamenator

Oh come on. They're not making a cent, eh?

When they sell their ownership there will most likely be a capital gain but their personal bank accounts are very seperate from the Calgary Flames bank accounts.

DirtyMike · 11-25-2014, 01:57 PM

I don't understand the need for public money. I don't believe private enterprises like the Flames should be getting money from public sources. The Flames could charge a $7 "Arena Improvement" fee to every ticket sold at the Dome for the next five years and raise a substantial portion of the money needed. The Calgary Airport Authority is similar in terms of being a heavily used piece of infrastructure operated by a private company. They charge everyone an $30 Airport Improvement fee, and have managed to fund a $2B expansion.

liamenator · 11-25-2014, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM14

When they sell their ownership there will most likely be a capital gain but their personal bank accounts are very seperate from the Calgary Flames bank accounts.

I used the term 'bank accounts' metonymically to refer to the cumulative net worth of the ownership group of Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSE). This net worth is affected positively by the revenues generated by its various interests, which include the Calgary Flames hockey club.

Do you have any evidence that the CSE pays no dividends to its owners?

keratosis · 11-25-2014, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamenator

metonymically?

Big words hurt my head.

Lord Carnage · 11-25-2014, 02:17 PM

There really are some pretty bull-headed people in this discussion... makes it quite entertaining (and thoroughly frustrating) to read...

RM14 · 11-25-2014, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamenator

Do you have any evidence that the CSE pays no dividends to its owners?

I was told this has never happened in the history of the team in Calgary. Ask about it next season ticket holder event.

Finger Cookin · 11-25-2014, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamenator

Do you have any evidence that the CSE pays no dividends to its owners?

I do know over $32 million has been donated to charity from the hockey club since 1983.

liamenator · 11-25-2014, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

I do know over $32 million has been donated to charity from the hockey club since 1983.

...which suggests that the team has positively affected the net worth of the owners. This was my original point about the nature of privately- vs. publicly-owned institutions. I'm not sure why anyone is arguing this basic economic point.

The Calgary Flames owners are not trustees of a public good, nor do they operate the team as a non-profit organization. It's irritating when people categorize them as such in order to suggest they should have access to the public purse.