Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[SuperMatt18]

I am against 100% publicly funded arenas, but do think there are benefits to the area for new arenas and would not be opposed if the Government chipped in a little bit to help fund improvements.

I do think it is pretty embarrassing that we are not a host city for the 2015 Women's World Cup because our facilities are not up to par, and we also missed out on the U-20 World Cup in 2007.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No you don't have to be 100% behind it. We have yet to hear about how much the Flames plan on paying and what will be expected from taxpayers. It's all speculation at this point. However if/when it comes to fruition please accept it and even embrace that the city will be getting one or two stadiums that will be able to rival any other in Canada in and the US. This is actually not a bad thing in the big picture. You have a right to an opinion but you can also accept that your view isn't shared by anyone. These things will get done regardless of how many people like you stant up to it as there were people in Winnipeg, Regina, Ottawa, Hamilton that shared your views but it's getting done. I don't necessarily agree myself how these things happen but I've given up wasting my time opposing such things as life is short and if it's going to happen may as well embrace the positives and what I can do to get my taxpayer money out of it and I will when I take my sons to as many games as I can.

Apparently not, as not backing an unneeded stadium results in you being a dick and telling people they have no pride in their city.

And actually my view is shared by plenty of people, apparently you've managed to avoid reading numerous posts that show that. I do love that your arguments for McMahon replacement were based completely on ignorance and hyperbole though, really demonstrating your intelligence there. And you had the nerve to call out anyone after that, ridiculous.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by bluck

Meh... just drive to Seattle and watch some real football.

Or you could support some great athletes within your own City that still play for the love of a game and pride, for prices that can still be affordable to typical families?



I have had both Flames and Stamps season tickets for over a decade, other than 2004 the stamps have been far more entertaining and a value for my dollar. I lived in Denver for years and went to many Broncos games, the NFL is like NASCAR, it is built on marketing and hype.

[puds]

It would cool if Calgary could get an MLS team. It's pretty much the only way I would support the stamps getting a new stadium.

I wish the CFL would relocate to Russia.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I am against 100% publicly funded arenas, but do think there are benefits to the area for new arenas and would not be opposed if the Government chipped in a little bit to help fund improvements.

I do think it is pretty embarrassing that we are not a host city for the 2015 Women's World Cup because our facilities are not up to par, and we also missed out on the U-20 World Cup in 2007.

The impetus is there when MONCTON beats us as a host city in 2015.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The impetus is there when MONCTON beats us as a host city in 2015.

I'd say Moncton has an advantage in that a smaller venue, which is perfect for the women's world cup, also suits their overall needs. There's little to no demand for a comparable venue in Calgary unless someone is going to make a real go at trying to land an MLS team, and that sounds like a longshot.

[Flamenspiel]

Well, lets be honest here, I am a season ticket holder so ideally I'd prefer 100 percent public financing so that my tickets don't go up as much! Certainly, I'd be leaning the other way if I was not a hockey fan as I don't like concerts in big venues and prefer the jub.

There is really no right and wrong on this matter, it just depends on where your interests lie; financial and otherwise.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by puds

It would cool if Calgary could get an MLS team. It's pretty much the only way I would support the stamps getting a new stadium.

I wish the CFL would relocate to Russia.

I hear Russia has some MLS teams, you could always move there.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't think you are a parasite but yes you lack the pride in this city that longtime Calgarians have.

Ha! I'm a born and raised Calgarian and I think spending one cent of city money on a football or hockey stadium would be an absolute joke. And actually I have a ton of pride in this city like many others who agree with me (Nenshi..?), it's just that some of us don't see the correlation of amazing new stadium(s) = awesome city.

To argue that a new rink or football stadium would "add" anything of value to the city that isn't already realized by McMahon and the Dome is a complete joke. Sorry but a couple of extra pop concerts per year really doesn't help the city nor (most of) the residents. The only thing it adds to is the experience of attending Flames and Stamps games, which probably 70-80% of the cities population never do, either by choice or because they simply cannot afford it.

If the Flames/Stamps want new facilities then their owners and (possibly) their ticket holders should be the ones fitting the bill. You may dislike the Peace Bridge, but any one resident of this city can walk back and forth across the thing whenever they'd like and for as long as they want. The Peace Bridge is accessible to and can be used by everyone. These new stadiums would basically be built specifically for the middle-upper classes (and not all of them, a sub set of them that like to attend live sporting events) and the average citizen will have to fork out good money just to see inside the darn buildings, let alone actually enjoy them like they can the bridge.

So in closing, no, wanting the government to build new facilities for your favourite sports teams does not make you a prideful Calgarian, simply short sighted Calgarian.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by valo403

What a joke. So just I'm getting this right, in order to demonstrate pride in the city you have to be 100% behind the building of a completely unnecessary stadium regardless of taxpayer expenditure? Is that your position?

I am not sure why you are so against this. The current stadium is inadequate. Ken King said it. The University said it. Fans say it. Compared to venues used or currently under development by the other teams in the same league (I could give a Fata about what Texas HS and NCAA do), it is the poorest in terms of being able to generate revenue bith from football and other events. The owners have no money to fix it. The operators are made up of the owners and the City and only one of three tenants has any money. Why would the Flames spend money to fix up a building they don't own or operate themselves unless it can be done more effectively than building a new one? Seems like a no brainer to me.

$100 million to fix up a building you don't own.
$250 million for a brand spanking new one that's yours to do with what you want.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

You may dislike the Peace Bridge, but any one resident of this city can walk back and forth across the thing whenever they'd like and for as long as they want. The Peace Bridge is accessible to and can be used by everyone.

But the fact remains that the Peace Bridge is not used by everyone. Many Calgarians will never set foot on it, but yet had to pay for it.

And for someone who doesn't work or live downtown, there is a cost associated with using the Peace Bridge. It costs money to move around, even for transit and there is a time cost in going downtown just to walk on the bridge.

That bridge was built for the people who live or work downtown, but everyone else had to pay for it too.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Plett25

But the fact remains that the Peace Bridge is not used by everyone. Many Calgarians will never set foot on it, but yet had to pay for it.

And for someone who doesn't work or live downtown, there is a cost associated with using the Peace Bridge. It costs money to move around, even for transit and there is a time cost in going downtown just to walk on the bridge.

That bridge was built for the people who live or work downtown, but everyone else had to pay for it too.

That's your (their) choice. Its a public facility that can be used by anyone in the city for free at any time. People will not have that same choice with the rink or stadium, they will have to pony up hundreds (in the case of the Flames) of dollars just to see it once - do you think most Calgarians can afford that?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'd say Moncton has an advantage in that a smaller venue, which is perfect for the women's world cup, also suits their overall needs. There's little to no demand for a comparable venue in Calgary unless someone is going to make a real go at trying to land an MLS team, and that sounds like a longshot.

More importantly, is there a soccer market in a place like Moncton? I'm more interested in what propelled this location as a viable venue outside of the stadium requirements. There has to be an interested market as well.

My point is that Calgary is in need of a soccer field with decent seating. It doesn't have to be fancy - 5-10k would be perfect, especially if Calgary is pursuing an NASL team in the future (will happen before an MLS franchise is considered).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I am not sure why you are so against this. The current stadium is inadequate. Ken King said it. The University said it. Fans say it. Compared to venues used or currently under development by the other teams in the same league (I could give a Fata about what Texas HS and NCAA do), it is the poorest in terms of being able to generate revenue bith from football and other events. The owners have no money to fix it. The operators are made up of the owners and the City and only one of three tenants has any money. Why would the Flames spend money to fix up a building they don't own or operate themselves unless it can be done more effectively than building a new one? Seems like a no brainer to me.

$100 million to fix up a building you don't own.
$250 million for a brand spanking new one that's yours to do with what you want.

I'm against public money to build private owners a new building that isn't needed. The current stadium functions just fine, if programs many times larger than the Stampeders can play out of comparable structures there is no reason they can't. If the Flames ownership group wants to build themselves a new stadium more power to them.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Plett25

But the fact remains that the Peace Bridge is not used by everyone. Many Calgarians will never set foot on it, but yet had to pay for it.

And for someone who doesn't work or live downtown, there is a cost associated with using the Peace Bridge. It costs money to move around, even for transit and there is a time cost in going downtown just to walk on the bridge.

That bridge was built for the people who live or work downtown, but everyone else had to pay for it too.

The same could be said for the roads you use to get to your house.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

More importantly, is there a soccer market in a place like Moncton? I'm more interested in what propelled this location as a viable venue outside of the stadium requirements. There has to be an interested market as well.

My point is that Calgary is in need of a soccer field with decent seating. It doesn't have to be fancy - 5-10k would be perfect, especially if Calgary is pursuing an NASL team in the future (will happen before an MLS franchise is considered).

Is the Moncton stadium soccer specific? I was under the impression it would also be used for football. Calgary is in the weird middle ground of needing 30,000+ for football while also needing a smaller venue for soccer.

[_Q_]

I'm actually all for tax-payer money going towards building a couple of stadiums. I pay for new interchanges in areas of the city I never use. My taxes go towards a school system, but I don't have kids. I pay for road upgrades and hospitals in Edmonton or Red Deer that I will also never use. Therefore I am all for my money going towards something that I will definitely benefit from, even if someone else won't.

Obviously, it shouldn't be 100% funded by tax payers, but a portion of it would be fine by me.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I'm actually all for tax-payer money going towards building a couple of stadiums. I pay for new interchanges in areas of the city I never use. My taxes go towards a school system, but I don't have kids. I pay for road upgrades and hospitals in Edmonton or Red Deer that I will also never use. Therefore I am all for my money going towards something that I will definitely benefit from, even if someone else won't.

Obviously, it shouldn't be 100% funded by tax payers, but a portion of it would be fine by me.

Hmmm, one thing here is definatley not like the others....

Edit: in case I need to add more, how in the world are you comparing vital pieces of our provinces infrastructure to a couple of "oldish" stadiums owned by a group of billionaires? What a joke.

[RogerWilco]

I think the football stadium would be adequate if they removed the benches and added seats. Then ripped out the entire concourse and expanded it with proper restroom facilities and venues. The seating area of the stadium is actualy very good IMO .

[kipperfan]

If the billionaires want new stadiums they can feel free to build them themselves. If they need help on funding for said stadiums then maybe they should look at seat licenses or another way of making their ticket holders pay a portion of the cost. To think the average Albertan or Calgarian needs to be subsizing the billionaires and their middle-upper class live sports attending fans is a complete and utter joke.