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

[Locke]

Seeing as this thread was started Jan. 26th, should we be expecting an announcement in 10 days?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by valo403

But if the need for a new stadium is driven by ownerships need to have more control over income it should without a doubt be 100% privately funded.

Yep. This isn't about parks and interchanges and bridges. It's about how much public money will go towards a privately-owned business in which the owners will collect all of the profits - a privately-owned business whose core customers come from among the top 5-10 per cent wealthiest people in the city. May as well talk about how much public money should go to the Southern family to pay for an expansion of Spruce Meadows.

And unless we get a tax hike along with the funding, the municipal money that goes to an arena will come out of somewhere else - LRT expansion, busing routes, snow removal, etc. Provincial money will come out of schools and hospitals (or towards racking up a higher debt).

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Well then that's honestly weird. To each their own I guess.

I've lived in Cairo for over a year and have visited (never lived in mind you) the US multiple times. I would take anywhere in the US over Cairo. That city is truly a dump. Same as Damascus (before the current war, I'm sure it's worse now).

You probably just see the nice parts... the Palm Springs... and probably not downtown LA. You probably have this image that the USA is a lot like Calgary, and really its not. While you do see a nice shiny building and arena here and there, a lot of areas really ghetto. i.e. walk a few blocks in either direction of HP Pavillian in SJ and you'll see why.

Calgary is honestly a very nice city, a large part because of social infrastructure and more developing from community to community rather then just spending your boatload of cash on, well as you would describe these for these crappy locations, a shiny building and arena here and there....

(/lived in Calgary 18 years, Edmonton 5 years, and now San Francisco bay area for 5 years)

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

Build whatever you want. Build a giant hideous horse themed sculpture behind one endzone that lights up after a touchdown like the home run sculpture in Miami.

Gross. I'd puke if that happened.

Originally Posted by valo403

Also, is there anything at all to indicate that the MLS is the least bit interested in expanding to a place like Calgary?

In my opinion, it would be a safe bet to assume there is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm pretty sure no one is against a new stadium or arena. What people are against is taxpayers footing the bill. Support infrastructure for any new stadium or arena? Sure I'm cool with that to a degree. But funding a want over funding needs is a non-starter for me and for many people.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Muta

So Calgary isn't a soccer city because they don't have the proper facility? I disagree with you there. Calgary actually is a soccer city and has always had problems finding enough playing surfaces to field games. There's always a shortage. I'm sure Mango and Ozy can testify to this, too.

And I'm sorry, but if you think McMahon isn't an embarrassment of a stadium, you obviously haven't been to many stadiums. This city has the money to do so much better. Sometimes, you have to make an investment. Would you keep a car for fifty years because you don't feel like spending money on a new one? I sure as hell wouldn't. Millions of people around the world purchase new cars every year - ones that run better, have better technology and are more suited to today's lifestyle. Not sure why arenas don't count here.

Last thing - Calgary wouldn't be able to host another Olympics unless another massive injection of money came in to upgrade the crumbling facilities we have... they're outdated and not suited to today's Olympic standards - McMahon included. This isn't 1988 - that was a quarter century ago.

I didn't say I don't think McMahon is an embarrassment. I'm actually not embarassed by it, but I am well aware it's not a world class facility. But it's certainly good enough to host a CFL team (2nd rate league) and CIS football.

The point was (and not because Calgary doesn't have lots of soccer enthusiest), is that Calgary doesn't HAVE to have a world class facility for everything to be world class. If we don't have a world class facilty to host international soccer, MLS or NFL football, that doesn't make this city second rate.

Calgary will never get an NFL franchise, and a one off event (world cup) and CFL football likely don't justify the creation of a world class outdoor (or dome) facility for this city. Now, if the business case is there for MLS and CFL to share the facility, along with larger concerts, I'd actually be excited to see something like this built in Calgary.

But if that case doesn't exist and the stadium never gets built, that absolutely does not make Calgary embarasssing, not in the slightest.

Everything esle you said I addressed in other posts.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'd wager to say one will be built within 10 years. And Calgary will reap the benefits. And it will be with MLS standards.

And no, it won't be another band-aid fix to McMahon Stadium. It will be completely new, even if you aren't in support of such a project.

An MLS specific stadium in the next 10 years? I'll take that wager.

[Ozy_Flame]

For the record I support partial public funding of stadiums, but only if it's multi-use and can support at least two professional teams to reach a broader audience. Additionally, the facility should have supplementary facilities for the public to use as a recreation venue or community rally point for all things sports and entertainment-related (not gambling though).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

You probably just see the nice parts... the Palm Springs... and probably not downtown LA. You probably have this image that the USA is a lot like Calgary, and really its not. While you do see a nice shiny building and arena here and there, a lot of areas really ghetto. i.e. walk a few blocks in either direction of HP Pavillian in SJ and you'll see why.

Calgary is honestly a very nice city, a large part because of social infrastructure and more developing from community to community rather then just spending your boatload of cash on, well as you would describe these for these crappy locations, a shiny building and arena here and there....

(/lived in Calgary 18 years, Edmonton 5 years, and now San Francisco bay area for 5 years)

The same can be said for most Canadian cities as well. Calgary has had the advantage of growing recently and having a fairly extended period of prosperity.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

For the record I support partial public funding of stadiums, but only if it's multi-use and can support at least two professional teams to reach a broader audience. Additionally, the facility should have supplementary facilities for the public to use as a recreation venue or community rally point for all things sports and entertainment-related (not gambling though).

That type of development I support. If public money is going to be involved there needs to be a way to provide public benefit, be it financially or through parts of the project.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

An MLS specific stadium in the next 10 years? I'll take that wager.

Not sure about MLS-specific, but more like a stadium as a whole. I'll hop on that bet, but from Ozy's side.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by valo403

An MLS specific stadium in the next 10 years? I'll take that wager.

MLS standards. Doesn't mean an MLS team will be here within the next 10 years. I would think that NASL will be here first, and Calgary will have the chance to graduate a team to MLS at some point a la the Vancouver Whitecaps. I believe Ottawa Fury FC is also on this general trajectory as well using Frank Clair (although it is a similar venue to McMahon).

Also, I'm not saying a stadium would be complete within 10 years, but I do think ground will be purchased, planned and possibly broke on within a decade.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

In my opinion, it would be a safe bet to assume there is.

I have my doubts on that, at least in the short term. The MLS president recently addressed expansion talk on twitter and outside of the second NY team there really doesn't seem to be any hurry to expand, and if there is expansion there seem to be a number of places in line ahead of Calgary, a city with pretty much zero soccer history. If Calgary gets a NASL team and supports it I could see the MLS on the radar, but we're talking at least 5-7 years to even get to that point.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm pretty sure no one is against a new stadium or arena. What people are against is taxpayers footing the bill. Support infrastructure for any new stadium or arena? Sure I'm cool with that to a degree. But funding a want over funding needs is a non-starter for me and for many people.

Yeah, I think both sides of this debate are a lot closer than we would like to admit. Most on here would be OK with a portion of it being funded by tax payers. I think also, all of us don't want it to be funded entirely on the public's dime.

The main issue I see is whether or not a project like this is needed.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

Not sure about MLS-specific, but more like a stadium as a whole. I'll hop on that bet, but from Ozy's side.

Well there's a shocker

I could see a stadium primarily for football with soccer capabilities, it seems that the Flames ownership is interested in one so it wouldn't surprise me.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah, I think both sides of this debate are a lot closer than we would like to admit. Most on here would be OK with a portion of it being funded by tax payers. I think also, all of us don't want it to be funded entirely on the public's dime.

The main issue I see is whether or not a project like this is needed.

That's exactly it. My opinion on the matter is it's clear a new Arena is needed for sure based on this city's needs:

- Dome's ability to continue to facilitate our NHL, WHL, Lacrosse teams is likely at most 10 years left of life (and those last years will be really pushing it)
- Already lossing out on concerts, so an upgrade is already much more needed now.

For, me, the debate remains on an new Outdoor stadium is required. Rigth now McMahon is good enough for the the CFL, which lets be honest, isn't exactly a top notch league and doesn't require the best facilities. But looking forward, how much more can the CFL team bring in in a new facility, what is the potential for and benefit for this city on a permenant Soccer tenant of some sort, what one off events could we go after (like world cup) and outdoor larger concernts (which we've never had really) if we had a new outdoor stadium facility. I'm excited about the idea of such a facility, but the city's need for this is much more debatable than the new arena.

The city has proven it needs and uses a top notch hockey rink over the past 3 decades, we've never had a top notch outdoor facility and I'd say it's debatable that a city with a Metro area of 1.5M needs one, but I'd love to see it.

[nik-]

I'm really not ok with funding stadiums and arenas so owners can maximize their revenues. If a multisport stadium is built as a replacement for McMahon and will consistently serve purposes other than CFL and the Dinos, then I can accept this.

When part of the argument for is "lost revenue streams" you lose me. That's part of cost of doing business. You want to access that revenue stream? You pay for the upgrades to reach it.

It's going to be nice to have a new Flames arena as well, but it's going to burn my ass when we contribute taxes to it and then we're going to get charged more just to get into the new building and see the same product.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I also find the lost revenue argument kind of amusing. So what, more people would show up in a nice new stadium for a 7-11 team than old ass McMahon for a 13-5 team? Somehow I really doubt it, and if thats the case, fans really need to reevaluate their priorities.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I also find the lost revenue argument kind of amusing. So what, more people would show up in a nice new stadium for a 7-11 team than old ass McMahon for a 13-5 team? Somehow I really doubt it, and if thats the case, fans really need to reevaluate their priorities.

I don't know, in the age where all games are broadcast in HD the venue plays a bigger role in drawing fans than ever before.

I am sure there are many people out there that would rather watch the game from the comfort of their own home than go sit on cold, hard, plastic seats for an 8PM start Stamps game in September.

For the Saddledome I think the product on the ice is a bigger determining factor for attendance, but I think for football the stadium does play a pretty big role in lower attendance even when the team is good.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I also find the lost revenue argument kind of amusing. So what, more people would show up in a nice new stadium for a 7-11 team than old ass McMahon for a 13-5 team? Somehow I really doubt it, and if thats the case, fans really need to reevaluate their priorities.

I'm not saying your wrong, but it's not about gate revenue. It's a combination of what cut do the teams take under the current arrangements, and how much extra concessions can you gain with a new stadium.

Both McMahon and the Dome lose out on tones of pre, post and in event revenue due to their old facilities. The services offered aren't fully comprehensive so fans go elsewhere for pre and post game spend, and the facilities during the game aren't optimised to pump attendees through the lines quickly and there for reduce total sales. You can only buy what the facilities are capable of serving you. This last part will seem trivial, but it's actually a huge problem for both the facilities in question, especially McMahon.