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

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by shutout

I dont go to the libraries in the city but my taxes pay for them. I dont use the swimming pools in the city but my taxes pay for them. At some point in time there is a public cost for improving your city. Just what is the value of that cost.

Swimming pools and libraries are non-profit, public institutions. The Flames are a for-profit, private institution, owned by billionaires.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by shutout

Getting public money should not be an issue to getting this built. Its just in how you structure it. Along with the fact that non users are going to have to contribute as well. I dont go to the libraries in the city but my taxes pay for them. I dont use the swimming pools in the city but my taxes pay for them. At some point in time there is a public cost for improving your city. Just what is the value of that cost.

These are good arguments, but the public employees running those facilities are not paid exuberant salaries such as professional athletes and people involved with the team. Not to mention the immediate cost for using the facilities (ie tickets). That's where the animosity for public funding for a sports stadium lies.

So you can hand out 10-15 year, 100 million dollar contracts, and take my $100-$500/game but not pay for the rink yourself? That's where most citizens would call BS.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Swimming pools and libraries are non-profit, public institutions. The Flames are a for-profit, private institution, owned by billionaires.

This would be a good question to ask Ken King. If the flames owners do indeed run the team for profit. From what I have heard, is that the organization is run more like a non-profit, where earnings are reinvested into the team or sub teams. I highly doubt the owners are in the NHL game to make money.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by RM14

This would be a good question to ask Ken King. If the flames owners do indeed run the team for profit. From what I have heard, is that the organization is run more like a non-profit, where earnings are reinvested into the team or sub teams. I highly doubt the owners are in the NHL game to make money.

It doesn't mean they don't.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by RM14

This would be a good question to ask Ken King. If the flames owners do indeed run the team for profit. From what I have heard, is that the organization is run more like a non-profit, where earnings are reinvested into the team or sub teams. I highly doubt the owners are in the NHL game to make money.

Well if that's the case and they want public money to run a "non-profit" they'd allow auditing to make sure that all profits are redirected. Surplus is returned to repay the loan.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Of course owners are in sports to make money. The Senators just signed a $400 million TV deal because they don't want to make money? The Flames if they could would sign a similar deal tomorrow. The Green Bay Packers are professional sports only not for profit, and they paid for all their stadium renovations through "stock" offerings (Its not stock, its a piece of paper. No dividends, no return. Its just $250 to say you own part of the Packers).

[Flash Walken]

I don't know what you're all on about.

This is clearly another Rock Solid Plan™.

Just have patience...

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by SebC

Directing development towards the inner city and away from the surburbs has monetary value to the city of Calgary, because inner city developments are more fiscally lucrative than suburban ones.

I don't disagree, but to me a suburban arena is a complete red herring. The Flames want and need an arena downtown and any talk of building in Balzac or even the industrial park is just a bluff, and a bad one at that. I'm sure the owners have been to Kanata or Glendale and seen how undesirable a non central arena can be.

Having said that, I'm not convinced the arena would spur development in the West Village (at least not better than an East Village-style plan). It may simply displace the development that would otherwise take place on its footprint, and also it may split focus between the East Village and West Village (whereas I'd rather saturate the East Village, then move on to the West Village).

I like the North Victoria Park area for the arena. No LRT transfers for anyone and it's not using prime riverfront real estate. The closer it is to the CP tracks, the better.

Completely agree. The Vic Park spot may be a longer walk from City Hall than the Dome is from Victoria Park (just a 600m vs. 400m difference) but is at least on both lines Plus would be next to a future SE LRT/Transitway stop. It's better for the Stampede but still gives the Flames access to parking revenue and puts a high value location next to those terrible tracks.

The West Village is extremely inaccessible for pedestrians though does have better driving infrastructure (even if it is extremely flawed infrastructure). Plus even if the pedestrian issue was fixed, the tracks being where they are and all the other borders around the area it really limits further development opportunities as a result.

Vic Park is the best spot and I really hope that's where they choose to go.

Originally Posted by shutout

For the owners a new building is a clear win from a business advantage.
Especially if you build an entertainment district in the area as well.
Have a new arena and a new stadium that are in the same west village location.
Both venues are equally situated to the train, transit, and parkades that will go in to handle parking.

But the crown jewel would be having an entertainment district with a dozen different bars and restaurants that would handle all of the pregame and post game requirements of the fans. And would be trendy and convenient enough for people to go to on weekends and after work even when there is no games going on. That is before you even factor in the potential to build in convention space in the area as well.

Public money for the project will be for more than a new hockey arena. It will be for developing a whole area that will generate jobs and taxes.

The dream is for Stampede Trail to actually happen, and an arena in Vic Park would certainly help with that. However the city shouldn't need to pay for this to happen, with the increase in development in the East Village, Victoria Park and east side of the Beltline plus arena traffic you'd have a hard time keeping private money away. No need to use taxpayer money for anything other than the greenspace developments around the area.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Of course owners are in sports to make money. The Senators just signed a $400 million TV deal because they don't want to make money? The Flames if they could would sign a similar deal tomorrow. The Green Bay Packers are professional sports only not for profit, and they paid for all their stadium renovations through "stock" offerings (Its not stock, its a piece of paper. No dividends, no return. Its just $250 to say you own part of the Packers).

Sens need that money, Melnyk admitted the team is loosing "staggering amounts of money"

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-...ey-own-cap-set

Sharks owner during an interview:

the man has quite the financial portfolio and sporting background. Why, then, invest in a hockey team he readily admits can’t make money?

Easy.

“Despite it’s such a hard sport, and tough sport, and sometimes violent, it is aesthetically unbelievable when you see the guys and what they can do on skates at the tempo,” he said.

“This is missing in soccer.”

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...a-hockey-team/


or Blackhawks the 4th most valuable team in the leauge arn't even making money..

http://www.thestar.com/business/2013..._playoffs.html

[Senator Clay Davis]

That they are losing money doesn't mean they want to. Believe me they don't pay hundreds of millions of dollars to lose millions more. Every sports owner wishes they were the NFL. Why? Because every NFL team is profitable before playing a game because of the TV deal. Sports teams are worth 10 times (at least) what they were 30 years ago. Making lots of money is the reason why.

[Red John]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The first rule of world class cities is that they never call themselves "world class cities."

Guess that rules out Vancouver then.

[Tyler]

You don't make money when you own an NHL team. You make money when you sell an NHL team. This has been a given for the last 20 years. Why does everyone struggle to understand this??

[#-3]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Anything objective I have read pretty convincingly debunks public financing of stadiums as having very little economic benefit, and is generally considered to be about the poorest investment a government can make with its public funds. If you can find something that makes a convincing case otherwise, feel free to share.

I do think there are some intangible benefits to having a sports team though, and the fact is Calgary has to compete with other cities that do benefit from public financing, so in some ways it is probably a bit of a necessary evil if you want to keep a competitive team. It's too bad though that all the levels of government can't get together and agree to get out of this business.

It really doesn't pass the "smell test" that a team can have payrolls approaching 100 million/year, but can't finance a 500 million dollar asset. To really over-simplify things: What's a mortgage on a 500 million stadium? 30-40 million per year? Seems like the obvious answer is to pay players less and pay for your own damn building? It seems that all public financing does is inflate salaries. And directing money to player's salaries is not really great for a city when the players who are making that money likely end up spending the bulk of it elsewhere over the course of their lifetime.

But Calgary is not a vacuum and they probably just have to suck it up and go along with the rest of the continent.

This is exactly how I feel, but word much better that I probably would have.

[Southside]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The first rule of world class cities is that they never call themselves "world class cities."

Not without world class amenities.

[Vulcan]

I know that 4 of the NHL arenas built in Canada were privately financed. Rogers in Vancouver, Air CAnada Centre in Toronto, Scotia Bank Centre in Ottawa and the Bell Centre in Montreal. Not sure about Winnipeg but this shows that arenas can be privately built and in Canada are the majority. The downside is that the smaller markets owners of both Vancouver and Ottawa went bankrupt shortly after their arenas were built.

I think even billionaires may have a hard time putting out $.5B + for a new arena and or stadium.

[Southside]

Wasn't the ACC built partially through sale of seat licenses?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yup, the Leafs and the Blue Jackets (???) are the only two NHL teams who do PSLs (Personal Seat License). PSLs are mostly an NFL thing (almost half the teams in the league do it).

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Anything objective I have read pretty convincingly debunks public financing of stadiums as having very little economic benefit, and is generally considered to be about the poorest investment a government can make with its public funds. If you can find something that makes a convincing case otherwise, feel free to share.

I do think there are some intangible benefits to having a sports team though, and the fact is Calgary has to compete with other cities that do benefit from public financing, so in some ways it is probably a bit of a necessary evil if you want to keep a competitive team. It's too bad though that all the levels of government can't get together and agree to get out of this business.

It really doesn't pass the "smell test" that a team can have payrolls approaching 100 million/year, but can't finance a 500 million dollar asset. To really over-simplify things: What's a mortgage on a 500 million stadium? 30-40 million per year? Seems like the obvious answer is to pay players less and pay for your own damn building? It seems that all public financing does is inflate salaries. And directing money to player's salaries is not really great for a city when the players who are making that money likely end up spending the bulk of it elsewhere over the course of their lifetime.

But Calgary is not a vacuum and they probably just have to suck it up and go along with the rest of the continent.

Anything I've ever read or been sent to read by those that feel there is zero value to cities on projects like this lack any sort of well conducted financial analysis what so ever. I'd be very open and interested to read one that does, despite my stance in my post, I'm not passionate about the position. My head simply can't fathom a scenario where there is zero benefit for the city in question. I can though wrap my head around a scenario where there is little tangible benefit for the city, or at least little benefit in comparison the investment governments often end up making.

However, there has to be some value at least. Take these scenarios. If just one person decides to come into town for just one night, to see a game or a show at a rink, that one person buying a ticket, getting a hotel room, paying for a cab, buying drinks and a meal on a trip they would not have made if the event wasn't going on, has just made an incremental positive impact to the city. Now of course, one person wouldn't justify any spend on such a facility, but how many people do that, I don't know, or how many locals spend money each night of an event that they wouldn't spend in Calgary if a game or concert wasn't on. The previous scenario happens every night there is an event on at the dome, it create value, in my mind that's not debatable, but how much value, and does it create even close to enough to warrant spend by the city.......that's very debatable for sure.

Or the other scenario that is much harder to figure out. How many businesses / companies have set up head offices here or significant presence here, that wouldn't have done if they didn't feel Calgary could offer the quality of life to its employees (and attract employees) to its company. Catch here, is the Flames and a top notch arena facility are only a small portion of that equation which includes countless number of things from safety of the city, to parks and green space, art scene, restaurants, etc....... Again, what does a major league sports team and a great facility for shows contribute to that, and what is that worth? I have no idea, but it's definetly worth something, but enough to warrant any major spend...... Again I don't know.

Point being, I've never scene a study that does a good job of trying to quantify the value of the above, and make a good case in either direction.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I know that 4 of the NHL arenas built in Canada were privately financed. Rogers in Vancouver, Air CAnada Centre in Toronto, Scotia Bank Centre in Ottawa and the Bell Centre in Montreal. Not sure about Winnipeg but this shows that arenas can be privately built and in Canada are the majority. The downside is that the smaller markets owners of both Vancouver and Ottawa went bankrupt shortly after their arenas were built.

MTS was a mix: 30% from all levels of government (no idea on the split, I imagine the feds amount was rather insignificant) and 70% private (so ~$40M public money). There is also a rather convoluted arrangement with ticket surcharges and VLT money that leads to tax breaks and other stuff but everything I can find on MTS is rather unlike most area deals that involve public money, it's kind of weird. The public money was largely due to the SHED (Sports, Hospitality and Entertainment District) Winnipeg is developing that was centered around a new arena, further funding is based a TIF that will go into some theatre and convention centre development.

So far the public money going into MTS has been extremely beneficial as it is the third busiest arena for non-sporting events in the country despite its capacity (and that smaller capacity actually helps as it can double as a large venue and an excellent mid-size venue that other arenas can't). From what I have found, the tax breaks are due to the ticket surcharges and VLT money performing better than expected.


When compared to Ottawa, that was just a bad project in the first place. But the problem came when the Senators owners were forced to cover the entire debt without refinancing (it was a bad financing deal to start off with which is why the mortgage holders went bankrupt in the first place), something they didn't expect. Had they been able to refinance and make it until the lockout (and therefore the dollar being better) they may not have gone bankrupt.

I don't recall the Canucks ever going bankrupt, I know they were close but I'm pretty sure they held on despite the cost overruns of GM Place.

[skeena1]

The Canucks never went bankrupt, but their owenrs were forced to to sell them, the NBA Grizzlies and the building. The burden of running two pro franchises with a 65 cent dollar proved too much.