Burke at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce

[RM14]

Originally Posted by getbak

No, the studio is $22.8 million: http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...115/story.html



He multiplied it by 10 to make the numbers closer to the cost of an NHL arena.

Wow, ok I really read that wrong. Thanks definitly not the same then.

[Rick M.]

The debate has reached the national press.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...addledome-2-0/

[The Voice of Reason]

The city of Edmonton spent tax payer dollars on their new arena.

Edmonton is no good.

Therefore, spending tax payer dollars on a new arena is no good.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by RM14

You're missing a significant zero on the $28 as it's $228. Movie producers are also millionaires and billionaires and the city is funding a facility for their private enterprise. The main revenues go back to LA or wherever. The Calgary Flames have done a heck of a lot more for this city than movie companies. Although I agree with the studio project.

It seems this money wen't to the movie studio though pretty smoothly without any crying, yet anytime talk of a new arena, people whine that our Billionaire owners can pay for it themselves. Even though they haven't once ask for anything. The main point I take away is that we are lucky to have the Flames and a community minded ownership group.

Originally Posted by CalgaryHerald

The project wasn’t immune from public criticism, but few seemed to question a financing formula that requires the anchor tenant, William F. White, to put up just $1 million of the $22.8 million and the province, city and Calgary Economic Development to contribute the rest.

I must have misread that sentence, I thought the total was $22.8 million with then tenant putting up $1 million and $21.8 coming from the province.

I however agree with you on the funding even with the changed numbers. It is funding economic development for a smaller industry in Calgary. Full time all the time employment and projects will hopefully come from this.

I also agree with you that we are lucky to have the Flames, and we should fund some of the new arena. A small amount however.

The owners have been very generous to Calgary. For that I think we are all happy for. None of this point is lost on me.

However, to say:

Originally Posted by CalgaryHerald

Far from denigrating the Flames and their owners, we should count ourselves lucky that they’re part of our community. We’re talking about individuals such as Alvin Libin, who helped establish the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta with a mission of providing world-class cardiovascular health care, education and research.

This has nothing to do with the Flames, or people not wanting to fund a new arena. This is a rich man building a research hospital with his name on it. I am happy he is such a philanthropist, but this has nothing at all to do with the Flames or a new arena.

The writer here is somehow saying that the owners should not be tough questioned over their ask of a huge sum of money. Sorry but that is starting to tread into dangerous territory for me.

Let's please get away from the heart string arguments like this writer and Brian Burke uses. Can someone please develop a business case like they do with any major project in the companies these guys run? Present to tax payers the literal impact the Flames have on Calgary direct and indirect.

Somehow this never gets done. Why? because as giving as these guys are, they want a better deal than the hard numbers will give them. So the emotional arguments get trotted out. So I see no problem with criticizing and grilling them, personal charities or not.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Can someone please develop a business case like they do with any major project in the companies these guys run? Present to tax payers the literal impact the Flames have on Calgary direct and indirect.

Somehow this never gets done. Why? because as giving as these guys are, they want a better deal than the hard numbers will give them. So the emotional arguments get trotted out. So I see no problem with criticizing and grilling them, personal charities or not.

I'm really not following your line of thinking here. Do you think that these astute business guys won't conduct a full analysis of this project before potentially committing hundreds of millions of dollars to it? And you think the city will commit taxpayer money to this project without a study on social, economic and environmental impact on the community? "The emotional arguments being trotted out because the hard numbers don't work" = your conclusion from 1 op ed article from one Herald staffer. This is the beginning of a long process of studies, planning, negotiating, PR, problem solving.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by heep223

I'm really not following your line of thinking here. Do you think that these astute business guys won't conduct a full analysis of this project before potentially committing hundreds of millions of dollars to it? And you think the city will commit taxpayer money to this project without a study on social, economic and environmental impact on the community? "The emotional arguments being trotted out because the hard numbers don't work" = your conclusion from 1 op ed article from one Herald staffer. This is the beginning of a long process of studies, planning, negotiating, PR, problem solving.

Ok maybe I wasn't clear. I am not saying that at all. What I am trying to say is that if the owners want full support they need to be more transparent with taxpayers than saying things like "We play in a state of the art 1988 arena" or "Why should Edmonton have a better arena than us" or "They have lots of charities so we shouldn't criticize their ask of a huge sum of money"

I fully expect them to create lots of documentation, but they need to share it with us if they want our money. Edmonton fell in the trap that their owner set because they were afraid the team was moving to Seattle. They panicked and they got screwed.

I want Calgary in partnership with the Flames to do a study of economic impact, and release it to taxpayers showing why the money they want is worth it factually. I am sure the owners have done this, I just think if they want our money they should just come out and say why.

They maybe planning this already, and if so great. I just want people to get away from the love affair Edmonton has for their junk team that cost them money they shouldn't have spent. I'd like to think Calgary won't fall for the same emotional trap Katz laid.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

The city of Edmonton spent tax payer dollars on their new arena.

Edmonton is no good.

Therefore, spending tax payer dollars on a new arena is no good.

It doesn't need to be in every thread.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by jofillips

out of interest was the stadium being built (and publicly funded right?) in Edmonton full of taxpayer controversy/debate like this?

Absolutely as there should be debate on such large scale funding but Edmontonians tend to have more pride in their city than Calgarians so there will be more opposition in Calgary as there's a good portion of the population that's just here to make their money and go back home.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

The debate has reached the national press.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...addledome-2-0/

“Lower bowl in a new arena, in the new generation of arenas, is 9,000 seats, minimum. Our [Saddledome] is what, 6,000? So we’re not generating the revenue that an NHL building does.”

And this is what it all comes down to, and this is why I think these billionaires should pay for it themselves. Invest your own money to maximize your revunue stream like every other business.

[puckedoff]

Oilers owners or investors could have drummed up the extra $100 million to fund their arena on their own. The same can be said for Calgary's owners/arena. NHL is big business and if they want an arena they can find a way to get it done.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

The city of Edmonton spent tax payer dollars on their new arena.

Edmonton is no good.

Therefore, spending tax payer dollars on a new arena is no good.

Nice Aristotelian syllogism.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

....if the owners want full support they need to be more transparent with taxpayers than saying things like "We play in a state of the art 1988 arena" or "Why should Edmonton have a better arena than us" or "They have lots of charities so we shouldn't criticize their ask of a huge sum of money"

I actually don't think the owners have come out and said anything about the new arena (though I may be wrong)? Certainly they have not said anything to the effect of "we support charities so we deserve arena money". Nor have they made an ask for a huge sum of money, or am I missing something?

All we have so far is Brian Burke being Brian Burke and one journalist's opinion.

[Tinordi]

There are no honest and truthful analyses that demonstrate that the costs of providing public funding for arenas approach the benefits for taxpayers.

I guess that means I don't have pride in my city. Only those who don't care about hundreds of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars have civic pride.

[Alberta_Beef]

How much time and money does the Flames organization contribute to the community of Calgary? This has gone on for their entire existence and will continue to do so. So I really have no issues with the city/province giving something back towards an arena.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

How much time and money does the Flames organization contribute to the community of Calgary? This has gone on for their entire existence and will continue to do so. So I really have no issues with the city/province giving something back towards an arena.

It kind of loses the luster if they start leveraging it for public money.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by nik-

It kind of loses the luster if they start leveraging it for public money.

Who said they would use it for leverage? I was saying why I have no problem with them receiving some funds from either the civic or provincial government.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by nik-

It kind of loses the luster if they start leveraging it for public money.

Hopefully they don't do this. They are a pretty classy bunch and I doubt they would.


Sent from 6 feet under

[nik-]

I'd be incredibly confident in betting on "community investment" being referenced in their request for tax dollars. I have zero doubt that the Flames do a ton of great things in the community. I have little doubt that they're going to use it to their advantage.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'd be incredibly confident in betting on "community investment" being referenced in their request for tax dollars. I have zero doubt that the Flames do a ton of great things in the community. I have little doubt that they're going to use it to their advantage.

As they should as these are still largely the same men that have owned the team for over 3 decades unlike Edmonton where a rich guy bought the team as a toy hasn't done anything for the community except run the team into the ground and even pretended to entertain Seattle as a thinly veiled threat. If anything it would be a little insulting to the Flames ownership group to get the cold shoulder given what the province and city of Edmonton gave the clown up north.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

As they should as these are still largely the same men that have owned the team for over 3 decades unlike Edmonton where a rich guy bought the team as a toy hasn't done anything for the community except run the team into the ground and even pretended to entertain Seattle as a thinly veiled threat. If anything it would be a little insulting to the Flames ownership group to get the cold shoulder given what the province and city of Edmonton gave the clown up north.

Yes, but you don't think the end game of Flames would be "this market isn't viable if we don't get a new arena"? All these owners run the same playbook, across all leagues and all markets.

I'm not saying the Flames can't reference what they do in the community, just that it takes some of the shine off it if they tie it to asking for a huge chunk of taxpayer dollars.