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

[Mr.Coffee]

Yeah those numbers are nuts. And also if there is a public benefit to having the building... Oh well. Guess that's good for the city.

I just feel that when you buy a pro sports team, you should anticipate putting dough into a building. Calgary is an NHL worthy city, flames or not there will be NHL hockey here. If they want to move, go nuts. If they feel they need a new building, go nuts. But don't steal my money pretending it's in my benefit when really it's in the benefit of millionaires and billionaires and the saddledome is just fine for me.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by mr.coffee

yeah those numbers are nuts. And also if there is a public benefit to having the building... Oh well. Guess that's good for the city.

I just feel that when you buy a pro sports team, you should anticipate putting dough into a building. Calgary is an nhl worthy city, flames or not there will be nhl hockey here. If they want to move, go nuts. If they feel they need a new building, go nuts. but don't steal my money pretending it's in my benefit when really it's in the benefit of millionaires and billionaires and the saddledome is just fine for me.

lol

[nik-]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

If you read the report, you would understand that 87% statistic were tourists at a game/event, not tourists to the region.
This simply indicates the vast majority of visitors from outside the area who go to the games do so primarily for that reason. They aren't in the region and therefore decide to attend.

Well that makes sense at least. Still isn't changing the big picture in that it's not creating, just redistributing.

[nik-]

For the record, I have less of a problem for public assistance of a new multi-purpose stadium to replace McMahon (even though I think the CFL is a joke). If the university still uses it, if it can be used for concerts and if it's used as a push to get MLS here, if parking revenue is city controlled and it's not just handed over to Flames LP. I can get behind some assistance for that.

Not for multi-multi-billionaires to maximize their revenue in a top tier professional league.

[Loyal and True]

A few considerations on potential economic benefits:

Is it reasonably safe to assume that Flames players (and pretty much all other Flames employees/contractors who are residents) pay their 40% income tax here in Alberta? If so, it seems like a huge portion of the dollars spent on NHL Hockey stay here.

(Maybe some of it is being taxed in other jurisdictions on road games. I'm not sure. Do we collect a tax on visiting player salaries?)

If my recreational dollars get redistributed to movies, and travelling shows coming to town, then how much more of my money leaves the jurisdiction?

I already travel to other cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Seattle (even Edmonton once?!) to see concerts that don't stop in Calgary. Usually make a weekend or long weekend out of it if the concert is on a Tuesday. Flight, Hotel (car maybe?), meals and other entertainment spent out of town. If the concert was here I would spend more money here in town.

Likewise I know there are hundreds of season ticketholders (nevermind single game ticketholders) from other towns in Alberta that either come or stay in town for NHL hockey. They have dinner and maybe spend the night and have breakfast in town.

If NHL hockey isn't here, maybe they will pass on Calgary trips and take occaisional Westjet to Vcr, Edm, Wpg, Tor (maybe Seattle or Portland?)

Lastly, if there was no NHL team here, would any businessman invest his money in an expensive building to hold concerts without an anchor tennant? Probably not. So then the city will have to build something like MTS centre for its residents?

[nik-]

Except NHL hockey would be here, because leaving is an empty threat. Because as soon as they leave, Calgary would immediately become the hottest available NHL market. Yes, ahead of the protest vote second southern Ontario team even.

NHL players pay a 25% tax rate and a lot of them reside outside of the market. So 22 players paying income tax. It's money, but not exactly a windfall.

This is a topic that has been studied over and over. The findings are not on the side of the owners claims. It's just not there guys.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by nik-

NHL players pay a 25% tax rate and a lot of them reside outside of the market. So 22 players paying income tax. It's money, but not exactly a windfall.

I don't believe players pay 25% rate (but I am open to reviewing sources) because they are individuals, not corporations (Personal Services Business?). Most of them would be Canadian residents because they spend 183 days in Canada during the year. Given that Alberta is the lowest tax among provinces they would probably claim residence here.

Payroll of 50 to 70 million at 40% is 20 to 28 million per year. And that is only on the 22 players. Seems like there might be room for $100 million every 30 years.

[EldrickOnIce]

No. It is there. All studies of that nature suggest that, like the recent Ottawa University one.
What probably none suggest (except the stupid City Shaping propaganda out of Edmonton) is that a new facility stimulates economic development/growth and will broaden/expand the tax base such that it pays back a huge investment, like Edmonton's half billion dollars.

No NHL team will come to Calgary without a new building, with ten years or so. Again, or rather still, who pay how much and how that's paid is the only question.

[nik-]

Sorry, it is near 40%, but that doesn't make it anymore viable because another team will be here, even if we don't hand out arena dollars, because why would they leave the market open.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blog...teams-a-boost/

Again, these things are accounted for in feasibility studies. I don't understand why people are trying to defend handouts to billionaires. It's the same thing we laugh at poor Republican voters for.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

No. It is there. All studies of that nature suggest that, like the recent Ottawa University one.
What probably none suggest (except the stupid City Shaping propaganda out of Edmonton) is that a new facility stimulates economic development/growth and will broaden/expand the tax base such that it pays back a huge investment, like Edmonton's half billion dollars.

No NHL team will come to Calgary without a new building, with ten years or so. Again, or rather still, who pay how much and how that's paid is the only question.

If you think that all studies agree with the Ottawa one, we're done here, because you're so very very wrong. So wrong.

The first page of a google search on "publicly financed sports stadiums"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...16330349497852

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/...ity+Report.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-...b_2137937.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-fu...-bet-1.1378210

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by nik-

Except NHL hockey would be here, because leaving is an empty threat. Because as soon as they leave, Calgary would immediately become the hottest available NHL market. Yes, ahead of the protest vote second southern Ontario team even.

I think this is a fair point to consider. But that is a big gamble. Winnipeg and Quebec did not win that gamble. I don't want to wait 30 years and adopt another franchise from Atlanta again.

NHL wants stable owners and a proper building when considering where to locate a franchise. Our owners are the best. Our building is one of the worst. I don't doubt for one minute that our ownership group is primarily in the sports business for the community. They can get a better Return on Investment in the oilpatch anyday.

Some might be suggesting that our owners are rich off the oil business and can afford to build their own barn like Jerry Jones (I believe he built that on his own?). They are rich enough, but if the citizens appreciate what ownership is doing then local governments should invest a fair portion. If the citizens don't appreciate it then they should sell the team.

[nik-]

Calgary isn't Winnipeg or Quebec, and the owners and the NHL know that.

If our owners are the best, they won't try to leverage goodwill and civic pride into more tax money so they don't have to spend a small fraction of their billions. I'm pretty sure citizens are already showing their appreciation by paying the 6th highest ticket prices in the league night in and night out.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Jer Bu

The Flames are most certainly a for-profit enterprise. If they were not, then you would see the Flames still spending to the cap in order to ice a better team instead pocketing $10-$15 million of savings last year and likely this year. if they were a non profit, then season ticket costs wouldn't have risen AGAIN, for a product that will likely be worse.

You are way off base with this paragraph. If Treliving wanted to spend $15 million on a couple of players right now the owners wouldn't stop it. The tickets go up because the market can support it. The cap will most likely keep increasing year over year. They need the ticket revenue to do the same or risk becoming a have-not franchise again (remember the 90's? - boy were they fun).

Any money they make on the Flames is peanuts compared to their business ventures.

[Vulcan]

I'd be hard to convince me that there is any financial argument for building the new arena other than the owners will get a small increase in profit. Not enough to invest their own money though. For me it all comes down to enjoying a part of our culture. Do you want a new arena or not, knowing that it's going to cost taxpayers. No longer being a Calgarian, it's easy for me to say yes as I think one of the richest cities in Canada deserves one.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by nik-

Calgary isn't Winnipeg or Quebec, and the owners and the NHL know that.

Calgary is a lot closer to Winnipeg and Quebec than it is to Seattle, New Orleans, Miami etc etc etc never mind Boston, Chicago, Toronto or Montreal

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by nik-

For the record, I have less of a problem for public assistance of a new multi-purpose stadium to replace McMahon (even though I think the CFL is a joke). If the university still uses it, if it can be used for concerts and if it's used as a push to get MLS here, if parking revenue is city controlled and it's not just handed over to Flames LP. I can get behind some assistance for that.

Not for multi-multi-billionaires to maximize their revenue in a top tier professional league.

OK. So I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. It's OK to replace McMahon Stadium (even thought the City or Flames don't own it or the parking rights) with tax money so you can get your pet project, MLS to town, but it's not OK to build a new hockey rink because the Flames owners, who have supported charities within the city for over 30 years, would somehow benefit. Did I get that correct.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

Calgary is a lot closer to Winnipeg and Quebec than it is to Seattle, New Orleans, Miami etc etc etc never mind Boston, Chicago, Toronto or Montreal

Not for hockey it's not.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

OK. So I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. It's OK to replace McMahon Stadium (even thought the City or Flames don't own it or the parking rights) with tax money so you can get your pet project, MLS to town, but it's not OK to build a new hockey rink because the Flames owners, who have supported charities within the city for over 30 years, would somehow benefit. Did I get that correct.

No, I'm still not keen on it. I just have less of a problem with it if they utilized it as a multi-use facility.

edit: removed troll comment

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by nik-

The first page of a google search on "publicly financed sports stadiums"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...16330349497852

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/...ity+Report.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-...b_2137937.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-fu...-bet-1.1378210

Thanks for the links and I read them over. Some good points in these articles but far from suggesting like "governments should put in zero dollars to these stadiums because there is zero economic benefit"

Most of the examples are $500M to $1B deals which were sold to the public with exaggerated claims. It's not hard to agree that there is not enough marginal benefit to repay that cost. I think there is a lot to learn from the mistakes of other cities. Some of these are county governments that really got burned trying to draw development away from the big city.

Nothing in there to suggest $100M is a bad investment every 20 to 30 years

[nik-]

That's the thing though, it's all exaggerated claims, just on a smaller scale with an NHL arena (which will still be close to half a billion).

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by nik-

Not for hockey it's not.

I disagree. Winnipeg and Quebec are very passionate about their hockey too. Just as much as Calgary, arguably. Let's see how much NHL passion fizzles out of Calgary after 20 years without a team. 11 years ago it was pretty easy to get season tickets in this town.