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

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is actually not that surprising. Edmonton gets a ton of concerts that pass Calgary by because of the roof.

Yeah, I don't know about a "ton" either, but they've always been crazy for the live rock and/or roll in Edmonchuk. They are up there ahead of Chicago and Vancouver, and that doesn't have anything to do with the roof of the Saddledome.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

man I'd love to look inside this discussion for actual news on the arena and not a back and forth on public funding ...

If that were the case, there would be about two posts in this thread.

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is actually not that surprising. Edmonton gets a ton of concerts that pass Calgary by because of the roof.

Plus a week of the Canadian Finals Rodeo each year probably helps out as well.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by fotze

Actually it does. The director of building operations told me directly to my face that certain shows cannot play the done because of the roof.

Also my roommate at one time as one of his duties was to evaluate speaker loads for different shows. One I remember in particular was for a Radiohead show.

Additionally the person who gave me the name fotze also did work checking if particular shows speaker arrangements could be handled, it is an ongoing issue.

So absolutely the saddledome roof limits shows that come to the dome. It is not ideal.

Shut up.

Edit: Apologies to fotze


Yeah, I get that about the roof. What I mean though is that even if they (we?) had the greatest roof in the world, Edmonton would still get more dough from concerts.

Someone in the music business told ME directly to my face that bands love going to Edmonton because they sell out everything.

I think AC/DC and Iron Maiden live together in a big (but not fancy) house in Leduc.

[troutman]

Nenshi said there are only about 2 shows a year the Dome can't host, and it is not really because of the roof, but the scoreboard.

[getbak]

I'm sure it's more than 2 shows a year. There are usually about 2 acts a year that I'd consider going to see that play Edmonton but not Calgary, so I'm sure there's a bunch more that I'd never think about going to see.

The scoreboard is definitely a big culprit. If you remember, it wasn't really until the new board was installed that acts really started playing places like Edmonton and Saskatoon while bypassing Calgary. IIRC, the maximum clearance under the scoreboard at the Saddledome now is less than the clearance under the scoreboard at the Enmax Centre in Lethbridge.

Monster Jam is another show that can't play the Dome anymore. Now, they go to the Stampede Grandstand. It's not a lot, but it's an extra 2 nights a year.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by getbak

I'm sure it's more than 2 shows a year...

I don't doubt it, but we've heard about this for years and I'm just kind of curious. Who do we miss out on? And this isn't a "oh who cares if Beyonce comes here?" kind of thing. I'm wondering if they would really stop here. Maybe they would only do one stop in Alberta either way? Maybe that stop could be in Calgary, I guess.

Or, when Calgary and Edmonton both have new rinks, will the big acts stop in both towns?*

KISS played here last time (hopefully!) around and Katy Perry and Tom Petty are here in the next few weeks. Now sure, Katy Perry has way bigger eyes and breasts than Tom Petty, but their stage setups must be nearly as big as anyone's.


*My real question is this: Will we finally FINALLY get R. Kelly into Calgary and showering us with his golden voice, if we just build a new rink?

[corporatejay]

Justin timberlake has skipped Calgary twice because of the roof/scoreboard. Faith hill and tim McGraw's duet tour as well

Showering us with his Golden voice eh? I'll defer to fotze

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Justin timberlake has skipped Calgary twice because of the roof/scoreboard. Faith hill and tim McGraw's duet tour as well

Showering us with his Golden voice eh? I'll defer to fotze

That's strange, usually it's fotze deferring to golden showers

[Jacks]

I had to go to mulletville to see Paul McCartney. Not sure if the roof at the Dome had anything to do with that but I'm still scarred from the experience.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm well aware of that ... just tired of two extremes treating the issue like it's black or white when as most of life its going to be and is a shade of gray

The appeal to the middle fallacy. Either side of the "debate" are "extremes" meaning that the truth must be somewhere in the middle. A perfect way to conjure up support for public money being wasted on arenas.

Saying that public money spent on arenas is a waste is not an extreme opinion. It's well supported by fact.

[Resolute 14]

The very definition of "waste" that you are using argues against things like museums, parks and various art installations that the various levels of government spend money on which will never be recouped.

[Tinordi]

You couldn't misunderstand my argument more.

Museums, parks, art, libraries are not part of a billion dollar a year business. There's value in public money supporting them because private money will not.

It's a waste of taxpayer money because it's simply a subsidy to something that the private sector would provision itself. Net loss.

[Resolute 14]

No, I understood your argument perfectly. I simply dispute that your personal definition of "waste" is the only way to view the argument. Like it or not, you are at an extreme, and like it or not, the suggestion that people might consider options and viewpoints between your extreme and the other extreme of funding everything publicly is not a fallacy.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, I understood your argument perfectly. I simply dispute that your personal definition of "waste" is the only way to view the argument. Like it or not, you are at an extreme, and like it or not, the suggestion that people might consider options and viewpoints between your extreme and the other extreme of funding everything publicly is not a fallacy.

What a cynical rhetorical trick.

You can't argue with my point that public money for private arenas is a waste of taxpayer dollars. You then try to move the goal posts saying that waste means different things to different people but then don't ever say why it isn't wasted besides your personal feelings on what is and what isn't waste.

You then say that my well supported points are actually extreme and that your feelings are in the middle and therefore deserving of more merit.

What a freaking joke.

[Resolute 14]

Yup. I disagree with you, therefore my opinions are a joke. Shame on me for failing to bow down before the great Tinordi's obviously superior intellect.

Your opinion that spending any public money is a waste is fine and valid. Obviously I disagree with it. But when it comes to how much public money should be spent on a project, $0 is, by definition, an extreme. You're certainly within your rights to believe that this extreme is the appropriate amount, but for the love of god, don't sit there and cry because your opinion that stands at an extreme end of the scale is being called for what it is.

And like it or not, your view that any public money being spent is a waste is merely a personal feeling of your own. So if I'm moving the goalposts, it is only to put them back where they were before you moved them yourself.

I will reiterate something I stated earlier in this thread: I consider an arena to be a public good. The Saddledome was publicly funded. It is not at all likely the various levels of government that paid for it recouped their cost. But in my opinion, our city was enhanced considerably as a result of its construction. On that basis, and as an individual tax payer, I would support having a portion of a new facility funded publicly. However, I do also believe that the majority of the cost should be private. And as an individual user of such a facility, I would also support paying something like a ticket surcharge to help cover that cost as well.

Is my opinion more reasonable than yours? That is something I would leave to others to decide.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like it or not, you are at an extreme, and like it or not, the suggestion that people might consider options and viewpoints between your extreme and the other extreme of funding everything publicly is not a fallacy.

On the issue of publicly funding arenas that will be owned and operated by enormously wealthy private interests? If you polled Calgarians, I think you'll find Tinordi's opinion not extreme at all.

Take a look at a poll of Edmontonians on the issue.

Only 5% of Edmontonians ‘strongly support’ the City of Edmonton providing taxpayer dollars toward the arena (unchanged from February, 2010). An additional, one-fifth (22%) ‘somewhat supported’ the concept of taxpayer money being used for a new downtown arena.

And I'd bet Calgarians are even less supportive of public funding.

[Zevo]

[Jer Bu]

I believe the free public money option is a non starter outside of interest and some infrastrucure. The extremes being referred to should really be about the amount of time expected to see ROI on the amounts financed. 10 years, 20 years, 30 years...

Here is an option I THINK I would find reasonable (haven't put a ton o thought into it)

1. Flames by property at market value

2. (public funded flames benefit) Provide an escalating tax structure for property taxes over 10 years - 0 first year full 10th year.

3. (public funded benefit) Finance an amount less than $100M with payback of $10M/year completed in 10 years either paid directly by flames or through a cut of stadium profits.

4. (Public funded benefit) Finance a second amount of $50M to be paid back through a user tax on the facility - $2.50 per person per event over the 20 year reasonable life of the venue

4. (public funded benefit) Subsidize 50% of infrastructure requirements (Walmart has to pay for infrastructure changes required for it's stores, so should the Flames, but there is also city value for proper infrastructure to it's attractions).

5. Flames win cup due to awesome new facility. Calgary becomes better concert spot than Edmonton.

This approaches the "extreme" side of the equation to me, and would mean $100M - $200M of public money in total.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Jer Bu

I believe the free public money option is a non starter outside of interest and some infrastrucure. The extremes being referred to should really be about the amount of time expected to see ROI on the amounts financed. 10 years, 20 years, 30 years...

Here is an option I THINK I would find reasonable (haven't put a ton o thought into it)

1. Flames by property at market value

2. (public funded flames benefit) Provide an escalating tax structure for property taxes over 10 years - 0 first year full 10th year.

3. (public funded benefit) Finance an amount less than $100M with payback of $10M/year completed in 10 years either paid directly by flames or through a cut of stadium profits.

4. (Public funded benefit) Finance a second amount of $50M to be paid back through a user tax on the facility - $2.50 per person per event over the 20 year reasonable life of the venue

4. (public funded benefit) Subsidize 50% of infrastructure requirements (Walmart has to pay for infrastructure changes required for it's stores, so should the Flames, but there is also city value for proper infrastructure to it's attractions).

5. Flames win cup due to awesome new facility. Calgary becomes better concert spot than Edmonton.

This approaches the "extreme" side of the equation to me, and would mean $100M - $200M of public money in total.

What you propose is a logical plan to have the city help fund a new arena. It has no place in this thread. You're either in favour of the city blindly handing over hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaires, or you are in favour of Mayor Nenshi going on TV and having him angerly tell the Flames organization to go Fata themselves with a hockey stick. There is no middle ground.