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

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand your argument but wouldn't you consider this to be a fairly large assumption? I mean we all assume the Flames ownership will pay for it themselves, but there is the threat that they could leave.

[nik-]

I know that in the end we're going to pay for this anyway ... it just bothers the hell out of me.

We pay for the luxury of likely less seats and higher ticket prices so we can walk though the concourse easier and the Flames can make more on suites.

Sign me up!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I understand your argument but wouldn't you consider this to be a fairly large assumption? I mean we all assume the Flames ownership will pay for it themselves, but there is the threat that they could leave.

Private money built the ACC and Bell Center. You know why? Because the local government knew there wasn't a chance in hell they would leave.

Now, sure, maybe the Flames have a slightly higher chance of leaving than the Habs or the Leafs but still. Do you really think ownership is going to move to Las Vegas simply because they'll get a free arena and leave one of the best markets in the league?

Even if they did a new franchise would open up shop in this city within 3 years.

That's why I consider it wasted money. Public money is finite, it should be going to stuff that other money wouldn't provide, like libraries, tunnels, etc. So not only does public money displace something that likely would be built anyway, the opportunity cost of that money is less libraries and and tunnels. In other words a net loss.

[RM14]

I know it's just a rendering, but I hope our lower bowl is a lot steeper than the Edmonton one. The sightlines in this photo don't look great.

Spoiler!

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I understand your argument but wouldn't you consider this to be a fairly large assumption? I mean we all assume the Flames ownership will pay for it themselves, but there is the threat that they could leave.

I would rather have it be more transparent. If the Flames are threatening to leave the City should just cut the owners a 100 or 200 million dollar cheque on the agreement that they stay for 30 years. Have a press conference and let everyone know that that is what they are doing. This idea to build a new arena so that Calgary gets 2 or 3 more concerts a year seems like a waste of money. I bet you could pay the blood money to keep the team for a lot cheaper. Let the owners and Burke know you will pay the blood money but you want it to be at a public press conference. That way everyone gets what they want, the Flames stay so the fans are happy, the owners get their money so they are happy, everyone would be a winner. Public press conference allows for certainty for the fans, get a binding contractual agreement whereby the Flames owners have to pay back the cheque at payday loan interest rates if they leave (thus providing an incentive for the Flames to stay for the duration of the agreement) and everyone is happy.

If Edmonton would have done that they could have kept the team for like 250 million dollars as opposed to the 600 million or so that they will pay. Makes better business sense.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by RM14

I know it's just a rendering, but I hope our lower bowl is a lot steeper than the Edmonton one. The sightlines in this photo don't look great.

Spoiler!

Looks a lot like the Prudential Center:



I sat about row 17 in Jersey when I was there, and found the sightlines were good. What really makes no sense to me on the Edmonton rendering is how tiny the upper tiers are. Looks like they are trying to fit 14,000 people into the lower bowl.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Flames owners will not move the team themselves, if anything they'll sell the team to someone who will move them. But moving the team devalues it, possibly significantly. One thing that I think makes it virtually impossible for the Flames to leave is that this city is, outside Toronto, the corporate capital of Canada. Way too much money in this city to just leave it for Seattle or Kansas City or Las Vegas. The NHL BOG might not even approve a move of a team that is not in financial distress at all to a poorer market.

So the threat of moving is more or less empty. Selling the team is another thing, but again the NHL BOG might not even allow the team to be moved. If they keep money losing, poorly attended Phoenix there, why move from profitable, well attended, very rich Calgary?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Just a few things to keep in mind:

1) The Bell Centre lost a ton of money. In fact the only privately funded arena that turned a profit is the ACC. Preaching that smart businessmen should lose money on a venture because, well because others did it, isn't a good argument.

2) I don't believe the alternative to a new rink is the team moving. The alternative is the team remaining in the Saddledome, with free agents passing due to the lack of amenities and the Flames turning into (or remaining) a team that has poor on ice results but puts dollars in owners pockets.

3) Sports isn't your standard business. There are two goals, to make money, and win championships. The two are linked but not mutually interdependent.

4) An arena is a public good. This isn't an office tower with restricted access, it's a venue for the community. Or at least the new rink should be.


There's a balancing at here. It's a matter of finding the sweet spot (mind you given Calgary's factors I wouldn't be surprised if the sweet spot is $0, but no one has presented that argument, only "oil companies should build hockey rinks because they have money")

[The Ditch]

How is a building for a for profit private business a public good?

Why can't the people who want public funding for a new arena just admit that they want it because they want a shiny new arena to go be entertained in and be damned with the cost to them and the public.

It will be less seats, higher ticket price, more profit for the owners and the city most likely will never recoup the costs dumped into it.

There's absolutely no reason why the billionaire owner can't get private investment money, use his own money, borrow from the bank, and charge seat license fees to pay for this.

[The Yen Man]

I'm just hoping a state of the art arena gets announced soon. I honestly don't really care if it's partly funded publically or not. If we had a referendum, I'd vote for public money going towards it.

The Flames already have a hard time recruiting free agents. Having one of the worst arena's in the league is not going to help.

[RM14]

I'd also like to see the box suites take up less space than what I see in both Edmonton and Jersey. The new arenas could use more overhang to hide the suites which would make the Upper bowl much better. Look at how seemless our upper and lower bowl look in this beauty photo.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

How is a building for a for profit private business a public good?

Why can't the people who want public funding for a new arena just admit that they want it because they want a shiny new arena to go be entertained in and be damned with the cost to them and the public.

It will be less seats, higher ticket price, more profit for the owners and the city most likely will never recoup the costs dumped into it.

There's absolutely no reason why the billionaire owner can't get private investment money, use his own money, borrow from the bank, and charge seat license fees to pay for this.

Finish reading the fourth point. The explanation is after the first sentence.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

How is a building for a for profit private business a public good?

Because those of us who think such facilities are a public good are looking past the fact that the people who operate it tend to be for-profit companies. A couple million people pass through the Saddledome's doors each year for sporting events, concerts, other events, tours, conventions, etc. These things, which add vibrancy to our communities, would not exist without the arena.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Just a few things to keep in mind:

1) The Bell Centre lost a ton of money. In fact the only privately funded arena that turned a profit is the ACC. Preaching that smart businessmen should lose money on a venture because, well because others did it, isn't a good argument.

2) I don't believe the alternative to a new rink is the team moving. The alternative is the team remaining in the Saddledome, with free agents passing due to the lack of amenities and the Flames turning into (or remaining) a team that has poor on ice results but puts dollars in owners pockets.

3) Sports isn't your standard business. There are two goals, to make money, and win championships. The two are linked but not mutually interdependent.

4) An arena is a public good. This isn't an office tower with restricted access, it's a venue for the community. Or at least the new rink should be.


There's a balancing at here. It's a matter of finding the sweet spot (mind you given Calgary's factors I wouldn't be surprised if the sweet spot is $0, but no one has presented that argument, only "oil companies should build hockey rinks because they have money")

Do you have a source that the Bell Centre lost money? (Legitimate question, not doubting it).

And regarding profits and losses of related companies, there is a lot of tricks out there to move profit and losses around to limit taxes. In the case where the team owns the arena, they can shift the money every which way to try to lower taxes.

The building has also been sold with the team at a giant gain which offsets any losses they may have (particularly with the lower taxes on capital gains).

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I sat about row 17 in Jersey when I was there, and found the sightlines were good.

Ive sat in the second tier, and I found the place to be a little too cavernous. You feel a little far away from the action up there, so it feels a little more like a stadium, than an arena. The fact that it's Jersey, and almost never packed, doesn't help though.

Id prefer the Flames arena to be more small and intimate when it comes to the bowl, but still spacious and wide in the concourses.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because those of us who think such facilities are a public good are looking past the fact that the people who operate it tend to be for-profit companies. A couple million people pass through the Saddledome's doors each year for sporting events, concerts, other events, tours, conventions, etc. These things, which add vibrancy to our communities, would not exist without the arena.

The Saddledome and those events are already there. The new building will add those few events that may bypass Calgary because of the roof. So you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money for 3-4 events a year.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Ive sat in the second tier, and I found the place to be a little too cavernous. You feel a little far away from the action up there, so it feels a little more like a stadium, than an arena. The fact that it's Jersey, and almost never packed, doesn't help though.

Id prefer the Flames arena to be more small and intimate when it comes to the bowl, but still spacious and wide in the concourses.

That I can definitely believe. And I agree with RM14, I like the way the Saddledome is aligned. Unfortunately, I suspect our new arena will follow the current wisdom in seating bowl design and we will end up with a similar cavern.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Do you have a source that the Bell Centre lost money? (Legitimate question, not doubting it).

I do indeed.

http://www.doniveson.ca/wp-content/u...na-Funding.pdf

The Bell Centre was built at a cost of $270 million, and sold for $100 million at a loss of $170 million. This loss is even greater of you consider $270 million in 1996 when the arena opened would be worth $299 million in 2001 when it was sold, so adjusted for inflation the loss was nearly $200 million.

Now this doesn't account for revenue during the ten year period it was open, although given the drastic value and desire for Molson to get far far away we can assume they didn't raise the $200 million difference.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The Saddledome and those events are already there. The new building will add those few events that may bypass Calgary because of the roof. So you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money for 3-4 events a year.

Granted. But this is really an argument against building a new facility rather than one against the idea of an arena being a public good.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The Saddledome and those events are already there. The new building will add those few events that may bypass Calgary because of the roof. So you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money for 3-4 events a year.

You actually don't know how much public spending is going to be. It's only hundreds of millions of dollars if the city funds hundreds of millions of dollars.

It's possible the city could loan the money like the Province of Ontario did for the Canadian Tire Centre in Ottawa. Of note that loan was for less than $30 million, not hundreds of millions.

Which raises a question. If the Province of Ontario can loan $26.8 million for the Palladium/Corel Centre/ScotiaBank Place/Canadian Tire Centre then why does the City of Calgary have to fund $200 million plus?