[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[The Ditch]

Also, if the city wants a field house, it can build it anywhere in the city it wants, it's only the Flames who want the city to pay and build it and put it by their arena to make themselves look better.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by heep223

How do you know that the city is paying for the remediation? or the shortfalls? Or that the city is lending the ticket tax money? KK said that they'll look at commercial financing as well. And again, you're just completely ignoring any benefit the city gets from owning the land and the building and getting a slice of the operating income. That would be inconvenient to your argument.

The infrastructure would have to be upgraded to develop this land at all. Are you a proponent of letting this prime real estate sit there for another 3 decades?

You raise some good points but your reaction is pretty aggressive, given the amount of things that you don't know.

I will admit that most of these assumptions are based on previous stadium negotiations and I highly doubt that Nenshi would go for lending the 250 for the ticket tax. But people are still defending the city doing this and I am assuming that the Flames would push for this (low interest, can use the benefit argument). Remediation will be a provincial/municipal cost as KK noted. He didnt say anything about paying that cost, nor did he about infrastructure - it can be assumed their plan is to have the city front that.

The Flames current lease with the saddledome doesnt have any revenue sharing and the majority of arena's in all leagues do not off this deal. City owned but costs and revenue go to the team.

Again, I, and several others have already commented on the city ownership of the stadium. It offers no benefit. They receive no revenue from it and it is a depreciating asset with one tenant that pays no rent.

Lastly, and again, it has been mentioned already, the land has been earmarked for development once east village is done. The city doesnt want to dilute both areas by opening them both up. The results have been great in the east village and once the area is sustainable they plan on working on getting west village going. It is a prime area of city owned land and they want to get their money's worth. This issue was raised in the leaked emails that Markusoff wrote on in the Herald. They feel the Flames are pushing the city into developing an area that doesnt have the funding to sustain success. I would give Victoria Park as an example of an attempted development cite that failed for lack of support. Not to mention the articles I posted note that little benefit, economically, is gained from arenas.

As noted, there are benefits, but I think the people on here are either looking past the issues or speculating too much on the potential to justify the fact that they really want the new arena. I do to, but I feel like there are numerous ways the city can help without paying for half to 2/3 of the cost (even 1/4 as you claim). Every arena in Canada, except Edmonton, was private money. The NY Jets and Giants 1.6 billion stadium was private money. We dont have to pay for the majority to get a quality project and the arguments used by KK and Co. are utter BS.

[heep223]

The City would own a building that cost $800M to build, and they paid $200M for it. That looks like a great deal! Or am I misunderstanding that?

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by heep223

The City would own a building that cost $800M to build, and they paid $200M for it. That looks like a great deal! Or am I misunderstanding that?

When something's too good to be true, it probably is

[Clarkey]

I get that he has some managing of expectations on his hands but....

Spendshi Downer!!!!

I'm sure he's more than a little butt-hurt that he was in the stands for this announcement.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by heep223

The City would own a building that cost $800M to build, and they paid $200M for it. That looks like a great deal! Or am I misunderstanding that?

It does look like a great deal. But it is a building they will (almost certainly) receive zero revenue from. It will be a depreciating asset (in 20 years, is it worth 900 million? especially without a tenant?) and once the flames leave it (be it a new stadium in Calgary or elsewhere) the cost of upkeep and lack of tenant would render it a teardown.

We can talk about re-purposing McMahon and the saddledome but it just doesnt make sense without a tenant. The problem is, the only tenant able to keep it going is the Flames (inc. NHL, CFL, WHL, NLL)

It looks great, and you cannot fault someone for looking at it like that, but that is what the Flames want you to look at!

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Cappy

It does look like a great deal. But it is a building they will (almost certainly) receive zero revenue from. It will be a depreciating asset (in 20 years, is it worth 900 million? especially without a tenant?) and once the flames leave it (be it a new stadium in Calgary or elsewhere) the cost of upkeep and lack of tenant would render it a teardown.

We can talk about re-purposing McMahon and the saddledome but it just doesnt make sense without a tenant. The problem is, the only tenant able to keep it going is the Flames (inc. NHL, CFL, WHL, NLL)

It looks great, and you cannot fault someone for looking at it like that, but that is what the Flames want you to look at!

Why would it have no tenant in 20 years? The life expectancy of the building will be at least 35 to 40 years, the same as most other stadiums built in the last century. Hopefully longer, but certainly not 20 years.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Cappy

It does look like a great deal. But it is a building they will (almost certainly) receive zero revenue from. It will be a depreciating asset (in 20 years, is it worth 900 million? especially without a tenant?) and once the flames leave it (be it a new stadium in Calgary or elsewhere) the cost of upkeep and lack of tenant would render it a teardown.



We can talk about re-purposing McMahon and the saddledome but it just doesnt make sense without a tenant. The problem is, the only tenant able to keep it going is the Flames (inc. NHL, CFL, WHL, NLL)



It looks great, and you cannot fault someone for looking at it like that, but that is what the Flames want you to look at!

To each their own but I think you're wearing a tinfoil hat here. The land alone is going to be worth more than $200M in 20 years, regardless of what's on it. Possibly a lot more. City can sell it or lease it.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by heep223

To each their own but I think you're wearing a tinfoil hat here. The land alone is going to be worth more than $200M in 20 years, regardless of what's on it. Possibly a lot more. City can sell it or lease it.

But the city already owns it! They can sell it in 20 yrs without having to pay 450 million


If it is that good of a deal, why doesn't the Flames buy the land and build the stadium?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Why would it have no tenant in 20 years? The life expectancy of the building will be at least 35 to 40 years, the same as most other stadiums built in the last century. Hopefully longer, but certainly not 20 years.

semantics. it doesnt matter when the building is tenantless. the argument is still the same.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Cappy

We can talk about re-purposing McMahon and the saddledome but it just doesnt make sense without a tenant. The problem is, the only tenant able to keep it going is the Flames (inc. NHL, CFL, WHL, NLL)

Why would they need tenants? The Stampede could turn the Saddledome into a convention centre or tear it down and do whatever they want want with the land. The U of C owns McMahon and they could do numerous profitable things in that area..

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Cappy

But the city already owns it! They can sell it in 20 yrs without having to pay 450 million


If it is that good of a deal, why doesn't the Flames buy the land and build the stadium?

It has a massive environmental liability on it. It currently has negative value.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Fire

Why would they need tenants? The Stampede could turn the Saddledome into a convention centre or tear it down and do whatever they want want with the land. The U of C owns McMahon and they could do numerous profitable things in that area..

Doubtful. The upkeep costs alone are quite large. Saddledome will be torn down, lets not kid ourselves. They can talk about keeping it but that is just to keep everyone from freaking out for nostalgia purposes. Off the top of my head, i cannot think of many arenas in other cities that have been repurposed. Why would the Saddledome be a good convention centre venue?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by heep223

It has a massive environmental liability on it. It currently has negative value.

I'm sorry, but you are talking in circles. You were orignally talking about how profitable the land is and now it has negative value. Remediation will cost the city/prov money regardless, so why do it for the purpose of building a stadium in which they gain no money.

I honestly see no logic in the land value arguments put forth. It is a red herring.

[FireGilbert]

Wow, that is transformative! Screw Sydney, I'm moving back to Calgary!

Put me in the group that is excited for the Flames' new arena but doesn't think this announcement was worth the wait or lives up to the hype. I also fully agree with John Oliver's conclusions that these projects do not provide the proposed economic benefits and that tax payers need to learn to say no to sports teams.

It is also disappointing to see the Fieldhouse is multi purpose. To me this means it can host many different events but will not be an ideal place to watch any of them. I understand it is not practical to have a football specific stadium with only 10 CFL games and no MLS team though. I have no problem with the fixed roof however. An open air stadium is only useful 2 months of the year and having a roof that opens adds a massive cost.

I do like the lack of parking though. The area is a nightmare for traffic so fans should be encouraged to take public transit.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I'm sorry, but you are talking in circles. You were orignally talking about how profitable the land is and now it has negative value. Remediation will cost the city/prov money regardless, so why do it for the purpose of building a stadium in which they gain no money.



I honestly see no logic in the land value arguments put forth here. It is a red herring.

The land currently has negative value. The city gets the land AND the building for 200M, it gets cleaned up, could be worth a lot of money in 20 years. Who knows maybe the prov and fed and Flames kick in for cleaning.

The city will own a bunch of prime land in a great area with a whack of commercial development, condos, and you don't think that's a factor?

The point being, man, that you're taking a polarized view on a very complex issue with a lot of uncertain variables, and insinuating people who have a different view than you need to educate themselves, including people who have way more knowledge of this than you like 2 city councillors who appeared to be quite supportive today.

[Tinordi]

Wanting an arena evidently turns your critical faculties to mush.

I love the line that the city will own the asset as if that's a good thing. How valuable is the Saddledome to the city? A giant, illiquid, depreciating asset with increasing maintenance costs over it's lifetime. Of which the city gets zero revenue from. Great...

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Wanting an arena evidently turns your critical faculties to mush.

I love the line that the city will own the asset as if that's a good thing. How valuable is the Saddledome to the city? A giant, illiquid, depreciating asset with increasing maintenance costs over it's lifetime. Of which the city gets zero revenue from. Great...

What a great deal for

I love how some people have no concept of asset-life values.

How many dollars did the City bank off the life of the Saddledome versus what came out of City coffers?

[stone hands]

Im a STH and you can count me out on wanting my tax dollars to go this

As much as i hate spending 35+ nights a year in a crammed concourse because theres an f150 sitting between the bathrooms, ATMs and major concessions, nothing will sway that opinion

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I love how some people have no concept of asset-life values.

How many dollars did the City bank off the life of the Saddledome versus what came out of City coffers?

Go on...