[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[PepsiFree]

Maybe I'm being simple, but wouldn't the city gain revenue from people using the facility? Parking? Events? Etc?

[The Ditch]

there's parking at this place? That's news to me.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by heep223

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.

You are being simplistic:
- 200 (really a minimum of 450) million for a 800 million dollar stadium? SCORE; however, you fail to recognize that the value is not what it was built for but what it could be sold for. Look at the history of the Skydome. Built for 900 million (in 2015 $), sold to the owners in 1994 for 150 million and then to Rogers for 25 million. These stadiums are not office towers. They don't appreciate in value.

- the flames are not kicking in for the remediation. I guarantee that is not in there proposal. Why? they dont own the land, they dont want to be liable for any issues. Any lawyer worth their weight would make sure they are no where near that. Again, the fed and prov kicking in money is still our money.

- The area can be remediated using any number of funding sources that doesnt involve sticking a sports complex on it! the area definitely needs to be cleaned-up but it is wishful thinking to suppose the flames are the saving grace here.

- I have already noted that the issue of commercial development subsequent to stadium development is largely incorrect. Again, studies to prove it.

Of course this is a complex issue, and perhaps I am being a little rude in my insistence on telling others to educate themselves, but the facts are out there! This will play out the same way it always does, because why wouldn't it?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Go on...

Hey, you brought it up man, apparently the City is losing countless dollars on the Saddledome.

Lets see your proof. Convince me.

[Tinordi]

Where did I say that? My point is owning all the costs of an asset while receiving no revenue from the asset is a bad deal not a good deal.

People here are piping up as if it's a good thing.

But no I won't run the numbers for you, just use your critical faculties to work out if this is actually a good deal.

[Jbo]

It has been brought up, and debated, but very surprised at how many people oppose this. I for one am excited, and while a firm believer in due diligence, this is a project Calgary needs. I spend a great deal of my time at the Saddledome and McMahon, and new facilities for that alone has me convinced. Add in all the other cool features like the field house and I see this as a major revitalization to our city that is badly needed.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hey, you brought it up man, apparently the City is losing countless dollars on the Saddledome.

Lets see your proof. Convince me.

http://law.marquette.edu/assets/spor...ary-flames.pdf

The Saddledome Foundation gets $750,000 annually plus an additional amount based on some formula (in 2011, the total was 1.5 million. This money is then allocated to various sports programs (Hockey Canada etc.)

The Saddledome Foundation pays for all maintenance, upkeep, and capital improvements, and insurance.

The Saddledome foundation pays the City $1.00.


EDIT

A little more information http://www.scotiabanksaddledome.com/...RT_2010-11.pdf

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Jbo

It has been brought up, and debated, but very surprised at how many people oppose this. I for one am excited, and while a firm believer in due diligence, this is a project Calgary needs. I spend a great deal of my time at the Saddledome and McMahon, and new facilities for that alone has me convinced. Add in all the other cool features like the field house and I see this as a major revitalization to our city that is badly needed.

My concern is what happens to this project if the city can't or delays coming up with the money for the field house due to the present economic conditions.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Where did I say that? My point is owning all the costs of an asset while receiving no revenue from the asset is a bad deal not a good deal.

People here are piping up as if it's a good thing.

But no I won't run the numbers for you, just use your critical faculties to work out if this is actually a good deal.

Thats like saying:

"This trade just happened, tell me how its going to turn out in 50+ years"

Oh and dont forget to account for any and all ancillary economic benefits!!

Its just that easy.

And this is coming from someone who goes to maybe 3 games a year.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The "Stamps" aren't a thing, they're owned by the Flames ownership group. They aren't going to do something different then this.

Clearly wasn't being serious. Clearly you didn't understand. Thank you for your service though.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Dion

My concern is what happens to this project if the city can't or delays coming up with the money for the field house due to the present economic conditions.

There will be delays and budget overruns, it is almost impossible on a project of this side to not have them.

What you can do is have a clear plan, and work to minimize as much as possible. The fact the ownership group has been clear with the city and stakeholders (rather then say using hostage tactics like Katz did is a big difference)

[Boxman]

I grew up in Calgary in the 90s and moved away in the early 2000s, just when the oil boom started to get going. As far as I know the city and its residents did not consider themselves a new, opulent "World Class City" of concerts and sports events.

There's nothing wrong with the Saddledome. This issue will simmer, go away, and resurface in a couple of years, either when oil prices go back up, or when using the Saddledome is really no longer feasible.

If people want to watch hockey, they'll watch hockey. If you make your hockey marketing about your pretty stadium, shiny bathrooms and leather seats, then you'll have trouble sustaining ticket sales in the long run.

Better to have cheap tickets sold to fans who couldn't care less about how the stadium looks. The new stadium looks to me like it would be just as much fun as the old one. I think people in Calgary haven't changed - despite the what some say, we're still a bunch of tightwads that use what we have until it's no longer usable. This is deeply embedded in Calgary's DNA. We make do with what we have, and we should make do with the Saddledome.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Boxman

I grew up in Calgary in the 90s and moved away in the early 2000s, just when the oil boom started to get going. As far as I know the city and its residents did not consider themselves a new, opulent "World Class City" of concerts and sports events.

There's nothing wrong with the Saddledome. This issue will simmer, go away, and resurface in a couple of years, either when oil prices go back up, or when using the Saddledome is really no longer feasible.

If people want to watch hockey, they'll watch hockey. If you make your hockey marketing about your pretty stadium, shiny bathrooms and leather seats, then you'll have trouble sustaining ticket sales in the long run.

Better to have cheap tickets sold to fans who couldn't care less about how the stadium looks. The new stadium looks to me like it would be just as much fun as the old one. I think people in Calgary haven't changed - despite the what some say, we're still a bunch of tightwads that use what we have until it's no longer usable. This is deeply embedded in Calgary's DNA. We make do with what we have, and we should make do with the Saddledome.

Couldn't disagree more. I think your pulse on Calgary is completely incorrect on all fronts

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Boxman

I grew up in Calgary in the 90s and moved away in the early 2000s, just when the oil boom started to get going. As far as I know the city and its residents did not consider themselves a new, opulent "World Class City" of concerts and sports events.

There's nothing wrong with the Saddledome. This issue will simmer, go away, and resurface in a couple of years, either when oil prices go back up, or when using the Saddledome is really no longer feasible.

If people want to watch hockey, they'll watch hockey. If you make your hockey marketing about your pretty stadium, shiny bathrooms and leather seats, then you'll have trouble sustaining ticket sales in the long run.

Better to have cheap tickets sold to fans who couldn't care less about how the stadium looks. The new stadium looks to me like it would be just as much fun as the old one. I think people in Calgary haven't changed - despite the what some say, we're still a bunch of tightwads that use what we have until it's no longer usable. This is deeply embedded in Calgary's DNA. We make do with what we have, and we should make do with the Saddledome.

There is lots and lots and lots of marketing research that prices your ideas wrong

[kn]

Is there anywhere I can watch the press conference after the fact? All of the live links are dead.

Thanks.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by 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

They're going to spend that 200M on a field house anyways. You good with that?

[Hackey]

Well he's right about the part that we're not a world class city and won't be because of this project like they were trying to sell. It's a great city with a lot of amazing attributes but that pitch was a bit insulting. I rather someone just be honest in their pitch than try to sell me something that isn't there. Felt like Lyle Lanley trying to sell us on the Monorail.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Boxman

I grew up in Calgary in the 90s and moved away in the early 2000s, just when the oil boom started to get going. As far as I know the city and its residents did not consider themselves a new, opulent "World Class City" of concerts and sports events.

There's nothing wrong with the Saddledome. This issue will simmer, go away, and resurface in a couple of years, either when oil prices go back up, or when using the Saddledome is really no longer feasible.

If people want to watch hockey, they'll watch hockey. If you make your hockey marketing about your pretty stadium, shiny bathrooms and leather seats, then you'll have trouble sustaining ticket sales in the long run.

Better to have cheap tickets sold to fans who couldn't care less about how the stadium looks. The new stadium looks to me like it would be just as much fun as the old one. I think people in Calgary haven't changed - despite the what some say, we're still a bunch of tightwads that use what we have until it's no longer usable. This is deeply embedded in Calgary's DNA. We make do with what we have, and we should make do with the Saddledome.

That attitude is pretty much why Calgary has been stuck with the POS McMahon Stadium for so long.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Well he's right about the part that we're not a world class city and won't be because of this project like they were trying to sell. It's a great city with a lot of amazing attributes but that pitch was a bit insulting. I rather someone just be honest in their pitch than try to sell me something that isn't there. Felt like Lyle Lanley trying to sell us on the Monorail.

If that presentation insulted you in anyway you might pray tonight your thin skin can be repaired.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Boxman

I grew up in Calgary in the 90s and moved away in the early 2000s, just when the oil boom started to get going. As far as I know the city and its residents did not consider themselves a new, opulent "World Class City" of concerts and sports events.

There's nothing wrong with the Saddledome. This issue will simmer, go away, and resurface in a couple of years, either when oil prices go back up, or when using the Saddledome is really no longer feasible.

If people want to watch hockey, they'll watch hockey. If you make your hockey marketing about your pretty stadium, shiny bathrooms and leather seats, then you'll have trouble sustaining ticket sales in the long run.

Better to have cheap tickets sold to fans who couldn't care less about how the stadium looks. The new stadium looks to me like it would be just as much fun as the old one. I think people in Calgary haven't changed - despite the what some say, we're still a bunch of tightwads that use what we have until it's no longer usable. This is deeply embedded in Calgary's DNA. We make do with what we have, and we should make do with the Saddledome.

Hahaha wow. We'd still be living in the stone age if that statement was followed.