[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[CubicleGeek]

Originally Posted by heep223

I initially thought this as well, but somebody made a great point earlier. The ticket price is the ticket price as dictated by market demand. It's not like the market is going to set ticket prices and then add another $10 tax. So really that money is coming out of ownership's pocket.

I highly doubt this. I expect everyone to see a 7-9% new stadium tax added on top of their season ticket price and for the season ticket price to continue to inflate by 3% so long as they continue to have a season ticket waiting list.

In fact, barring a mass exodus of interest in the team, I bet after the stadium tax pays off the financing portion it was due (in ~20 years) I bet we won't see that same 7-9% reduction occur. At best they will just remain the same and not inflate by the usual 3% for maybe a season.

It would seriously have to revert to the dark ages where they couldn't even give tickets away for us to see a reduction in ticket prices or for ownership to just absorb a 7-9% reduction in revenue.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Also, the CRL loan DIRECTLY comes from everyone else - we're basically forfeiting 20 years of property taxes that would have gone into general revenue and reduced our property tax bill. We probably pay a hundred bucks a year per household towards the east village development, because we've basically forfeited all of the property tax generated in that area (including the bow building), which has to be generated from the rest of us.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head.

Just to clarify the above, I don't think that's quite right. Doesn't a CRL just slice off the incremental tax base over and above the current one. So we're not forfeiting 20 years of taxes we're getting now. And it's not quite accurate to say that we're forefeiting 20 years of this incremental tax base becase it doesn't exist. Now, it might one day exist regardless of the new arena, but its fair to say that the arena will accelerate development. That's why it needs to be measured based on the present value of accelerating that new tax base.

[Robbob]

Anyone know the time frame for the east village?

Also I say this on the CLMC website:

"Since 2007, CMLC has committed approximately $357 million to East Village infrastructure and development programs. This in turn has attracted $2.4 billion of planned development (so far) that’s expected to deliver $725 million of CRL revenues."

I am having a little problem understanding that statement. They put in 357M but the CRL is 725M. Am I missing something? is that 725M the 357M plus interest?

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by saillias

So the price of the ticket is not going to be impacted then? They are just taking say 10% off their gate revenue to put towards the project? I'm not quite sure I understand what this is saying.

Considering the seating numbers won't be increasing drastically and reducing(stamps), you have to know ownership will be raising ticket prices. The tax will also be applied to concerts etc. Which you also know won't be adjusting their prices downward to accommodate a tax. It'll be added as a separate fee and people will just pay it. Like every other tax.
If the city does bear much of the cost and responsibility I hope the tax and increase the rent the flames pay annually.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by saillias

So the price of the ticket is not going to be impacted then? They are just taking say 10% off their gate revenue to put towards the project? I'm not quite sure I understand what this is saying.

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

I highly doubt this.

Well, it's just a theory so bear with me.

Prices are going to go up in the new building no doubt, but the market still sets those prices. There's no doubt about this. What something is worth is what somebody is willing to pay for it. If the Flames set the price of a ticket at $110, and nobody buys it, they will have to lower it, regardless of any other factors.

So let's say the market says that the price of a ticket is $100 in the new building. Any more than that, and nobody would buy it. Any less than that, and the Flames are leaving money on the table. Basic economics right? It doesn't matter what that $100 consists of behind the scenes, whether the Flames are paying some sort of tax, or whatever. If they didn't have to pay a ticket tax to the city, they'd be putting that $10 into their pocket. So no - it won't affect prices, and it's not really a 'user tax'.

Think about it this way - there are many taxes currently embedded into ticket prices and it really has no bearing on the market. For example, let's say you're willing to pay $80 to go down to the Saddledome and watch the Flames play this year. All of the sudden the city imposes a $20 ticket tax because they're broke, and they feel that people going to Flames games can afford to pay this tax (luxury tax). The Flames bump the price up to $100 to try and save their margin and pass it along as a "user tax", but you're no longer will to pay that price. So they move it back down to $80, and have to eat it themselves. If they could still sell the tickets at $100, all it means is that they were previously leaving money on the table.

I dunno, maybe I'm out to lunch. But I think that the market sets prices, not the Flames. A ticket tax is really a burden on them, not on us.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Anyone know the time frame for the east village?

Also I say this on the CLMC website:

"Since 2007, CMLC has committed approximately $357 million to East Village infrastructure and development programs. This in turn has attracted $2.4 billion of planned development (so far) that’s expected to deliver $725 million of CRL revenues."

I am having a little problem understanding that statement. They put in 357M but the CRL is 725M. Am I missing something? is that 725M the 357M plus interest?

The lifespan of the CRL is 20 years. I think what they're saying is they've spend $357m, but over the lifespan of the CRL the cumulative revenue from taxes and land sales and stuff will be $725m.

Once the CRL expires (in about 12-13 years), we'll suddenly get about (and this is a guess) about $30m-$35m annually injected into general revenue (and perhaps maybe some one time cash from CRL surplus - unless they expire it early once the $357m borrowed money is paid off).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

Source? The proposal came out like 2 days ago.

A poll last year asking Calgarians if they support public funding towards a new arena showed about 18 per cent support. I doubt this proposal dramatically boosted those numbers, but I expect we'll find out in the coming weeks.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by heep223

Well, it's just a theory so bear with me.

Prices are going to go up in the new building no doubt, but the market still sets those prices. There's no doubt about this. What something is worth is what somebody is willing to pay for it. If the Flames set the price of a ticket at $110, and nobody buys it, they will have to lower it, regardless of any other factors.

So let's say the market says that the price of a ticket is $100 in the new building. Any more than that, and nobody would buy it. Any less than that, and the Flames are leaving money on the table. Basic economics right? It doesn't matter what that $100 consists of behind the scenes, whether the Flames are paying some sort of tax, or whatever. If they didn't have to pay a ticket tax to the city, they'd be putting that $10 into their pocket. So no - it won't affect prices, and it's not really a 'user tax'.

Think about it this way - there are many taxes currently embedded into ticket prices and it really has no bearing on the market. For example, let's say you're willing to pay $80 to go down to the Saddledome and watch the Flames play this year. All of the sudden the city imposes a $20 ticket tax because they're broke, and they feel that people going to Flames games can afford to pay this tax (luxury tax). The Flames bump the price up to $100 to try and save their margin and pass it along as a "user tax", but you're no longer will to pay that price. So they move it back down to $80, and have to eat it themselves. If they could still sell the tickets at $100, all it means is that they were previously leaving money on the table.

I dunno, maybe I'm out to lunch. But I think that the market sets prices, not the Flames. A ticket tax is really a burden on them, not on us.

The market is Calgary. The product is the flames. Unless we see a young guns type collapse of the on ice product, cse can charge whatever the hell they want and it won't matter

"Market forces" have no impact in a monopoly

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Those in the know on city taxation, CRLs etc ...

I've seen this statement, is it true? (guessing I'll hear it is and it isn't )

"If you are a Calgary citizen, not living in West Village the extent of your contribution to this project is the $200M that the city had planned (unfunded) for the field house."

Because I think that's really key in this argument.

i don't think we know yet. Just my opinion.

As frequitude did a great job of explaining, there *is* cost that we will all bear in a CRL.

But to some extent taxpayers are going to bear CRL cost no matter what if the city develops the west village with or without the flames.

So it's not 250m of cost v 0. It's the cost/benefit of this CRL plan minus the cost/benefit of whatever other CRL plan the city will or would do.

There's also the remediation to consider. King hinted the flames may be part of that solution - or part of getting the Feds or province to chip in saving the city in the end. Again that cost is going to happen, so will it be cheaper or more expensive for taxpayers because the flames are involved?

Assuming the flames front the ticket tax $ (big assumption) it's
200m + incremental cost of a stadium CRL v other options - whatever the flames do to help with remediation. Might still be 200m in the end. +- 100%

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The lifespan of the CRL is 20 years. I think what they're saying is they've spend $357m, but over the lifespan of the CRL the cumulative revenue from taxes and land sales and stuff will be $725m.

Once the CRL expires (in about 12-13 years), we'll suddenly get about (and this is a guess) about $30m-$35m annually injected into general revenue (and perhaps maybe some one time cash from CRL surplus - unless they expire it early once the $357m borrowed money is paid off).

That makes more sense. Thanks.

So if this project is a few years before a shovel hits the dirt to build, then the EV CRL will be a few years away before it becomes revenue by time the stadium is done. Timing wise that is probably pretty good.

[bax]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A poll last year asking Calgarians if they support public funding towards a new arena showed about 18 per cent support. I doubt this proposal dramatically boosted those numbers, but I expect we'll find out in the coming weeks.

If fans want a new arena, some tax money will have to go towards it no matter what. It's just how things work. If 82% of the city doesn't expect tax money to go to this project then they are in for a shock

[heep223]

Originally Posted by stone hands

The market is Calgary. The product is the flames. Unless we see a young guns type collapse of the on ice product, cse can charge whatever the hell they want and it won't matter

"Market forces" have no impact in a monopoly

I completely disagree with the bolded above. Would you pay $200 to go watch the Flames vs. Coyotes on a Tuesday night? As a STH with decent seats, both in price and location, I can tell you it's extremely difficult to sell this game even below STH cost. There's always a price at which the market won't bear.

You do raise a good point though that in a monopoly, there's a distortion in the market and no doubt we see this distortion in ticket prices. Though I would also point out that while the Flames clearly have a monopoly on the pro hockey market - they compete with all other forms of entertainment in our city.

I will continue to believe in the theory that a ticket tax is a burden on the Flames, until someone can convince me otherwise

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by heep223

I completely disagree with the bolded above. Would you pay $200 to go watch the Flames vs. Coyotes on a Tuesday night? As a STH with decent seats, both in price and location, I can tell you it's extremely difficult to sell this game even below STH cost. There's always a price at which the market won't bear.

You do raise a good point though that in a monopoly, there's a distortion in the market and no doubt we see this distortion in ticket prices. Though I would also point out that while the Flames clearly have a monopoly on the pro hockey market - they compete with all other forms of entertainment in our city.

I will continue to believe in the theory that a ticket tax is a burden on the Flames, until someone can convince me otherwise

i mean obviously there are some limits, but we're talking about $10 per ticket, not $150. as long as prices are relatively the same, there's not going to be any less of a demand for ticket. Also as a STH myself, i can tell you it doesnt matter what kind of seats you have - nobody wants to see an 8pm tuesday phoenix game, no matter what you price it at

[Northendzone]

the part that GMG on these projects in how the final price is never under budget, it is always way over.

I could easily see this deal becoming a $2.0B to $2.5B deal once you factor in cleaning up the land, and any roadwork that may need to be done - it would likely be more if we are taking about a major overhaul of the crowchild/bow trail interchanges.

that is a lot of cash and it is hard to beleive the government will have much of an appetite to provide cash given the current economic climate.

yesterday on the fan they are talking about which current flames might play in the enw arena - i beleive the answer is none

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Hilman

She also closed the door to taxpayer money for cleanup of the contaminated land at the former Canada Creosote plant, the site the facility plans to build on.

“We have operated in this province for many years on a principle of “polluter pay” and there’s really no precedent of the province stepping in to pay the cost of remediation when a polluter has contaminated a piece of property,” explained Notley.

The cost of the cleanup of the site is unknown, with some estimates saying it could run to $200-million.

CalgaryNEXT would see a multi-purpose complex, which would be the home of a new 20,000 seat arena for the Flames and a 30,000 seat stadium for the Stampeders that will double as a community fieldhouse.

With the cleanup costs, the project is expected to have a price tag of over $1.1-billion.

http://www.inews880.com/2015/08/20/n...sc_ref=twitter

So, does this mean Notley has a plan to get Domtar to pay for the cleanup?

Because arena or no arena, we probably shouldn't let poison leak into the river/west hillhurst forever. If the gov't(s) can't get the polluter to pay for it, how will society get it cleaned up?

If only there was some way to take a little bit of money from everyone to cover these unfortunate circumstances...

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

the part that GMG on these projects in how the final price is never under budget, it is always way over.

I could easily see this deal becoming a $2.0B to $2.5B deal once you factor in cleaning up the land, and any roadwork that may need to be done - it would likely be more if we are taking about a major overhaul of the crowchild/bow trail interchanges.

that is a lot of cash and it is hard to beleive the government will have much of an appetite to provide cash given the current economic climate.

yesterday on the fan they are talking about which current flames might play in the enw arena - i beleive the answer is none

For $2.5B I would be expecting an NFL-esque stadium. With a retractable roof.

And like marble floors throughout.

[Joborule]

Having the concept settle on me for a few days, I feel it's very vague and basic intentionally, and nothing definite was presented because now it's becoming a partnership between CSE and the city. So it leaves room for lots of tweaks and changes in later versions of the plan. Roadways, pathways, and land use layouts most likely being the biggest adjustments.

I feel these are the necessary requirements for this to be a project to go forward on:

- The river is the biggest asset in this area. That riverfront should be a high pedestrian area, meaning the area around it has to limit vehicular activity. The original West Village concept included a riverfront promenade, and this still needs to be the case. There should be mixed used residential/retail that lines up along the promenade to give this area life 365 days a year. It'll also make the western residential buildings of the area have a connection to the eastern portion.

The buildings along the promenade could have an intregration with the sports complex, which would make it similar to what the new Detroit Red Wings arena is going with. Mixed used on the envelope, and the event centre itself in the inside.

- The West Village plan also had a "Grand Staircase" concept. I think the pathway corridor could still be implemented for the sports complex. The +15 portion that connects train station into the complex should be an open pathway to connect Sunalta station to the river promenade. The connection between the stadium/fieldhouse and event centre could still be present beneath the +15, or below the ground floor if there's a street beneath instead.

- Bow Trail westbound cannot stay as is. It'll have to be twinned with the eastbound portion, bringing it closer to the CPR tracks, and/or buried underneath.

- The concept is missing a gathering place by the complex. There should be a hot spot for people to come together prior to gametime; giving it a bit more of a LA Live vibe. Perhaps by the northern entrance of the complex right by the river promenade.

- Pedestrian bridge that connects to 19 St NW. More so for the general bike and pedestrian traffic coming from/going to the NW of the area.

The main gist is that the concept needs to give more attention to the pedestrian presence. Move the complex more south to free up more space to the north to take advantage of the appeal the river brings.

[Vinny01]

I wish this thing was built already. i am thinking best case scenario is 5 years after this season we watch the flames in this building which is kind of depressing as I will be pushing 40 at that time

[Stay Golden]

Pick land to build on that is not contaminated.
Tell the city, the province and the fans that 80% will be covered by the Flames ownership.
But instead the Flames are wanting to buy land nobody is willing to build on due to the creosote clean up and the unkown exact cost for that.
The real reason for this location is that the Flames think they can buy junk land for cheap that the city is stuck with and then come in with a lowball commitment to the project itself and then manipulate the city and the province to cover most of the costs for the clean up itself.
Bottom line Edwards doesn't want to pay for what land around Calgary is actually worth that is why this location is the location.
The facility plan itself is fantastic but the means of how Edwards is going to attempt for it to be built is leaning towards unscrupulous.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by stone hands

The market is Calgary. The product is the flames. Unless we see a young guns type collapse of the on ice product, cse can charge whatever the hell they want and it won't matter

"Market forces" have no impact in a monopoly

Support for the Flames didn't collapse because of the young guns. We got the young guns because the Alberta economy collapsed and the economics of the NHL changed. I doubt the Flames will be in as bad shape as they were in the early 90s, but it's worth keeping in mind that corporate Calgary accounts for a big, big chunk of the seasons ticket base, and corporate Calgary is going to be hurting for the foreseeable future. Seasons tickets will be on the chopping block for a lot of companies looking to cut 20 or 30 per cent of their expenses.