[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

People always leave out a very important factor in this: Ticket prices are 100% guaranteed to increase in a new building. To me there's no debate on that issue, the Flames are not keeping prices as is, and obviously a reduction is never happening. Particularly not when (in theory) it should be a top level team and not the Oilers.

Ticket price increases in new buildings across North America have ranged from 10% to 40% just moving to a new building. Could it affect demand? I actually doubt it, Calgary even in a down time is still a rich city in the NHL landscape. If its a playoff team or Cup contender, demand is not going anywhere but up.

So if fans will accept ticket price increases of 10-40% just moving to a new building (which in virtually all cases they have), I don't think adding a $10 ticket surcharge is going to have much effect on demand. It might hurt the Hitmen, but not the Flames.

+1. Good example in Edmonton where Oilers tickets will see substantial bumps. There are lots more seating options but prices are going up across the board.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/seats...311/story.html

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hilman

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

Notley is such a god danmed idiot. "Polluter pay" is easy to do when one of the oil companies up north has a leak. It is impossible to do when the polluter has been dead and gone for 60 years. This is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that has led that area to become an undeveloped slum in the interim.

[Frequitude]

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.

The single most concerning thing of the entire presentation was this:

King mentioned there are 3 subcontractors short-listed for construction. King said there will be no over-run on the $890,000,000 project estimate because he looked one of the subcontractors in the eye and said "you know those projects that run over with costs? This will not be one of them!"

Now the source is admitedly hockey.modern's summary of reddit's summary of the presentation (link), but if true that was really really dumb thing to say. Enough people in this province, including Ken King's bosses who own freakin oil companies, are familiar enough with massive infrastructure and Oil Sands cost overruns that you just don't say that.

The most important question to be answered about the financing has nothing to with chopping up the $890M estimate, it is who is on the hook for overruns.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The single most concerning thing of the entire presentation was this:


Now the source is admitedly hockey.modern's summary of reddit's summary of the presentation (link), but if true that was really really dumb thing to say. Enough people in this province, including Ken King's bosses who own freakin oil companies, are familiar enough with massive infrastructure and Oil Sands cost overruns that you just don't say that.

The most important question to be answered about the financing has nothing to with chopping up the $890M estimate, it is who is on the hook for overruns.

I wonder if they could get a fixed price contract?

[Hilman]

Originally Posted by heep223

I wonder if they could get a fixed price contract?

That would be the most logical choice, the Edmonton arena has a GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price of $606.5 million) and any cost overruns are paid for by the contractor (PCL Construction).

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...agreement.aspx

[PostandIn]

nm. Hilman said it. PCL are apparently also on time and on budget.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Hilman

That would be the most logical choice, the Edmonton arena has a GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price of $606.5 million) and any cost overruns are paid for by the contractor (PCL Construction).

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...agreement.aspx

Oh wow, I didn't know that. That is fantastic. Didn't think those existed anymore. I suppose when times are tough, contractors can't change order you do death anymore.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Now the source is admitedly hockey.modern's summary of reddit's summary of the presentation (link),
.

I can confirm he said that at the 6:00pm presentation.

[May 25, 1989]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Oh wow, I didn't know that. That is fantastic. Didn't think those existed anymore. I suppose when times are tough, contractors can't change order you do death anymore.

The new Roughrider stadium in Regina has a guaranteed maximum price deal with PCL as well

http://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/...ri/ex14-12.pdf

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Notley is such a god danmed idiot. "Polluter pay" is easy to do when one of the oil companies up north has a leak. It is impossible to do when the polluter has been dead and gone for 60 years. This is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that has led that area to become an undeveloped slum in the interim.

Yeah, "polluter pay" is a great idea when you have some ability to actually force the polluter to pay. The Alberta government has already admitted that they have no recourse against the polluter because it no longer operates in the province.

Unless the federal government has some authority to go after Domtar to make them pay for the cleanup, something needs to be done and it doesn't serve anyone by pointing the finger at someone who doesn't exist.


Also, with regards to the clean-up. If the only way to decontaminate the soil is to dig it up and haul it away somewhere to "clean" it and then replacing it, I don't see how it can possibly be done without moving westbound Bow Trail. The worst of the contamination is apparently east of Renfrew Chrysler, which means that a significant amount of Bow Trail is directly over this contamination.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Notley is such a god danmed idiot. "Polluter pay" is easy to do when one of the oil companies up north has a leak. It is impossible to do when the polluter has been dead and gone for 60 years. This is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that has led that area to become an undeveloped slum in the interim.

True. Not the idiot part, because I think she's got brains in general but here she's wrong. In fact the legislation says basically: the province can try to make the polluter clean it, but then it can clean it and bill the polluter. And if the polluter is defunct, guess what? Province holds the bag.

Now the City may have liability as the landowner under the legislation as well. But of course, cities are technically just a provincial level of government. There's only one taxpayer.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

To be fair though, can we please just all get on board with the idea that the burden of the $250M ticket tax is born by the Flames and can only be partially subsidized by the lender if they offer a below market interest rate.

As it stands now, the Flames are financing $450M out of the $890M sticker price. Now there's huge validity in the arguments that a) that's not enough, and b) the $890M doesn't include creosote cleanup or surrounding infrastructure upgrades, but let's at least get our facts straight on the Flames portion of this.

I'm many pages behind in catching up in this thread so I hope I'm not reiterating comments already made.

I'm okay with the bolded part as long as the Flames are the ones taking out the financing.

I also wonder why the Flames don't just scrap the ticket tax altogether and just raise their prices instead? They'd get more credit for outright contributing more to the project than they might get for saying that their tickets aren't really that expensive once you take into account the ticket tax.

[IliketoPuck]

It appears that Domtar does have operations in Canada (QC & MB), the Federal government is likely the only source of recourse for going after the company, if that is even an option.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by heep223

It's ironic when a person believes that those who have a different view than them are simple-minded, particularly on complex issues. Because that is a very simple-minded perspective to take.

The condescending tone from anti-arena advocates in here is getting quite tiresome.

Seems to me it is flying in both directions.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

It appears that Domtar does have operations in Canada (QC & MB), the Federal government is likely the only source of recourse for going after the company, if that is even an option.

Nope. The province could sue them (I have no idea about limitation issues for this stuff) and enforce the judgement across provincial borders without much problem.

But if they haven't already, I doubt they will now.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by getbak

Yeah, "polluter pay" is a great idea when you have some ability to actually force the polluter to pay. The Alberta government has already admitted that they have no recourse against the polluter because it no longer operates in the province.

Unless the federal government has some authority to go after Domtar to make them pay for the cleanup, something needs to be done and it doesn't serve anyone by pointing the finger at someone who doesn't exist.


Also, with regards to the clean-up. If the only way to decontaminate the soil is to dig it up and haul it away somewhere to "clean" it and then replacing it, I don't see how it can possibly be done without moving westbound Bow Trail. The worst of the contamination is apparently east of Renfrew Chrysler, which means that a significant amount of Bow Trail is directly over this contamination.

Very interesting point that got me thinking.

Maybe the Flames are counting on this happening. And when Bow Trial ends up getting moved, they would have the ability to revamp their arena/stadium design so it's not so damn cramped?

[Leeman4Gilmour]

If there's a positive surrounding creosote contamination it's the fact there's a lot of experience with it:

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1...509/950904.PDF

That's an old study, but still illustrates lots of work has been done already on very similar issues.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by May 25, 1989

The new Roughrider stadium in Regina has a guaranteed maximum price deal with PCL as well

http://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/...ri/ex14-12.pdf

A GMP maximum price contract would have to be based on drawings and specs that are very well detailed. After the contract is signed, the owner would have very little say in changing things.

They probably also have a healthy amount of markup - which tends to be the case when the contractor is taking the risk.

[Resolute 14]

FWIW, I believe many of our recent road projects had GMPs. IIRC, sections of Stoney, as well as High Level Bridge repairs in Edmonton.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Nope. The province could sue them (I have no idea about limitation issues for this stuff) and enforce the judgement across provincial borders without much problem.

But if they haven't already, I doubt they will now.

Did they even break any laws/regulations when this happened 50+ years ago? I doubt the province can use modern laws to sue for something that predates the law itself.