[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

Essentially, they ARE paying for the arena themselves with $200M out of pocket & $250M financed to be paid back from a share of ticket revenues (ticket tax). The public funding is essentially for the fieldhouse/stadium.

That's one way of looking at it, but they're also expecting the city to put significant funds into cleaning up the land, potentially moving the roadways, and then foregoing any significant sale or tax revenue that the city would get from what becomes the most prime available land in the city. I love the idea of this project, but that's tough to swallow.

Look at the library in the east village. Yeah, a lot of public funds went into it, but it occupies only a small amount of land out of the east village development, and the city will get a great return on the rest of that project. With the west village, the stadium/arena complex looks to take up maybe 50% (just estimating by looking at the map), and probably the more valuable portion of it, at that. The city could build a fieldhouse in that location (or better yet, across bow-trail in the pumphouse area), forget the arena, clean up, develop, sell, and tax that land that the arena would be on, and probably come out a lot further ahead than this proposal.

I want the various parties to find a way to make this project go ahead, but I also don't want to see the city get screwed here. There needs to be an opportunity for the city to make back their share and then some, given that they're the ones taking by far the larger risk.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Weitz

It appears a petition has been launched by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation calling for no taxpayers money to the CalgaryNEXT project:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/08/25...ers-federation

Were they up in arms about Edmonton's arena?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

Essentially, they ARE paying for the arena themselves with $200M out of pocket & $250M financed to be paid back from a share of ticket revenues (ticket tax). The public funding is essentially for the fieldhouse/stadium.

How much are they paying for the land?

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Same. As a sport, CFL is better watched on TV. For me, the point of going to a Stamps game is to sit outside catching some rays and having beers. There's a reason the Labour Day classic sells out every year, and it isn't just because of the rivalry.

It's because of the rivalry and the stat holiday.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Was it was private money that built arenas in Vegas and QC?

Quebec City's was publicly financed.

Vegas was a JV from MGM and AEG. AEG originally wanted public funds, the county balked. A year or so later, MGM brought its own proposal and AEG teamed up.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Were they up in arms about Edmonton's arena?

Not sure. I never followed the economics of that arena since it didn't affect me.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by MrCallahan

Would the Flames be willing to easy up a bit, and maybe offer the City a small percentage of the revenue it generates while being a tenant? Or could the City write that as a requirement in the lease agreement that any event that happens in the arena, requires a small portion of the revenue? and call it a "maintenance tax"? or something along those lines.

I am unsure if this has been done in the past, outside of the public owning the beverage service component or something to that effect. Could be wrong and if anyone knows any situations like this please jump in.

I would suspect that the Flames would rather put in more of their own money than give up on some of the revenue as I'm sure the city would hhave to have a look at the revenue earned during the period. I don't think they would want the city (or anyone) really knowing how much they earn regarding certain activities.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Not sure. I never followed the economics of that arena since it didn't affect me.

Yes. From all accounts, there was a pretty decent opposition to it.

I believe Speakup Edmonton was the website dedicated to it.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Were they up in arms about Edmonton's arena?

They get up in arms about pretty much anything to try and stay relevent. Media whores.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Same. As a sport, CFL is better watched on TV. For me, the point of going to a Stamps game is to sit outside catching some rays and having beers. There's a reason the Labour Day classic sells out every year, and it isn't just because of the rivalry.

Exactly. I love the Stamps so just going to the games in general is fun for me, but going to a Stamps game on a beautiful summer evening, watching the sun go down behind the mountains while Bo & co do their thing is one of my favourite parts of the summer. The proposed dome on the field is the only part of this proposal I hate, and I hate it a lot.

Stamps Sun columnist Scott Mitchell hit the nail on the head last week when he said why eliminate 6-7 gorgeous summer evenings at a game just so we can be warm during the 1 or maybe 2 (if we host the WF) crappy weather games? Frankly I'd prefer if those muffins in support of that just stayed home if they're too chilly.

[troutman]

If the CFL would start one month earlier, we would not have to worry about cold weather much at all.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Frankly I'd prefer if those muffins in support of that just stayed home if they're too chilly.

Sure, but you're not trying to run a business by selling tickets to those muffins.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Frankly I'd prefer if those muffins in support of that just stayed home if they're too chilly.

I am one of those muffins and there are many other muffins around CP it seems. And I will indeed stay home if it's too chilly because I'm a casual Stamps fan. Is this in the best interest of the Stamps?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Stamps Sun columnist Scott Mitchell hit the nail on the head last week when he said why eliminate 6-7 gorgeous summer evenings at a game just so we can be warm during the 1 or maybe 2 (if we host the WF) crappy weather games? Frankly I'd prefer if those muffins in support of that just stayed home if they're too chilly.

Those cold weather games have likely cost the Stamps a few Grey Cups as the Flutie game comes to mind as the Western Final loss to the Riders a few years ago. The weather is a great equalizer and has taken the Stampeders talent advantage away. You can point to the Stampeders underwhelming playoff record over the decades and point to chokers but the weather has played a rold in reducing their edge over their opponents and making the games coin tosses. It's why the Lions always have a good home field record as they built fast teams that couldn't be slowed down by the weather. Sure the small handful of nice evenings will be sacrificed but IMO it's going to be a loud home field advantage with a near capacity indoor stadium and much better attendance in the fall and early summer. The owners wouldn't be going ahead with the roof if they didn't do all the research and it pointed to an outdoor stadium being better for business and the product.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Exactly. I love the Stamps so just going to the games in general is fun for me, but going to a Stamps game on a beautiful summer evening, watching the sun go down behind the mountains while Bo & co do their thing is one of my favourite parts of the summer. The proposed dome on the field is the only part of this proposal I hate, and I hate it a lot.



Stamps Sun columnist Scott Mitchell hit the nail on the head last week when he said why eliminate 6-7 gorgeous summer evenings at a game just so we can be warm during the 1 or maybe 2 (if we host the WF) crappy weather games? Frankly I'd prefer if those muffins in support of that just stayed home if they're too chilly.

Well it isn't a "proposed dome" so I'm not sure where you're getting that information. As of right now they want to put a translucent roof on the thing.

And you eliminate those 6-7 summer games because this facility will also be a field house that sees use 12 months out of the year, not just in the summer.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by heep223

I am one of those muffins and there are many other muffins around CP it seems. And I will indeed stay home if it's too chilly because I'm a casual Stamps fan. Is this in the best interest of the Stamps?

I'm a muffin. I hate winter and I'm not a fan of freezing my butt off in the stands when I can sit at home and comfortably take the game in on my HDTV. I go to summer games but rarely fall or playoff games because I want to be able to 100% focus on the game not trying to keep my appendages warm and counting down the game clock so I can leave to warm up. I would go to every playoff game if the building was indoor. You grumpy guys that want everything your way can watch live at the new stadium or let us muffins have your seats as you will be replaced easily with more fans.

[Sainters7]

Agreed about cold weather costing the team some titles, going back to 1993/94, and even 2013. That's ok, it's the CFL. If you can't play in the cold (the '13 meltdown was particularly pathetic), you probably don't deserve to win a Canadian football championship. I'm completely fine with that.

Inclement weather late in the season is a part of football. It's why there's no delays due to rain or snow (lightning aside), unlike baseball. It's part of what makes football unique, and IMO adds to the atmosphere. I think a dome sucks the atmosphere right out of a football game (if you've ever been to a B.C. Lions game pre-retractable roof you'd know what I mean), and that's probably why literally all of the new NFL and CFL stadiums being built in the past decade - besides potentially us of course - are either open air or retractable.

Look, I'm not in finance or marketing, I can't lay out projections about why it's more financially viable over X years regarding the benefits of a dome over an open air stadium. I'm just a die-hard football fan that doesn't want to see that atmosphere (and summer home games) ruined. And I know there's not nearly enough die-hard football fans in this city (not CFL anyway) to get vocal enough about this. It just makes me sad.

PS - For the self-proclaimed muffins, I hear a couple beers can cure that. Cold weather games are fun!


Posted from Calgarypuck.com App for Android

[Frequitude]

How would people feel if the city's only contributions were $200M and a $250M CRL for the road upgrades? i.e. make the owners pay to turn a fieldhouse into a football stadium themselves.

[CliffFletcher]

Some people only go to Stamps games because they're outdoors in sunny weather.

Some people will not go to Stamps games in the cold weather.

It's tough to say for certain whether a covered stadium that has neither sunny nor cold weather will be a win for the Stamps. But considering there are a lot more sunny games than cold games, I wouldn't want to bet on a covered stadium bringing in more fans over the course of a season.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Some people only go to Stamps games because they're outdoors in sunny weather.

Some people will not go to Stamps games in the cold weather.

It's tough to say for certain whether a covered stadium that has neither sunny nor cold weather will be a win for the Stamps. But considering there are a lot more sunny games than cold games, I wouldn't want to bet on a covered stadium bringing in more fans over the course of a season.

Maybe you bank on the playoffs drawing the people despite the cold. The last 3 games i went to were a labour day classic and two cold ass playoff games. dress warm and the atmosphere is pretty great.

To each their own and i understand if someone doesn't want to go to a stamps PO game in the cold, but they usually sell pretty well regardless, no?