[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[getbak]

Something that occurred to me yesterday: Public recreation facilities aren't money makers. If the Flames are willing to take on the full burden of running the fieldhouse, and keep user fees in-line with other city recreational facilities, it might be a good deal for the city.

I checked online for information about the city's budget, and it appears that overall, user fees and other revenue generated at the facilities only cover about half the operating costs of Calgary's recreation facilities (which includes everything from community pools and arenas, to the Leisure Centres, golf courses, and athletic parks like Shouldice). The other half of the costs is covered by the city from tax revenue.

The Talisman Centre isn't a city-run facility, but it receives an annual grant from the city. In recent years, that's been about $1.2 million per year, with the budget increasing by about $50,000 per year.

The fieldhouse will be similar in size and scope to the Talisman Centre, so I would expect if the city built and operated the fieldhouse on its own, the annual support costs would be similar.

At the rate the Talisman Centre's funding has increased, it will be about $1.5 million in 6 year's time.


So, if the city were to make an agreement with the Flames where the Flames will bear the burden of this annual subsidy, it would result in a saving to the city of approximately $1.5 million in the first year. Assuming a 3% annual inflation in that cost, after 10 years, the annual subsidy would be just under $2 million per year, and the total subsidy over the first 10 years of operation would be a little over $17 million. After 20 years, the annual cost would be $2.6 million and the lifetime total would be over $40 million. After 30 years, the annual cost would be over $3.5 million and the lifetime total would be over $71 million.


These are just very rough numbers, so I don't know if they'd hold up to an actual review by someone who actually knows things, but it is something to think about. Of course, it doesn't erase the $200 million original investment required of the city, but that is money the city has agreed to spend (although, they haven't committed to a time frame for it).

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Cappy

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?

Been a STH for about 10 years and I believe even playoff attendance is dwindling. A lot of people don't want to be in the frigid cold. And there are times when you get into dangerously cold territory, far beyond "just dress for it" or "just drink more".

I've seen some people get frostbite, I've had a pretty bad case of frost nip when I was a kid and I had to spend the last half of the 93 West final in the bathroom because it was too dangerous to be in the stands.

Forget the whole "cold is what makes the CFL unique" angle that the grandparents like to peddle. The faster game and different rules are what makes the game different and snow/ice bowls just lead to bad football.

The city needs a covered stadium, or at least partially covered. Without it, Calgary can say goodbye to hosting any more Grey Cups. The league doesn't want to see the title game with empty stands - which almost happened in Regina in 2013 and may happen this year in Winnipeg.

[Rhettzky]

The events center part is what seems to throw this thing for me. I mean if the Flames put up the $450 mil for the arena part and pitched $200 mil to the city for the field house and reduced operational costs of a combined facility it would make sense. Then a smaller CRL could go to remediation and road re-alignment as well as some actual community revitalization. But the $250 mil tack on for the events center aspect just seems unnecessary to me.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

The events center part is what seems to throw this thing for me. I mean if the Flames put up the $450 mil for the arena part and pitched $200 mil to the city for the field house and reduced operational costs of a combined facility it would make sense. Then a smaller CRL could go to remediation and road re-alignment as well as some actual community revitalization. But the $250 mil tack on for the events center aspect just seems unnecessary to me.

I think you are a little confused. The arena and events center are the same thing.

If anything the CFL stadium combined with a field house is what is being paid by the CRL.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by craigwd

The city needs a covered stadium, or at least partially covered. Without it, Calgary can say goodbye to hosting any more Grey Cups. The league doesn't want to see the title game with empty stands - which almost happened in Regina in 2013 and may happen this year in Winnipeg.

Where would they host it then? Hamilton, Ottawa and now Regina have built/are building brand new stadiums and they're all open air. Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are the only 3 where you can avoid it.

And no arguments about the 93 WF, -40 is just straight bonkers. Thankfully that seems to be a very rare occasion, I can't think of a game close to that cold in over 20 years since.

This could all be solved if they just started the season a month earlier, no need to wait until basically July in Canada. Though I wonder if one of the reasons is the league and TSN don't want to go against the NHL playoffs, let alone the Cup Final...which raises the question of why the heck is ice hockey still being played in mid-June? Cut 8-12 games off the NHL season while we're at it (I know...it'll never happen. Just sayin)


Posted from Calgarypuck.com App for Android

[Ace]

A really good solution is to start the CFL season at the beginning of June, and end in October. This helps most of the CFL cities with open air stadiums. I mean it's so simple I can't understand why they haven't done it. Yeah maybe the season starts with the Stanley cup playoffs on, I doubt this is really a detriment to the CFL, with only a handful of cities possibly having their hockey team in it, and even if so its not like they'd schedule a game on the same night.

[corporatejay]

This is going to happen. Basically the owners want it, so they need to chat with TSN about it.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/11...ining-traction

[Table 5]

Yeah, it always seemed really dumb to me that the most important games of the year were the least attended. Moving the schedule up is a no-brainer.

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by Ace

A really good solution is to start the CFL season at the beginning of June, and end in October. This helps most of the CFL cities with open air stadiums. I mean it's so simple I can't understand why they haven't done it. Yeah maybe the season starts with the Stanley cup playoffs on, I doubt this is really a detriment to the CFL, with only a handful of cities possibly having their hockey team in it, and even if so its not like they'd schedule a game on the same night.

I believe it has more to do with the timing of the NFL Draft and end of the school year for NCAA students. The NFL Draft is at the end of April and the CFL Draft is usually a few weeks (mid May) after the NFL Draft, so teams can evaluate players who were not selected in the NFL Draft. Training camp and preseason usually take a month, so the beginning of June for the season start would be unlikely. I could see them moving it up a week or two, but not an entire month.

[N-E-B]

I don't care if the stadium has a roof or not, McMahon is a dump and they need to get out of there one way or another.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I don't care if the stadium has a roof or not, McMahon is a dump and they need to get out of there one way or another.

I'm not a CFL fan by any means, but if it was an indoor stadium I would go to a game with my dad, who is a die-hard Riders guy, or take my kid/s when they are older, because I don't have to worry about the weather. You will get many more casual fans going to a game at a stadium with a roof than an open air IMO.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I don't care if the stadium has a roof or not, McMahon is a dump and they need to get out of there one way or another.

I agree but how much more can it cost to build a smaller 35k stadium with a retractable roof?

CFL would love this one.

Spoiler!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There is literally no benefit to the city owning the arena/flames keeping profits
-No Taxes
-Liabilities for maintenance/upkeep/disasters
-responsible for demolition at end of use

The city owns the Saddledome, but the Flames are the ones on the hook for maintenance/upkeep/disasters.

You literally cannot claim any idea of who will be responsible for what if this project gets built because there is literally no management contract yet.

Also, FWIW, PeteMoss is also making assumptions on a requirement for the city to pay the Flames a management fee. In the 1994 deal where the Flames assumed operating control of the Dome, they actually paid the city a fee for the right.


There is no question that the Flames would love to dump as much cost and liability as they can - that is obvious, and any business would try the same - but these assumptions are not how things work today.

[Flash Walken]

Maybe the city should front an expansion fee and build their own arena for 400 million.

It would be cheaper than the current proposal and the city wouldn't be hamstrung on location.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by T@T

I agree but how much more can it cost to build a smaller 35k stadium with a retractable roof?

CFL would love this one.

Spoiler!

Retractable roofs are massively expensive. I think King said adding a retractable roof to this project would add $180 million alone.

Vancouver - inexplicably - spent $600 million to put a retractable roof on BC Place. Now it is just a mediocre concrete monstrosity with a cool roof.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Maybe the city should front an expansion fee and build their own arena for 400 million.

It would be cheaper than the current proposal and the city wouldn't be hamstrung on location.

$900 million is not cheaper than $500 million.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The city owns the Saddledome, but the Flames are the ones on the hook for maintenance/upkeep/disasters.

You literally cannot claim any idea of who will be responsible for what if this project gets built because there is literally no management contract yet.

Also, FWIW, PeteMoss is also making assumptions on a requirement for the city to pay the Flames a management fee. In the 1994 deal where the Flames assumed operating control of the Dome, they actually paid the city a fee for the right.


There is no question that the Flames would love to dump as much cost and liability as they can - that is obvious, and any business would try the same - but these assumptions are not how things work today.

I would be amazed if there is no management fee paid to whoever runs the new arena/facility by the owner. Perhaps back in 94 it was common for their not to be a management fee, but I'd suspect even then if the Flames paid the city, they got some extra revenue (i.e. full advertising revenue), but even not these days you aren't going to manage an arena for free. AEG/SMG/Spectra (formerly Global Spectrum) are all big companies doing this these days and they aren't doing it for free.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Retractable roofs are massively expensive. I think King said adding a retractable roof to this project would add $180 million alone.

Vancouver - inexplicably - spent $600 million to put a retractable roof on BC Place. Now it is just a mediocre concrete monstrosity with a cool roof.

Have you been to BC Place?

I was and am still of the belief it was a waste of tax dollars, but the result is beautiful.

It's a very nice stadium.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I would be amazed if there is no management fee paid to whoever runs the new arena/facility by the owner. Perhaps back in 94 it was common for their not to be a management fee, but I'd suspect even then if the Flames paid the city, they got some extra revenue (i.e. full advertising revenue), but even not these days you aren't going to manage an arena for free. AEG/SMG/Spectra (formerly Global Spectrum) are all big companies doing this these days and they aren't doing it for free.

You nailed it in the middle of your paragraph - the Flames get everything from the Dome - revenues and costs - for the fee they pay the city. And it's not a significant fee. It was $1 million per year in 1994. I think they paid the city a flat rate when the lease was renewed, but I can't remember for sure.

Edit: Actually, if memory serves, the team paid $1 million per year for significantly increased income from the Dome (higher percentage of ad revenue, tickets, etc.) When they renegotiated the lease around 2000, I think the Flames paid a flat $20 million or so to take complete control of the facility. So they get 100% of arena revenues from all events, but also pay the ongoing maintenance. The power ring, the jumbotron, renovations for the 2012 WJHC, extra uninsured costs from the Flood, etc. Those were all paid by the team.

That may not be the deal going forward, but I'm sure the city would very much like that to be the case, even if they own the facility.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Have you been to BC Place?

I was and am still of the belief it was a waste of tax dollars, but the result is beautiful.

It's a very nice stadium.

Yup. I went there for the Heritage Classic. It is an amazing roof, but the rest of the stadium is still a concrete monstrosity with a new coat of paint. Much like the Saddledome here, you just can't do much with a 1980s concrete design to make it look beautiful.

Honestly, for $600 million, they could have built an entirely new 40k stadium with a retractable roof that would have been beautiful. The hybrid they have now is rather jarring, frankly.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You nailed it in the middle of your paragraph - the Flames get everything from the Dome - revenues and costs - for the fee they pay the city. And it's not a significant fee. It was $1 million per year in 1994. I think they paid the city a flat rate when the lease was renewed, but I can't remember for sure.

That may not be the deal going forward, but I'm sure the city would very much like that to be the case, even if they own the facility.



Yup. I went there for the Heritage Classic. It is an amazing roof, but the rest of the stadium is still a concrete monstrosity with a new coat of paint. Much like the Saddledome here, you just can't do much with a 1980s concrete design to make it look beautiful.

Honestly, for $600 million, they could have built an entirely new 40k stadium with a retractable roof that would have been beautiful. The hybrid they have now is rather jarring, frankly.

I actually don't even care for the roof the way it is now. Even when it's open, it feels like an enclosed dome stadium. It's better than the old bubble that's for sure, but still doesn't feel like an outdoor stadium to me.

PS: Calling it the Heritage Classic was a travesty. The dome was closed, and there is nothing Heritage about playing hockey indoors in a temporal rainforest.