View Poll Results: What are your thoughts on the Flames CalgaryNext presentation? (select multiple)
|
Get digging, I love it all!
|
  
|
259 |
37.27% |
Too much tax money
|
  
|
125 |
17.99% |
Too much ticket tax
|
  
|
54 |
7.77% |
Need more parking
|
  
|
130 |
18.71% |
I need more details, can't say at this time
|
  
|
200 |
28.78% |
The city owns it? Great deal for Calgary
|
  
|
110 |
15.83% |
Need to clean up this area anyway, its embarassing
|
  
|
179 |
25.76% |
Needs a retractable roof
|
  
|
89 |
12.81% |
Great idea but don't think it will fly with stake holders
|
  
|
69 |
9.93% |
Why did it take 2 years to come up with this?
|
  
|
161 |
23.17% |
Curious to see the city's response
|
  
|
194 |
27.91% |
09-15-2015, 01:54 PM
|
#3021
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
First of all the Flames aren't in the business of civil road construction so how exactly would you expect them to come up with firm estimates on infrastructure improvements or cleanup without working heavily with the city? See this is where the "moron" statement comes in to play and I'm not calling you a moron but I am saying that you are expecting way too much from an initial announcement of their plans to have all the T's crossed and I's dotted. There's a reason that the project is far off and it's because there's a lot of work to be completed before the team and city can actually finalize on facilities, infrastructure and clean up. In the coming years your questions will be answered but you expecting those details today is akin to fans expecting the facilities to be built next year. Unrealistic and an excuse to complain and place the ownership group in a negative light.
I see so when the Flames are combative (that's your opinion BTW) that's a bad thing but when Nenshi does it years before there's even a pitch it's fine an dandy. You do realize Nenshi hasn't exactly played nice with the Flames so I would argue the Flames wouldn't have began in such a tone if the mayor didn't spout off to the newspapers his position long before an announcement.
You are the typical anti-funding taxpayer and that's fine as you are entitled but your spin is pretty transparent and you are going to have to do a little better to sway the fence sitters or pro-funding opinions as it's just retread contempt for the project.
|
Some of the project criticism is valid, but I do sense a lot of criticisms around planning, design and the initial presentation are coming from people who oppose any government contribution at all. So even if the plan was perfect from a design point of view, there would be objection from the same people.
|
|
|
09-15-2015, 03:17 PM
|
#3022
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
Nenshi isn't asking the flames for any favours, the flames are asking for billions of dollars in infrastructure, land value and tax money.
|
And sharks with laser beams...
If you think nenshi isn't asking for favours you aren't really thinking about this, IMO.
It's a dance. the fact they are working quietly tells me both sides are pretty happy with the tune so far. No one can or will be be too quick to agree. There has to be some (very real) evaluation. As details emerge there will be outrage and sensationalism and all that normal stuff. But it will settle.
And then we'll really see where we are at. It'll be pretty clear what the mayor is hoping to get out of this and what his price is (Not in a nefarious sense). And it will be pretty clear where the flames are actually drawing the lines on what they can and can't do.
|
|
|
09-15-2015, 03:25 PM
|
#3023
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Some of the project criticism is valid, but I do sense a lot of criticisms around planning, design and the initial presentation are coming from people who oppose any government contribution at all. So even if the plan was perfect from a design point of view, there would be objection from the same people.
|
Maybe so, but that's not the conversation that we're having. I'm very much not an anti-funding or anti governmental contribution person (oh god, I even like the Peace Bridge!) I just think it's an odd strategy to even let the words "best offer" and talk of Plan A's and there not being Plan B's leave your mouth when the proposal is pretty bare bones. There hasn't even been a proper environmental study done apparently! Like, how can the Flames tell us this is their only plan and they've worked it out that they will pay a maximum of $200MM ($450MM if we credit them with being so kind as to charge a ticket tax) when we're not even at the stage where total costs can even be ballparked with any sort of accuracy. We have no idea what would be needed from the City to permit a building of the sort they envision to be build where they envision it being built.
That's ultimately my criticism - quotes about how we should be lucky that Calgary is getting an offer like this with comparisons to true "great cities" like London or Paris are meaningless at best and insulting at worst when there are still so many questions that need to be answered. My initial point wasn't that I'm anti-funding, it was that I thought it was poor optics on the part of the CalgaryNEXT team to start down that path of emotional appeals about how impressive it will be and putting lines in the sand about best offers. Why do that? It makes people like me who would have otherwise been cheerleaders for this development actually become less interested and more skeptical.
Last edited by morgin; 09-15-2015 at 04:46 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to morgin For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-15-2015, 03:28 PM
|
#3024
|
Franchise Player
|
Guys, if you don't say you're just going to give in to all their demands it means you're not playing nice.
Nenshi has basically always said he's against public money for sports arenas and that he'd have to see the proposal. If you consider that "not playing nice" then I have no words.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
|
|
|
|
09-15-2015, 03:46 PM
|
#3025
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois
And sharks with laser beams...
If you think nenshi isn't asking for favours you aren't really thinking about this, IMO.
It's a dance. the fact they are working quietly tells me both sides are pretty happy with the tune so far. No one can or will be be too quick to agree. There has to be some (very real) evaluation. As details emerge there will be outrage and sensationalism and all that normal stuff. But it will settle.
And then we'll really see where we are at. It'll be pretty clear what the mayor is hoping to get out of this and what his price is (Not in a nefarious sense). And it will be pretty clear where the flames are actually drawing the lines on what they can and can't do.
|
Do you honestly think Nenshi, in his role as mayor, really gives a crap about whether the flames get a new arena or not?
I'm sure if the Flames said "we're fine with the saddledome and mcmahon for the next 20 years" Nenshi would have been happy.
This is entirely on the Flames.
__________________
|
|
|
09-16-2015, 10:54 AM
|
#3026
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
|
Unless I missed some juicy quotes from the city or the Flames, I really don't think either side is worried about playing nice, or are particularly upset by the proposal. For example, the fact that the original plan allows Bow Trail to remain as-is, is smart from the Flames perspective, as it shows that they don't need the upgrade to make the project happen. That shifts the onus to the city to include what they want in the next go-round. It is a negotiation, and as poorly as I think KK is doing, he did his part and now it is up to the city to question/explore and respond.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|
|
|
09-16-2015, 12:32 PM
|
#3027
|
Celebrated Square Root Day
|
A lot of posts in this thread have the same tone as the Mark Giordano rumor thread. "Well, if he thinks he's worth $72 mil he's an idiot and can find another team!!!".
Negotiations
|
|
|
09-16-2015, 12:37 PM
|
#3028
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
Do you honestly think Nenshi, in his role as mayor, really gives a crap about whether the flames get a new arena or not?
I'm sure if the Flames said "we're fine with the saddledome and mcmahon for the next 20 years" Nenshi would have been happy.
This is entirely on the Flames.
|
Then he's a pretty !@#$y mayor. I want a mayor who is bold and wants to grow and improve the city I was born, and still live in.
If he doesn't care, then he shouldn't be mayor. If he's happy with the status quo, then he shouldn't be mayor. This city should be trying to improve itself day in and day out.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ComixZone For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-16-2015, 12:48 PM
|
#3029
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: MTL
|
Not to get too off-topic, but PK just donated 14% of his net worth (based solely on this current $72M contract) to charity.
Murray Edwards et al. have offered to contribute 1% of his $2.2B net worth towards CalgaryNEXT - which they intend to profit from
Interesting counter balance (I know it is not apples-to-apples)
|
|
|
09-16-2015, 12:52 PM
|
#3030
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
Do you honestly think Nenshi, in his role as mayor, really gives a crap about whether the flames get a new arena or not?
|
Of course he does. Why wouldn't he care about a new arena for the Flames and for the city as a whole?
What an odd comment.
|
|
|
09-16-2015, 12:54 PM
|
#3031
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkhouser
Not to get too off-topic, but PK just donated 14% of his net worth (based solely on this current $72M contract) to charity.
Murray Edwards et al. have offered to contribute 1% of his $2.2B net worth towards CalgaryNEXT - which they intend to profit from
Interesting counter balance (I know it is not apples-to-apples)
|
Do you want to dig up the Edwards foundation, Libin group, Seaman brothers, Flames foundation, etc charitable contributions and stack them up against PKs?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Tyler For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-16-2015, 01:05 PM
|
#3032
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: MTL
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
Do you want to dig up the Edwards foundation, Libin group, Seaman brothers, Flames foundation, etc charitable contributions and stack them up against PKs?
|
Not really
|
|
|
09-16-2015, 01:15 PM
|
#3033
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkhouser
Not really
|
Haha, sorry this response made me laugh harder than it should have
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-16-2015, 01:20 PM
|
#3034
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
I've skipped ahead a fair bit, but heres something that I've been thinking about:
I dont like the idea of a fieldhouse that turns into a stadium. I think it lacks that iconic aspect of a stadium.
"Where are we going this week? Tim Horton's Stadium? Nope. The City of Calgary Fieldhouse."
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-16-2015, 01:32 PM
|
#3035
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by morgin
Maybe so, but that's not the conversation that we're having. I'm very much not an anti-funding or anti governmental contribution person (oh god, I even like the Peace Bridge!) I just think it's an odd strategy to even let the words "best offer" and talk of Plan A's and there not being Plan B's leave your mouth when the proposal is pretty bare bones. There hasn't even been a proper environmental study done apparently! Like, how can the Flames tell us this is their only plan and they've worked it out that they will pay a maximum of $200MM ($450MM if we credit them with being so kind as to charge a ticket tax) when we're not even at the stage where total costs can even be ballparked with any sort of accuracy. We have no idea what would be needed from the City to permit a building of the sort they envision to be build where they envision it being built.
That's ultimately my criticism - quotes about how we should be lucky that Calgary is getting an offer like this with comparisons to true "great cities" like London or Paris are meaningless at best and insulting at worst when there are still so many questions that need to be answered. My initial point wasn't that I'm anti-funding, it was that I thought it was poor optics on the part of the CalgaryNEXT team to start down that path of emotional appeals about how impressive it will be and putting lines in the sand about best offers. Why do that? It makes people like me who would have otherwise been cheerleaders for this development actually become less interested and more skeptical.
|
First, in any normal circumstance a potential lessee would never do an environmental study at this stage. That would be a condition of the lease, and paid for by the lessor. And if one hasn't been done like you say, that's on Calgary, not the Flames. I suspect at least a Phase One has been done recently.
Second, a concept scheme, as opposed to detailed architectural plans, is always a starting point when dealing with a municipality. And I don't find anything odd in not telling the City there's a plan B in this particular negotiation (it would be a tactic in a different one, where the City was afraid of a move, or something).
Both the design and the funding models are high level, intended to initiate a process, not end it. I'm not fussed about either, since they will change of necessity.
The key for me is whether the City deems it desirable to (a) clean up the site which has to happen at some point anyway and (b) if it is a better use of the land than either what's there now or what other options are out there for land use. If these questions point to the proposed land use, then it's just a matter of negotiating funding.
ETA: a quick look tells me there were at least some environmental studies done in 2013-14. They didn't report on cleanup costs however. Just current conditions.
Last edited by GioforPM; 09-16-2015 at 01:36 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-16-2015, 02:05 PM
|
#3036
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkhouser
Not really
|
Also, math is hard
($200M is not 1% of $2.2B)
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-16-2015, 02:07 PM
|
#3037
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Then he's a pretty !@#$y mayor. I want a mayor who is bold and wants to grow and improve the city I was born, and still live in.
If he doesn't care, then he shouldn't be mayor. If he's happy with the status quo, then he shouldn't be mayor. This city should be trying to improve itself day in and day out.
|
Agreed, but having a new football stadium and arena is not likely what improves the city. What's wrong with the saddledome? Is the city worse than edmonton because they have newer facilities? Of course not.
Edit: Sorry, obviously he cares, it creates jobs etc.. he's probably about as excited as he would be for the Bow, The Telus Sky, Brookfield etc... but those buildings, like this one, should not be the priority on his agenda.
__________________
Last edited by corporatejay; 09-16-2015 at 02:17 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-16-2015, 02:10 PM
|
#3038
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
Of course he does. Why wouldn't he care about a new arena for the Flames and for the city as a whole?
What an odd comment.
|
He seems to only care about missing cats by his twitter feed.
|
|
|
09-16-2015, 04:10 PM
|
#3039
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
First, in any normal circumstance a potential lessee would never do an environmental study at this stage. That would be a condition of the lease, and paid for by the lessor. And if one hasn't been done like you say, that's on Calgary, not the Flames. I suspect at least a Phase One has been done recently.
Second, a concept scheme, as opposed to detailed architectural plans, is always a starting point when dealing with a municipality. And I don't find anything odd in not telling the City there's a plan B in this particular negotiation (it would be a tactic in a different one, where the City was afraid of a move, or something).
Both the design and the funding models are high level, intended to initiate a process, not end it. I'm not fussed about either, since they will change of necessity.
The key for me is whether the City deems it desirable to (a) clean up the site which has to happen at some point anyway and (b) if it is a better use of the land than either what's there now or what other options are out there for land use. If these questions point to the proposed land use, then it's just a matter of negotiating funding.
ETA: a quick look tells me there were at least some environmental studies done in 2013-14. They didn't report on cleanup costs however. Just current conditions.
|
Yes my bad for not being clearer. I'm not suggesting the Flames will be responsible for cleanup (unless that's negotiated as part of the deal), and I actually think there has been ongoing monitoring since at least '88 or so, and a number of studies along the way. However, as the City has noted, none have been completed that deal with the cost of full remediation and the scope of what that will actually entail.
As has also been noted, we're talking hundreds in millions in an ask for land value, cleanup, and infrastructure improvements. It's unknown how many hundreds of millions, but we can all guess it won't be a small number given what the site looks like and the existing road issues in that area.
The CalgaryNEXT team needs to negotiate with the City of Calgary, but part of that will be negotiating indirectly with the taxpayers of the City of Calgary to get them on board to support council with whatever decisions will need to be made. Thus, my point was, the Flames drawing lines in the sand in their public communications, which is separate from their direct negotiations with the municipality, is bad optics to me. This is obviously just my opinion and certainly I can appreciate everyone may not feel the same, but I'm far more likely to be voicing support to my councilor for a project like this if they treat the public as interested stakeholders from day 1, instead of the silly grandstanding and posturing with references to having no other plans (which we all know isn't true) and that this is their best and final offer (also not true unless they have no idea what they are doing). Perhaps I'm mistaken, and it is a better negotiating tactic for the Flames to go down the path of making people scared the team will move if they don't get a new arena and that their offer right now is more than generous and fair so let's pressure council to get this ball rolling, but I sincerely doubt that. Time will tell I guess. Just feels poorly communicated to date.
Specifically, in reference to your comment "Both the design and the funding models are high level, intended to initiate a process, not end it. I'm not fussed about either, since they will change of necessity." I entirely agree. KK's public comments about "best offer, take it or leave it, this is the only plan we've got" suggest otherwise. Those type of comments after promising we'd be delivered a transformative project that would be the biggest and boldest in the City's history (where is that project, it sure wasn't what CalgaryNEXT announced) are what I mean when I speak of poor optics.
Last edited by morgin; 09-16-2015 at 04:28 PM.
|
|
|
09-16-2015, 07:05 PM
|
#3040
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
National Post running an opinion piece by members of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation on how Abbotsford got the "Flames hooked on corporate welfare" and Alberta should avoid falling into the same trap.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...porate-welfare
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 AM.
|
|