CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Senator Clay Davis]

The more I think about a new stadium for the Stamps, the less it makes sense. What has saved the CFL in recent years?

Increased attendance? Nope.
Better product? Not really.
Big TV deal? We have a winner!

So the future of the CFL is in the TV deal, like the NFL. A new $200 million+ stadium for a second tier league (and please don't dispute this, its not up for debate) is pretty over the top. Nevermind the building that they want to do looks cheap as can be and looks like something you'd see at a midlevel American college. Not exactly the whole "world class city" argument.

CalgaryNEXT is doomed as long as the price tag is as high as it is. Just focus on the arena which is what the vast majority of people really want. A new Stamps stadium will ultimately have a negligible effect on the Stamps bottom line. Except they'll be playing in the biggest joke of a stadium in the league. Not exactly something to be proud of.

[HotHotHeat]

So that is King's response to the overwhelming criticism.

This project will never get built. How's that for a legacy?

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The more I think about a new stadium for the Stamps, the less it makes sense. What has saved the CFL in recent years?

Increased attendance? Nope.
Better product? Not really.
Big TV deal? We have a winner!

So the future of the CFL is in the TV deal, like the NFL. A new $200 million+ stadium for a second tier league (and please don't dispute this, its not up for debate) is pretty over the top. Nevermind the building that they want to do looks cheap as can be and looks like something you'd see at a midlevel American college. Not exactly the whole "world class city" argument.

CalgaryNEXT is doomed as long as the price tag is as high as it is. Just focus on the arena which is what the vast majority of people really want. A new Stamps stadium will ultimately have a negligible effect on the Stamps bottom line. Except they'll be playing in the biggest joke of a stadium in the league. Not exactly something to be proud of.

That's why they're combining the stadium with the field house. It's the only way it makes sense financially, since the city would pay for most of it. I'm not a fan of the potential look of it (base on the crappy design images), but I think combining the field house and stadium is a smart move.

[TheScorpion]

Say what you want about McMahon - it needs to be replaced - but…

What is so wrong with the Saddledome?

What, is it cramped concourses? A lack of luxury boxes? Who cares!? People are still coming and watching Flames games! It’s not like we’re drawing 14,000 - the Flames average at or above 100% capacity every single year!

It’s a top-notch facility with a ton of history. There’s, what, 60 boxes (I don’t know the exact figure)? Oh no, are corporate suits going to be mad that they have to sit among the peons in the greens?

I’ve been going to the Saddledome for hockey and lacrosse for years, and there hasn’t been a single thing about the arena that has ever hampered my viewing experience. No matter the occasion, I’ve always been able to enjoy the Flames scoring goals, from Iginla to Conroy to Tanguay to Huselius to Langkow to Cammalleri to Monahan to Gaudreau.

There is nothing, I repeat, nothing to justify a ~$600 million arena being built. For CSE to have the audacity to propose this during a recession…

The Saddledome is a world-class facility in a world-class city. A replacement is not needed. If they really want a new toy to profit off of, they can build it themselves.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Parallex

It lost me the the second it falsely characterized the cost of the project as a 50-50 split rather then the more accurate description of 80-20 (before you even add in the cost of the environmental cleanup, loan interest, municipal infrastructure, and opportunity cost).

That is basically just a big steaming pile of bull#### that he serves up on a plate and tries to tell you it's steak.

Except it is a 50-50 split. The ticket tax money would be a business loan with the city acting as the bank, but since they would be paying it back with interest it is their money.

[RM14]

This was from Friday night. LOL

[Muta]

The building, from what I heard a while ago, doesn't meet some of the modern building codes. That picture is a great visual representation as to why.

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Say what you want about McMahon - it needs to be replaced - but…



What is so wrong with the Saddledome?



What, is it cramped concourses? A lack of luxury boxes? Who cares!? People are still coming and watching Flames games! It’s not like we’re drawing 14,000 - the Flames average at or above 100% capacity every single year!



It’s a top-notch facility with a ton of history. There’s, what, 60 boxes (I don’t know the exact figure)? Oh no, are corporate suits going to be mad that they have to sit among the peons in the greens?



I’ve been going to the Saddledome for hockey and lacrosse for years, and there hasn’t been a single thing about the arena that has ever hampered my viewing experience. No matter the occasion, I’ve always been able to enjoy the Flames scoring goals, from Iginla to Conroy to Tanguay to Huselius to Langkow to Cammalleri to Monahan to Gaudreau.



There is nothing, I repeat, nothing to justify a ~$600 million arena being built. For CSE to have the audacity to propose this during a recession…



The Saddledome is a world-class facility in a world-class city. A replacement is not needed. If they really want a new toy to profit off of, they can build it themselves.

I'm asking honestly - have you ever watched a hockey, or pro sports game for that matter, in another new arena?

The saddledome is badly in need of upgrading when compared even with some smaller sporting venues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Muta

The building, from what I heard a while ago, doesn't meet some of the modern building codes. That picture is a great visual representation as to why.

Pretty much every building built more than 3 years ago, doesn't meet current building code.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Pretty much every building built more than 3 years ago, doesn't meet current building code.

So you can imagine how outdated a facility built 30 years ago is!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Say what you want about McMahon - it needs to be replaced - but…

What is so wrong with the Saddledome?

What, is it cramped concourses? A lack of luxury boxes? Who cares!? People are still coming and watching Flames games! It’s not like we’re drawing 14,000 - the Flames average at or above 100% capacity every single year!

It’s a top-notch facility with a ton of history. There’s, what, 60 boxes (I don’t know the exact figure)? Oh no, are corporate suits going to be mad that they have to sit among the peons in the greens?

I’ve been going to the Saddledome for hockey and lacrosse for years, and there hasn’t been a single thing about the arena that has ever hampered my viewing experience. No matter the occasion, I’ve always been able to enjoy the Flames scoring goals, from Iginla to Conroy to Tanguay to Huselius to Langkow to Cammalleri to Monahan to Gaudreau.

There is nothing, I repeat, nothing to justify a ~$600 million arena being built. For CSE to have the audacity to propose this during a recession…

The Saddledome is a world-class facility in a world-class city. A replacement is not needed. If they really want a new toy to profit off of, they can build it themselves.

No, it certainly isn't.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Muta

So you can imagine how outdated a facility built 30 years ago is!

In building code terms, absolutely. Doesn't mean that the buildings are somehow unsafe, though.

Also, a new building code just came into effect, and buildings that applied for building permits prior to the change still get to use the old building code. Technically, many buildings being built right now are being built under an outdated building code.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

In building code terms, absolutely. Doesn't mean that the buildings are somehow unsafe, though.

Also, a new building code just came into effect, and buildings that applied for building permits prior to the change still get to use the old building code. Technically, many buildings being built right now are being built under an outdated building code.

Very true, it also doesn't meet the current Alberta Fire Code, which is important as well. Renovations to bring the building up to current building and fire code would be so costly that a new building would actually be more economical.

[Bunk]

You can want a new arena and oppose or have issues with CalgaryNEXT. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Muta

Very true, it also doesn't meet the current Alberta Fire Code, which is important as well. Renovations to bring the building up to current building and fire code would be so costly that a new building would actually be more economical.

Renovations, and especially renovations that require the building use to be maintained, are quite often expensive, even before requirements to meet current code.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

I'm asking honestly - have you ever watched a hockey, or pro sports game for that matter, in another new arena?

The saddledome is badly in need of upgrading when compared even with some smaller sporting venues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Watched a game at Verizon in Washington a few years ago. It was pretty nice, but it was crowded in the concourses.

Everywhere you go, you’re going to find big crowds clogging up the walkways. And is that really justification enough to drop millions on a new arena?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Renovations, and especially renovations that require the building use to be maintained, are quite often expensive, even before requirements to meet current code.

Yep.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Watched a game at Verizon in Washington a few years ago. It was pretty nice, but it was crowded in the concourses.

Everywhere you go, you’re going to find big crowds clogging up the walkways. And is that really justification enough to drop millions on a new arena?

There's also not enough lower bowl seats in the Saddledome, and that's a concern Brian Burke has been vocal with.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Muta

There's also not enough lower bowl seats in the Saddledome, and that's a concern Brian Burke has been vocal with.

The Saddledome is one of the largest buildings in the NHL and if the Flames can’t summon up ways to create more revenue from their 19,289 seats then they shouldn’t be in business.

Or is it a vantage point thing? I’ve sat in the lower bowl plenty of times and I have no problem watching the game from there. What’s the issue with this lack of lower bowl seats?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The Saddledome is one of the largest buildings in the NHL and if the Flames can’t summon up ways to create more revenue from their 19,289 seats then they shouldn’t be in business.

Or is it a vantage point thing? I’ve sat in the lower bowl plenty of times and I have no problem watching the game from there. What’s the issue with this lack of lower bowl seats?

There's no issue with the view, it's just an outdated bowl (it's too small). There's a premium for those lower bowl seats (as there is in every arena in the league), and the Flames are losing out on some revenue as a result. I think that's the reason.