CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

...

Nothing new to reply to here. Again, citing a few poorly structured deals does not mean all deals are poorly structured. But whatever, you don't want funding for an arena, and that's fine.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Nothing new to reply to here. Again, citing a few poorly structured deals does not mean all deals are poorly structured. But whatever, you don't want funding for an arena, and that's fine.

You're the one who asked for examples of deals that went bad and then stuck your index fingers in your ears. Are there well structured deals that went well?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Nothing new to reply to here. Again, citing a few poorly structured deals does not mean all deals are poorly structured.

Can you cite some deals that, with the benefit of hindsight, turned out to be properly structured deals?

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Economic or physical, the stadium is on its last legs. Bringing it to a modern standard will likely cost somewhere in the same ballpark as building a new facility altogether.

Put in debit machines at the tills. That can't cost more than a few grand in equipment. Everyone is happier.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Why not cut the fieldhouse / football stadium part and use that land for parking, a bar or two that's owned / operated by the Flames, or use the space in a more productive way?

What about selecting the same site, dropping the football stadium and only taking half the land, enough for the arena that way the city can develop on the other portion where the fieldhouse was going to go?

I would be thrilled if they drop the football stadium from the plans. As much as I want the Stamps to get a new stadium, I would happily sit through another decade on a flat bench in an outdated stadium, than me under a translucent dome in July, like an ant under a magnifying glass.

I miss being excited and on board with this project. Scrap the football stadium part and I will be.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Barnes

You're the one who asked for examples of deals that went bad and then stuck your index fingers in your ears. Are there well structured deals that went well?

I asked for examples of deals where the tenant couldn't pay back the loan (that was the premise being discussed). I don't think there are any (though there may be somewhere).

The examples cited were deals that were poorly constructed/negotiated. Tenant doesn't think they owe rent. Tenant doesn't pay rent if building is making a profit. Or whatever.

That's a different thing.

Most ticket tax situations end up in the loan being paid.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Can you cite some deals that, with the benefit of hindsight, turned out to be properly structured deals?

The majority of arenas and stadiums around the world include public financing. That means a deal between the government and the tenant. Almost all of them function normally.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Nothing new to reply to here. Again, citing a few poorly structured deals does not mean all deals are poorly structured. But whatever, you don't want funding for an arena, and that's fine.

You cannot keep asking people to do the research for you and then blast the research showing it isn't enough. We get it, you are ok with the deal.

Show us some research of these things working perfectly

Edit: sorry, not the first to make this statement.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The majority of arenas and stadiums around the world include public financing. That means a deal between the government and the tenant. Almost all of them function normally.

Function normally? does that mean, that the public/gov't makes money, breaks even, loses money?

There are a lot of government programs and projects that "function normally" that don't benefit the bottom line

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

billionaires own these teams yet they don't want to build a new arena? And people are okay with paying for it for them? Awful.

This line of thinking does not apply to the Flames IMO. The Flames ownership group have run this team like a community owned enterprise since they bought the team from Nelson Scalbania. The owners have always operated the team as a non-profit, donating millions to the local community. To me, the community gains as much benefit from the Flames being in Calgary as the ownership group. For that reason I see the community kicking in and having partial ownership of the new facility. The renderings may not be to people's likings, but we are at the enception stage at this point. I'm sure if people want sexier cgi renderings that will make your mouth water, those could be generated. Personally, I don't need the shiny disco ball to envision the end result. I think this is good for the Flames and is very good for the community. The only way the Flames make big dollars off of this is if the real estate ventures they develop around the new buildings. The buildings themselves are break-even propositions and there for the public's use.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

I would be thrilled if they drop the football stadium from the plans. As much as I want the Stamps to get a new stadium, I would happily sit through another decade on a flat bench in an outdated stadium, than me under a translucent dome in July, like an ant under a magnifying glass.

I miss being excited and on board with this project. Scrap the football stadium part and I will be.

This is pretty much the question. How important are Stamps to the city? The whole reason the whole field house is being incorporated here is that in no shape or form is it practical to build a $300 million stadium for a CFL team. That is why it is being incorporated into the project. If we were talking about just the Flames arena they would probably be almost done.

[saillias]

The whole football stadium portion of the thing would be a lot easier to stomach if it was NFL.

Here's a thought, have a "Contraction" draft: all the best players & staff in the CFL get picked to an all-star team, fold the league, apply for expansion in the NFL, rotate through 8 Canadian cities for home games.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Robbob

This is pretty much the question. How important are Stamps to the city? The whole reason the whole field house is being incorporated here is that in no shape or form is it practical to build a $300 million stadium for a CFL team. That is why it is being incorporated into the project. If we were talking about just the Flames arena the if would probably be almost done.

It's been talked about before, but there is more than casual interest in bringing in an MLS team down the line. They'd be a good second anchor for the new fieldhouse / stadium.

[Scary Eloranta]

Originally Posted by Muta

It's been talked about before, but there is more than casual interest in bringing in an MLS team down the line. They'd be a good second anchor for the new fieldhouse / stadium.

If we ever did get an MLS team I would imagine that some kind of roof would be a requirement or we'd have to play the first month or so on the road, given our unpredictable spring weather. That was one of the factors in the Cannons moving/folding (and of course the dinky park they played in).

[powderjunkie]

wrong thread

[Scary Eloranta]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

wrong thread

Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic - just saying that having a roof on the stadium would help to secure another anchor tenant.

[powderjunkie]

^ sorry wasn't talking about you...I just posted in wrong thread!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The majority of arenas and stadiums around the world include public financing. That means a deal between the government and the tenant. Almost all of them function normally.

"Function normally" in the context of arenas generally means that the city is left holding the bag.

I (and many others) have provided numerous examples of bad deals. Can you even find a single good public-private arena deal?

My definition of "good" is that the city broke even. Pretty low bar wouldn't you agree?

[Weitz]

Doesn't matter because they COULD get a good deal, right?

[Frequitude]

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.

I hate the incomplete nature of the funding model as much as anyone, but it is accurate to portray it as close to 50/50. Ticket tax is money out of the owners pockets. It is effectively a tax on their future revenues.

For example, let's say a base ticket cost was $100 and the ticket tax was $10 for a total cost to the consumer of $110. Now take the ticket tax away. It's not like the owners would benevolently keep the price at $100. They would keep it at $110 and keep the difference. The demand curve is set by the total net cost to the consumer.

So on an $890M project (yes, excluding the fact that that's a ridiculously underscoped cost), $200M of owners money + $250M in ticket tax represents about a 50/50 split.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I hate the incomplete nature of the funding model as much as anyone, but it is accurate to portray it as close to 50/50. Ticket tax is money out of the owners pockets. It is effectively a tax on their future revenues.

For example, let's say a base ticket cost was $100 and the ticket tax was $10 for a total cost to the consumer of $110. Now take the ticket tax away. It's not like the owners would benevolently keep the price at $100. They would keep it at $110 and keep the difference. The demand curve is set by the total net cost to the consumer.

So on an $890M project (yes, excluding the fact that that's a ridiculously underscoped cost), $200M of owners money + $250M in ticket tax represents about a 50/50 split.

Does the city get 50% of the revenue?