[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The creosote problem will last until someone wants to develop and is willing to pay, which is likely never. I don't think there's a will for the City or the Province to do it, and I doubt that will ever change. There's no one else to target for the cost.

Nobody is cleaning that #### up ever...because money

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by GGG

The issue there is that is effectively an owner contribution and not a city contribution. As the total money the owners will earn over the life of the arena will be reduced by 3%-5% depending the elasticity of the fee vs face value.

It's only an owner contribution if they allow the ticket price to remain static and the city takes their 5% from there.

However, Oiler's tickets went from $185.43 last year to $207.27 this year (an increase of 12%). I think ticket sales at any new Calgary arena could be increased by 5% without many people squawking about it.

However, even if we want to say 5% is too much and would decrease the number of people attending events, we could probably reduce that ticket tax to something closer to 3%. A 5% tax would allow the city to recoup their invest on Flames games alone, so a 3% tax might still make it financially feasible for the city when you consider all the other events.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by trumpethead

That number is incorrect (and comes from a ticket reseller in the secondary market). The average Flames ticket is barely half that amount.

I was basing my numbers on this site. However, according to this Forbes article, the average Flames tickets in 2013 were $262.10.

You're saying that in fours years ticket prices fell from $262 down to about $93?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by GGG

The interesting question would be what is the market value of the rent to the flames. How much could you charge them before they moved out of Calgary. Because as the arena owner you have a monopoly you can charge as much the market will bare.

The flames have already put that at 450million plus op costs in today's dollars.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

On the other hand, as the sole major-league tenant you have a monopsony, and you can offer as little as the seller can stand.

All the team really has to do in a situation like that is pay more than the second-best tenant would be able to offer.

What I'd likely do is compare what other NHL teams pay in rent to arenas they don't own. Contrast that with the commercial rental market in the city. If the commercial rental market in NYC is X per square foot and the Islanders pay Y% ofor X per square foot you log that. Average the percentage among all teams that rent from arenas they don't own. Whatever that average is you apply that to the Calgary market. Voila.

Again haven't slept in 4 days so hopefully that thought is English.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

They should put a library, music studio, art gallery and renewable energy think tank in the bowels of the new arena plans and get the NDP to pay.

Now your talking...

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

90% of the acts that skip town are garbage anyways. Not a big loss, and it's not that hard or expensive to do a day trip to Edmonton if you want to see a concert there. This is a non-issue to me.

"How is this bad for Calgary? If you actually like these garbage bands then go spend your money in another city. Non issue".

[kevman]

I can never keep up on these threads but why again does Calgary "need" a new arena? And in 30 years why will we "need" a new one already? Is there any piece of infrastructure that has a shorter shelf life than arenas?

If your friends city jumps off a fiscal bridge would you too? I would be a proud Calgarian if our city joined the likes of New York and had a privately funded stadium. (graphic)

[trumpethead]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

I was basing my numbers on this site. However, according to this Forbes article, the average Flames tickets in 2013 were $262.10.

You're saying that in fours years ticket prices fell from $262 down to about $93?

Again, you are using data from the resale market. Do you honestly think the average ticket price for the Flames in 2013 was $262??

You should be using this Forbes article - the Business of Hockey from Nov 2016. Avg. ticket price is $59

[GGG]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

It's only an owner contribution if they allow the ticket price to remain static and the city takes their 5% from there.

However, Oiler's tickets went from $185.43 last year to $207.27 this year (an increase of 12%). I think ticket sales at any new Calgary arena could be increased by 5% without many people squawking about it.

However, even if we want to say 5% is too much and would decrease the number of people attending events, we could probably reduce that ticket tax to something closer to 3%. A 5% tax would allow the city to recoup their invest on Flames games alone, so a 3% tax might still make it financially feasible for the city when you consider all the other events.

I don't want to go over this again but any user fee / tax is an owner contribution because there is a maximum price a user will pay for a given good which is the intersection of the supply / demand curve. If the city had a 100% tax on tickets would the flames owners be able to charge the same pre tax amount? Of course not ergo the tax is an owner contribution.

The ticket price in a new Calgary arena will already be being increased by 10-20% with the entire press level catagory being eliminated. So any city tax will reduce the amount the flames can increase.

Now there is an argument that people make the decision based on the face value and not the post fee cost. And I would agree for single game tickets this may be true up to a point. However season ticket holders who are the majority of the customers will only look at the final all in 45 game cost and divide that amount to evaluate if their per game cost is worth it.

Given the above can we please stop bringing up this ridiculous notion that any arena based ticket tax is anything but an owner contribution

[Jay Random]

Yup. The main reason the owners want a ticket tax is that it doesn't count as hockey-related revenue and they don't have to spend half of it on player salaries. If it did count as HRR, it would effectively double the cost for whatever percentage of the building was financed by that method. Either way, the money is coming out of their pockets, because they're already charging as much for tickets as the market will bear.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by kevman

I can never keep up on these threads but why again does Calgary "need" a new arena?

We need a new arena because:

*Need of a larger lower bowl in order to charge more money for the same distance to the ice as they have now.

*More but smaller suites for the "mucky mucks"

*Stronger roof for apparently million pound concert speakers

*Promise of more bathrooms and concessions

All lame in the end.

[Jay Random]

All lame, you say? Sounds like you've never been in any other NHL arena.

The owners need a new arena because the Saddledome was built by people who had never seen a modern arena. When the new arena opens in Detroit, the Saddledome will be the oldest building in the league except for MSG – and the owners of that building just spent a billion dollars replacing the entire interior. That means that 30 teams will have venues with better revenue potential. Yes, Calgary is a better hockey market than most – but that's not helpful if you have to limit ticket prices because your crib is a dump.

The public has much less need of a new arena, but it would be a nice amenity to have. My own position has been pretty much that public involvement should be limited to paying for transportation infrastructure, plus perhaps (if the City owns the land) leasing the site to CSEC below market rates. Katz bent Edmonton over a barrel, and I'm not in favour of that. But that does not make me incapable of recognizing that the Saddledome is no longer an NHL-grade facility.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

All lame, you say? Sounds like you've never been in any other NHL arena.

The owners need a new arena because the Saddledome was built by people who had never seen a modern arena. When the new arena opens in Detroit, the Saddledome will be the oldest building in the league except for MSG – and the owners of that building just spent a billion dollars replacing the entire interior. That means that 30 teams will have venues with better revenue potential. Yes, Calgary is a better hockey market than most – but that's not helpful if you have to limit ticket prices because your crib is a dump.

The public has much less need of a new arena, but it would be a nice amenity to have. My own position has been pretty much that public involvement should be limited to paying for transportation infrastructure, plus perhaps (if the City owns the land) leasing the site to CSEC below market rates. Katz bent Edmonton over a barrel, and I'm not in favour of that. But that does not make me incapable of recognizing that the Saddledome is no longer an NHL-grade facility.

Just recognize that if you aren't a club seat/loge dweller/suite sitter that your actual experience watching the game in the new building versus the old building will probably remain exactly the same.....

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

All lame, you say? Sounds like you've never been in any other NHL arena.

The owners need a new arena because the Saddledome was built by people who had never seen a modern arena. When the new arena opens in Detroit, the Saddledome will be the oldest building in the league except for MSG – and the owners of that building just spent a billion dollars replacing the entire interior. That means that 30 teams will have venues with better revenue potential. Yes, Calgary is a better hockey market than most – but that's not helpful if you have to limit ticket prices because your crib is a dump.

Was talking to a Rangers fan at MSG on Monday. Rebuilt building, beautiful site lines, new seats, huge clock, brand new concessions the whole place looks brand new.

But you can't move plumbing so every intermission you have lines that block almost every exit points from the seats and you had better not have that second beer or you'll miss ten minutes of the next period getting rid of it.

Games I've seen in Arizona, LA, Brooklyn ...not a problem.

Need is such a tough word, but I'd sure appreciate a new building for concessions and bathrooms, it really changes your game experience.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Just recognize that if you aren't a club seat/loge dweller/suite sitter that your actual experience watching the game in the new building versus the old building will probably remain exactly the same.....

Agreed if you don't eat anything, or ever have to go to the bathroom

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agreed if you don't eat anything, or ever have to go to the bathroom

Or have to leave the PLs after the game. I think a big portion of a new venue is being able to move people throughout the facility.

[Par]

Is it safe to say that we won't see a new arena for at least 5-6 years, with negations and building the arena it self and development of area around it will be a while before we see a new arena.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agreed if you don't eat anything, or ever have to go to the bathroom

As a STH are you telling me that you don't know which bathrooms to use, or more importantly which ones to avoid? There are only two issues with the bathrooms at the Saddledome:
- The most obvious bathrooms (the ones on the main concourse) are also the smallest.
- The bigger bathrooms have only the single entrance/ exit, causing a backlog.

So take the smaller bathrooms, convert them to "one way only" traffic and put a sign over the entrance showing where the bigger bathrooms are. Take the bigger bathrooms, move the sinks and add more urinals. (Lose a couple of stalls.) All that is probably less than $10M.

My problem with the new arena is that as a green ticket holder, I'm likely going to be priced out of the market. So I won't be able to go to as many games, but for the games that I do, I'll have a 1 minute shorter trip to the bathroom. For me that isn't worth it.

Don't get me wrong. I've been to games in newer arenas. Everything from San Jose/ Winnipeg (the lesser of the newer arenas) to Phoenix and LA. I wouldn't call San Jose nor Winnipeg as being noticeably better. And although Phoenix/LA were certainly better experiences, given the choice of going to half as many games in the better building, I'd take more games at the Saddledome. I'm a hockey fan first- that is why during lockouts I turn to Hitmen and Dinos games.

The fans that will benefit from the newer building are the ones who don't have to worry about fitting Flames games into their entertainment budget.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As a STH are you telling me that you don't know which bathrooms to use, or more importantly which ones to avoid?

For sure I've figured out the tricks like the next guy. But that doesn't mean it's ideal to do a concrete sprint on a tv time out.

And you don't see a malt line bringing traffic to a standstill in newer buildings.

It comes with a price for sure, so I get that, but finding tricks and nuances in an old building doesn't mean there are no gains from getting a better designed facility.

A game in the Staple Center means you don't wet your pants, you don't have to jog the concourse to get a beer and return in time to see the game, and don't feel like cattle at a slaughter house when the game is over.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't want to go over this again but any user fee / tax is an owner contribution because there is a maximum price a user will pay for a given good which is the intersection of the supply / demand curve. If the city had a 100% tax on tickets would the flames owners be able to charge the same pre tax amount? Of course not ergo the tax is an owner contribution.

That is such a paper thin definition of "contribution". It's not an owner contribution to the construction cost of the building, they are putting up not a single dime of that money.

I see the Ticket Tax not as an "ownership contribution" and more as a proposed dedicated revenue stream going to the folk who hold (Rather then operate) the facility. I mean really... why shouldn't the city have an expectation that it at least recoup the amount it invested if the facility reaches it's use projections?