[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

They presented their idea, which was a joke, and there was no plan B. Perhaps you don't want to define that as take or leave it. Maybe "Take it because we've got nothing else, because we fully expected everyone to just eat this up" ?

The mayor's comments aren't ideal from a professionalism standpoint, I'll grant that. However, the Flames can talk all they want about starting point and dialogue after the fact but they came with their "fully baked" idea and immediately went public with it without any of this seemingly important dialogue. so it's a little late to try and treat CalgaryNEXT like it was some collaboration.

Still disagree, and understand I didn't like the CalgaryNEXT proposal either.

They paid their own dollars to come up with a plan and a presentation that didn't cost the city anything but time to look at.

You can call it half baked, hair brained, stupid ... I'm good with any of those, but nothing in it was a take it or leave it. It was their vision, one they liked and tried to sell to the city as a way to work together on some shared goals.

Isn't that pretty much the way any group approaches a city on a potential partnership? With a plan and a starting point proposal. I know I see it all the time in my line of work, and I don't feel the need to stand up in a board room and accuse the other side of "take it or leave it" etc.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Your right Shermanator they don't have much leverage with the city in terms of getting the money.

The only leverage that they really have is relocation, that's it, its that simple.

Lets be utterly honest here, are two major league sports facilities are now probably at the bottom of their respective leagues. The Dome is old, the equipment in it isn't very good, there is no more revenue expansion capabilities. In the next few years it will barely be considered an NHL quality arena.

McMahon Stadium is pretty much the worst building in the CFL,

The Dome is a terrible concert facility its regularly skipped over for really good acts and we get the B and C acts for example.

Like I said if the city decides to dig their heels in on any kind of incentives to the Flames who are likely going to have to put up a lot of money for an arena themselves then why would they do it here?

There are likely better places to do it, that will give incentives.

Now frankly I agree with Locke, the Flames did a pretty lousy job in terms of the CalgaryNext presentation. But if the door is truly slammed now in terms of the city and the Flames then the Flames might as well start exploring options where they study private funding versus what cities out there would take an NHL team on and how much to they want them, so we can get on with the job of getting an AHL team.

The Stamps won't leave, but the Stadium is embarrassing.

Agreed, and if they were to pull that card I think the majority of the public would call them on their BS. Me personally, that would be the last time I pay a cent towards the club, not that I'm really paying much today.

And while I understand that the Flames are trying to stretch their revenue, I'm also perfectly fine with the Dome the way it is now. But I'm also a simple creature, I'm there for the game on the ice and the beer, and nothing more. I also think NA sports fans are incredibly pretentious about their stadiums, it should be about the game itself, and the atmosphere in the stands, and everything else is a luxury.

A wide concourse and some more pissers doesn't do anything to change that for me outside of the thought of "oooh this looks pretty", and given that the prices of tickets, concessions, and everything else will rise significantly, it will actually detract from the product for me.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

(Replying to CaptainCrunch) ^All you're saying is they can't run their business.

These are pretty normal challenges of running any kind of retail or entertainment business. You need a venue. It costs money. If you can't afford it, you need to fix your business or close up shop.

As a fan, I don't need a new arena. I'm certain I'd have just as much fun if they still played at the Corral.

If the business supports a shiny new arena because it expands their revenue stream, then they should plan for, and build it.

If they screwed up and are caught with their pants down, that's on them. Not me.

I reject your position outright. You're taking a populist view point of, if they can't make it go in their current situation or they can't build their own damn building then its time to close up shop.

But its far more complicated then that. On the spending side of things you've got currency instability, you've got increasing salaries that are negotiated pretty much by the NHL and NHLPA. In terms of revenues they're entirely limited by the building that they're in and where that revenue goes.

The city and the province and federally they all get some benefit from having an NHL team or a CFL team, lets not pretend that the city for example is so burdened by the venture. There are tax dollars and employment that all flow to the government.

I'm not going to sit here and say that I'm onside with the city building an arena. However it the city wants to for example continue to receive revenues from taxation from an NHL or they want to be looked at as a major league city there is now a cost to that entering and staying in that club.

If we're all fine with Nenshi saying no and slamming the door on anything from the city, then lets get that in the air, and let the Flames decide if they want to go it on their own here, or start working with the NHL on negotiating something elsewhere. Or as you say, shutdown the business.

[JiriHrdina]

Are folks OK losing the Flames over the building issue? That is - if the owners don't think they can get a good deal here and choose to go elsewhere where they can get public support - are folks OK with that?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Still disagree, and understand I didn't like the CalgaryNEXT proposal either.

They paid their own dollars to come up with a plan and a presentation that didn't cost the city anything but time to look at.

You can call it half baked, hair brained, stupid ... I'm good with any of those, but nothing in it was a take it or leave it. It was their vision, one they liked and tried to sell to the city as a way to work together on some shared goals.

Isn't that pretty much the way any group approaches a city on a potential partnership? With a plan and a starting point proposal. I know I see it all the time in my line of work, and I don't feel the need to stand up in a board room and accuse the other side of "take it or leave it" etc.

Where is the starting point, and finishing point if there's only one solution planned and presented with no alternatives? Where is the dialogue when the first the city learns of it is the public proposal?

Where was the flexibility here when this was rolled out? Words about partnership after the fact, when faced with backlash, just don't jive with the actions they took.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Are folks OK losing the Flames over the building issue? That is - if the owners don't think they can get a good deal here and choose to go elsewhere where they can get public support - are folks OK with that?

If that's the road the Flames want to take, then yes, I'm ok with it. Obviously I'd prefer the Flames stay but this meme of "economic benefit" of publicly funded arenas, which has never stood up to financial scrutiny, has to stop.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Are folks OK losing the Flames over the building issue? That is - if the owners don't think they can get a good deal here and choose to go elsewhere where they can get public support - are folks OK with that?

Can we do a poll?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Still disagree, and understand I didn't like the CalgaryNEXT proposal either.

They paid their own dollars to come up with a plan and a presentation that didn't cost the city anything but time to look at.

You can call it half baked, hair brained, stupid ... I'm good with any of those, but nothing in it was a take it or leave it. It was their vision, one they liked and tried to sell to the city as a way to work together on some shared goals.

Isn't that pretty much the way any group approaches a city on a potential partnership? With a plan and a starting point proposal. I know I see it all the time in my line of work, and I don't feel the need to stand up in a board room and accuse the other side of "take it or leave it" etc.

Okay, and thats fair enough. I'm not going to get into an argument with respect to the 'Take it or Leave it' bit but, again, if two sides fundamentally start so far apart that no meaningful ground can be made to meet in the middle then again, it becomes a non-starter and it largely becomes the same thing.

If they cant meaningfully negotiate to some form of mutually beneficial common ground then it effectively does become a zero-sum game.

I see where you're coming from, it was their vision and they liked it. I have visions like that too, I'm still waiting for the Greek Navy to deliver my Aircraft-Carrier but they've inexplicably stopped taking my calls.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Where is the starting point, and finishing point if there's only one solution planned and presented with no alternatives? Where is the dialogue when the first the city learns of it is the public proposal?

Where was the flexibility here when this was rolled out? Words about partnership after the fact, when faced with backlash, just don't jive with the actions they took.

The city can counter with anything.

The options are endless. They could make it smaller, change the funding model, come up with a clean up cost plan and ask the Flames to pay part of it.

They could say, we can see what you were trying to do here (field house, clean up, develop down town with an anchor tenant), but we don't want the Field house downtown so this doesn't work for us.

A proposal isn't bound to the proposal itself it can be countered in any way you want.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by nik-

Except it is. Because the Flames conveniently ignore all the remediation and infrastructure costs. I get it, you're a shill, but don't try to bull#### here.

Needed to be quoted.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Lets be honest, a few years back when there was a real threat of the team actually leaving Calgary, the owners hung on and stayed on until the le ague forced some level of salary control, and from that point on they've played in the dome and while they probably aren't losing money, they probably don't have a scooge mcdunk type of vault full of money with a pool full of coins.

Lets be honest, the City also made concessions to keep the team here, and they're lucky they did, otherwise the ownership group might be finding themselves losing millions of dollars in some southern state right now.
But that was then and this is now. Now, CSEC seem less about community welfare and more about maximizing the amount of money they can extract from the city and their fan base. Sad, because this city has provided them one of the best markets to own a sports team and also provided many of them the opportunity to make their millions/billions of dollars to afford to buy those teams.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The city can counter with anything.

The options are endless. They could make it smaller, change the funding model, come up with a clean up cost plan and ask the Flames to pay part of it.

They could say, we can see what you were trying to do here (field house, clean up, develop down town with an anchor tenant), but we don't want the Field house downtown so this doesn't work for us.

A proposal isn't bound to the proposal itself it can be countered in any way you want.

But why? This is something the Flames want so the Flames can make more money. Why should the city go out and solution this for them?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

But why? This is something the Flames want so the Flames can make more money. Why should the city go out and solution this for them?

The city should be a partner in this if they believe that having a pro NHL team is important to the overall make-up of Calgary.

This isn't just about the Flames making more money.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Are folks OK losing the Flames over the building issue? That is - if the owners don't think they can get a good deal here and choose to go elsewhere where they can get public support - are folks OK with that?

Not even an option. Non-starter and not even in the conversation.

If they cant haul the Coyotes out of Phoenix and the Oilers' blundered 'Seattle Walkabout' it isnt even up for discussion.

The Flames cant simply 'choose to move' because the League basically wont let them so long as they are profitable.

Thats the thing, while it is 'Their Business' they have to operate within the constraints placed upon them by the NHL.

They have the Financial Capital available to build their own arena. They just dont want to. And who can blame them? Thats fine. But then this is the game that gets played.

The real issue is that Ken King more or less promised, verbatim, that they werent going to ransom the City the way the Oilers did and then proceeded to effectively do just that.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Can we do a poll?

Yeah just trying to figure out how to create a question that isn't loaded.

"If the Flames and city are unable to come to consensus on a deal arena, and the funding of that project, then would you feel OK with the Flames leaving for another city"

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by nik-

But why? This is something the Flames want so the Flames can make more money. Why should the city go out and solution this for them?

Because they want a new arena too, and they want in a place that aligns with their current development road map and plans.

Stop pretending the city doesn't care about a new arena............they do...........they really really do. They want it, they want to pay as little as possible for it themselves (not saying that's wrong), and they want to control where it goes.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Are folks OK losing the Flames over the building issue? That is - if the owners don't think they can get a good deal here and choose to go elsewhere where they can get public support - are folks OK with that?

I don't attend enough to really complain about the Dome.
If they really are billionaires then yes I would like them to pay for their own building.

Much as I would like it if we had a state of the art awesome building...if that causes the Flames to move then so be it. I would still cheer for them. I am stupid enough that I would probably attend more games live if they were elsewhere! It would be fun.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Are folks OK losing the Flames over the building issue? That is - if the owners don't think they can get a good deal here and choose to go elsewhere where they can get public support - are folks OK with that?

Better question: Are the Flames owners willing to lose tens of millions moving the team to a poorer market? The moving threat is really empty when you consider that part of it. It's a scare tactic essentially.

Also the league would almost certainly block any move anyway, so it's kind of moot.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

I don't attend enough to really complain about the Dome.
If they really are billionaires then yes I would like them to pay for their own building.

Much as I would like it if we had a state of the art awesome building...if that causes the Flames to move then so be it. I would still cheer for them. I am stupid enough that I would probably attend more games live if they were elsewhere! It would be fun.

Yeah part of the reason I was asking is that it has become way easier for people to follow a team that is outside their market. You can get every game somehow on television, and the internet also means you can find in-depth coverage.
So the only advantage of having the team in your own city is if you go to the games coupled with being around more like-minded fans.
So perhaps having the team actually here is just less important to people than it once was.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Agreed, and if they were to pull that card I think the majority of the public would call them on their BS. Me personally, that would be the last time I pay a cent towards the club, not that I'm really paying much today.

And while I understand that the Flames are trying to stretch their revenue, I'm also perfectly fine with the Dome the way it is now. But I'm also a simple creature, I'm there for the game on the ice and the beer, and nothing more. I also think NA sports fans are incredibly pretentious about their stadiums, it should be about the game and the atmosphere in the stands, and everything else is a luxury. A wide concourse and some more pissers doesn't do anything to change that for me outside of the thought of "oooh this looks pretty".

First of all what BS? Seriously I want to know. The Flames are looking at what Edmonton did and what the province did for the Oilers in Edmonton which was to pretty well fully fund that rink and saying, hey in the province of Alberta that's the deal that was made.

I think the Flames are also savvy enough to know that they're not going to get that. But going from a fully paid rink to a screw you pay for it yourself is frankly going to convince the owners to go elsewhere, its that simple, they're not stupid at all, and they know by looking at it scientifically that fully privatized buildings will leak money, whereas the hybrid models of public and private money stand a better chance of being positive for both sides.

Frankly what you want is irrelevant to be honest based on what you said, because clearly the dome is not adequate in the NHL, and not adequate for the long term survival of the NHL in Calgary, and at some point as they can't upgrade the dome and replacing the ice plant for example and moving into the future information age in the dome we have to ask the question. Is Calgary an NHL city at that point, because if the city isn't willing to give some percentage of public funding like the majority of other major league cities, then it won't be a NHL city.

Because the Dome isn't anywhere near a long term home for the Flames and its not about shiny.

And frankly if the city is adamant on no public funding, then this whole exercise is done. Get the mayor to stand up and say, absolutely no public funding, no bond issues will happen, and have the province say the same thing , get it out and get it clear so the Flames can stop negotiating and make up their mind on what they're going to do, because I tend to think that the idea of a 100% privately building is going to be a non starter.

And then we can get to the business of converting to Oiler fans if we want to follow an Alberta NHL team, and maybe we can get a nice AHL team or ECHL team to play out of the come.

But sitting here and saying, well the dome is good enough for you is a showing a massive misunderstanding of the business and future business of the NHL.

Like I've said before, I'm not a public funding guy. That deal in Edmonton was ridiculous. But I'm also a realist in that the Flames owners won't sole fund a building and the Flames will eventually leave if the City doesn't provide any incentive to stay.

That's just simple business.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by nik-

But why? This is something the Flames want so the Flames can make more money. Why should the city go out and solution this for them?

Because we (including you Nik) have to accept that, at some level, this is a partnership. Maybe not 50/50, but it still is one. The Flames want/need a building, and the city is a part of that process.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The city should be a partner in this if they believe that having a pro NHL team is important to the overall make-up of Calgary.

This isn't just about the Flames making more money.

But where is the partnership except for statements saying that they wanted one after the thing was already presented? How did the Flames act as an entity legitimately looking for a partner aside from funding in this? Letting the city use the football facility when they don't need it, that's pretty much it.