[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Bunk]

If the Flames were smart about this they might've listened to advice from the first meeting about West Village that it was a bad idea and to not put their eggs all in that one basket. If only someone had given them that advice.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

You have a pretty clear view on how you think this has gone down. One that I'm not going to change. Plus that stuff wasn't really what I was arguing about.
I was making a broader point that this project has to be a partnership - and to this point I don't think either side have done a good job of positioning in that way to each other.

[Darkknight]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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"

"Do you feel not using public funds is worth the Flames relocating to a city where they could find a more agreeable funding model for a new arena?"

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

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.

I do accept that it needs to be a partnership. My stance is that the Flames acted in bad faith to their prospective partner and in addition to that are massively understating the overall costs of this project.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

You have a pretty clear view on how you think this has gone down. One that I'm not going to change. Plus that stuff wasn't really what I was arguing about.
I was making a broader point that this project has to be a partnership - and to this point I don't think either side have done a good job of positioning in that way to each other.

I think you are touching on a very important point. Many are doing what we all do with a lack of information................fill in the blanks for ourselves. Which or course, get completely tainted by whatever bias' we bring to the table.

Fact is, whether it be the Calgary Next proposal (that to many seems half baked) or the small statements we get from the city, we likely aren't getting even 5% of the information that is going on behind closed doors with CSE, or in the city, or in conversations between the two. All we are getting to see / hear are what either side wants us to hear strategically in this negotiating process.

But to assume that the first the city ever heard from the Flames was their Calgary Next Proposal, and that they received no more details than what we heard about is silly. And to also assume that the Flames proposed the west village, unaware of the city's concerns with that location, or that they had preference for the east village would also be silly. Evaluating the tactics or the quality of what's going is ridiculous on either side, given most of us aren't at the table to hear what's actually being presented, while is very interesting, can't be done effectively.

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

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.

This is very important in regard to the negotiations. The City does gain some benefit from the Flames staying in Calgary. They do have a partnership of sorts due to that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

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.

Well if no one ever has a vision or a plan then nothing happens, I feel like I'm watching Finding Nemo.

So the city just said no, or at least Nenshi did. No counter at all. No real explanation other than doesn't work.

Is it that they don't want development in west village?
Don't want to deal with the Creosote issue that they took on under Bronconier?
Don't want a field house down town?
Want a smaller anchor tenant in the area?
Have a different vision that they've already got their hearts set on?

All of that would be better than the name calling we've seen, which to me has been a real sad add to this situation.

To me this has always come down to a bullet list of logic that hasn't changed.

• the football and hockey facilities are old
• it's probably a good idea to build new ones
• there are plenty of facilities that have been built in Canada with public funding
• it would be silly for the Calgary group not to ask for the same
• the city doesn't have to do what the other public funding models have done

Just keep the rhetoric out of this, it's hurting the process.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

You don't know what populist means.

But its far more complicated then that. On the spending side of things you've got currency instability

You mean the same thing every business in Calgary deals with that sells things imported from the US (car dealerships, retail stores, equipment distributors)?

you've got increasing salaries that are negotiated pretty much by the NHL and NHLPA.

Like many franchises, regional offices or many forms of business that deal with unions. Oh, also any business that employs people at minimum wage.

In terms of revenues they're entirely limited by the building that they're in and where that revenue goes.

You mean like, oh, every restaurant in the city? Limited tables, limited appeal to each location, and pricing that must match the product and facility accordingly. Except those businesses don't get TV revenue, merchandise revenue, or revenue sharing. The Flames are on easy street in this aspect.

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.

Completely debatable. Most studies have indicated entertainment spending is not affected by major sports work stoppages, it just finds other homes. Most other forms of entertainment aren't subsidized by the government and do just fine.

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.

Calgarians are the only ones that think this is a "World Class" city or a "Major League" city. It's a pretty nice place for sure.

Do I think Milwaukee or Buffalo is somehow legitimized because they have professional sports teams? Is Seattle less attractive because they lost their NBA team?

As a hockey fan, of course I'd be sad about losing the cultural element of having the Flames in town, but that doesn't mean we should respond to any blackmail about them leaving. A city with as many hockey fans and corporate dollars as us is a viable hockey market. It's not our city councils job to ensure the business of hockey is profitable.

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.

I believe it wasn't slamming the door and saying "no" but more saying "how about we try something that isn't ridiculous, and maybe look at something that is adequately served by transportation and can leverage the Stampede, National Music Centre, Conferences etc in supporting hotel and entertainment establishments instead of diluting development on both sides of a currently stagnating city centre?"

I'm not about to defend Nenshi's public tone, but this wasn't a "slamming the door" situation.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Darkknight

"Do you feel not using public funds is worth the Flames relocating to a city where they could find a more agreeable funding model for a new arena?"

That's pretty good but too long. Shortened it a bit and added the poll

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

I do accept that it needs to be a partnership. My stance is that the Flames acted in bad faith to their prospective partner and in addition to that are massively understating the overall costs of this project.

the city came back with a counter cost summary that was way more disingenuous than the Flames group.

I just don't see bad faith. I didn't like the marketing, I didn't like the King comments around it. I think they picked the wrong front guy.

But I could see what they were trying to do. The city had a west village blight and a need for a field house, and they were trying to find a solution that would work for every one.

I do think it was an initial proposal and they expected a counter with new ideas and a different share model.

Instead they got a mayor grandstanding.

[Bingo]

I won't even answer that ... it's almost like the Quebec separation referendum question!

[Senator Clay Davis]

How are we defining public funds? Even good old me, one of the staunchest opponents, supports the city providing funds to improve infrastructure surrounding the prospective building. I just don't think any money should go to the building itself.

[dre]

For the children people!

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

How are we defining public funds? Even good old me, one of the staunchest opponents, supports the city providing funds to improve infrastructure surrounding the prospective building. I just don't think any money should go to the building itself.

And also perspective too. Would it be worth it for Flames ownership? Would they really be better off moving to another city?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

How are we defining public funds? Even good old me, one of the staunchest opponents, supports the city providing funds to improve infrastructure surrounding the prospective building. I just don't think any money should go to the building itself.

That's my problem with the question.

If an arena is going to be built in Victoria Park, it will be necessary to make it work with the Green Line plans – either by building it on the line and putting in a station, or by making sure that it's off the line and the two projects don't interfere with one another. That alone is going to require some flexibility and cooperation.

Based on the signals Nenshi has been sending, I suspect he would really rather just ram the Green Line through in such a way that there is no feasible location left for an arena site, and campaign for re-election on the slogan, ‘Neener neener neener, stupid billionaires!’ I'm hoping that someone at City Hall has enough nous to avoid that, but I'm not counting on it.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Bunk

If the Flames were smart about this they might've listened to advice from the first meeting about West Village that it was a bad idea and to not put their eggs all in that one basket. If only someone had given them that advice.

But they already had a PowerPoint presentation Bunk! A POWERPOINT!

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

To pretend the city would be OK with losing the Flames, and will continue to be OK with having every single artist out on tour by pass Calgary for Edmonton is simply ignorant. There are both financial and quality of life impacts for the city if they don't replace the Dome at some point.

...

The city wants or at the very least will want a new arena at some point. That they have a need /desire for this isn't even debatable, what is debatable is appropriate level of support based on their desire, and of course how timing lines up between their desire and needs and the Flames.

I could not agree more with this.

For those who seem to want to vilify the owners for trying to approach the new building as a partnership with some measure of public funding, please at least click each of the following four links and read the pages. It will take only a few minutes:

http://calgaryflamesfoundation.com/w...gacy-projects/

http://calgaryflamesfoundation.com/f...ram/education/

http://calgaryflamesfoundation.com/f...-and-wellness/

http://calgaryflamesfoundation.com/f...mateur-sports/

This does not even touch the things that individual players and employees do every day to give back to the City and its people.

Billionaire NHL franchise owners are going to be billionaire NHL franchise owners and millionaire players are going to be millionaire players. I believe living in a community that includes those people is better than living in a community without them.

That does not mean writing a blank cheque by any means, but the City of Calgary would take a major hit in its standing as a community if it refuses to look for common ground and loses a major contributor to what makes the City great.

[Darkknight]

I feel like infrastructure is a given, I think the poll is more so directed towards public funding go to the construction of a new arena. This for me, would also include a loan from the city payed back via a ticket tax as suggested in the initial proposal.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

you keep saying the provincial government gave Edmonton a pile of money towards the arena, but that isn't true. they did give 7 million for the community rink, but that's about it.

here's the agreement with all the attached documents.

https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...agreement.aspx

while the oilers may have bent over the city, I don't see provincial funding. I do see where Edmonton may is directing money the CRL, but that's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

So I do agree with you that Calgary should get as much money as Edmonton did from the provincial and federal government towards the building of a new arena.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Bingo

To me this has always come down to a bullet list of logic that hasn't changed.

• the football and hockey facilities are old
• it's probably a good idea to build new ones
• there are plenty of facilities that have been built in Canada with public funding
• it would be silly for the Calgary group not to ask for the same
• the city doesn't have to do what the other public funding models have done

Completely agree with this list. But that doesn't mean that the current CalgaryNEXT basis is any good. CalgaryNEXT is a bad concept.

It's bad from a city planning perspective because a) it took too much prime river front land for a big box and left too little developable land to repay a CRL with incremental taxes, and b) it was scheduled to happen before the West Village was done filling out.

It's bad from a financing perspective because it pretty much equated to the Flames kicking in about $450M and the taxpayer kicking in $900M when you consider the full scope. Note that those numbers are based on CSEC's response to the City's response to the original CalgaryNEXT proposal (link to my finance breakdown of CSEC's response)

It's just a bad concept.

Let's move on to finding a good concept, let's get the right amount of public funding involved, and let's get some shovels in the ground.

I believe that a Stampede based arena and minimalist outdoor stadium is the best idea. If a stadium doesn't fit, then a Stampede based arena only project is second place (and carve out the stadium into a separate discussion).

My dream concept is an arena on the Big 4 at the end of 17th Ave and a stadium replacing the Grandstand. The Stampede would then use it for 10 days a year with the chucks racing around one side of it and the finish line is in the middle...but I think that's a pipedream.