New Poll on Arena issue

[Senator Clay Davis]

Depends on what the threat is. Basically the only threat worth taking seriously is Toronto 2. Everything else is basically the owners choosing the "cut of the nose to spite the face" approach. If they wanna lose a couple hundred million out of spite, more power to them.

[shermanator]

I would sincerely hope the Flames don't threaten to move but...

- If the team threatened to move: Not a cent. I'm not falling for their bluff.
- If the team doesn't threaten to move: Up to $50 million

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The point of the question is to establish how firm people are in their thinking about how much funding should be provided, and how much they care about that relative to the risk of losing the team.

And that's how I answered it... but by making it a threat by CSEC, I think you are getting people to respond to the threat as opposed to what you were asking.

[SuperMatt18]

I would be fine with up to $200M, but hope it wouldn't come to the point of the Flames threatening to leave.

Similar to what was spent on a new public library, and the National Music Center then I don't see a reason we can't place a similar amount of investment into the new arena.

Also think the city needs to get a share of the revenue from somewhere - maybe it's a share of the revenue from parking - but make it a bit of a partnership as well.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

A person could, quite literally, live in this city their entire life without ever setting foot inside the arena, yet still benefit almost daily from its existence ...........

OK, I'll bite. How?

[Torture]

My poll answer

If the Flames threatened - None.
Working out a deal, probably around $50M

If they're bargaining in bad faith they don't deserve public dollars. If they can negotiate a deal that benefits the public I'd be ok with some sort of contribution around $25-50M (depending on how it benefits obviously)

[united]

In a good faith partnership, I'm fine with the City contributing up to 20% of the cost assuming it includes some sort of field house or similar facility.
If it's just a stand-alone arena, 10%.

If the Flames threaten to move, $0. Tell them to beat it.

[Angelino]

Here is a related question...

If the Flames did move to another city, would you still support them as a fan?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

"If the Flames threatened to move the team out of Calgary, how much public funding would you support the City and Province putting towards a new arena?"

At this point I'm not for any public funding and if they pull that garbage on the city and fans I say good riddance.

I could be swayed if the pitch was reasonable and actually contained numbers that add up next time around but holding us all hostage would immediately end that chance in my mind. I'm sure the NHL would enjoy playing in another toilet bowl city with empty seats as an alternative.....can't see it happening.

[The Yen Man]

I think the Flames would have more tact than to threaten to move. Besides, they and the NHL know it's just an empty threat, and would just piss off the fanbase.

So with the assumption that they wouldn't play that card, I'd still be ok with up to $200M in public money towards building the new arena. To me, I'd use it way more than the new public library, so for my own interest's sake, I'd be more beneficial.

[Ashasx]

As a Flames fan who understands that government-paid arenas are a bad investment, I still want a new arena, and I wouldn't mind the government paying.

I guess being irrational is what being a fan is all about. The building would bring my joy, so I want that.

[dissentowner]

I will abstain from this poll as I don't live in Calgary.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I think the Flames would have more tact than to threaten to move. Besides, they and the NHL know it's just an empty threat, and would just piss off the fanbase.

So with the assumption that they wouldn't play that card, I'd still be ok with up to $200M in public money towards building the new arena. To me, I'd use it way more than the new public library, so for my own interest's sake, I'd be more beneficial.

I guess you don't remember the save the flames campaign......the campaign where the team threatened to move.

[polak]

200 Million for my own selfish reasons.

This city comes alive when the Flames are playing well. That is worth it to me on it's own. Can't imagine how it would be with no Major League sports team to support here.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This city desperately needs a new arena. It's not just about the Flames, either. Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, major-league venues are the entertainment Meccas of the world; and The Canadian Airlines Olympic ScotiaPen Saddledome is our current contribution to that standard.

Every time a major act goes to Edmonton instead of Calgary (the Dome is too outdated to support current stage requirements) it says something about Calgary's place in the world.

There's also the residual impact on the city. A person could, quite literally, live in this city their entire life without ever setting foot inside the arena, yet still benefit almost daily from its existence - so yes, tax dollars should absolutely pay for it to be built. 100%? no, that's ridiculous; but so is 0%.

So, since they have a new rink, Edmonton now has an "entertainment Mecca of the world"? My guess is that few people who aren't serious hockey fans (so, very few people) even know or care it exists. The same will be true for whatever replaces the Saddledome.

A new hockey rink that can hold a Katy Perry concert isn't going to change Calgary's place in the world.

[moncton golden flames]

if they threaten to leave, i call their bluff and give them nothing.

[Enoch Root]

Brutal question.

But as to how much public funding I would support, that would be entirely dependent on what we were getting for it.

More connected amenities, more connections to trains, revitalization... things like that have value.

Just a new box to charge higher prices for seats? Nothing.

A facility that improves the city? I'm open for discussions.

It should never just be a question of price. It should always be a question of value.

[nfotiu]

I am completely against public funding of buildings like this. I don't think there is any logical argument why teams can pay their players 75 million per year, but can't build a 500 million dollar building for them, or even a logical argument why they need a 500 million in the first place. Maybe they should use 30 million a year to finance their building and the salaries should be corrected to 45 million.

But, Calgary is not a vacuum and they have to compete against other cities both on the ice and for franchises. It is pretty tough for one city to take a stand against this unless they are in a huge market. So I guess it's a necessary evil that the city and province have to give some money, but I sure wish there was a way to put an end to this across the continent. At least public sentiment seems to be shifting away from this kind of spending.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I guess you don't remember the save the flames campaign......the campaign where the team threatened to move.

That was a different time where the team was bleeding money, and 2 other Canadian teams left Canada.

The Flames are doing well financially in Calgary, and even remaining in the Saddledome would probably be hard-pressed to find another market that is as economically advantageous as Calgary is.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

There's also the residual impact on the city. A person could, quite literally, live in this city their entire life without ever setting foot inside the arena, yet still benefit almost daily from its existence - so yes, tax dollars should absolutely pay for it to be built. 100%? no, that's ridiculous; but so is 0%.

It would be interesting to see what the economic impact of a concert is. They say the economic impact of the Stampede is around 300 million. Ballpark it to 30 million a day. Not saying each event would bring in 30 million to the city as on each given day as the stampede probably 5x the people. I do think the there would be a trickle down that would benefit the city. From hotel, restaurant, airport, rental cars, taxis, extra transit or city parking use there is the potential for it to impact a lot of areas in the service industry.

I think that is also why it is smart to make this a partnership. If you work with the city then you can make it so transit or city lots are leveraged or preferred and the city sees some extra revenue that way instead of it going to the Stampede or Impark.