[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

The Flames still haven't responded in a significant way.

If the Flames haven't responded, then what is this Plan B that we have been talking about for this entire thread?

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

That's the problem right there. I (and seemingly dozens of other posters) saw and heard Nenshi communicate that sentiment loudly, clearly, and repeatedly but you somehow missed it.

I don't know how that is even possible. Blinded by your distaste for Nenshi perhaps?

What you're pointing out is part of the problem.

In a negotiation between two parties, if you have a problem with what group1 asks, group2 generally needs to come up with a helpful counter to keep the discussion going.

I agree with what you're saying - that Nenshi has been nothing but forthright with the fact he is against the project from the beginning.

That being said, making decisions on any proposal based off his personal opinion is not the mayor's job - he is supposed to be a professional and open-minded when dealing with the business of running the city - something he has not been. It's possible he's not the smartest person in the room (though good luck convincing him of that).

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

In what way is the Flames/City of Calgary relationship like a partnership?

Does the City share in the revenue or profit from the team? No?

They they must receive a share of the increase of the value of the franchise over the time they've been in Calgary. No?

Oh well, at least the City is receiving tax revenue from the land and building. Oh, they're not?

Great partnership.

As Frequitude points out above, of course this is a partnership... though you're examples are only considering a partnership on the basis of dollars and cents.

There is more to this partnership than just money, you just have to be willing to consider the aspects.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The Montreal group is not asking MLB for public money. They have to have public money already committed (by at least two levels of government, it appears) as a condition of being granted a franchise. If they were going to the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec to ask for public money, it would be entirely idiotic of the city and province to make that public money conditional on the owners having already secured a commitment of public money.

The situations are not comparable in any way.

What?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by getbak

If the Flames had support from two levels of government, shovels would already be in the ground on a new arena.


Also, having multiple locations and designs still on the drawing board really means that they have nothing ready to go. For many years, Ken King got up in front of season tickets holders and said "we have identified four possible locations". That wasn't a sign that they were really close to getting something done.

Hell, even when he got up and showed off their one final idea, people pushed back. I'm sure even if he had proposed a new arena-only project at the Stampede Grounds, a lot of people still would have hated it.

Also, when you're just agreeing to basic ideas, it's easy to get government support in principle. Things change when it comes time for people to start signing contracts and writing cheques.

If you approach the city with multiple options, even behind closed doors, the city has more input into the development and may be more willing to pitch in.

We know the Flames didn't do this. City Council had said a few times that they never received anything until after CalgaryNext was announced in its big powerpoint presentation. They didn't work with the City at all, and are shocked that City Hall pushed back on the location?

That is not the best way to get public money.

I believe the Oilers worked with the City of Edmonton for several years discussing possible locations long before any designs or public funds were requested. The City of Edmonton was apart of the conversation and helped get Councillor support moving forward.

Should the Flames have multiple options now? it depends on where you think they are in the process. Obviously I think they are far earlier in the development than people seem to think. This thing isn't getting built in five years. The only thing that can save some sort of expedited timeline is an olympic bid.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

In what way is the Flames/City of Calgary relationship like a partnership?

Does the City share in the revenue or profit from the team? No?

They they must receive a share of the increase of the value of the franchise over the time they've been in Calgary. No?

Oh well, at least the City is receiving tax revenue from the land and building. Oh, they're not?

Great partnership.

Every city needs to look at their pro sports teams as a partnership - one that goes far more deeper than just how revenues are shared or not shared.

They need to assess the broader economic and societal impacts.

So it is a partnership. Just not under the more narrow definition you are using.

[Torture]

Just finished listening to the Ken King interview. Man is he ever condescending. The first time he said "I want to be careful how I say this" and that they felt "baited into saying it" and then he proceeded to mention the Flames leaving at least 4 times in the interview. And Rob Kerr definitely wasn't baiting him into those ones.

The first comment where he said he wanted to be careful he said the easiest way to measure public benefit is to see what happens when it's not there but "we'll make our decision it's not more complicated than that". Said it's not a threat but sounds an awful lot like a threat.

Then he compared Edmonton having a new arena and Calgary not having an arena and said it would be like it to when the Flames were in dire straits with a $.60 dollar and were close to relocation. "you better keep pace, you remember what happened the last time we didn't keep pace when we had a 60 cent dollar"

Then when talking about a Filipino lady in a hospice that he took a signed Gio thing to () he said that "in order to have that thing to look forward to you have to actually have a team"

"We've always said if the world doesn't want us around, or doesn't care where we play or anything else just say so, we're over 21, we can take it"

[chedder]

Agree the flames are looking bad through all of this. I've said so to them for 3 years in the annual season ticket holder survey. There's no reason why we shouldn't already be playing in a new stadium.

[jayswin]

Oh geez, so they are going the "maybe we'll leave" route, I thought they'd stay above that. Even just subtly hinting at it is very off putting, but he's going out of his way to make sure it's part of the discussion.

I've typically been a blind cheerleader to new arenas/stadiums because I selfishly want to see them get built, but if there's one positive thing from this ten year debacle it's that the Flames have completely changed my perception on arena funding through arrogance and incompetence.

[jayswin]

Maybe I'll put that in the Flames annual survey.

"I'd like to thank your organization for making me a more informed citizen, focused on fiscal responsibility and to not be swayed to vote for free money to rich owners out of excitement and fandom of a local sports team.

Without this interesting approach by your team I would not have batted an eye at a $150mil city contribution to a reasonable proposal, now I will be vehemently opposed to the same figure".

[Yoho]

Where do I get KK job?Take a decade to come up with "the emperors new clothes" building location and design, and then when it's obvious that your one elaborate idea is unrealistic, fold up tent and lob out veiled threats to take your ball and leave.


Roll up your sleeves and get Plan B going Ken.

You've had this much time to create one and only building site and design??

[curves2000]

The thing I love about a lot of the talk in regards to the Edmonton arena is the outflow of dollars to Edmonton.

I understand that certain events may skip Calgary to go to Edmonton but I love the fact that Ken King makes it out to be that is some sort of tragedy business wise.

Citizens have a certain amount of entertainment dollars they have to spend. If they are spending it on Flames hockey, dinners, concerts, golf, ski trips or whatever, they choose what to do. Ken King always makes it sound like it's the hotels, restaurants, bars and other business's in Calgary that are the pure benefactors of the above mentioned entertainment dollar and the tragedy lies within those business's losing out on money. That may be true to a certain extent but the truth of the matter is that its the ownership of the Flames that is losing out on added revenue, concerts, sponsorship and other financial advantages. You never hear him say that it's killing their pocketbook, it's always somebody else.

A lot of citizens don't understand the financial model that ownership has with the City of Calgary and the Dome, whereas the Flames make a $1 million a year contribution through the Flames foundation to minor hockey and other initiatives as "rent" for the Dome and in return the ownership is required to maintain the building but derives all the revenue from events that happen inside the building.

It seems to be the financial pressure to do something to improve the economics for the ownership group is with them, not with the City of Calgary. If someone has $150 to spend this weekend on entertainment and the choice is a Flames game or other event at the Dome vs going to dinner and a movie, it's the same thing. It's always these "economic benefit analysis" that always show massive gains but don't talk about the other losses or redistribution of funds occurring.

Does anybody really believe the restaurants, bars, parking lot owners and other business's that surrounded Rexall Place in Edmonton are doing the same level of activity on game day? Or did those entertainment dollars just move downtown?

There will always be an economic benefit but it isn't as large as everybody always makes things out to be cause the dollars just move around, its not like every transaction is "new money"

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Every city needs to look at their pro sports teams as a partnership - one that goes far more deeper than just how revenues are shared or not shared.

They need to assess the broader economic and societal impacts.

So it is a partnership. Just not under the more narrow definition you are using.

Partnership is not the word I would use to describe relationship between civic government and pro sports teams. Lots of businesses have societal and economic impacts. In fact they nearly all do, don't they? I think you're saying there needs to be a relationship between the two, but partnership or "partnering" is a word that gets tossed around often in negotiations by people seeking to further their own interests.

At its essence, partnership means sharing power and decision making, and sharing risks and rewards.

[JiriHrdina]

I think it is largely semantics but I think that's a little narrow
"A partnership is an arrangement where parties, known as partners, agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interest"
That would apply here

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And then the City's logical next move is to say, ‘No, you can't build an arena there. Go buy land at a different site.’

How many parcels of land does CSEC have to buy before they are allowed to talk to the City about planning issues and permits?

Let's start with one and see how it goes from there.

[Flamenfame]

It's a tough situation the city needs a new arena bad , but it's also hard to expect taxpayers to flip the bill. Regardless I hope the fans in the city get a new one they deserve it. City also needs to take into consideration is extra concert revenue hotel revenue and other revenue that will come with new rink.

[ynwa03]

That Ken King interview is amazing. The amount of arrogance. Some highlights.

-We are falling behind Edmonton
-Citizens need to 'activate' and speak up for CalgaryNext.
-What's best for all of us is best for the city (not city hall, but the citizens of course)
-These people against CalgaryNext defy gravity, but are not 'bad people.' I guess they just don't want things in their city. They probably like smaller and simpler cities. These people are smaller in number but louder.
-(The Filipino hospice lady. WTF man, seriously?????? What a dirtbag, sleazy salesman thing to bring up.)
-Those against are vocal minority and carry the day and consequence will be tragic.
-If the world doesn't want us around then say so.....

Stopped listening after that. Sounded a lot like Trump.
One other thing that stuck out was how sad and limp Kerr comes across. And I get why, but to not asking King to clarify any of his statements or not asking him any tough questions comes across as biased.

[Beatle17]

Just a little light reading about the revenue generated for the CRL in Edmonton because of the new Arena and ICE District.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/ga...ntons-economy/

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Just a little light reading about the revenue generated for the CRL in Edmonton because of the new Arena and ICE District.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/ga...ntons-economy/

If it isn't already I believe long term the entire ICE District thing will be very positive for that city. You can argue that Calgary's downtown isn't nearly in need of an ICE District type of revitalization but it is concerning just how many large entertainment acts are bypassing Calgary as stuff like that does benefit the local economy whether some people will like to admit it or not. Also the city can't go on forever ignoring the contamination west of downtown.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

-(The Filipino hospice lady. WTF man, seriously?????? What a dirtbag, sleazy salesman thing to bring up.)

For those of us who have no idea what this means, could you explain?