[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[N-E-B]

Mikael Backlund tweeted that article and you know what? Screw it. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm really souring on the Flames.

This franchise is a joke. Twice in my life (I'm 23) they've made it out of the first round. They've won nothing. Aside from 2006 they've never been near the top of the league, and even that year they were bounced in the first round. This city has supported this mediocre team for too long.

I don't cheer for the Flames, I cheer for CALGARY. We all want a new rink (and I'm in favour of using some public funding) but the way this team is treating the fans and the city is ridiculous. Go ahead and leave. This market is too good to not get a team again. Maybe the next team will be real winners and not just a team that barely makes the playoffs and loses in the first round every year.

That article is a bunch of crap. Screw King and screw you Backlund. That's a slap in the face to your fans as far as I'm concerned.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm sure other cities such as Seattle have thought the same.

Bettman could also block any movement and I think he's been known to hold a grudge.

Seattle is wildly different because the Sonics were acquired by a hostile owner who had zero intention of keeping the team in Seattle and was only interested in fulfilling the bare minimum in order to move the team to OKC. Even if Seattle offered a 100% public arena, they'd still be in OKC right now. NBA is going back to Seattle as soon as they get a new arena, it's pretty much a guarantee.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Seattle is wildly different because the Sonics were acquired by a hostile owner who had zero intention of keeping the team in Seattle and was only interested in fulfilling the bare minimum in order to move the team to OKC. Even if Seattle offered a 100% public arena, they'd still be in OKC right now. NBA is going back to Seattle as soon as they get a new arena, it's pretty much a guarantee.

Alright, use Minneapolis as an example. Great US market, lost their team, took 7 years to get a new one and required a new arena to be built in the meantime. A facility that was heavily reliant on public funding.

Part of attracting business is having amenities in the city that attracts workers to stay. I'm sorry, a $225m library and a $200m Music Centre near a homeless shelter isn't going to do it.

As much as we love slamming Edmonton, what does Calgary have aside from the mountains that Edmonton doesn't? If I was the mayor of Calgary, I'd be fighting tooth and nail to retain every advantage over Edmonton.

Say what you will about the arena debate, but what big event/concert/tournament can Edmonton not host? Calgary need facilities badly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Alright, use Minneapolis as an example. Great US market, lost their team, took 7 years to get a new one and required a new arena to be built in the meantime. A facility that was heavily reliant on public funding.

Part of attracting business is having amenities in the city that attracts workers to stay. I'm sorry, a $225m library and a $200m Music Centre near a homeless shelter isn't going to do it.

As much as we love slamming Edmonton, what does Calgary have aside from the mountains that Edmonton doesn't? If I was the mayor of Calgary, I'd be fighting tooth and nail to retain every advantage over Edmonton.

Say what you will about the arena debate, but what big event/concert/tournament can Edmonton not host? Calgary need facilities badly.

Still kind of irrelevant to his argument the NHL would be petty and never return to Calgary if they don't build an arena now. NHL will go to markets that can make money and are successful. If the Flames were ever allowed to leave, if Calgary did build a new arena down the road, there would be a team back as soon as there was a market in trouble (oh wait, there's like four of those already, who apparently are immovable according to Bettman, but moving from a major corporate hub will be allowed? Hmmmm.....)

As to the bolded well....Montreal has pretty much everything, yet Calgary has significantly more corporate head offices. You could have every single major sport in North America in Calgary, but if the corporate tax rate in Alberta was the highest in North America, you're not attracting any businesses whatsoever. Also, this kind of thinking, that sports are way more important than social good, is exactly how you end up with President Agent Orange. Sports are not more important than a library or homeless shelter, and it's pretty offensive to suggest otherwise.

[EldrickOnIce]

No question the NHL would ultimately allow the Flames to move if no arena is built. It would be their shining example of build it or else.
Also no question they would come back in a heartbeat when a new arena was built.
Neither of which will happen.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Still kind of irrelevant to his argument the NHL would be petty and never return to Calgary if they don't build an arena now. NHL will go to markets that can make money and are successful. If the Flames were ever allowed to leave, if Calgary did build a new arena down the road, there would be a team back as soon as there was a market in trouble (oh wait, there's like four of those already, who apparently are immovable according to Bettman,, but moving from a major corporate hub will be allowed? Hmmmm.....)

As to the bolded well....Montreal has pretty much everything, yet Calgary has significantly more corporate head offices. You could have every single major sport in North America in Calgary, but if the corporate tax rate in Alberta was the highest in North America, you're not attracting any businesses whatsoever. Also, this kind of thinking, that sports are way more important than social good is exactly how you end up with President Agent Orange. Sports are not more important than a library or homeless shelter, and it's pretty offensive to suggest otherwise.

First, they would likely be back... in at least 5-10 years after public money is used (perhaps exclusively public money if there isn't a clear suitor) anyway. So why not cooperate now?

Second, Calgary is not quite the major corporate hub it was with 3% unemployment and mass disposable income... don't expect the NHL will bow to get the 4th largest Canadian market back when there is a perfectly adequate team 250km to the north with a new stadium keeping the TV deal intact. So, yes, Calgary would be high on the list, but I think the NHL would rather roll the dice on Seattle, Portland, Kansas City and maybe even Hartford 2.0 before another Canadian centre because they want new TV revenue. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so I'm not sure why so many people are being so arrogant about the NHL needing Calgary when they already have an Alberta market.

Third, using Montreal is a bit disingenuous, and I suspect you know that. Quebec has an aggressive tax regime, language issues, and political questions that makes it a less enticing area for head offices. Calgary would be competing with centres that do not have a tax disadvantage to Calgary. The issue is livability when the bigger considerations make sense. No one moves to a high price jurisdiction, but when they are considering better jurisdictions, they'll go to the centre that ticks the most boxes.

Fourth, spare me the sports vs. libraries argument, because no one is making it. There's a big difference between reasonable library facilities scattered throughout a city for maximum utility and blowing the wad on a 9 digit vanity project and then crying poor for something else that the city relies on.

As for the homeless shelter comment, the point is, the vanity projects are located next to something that people consider undesirable, it affects the desirability to live, raise children, and interact in that area. Sorry if that is a bit "President Agent Orange" of me to point out, but if you're spending half a billion dollars, you can probably do a lot better in checking a few boxes (including pure public good endeavours and having proper sports/entertainment venues) than two massive projects with no hope of any economic return in a blighted area.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Seattle is wildly different because the Sonics were acquired by a hostile owner who had zero intention of keeping the team in Seattle and was only interested in fulfilling the bare minimum in order to move the team to OKC. Even if Seattle offered a 100% public arena, they'd still be in OKC right now. NBA is going back to Seattle as soon as they get a new arena, it's pretty much a guarantee.

You've got it backwards. Seattle is trying to get a franchise, with no encouragement from the NBA than they'll build an arena,. So far they've been striking out. Either way they'll need a new arena.

The bolded is a matter of opinion.

[Bunk]

I don't get the reaction and assumption that the Mayor or Council or City doesn't want an arena. What in the hell was this Plan B report about? It's about unwinding a harebrained Calgary NEXT proposal and doing ALL the work to put a viable concept on the table. They have even left the door wide open to a significant public contribution. Sheesh.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It might make financial sense to you but I don't look at major sports leagues as being run on your notion of capitalism. To me what each league is, is an elite private club with a very limited membership who follow that clubs rules and bias'. If one of them gets run out of Calgary, they'll make Calgary pay as an example.

You're probably right, though the notion of 'run out of town' is a bit nauseating when talking about billionaires and profitable franchises.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I don't get the reaction and assumption that the Mayor or Council or City doesn't want an arena. What in the hell was this Plan B report about? It's about unwinding a harebrained Calgary NEXT proposal and doing ALL the work to put a viable concept on the table. They have even left the door wide open to a significant public contribution. Sheesh.

I still don't know where this Nenshi/City is totally opposed to funding an arena of any shape and size arguement is coming from. Last I saw, council from their comments were very supportive of the Victoria Park option. Even saying it would qualify for CRL money. Druh Farrell even gave positive comments, and she has been on record as one of the biggest opponents to an arena deal due to philosophical opposition to arenas with public money.

The only wishy washy person was Ken King. I get it. The city showed you up. However, get over your pride and see this as a good comprise between nothing and the CalgaryNext moon shot.

To those saying the Flames will move sorry. It will absolutely not happen now. The city just strategically cornered the Flames. Bettman has shown he won't move a franchise unless absolutely necessary. With a viable offer on the table not only do the Flames now have to show why it won't work, but why it has to be another deal.

Vic Park will get done. Grouchy Ken King be damned. Next is dead and it is just a matter of time until a new agreement in Vic Park is reached. All this other nonsense is the Sun trying to influence the election.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

First, they would likely be back... in at least 5-10 years after public money is used (perhaps exclusively public money if there isn't a clear suitor) anyway. So why not cooperate now?

Second, Calgary is not quite the major corporate hub it was with 3% unemployment and mass disposable income... don't expect the NHL will bow to get the 4th largest Canadian market back when there is a perfectly adequate team 250km to the north with a new stadium keeping the TV deal intact. So, yes, Calgary would be high on the list, but I think the NHL would rather roll the dice on Seattle, Portland, Kansas City and maybe even Hartford 2.0 before another Canadian centre because they want new TV revenue. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so I'm not sure why so many people are being so arrogant about the NHL needing Calgary when they already have an Alberta market.

Third, using Montreal is a bit disingenuous, and I suspect you know that. Quebec has an aggressive tax regime, language issues, and political questions that makes it a less enticing area for head offices. Calgary would be competing with centres that do not have a tax disadvantage to Calgary. The issue is livability when the bigger considerations make sense. No one moves to a high price jurisdiction, but when they are considering better jurisdictions, they'll go to the centre that ticks the most boxes.

Fourth, spare me the sports vs. libraries argument, because no one is making it. There's a big difference between reasonable library facilities scattered throughout a city for maximum utility and blowing the wad on a 9 digit vanity project and then crying poor for something else that the city relies on.

As for the homeless shelter comment, the point is, the vanity projects are located next to something that people consider undesirable, it affects the desirability to live, raise children, and interact in that area. Sorry if that is a bit "President Agent Orange" of me to point out, but if you're spending half a billion dollars, you can probably do a lot better in checking a few boxes (including pure public good endeavours and having proper sports/entertainment venues) than two massive projects with no hope of any economic return in a blighted area.

First...they are cooperating, as Bunk points out. Unless your idea of cooperating is handing them a blank cheque? Or pursuing the utterly awful CalgaryNEXT?

Second...Calgary is still a larger corporate hub than anywhere in this country not named Toronto. Indisputable. And I if Calgary moves, very like you see Rogers sue for money to be returned to them for losing a market from their TV deal. The netting out of losing Calgary and gaining a mediocre US market is a loss. Having only one Alberta market ignores that the other Alberta market makes more money and can have more corporate support. Edmonton moving was a more real threat to take seriously, even if it still really wasn't (as we can see, there's still no arena in Seattle).

Third...Montreal is disingenuous why exactly? It used to be the corporate capital of Canada at one point in time. If it had the same tax structure as Alberta, it would probably be number two and not Calgary.

Fourth...The city relies on the Flames, but the Flames owners have only one better market to move to, Toronto 2, and it will cost them dearly to do so, all to be second fiddle anyway (and possibly fourth in the whole market after the Raps and Jays). The cost of the library is debatable, but the Flames don't have a better place to have a hockey team than here, unless someone is vacating Montreal or New York or Boston etc...

Fifth....well if your argument is "no hope of any economic return", why support an arena investment when those have been proven in multiple studies to have little to no economic return? Oh and as has to be reminded, all for the privilege of paying 30-50% more to see the exact same product.

This will get done, it'll be in Vic Park, the city will contribute land and infrastructure, and we'll get 21 Garth Brooks shows to celebrate.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I still don't know where this Nenshi/City is totally opposed to funding an arena of any shape and size arguement is coming from. Last I saw, council from their comments were very supportive of the Victoria Park option. Even saying it would qualify for CRL money. Druh Farrell even gave positive comments, and she has been on record as one of the biggest opponents to an arena deal due to philosophical opposition to arenas with public money.

The only wishy washy person was Ken King. I get it. The city showed you up. However, get over your pride and see this as a good comprise between nothing and the CalgaryNext moon shot.

To those saying the Flames will move sorry. It will absolutely not happen now. The city just strategically cornered the Flames. Bettman has shown he won't move a franchise unless absolutely necessary. With a viable offer on the table not only do the Flames now have to show why it won't work, but why it has to be another deal.

Vic Park will get done. Grouchy Ken King be damned. Next is dead and it is just a matter of time until a new agreement in Vic Park is reached. All this other nonsense is the Sun trying to influence the election.

I believe the csec is positioning council to defeat opposition politicians before attempting to go through with a plan.

Most if the council already wants this to happen. Other major power brokers want this to happen as well. There is a huge swell of momentum amongst private interests in Calgary to get this project going.

The next step is finding and funding a challenger for mayor that can bring this thing home.

Nenshi in office may be the most significant factor in the delay of the project announcement.

[Circa89]

I found the parallels interesting, pulled this from Wikipedia researching the original funding model.

When it opened on October 15, 1983, the Olympic Saddledome served to boost the morale of a city that was experiencing a significant downturn as a result of the international oil market collapse, high interest rates, and the federal government's National Energy Policy.[17] During the first event, an NHL game between the Flames and the Edmonton Oilers, the standard of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was the first thing booed by a population upset with the government's policies.[26] The Oilers defeated the Flames 4–3 in front of a sold out crowd of nearly 17,000 fans.[27]

[Par]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Mikael Backlund tweeted that article and you know what? Screw it. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm really souring on the Flames.

This franchise is a joke. Twice in my life (I'm 23) they've made it out of the first round. They've won nothing. Aside from 2006 they've never been near the top of the league, and even that year they were bounced in the first round. This city has supported this mediocre team for too long.

I don't cheer for the Flames, I cheer for CALGARY. We all want a new rink (and I'm in favour of using some public funding) but the way this team is treating the fans and the city is ridiculous. Go ahead and leave. This market is too good to not get a team again. Maybe the next team will be real winners and not just a team that barely makes the playoffs and loses in the first round every year.

That article is a bunch of crap. Screw King and screw you Backlund. That's a slap in the face to your fans as far as I'm concerned.

What article dos Backlund tweet?

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Par

What article dos Backlund tweet?

http://m.calgarysun.com/2017/04/29/f...iness-decision

This pile of propaganda garbage.

I probably overreacted to it but it's a stupid article.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Circa89

I found the parallels interesting, pulled this from Wikipedia researching the original funding model.

When it opened on October 15, 1983, the Olympic Saddledome served to boost the morale of a city that was experiencing a significant downturn as a result of the international oil market collapse, high interest rates, and the federal government's National Energy Policy.[17] During the first event, an NHL game between the Flames and the Edmonton Oilers, the standard of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was the first thing booed by a population upset with the government's policies.[26] The Oilers defeated the Flames 4–3 in front of a sold out crowd of nearly 17,000 fans.[27]

Sold out crowd of 17000 fans? I though the Dome had a capacity of over 20000 when it first opened?

[Par]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

First...they are cooperating, as Bunk points out. Unless your idea of cooperating is handing them a blank cheque? Or pursuing the utterly awful CalgaryNEXT?

Second...Calgary is still a larger corporate hub than anywhere in this country not named Toronto. Indisputable. And I if Calgary moves, very like you see Rogers sue for money to be returned to them for losing a market from their TV deal. The netting out of losing Calgary and gaining a mediocre US market is a loss. Having only one Alberta market ignores that the other Alberta market makes more money and can have more corporate support. Edmonton moving was a more real threat to take seriously, even if it still really wasn't (as we can see, there's still no arena in Seattle).

Third...Montreal is disingenuous why exactly? It used to be the corporate capital of Canada at one point in time. If it had the same tax structure as Alberta, it would probably be number two and not Calgary.

Fourth...The city relies on the Flames, but the Flames owners have only one better market to move to, Toronto 2, and it will cost them dearly to do so, all to be second fiddle anyway (and possibly fourth in the whole market after the Raps and Jays). The cost of the library is debatable, but the Flames don't have a better place to have a hockey team than here, unless someone is vacating Montreal or New York or Boston etc...

Fifth....well if your argument is "no hope of any economic return", why support an arena investment when those have been proven in multiple studies to have little to no economic return? Oh and as has to be reminded, all for the privilege of paying 30-50% more to see the exact same product.

This will get done, it'll be in Vic Park, the city will contribute land and infrastructure, and we'll get 21 Garth Brooks shows to celebrate.

The points 2 and 4 are bang on, there is no more money in the US for tv deals(especially the NHL), for tv related revenue for the NHL is in Canada and point 4 is pretty accurate.

[Par]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

http://m.calgarysun.com/2017/04/29/f...iness-decision

This pile of propaganda garbage.

I probably overreacted to it but it's a stupid article.

Thanks I did not know that.

This is very low of Backlund, somebody tweet him back and say "win something first, you loser".

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Par

Thanks I did not know that.

This is very low of Backlund, somebody tweet him back and say "win something first, you loser".

can you stop

[Moneyhands23]

As I live in Victoria I'm curious if Nenshi is likely to be re-elected and when the next election is?

Thanks