[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Barnes]

Man, gotta give Ken King some credit. He is literally having the City do all of the work for him.

[stone hands]

What an insanely stupid poll the city commissioned

I can't wait to see it show up in the Calgary sun under an article entitled: silly hall hates the flames even though60% of Calgarians want Calgary next

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by stone hands

What an insanely stupid poll the city commissioned

I can't wait to see it show up in the Calgary sun under an article entitled: silly hall hates the flames even though60% of Calgarians want Calgary next

It wasn't about Calgary Next, just an arena district

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by stone hands

What an insanely stupid poll the city commissioned

I can't wait to see it show up in the Calgary sun under an article entitled: silly hall hates the flames even though60% of Calgarians want Calgary next

Commissioned by some City Councillors, specifically for their own purposes - which is quite different from a City of Calgary survey.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Man, gotta give Ken King some credit. He is literally having the City do all of the work for him.

Yup, masterful job.

The Flames have obviously whipped up the fervour in the business community for this.

I'm waiting for another ad with Brett Wilson in it talking about how it's found money and already paid for because 60% of Calgarians are in favour of it.

Based on my experience with polling, this was a poll commissioned to justify a position rather than take the temperature of the electorate.

Man, there is so much pressure on getting this development going.

[Dion]

A Timeline Has Been Set For An Arean Deal

[QUOTE]There is a tight timeline to make a deal as city manager Jeff Fielding indicated Wednesday. He told councillors he would "hold their feet to the fire" to make decisions on an arena, the multibillion-dollar Green Line LRT and a potential Olympic bid within the next two months or they will be delayed until well after the October election, possibly into 2018.[/QUOTE]

King said he is in regular communication with the city and is optimistic a deal can be done by summer. But he wouldn't speculate on the consequences if it didn't happen.

"It's important we move along and have a better understanding of what our future could look like. We had an early June timetable."
He wouldn't divulge details of the ongoing negotiations or how funding could be split for an event centre in Victoria Park but he did say they need certainty on what the area plan looks like. A master redevelopment plan is expected to be presented to the city in June. King has long maintained their proposal is not just for a hockey arena, but for a multi-use event complex that would host concerts, other sports and entertainment events and be located in a user-friendly district with amenities.

"What's just as important to us is the environment the building is going to be in.

"What is the vision for Victoria Park and the direction of (Canada Municipal Land Corp. — the city's land developer)? It's important we understand their vision and it's realistic."

"I think what's important to ask is how did Edmonton do it? That's an amazing building with a tremendous positive effect on everything in Edmonton. I think it's appropriate to look at that deal closely and ponder whether or not that's the kind of agreement we want here.

"Yes, there was some gnashing of teeth initially but they made it through and the people of Edmonton are happy with the financial arrangements."

"We're confident when and if an agreement becomes public people will understand and respect the deal," he said.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/05/12...for-arena-deal

[Street Pharmacist]

Oh my God King. Yes Calgary wants to erich their owners just like Edmonton did for Katz

[CliffFletcher]

Isn't it important to ask how Toronto and Montreal did it too? Maybe I've missed it, but have any of the deferential interviews on 960 dared to even bring up the option of a fully privately funded arena?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Isn't it important to ask how Toronto and Montreal did it too? Maybe I've missed it, but have any of the deferential interviews on 960 dared to even bring up the option of a fully privately funded arena?

This. Does anyone in Calgary media ask difficult questions of the Flames? Owner meddling etc.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This. Does anyone in Calgary media ask difficult questions of the Flames? Owner meddling etc.

With sports reporters being tossed aside and let go like Kleenex lately, it's doubtful anything but "softball lob" questions are delivered.

[Bingo]

man you guys are a cranky lot, of course the Flames and King are going to suggest the business model from Edmonton, they'd be idiots not to.

It's close by.
Built recently
Same sport

Clear cut starting point from the group. The city of Calgary doesn't have to match it in any way shape or form, but getting all uppity because its referred to is somewhat silly.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Bingo

man you guys are a cranky lot, of course the Flames and King are going to suggest the business model from Edmonton, they'd be idiots not to.

It's close by.
Built recently
Same sport

Clear cut starting point from the group. The city of Calgary doesn't have to match it in any way shape or form, but getting all uppity because its referred to is somewhat silly.

It's also a much more comparable market than both Toronto and Montreal.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Isn't it important to ask how Toronto and Montreal did it too? Maybe I've missed it, but have any of the deferential interviews on 960 dared to even bring up the option of a fully privately funded arena?

Answer: In a market five times the size of Calgary, there's enough business to support a privately funded arena. In Montreal, which is only three times the size of Calgary, the privately funded arena went broke and was sold to new owners at a loss.

A good part of that, mind you, was because of the ludicrous tax burden placed on that arena by the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec. At one point – I believe I read this in The Hockey News – the then Molson Centre was paying more in property taxes than every NHL arena in the U.S. combined: over $20 million a year!

Even without that tax rate, a privately funded arena in a city of not much over a million people would be a chancy proposition at best.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

man you guys are a cranky lot, of course the Flames and King are going to suggest the business model from Edmonton, they'd be idiots not to.

It's close by.
Built recently
Same sport

Clear cut starting point from the group. The city of Calgary doesn't have to match it in any way shape or form, but getting all uppity because its referred to is somewhat silly.

Except....

1. It is a ridiculous deal that was wildly unfair to its Citizens
2. Our Mayor has already stated, unequivocally and in the terms: 'You will not get the Edmonton Deal.'

So by starting at 'the Edmonton Deal' they're basically not taking the Mayor seriously.

I'm sorry, this is bush-league negotiating.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The threat of Edmonton moving was way more real than any threat the Flames make. So the leverage situations are not comparable at all. Edmonton is a step or two above Winnipeg as a market. Calgary is a step or two below Toronto as a market. And yeah it's because corporate money matters, especially since the primary goal of Flames ownership, by far, is to sell more luxury boxes and increase the lower bowl and charge more for tickets there too. Calgary is probably the only market in Canada besides Toronto that could actually do PSLs and actually sell most if not all of them.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Bingo

man you guys are a cranky lot, of course the Flames and King are going to suggest the business model from Edmonton, they'd be idiots not to.

It's close by.
Built recently
Same sport

Clear cut starting point from the group. The city of Calgary doesn't have to match it in any way shape or form, but getting all uppity because its referred to is somewhat silly.

Seems like a silly starting point from a team that's touting urgency, especially when they've been told time and again that deal isn't happening. If this deal drags on and on, the Flames have nobody to blame but themselves.
And if people seem cranky, perhaps it's because we've been hearing the same BS from King and the flames for years.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Locke

Except....

1. It is a ridiculous deal that was wildly unfair to its Citizens
2. Our Mayor has already stated, unequivocally and in the terms: 'You will not get the Edmonton Deal.'

So by starting at 'the Edmonton Deal' they're basically not taking the Mayor seriously.

I'm sorry, this is bush-league negotiating.

Wildly unfair in what way? In what way have Edmontonians been inconvenienced or affected in a negative way? What did they lose exactly? It's interesting to hear Calgarians speak on behalf of the citizens of Edmonton seeing there's few indications that Edmonton is nearly as upset about that arrangement as some posters here seem to think they should be.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

Except....

1. It is a ridiculous deal that was wildly unfair to its Citizens
2. Our Mayor has already stated, unequivocally and in the terms: 'You will not get the Edmonton Deal.'

So by starting at 'the Edmonton Deal' they're basically not taking the Mayor seriously.

I'm sorry, this is bush-league negotiating.

Just to argue devil's advocate: Nenshi isn't taking the Flames seriously either, so if this is our baseline for "bush-league negotiating", then the mayor is just as guilty. Also, Nenshi is one vote on council. He's the most important member of council, of course, but he can't dictate terms by himself.

That said, I think everyone knows the Flames aren't getting the 'Edmonton deal', and nor should they. But from the team's perspective, if they get 50% of the Edmonton deal rather than perhaps 20%, it's still a big win, and why they are trying to negotiate from such a stance.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Locke

Except....

1. It is a ridiculous deal that was wildly unfair to its Citizens
2. Our Mayor has already stated, unequivocally and in the terms: 'You will not get the Edmonton Deal.'

So by starting at 'the Edmonton Deal' they're basically not taking the Mayor seriously.

I'm sorry, this is bush-league negotiating.

You would be hard pressed to find people in Edmonton that still think it is wildly unfair to its citizens. Despite the fact that lots of professors try to argue that a building can't provide stimulus to a city, almost all Edmontonians would tell you that it has revitalized the downtown significantly.

Also, they weren't asking for the Edmonton deal - they were presenting it as a relevant comparison. A point for discussion and debate.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You would be hard pressed to find people in Edmonton that still think it is wildly unfair to its citizens. Despite the fact that lots of professors try to argue that a building can't provide stimulus to a city, almost all Edmontonians would tell you that it has revitalized the downtown significantly.

Also, they weren't asking for the Edmonton deal - they were presenting it as a relevant comparison. A point for discussion and debate.

Nobody, especially the average citizen can determine the economic impact of the stadium after ~8 months. Maybe we should wait a bit longer before declaring all those professors and studies wrong?