Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-13-2017, 04:34 PM   #181
You Need a Thneed
Voted for Kodos
 
You Need a Thneed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJones View Post
So the City wants the owners to pay for it all.

Can't say that surprises me why the Flames aren't happy. Can't see anything being done unless the city actually pays for something rather than acting as a bank.
No, the city's offer isn't anywhere near having the owners "pay for it all".

Obviously, lets wait until we can see the whole offer, but the city's offer is worth somewhere between $50M and $100M - and we don't know for sure if land is included in that yet or not.
__________________
My LinkedIn Profile.
You Need a Thneed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:36 PM   #182
Lord Carnage
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
No, its 1/3 on the owners. 1/3 on the fans and 1/3 on the City. With debate about who floats the financing costs of the fan's percentage.

What seems unfair about that? I want to know who would actually own the building itself.

Sorry - just looking for clarification on where we are now (things change so quickly)

You said it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, and 1/3 City (debating who floats the financing of the fan's percentage)...

I thought it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, 1/3 City, but the debate was the City wanted to be repaid their 1/3... the fan component was what the ticket tax was repaying, no?

Like I said, maybe I missed something.
Lord Carnage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:37 PM   #183
belsarius
Powerplay Quarterback
 
belsarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Carnage View Post
Sorry - just looking for clarification on where we are now (things change so quickly)

You said it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, and 1/3 City (debating who floats the financing of the fan's percentage)...

I thought it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, 1/3 City, but the debate was the City wanted to be repaid their 1/3... the fan component was what the ticket tax was repaying, no?

Like I said, maybe I missed something.
If you want to get technical it is going to be paid 100% by the fans (users).
__________________
"..there's some guys that get to the wrong places really fast. And I get to the right places." - Jagr
belsarius is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 04:39 PM   #184
Hot_Flatus
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Hot_Flatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj View Post
What other comparables from the City do you suggest?

If the answer is they do not recover ANY costs, which I suspect it is, then clearly the City presently expecting to recover nearly 100% of costs for the Arena project, which provides some of the same benefits as these other major projects, seems to be out of line.
No its not. Have you seen a local library l lately? Once these things are operational they are expected to run as is for decades and are certainly not expected to generate revenue on behalf of a private businessman.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but Iíve just launched an air biscuit
Hot_Flatus is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 04:42 PM   #185
JBR
#1 Goaltender
 
JBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 161 St. - Yankee Stadium
Exp:
Default

Am I mistaken or did the original CalgaryNext agreement result in the City owning the building?

Assuming the condition was the same with Victoria Park, how is the City coming away with nothing for their investment?
JBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:42 PM   #186
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius View Post
The city wants to the owners to pay 1/3 and they will pay 2/3. They want to recoup their money from revenue. The Flames want to recoup their money through revenue. It's operating a business.

The difference is once the 400Mil the city has paid has been recouped they get no more, once the Flames recoup their 200Mil investment they continue to reap the rewards and once it's time to pay for the demolition of the building they get to walk away and put that cost onto the taxpayers.
No, that is not correct.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:43 PM   #187
foshizzle11
First Line Centre
 
foshizzle11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJones View Post
So the City wants the owners to pay for it all.

Can't say that surprises me why the Flames aren't happy. Can't see anything being done unless the city actually pays for something rather than acting as a bank.


I can understand why the Flames don't like this deal at all but I don't see the city (at least with Nenshi around) changing their mind on this.

Sounds like the city will have to develop infrastructure around the facility as well, who knows how much that will cost. Does the counter proposal from the city include these costs? That could account for the extra $100m the Flames aren't accounting for.

I don't mind the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model at all. That is a better split for us Calgarians. Getting some sort of profit back from the new arena to the city will likely need to happen. Maybe it is 30% of arena profits annually until the loan is replayed? No matter the revenue. The $200m could be paid off in 20 years and not 30 based on how smart the CSEC is at filling the building and managing their business. Should the property tax be included as part of repayment, I think it should be. That could be the little lee-way the city can give the CSEC and is a small piece of the pie IMO.
__________________
"Heís like a tiger in a cage that didnít eat for about a month." Bob Hartley on Sam Bennett, Jan 7th, 2015.
foshizzle11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:45 PM   #188
Table 5
Franchise Player
 
Table 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBR View Post
Am I mistaken or did the original CalgaryNext agreement result in the City owning the building?

Assuming the condition was the same with Victoria Park, how is the City coming away with nothing for their investment?
Considering the costs and liability that you are left with during, and especially at the end of, it's life cycle, owning the building itself is probably the last thing either party wants.
Table 5 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 04:47 PM   #189
GioforPM
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Carnage View Post
Sorry - just looking for clarification on where we are now (things change so quickly)

You said it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, and 1/3 City (debating who floats the financing of the fan's percentage)...

I thought it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, 1/3 City, but the debate was the City wanted to be repaid their 1/3... the fan component was what the ticket tax was repaying, no?

Like I said, maybe I missed something.
This is my understanding.
GioforPM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:49 PM   #190
belsarius
Powerplay Quarterback
 
belsarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
No, that is not correct.
Then who is fronting the money that will come in from the surcharge?
__________________
"..there's some guys that get to the wrong places really fast. And I get to the right places." - Jagr
belsarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:49 PM   #191
GioforPM
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foshizzle11 View Post

I don't mind the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model at all. That is a better split for us Calgarians. Getting some sort of profit back from the new arena to the city will likely need to happen. Maybe it is 30% of arena profits annually until the loan is replayed? No matter the revenue. The $200m could be paid off in 20 years and not 30 based on how smart the CSEC is at filling the building and managing their business. Should the property tax be included as part of repayment, I think it should be. That could be the little lee-way the city can give the CSEC and is a small piece of the pie IMO.
I can see how a simple profit or revenue sharing can mess with the CBA, since it potentially reduces the amount to be shared with players. But perhaps something could be worked out along non-NHL revenue: concerts, other sports, wrestling, etc.
GioforPM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:53 PM   #192
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius View Post
Then who is fronting the money that will come in from the surcharge?
It gets borrowed in public markets. The city doesn't cut a cheque out of its personal coffers (the city doesn't have that kind of money)
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:55 PM   #193
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius View Post
Then who is fronting the money that will come in from the surcharge?
Think of it this way:

If you co-sign a loan for your child, you don't actually hand out money from your own pocket. You simply guarantee that the loan will get paid back.

Now, if your child doesn't pay, you will then be on the hook. But unless it comes to that, co-signing the loan costs you nothing.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:55 PM   #194
Ashasx
Franchise Player
 
Ashasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Exp:
Default

Would it be possible to just have one thread again?

Last edited by Ashasx; 09-13-2017 at 04:57 PM.
Ashasx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:56 PM   #195
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx View Post
Would it be possible to just get have thread again?
Do you currently smell burnt toast?
nik- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:57 PM   #196
Lord Carnage
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius View Post
If you want to get technical it is going to be paid 100% by the fans (users).

While I really like technical, no, that's not what I'm looking for, because that isn't helpful.
Lord Carnage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:59 PM   #197
belsarius
Powerplay Quarterback
 
belsarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
It gets borrowed in public markets. The city doesn't cut a cheque out of its personal coffers (the city doesn't have that kind of money)
Yeah, but it's the City that gets the borrowed money and is obligated to repay. Sure it is designed to be repaid through ticket surcharges but if the Flames fold in 5 years the City is on the hook for this amount regardless if the building sits empty or not. Risk of borrowing is on the City so that's why I count it on them. At least that's the way the Edmonton deal worked, surcharges went to the City to repay the loans.
__________________
"..there's some guys that get to the wrong places really fast. And I get to the right places." - Jagr
belsarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 05:01 PM   #198
GioforPM
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Carnage View Post
While I really like technical, no, that's not what I'm looking for, because that isn't helpful.
1/3 Flames
1/3 Flames through ticket tax (ultimately paid by buyers)
1/3 Flames via repayment of a loan which is either made by the City or (more likely) made by a normal source of money and guaranteed by the City.
GioforPM is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 05:02 PM   #199
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius View Post
Yeah, but it's the City that gets the borrowed money and is obligated to repay. Sure it is designed to be repaid through ticket surcharges but if the Flames fold in 5 years the City is on the hook for this amount regardless if the building sits empty or not. Risk of borrowing is on the City so that's why I count it on them. At least that's the way the Edmonton deal worked, surcharges went to the City to repay the loans.
Correct, which is why I compared it to co-signing a loan. If the team folded and the arena didn't generate sufficient revenue, then yes, the city would be on the hook.

But that is very, very different than saying the city is fronting the money. Because they are not.

And in Canada, the idea of the arena not generating money is pretty difficult to imagine.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 05:03 PM   #200
GioforPM
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius View Post
Yeah, but it's the City that gets the borrowed money and is obligated to repay. Sure it is designed to be repaid through ticket surcharges but if the Flames fold in 5 years the City is on the hook for this amount regardless if the building sits empty or not. Risk of borrowing is on the City so that's why I count it on them. At least that's the way the Edmonton deal worked, surcharges went to the City to repay the loans.
There's two components - the ticket tax and the City "contribution". I think the City actually doesn't gets the borrowed money in either case. They use their credit to enable the Flames to borrow it. The risk of borrowing is on both the Flames and the City.

Unless the City actually borrows on its own and then lends to the Flames. But I don't think that's what's proposed.
GioforPM is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016