Well, tough luck for the Flames then, right? They're billionaires, they're a business, and they want money. They're trying to sell us on that, they don't get the benefit of citizens looking past their ineptitude in presenting their side.
They need to gain and change hearts and minds and are instead losing them at a disastrous rate. That's not the fault nor the problem of the citizens that live here, that's on them. So your disdain for public perception and lack of patience of fans and citizens would be better directed at the Calgary Flames.
Get over yourself
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
And I think Toronto is the only market where a privately funded arena can actually work. The scope of their satellite community and having the Raptors as a second anchor in their building is like no other in Canada.
Peddie made the point that the ACC was already planned (and under construction, I believe) as a basketball-only facility when the Leafs bought the Raptors and revised the plan to be a shared facility.
Quote:
Richard Peddie @RichardAPeddie
MLSE paid 100% ACC + infra structure + pays full prop taxes Slaight was prepared 2do same thing 4risky new bball arena Flames can afford it
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
What the hell man? It was a response, just respond to what I posted or don't respond at all. Jesus, this place is getting nutty with this arena stuff.
This kind of crap response is why people get fed up discussing things on this forum. I hate the report post feature, but this garbage takes away from the board, imo.
Last edited by jayswin; 09-17-2017 at 01:28 PM.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
It's a surprisingly emotional issue. I think we all want to see it happen. This sausage making is almost without exception a painful process if there are any public dollars involved. Let's hope it doesn't drag on and on too much longer.
To me the PR thing was lost early with an assumption of the Edmonton model.
I've said 100 times that it was a logical thing to ask for, but they didn't explain it correctly. For that they have King to blame for glib remarks but themselves to blame for not having a better strategy and/or expectation for what was coming from the city and the public.
Having run the numbers they can't build this thing on their own if they don't want to take a hair cut, so asking for help in that regard makes sense. But I think they should have come out saying as much. This is a losing proposition in the current climate for a city of 1.2M to build a 600M arena.
I've done some modelling for some huge business deals but I wouldn't call myself an expert by any means ...
But if the Forbes operating income figures are correct they can't go ahead without the city picking up a third of the cost. Certainly the city's right to say too bad however.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Everything I have seen says that the city is willing to pay 1/3 but only if the money is returned to the city in some way, shape or form.
Keep in mind, there are two costs to consider with any new property....the costs to build it, and the property tax costs to own it. When you buy a house, you have to pay your mortgage AND your property tax...it's not one or the other. The Flames from what it sounds like want money to pay for it AND forgo paying property tax on it. So they want two things for free.
The City on the other hand is offering to give them money for the first part (build cost), and saying that the second part (property tax) will only be going to pay off that first part, not be an additional cost. It would be like your home property taxes only going towards your mortgage payments.
I know I'd take that.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
and now people have cast a vote to say which side they are on "thus far". They are unlikely to change their opinion once set regardless of what the Flames say.
I'm trying to get people to take a chill pill and see what both sides are saying and then evaluate. That's not happening thus far.
Yeah but the lack of a proposal from the Flames is part of the PR battle. The fact it doesn't exist is part of the reason they are losing. Not to mention that at this point, based on the rumours, I find it hard to believe anything they present can swing the PR battle.
They lost the minute Bettman said they are playing out the string and will move because no arena is getting built. He overplayed his hand and the Flames lack of response along with KKs bad presser just sealed the deal.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
and now people have cast a vote to say which side they are on "thus far". They are unlikely to change their opinion once set regardless of what the Flames say.
I'm trying to get people to take a chill pill and see what both sides are saying and then evaluate. That's not happening thus far.
This poll also isn't about which side you are on. It's the punditry question of which side is doing better at getting their message across.
Based on the results of this poll you can argue that public sentiment should have shifted toward the city this past week. What we don't have from this poll is the baseline of where everyone is at right now.
I do think one victory the flames had this week was selling the bizarre notion that paying property taxes is akin to paying back the cities investment rather than the norm and any tax break is a city provided subsidy.
But now look at it that the Flames already have a not tax no rent deal, and want the city to participate in a new facility that is of benefit to both the Flames as well as the city as a whole. So the city says we will chip in, but then you'll have to pay tax or rent to compensate us.
It ends up as close to zero sum, and minimal incremental cost to the city for a new facility.
I certainly appreciate the argument against any funding for a private corporation, it is a totally legitimate view. But it also helps to look at it from the other side (some lack that I ability, I get that) and realize that giving one thing but taking away another of equal value (compared to what they get now) isn't some awesome and generous gesture. And realistically I don't think the city really thought that was their best deal, and expect to continue to move towards a middle ground as evidenced by the Mayors comments of the length of time other arena deals took to finalize.
But as for the poll, the Flames have done a very poor job throughout this process. Anyone who thinks Gary Bettmans words will have a positive influence on your side is very much out of touch.
But as for the poll, the Flames have done a very poor job throughout this process. Anyone who thinks Gary Bettmans words will have a positive influence on your side is very much out of touch.
But now look at it that the Flames already have a not tax no rent deal, and want the city to participate in a new facility that is of benefit to both the Flames as well as the city as a whole. So the city says we will chip in, but then you'll have to pay tax or rent to compensate us.
It ends up as close to zero sum, and minimal incremental cost to the city for a new facility.
I certainly appreciate the argument against any funding for a private corporation, it is a totally legitimate view. But it also helps to look at it from the other side (some lack that I ability, I get that) and realize that giving one thing but taking away another of equal value (compared to what they get now) isn't some awesome and generous gesture. And realistically I don't think the city really thought that was their best deal, and expect to continue to move towards a middle ground as evidenced by the Mayors comments of the length of time other arena deals took to finalize.
Is it? Let us know the economics of the project? One has to assume right now an new arena will generate massively higher incremental revenue than the suggested $5m increase in incremental cost through property taxes.
Easy solution to this problem for the Flames if this is true - open up their financial model for revenues. Are we supposed to just take their word for it, that this is a losing proposition?
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Is it? Let us know the economics of the project? One has to assume right now an new arena will generate massively higher incremental revenue than the suggested $5m increase in incremental cost through property taxes.
Easy solution to this problem for the Flames if this is true - open up their financial model for revenues. Are we supposed to just take their word for it, that this is a losing proposition?
I'm not speaking in the context of possible increased revenue potential, which is obviously highly speculative at any rate. I'm speaking in terms of the cities contributions and concessions, relative to the current deal in the Saddledome.
So while I understand the argument that a professional sports team may not deserve any special treatment, the reality is they already get special treatment. So if your view is that a new arena deal is an opportunity to take away the already existing incentives they enjoy, then hopefully you can also see why that would be viewed as somewhat unfair from the standpoint of the team.
I'll try an analogy (of course all analogies can be viewed as flawed if you don't wish to see the parallels, but I'll try it anyway). Let's say Amazon gets a deal with no property tax to move their secondary hub here, then in 5 years they say great news, we want to expand! So the city says will kick in some cash, but we will also start charging standard property tax rates from now on, which will more than cover the initial cash outlay over the next number of years. On one hand it is reasonable, why should this for profit business get the tax break from what the rest of us pay? But from their standpoint, the city is really not contributing anything additional, just shifting money from one stream to another.
And the future profitability of the company is really a different part of the discussion.
It's as if they've completely misunderstood that "The City" and "The Public" are actually the same entity in this scenario.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
The fact that the city has been put in a pike for their recent art project money by the public who didn't want or ask for them and the fact that the nenshi included a new arena in his re election proposal despite the fact that it didn't exist and wasn't likely would suggest that the city and the public are not one and the same.
