Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Resolute 14]

^Yeah, calling the ticket tax funding "up front" was stupid and undermines their position. It would be more accurate to classify their view of the pie as "final funding" or similar.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The Flames public proposals have drifted from being disingenuous to being dishonest.



The Flames Public proposal obviously differs from what they presented to Council. Based on reporting from news outlets outside of the Big 2 in Calgary, some of the components left out of what the Flames have disclosed publicly include some pretty substantial costs incurred by the city.

I think this is the link
http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4301752

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If that is still their end game they are welcome to finance it themselves. No one in the city forced them to buy the stampeders, and if they really feel that entitled to calgaryNext I think CSEG seriously need to give their heads a shake.

IIRC they pretty much bought them because John Forzani had passed away. Finding CFL owners isn't an easy thing to do.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This is really a key question. I'm not at all convinced that the answer is no. And there's only one way to really find out. But, personally, I don't think Flames ownership is interested in putting the franchise up for sale.

Paying $350 million or so for the franchise and then paying for the majority of a new arena is a huge pill to swallow. You would think individuals like that would have found a way to be a co-owner already.

I don't think they are interesting in selling at the moment either, but in 10 years when they are bleeding money I bet they will be.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If that is still their end game they are welcome to finance it themselves. No one in the city forced them to buy the stampeders, and if they really feel that entitled to calgaryNext I think CSEG seriously need to give their heads a shake.

I think what actually happened was a gross miscalculation on the part of the Flames that has them now trying to recoup on what may have have been a bad investment. It was a noble vision in 2012 to get the Stampeders downtown and to erect a monolithic legacy edifice. I am sure the Flames will have no choice but to come back around to Victoria Park, but from their perspective they still have to find a solution for the Stampeders.

[iggy_oi]

This may have already been answered but when did Francis start writing for the herald?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Robbob

IIRC they pretty much bought them because John Forzani had passed away. Finding CFL owners isn't an easy thing to do.

And that's all well and good, but if they have any expectation of entitlement to calgaryNext simply because they own both teams I think they're falling out of touch with reality.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This may have already been answered but when did Francis start writing for the herald?

Postmedia owns both The Sun and The Herald, since then writers have contributions to both. Especially sports writers.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This may have already been answered but when did Francis start writing for the herald?

Ever since Postmedia merged the staff for the two papers.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Francis cites the 100% taxpayer funded Videotron Centre (Which does not host an NHL team) as a reason for the Flames to build a facility.Quebec City, Winnipeg and Minneapolis lost their teams because their capacities were all under 16,000 and unfit for the demands of modern NHL hockey.

Francis is a complete moron. The new Quebec arena replaced the 66 year old Pepsi building that was falling apart.

Zero chance they would have built a new barn if they had our 34 year old Saddledome

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

The Flames made $18M in Forbes' most recent evaluation. Tough to argue you can't make it work when you're coming out $18M ahead. Oh, but you'd like to be $40M ahead? #### you.

After seeing their proposal my trust level on their version of truth is very low, I would like to see the breakdown of earnings between the three teams they have in that building.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

And that's all well and good, but if they have any expectation of entitlement to calgaryNext simply because they own both teams I think they're falling out of touch with reality.

I don't disagree, but I can imagine that the Flames saw this is as a tremendous philanthropic gesture—stepping up to the plate and ensuring the future of a city institution was certainly viewed positively at the time that it happened.

[stone hands]

Francis has to be well connected - I can't fathom a way that he's reached the level he has without some kind of external help. He's not charismatic or likeable enough to overcome his lack of journalistic ability. The pieces he writes are not "shock jock" material, so he's not there because he's good at riling people up. I just dont understand.

[sureLoss]

Nenshi's response:

https://twitter.com/GlobalCalgary/st...01602375458817

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This may have already been answered but when did Francis start writing for the herald?

Ever since the Herald and the Sun become one and the same company.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Francis is a complete moron. The new Quebec arena replaced the 66 year old Pepsi building that was falling apart.

Zero chance they would have built a new barn if they had our 34 year old Saddledome




After seeing their proposal my trust level on their version of truth is very low, I would like to see the breakdown of earnings between the three teams they have in that building.

Are you sure on that? I assume a big reason for the new arena was to get an NHL team. No chance they would get an NHL team with a 34 year old Saddledome. Hopefully the Saddledome is still not the newest NHL size arena in Calgary in 30 years.

[Canehdianman]

Edmonton to the rescue!

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/09...calgary-place/

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Nenshi's response:

https://twitter.com/GlobalCalgary/st...01602375458817

Well that was a breath of fresh air. Very open, frank and transparent. He stated the cities position very clearly.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well that was a breath of fresh air. Very open, frank and transparent. He stated the cities position very clearly.

Cliff notes? Media won't play at work.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by New Era

I do believe they own the grounds, though iirc there is a trust or some mechanism involved.

The lease is, the Stampede operates on City owned land. They pay no property tax. All income is reinvested into the park and everything in the Park would revert to the City if the agreement is to ever expire.

The Calgary Stampede owes its survival to the City of Calgary. In 1889
the federal government sold ninety-four acres in Victoria Park for $235 to
the Calgary Agricultural Society for its Exhibition, with the stipulation that
the land could not be subdivided into town lots.11 The agricultural society
subsequently mortgaged the land to build a race track, but in 1896, amid
generally depressed conditions, it had to relinquish the mortgage to Canada
Permanent Savings Company. Following a four-year hiatus in which no fall
fair was held, several local businessmen formed the Inter-Western Pacific
Exposition Company Limited to revive the Exhibition, Its first order of business
was to petition the city to redeem the mortgage. In 1901, following
negotiations with Richard Bedford Bennett acting for Canada Permanent
Savings Company, the city took ownership of the exhibition grounds for the
sum of $6,500.12 For the next nine years the City of Calgary maintained the
grounds and collected entrance and rental fees. Through lease arrangements
in 1911, the Exhibition, now the Calgary Industrial Exhibition Company
Limited, took over the management of the grounds.13 In 1933 the name was
changed to the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited. Under this new
title, the company assumed expanded powers under the Companies Act of
Alberta (1929), except those limited by the lease. This situation has continued
to the present day

Given the fact that the city owns the land on which the Stampede operates
and the fact the latter pays no property tax on land within its lease, it is not
surprising that the two enjoy a unique relationship. On the one hand, the
Stampede enjoys little political interference because it operates at arm’s length
from the city; on the other hand, the two are indistinguishable. One Stampede
president went so far as to equate the Stampede with a city utility.14 In
1965, when the Stampede was applying for city-owned land in Lincoln Park,
prominent real estate man Kent Lyle wondered how the city could treat the
Stampede like a private party. To Lyle, the application was misleading and
even moot, since the Stampede and the city were one and the same.15
One has only to note the active presence of senior city officials within the
Stampede organization. Not only the mayor and aldermen, but also the city
commissioners and other high-level officials were often associate directors and/
or shareholders and sometimes occupied positions on the Stampede Board
of Directors during their tenure of office. The current city manager, Owen
Tobert, is both a Stampede shareholder and a senior associate. Moreover, city
officials usually retained their Stampede positions after relinquishing their
civic duties. Conflict of interest was not a problem for the city or Stampede;
the public questioned the relationship between them only during the two
expansion issues, and in both instances this was confined to the communities
most affected by the expansion plans. In practical situations, neither thought
it was necessary to keep at arm’s length, as shown by a traffic access issue in
1960. In order for the city to “keep closely in touch with the Exhibition’s
plans,” the Stampede agreed to make a city planner an associate director and
then place him on its traffic committee. The same applied to Chief Commissioner
John Steel, who was made an associate director so he could serve on
the Stampede’s grounds and development committee.16 To both bodies, this
represented neither collusion nor conflict of interest, but simply one agent of
the city co-operating with another to effect better communication.
Another factor binding city officials to the Stampede was its high public
profile. This was due in large part to its astonishing level of success in
attracting wealthy and influential citizens to volunteer leadership positions.

Icon, Brand, Myth: The Calgary Stampede - http://www.aupress.ca/books/120142/e...y_Stampede.pdf

Look New Era, I found a book online without having to visit the library.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't disagree, but I can imagine that the Flames saw this is as a tremendous philanthropic gesture—stepping up to the plate and ensuring the future of a city institution was certainly viewed positively at the time that it happened.

And this is where CSEG(and to be fair most people in general) need to understand what philanthropy is: a donation. It's not an investment you make expecting a return for yourself down the road. It's giving back to the community and helping others because you want to help. The flames have done tremendous work for charities throughout the city, they've even volunteered their time and effort to some projects with people and organizations I've worked with. But I can't wrap my head around this concept that you're owed something for being charitable. If I volunteer at a homeless shelter 1 night a week every week for 10 years, I think it'd be pretty ridiculous for me to start claiming I'm owed something for doing so when I could have simply chose not to volunteer.