Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[boggledepot]

Originally Posted by Redlan

LOL, I provided the exact response all the Anti-CSEC have been providing, a fly by Big Mac statement and they get up in arms. That how frustrating it is. My point still stands, we all pay for services in our taxes WE DO NOT USE. A Library (luxury), Transit (luxury), Parks (luxury), Swimming Pools (luxury)...I can go on! but lets turn a blind eye to those cause they do not support your position.

Upon examination, I believe Redlan reached too far and discredited his or her own argument. Though it is true that tax dollars are used to fund services some citizens do not use, public libraries, transit, parks, and recreation centres are not luxuries. They serve I vital role in maintaining an educated, safe, and healthy democratic society.

I prefer to consider public facilities and services, of that nature, as an investment in our youth, our elderly, and everything in between. Whether the project is a library, a leisure centre, a tennis court, or a transit line, the projects serve a vital role in establishing the long-term sustainability of our society.

Thus, these are valid questions:.

How is our community going to benefit by allocating public money towards a new hockey arena for the Calgary Flames?

How much new money will an arena generate, that isn't already being generated by the Calgary Flames playing in the Saddledome?

When faced with these questions, the CSEC and the NHL respond with relocation. That is their right, as it is their business.

But I assure you the NHL needs Calgary, more than Calgary needs the NHL.

And you know what? Hockey will do just fine in Calgary without the NHL. We'll still play the game; we'll still go to our local rink and shoot a puck around with our kids; we'll still watch teams around town playing the game. And, ironically, we'll do all those things in the very same facilities that took priority over building a new palace for the NHL

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

It's usage compared to it's funding is fundamentally out of alignment.

How much higher can Calgary's usage get? If one looks at high usage as evidence of a well-fucntioning system, then why is more spending necessary? In this case, "out of alignment" is what could otherwise be described as "efficient" and that's not something you would want to "correct".

[taxbuster]

Ha ha ha -- great Don Braid column here on how the Flames owners are screwing things up and should rest and reboot.

He pretty much nails it from my perspective. Inviting Bettman to wade in was the stupidest move ever.

[calgaryblood]

Really tired of hearing nhl teams are "toys" for nhl owners. That's exactly what the nhl and Bettman want the fans to think to create fear.

Make no mistake, they own nhl teams to make money. Period.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Really tired of hearing nhl teams are "toys" for nhl owners. That's exactly what the nhl and Bettman want the fans to think to create fear.

Make no mistake, they own nhl teams to make money. Period.

Yes they do, if they can; some do and some don't.

But ALL own teams to feed their own egos.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Really tired of hearing nhl teams are "toys" for nhl owners. That's exactly what the nhl and Bettman want the fans to think to create fear.

Make no mistake, they own nhl teams to make money. Period.

For the most part I think the teams are toys, they could pour less money into something else and get a much better ROI then a sports team, I doubt the money back is much of a needle mover.

[corporatejay]

Frankly guys I've had just about enough you fat cats walking around with your medicine and your hospitals and don't even get me started on your clean drinking water. Be sure not to drop your monocle the next time you go to the grocery store in your fancy pants public bus. Disgusting, the whole lot of you.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Yes they do, if they can; some do and some don't.

But ALL own teams to feed their own egos.

That's quite the bold statement on 31 people I would argue you don't know at all.

Anything to back it up?

One thing I do think we can likely say with some confidence is 31 owners own a hockey team to make a profit as it is a business.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by simmer2

That's quite the bold statement on 31 people I would argue you don't know at all.

Anything to back it up?

One thing I do think we can likely say with some confidence is 31 owners own a hockey team to make a profit as it is a business.

I can agree it is somewhat more complex, as profit backfeeds ego on a Möbius strip. It strikes at the heart of corporate culture become not just about profit, but ever increasing profit by any means necessary until exhaustion or collapse.

Their greasing & extorting public funds & public trust has foreseeable limit. Ken King & his silver tongue have no shame. He is proving this every time he opens his mouth. He needs to retire & let someone who actually understands the details of a CRL speak. He repeatedly tries to dig himself out of a hole. We aren't stupid, we see the shell game he's playing.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

I can agree it is somewhat more complex, as profit backfeeds ego on a Möbius strip. It strikes at the heart of corporate culture become not just about profit, but ever increasing profit by any means necessary until exhaustion or collapse.

Their greasing & extorting public funds & public trust has foreseeable limit. Ken King & his silver tongue have no shame. He is proving this every time he opens his mouth. He needs to retire & let someone who actually understands the details of a CRL speak. He repeatedly tries to dig himself out of a hole. We aren't stupid, we see the shell game he's playing.

Mobius what?

And who is we? We aren't stupid, we see the shell game, etc.

I'd argue none of us except the City and Flames involved in the deal 'See' what is actually going on.

[SebC]

The Flames aren't making their case to city. They're not making their case to economists. They're targeting their message to the more gullible segment of the population, so that those people can apply pressure on the city.

Even here, we're Flames fans, but we're also internet forum members. So we're likely to care less for their arguments than people outside because we (hopefully) have read and discussed this a lot. It's the people who aren't that interested in critical thinking, economic studies, and community revitalisation levies who will be their support base.

So yeah, we aren't stupid and he's not convincing us... but what about everyone else?

[PeteMoss]

Wonder when we get the enviable Murray Edwards interview with Francis. He's had this two minions out and about with the moving threats. Need to get the big dog out there soon to show they super serious. Or maybe he'll make an appearance in Quebec or Seattle that will shockingly be leaked to the media and then of course apologize for it after the fact.

[Table 5]

But something ugly is happening here. The trust is weakening fast. And through it all, the owners themselves remain completely silent.

Contrast that with the late co-owner Harley Hotchkiss, who called a news conference at the Saddledome in 1999 to say attendance was so poor that the team would have to leave if fans didn’t snap up season tickets.

Hotchkiss was truly stricken by the thought. He rolled out all the facts. He pleaded, but with dignity. Calgarians saw his sincerity and started buying tickets overnight.

It’s hard to imagine a similar scene today.

The Braid article brings up a good point. I think a lot of us remember the Save the Flames campaign from the 90s. While it had it’s own share of rhetoric and tough talk, you could at least respect it, as it was the Flames ownership getting in front of the mic to speak to fans. Back then a lot of us could sympathize with the Flames economic situation, and the response from fans, especially on CP, was overwhelmingly supportive.

This time around the ownership is completely silent and invisible. Instead of engaging, they lurk in the shadows getting others to do their dirty work, whether it be King, Bettman, Wilson, or the “Flames friendly” Eric Francis. You’d think that when you’re asking for hundreds of millions of public dollars, you could atleast step up to the plate and engage with the people you want the money from.

Murray Edwards, Alvin Libin, Allan Markin, Jeffrey McCaig, Clay Riddell and Byron Seaman…why so silent?

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I sit here watching the Flames down 2 goals to Vancouver, and with a lackluster preseason record - imagine what the effect of a slow/bad start to the regular season would do to public opinion on the arena issue...just before the election

I think it's safe to say a bad start would tilt things towards the City's view. Especially we get walloped by teams and the effort is lacking.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

How much higher can Calgary's usage get? If one looks at high usage as evidence of a well-fucntioning system, then why is more spending necessary? In this case, "out of alignment" is what could otherwise be described as "efficient" and that's not something you would want to "correct".

The existing central library is way over capacity though. We need a new one, because the city is way bigger than it was when that one was built. The program rooms are too small and too few, there aren't enough elevators, and there isn't enough individual workspace.

The transit analogy is the center street busses. They're getting used like crazy, and we are reaching capacity with how many busses can use that road. At some point, you have to bite the bullet and put in the higher capacity system (green line).

[calf]

Nothing infuriates me more than the "I'm healthy and don't need a hospital" or "I don't have kids so don't care about school" arguments. It is such a selfish, short sighted and inhumane perspective.

I can respect not wanting 250 million going to a library. Or 50 million to two bridges downtown. I don't necessarily agree, but there is validity in there.

I don't think because we wasted money one place, we should be wasting money somewhere else. That's not how I treat my own money, so I think it is reasonable the city does the same. A plebicite doesn't work at this point because there is no deal, or framework if a deal to work off of or vote on. It would be completely meaningless to ask if X hundred million should be used to fund an arena if there is no details in how or where it will be used, and how much, if anything, the city gets back.

Few people are saying no public money. Most are saying "we want a fair deal" where the city gets paid back somehow with a marginal return over time, just like the Flames want on their side (but apparently they can't make it work if they have to share).

But for education and healthcare, the greater good is at stake. As a society, we require educated children to take over for the last generation. Our parents paid for our education, we should pay for the next. Then they can pay for the next one after them. It's an investment in our future.

And it is great that you are super health and never/will never get sick. That won't prevent any diseases you a predisposed to as you get older. Or prevent a serious accident from occurring...because life happens. It will happen to me, you, and those we care about.

My family was always very healthy. Then both my parents got cancer (and survived). Friends and family have had high risk pregnancies. And my 2 year old kid has a condition that requires constant medication for the rest of his life. We have a system, despite its faults, helps people when they need it most, and does not introduce a significant financial burden on top of it for the most part.

An NHL arena where the city doesn't get a fair deal will sacrifice services or delay investment in new infrastructure that benefits the many (because people won't accept higher taxes), while funding a facility that will be even more expensive for a small percentage of citizens to use.

[Matty81]

That Braid article is seriously on point. Makes Francis look even more like a shill.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by calf

Nothing infuriates me more than the "I'm healthy and don't need a hospital" or "I don't have kids so don't care about school" arguments. It is such a selfish, short sighted and inhumane perspective.

I can respect not wanting 250 million going to a library. Or 50 million to two bridges downtown. I don't necessarily agree, but there is validity in there.

I don't think because we wasted money one place, we should be wasting money somewhere else. That's not how I treat my own money, so I think it is reasonable the city does the same. A plebicite doesn't work at this point because there is no deal, or framework if a deal to work off of or vote on. It would be completely meaningless to ask if X hundred million should be used to fund an arena if there is no details in how or where it will be used, and how much, if anything, the city gets back.

Few people are saying no public money. Most are saying "we want a fair deal" where the city gets paid back somehow with a marginal return over time, just like the Flames want on their side (but apparently they can't make it work if they have to share).

But for education and healthcare, the greater good is at stake. As a society, we require educated children to take over for the last generation. Our parents paid for our education, we should pay for the next. Then they can pay for the next one after them. It's an investment in our future.

And it is great that you are super health and never/will never get sick. That won't prevent any diseases you a predisposed to as you get older. Or prevent a serious accident from occurring...because life happens. It will happen to me, you, and those we care about.

My family was always very healthy. Then both my parents got cancer (and survived). Friends and family have had high risk pregnancies. And my 2 year old kid has a condition that requires constant medication for the rest of his life. We have a system, despite its faults, helps people when they need it most, and does not introduce a significant financial burden on top of it for the most part.

An NHL arena where the city doesn't get a fair deal will sacrifice services or delay investment in new infrastructure that benefits the many (because people won't accept higher taxes), while funding a facility that will be even more expensive for a small percentage of citizens to use.

this.

everyone will face health issues eventually; that's as sure as the sun rises and sets... the only question is whether your passing will be quick, thus requiring no medical care, or prolonged... requiring extensive healthcare support...so ensuring that the public has top notch facilities benefits every single one of us at some point in their lifetime....

I think there's pretty solid/strong support from most of the public for the City kicking in 25-33% of the costs for a new arena.

support tails off pretty quickly beyond that split though.

As much as i like the Flames and the NHL, there's a number that's fair and reasonable to expect from the City and its taxpayers and from what's be put out publicly to this point, that skews much stronger towards the City's position...

someone mentioned earlier that if calgary continues to play badly, the fans will side with the City? I think that's already happened with the release of the Flames proposal... if the Flames play horribly, they'll be faced with an even bigger problem: apathy and disinterest.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Matty81

That Braid article is seriously on point. Makes Francis look even more like a shill.

"Guys, we need the public to be on our side...what should we do?"
"Let's get Gary Bettman to threaten them"

[Duffalufagus]

Originally Posted by boggledepot

Upon examination, I believe Redlan reached too far and discredited his or her own argument. Though it is true that tax dollars are used to fund services some citizens do not use, public libraries, transit, parks, and recreation centres are not luxuries. They serve I vital role in maintaining an educated, safe, and healthy democratic society.

I prefer to consider public facilities and services, of that nature, as an investment in our youth, our elderly, and everything in between. Whether the project is a library, a leisure centre, a tennis court, or a transit line, the projects serve a vital role in establishing the long-term sustainability of our society.

Thus, these are valid questions:.

How is our community going to benefit by allocating public money towards a new hockey arena for the Calgary Flames?

How much new money will an arena generate, that isn't already being generated by the Calgary Flames playing in the Saddledome?

When faced with these questions, the CSEC and the NHL respond with relocation. That is their right, as it is their business.

But I assure you the NHL needs Calgary, more than Calgary needs the NHL.

And you know what? Hockey will do just fine in Calgary without the NHL. We'll still play the game; we'll still go to our local rink and shoot a puck around with our kids; we'll still watch teams around town playing the game. And, ironically, we'll do all those things in the very same facilities that took priority over building a new palace for the NHL

I respectfully disagree. This city needs the Flames. Sure people will still play pond hockey if they are gone. But the prestige and standing of this city takes a dive if we lose the only real sports franchise we have. It would be the height of embarrassment, really.