Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Table 5

One thing CSEC has to keep in mind, is that if Calgary does get the Olympics, the needs and wants of the Flames will most likely be secondary to the event itself. While there will most likely be more federal/provincial funds to build something, I doubt that the Flames influence and control of the project, and what's built around it, will be higher than what they potentially have now.

That's one way to waste money and insure you have a white elephant on your hands. You don't design a building for a three week event. You design it for meeting the needs of the next quarter to half century. The design should still focus on the needs of the primary tenant, to make sure you have a primary tenant in the building for the same time period. The same can be said about the area around the arena. If the City pushes to construct a building with the same constraints the tenant currently faces, and it does nothing to address their business objectives, why would that, or any other tenant, be interested in using the facility in question? The success of the arena, and the district around the arena, are contingent on having a tenant to draw people. There is a symbiotic relationship here that both sides have to acknowledge and use as a means to strike a fair deal. It does not appear they have taken this approach.

[Reneeee]

Sorry to be this guy again, but I really wish somebody would re-open the CalgaryNext can of worms again. I think that really gives the city a legacy building project that will stand up for the next half century as something iconic.

The saddledome is and always was an eyesore. In my eyes, the stupid blue ring is nicer than the saddledome will ever be. yes my opinion is simply that, but at least its something.

Also anybody who is pro city and says they're willing to go back to the table, don't kid yourselves, they are only willing to give soo much and what is the point negotiating with a condescending mayor anyhow.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Sorry to be this guy again, but I really wish somebody would re-open the CalgaryNext can of worms again. I think that really gives the city a legacy building project that will stand up for the next half century as something iconic.

The saddledome is and always was an eyesore. In my eyes, the stupid blue ring is nicer than the saddledome will ever be. yes my opinion is simply that, but at least its something.

Also anybody who is pro city and says they're willing to go back to the table, don't kid yourselves, they are only willing to give soo much and what is the point negotiating with a condescending mayor anyhow.

<Insert woopiee cushion sound here>

[Table 5]

New Era, I agree that a long-term approach has to be taken, but when you have a multi-billion dollar event with many moving pieces, there will be compromises the Flames will have to deal with. And since they will theoretically be paying for less of it, they can't expect to be calling the shots.

As for their plans around the arena, please keep in mind that while the City wants to support the hockey team, they are not here to help CSEC turn into the next Brookfield.

The good thing is that I think the City/CSEC will do a much better job of planning out the area around a new arena, than the Flames or Stampede Board ever could (or have).

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Sorry to be this guy again, but I really wish somebody would re-open the CalgaryNext can of worms again. I think that really gives the city a legacy building project that will stand up for the next half century as something iconic.

The saddledome is and always was an eyesore. In my eyes, the stupid blue ring is nicer than the saddledome will ever be. yes my opinion is simply that, but at least its something.

Also anybody who is pro city and says they're willing to go back to the table, don't kid yourselves, they are only willing to give soo much and what is the point negotiating with a condescending mayor anyhow.

Let me guess you think, we the tax payer, should fund this project?

Well, the majority of calgary approve of the condescending mayor anyhow.

[JackJack]

Also anybody who is pro city and says they're willing to go back to the table, don't kid yourselves, they are only willing to give soo much and what is the point negotiating with a condescending mayor anyhow.

Flames ownership, Ken King and the Mayor have all acted like petulant children in this process. The fact that you can only find fault with the Mayor's actions is quite telling.

I'm not sure how the following points are continually lost on you.

• At no point has the City (or the Mayor) walked away from negotiations. The City always negotiates in good faith and will always be at the table should Flames brass want to discuss. It is a requirement of municipal practice.
• Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to move away from CalgaryNEXT to "Plan B".
  
• Council also voted on disclosing the City's offer because they felt the need to be transparent to Calgarians.
• The Mayor has one vote. Let that sink in for a moment.
  
• The City is willing to put up funds (tax support). The question is how much. That's pretty much the definition of a negotiation.
  
  

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I think we will here something from the Flames as their next proposal sooner than we think. By sooner I mean I don't think it will be as long as waiting for Olympic bids to sort out or even waiting out this next mayoral term. I also don't think it's going to be the more negative scenario's of selling the team to new ownership or relocation.

The Flames said they were done talking with the city of Calgary on arena deals. There are other options and potential partners "in the city" relatively speaking they could work with. The City has basically said there is no value to this project to them or the citizens of Calgary, and all the benefit of this project lies with the Flames. I think the Flames ownership understands how much better Calgary is as a market then any of their moving options, so I think they are going to look for a way to service the Calgary market with a partner that maybe sees the benefit to them of having the facility and that also might be less expensive options for land use than what the city can offer.

For the record, I wouldn't be excited about anything other than a DT area arena for the Flames and Calgary, but I think we are going to see some interesting proposal's in the near future, it's just what I would do if I were the Flames.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

New Era, I agree that a long-term approach has to be taken, but when you have a multi-billion dollar event with many moving pieces, there will be compromises the Flames will have to deal with. And since they will theoretically be paying for less of it, they can't expect to be calling the shots.

As for their plans around the arena, please keep in mind that while the City wants to support the hockey team, they are not here to help CSEC turn into the next Brookfield.

The good thing is that I think the City/CSEC will do a much better job of planning out the area around a new arena, than the Flames or Stampede Board ever could (or have).

The Flames likely lose the access they want to developmental lands around the arena if they are used for Athletes housing. I don't think an Olympic bid is everything coming up roses for them, I agree that it puts lots of pressure on their development plans.

Sure, they probably get more government dollars for the project than they otherwise would, but they don't want to just build an arena, they want to build an arena district and control the land that gets developed in it. An Olympic bid is problematic for that concept.

[PepsiFree]

Is there anyone who believes a high-level entertainment venue doesn’t make a city better? If anything, for a city of our size it’d be an anomaly not to have one. It isn’t a requirement, persay, but it is a luxury that has become pretty standard for any major city.

Which is why I think it’s a pretty low bar to set. We can’t just build something because it makes the city better. It does. But it makes it better than not having one, and the saddledome still sufficiently fills that purpose. So with that in mind there has to be a higher bar. Replacing the saddledome has to fill a greater purpose and I believe part of that is putting it in an area where it can add to the revitalisation, not be the sole firestarter of it. I think the general concept of CalgaryNext is great, but it was poorly planned and put in an area that doesn’t fit with the city’s plans.

I’m accepting that public money is going to go to this new arena. Whether it be some now or more later (if/when the Flames are no longer a partner in building it) but if our two options are to save money initially while letting a private entity decide the where and when (especially if those two don’t fit with our plans) or spend more money on an arena that truly meets our needs both as an entertainment venue and fits our vision for the revitalisation of the city, then I lean towards the second one.

I’m even fine with CESC not paying property tax, but that should be measured as part of the city’s contribution, not just a freebie along with a couple hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on top.

I don’t really give a lot of credit to an argument that positions this as arena vs no arena. It’s the how and the when that are a concern. Based on some of the bigger architectural projects that are occurring right now and have occurred recently I put a lot of faith in the city to do it right and figure out something that looks great, fits the plan, and serves the population in the best way possible. I don’t trust the CESC to have the same things in mind.

I think a high-level arena is as close to a need as a luxury can get, but NHL hockey isn’t. Until the CESC understands the difference, I have to put my faith in the city and hope they remain firm in negotiations.

[PepsiFree]

Also, if the CESC wants to continue to negotiate, they potentially have two deadlines where their influence will drop significantly. One is the Olympics, as has been said, but the other (could be) the revealing of Bill Smith’s financial support.

There’s no way of knowing if it will reveal what some people think it will, but if it does show they backed him in some roundabout way (or especially directly) then they’ll lose more public support and possibly sympathy from some council members. It’d just be another bad look, and I’m not sure how many more they can withstand.

[nik-]

I'm willing to bet there is nothing on Bill Smith's donor list that is blatantly CSEC. I don't think they're that dumb.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jbo

I’m not going to change anyone’s opinion, one way or another. I don’t have stats to back it up, but between concerts/Flames/hitmen/roughnecks I’m sure most have at least had an experience with it as a venue.

This article sums it up for me, haven’t seen it the last few pages, but I obviously agree.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3821640/g...ne-in-calgary/

In the context of who uses the Saddledome, that article isn't doing much to imply that anyone other than those who can drop a couple hundred dollars on a few hours of entertainment regularly enjoy the Saddledome experience.

As for the Hitmen and Roughnecks. I don't deny that they offer comparable entertainment for less. I also don't think either of those teams would have a problem continuing to play at the Saddledome under new ownership if the Flames decided to leave.

Which brings us to the hilarious premise of the article. His scary dream? LOL. I can do that too.

I awoke, smiling and satisfied from a wonderful dream. My favorite hockey team, the Calgary Flames, began the season 2022 season in their new building. How? The billionaire owners of the NHL team decided that the city which has supported them for decades shelling out 1/3 of the cost for their brand spanking new stadium, not to mention gifted land in the middle of an inner city area slated for substantial upgrades, was just fine and dandy and a deal was struck with little to no problems or hostilities.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm willing to bet there is nothing on Bill Smith's donor list that is blatantly CSEC. I don't think they're that dumb.

I wouldn’t think so, especially because he came out and said as much and I would be surprised if he was willing to take that risk knowing it would be proven false within a year (though he and CESC haven’t been above “dumb”).

I think it’s more likely that if there’s donations it’ll be found through connections. Nothing outright condemnable, but if a lot of connections pop up then it’ll look suspicious.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm willing to bet there is nothing on Bill Smith's donor list that is blatantly CSEC. I don't think they're that dumb.

Well... that depends on how you want to define "blatantly". I suspect you're right in that we won't see "CSEC", "Ken King", or "N. Murray Edwards" on the list... but I would strongly suspect that there will be at least a few Sean Kelso's and 15732465 Alberta Corp's (aka less visible members of the org and numbered companies that the more prominent ones can donate from without drawing overt attention) I also suspect that those "Bill Smith for Mayor" ads in the dome were probably given a steep steep steep discount (plus whatever the monetary value of the Flames propaganda machine is).

[Fire]

Lets get serious, there is no way Calgary is getting the 2026 Olympics with the current leadership. Depending on your viewpoint this might be a good or bad thing.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by MattyC

In the context of who uses the Saddledome, that article isn't doing much to imply that anyone other than those who can drop a couple hundred dollars on a few hours of entertainment regularly enjoy the Saddledome experience.

As for the Hitmen and Roughnecks. I don't deny that they offer comparable entertainment for less. I also don't think either of those teams would have a problem continuing to play at the Saddledome under new ownership if the Flames decided to leave.

Which brings us to the hilarious premise of the article. His scary dream? LOL. I can do that too.

I awoke, smiling and satisfied from a wonderful dream. My favorite hockey team, the Calgary Flames, began the season 2022 season in their new building. How? The billionaire owners of the NHL team decided that the city which has supported them for decades shelling out 1/3 of the cost for their brand spanking new stadium, not to mention gifted land in the middle of an inner city area slated for substantial upgrades, was just fine and dandy and a deal was struck with little to no problems or hostilities.

I don't think people are lining up to buy the Hitmen, Roughnecks, or Stamps for that matter. And I think the cost of maintaining the Saddledome without a major tenant will be expensive...and eventually it needs to be torn down and replaced.

[Pellanor]

So if Nenshi has plans for the Victoria Park area, and the Flames aren't going to negotiate with him, does he just go ahead and plan Victoria Park without the new arena? If development starts, where does that leave the flames 3-4 years down the road when they decide they want to start negotiations again?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Pellanor

So if Nenshi has plans for the Victoria Park area, and the Flames aren't going to negotiate with him, does he just go ahead and plan Victoria Park without the new arena? If development starts, where does that leave the flames 3-4 years down the road when they decide they want to start negotiations again?

Balzac olympic bid?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Pellanor

So if Nenshi has plans for the Victoria Park area, and the Flames aren't going to negotiate with him, does he just go ahead and plan Victoria Park without the new arena? If development starts, where does that leave the flames 3-4 years down the road when they decide they want to start negotiations again?

Why would Nenshi have plans for an arena in Victoria park unless the Flames are paying for it? He's been clear there's not benefit to the city to do this, so if the Flames don't want to put their rink there on the terms the city has offered, why would any rink anywhere be on his book.

Unless the Flames come back to the table, Nenshi and the city should have 0 plans around building such a facility.................unless they are full of #### about there being benefit to them and our city beyond the Flames. So in short, yes, his plans for VP should just move forward with no rink.

[Reneeee]

this post is also condescending. Cost aside, CalgaryNext is a nice concept.

The Mayors voice is louder than his vote and it really is a big shame he was re-elected. Calgary is worse off for it. The Flames negotiation has halted and now his little pet project called the entertainment district is probably his first priority so he can have a lasting legacy aside from being referred to as the arrogant one.

Originally Posted by JackJack

Flames ownership, Ken King and the Mayor have all acted like petulant children in this process. The fact that you can only find fault with the Mayor's actions is quite telling.

I'm not sure how the following points are continually lost on you.

• At no point has the City (or the Mayor) walked away from negotiations. The City always negotiates in good faith and will always be at the table should Flames brass want to discuss. It is a requirement of municipal practice.
• Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to move away from CalgaryNEXT to "Plan B".
• Council also voted on disclosing the City's offer because they felt the need to be transparent to Calgarians.
• The Mayor has one vote. Let that sink in for a moment.
• The City is willing to put up funds (tax support). The question is how much. That's pretty much the definition of a negotiation.