Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

How can you justify money going to highly corrupt bureaucrats that is the IOC?

Money from the feds goes to infrastructure projects to facilitate the Olympics.

Money from the feds goes to infrastructure projects to facilitate the NHL.

But money doesn't go from the feds for NHL projects. I get you don't like it. I get you don't understand it. But that's the way it is. Why they can justify it going to the IOC? Because people like the spectacle and because the other stuff they get might actually benefit them. The feds can sell building an LRT line from the airport for the games because it is something the city needs and because of all the tourist traffic that will happen. They can't justify building an airport LRT because of an arena that already has funded LRT access.

The feds will not allow money to go directly to an arena operated by an NHL team. It's the way it is. They made that clear in the 90s after two teams left. Just wasn't going to happen.

The building can be owned and operated by the city, with a lease to the NHL team, no? In fact pretty sure the owners wanted the city to own it anyway for the liability.

This is not a positive for the city. Never has been, never will be. People need to stop pretending it is a good thing. Teams will always want the city to own the arena because they:

-Don't want to pay property tax, which will always be more than the lease.

and

-Don't want to be on the hook for a valueless asset at the end of the lifecycle.

It makes no sense because both are for sport and culture but one is arbitrarily decided it’s okay because there’s no precedent (which can change with one... or cash reimbursed to others to keep all whole).

$700mm. $100mm / City. Still cheaper than Olympics.

No idea what you're trying to say here.

Or was the plan that whenever people in key cities need something they have to just pray for the Olympic Games?

It hasn't hurt.

It doesn't make it good, but the pressure of international eyes seems to be a kick in the ass for people.

[Wormius]

From my understanding, “owning” the building was what CSEC wanted. I might be wrong here, but the CSEC basically wanted none of the risk associated with owning the building, but all of the rewards and profits from any event held there and more as part of their proposal. That seems hugely inequitable. Why would the City take a deal like that? I would be okay with the City paying for the arena as long as the City made money of it, not this “trickle down” stuff that the CSEC was peddling.

[Mr.Coffee]

Roughneck your response could have just been boiled down to “it’s the way it’s always been”, which is always a poor worldview. Sometimes poor conventional wisdom should be challenged.

I do think the city should host a plebiscite once there’s clarity as to what federal or provincial funding comes available to see if the city even wants to host it (doubt it once people learn how their taxes will rise).

What I was getting at on the part you didn’t understand was that if the feds need to “defend” giving capital to one major city vs the others that host NHL hockey then don’t. Give all cities a small but equal amount of money contributing towards facilitation of NHL hockey in the 7 major cities.

I bet you NHL hockey is more important to Canadians than the Winter Olympics. By a long shot too.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Roughneck your response could have just been boiled down to “it’s the way it’s always been”, which is always a poor worldview. Sometimes poor conventional wisdom should be challenged.

I do think the city should host a plebiscite once there’s clarity as to what federal or provincial funding comes available to see if the city even wants to host it (doubt it once people learn how their taxes will rise).

What I was getting at on the part you didn’t understand was that if the feds need to “defend” giving capital to one major city vs the others that host NHL hockey then don’t. Give all cities a small but equal amount of money contributing towards facilitation of NHL hockey in the 7 major cities.

I bet you NHL hockey is more important to Canadians than the Winter Olympics. By a long shot too.

That is opening a huge can of worms. Saskatchewan will want money for an NHL team then. And Halifax. You think Newfoundlanders will want their tax dollars to go to the NHL? And why should team owners get a trickle of tax dollars over any other industry? They all make money, now they deserve a lifelong pension too?

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That is opening a huge can of worms. Saskatchewan will want money for an NHL team then. And Halifax. You think Newfoundlanders will want their tax dollars to go to the NHL? And why should team owners get a trickle of tax dollars over any other industry? They all make money, now they deserve a lifelong pension too?

Devil's Advocate but why not? The feds are apparently happy to announce they'll give a trickle of tax dollars to the outright mafia organization that is FIFA and they're even less influential on Newfoundland as the NHL. You base this on the assumption that the federal government gives a damn about what the entire country thinks about it.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think it highly unlikely the team moves anytime, but I will absolutely not be upset if they do. I'll say "that's a shame" like Jerry Seinfeld and move on with my life.

I completely stopped watching NFL football a few years ago (I'll still normally check out the Superbowl, which serves to remind me that the football is a bad product), and it's one of the best things I've ever done.

I like following hockey...I'll probably tune in if I remember that the Flames are on, but I don't plan my life around it. If someone offers me free tix, I'll go. I'll watch lots of the playoffs, but not plan my life around it. If the Flames go on a run, I'll jump on the bandwagon.

I simply find the arena issue fascinating, and I do have strong opinions about it, but I think I'm pretty good at cutting through the emotion and rhetoric that seems to overwhelm so many people.

Thanks, and the best post I have seen on this topic. I also dropped the NFL, albeit 20 years ago but I am probably older then you.

My concern with the NHL product is that the games seem to be getting longer and longer like the other sports. Too many timeouts and promotions at the game, and why is the second intermission so long?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Roughneck your response could have just been boiled down to “it’s the way it’s always been”, which is always a poor worldview. Sometimes poor conventional wisdom should be challenged.

I do think the city should host a plebiscite once there’s clarity as to what federal or provincial funding comes available to see if the city even wants to host it (doubt it once people learn how their taxes will rise).

What I was getting at on the part you didn’t understand was that if the feds need to “defend” giving capital to one major city vs the others that host NHL hockey then don’t. Give all cities a small but equal amount of money contributing towards facilitation of NHL hockey in the 7 major cities.

I bet you NHL hockey is more important to Canadians than the Winter Olympics. By a long shot too.

To be fair, a lot of people look at the total amount coming from taxes and say "that's a lot", but if they saw the fairly minimal impact on their own property tax bill it might be a different story. It's never expressed that way, though.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Devil's Advocate but why not? The feds are apparently happy to announce they'll give a trickle of tax dollars to the outright mafia organization that is FIFA and they're even less influential on Newfoundland as the NHL. You base this on the assumption that the federal government gives a damn about what the entire country thinks about it.

I think the difference is that FIFA and the Olympics are basically a one time payout. With money in the budget every year going to NHL teams, after a few years it will turn into a nuisance for whatever government is in power. Eventually someone will campaign on getting rid of the "NHL" tax.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

To be fair, a lot of people look at the total amount coming from taxes and say "that's a lot", but if they saw the fairly minimal impact on their own property tax bill it might be a different story. It's never expressed that way, though.

Yea, but the way to look at it is that the money could be going into regular services. As an example only, its obvious to all on any side street that the snow cleaning budget is not sufficient. How about the loss of weekly garbage removal?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Roughneck your response could have just been boiled down to “it’s the way it’s always been”, which is always a poor worldview. Sometimes poor conventional wisdom should be challenged.

It's the sense that the Olympics is a national event. It puts Canada on the international stage, so ensuring the locale is up to snuff is in the federal interest.

Same can't be said of an NHL team. That's why federal dollars get kicked in. The timeline of the event means the money needs to be allocated quicker than it might be without an event. It's not about creating new infrastructure projects for the sake of getting money, it's about getting funding for planned projects that are on an extended timeline.

For example the Canada Line did have some federal funding before the Olympics were awarded. But shortly after they did get the games provincial and federal dollars for the train system in Vancouver increased by almost $500M because the timeline for the project needed it to move onto the next step and get the line done before the games.

What I was getting at on the part you didn’t understand was that if the feds need to “defend” giving capital to one major city vs the others that host NHL hockey then don’t. Give all cities a small but equal amount of money contributing towards facilitation of NHL hockey in the 7 major cities.

Or, they can not defend it, and continue not to do it. Even after losing two teams there was massive opposition in the late 90s for any federal help to NHL teams. That's where it ends for the feds. There wasn't any support at the worst of times, why would there be when things have been so rosy? When they haven't had to step in for any others and don't want to in the future either.

I bet you NHL hockey is more important to Canadians than the Winter Olympics. By a long shot too.

Public transit and road improvements are probably better, and the feds can find excuses to fund them based on the latter. They can't for the former.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wormius

From my understanding, “owning” the building was what CSEC wanted. I might be wrong here, but the CSEC basically wanted none of the risk associated with owning the building, but all of the rewards and profits from any event held there and more as part of their proposal. That seems hugely inequitable. Why would the City take a deal like that? I would be okay with the City paying for the arena as long as the City made money of it, not this “trickle down” stuff that the CSEC was peddling.

They don't want to own it, just lease it. That's the same as the present situation. However, the lease they would take on puts pretty much all risk on the lessee, CSEC. For example, CSEC had to cover all the cleanup after the flood. CSEC would be liable for any accidents in the premises. CSEC covers all the maintenance, utilities, security, etc. It's a triple net lease.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Wormius

From my understanding, “owning” the building was what CSEC wanted. I might be wrong here, but the CSEC basically wanted none of the risk associated with owning the building, but all of the rewards and profits from any event held there and more as part of their proposal. That seems hugely inequitable. Why would the City take a deal like that? I would be okay with the City paying for the arena as long as the City made money of it, not this “trickle down” stuff that the CSEC was peddling.

They wanted the same deal most American teams have conned out of their counties and cities, and what Katz got in Edmonton. Always what it comes down to.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They don't want to own it, just lease it. That's the same as the present situation. However, the lease they would take on puts pretty much all risk on the lessee, CSEC. For example, CSEC had to cover all the cleanup after the flood. CSEC would be liable for any accidents in the premises. CSEC covers all the maintenance, utilities, security, etc. It's a triple net lease.

Yes, the operator of the arena is in charge for the operational costs associated with the arena. That isn't taking on pretty much all the risk. What's their risk when the lease is up? Zero. They get to walk away from a building that becomes valueless if a new arena is built, letting somebody else take on the risk of demolition and redevelopment of the land. They didn't have to pay property tax on the building that would have been more than their lease payments and didn't have to finance construction debt. This is pretty good risk most business owners could only dream of having.

Financing the arena and taking on the cost of ownership, now THAT would be risk. Which is what the Leafs, Habs, Canucks, and Senators have had to do.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Yea, but the way to look at it is that the money could be going into regular services. As an example only, its obvious to all on any side street that the snow cleaning budget is not sufficient. How about the loss of weekly garbage removal?

If your taxes go up, those services would presumably remain.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If your taxes go up, those services would presumably remain.

So taxes will go up and we maintain the identical, inadequate level of services we currently have as a bonus. Wonderful.

[Cappy]

The Olympics is a bit off topic here, as there is already a thread for that; but, there are alot of people opposed to Calgary hosting the Olympics again - most on City Council have said they would only support a bid if it made financial sense.

For all the literature on the scam that is funding professional stadiums, there is an equal amount on the scam of hosting the olympics.

I imagine most people on this forum opposed to public funds going to the arena are opposed to an olympic bid.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I imagine most people on this forum opposed to public funds going to the arena are opposed to an olympic bid.

Sounds about right.

I would only not be opposed to hosting the Olympics if a reasonable projection shows that it could be done with revenue neutrality... meaning any public funds invested are directly returned from the event. Which ain't gonna happen so... yeah... no Olympics please.

Which is basically my feelings about the arena. I'm fine with the city investing in a new arena... but only if we will see a return on that investment based on reasonable projections.

[Strange Brew]

If everyone is so good with paying an extra $100 in property taxes, then City should start increasing rates. The quality of available senior services, for example, would really see an uptick with an infusion of extra funds.

Using the money so Flames can play in a nicer arena? That can’t be a serious question can it?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If everyone is so good with paying an extra $100 in property taxes, then City should start increasing rates. The quality of available senior services, for example, would really see an uptick with an infusion of extra funds.

Using the money so Flames can play in a nicer arena? That can’t be a serious question can it?

This is basically the crux of the issue for me. If we are going to put an un-planned, unallocated expense on the books to the tune of a few hundred million dollars I'd much rather it be spent on...anything else. Buy some more bus shelters or something

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

So taxes will go up and we maintain the identical, inadequate level of services we currently have as a bonus. Wonderful.

Your property taxes go up pretty marginally according to the numbers I read here once. Like $5.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by stone hands

This is basically the crux of the issue for me. If we are going to put an un-planned, unallocated expense on the books to the tune of a few hundred million dollars I'd much rather it be spent on...anything else. Buy some more bus shelters or something

Or we could use said funds to actually eliminate homelessness, which is something that was supposed to have happened by Jan. 29 of this year. It's only down about 11% since the peak in 2008.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/why-calg...uable-failure/

Of course, there are a million things that could use funding.