Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Robbob]

I think it is a little in bad faith is saying or hinting they are back at the table to the media when they haven't reached out to Flames.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't believe I'm reaching when I say that the city reached out to the media before the Flames, The common courtesy would be to reach out to the Flames to talk intentions of the negotiation and setting some common ground. instead they're putting the Flames in a lose lose position, of course they're going to decline.

Why? They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[RM14]

It's more along the lines of the media picked up on rumblings of the City forming a committee to oversee an event center development, and all of the sudden everyone is over reacting and blaming both sides.

[DJones]

Why even bother with a new committee? What has changed?

Just wait and see what happens with the Olympics.

If that falls through I imagine they'll just sell the Flames anyway. City can see if they can convince the new owners to stay with a fresh start.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It’s very hard to present a different funding model if there is literally no negotiation happening. The willingness to talk about a new funding model is explicit in the Notice of Motion. So, I’m puzzled by your statement (and the Flames’)

You've moved to the private side, you should know better, Bunk.

Flames' ownership would have had some basis for optimism if the City had expressed firm commitment to change their stance on public funding. When a vendor's response to the offer is "not good enough", it signifies that the vendor is either not motivated or not interested. Either option is a showstopper to any bona fide purchaser, unless they purposely lowballed and are really keen on making a deal. Flames' response to-date has been "we have not lowballed, this was a fair offer and we are not that keen anymore". It is absolutely in the City's court to signal the willingness to revive the negotiations by actually offering a counter-proposal that includes public funding instead of just saying that they are willing to negotiate. Otherwise, for the Flames organization, it's just negotiating with shadows. This is the key difference, I believe.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I also think that they should avoid these public statements until there's something to report. The conversation should be re-started privately and quietly.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

It's up to the City now to present a different funding model that offers some non-refundable public money

Why? Why is it not up to the Flames to present an offer that doesn't see them getting the Katz deal 2.0? The Flames didn't move one iota on the funding formula so why should the city?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Why? Why is it not up to the Flames to present an offer that doesn't see them getting the Katz deal 2.0?

Edmonton public funding contribution deal is so far more beneficial to Oilers, it's not even a fair argument here. Flames' proposal was much more modest in comparison. The "why" question has been answered. A reasonable offer requires a reasonable counter-offer to keep the negotiations alive. There has been no publicly-expressed movement on the City's side acknowledging even a possibility of non-refundable public contribution to a new arena suggesting that the City places zero value on the franchise presence in Calgary. You can agree or disagree with this premise (there is enough evidence suggesting that a lot of Calgarians agree with it and don't care enough). But I don't understand how could anyone see it otherwise.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Why? Why is it not up to the Flames to present an offer that doesn't see them getting the Katz deal 2.0? The Flames didn't move one iota on the funding formula so why should the city?

It's not up to anyone to make an offer. Why should the city move? To get talks restarted, I guess. Sometimes a party has to make the first move even if it's not their turn, if they really want something done.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Edmonton public funding contribution deal is so far more beneficial to Oilers, it's not even a fair argument here. Flames' proposal was much more modest in comparison. The "why" question has been answered. A reasonable offer requires a reasonable counter-offer to keep the negotiations alive. There has been no publicly-expressed movement on the City's side acknowledging even a possibility of non-refundable public contribution to a new arena suggesting that the City places zero value on the franchise presence in Calgary. You can agree or disagree with this premise (there is enough evidence suggesting that a lot of Calgarians agree with it and don't care enough). But I don't understand how could anyone see it otherwise.

The flames have yet to move on their proposal as well. They were also the party that walked away from the table. It makes no sense for the city to approach the flames with a new offer at this stage. The city wants the team to stay and right now they are staying, until that changes I highly doubt the city is going to change their current stance unless the flames show a willingness to negotiate in good faith.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Edmonton public funding contribution deal is so far more beneficial to Oilers, it's not even a fair argument here. Flames' proposal was much more modest in comparison.

... what?

The funding ratio is basically the same. The only difference was that the Flames owners offered the whole amount upfront while Katz financed it in the form of rent (The Flames were also demanding a laundry list of other goodies that likely more then offset any time value of money differences between the two offers).

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The "why" question has been answered. A reasonable offer requires a reasonable counter-offer to keep the negotiations alive.

Yes, and from my perspective the Flames 1st offer was "Katz Funding Ratio" and their last offer was "Katz Funding Ratio". Where was their reasonable counter-offer?

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

There has been no publicly-expressed movement on the City's side acknowledging even a possibility of non-refundable public contribution to a new arena.

... which is the only sane premise when evaluating a business partnership proposal IMO. Regardless there has been no publicly-expressed movement on the Flames side suggesting they want anything less then the City to take a fiscal bath = to half the project cost.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Edmonton public funding contribution deal is so far more beneficial to Oilers, it's not even a fair argument here. Flames' proposal was much more modest in comparison. The "why" question has been answered. A reasonable offer requires a reasonable counter-offer to keep the negotiations alive. There has been no publicly-expressed movement on the City's side acknowledging even a possibility of non-refundable public contribution to a new arena suggesting that the City places zero value on the franchise presence in Calgary. You can agree or disagree with this premise (there is enough evidence suggesting that a lot of Calgarians agree with it and don't care enough). But I don't understand how could anyone see it otherwise.

Living in Edmonton, I'm going to say I feel the Oilers fans have found it a worthy investment. And by Oilers fans, I also mean the businesses that have benefited greatly from the new arena. The entire 104th stretch to Jasper, 104 ave, and surrounding retail and restaurant businesses have all benefited. And remember, this isn't seasonal; this is all year around with concerts and events constantly going on. The arena basically rejuvenated downtown.

Did they pay out of their asses for it and give Senor Katz bags of dollar bills? Yes they did. But honestly the only thing Edmontonians are getting boned on that they can actually feel is the concession prices at Rogers Place, but it's safe to assume that Calgary's prices really aren't much better. They are way more sensitive to transit and roads spending in their city, the arena funding is simply an afterthought at this point.

I still think the City of Calgary should keep hammering no public cash, but if they can work out a way in which City land can be provided, then I'd be OK with it.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... what?

The funding ratio is basically the same. The only difference was that the Flames owners offered the whole amount upfront while Katz financed it in the form of rent ...

Well, not according to this chart. I personally heard Ken King stating to the audience that they would have taken the Oilers' deal in a blink of an eye.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So basically the city starts this new committee and goes public with it before even seeing if the Flames are interested?

Its fine if they reached out to the Flames first to say, we're forming a committee and we might have new ideas would you come back to the table.

Instead they basically positioned themselves to make the Flames look like the villains here.

It looks sounds and smells like the Flames(owners) are the villains here.

Years of delays and promises of imminent arena announcements.

An artists rendering that looks like it was designed my a mildly talented 12 yr old on Minecraft.

Positioned on contaminated land.

On a flood plain.

Around a year after the Saddledome was flooded.

Demanding truckloads of taxpayer money with no obligations.

At the height of a massive economic downturn.

And when the City doesn’t roll over immediately after years and years of delay and procrastination from Ken King who seemingly had #### all else to do, they pick up their ball and go home, refusing to talk to anybody.

The more I think of this situation, the more I think they want this club in Houston.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Well, not according to this chart. I personally heard Ken King stating to the audience that they would have taken the Oilers' deal in a blink of an eye.

... oh lordy.

The Flames proposal doesn't have them pay any rent. None, Zip, Zero, Nada, Nothing. They offered to prepay their rent but other then that their deal IS the Katz deal (with a whole bunch of other valuable goodies thrown in and zero committmetn to build anything in the CRL zone that would pay any property tax) So of course they would have taken the Oilers' deal in a blink of an eye... that's basically the deal they're demanding.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

It looks sounds and smells like the Flames(owners) are the villains here.

Years of delays and promises of imminent arena announcements.

An artists rendering that looks like it was designed my a mildly talented 12 yr old on Minecraft.

Positioned on contaminated land.

On a flood plain.

Around a year after the Saddledome was flooded.

Demanding truckloads of taxpayer money with no obligations.

At the height of a massive economic downturn.

The more I think of this situation, the more I think they want this club in Houston.

I agree it took a long time but don't know what "imminent" announcements you are talking about.

It's not on a flood plain - that should be evident from the actual flood. And when that was rejected they said OK and put forth a Vic Park proposal, which is the only proposal now on the table, like the City always wanted.

And the fact it was on poisoned land was a feature, not a bug - it's land that needs to be cleaned up and this was supposedly an opportunity to do so.

They aren't "demanding" anything. They made a proposal, it wasn't accepted. And I don't think "without obligations" is entirely fair.

I'm not sure what the economy has to do with the model, as this is a multi-year project to last probably 20 years. It's got to be proposed some time. If they believe there should be a public component, should they change that position because of a short term downturn?

I hold no belief that the Flames have handled this well, or that their proposal was fair. But some things you said just aren't true.

[getbak]

I've said this before, if the Flames won't come back to the table, it's time for the City to flip the script on them and do the whole "well, I guess we have to go look somewhere else" gambit that teams love to do. Set up meetings with AEG and Oak View Group and start talking to them about partnering on the construction/operation of the new arena.

As others have said, whether the Flames are playing in it or not, Calgary needs a new large venue for concerts and other events. Might as well get started on it.

If the City does this, I think we'd see the Flames back at the table PDQ.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

I've said this before, if the Flames won't come back to the table, it's time for the City to flip the script on them and do the whole "well, I guess we have to go look somewhere else" gambit that teams love to do. Set up meetings with AEG and Oak View Group and start talking to them about partnering on the construction/operation of the new arena.

As others have said, whether the Flames are playing in it or not, Calgary needs a new large venue for concerts and other events. Might as well get started on it.

If the City does this, I think we'd see the Flames back at the table PDQ.

What developer is going to build an arena with no anchor tenant? Their first question will be about revenues. Concerts just don't provide what teams do.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Parallex

...
The Flames proposal doesn't have them pay any rent. None, Zip, Zero, Nada, Nothing. They offered to prepay their rent but other then that their deal IS the Katz deal (with a whole bunch of other valuable goodies thrown in and zero committmetn to build anything in the CRL zone that would pay any property tax) So of course they would have taken the Oilers' deal in a blink of an eye... that's basically the deal they're demanding.

You and a whole bunch of others keep pushing this idea that the Flames owe something big to the City here and therefore must pony up more. They don't. In fact, they had proved that staying here was a choice for the owners rather than pure business/money, when it was really tough.

Calgary Flames are not property developers and they do not have aspirations to develop the lands around the arena. They merely suggested that it would be expected to come along. The City of Calgary through its development company (CMLC) can develop the area into something spectacular, if the market is right and if the investment into the area is supported (e.g East Village). This is a tenant-landlord relationship, in which a tenant (an entertainment company) offered to renew the lease only if the landlord kicks in some money; otherwise it will not renew. Landlord said - I will not do that, you can leave. Tenant said: OK, I will leave then. This is a very predictable outcome. What else do you reasonably expect?

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I agree it took a long time but don't know what "imminent" announcements you are talking about.



It's not on a flood plain - that should be evident from the actual flood. And when that was rejected they said OK and put forth a Vic Park proposal, which is the only proposal now on the table, like the City always wanted.



And the fact it was on poisoned land was a feature, not a bug - it's land that needs to be cleaned up and this was supposedly an opportunity to do so.



They aren't "demanding" anything. They made a proposal, it wasn't accepted. And I don't think "without obligations" is entirely fair.



I'm not sure what the economy has to do with the model, as this is a multi-year project to last probably 20 years. It's got to be proposed some time. If they believe there should be a public component, should they change that position because of a short term downturn?



I hold no belief that the Flames have handled this well, or that their proposal was fair. But some things you said just aren't true.

I recall as far back as 2009 the Flames were going to be providing details on a new arena. KK was working on it.

The poison element of the land is a very expensive feature making the whole project prohibitively expensive before ground is even broken.

The economy plays a major role in the ability of the Council to convince voters that spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on a building a small minority will actually use, is a good idea.

They haven’t come right out and stated they demand anything, but the inference was clear.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... oh lordy.

The Flames proposal doesn't have them pay any rent. None, Zip, Zero, Nada, Nothing. They offered to prepay their rent but other then that their deal IS the Katz deal (with a whole bunch of other valuable goodies thrown in and zero committmetn to build anything in the CRL zone that would pay any property tax) So of course they would have taken the Oilers' deal in a blink of an eye... that's basically the deal they're demanding.

no kidding... you were much more charitable in your response than i would have been... its disingenuous to suggest that the City is "making the Flames pay back the loan" and then using things like rent or property as the rationale of loan repayment...

like every. other. single business in Calgary has to do...

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You and a whole bunch of others keep pushing this idea that the Flames owe something big to the City here and therefore must pony up more. They don't. In fact, they had proved that staying here was a choice for the owners rather than pure business/money, when it was really tough.

Calgary Flames are not property developers and they do not have aspirations to develop the lands around the arena. They merely suggested that it would be expected to come along. The City of Calgary through its development company (CMLC) can develop the area into something spectacular, if the market is right and if the investment into the area is supported (e.g East Village). This is a tenant-landlord relationship, in which a tenant (an entertainment company) offered to renew the lease only if the landlord kicks in some money; otherwise it will not renew. Landlord said - I will not do that, you can leave. Tenant said: OK, I will leave then. This is a very predictable outcome. What else do you reasonably expect?

the Flames don't 'owe' Calgary anything...

we can agree on that.

Personally, I am in the camp that an equitable contribution is fair... i thought that was 33%... obviously the Flames think that taxpayers should be paying more to support a privately held corporation.

Every other sports teams i follow passionately don't reside in Calgary... if the Flames move on, I am more than happy to shift those entertainment dollars elsewhere...