Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-25-2018, 04:23 PM   #5301
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

To add to my previous post, I view City's position as a bluff. I might have said it before. Flames' alternative to a deal is to move to another city and make $600M selling the franchise to someone else. Actually, they might be better off financially, if there is no deal with the City of Calgary. City's alternative to a deal is having an old arena that needs to stay in-place for a few events per year without an anchor tenant paying the bills. They can't simply replace this tenant by posting a "for lease" sign. The other alternative is having no arena at all, if they decide to demolish it without replacement (not a realistic option, of course).
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
CaptainYooh is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 04:25 PM   #5302
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM View Post
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.
That's one of AEG's core businesses. That's also what Oak View Group is doing.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is online now  
Old 04-25-2018, 04:26 PM   #5303
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
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.
No, I don't. The Flames don't owe anything to the city... but the City doesn't owe jack to the Flames either. I'm fine with the Flames and the City being partners on a project but I want a real partnership where we see each partner getting a reasonable rate of return. Not one side getting all the reward and the other side getting the bill.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
Calgary Flames are not property developers and they do not have aspirations to develop the lands around the arena.
... Ok. I'm pretty sure the Flames owners do have numerous real estate interests but whatevs. Plus I'm pretty sure given that one of the goodies they demanded was a development veto so they want to have the option to do it but won't commit to doing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
They merely suggested that it would be expected to come along.
Yeah, that's called privatizing the profits and socializing the risk. It stinks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
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;
No it's a private business demanding that the public subsidize it's profits by making an intentionally money losing agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
What else do you reasonably expect?
I expect the Flames to treat us like potential investors and not an ATM and for our elected representatives to do the same.
Parallex is offline  
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2018, 04:37 PM   #5304
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
...
I expect the Flames to treat us like potential investors and not an ATM and for our elected representatives to do the same.
I will skip your other points about owners' private interests, because they are irrelevant. This is an entertainment company offering to renew their lease as a major tenant.

While I fully disagree with your argument (quoted above), I fully understand it. But if our Government sides with it, we will have no NHL team in Calgary.

This is not just an investment; it's a luxury for our small city. Just like a beautiful new library, it's a luxury that is supported only by a group of Calgary voters. For those of us who are willing to have part of our taxes pay for this luxury, public funding is justified. For those who don't, it will not.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
CaptainYooh is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 04:47 PM   #5305
Monahammer
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

I don't think the City is bluffing at all. Why should the flames get such an amazing deal on things that other business owners have to commit to? Rent and property tax are realities of owning a business, don't pretend like other businesses that support many more workers (encana or suncor for example) get large breaks on either of these things.

If the owners make the ludicrous decision of selling the team, a number of things would still have to happen for them to actually move from Calgary, including support from the NHL BOG. why would all of those owners vote to lose an extremely viable market when there are 5-6 teams that lose money hand over fist each season? Do you honestly think a bunch of greedy millionaires/billionaires are going to stomach losing extra HRR? I think you're absolutely fooling yourself if you do.

Petulant owners want the same deal Katz got, accept it. It's a dick measuring contest with few parralels. They want to own the area around it. As pointed out above, they won't even commit (as Katz actually did) to developing the area around it expediently! They want but they're not willing to give (anything)

That is bad faith in any negotiation. Nenshi is certainly no gem on the other side of the table, but you must at least realize how untenable the organization's position is? They weren't even really willing to discuss the victoria park arena proposal. How can you not see their obvious intentions with this?
Monahammer is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 04:55 PM   #5306
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
This is an entertainment company offering to renew their lease as a major tenant.
No, not major... sole... sole tenent. Major would imply that there would be other tenants and there would not be. The cost of the lease is the sum total revenue the city the presumed owner here would receive and the Flames are proposing that sum total be NEGATIVE $275,000,000.00. There isn't even a chance that the city will even break even on the Flames proposal.
Parallex is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 05:03 PM   #5307
Locke
Franchise Player
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer View Post
I don't think the City is bluffing at all. Why should the flames get such an amazing deal on things that other business owners have to commit to? Rent and property tax are realities of owning a business, don't pretend like other businesses that support many more workers (encana or suncor for example) get large breaks on either of these things.

If the owners make the ludicrous decision of selling the team, a number of things would still have to happen for them to actually move from Calgary, including support from the NHL BOG. why would all of those owners vote to lose an extremely viable market when there are 5-6 teams that lose money hand over fist each season? Do you honestly think a bunch of greedy millionaires/billionaires are going to stomach losing extra HRR? I think you're absolutely fooling yourself if you do.

Petulant owners want the same deal Katz got, accept it. It's a dick measuring contest with few parralels. They want to own the area around it. As pointed out above, they won't even commit (as Katz actually did) to developing the area around it expediently! They want but they're not willing to give (anything)

That is bad faith in any negotiation. Nenshi is certainly no gem on the other side of the table, but you must at least realize how untenable the organization's position is? They weren't even really willing to discuss the victoria park arena proposal. How can you not see their obvious intentions with this?
And he subsequently reneged and sold it off.

Brilliant track record to follow.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!

This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.

The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans

If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Locke is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2018, 05:22 PM   #5308
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
No, not major... sole... sole tenent. Major would imply that there would be other tenants and there would not be. The cost of the lease is the sum total revenue the city the presumed owner here would receive and the Flames are proposing that sum total be NEGATIVE $275,000,000.00. There isn't even a chance that the city will even break even on the Flames proposal.
Sure. That is if all of the following apply:

  1. The value of the land going back to the City at the end of the lease is zero or negative.
  2. The value of the building going back to the City at the end of the lease is zero or negative.
  3. There is no positive growth of property and business tax revenues over the duration of the lease to the City from properties developed and re-developed as a result of a new arena.
And, of course, if there is a zero "pride value" placed on having an NHL franchise in Calgary.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
CaptainYooh is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 06:42 PM   #5309
Monahammer
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
Sure. That is if all of the following apply:

  1. The value of the land going back to the City at the end of the lease is zero or negative.
  2. The value of the building going back to the City at the end of the lease is zero or negative.
  3. There is no positive growth of property and business tax revenues over the duration of the lease to the City from properties developed and re-developed as a result of a new arena.
And, of course, if there is a zero "pride value" placed on having an NHL franchise in Calgary.
Hold on, are you suggesting that the benefit to Calgary is taking possession of a 30 year old facility that will undoubtedly require renovations by then (according to the sole tenants, the situation we currently find ourselves in), and the surrounding land, whatever state CSEC has left it in?
Do you think the saddledome currently has a positive value?
We already know that the property tax value for the actual facility itself in the flames proposal is 0. the surrounding developments are all purely speculative (and highly suspect, see a litany of examples across NA) and therefor can't (or shouldn't) be counted.

Let me ask you this: have you ever been party to a land transaction before?
Monahammer is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 06:49 PM   #5310
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
Sure. That is if all of the following apply:

[LIST=1][*]The value of the land going back to the City at the end of the lease is zero or negative.
Well it wouldn't be a new property acquisition so it'd be zero at best and a negative once you factor in reclamation.

Quote:
][*]The value of the building going back to the City at the end of the lease is zero or negative.
Safe assumption. Arenas are notorious white elephants. Hence why neither the city nor the Flames want to own the thing.

Quote:
*There is no positive growth of property and business tax revenues over the duration of the lease to the City from properties developed and re-developed as a result of a new arena.
...ok. are the Flames going to reimburse the city and other business owners for any displaced property and business tax revenues?

Quote:
And, of course, if there is a zero "pride value" placed on having an NHL franchise in Calgary.
Really... you think we should get paid in "Pride"? Let me call my bank and see if they'll let me make my next mortgage payment in "Pride".
Parallex is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2018, 07:25 PM   #5311
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
Well it wouldn't be a new property acquisition so it'd be zero at best and a negative once you factor in reclamation.

Safe assumption. Arenas are notorious white elephants. Hence why neither the city nor the Flames want to own the thing....
So, using your math, not only Saddledome and the land it sits on are worth nothing, they actually have negative value? Which means that the City would throw in a few millions for me to take it and there would also be no property taxes due? Sold. I'll take'em both.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
CaptainYooh is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 07:44 PM   #5312
Monahammer
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
So, using your math, not only Saddledome and the land it sits on are worth nothing, they actually have negative value? Which means that the City would throw in a few millions for me to take it and there would also be no property taxes due? Sold. I'll take'em both.
? Are you going to pay the op costs on it too? Good luck buddy you're mental lol
Monahammer is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 07:52 PM   #5313
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
So, using your math, not only Saddledome and the land it sits on are worth nothing, they actually have negative value? Which means that the City would throw in a few millions for me to take it and there would also be no property taxes due? Sold. I'll take'em both.
Did you miss the $25 million in the budget for Saddledome demolition?
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is online now  
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2018, 07:52 PM   #5314
Freeway
Franchise Player
 
Freeway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

The City's fine with owning the thing, FWIW.
__________________
PHWA Member // Managing Editor @ FlamesNation // Author of "On The Clock: Behind The Scenes with the Calgary Flames at the NHL Draft" // Twitter

"Does a great job covering the Flames" - Elliotte Friedman
Freeway is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Freeway For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2018, 08:39 PM   #5315
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak View Post
Did you miss the $25 million in the budget for Saddledome demolition?
No. And it is probably in a ballpark. But what does it have to do with the residual value of an asset? What do you think it would be worth if sold fee-simple at an open auction?

P.S. To Monahammer: don't bother barking; if you can't argue your point respectfully, I will not bother responding.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake

Last edited by CaptainYooh; 04-25-2018 at 08:41 PM.
CaptainYooh is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 08:50 PM   #5316
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
No. And it is probably in a ballpark. But what does it have to do with the residual value of an asset? What do you think it would be worth if sold fee-simple at an open auction?

P.S. To Monahammer: don't bother barking; if you can't argue your point respectfully, I will not bother responding.
How much do you think it costs to run the Saddledome? Cost to demolish? Cost to convert?
PepsiFree is online now  
Old 04-25-2018, 08:54 PM   #5317
Bunk
Franchise Player
 
Bunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary View Post
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...



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...
The City also said the actual property tax or rent amount was entirely up for negotiation. Its intent was to primarily just help cover off basic operating costs like Emergency Services for the district. It was not a debt repayment mechanism in any way, shape or form.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Bunk is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 08:58 PM   #5318
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
So, using your math, not only Saddledome and the land it sits on are worth nothing, they actually have negative value?.
... pretty much yes. I mean We're talking 12-25m in demolition and environmental remediation costs. Is the dirt under the dome valued in excess of that? If no then that would be correct... it has negative value. Regardless it's no where near the 275M dollars CSEC wants the city to lose.

They wouldn't give you the dome... you likely don't have the money to cover ongoing maintenance so after it bankrupts you the city would likely have to expropriate it to prevent it from becoming a health hazard.
Parallex is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 09:31 PM   #5319
stone hands
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Also the flames want the city to buy the land and demolish the dome, so there's that(to the tune of about 55M or so according to the city, unless something has changed)
stone hands is offline  
Old 04-25-2018, 09:40 PM   #5320
taxbuster
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame View Post
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.
I wonder what the non-hockey crowd thinks? The businesses in the outlying areas that are paying through their butts (and passing it on to customers), the taxpayers everywhere who couldn't give two figs about the Oilers....

If I were one, I'd be pretty ticked off. Huge expense. Zero value (to me).

Would NOT be happy if Calgary followed the same funding model as I'm now (back) paying property taxes there.
taxbuster is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:08 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy