Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[driveway]

It’s pretty clear it doesn’t make any economic sense for the public to invest in a new building. The question is if it makes emotional sense, and how much. That’s the real number the Flames owners will be able to get from the public.

[marsplasticeraser]

When did the roof become the #1 problem? Having a better roof to entice more popular bands coming as a nice to have, and surely isn't the foundation to spend $600million? Is it? I haven't heard that as the driving force for a new arena.

I'd assumed the mention of the need for a better roof for concerts was always a ploy by owners to justify more public funds on what will primarily be a NHL hockey arena

On a related note, a lot of bands skip Calgary/Edmonton as they're too isolated and add 1 day pre/post for transport. Coming here just isn't as lucrative as almost any where in the US. Toronto/Montreal easy to add to Eastern US tours and Vancouver added to West Coast tours. A new roof will mean we still see lots of bands going to Vancouver and not calgary.

Originally Posted by RM14

None of this solves the #1 problem. The roof isn't safe to bear the weight of the modern event equipment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Does the Dome provide a good enough experience to entice fans to continue spending their money there? And the answer, from every STHer that I have seen or heard respond, is a resounding 'NO!"

That is a separate conversation from determining how a building should be funded.

But in and of itself, as a single item of conversation, the Dome is a dump. And people will stop supporting the team in increasing numbers, if it remains the status quo.

I fully expect other people to respond with "Waaa!" when people complain about the washrooms, and the cold water, and such. Yes, we are very fortunate to be able to buy STs. But that doesn't change the fact, or diminish the fact that, in its current state, many of us will stop buying.

Which brings me back to how I kicked it off: if not now, when?

I hear a lot about how bad the experience is now, and how eventually people are going to stop renewing, but the fact is that the experience is bad now and all these people who say they’ll eventually stop renewing have not yet stopped.

I just don’t know if it really holds any water. It’s probably an inevitability, sure, but it’s not like the Dome became a dump yesterday, and people are still coming in droves, so for practicality’s sake it seems like we can push this quite a bit further than we’ve pushed it so far.

The proof is in the pudding. If STH keep talking about how they’re going to drop out if the experience doesn’t improve, and renew anyways year after year, it doesn’t seem like a serious matter. It might be, if they ever did what they said, but the warning of “eventually we won’t stand for this” while you spending thousands of dollar standing for it isn’t one worth heeding, yet.

EDIT: On further thought, it reminds me of enablers. By paying for an inferior product, you’re enabling them to keep pumping it out without worrying too much. And rest assured, they know you’ll keep paying for it, so when it comes to the next big arena, the focus won’t be appeasing fans who will pay for the Dome experience despite it being a dump, the focus will be on getting more money from those people - period.

If you’ll pay silver for trash, someone knows you’ll pay gold for shiny trash.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

When did the roof become the #1 problem? Having a better roof to entice more popular bands coming as a nice to have, and surely isn't the foundation to spend $600million? Is it? I haven't heard that as the driving force for a new arena.

I'd assumed the mention of the need for a better roof for concerts was always a ploy by owners to justify more public funds on what will primarily be a NHL hockey arena

On a related note, a lot of bands skip Calgary/Edmonton as they're too isolated and add 1 day pre/post for transport. Coming here just isn't as lucrative as almost any where in the US. Toronto/Montreal easy to add to Eastern US tours and Vancouver added to West Coast tours. A new roof will mean we still see lots of bands going to Vancouver and not calgary.

I meant in the sense of the #1 reason renovating would be a waste of money.

[Enoch Root]

Those articles almost invariably come from academics who also often require public funding in various forms. They often display a strong tendency to dismiss any potential benefits that are difficult to quantify or are at all subjective in nature.

And the idea that the spending is highly substitutable also probably misses the mark, as it looks at spending as a 'single game choice'. Seasons ticket holders (which compose the vast majority of the spending) are not going to spend several thousands of dollars 'going to the movies or bowling'. They are far more likely to substitute that kind of spending on things like travel.

I've read several studies on this, and I find them dubious at best, if not highly biased.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You must be able to see the difference between a library and a privately owned for profit business.

This is a condescending and false dichotomy argument though. They are only different from a functionality and purpose perspective. From a taxpayers' view - they are similar. Taxpayers' money is being spent on something that is perceived to be public good by the government-in-power. What do you think the response would be to Apple, Google or Microsoft willing to build a new campus in Calgary in exchange for public funding? So, there are at least some similarities in the approach.

Library, Bell Centre, Drop-in Centre, Fieldhouse, Bow Towers are all built using public funds to address some public needs - cultural, charitable, safety, well-being etc. Those public needs are somehow conveyed to the government and selected to be addressed using priorities, which we, the public, have very little insight information about. It's fair to guess, however, these priorities are based on which public groups are more vocal, more influential, more needy. Also, they are based on Council dynamics (in case of a municipality), i.e. the balance of councillors pro-business vs. pro-social, pro-conservative vs. pro-liberal etc. Do you think Library construction would have passed a referendum vote if only the taxpayers would have voted? I am not so sure. And I would have voted "yes".

It is absolutely fair to say that to the tens of thousands of Calgary taxpayers, the new arena is very important; perhaps, more important than a new library or a new fieldhouse building. Dismissing this notion is unproductive.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is a condescending and false dichotomy argument though. They are only different from a functionality and purpose perspective. From a taxpayers' view - they are similar. Taxpayers' money is being spent on something that is perceived to be public good by the government-in-power. What do you think the response would be to Apple, Google or Microsoft willing to build a new campus in Calgary in exchange for public funding? So, there are at least some similarities in the approach.

Library, Bell Centre, Drop-in Centre, Fieldhouse, Bow Towers are all built using public funds to address some public needs - cultural, charitable, safety, well-being etc. Those public needs are somehow conveyed to the government and selected to be addressed using priorities, which we, the public, have very little insight information about. It's fair to guess, however, these priorities are based on which public groups are more vocal, more influential, more needy. Also, they are based on Council dynamics (in case of a municipality), i.e. the balance of councillors pro-business vs. pro-social, pro-conservative vs. pro-liberal etc. Do you think Library construction would have passed a referendum vote if only the taxpayers would have voted? I am not so sure. And I would have voted "yes".

It is absolutely fair to say that to the tens of thousands of Calgary taxpayers, the new arena is very important; perhaps, more important than a new library or a new fieldhouse building. Dismissing this notion is unproductive.

sooooo the answer to his question is no then?

[flamesforcup]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is a condescending and false dichotomy argument though. They are only different from a functionality and purpose perspective. From a taxpayers' view - they are similar. Taxpayers' money is being spent on something that is perceived to be public good by the government-in-power. What do you think the response would be to Apple, Google or Microsoft willing to build a new campus in Calgary in exchange for public funding? So, there are at least some similarities in the approach.

Library, Bell Centre, Drop-in Centre, Fieldhouse, Bow Towers are all built using public funds to address some public needs - cultural, charitable, safety, well-being etc. Those public needs are somehow conveyed to the government and selected to be addressed using priorities, which we, the public, have very little insight information about. It's fair to guess, however, these priorities are based on which public groups are more vocal, more influential, more needy. Also, they are based on Council dynamics (in case of a municipality), i.e. the balance of councillors pro-business vs. pro-social, pro-conservative vs. pro-liberal etc. Do you think Library construction would have passed a referendum vote if only the taxpayers would have voted? I am not so sure. And I would have voted "yes".

It is absolutely fair to say that to the tens of thousands of Calgary taxpayers, the new arena is very important; perhaps, more important than a new library or a new fieldhouse building. Dismissing this notion is unproductive.

Im pretty sure the library would pass after a vote it is free to use and anyone can go use it. Its way different from funding an arena for a team thats gonna turn around and increase prices by 50% everywhere and try to gouge the fans. If there is a vote whether to give the Flames public money or move i think the citizens would vote for Murrey to #### off.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Those articles almost invariably come from academics who also often require public funding in various forms. They often display a strong tendency to dismiss any potential benefits that are difficult to quantify or are at all subjective in nature.

And the idea that the spending is highly substitutable also probably misses the mark, as it looks at spending as a 'single game choice'. Seasons ticket holders (which compose the vast majority of the spending) are not going to spend several thousands of dollars 'going to the movies or bowling'. They are far more likely to substitute that kind of spending on things like travel.

I've read several studies on this, and I find them dubious at best, if not highly biased.

I don't think the season ticket money is really the money they refer to though is it? Its the money you spend outside the stadium on game nights. I'm guessing if people go from having tickets to not having season tickets they are still going to go out and spend that money at restaurants and other activities. They are not just going to be hermits. They will put their 10k in the bank or travel or whatever.

The season ticket money doesn't really support the local economy in that sense though.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I see we have made it full circle and are starting at the beginning again. I can't wait for this to be announced so we can set up the webcam to watch the progress.

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Those articles almost invariably come from academics who also often require public funding in various forms. They often display a strong tendency to dismiss any potential benefits that are difficult to quantify or are at all subjective in nature.

And the idea that the spending is highly substitutable also probably misses the mark, as it looks at spending as a 'single game choice'. Seasons ticket holders (which compose the vast majority of the spending) are not going to spend several thousands of dollars 'going to the movies or bowling'. They are far more likely to substitute that kind of spending on things like travel.

I've read several studies on this, and I find them dubious at best, if not highly biased.

Any counter studies that reveal otherwise? This is the problem if I have with the arguments in favor of public funding. (Full disclosure, I support some level of public funding). The amounts of funding CSEC have asked for have not been backed up by solid data to support the economic claims. When an entity is asking for public funding the onus is on them to justify it. This bar has yet to be met, and for good reason. There really aren't any studies out there--to my knowledge--to support the economic claims put forth by pro sports franchises.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Locke

Ooooh racing stripes. Looks fast and efficient.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by flamesforcup

Im pretty sure the library would pass after a vote it is free to use and anyone can go use it. Its way different from funding an arena for a team thats gonna turn around and increase prices by 50% everywhere and try to gouge the fans. If there is a vote whether to give the Flames public money or move i think the citizens would vote for Murrey to #### off.

I think you're giving too much credit to the general population on this. Most people aren't that generous and would rather keep their tax dollars than spend money on something very little people will ever use... Especially calgarians/albertans who have a history of being really conservative with these things.

The government rarely ever allows the general population to vote on sanctioning projects because none would ever be approved (see Olympics). Your vote on the library came with whoever you voted into office because you gave them power to sanction it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Any counter studies that reveal otherwise? This is the problem if I have with the arguments in favor of public funding. (Full disclosure, I support some level of public funding). The amounts of funding CSEC have asked for have not been backed up by solid data to support the economic claims. When an entity is asking for public funding the onus is on them to justify it. This bar has yet to be met, and for good reason. There really aren't any studies out there--to my knowledge--to support the economic claims put forth by pro sports franchises.

I have seen a couple that are more inclusive of the potential benefits. And of course, they are always labelled as biased by those that believe the benefits don't exist.

Most research papers, in my experience, tend to find what they are looking for (i.e. conclude what they wanted to conclude).

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is a condescending and false dichotomy argument though. They are only different from a functionality and purpose perspective. From a taxpayers' view - they are similar. Taxpayers' money is being spent on something that is perceived to be public good by the government-in-power. What do you think the response would be to Apple, Google or Microsoft willing to build a new campus in Calgary in exchange for public funding? So, there are at least some similarities in the approach.

Library, Bell Centre, Drop-in Centre, Fieldhouse, Bow Towers are all built using public funds to address some public needs - cultural, charitable, safety, well-being etc. Those public needs are somehow conveyed to the government and selected to be addressed using priorities, which we, the public, have very little insight information about. It's fair to guess, however, these priorities are based on which public groups are more vocal, more influential, more needy. Also, they are based on Council dynamics (in case of a municipality), i.e. the balance of councillors pro-business vs. pro-social, pro-conservative vs. pro-liberal etc. Do you think Library construction would have passed a referendum vote if only the taxpayers would have voted? I am not so sure. And I would have voted "yes".

It is absolutely fair to say that to the tens of thousands of Calgary taxpayers, the new arena is very important; perhaps, more important than a new library or a new fieldhouse building. Dismissing this notion is unproductive.

My God man, it's not the least bit condescending to ask if someone appreciates the difference between a library and a for profit enterprise. Only different from a functionality and purpose perspective? If the City was building a 18,000 seat community arena for all Calgarians to use to enrich their lives then perhaps I would agree with you.

But I'm pretty sure the city is being asked to subsidize a for profit business.

I most certainly want to see a new arena built. I want the Flames to continue to play in Calgary during my lifetime.

But the argument and the economics have to make sense. There are lots of businesses that would love public money and there are lots of government services that need funding.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I don't think the season ticket money is really the money they refer to though is it? Its the money you spend outside the stadium on game nights. I'm guessing if people go from having tickets to not having season tickets they are still going to go out and spend that money at restaurants and other activities. They are not just going to be hermits. They will put their 10k in the bank or travel or whatever.

The season ticket money doesn't really support the local economy in that sense though.

But I would counter that STHs aren't going to the movies 41 times. Even if we're only talking about the money spent 'around the game', the same things apply. If not for the tickets getting me out 41 times (or whatever), and thus going to dinner beforehand, or for a drink afterwards, that money is not being reallocated in other local events, for the most part.

I think a similar case can be made for concerts. If your favourite band doesn't come to your city, you don't go bowling instead, you go to another city to see them (if you're able).

Obviously everyone is different. And different people make different choices. But aggregately, to suggest that everyone is just going to spend that money down the street at the next establishment, is too flimsy of a conclusion to warrants the economic statement that there are no benefits to an arena.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Any counter studies that reveal otherwise? This is the problem if I have with the arguments in favor of public funding. (Full disclosure, I support some level of public funding). The amounts of funding CSEC have asked for have not been backed up by solid data to support the economic claims. When an entity is asking for public funding the onus is on them to justify it. This bar has yet to be met, and for good reason. There really aren't any studies out there--to my knowledge--to support the economic claims put forth by pro sports franchises.

Well last Saturday I joined some friends in the Stampede Casino bar next to Cowboys after the Flames took down Nashville. The place was jammed and the crowd really did not thin out until nearly last call.

I didn't have to research a paper to see the economic benefit of a pro sports franchise that evening.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

My God man, it's not the least bit condescending to ask if someone appreciates the difference between a library and a for profit enterprise. Only different from a functionality and purpose perspective? If the City was building a 18,000 seat community arena for all Calgarians to use to enrich their lives then perhaps I would agree with you.

But I'm pretty sure the city is being asked to subsidize a for profit business.

I most certainly want to see a new arena built. I want the Flames to continue to play in Calgary during my lifetime.

But the argument and the economics have to make sense. There are lots of businesses that would love public money and there are lots of government services that need funding.

This is where it gets tricky (and I don't pretend to have the answers). But I think it is important to keep the hockey team (a for-profit business) separate from the arena (which the for-profit business needs, but also has other uses and benefits for the community).

The 64,000 question of course, is how much benefit is there for the community? And also, how much subsidy is tolerable, in order to house the for-profit business?

[ST20]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Some of the variables you mentioned are more difficult to measure than others--certainly things such as civic pride etc. But a lot of the studies certainly account for effects on local business and tourism. Here's an excerpt from a quick study I pulled up:

"First, household spending on sports – direct spending on tickets, licensed
merchandise, etc. and indirect spending on food and drinks at or near a
sports facility - is highly substitutable for other forms of entertainment
8
spending like movie tickets, food and drinks in areas of the city far from
the facility, bowling and the like. Professional sport does not induce
residents to increase total spending by drawing on savings or borrowing
against future earnings. Residents maintain their level of entertainment
spending but alter the allocation of this spending toward sport-related
spending and away from other close substitutes. Sports redirect spending
by residents from one part of the local economy to another."

Source: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7068694.pdf

In short, sports-related spending simply provide competing business for entertainment dollars that would have been spent elsewhere.

Just to be clear I'm not trying to argue it's economic. I don't believe it is.

The paper isn't wrong but it's very academic pseudo science. Yes there are many substitutes for entertainment dollars but if you bought two tickets for 100 each and then spent another 100 on food and drink does that mean you'll spend 300 on movie tickets? Maybe? Maybe not. You might decide to save money and take a ski trip in BC or a vacation somewhere else. This is why I don't like arguing the economics of this. I think the dollars that can be clearly tracked aren't a booming economic benefit and wouldn't argue it because then I'd have to say things like maybe having a hockey team made Calgary a more desirable place to live and this is why the head offices of oil and gas companies are in Calgary instead of Edmonton. It's all unprovable and heresay.

What I do know is alot of very smart people in very big cities want a sports team. I enjoy sports and think it does alot of good such as civic pride, teaching young kids, etc. This is why I believe we need new building to keep the team here. How it is paid for is up for debate but because of the public good I don't mind seeing public dollars go to the project. I don't know what the split is but think the owners should she'll out more than half in my very unscientific opinion.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

My God man, it's not the least bit condescending to ask if someone appreciates the difference between a library and a for profit enterprise. Only different from a functionality and purpose perspective? If the City was building a 18,000 seat community arena for all Calgarians to use to enrich their lives then perhaps I would agree with you.

But I'm pretty sure the city is being asked to subsidize a for profit business.

I most certainly want to see a new arena built. I want the Flames to continue to play in Calgary during my lifetime.

But the argument and the economics have to make sense. There are lots of businesses that would love public money and there are lots of government services that need funding.

I'd bet you my house more calgarians will use the new arena then the library and I'm a fan of the library.

It's not solely an economic argument unless you can somehow put value to all the other things a sports team does for a city. If you're looking for an economic argument the answer to a new building and the flames will always be no and it's not wrong depending on what you care about.