[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Torture]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

I feel you should be the broken Jack in a Box on broken toy island. The deal was made. These are tack ons and not defined as your description above. Lalala.

Whatever that means, okay. I'm the broken jack in a box on broken toy island.

Mods, can I get a title change from "Loves teh Chat" plz?

[smiggy77]

My guess is that Jyotis office tried to renegotiate the previous agreement which pissed off CSES. They were already on the hook for overruns and now the City is identifying additional things they want included, which isn’t technically an overrun, it’s a change to the agreement.

Pretty #### by the City to try to change an already agreed upon agreement imo.

[PepsiFree]

Kind of fascinating watching people vocally against government spending in most areas turn 180 and criticise the government for, in their words, looking for a better deal and to avoid spending more money.

Would the fiscal conservative angle here be to happily let CSEC walk away if they won’t pony up the cash? Why are we so passionately for blowing this much money on an entertainment venue? People got mad about $100k to Quebec when that money could be used to help Calgarians. Imagine what a few hundred million could do.

That said, I would be surprised if this doesn’t blow over. And even more surprised if the Flames move. Relocation isn’t a desirable option for the NHL in this circumstance.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Joborule

This is ####ed for Gondek/city to be trying to alter a deal that's been agreed upon. With the current information, I'm on the Flames side. If that small sum isn't really that big of a deal to Gondek, then the city should pay for it. Which sounds like it's suppose to.

I thought we were done with this ####. Just get it over with. Otherwise I wouldn't blame Flames ownership saying #### it, sell the team, and move.

The city will be able to easily generate $9m with events and tourism with this building, they are stupid if they blow this over only 9m. I'm siding with the Flames here, too.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

I feel you should be the broken Jack in a Box on broken toy island. The deal was made. These are tack ons and not defined as your description above. Lalala.

On second thought you probably work down at the city. Lol

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

The mayor is on the offensive. So i can bet they have. Goodbye Calgary Flames and a descent venue for musical events.

Would you be open to a venue with ascent?

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by Torture

The solar panels were ALREADY in the proposal before it was added to the DP. There was nothing sneaky.

Were X numbers of solar panel ABC’s originally included in the agreed proposal? And if they were why is the city of Calgary stating it as a condition of DP approval then?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

The mayor is on the offensive. So i can bet they have. Goodbye Calgary Flames and a descent venue for musical events.

There's always the Library....

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

I feel you should be the broken Jack in a Box on broken toy island. The deal was made. These are tack ons and not defined as your description above. Lalala.

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

On second thought you probably work down at the city. Lol

Sweet burn…on yourself?

[Flames in 07]

Meanwhile the flames can probably clear 9 digits and sell it to Houston. Deal with this mayor and this city and their scope creep and changing terms or make a pile of money. Tough call.

[Sec214]

Just watched the press conference, it looks like city is playing the blame game but I have a suspicious feeling the city is the one blowing this #### up wanting to get more money out of the flames owners. She couldn't even produce real figures besides what the city had already agreed to give up.

[cral12]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

??? The Flames blow millions on mediocre players all the time… such a disappointment to read this today and if the gap is less than 10 mill on a 650 mill deal it seems ludicrous.

Yah, they're like a James Neal + Troy Brouwer apart FFS...

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Sweet burn…on yourself?

If working at the City is even a burn.

For the record: I don't.

[Ozy_Flame]

The Flames are backing out the tune of one Zadorov and Lucic.

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

The city will be able to easily generate $9m with events and tourism with this building, they are stupid if they blow this over only 9m. I'm siding with the Flames here, too.

Flames make all the money from the arena, all. of. It.

Sure, hotels and stuff maybe but no penny out of that arena.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by zamler

What is worse, the new Matrix movie or this news.

‘I’m hearing… yes I can confirm that I am hearing the answer to that question is Edmonton is worse.’

[Torture]

Originally Posted by rohara66

Were X numbers of solar panel ABC’s originally included in the agreed proposal? And if they were why is the city of Calgary stating it as a condition of DP approval then?

I listened to the council meeting and they did not specify a number of solar panels they wanted included so I'd guess it's the same as the Flames said they planned to do.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The Flames are backing out the tune of one Zadorov and Lucic.

It's the principle of it. You give in to the city's bs on this, they are just going to keep adding more new scope to it wanting CSEC to pay more and more if it. Gotta draw the line before they keep taking advantage of it.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by rohara66

What gives the city of Calgary the right to ask a developer to include solar panels as a condition of DP approval. That’s a total joke. There is zero industry standard, land use bylaw or building code requirement for solar panels to be included in any construction project. If the city of Calgary wants solar panels then they should pay for them.

The City has a climate resiliency strategy, part of which includes ways in which buildings can reduce their environmental footprint. A lot of those measures are not mandatory, including rooftop solar. Here’s what happened here, since the rooftop is a large surface we asked if they could include rooftop solar. They said they could, but not as a condition of approval, could do if it was a condition of occupancy. This would allow the time to seek a potential partner. We said, ok, that’s reasonable. If they had said no, there is nothing in policy that could enable to us to force them, and we wouldn’t.

[Toonage]

It's like filming a movie in Springfield.