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

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Torture

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.

I heard its one really huge solar panel. About 200 by 85 feet.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by cral12

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

So we just need to buyout road improvements and trade solar panels to Edmonton.

[GioforPM]

Big huge game of chicken. We’ll see who blinks. I don ‘t see a move threat as credible at this point. For one thing, Bettman would need a huge relocation fee equal to an expansion fee, and it would remove any option for AZ.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Toonage

It's like filming a movie in Springfield.

Be sure to let the Flames and Murray Edwards know about the leaving town tax!

[GioforPM]

double post

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Would you be open to a venue with ascent?

Any new arena will have some linguistically laughable moments for you, versus the current existing one. Clearly a misspell, apologies.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 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.

They can’t, actually.

Calgary:
- is financially viable in its current location by any measure
- is profitable
- has significant fan support
- has a government willing to financially support the team (as evidenced by the hundreds of millions in the arena deal)
- have an adequate arena

CSEC:
- has not searched for a reputable buyer that would keep the team in Calgary
- could operate the team in a more fiscally responsible manner

Relocation:
- would adversely affect a traditional rivalry

All these things stand in the way of relocation, and at least some of them would have to change.

[CliffFletcher]

CSEC have been dragging this out for almost a decade trying to force a better deal. And now they’re set to be shovel-ready at a time of dramatic cost escalation. Edwards has nobody to blame but himself.

[nieuwy-89]

Sad and disappointing news on a sad and disappointing day.

I negotiate big infrastructure deals as a career (bigger than this) and the difference between making a deal or not always comes down to egos. Sad but true.

[White Out 403]

The idea that the league would allow the Flames to leave Calgary is laughable. Csec can #### off. Good for the mayor.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Bunk

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.

Thanks for the detail. What's the difference between a condition of approval and a condition of occupancy? Why would the Flames agree to one and not the other.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by Bunk

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.

That’s good to know. And typically how these green initiatives play out.

I don’t know the specifics of $3m or $4m for climate items are but that certainly can’t be all solar related. So what is the mayor referring to then?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I can't be the only one bored to death of this process. Either do it or don't, just ####ing be done with it and that's that.

[kermitology]

It’s very clear that many of you have never had to build something new in any city let alone Calgary. I had to dedicate 3m x 3m corner of my property in order to get a subdivision approved, which cost me thousands of dollars and definitely took years off of my life. Fighting for relaxations, dealing with details during build, increases in costs.. this is all part of building things. How many of you muppets who are mad at the city and Gondek, are also mad about your taxes? This stupid deal for exclusive use of a publicly funded “event centre” is making your taxes go up. Pick a lane.

[Sec214]

13500 BTC to buy the Flames, that should do it.

[Flame On]

Hasn't the City already spent a fair bit on this with consultations, architect plans etc. Could they go after CSEC for these funds?

[bubbsy]

Man, I don't even care to debate right or wrong here. After where we've been, and suddenly where we are back again in the past few weeks, this is just upsetting.

[Heavy Jack]

Could CP crowdfund ownership of the flames?? You guys want to own the team?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They can’t, actually.

Calgary:
- is financially viable in its current location by any measure
- is profitable
- has significant fan support
- has a government willing to financially support the team (as evidenced by the hundreds of millions in the arena deal)
- have an adequate arena

CSEC:
- has not searched for a reputable buyer that would keep the team in Calgary
- could operate the team in a more fiscally responsible manner

Relocation:
- would adversely affect a traditional rivalry

All these things stand in the way of relocation, and at least some of them would have to change.

Relocation would also eliminate a future expansion fee. Seattle just paid $650M to enter the NHL, which is basically the cost of this entire arena.
Why would the NHL let the Flames move to another market that could be a future expansion?

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by kermitology

It’s very clear that many of you have never had to build something new in any city let alone Calgary. I had to dedicate 3m x 3m corner of my property in order to get a subdivision approved, which cost me thousands of dollars and definitely took years off of my life. Fighting for relaxations, dealing with details during build, increases in costs.. this is all part of building things. How many of you muppets who are mad at the city and Gondek, are also mad about your taxes? This stupid deal for exclusive use of a publicly funded “event centre” is making your taxes go up. Pick a lane.

Thank you for this.

This is very realistic. The city is 90% bureaucratic, not responsive to small business and always involved in Ascent of taxes.

When it comes to any issue they are involved they employ the top law firm in Calgary at taxpayer expense. So you cannot hire a better team to combat them.

People are blind.