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

[Kipper_3434]

I would rather the city just buy the team, build their own arena and keep all the profits. Sure it would cost 1.2B or more , but at least its better than getting virtually nothing for 1/4 of the price. Then we can.......ELECT a GM . (only mostly joking)

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Looch City

The city should come back with agreeing to pay the $19mil extra and instating CMCL as the lead again.

And then watch the billionaires be pissed once again lol

I don't get why this is considered such a big prize for the city. Under the deal CSEC is responsible for cost overages. Given that it makes 100% sense that they should have a project manager of their choosing. Nenshi in July entirely endorsed this position as fair.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'm not sure this is true. CSEC has agreed to cost overruns but not add-ons.

From everything that I'm reading is that this is a "scope addition" that was tacked on after the agreement and as a condition of the permitting process.

So yeah, I'd be pissed if I was building my house that this requirement was never identified by the city and all of the sudden said I had to pay an additional $25,000 (for example) to put solar on my house "because climate", and it was a condition for whether or not I get to build the house at all now.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Wow a lot of people sure buy into what CSEC is selling hook line and sinker. Seems pretty obvious why the mayor wanted to try and get ahead of this. She knew the drones would be out for blood once the Flames started pointing fingers.

This explains why ownership negotiates this way. They know the general populace of sports fans, even conservatives, don’t actually care about fiscal responsibility as long as the money is being wasted on pretty things they like and not stupid libraries or art projects that only liberal elites can enjoy.

And all just so that the owner can take more of your money and double ticket prices for the same product!

This is like the ultimate grift.

4M climate mitigation

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Envitro

From everything that I'm reading is that this is a "scope addition" that was tacked on after the agreement and as a condition of the permitting process.

So yeah, I'd be pissed if I was building my house that this requirement was never identified by the city and all of the sudden said I had to pay an additional $25,000 (for example) to put solar on my house "because climate"...

Not only that a lot of this scope addition has the smell of Jyoti and the new city council priorities baked into the DP process. What I'm hearing is that the new environmental policies and changes in city administration is making this harder by imposing new priorities on development.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Envitro

From everything that I'm reading is that this is a "scope addition" that was tacked on after the agreement and as a condition of the permitting process.

So yeah, I'd be pissed if I was building my house that this requirement was never identified by the city and all of the sudden said I had to pay an additional $25,000 (for example) to put solar on my house "because climate", and it was a condition for whether or not I get to build the house at all now.

1) The city is already paying for large portion of your house
2) You're a billionaire, pay the extra few % and gfto

[Scary Eloranta]

We can debate all we want on who's to blame for this fiasco (I personally blame both sides for being inept), but now that it's dead, what's next? They say they'll stay in the Saddledome but for how long? You can't do anything more to it and they're never going to build a new one with their own money so I guess in a few years they say that's it, we're moving to Houston? There doesn't appear to be any positive outcome right now.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Looch City

1) The city is already paying for large portion of your house
2) You're a billionaire, pay the extra few % and gfto

So because the majority owner of CSEC is a billionaire, he needs to be shaken down at every turn and pay for whatever garbage the planning commission at the direction of the mayor and city council insists?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Looch City

1) The city is already paying for large portion of your house
2) You're a billionaire, pay the extra few % and gfto

Because you are well off you should pay more? Good luck getting investment into the city with that logic

[PepsiFree]

I personally would be stoked if the city paid for half my house. Even if they said "you have to put solar panels on it." Solar panels? To save me a couple hundred grand+? Where can I get that deal? Anyone here want to turn it down?

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Because you are well off you should pay more? Good luck getting investment into the city with that logic

Yes that's exactly it. And don't forget these people will be raking in the cash with ticket prices going up when the new arena is built.

There's absolutely no reason to grovel to these billionaires.

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I don't get why this is considered such a big prize for the city. Under the deal CSEC is responsible for cost overages. Given that it makes 100% sense that they should have a project manager of their choosing. Nenshi in July entirely endorsed this position as fair.

I think because most people can see the Flames ownership and leadership are at best mediocre, and honestly more likely bottom quartile for pro-sports.

I saw Calgary Next (an absolute embarrassment). I see how terrible our concessions are vs. almost anywhere else. I deal with crowds because somebody wants to fill the concourse with trucks. I notice the lack of entertainment at the dome vs. other arenas. I see the years of sucking as we make bizarre hires and don't hold them accountable.

In contrast, CMLC has a visible track record of really high quality projects throughout Calgary which make the city a better place.

If we want a great arena, we don't want the Flames involved at all.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

We can debate all we want on who's to blame for this fiasco (I personally blame both sides for being inept), but now that it's dead, what's next? They say they'll stay in the Saddledome but for how long? You can't do anything more to it and they're never going to build a new one with their own money so I guess in a few years they say that's it, we're moving to Houston? There doesn't appear to be any positive outcome right now.

What's next is the pretty much the exact same thing that happened the last time the Flames said they were walking away. They come back to the bargaining table when the city makes concessions so that they get a better deal.

[kermitology]

Maybe if the Flames stopped buying so much Zadorov toast they could afford a new house. That's what I keep being told to do.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

If we want a great arena, we don't want the Flames involved at all.

Then we should be paying for 100% of the cost overages. It's perfectly reasonable for the Flames to insist on a project manager of their choice if they are paying 100% for cost overages.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I personally would be stoked if the city paid for half my house. Even if they said "you have to put solar panels on it." Solar panels? To save me a couple hundred grand+? Where can I get that deal? Anyone here want to turn it down?

I'm pretty sure it's not a function of who is paying for what here at this point. The city is imposing new conditions as part of permitting that didn't exist in July when the deal was struck.

Sure, ultimately they'll have to figure out who pays for this as partners, but this is a net-new cost that wasn't even remotely considered at the time because it was never identified as a requirement by the city. All of the sudden now it is.

I think that's the issue at the heart of it. I'd imagine CSEC is thinking "what's next?"

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Seems pretty obvious why the mayor wanted to try and get ahead of this. She knew the drones would be out for blood once the Flames started pointing fingers.

Yes that's it for sure. It's not like in her short term she's put her name out there and used her platform to say anything controversial. That's never happened as she's totally laid low.

[Wormius]

Is it at all possible that their project manager failed to take any of this into account, which is why the City had to make an amendment?

[GirlySports]

There are some weird analogies in here. Forget how rich anyone is or how much the money is or what the money is for.

The fact is simple. The deal was agreed on in July. Cost overruns would still be split 50./50 even if it's a billion. But add-ons, that's a breach and that's the line drawn by CSEC. What if the city keeps adding more? Like underground C-Train station, or pedestrian bridge or bike lanes right to the door o whatever?

[FlatLandFlamesFan]

Dear GOD what a Fn' letdown , after all these years ...
I will still blame those idiots in Edmonton the deal they gave Katz was obscene

For me this reeks of how costs have changed in the last 2 years and CSEC looking for an out on a deal that keeps getting more and more pricey for them.
And the City going F U your lucky we gave you the deal we did.

well Merry Christmas all