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

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Locke

You know...Gondek doesnt have the same degree of faith from Calgary voters that Nenshi had...if the Flames ran a puppet Mayor in the next election it might actually work...

Then we would really have to embrace our overlords...maybe Edwards would just run himself?

I'm not saying he was anything resembling Bill "The Puppet" Smith, but Davison essentially ran as the 'arena guy' and got slaughtered.

I'm not sure who could combine Farkas-style Conservative Blowhardism with Corporate Welfare (aside from maybe that horrible orange man down south).

[just_tim]

Long time lurker whose always enjoyed the discussions. First post. 20 years a season ticket holder but now retired and they’ve been passed to my son. What I have to add is pretty simple. In any partnership, once trust is lost, there is very little hope of that relationship being successful long term, at least with all the same players at the table. I don’t care if CSEC is the bad guy, the good guy or whatever. Fact is, the deal was negotiated to be 50/50. The July renegotiation pegged the City’s contribution, upped CSEC’s percentage and pinned all the design and construction cost increases on CSEC. These are not insignificant concessions to keep the build moving. However, when your partner is also in charge of issuing permits and they change the requirements after they protected themselves, the outcome was inevitable. Add to that, the deadline was Dec 31, so there was zero reason for Madame Mayor to go to Twitter when she did. It was a BS grandstanding stunt. And it worked! Even here on a decidedly pro-Flames forum, the owners are being vilified. Had she kept quiet, worked to find common ground in the background like a servant leader should, there *might* have been a possibility to solve it prior to the deadline. This might eventually get solved, but all parties will likely end up spending more, and the parties negotiating will probably have to change. The last deal didn’t get any traction until Jeff Davidson and some private citizens stepped in. This isn’t about money. It’s about ever-shifting goalposts.

[Strange Brew]

A favorable arena deal is worth hundreds of millions in franchise valuation. CSEC would want to get this worked out before selling.

For moving to be a credible threat, you need another city courting Edwards with a sweetheart arena deal. Those aren't out there right now and they take time to develop.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by just_tim

Even here on a decidedly pro-Flames forum, the owners are being vilified.

Forgive me for not feeling bad for billionaires.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The owners have also been vilified at every stage of this negotiation, not just now. So acting like this recent turn of events has somehow turned everyone against the owners is ridiculous. Go read any other version of this thread, and you'll be bored because this thread is just a rerun of previous versions. But it's not like people have become more or less against the owners. Pretty much a case of "same ####, different thread". Here is the crucial post of this thread, because it really is the truth.

Originally Posted by getbak

No, of course they're not serious, same as any suggestion that they'll be redesigning the BMO because of this.

CSEC is out getting its shills to dance for them, so the city is doing the same. It's all just theatre.

Everyone knows where this is going, just like the other half dozen times in the last few years when CSEC has declared they were going to play at the Saddledome forever because the city doesn't like them.

This is gonna be playing out for a while. Chill the #### out, don't start going off the deep end. It's annoying this is being re-litigated, but here we are.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Forgive me for not feeling bad for billionaires.

You dont have to feel bad for them or anyone.

No one is asking you for 'thoughts and prayers for our hard-done-by woebegone' Billionaires.

This is an important project for this City and at some point the amateur hour nonsense has to stop.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Locke

You dont have to feel bad for them or anyone.

No one is asking you for 'thoughts and prayers for our hard-done-by woebegone' Billionaires.

This is an important project for this City and at some point the amateur hour nonsense has to stop.

And it will be.

[cral12]

I've seen nuggets of posts breaking down what's happened between cities and owners in other NHL cities, but haven't seen (or missed if posted) a full breakdown. Has anyone seen an article highlighting this?

(probabaly I should check to see if Freeway has done such a breakdown at Flames Nation).

[carmenshoes]

I don't see what is the problem with the Saddledome. Ya it's old but it's still bigger than arena's like the MTS Centre.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by just_tim

Long time lurker whose always enjoyed the discussions. First post. 20 years a season ticket holder but now retired and they’ve been passed to my son. What I have to add is pretty simple. In any partnership, once trust is lost, there is very little hope of that relationship being successful long term, at least with all the same players at the table. I don’t care if CSEC is the bad guy, the good guy or whatever. Fact is, the deal was negotiated to be 50/50. The July renegotiation pegged the City’s contribution, upped CSEC’s percentage and pinned all the design and construction cost increases on CSEC. These are not insignificant concessions to keep the build moving. However, when your partner is also in charge of issuing permits and they change the requirements after they protected themselves, the outcome was inevitable. Add to that, the deadline was Dec 31, so there was zero reason for Madame Mayor to go to Twitter when she did. It was a BS grandstanding stunt. And it worked! Even here on a decidedly pro-Flames forum, the owners are being vilified. Had she kept quiet, worked to find common ground in the background like a servant leader should, there *might* have been a possibility to solve it prior to the deadline. This might eventually get solved, but all parties will likely end up spending more, and the parties negotiating will probably have to change. The last deal didn’t get any traction until Jeff Davidson and some private citizens stepped in. This isn’t about money. It’s about ever-shifting goalposts.

You omit the fact that CSEC was effectively buying CMLC off the deal...something that may have had a lot to do with the recent "confusion" over these red herring costs.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is an important project for this City and at some point the amateur hour nonsense has to stop.

So important for the City that CSEC released a report "detailing the economic benefits of a new sports arena" years ago and promptly removed it once people looked at it for more than 10 minutes?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

So important for the City that CSEC released a report "detailing the economic benefits of a new sports arena" years ago and promptly removed it once people looked at it for more than 10 minutes?

I know. I've never said anything other than that I understand that the Economics of it are difficult to quantify and murky at best, but I definitely believe that it actually is an important endeavour for our City.

[La Flames Fan]

This article will probably answer a few questions:

Confused about Calgary's collapsed arena deal? City hall reporter Scott Dippel answers some FAQs

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ium%3Dsharebar

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by just_tim

However, when your partner is also in charge of issuing permits and they change the requirements after they protected themselves, the outcome was inevitable.

The City did not change requirements. There isn't an agreed to designed building in a deal, and then an approval process "changes" it. An application goes through a process, and the cost is based on what is approved.

In this case, every development is responsible for cost of the sidewalk to the curb. If the project tears up the sidewalk and it needs replacing, that's the developer's responsibility. Always. What reasonable expectation be that this would be different? The City agreed to step into costs outside the curb-line in the roadway that often would be developer responsibility. The applicant decided the climate mitigation elements, including rooftop solar and actions to get to net zero were things they wanted.

Again, had the Flames not wanted to do things like rooftop solar, the a) shouldn't have agreed to it b) had the conditions codifying their inclusion removed by the approval authority at CPC in Nov, or c) if they still have buyers remorse, appealed the DP all the way up to mid-December. They didn't do any of these things. Beyond that, the condition was structured, at their request, to buy time to seek partners to pay for it. Even then, the Mayor offered to assist in finding funding sources to cover that cost. They still walked away.

They cite an $81.5m cost overrun. But about 90% of the attention is toward either $4m or $10m of that $81.5 as "the reason" for the Flames walking away from the deal. What does that sound like to you?

[Manhattanboy]

Here's a question - as season ticket holders my bro and I participated in a few focus group sessions put on by the Flames on the design of the new arena. I thought they were quite well done. The organizers took down all of our comments, from parking to concessions to bathrooms.

Did the City do any similar focus groups? I can't recall.

I was thinking about this in the context of a plebiscite. Surely the City must know where an arena ranks on the wish list of Calgarians (assuming of course City funds are being committed).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Here's a question - as season ticket holders my bro and I participated in a few focus group sessions put on by the Flames on the design of the new arena. I thought they were quite well done. The organizers took down all of our comments, from parking to concessions to bathrooms.

Did the City do any similar focus groups? I can't recall.

I was thinking about this in the context of a plebiscite. Surely the City must know where an arena ranks on the wish list of Calgarians (assuming of course City funds are being committed).

It might be tough to gather from a Flames forum, but I honestly think if the general public were given the option of voting for or against an arena, and the Flames in general, the results would be pretty disappointing for those who think everyone in the city supports it. I wouldn't be surprised if it only garnered 30% support.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by just_tim

Long time lurker whose always enjoyed the discussions. First post. 20 years a season ticket holder but now retired and they’ve been passed to my son. What I have to add is pretty simple. In any partnership, once trust is lost, there is very little hope of that relationship being successful long term, at least with all the same players at the table. I don’t care if CSEC is the bad guy, the good guy or whatever. Fact is, the deal was negotiated to be 50/50. The July renegotiation pegged the City’s contribution, upped CSEC’s percentage and pinned all the design and construction cost increases on CSEC. These are not insignificant concessions to keep the build moving. However, when your partner is also in charge of issuing permits and they change the requirements after they protected themselves, the outcome was inevitable. Add to that, the deadline was Dec 31, so there was zero reason for Madame Mayor to go to Twitter when she did. It was a BS grandstanding stunt. And it worked! Even here on a decidedly pro-Flames forum, the owners are being vilified. Had she kept quiet, worked to find common ground in the background like a servant leader should, there *might* have been a possibility to solve it prior to the deadline. This might eventually get solved, but all parties will likely end up spending more, and the parties negotiating will probably have to change. The last deal didn’t get any traction until Jeff Davidson and some private citizens stepped in. This isn’t about money. It’s about ever-shifting goalposts.

I mostly agree, particularly with the bold.

This isn't about the roof panels or the sidewalk, it's about escalating costs, and two sides that can't play nice together (the trust is non-existent).

Can they start the negotiations over? Sure. Will it be any different? Will it be any less money? No, it will continue to go up (even if the current pressures are alleviated). But most importantly, the same egos will get in the way for the same reasons they have in the past.

IMO, we need new players. Not sure how that happens, but it HAS to happen at this point. I am not blaming the owners here (entirely), but we need a change. Too many bridges have bene burned.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It might be tough to gather from a Flames forum, but I honestly think if the general public were given the option of voting for or against an arena, and the Flames in general, the results would be pretty disappointing for those who think everyone in the city supports it. I wouldn't be surprised if it only garnered 30% support.

This is why most things aren't put to a vote - most things would be voted down. The recent Olympics are one example, but it's largely true. Had they had a vote for the music center or the new library, would they have passed? If they had a vote for a stretch of highway, or a train #cough#lrt, would they pass?

The bottom line is that the majority of people don't use most things. And if you ask them to vote, they'll only vote for things that they want. And then nothing gets built.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is why most things aren't put to a vote - most things would be voted down. The recent Olympics are one example, but it's largely true. Had they had a vote for the music center or the new library, would they have passed? If they had a vote for a stretch of highway, or a train #cough#lrt, would they pass?

The bottom line is that the majority of people don't use most things. And if you ask them to vote, they'll only vote for things that they want. And then nothing gets built.

This is true and it’s usually based on a significant lack of information. Example: how much did this deal cost the average homeowner?

[Vinny01]

I believe it was Serivali on the radio earlier this week who pointed the finger at the Flames on this and there is no way they leave town and if they did leave another team would jump at the opportunity to relocate here and partner with the city on a new arena.

Flames are not leaving a market that has a huge fan base and a city that is willing to partner on a deal.