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

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Parallex

YMMV but folk don't generally play hot potato "you own it, no you own it, no you own it..." with valuable assets like the two of them did.

Who owns it is really an ancillary issue... I think it was pretty clear that the City wanted to be made whole on it's investment (and they were willing to take a liberal interpretation of "made whole" at that) I don't imagine the current council feels any different so all the Flames (or anyone else) have to do is offer up a % of revenue streams that accomplishes that.

This is wrong on three levels, sorry:

1) They don't push it back and forth. CSEC cannot own the arena, because it is being built on the land, which cannot be subdivided and sold off with the building. So, the ownership question is not trivial, ancillary or irrelevant. The expected appreciation of the land value alone in 40 years could be reasonably expected to support the City's decision to contribute.

2) City's contribution should be based PRIMARILY on its belief in the value of having an NHL franchise. Financial considerations of this ownership come secondary and must be evaluated on the balance of cost of this contribution vs. (direct financial returns + indirect financial returns + non-financial returns). The latter variable is difficult to quantify, of course, because it is zero to people who don't care about it and very high to those who do.

3) % of revenue streams cannot be offered by CSEC, period. You probably meant % of profits, which is meaningful. But this means ownership. And ownership means being on the hook for the liabilities, losses and other obligations, which come with ownership. The City does not want to be in this business and it shouldn't.

[timun]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You are entitled to your opinions, of course. But they suggest that you are likely misinformed.

...

3) Saddledome is a fine arena. I don't care much about it being iconic and beloved. It is a fine building. Well-designed and well-maintained. I am a civil engineer and I know what I'm talking about. The crap about poor acoustics and roof issues are all noise intended to generate the urgency with the politicians and the public. The problem with Saddledome is that it is no longer modern and it cannot be renovated to add a larger number of suites, which generate enormous amount of revenue. One club level box generates approx. $400,000 of rent each season plus huge food and beverage revenue. There are about 20 Club level boxes at the Saddledome. This number could be tripled in a new facility.

There are in fact 72 suites at the Saddledome: 46 at the 100 level, 26 at the top of the 200s. The proposed "Event Centre" design had fewer, not more...

[topfiverecords]

A building can be owned without holding ownership of the land it sits on.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

There are in fact 72 suites at the Saddledome: 46 at the 100 level, 26 at the top of the 200s. The proposed "Event Centre" design had fewer, not more...

New design has 48.

[timun]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is wrong on three levels, sorry:

1) They don't push it back and forth. CSEC cannot own the arena, because it is being built on the land, which cannot be subdivided and sold off with the building. So, the ownership question is not trivial, ancillary or irrelevant. The expected appreciation of the land value alone in 40 years could be reasonably expected to support the City's decision to contribute.

2) City's contribution should be based PRIMARILY on its belief in the value of having an NHL franchise. Financial considerations of this ownership come secondary and must be evaluated on the balance of cost of this contribution vs. (direct financial returns + indirect financial returns + non-financial returns). The latter variable is difficult to quantify, of course, because it is zero to people who don't care about it and very high to those who do.

3) % of revenue streams cannot be offered by CSEC, period. You probably meant % of profits, which is meaningful. But this means ownership. And ownership means being on the hook for the liabilities, losses and other obligations, which come with ownership. The City does not want to be in this business and it shouldn't.

1) CSEC won't build an arena of their own, because they don't want the liability and want taxpayers to pay for it.

2) At least you have the common sense to acknowledge that the only thing the City gets out of a new arena is "non-financial returns", which are essentially fictitious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest.

3) % of revenue streams won't be offered by CSEC, period, for the same reason they don't want to own the building in the first place: why pay for something yourself when you can convince the taxpayers they should pay for it?

[timun]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

New design has 48.

Thanks, I didn't want to go fishing for the DP drawings. I just remembered it was substantially fewer. And generally they didn't have their own washrooms, which was nucking futs to me.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by timun

3) % of revenue streams won't be offered by CSEC, period, for the same reason they don't want to own the building in the first place: why pay for something yourself when you can convince the taxpayers they should pay for it?

When you want to paint someone as a villain, an easy way to do it is to invent a nefarious reason why they won't do something that they actually cannot do. This is a fine example.

[Northendzone]

So, what are the chances of us sitting in a new dome by the start of the 2030-31 season.

Frankly I think low

[timun]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

When you want to paint someone as a villain, an easy way to do it is to invent a nefarious reason why they won't do something that they actually cannot do. This is a fine example.

Why can't they? Please, feel free to explain.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by timun

Why can't they? Please, feel free to explain.

Ask CaptainYooh – the one who pointed it out, only to have you blatantly ignore it.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by timun

There are in fact 72 suites at the Saddledome: 46 at the 100 level, 26 at the top of the 200s. ...

Where did you get the info about 46 boxes on the main level? I have counted 20 off of the chart. (You could be right on it, I just didn't find this information when searching for it).

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

Thanks, I didn't want to go fishing for the DP drawings. I just remembered it was substantially fewer. And generally they didn't have their own washrooms, which was nucking futs to me.

Only the owner’s suite has its own internal washroom.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Where did you get the info about 46 boxes on the main level? I have counted 20 off of the chart. (You could be right on it, I just didn't find this information when searching for it).

Based on this map and from looking at various 3D seat images and counting the suites it definitely seems like there are 46 lower suites.
https://www.suiteexperiencegroup.com...e=map&ref=MTkw

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Where did you get the info about 46 boxes on the main level? I have counted 20 off of the chart. (You could be right on it, I just didn't find this information when searching for it).

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Based on this map and from looking at various 3D seat images and counting the suites it definitely seems like there are 46 lower suites.
https://www.suiteexperiencegroup.com...tes/suite-map/

Not sure this layout is accurate. The owner's box stretches out for almost the entire width of section 109; yet, this diagram shows 3 suites there. There are 18 suites shown behind the attack zone. Again, I can't be 100% certain on this, but it just doesn't feel right. I will count them all next time I am at the game. I believe the actual number will be quite a bit less than 46.

[Locke]

Believe it or not, most businesses dont want to own commercial property.

Thats why they lease it.

It gets used hard and depreciates. Its an expensive, declining asset and they'd be on the hook for all sorts of things, they'd much rather a local Government own it.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Not sure this layout is accurate. The owner's box stretches out for almost the entire width of section 109; yet, this diagram shows 3 suites there. There are 18 suites shown behind the attack zone. Again, I can't be 100% certain on this, but it just doesn't feel right. I will count them all next time I am at the game. I believe the actual number will be quite a bit less than 46.

Looks like there are two suites above section 109 so that suite map is somewhat incorrect because it shows three.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is wrong on three levels, sorry:

1) They don't push it back and forth. CSEC cannot own the arena, because it is being built on the land, which cannot be subdivided and sold off with the building. So, the ownership question is not trivial, ancillary or irrelevant. The expected appreciation of the land value alone in 40 years could be reasonably expected to support the City's decision to contribute.

2) City's contribution should be based PRIMARILY on its belief in the value of having an NHL franchise. Financial considerations of this ownership come secondary and must be evaluated on the balance of cost of this contribution vs. (direct financial returns + indirect financial returns + non-financial returns). The latter variable is difficult to quantify, of course, because it is zero to people who don't care about it and very high to those who do.

3) % of revenue streams cannot be offered by CSEC, period. You probably meant % of profits, which is meaningful. But this means ownership. And ownership means being on the hook for the liabilities, losses and other obligations, which come with ownership. The City does not want to be in this business and it shouldn't.

The land could be subdivided if they chose to.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The expected appreciation of the land value alone in 40 years could be reasonably expected to support the City's decision to contribute.

So if you owned some land, and you went halvsies on a car for me to drive, then I was exclusively permitted to park that car on your land for free for the next 40 years, that's a good deal for you so long as at the end of it you could sell that land and pocket the money? I'm not getting where this is a win for you, but sign me up for this deal if you're sure it's good business, because I wouldn't want to stifle your entrepreneurial drive.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by jammies

So if you owned some land, and you went halvsies on a car for me to drive, then I was exclusively permitted to park that car on your land for free for the next 40 years, that's a good deal for you so long as at the end of it you could sell that land and pocket the money? I'm not getting where this is a win for you, but sign me up for this deal if you're sure it's good business, because I wouldn't want to stifle your entrepreneurial drive.

Not only does he let you park your car on his land for free, he insures, maintains and disposes of your car at a cost when you’re done with it.