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

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The land could be subdivided if they chose to.

You can't choose to subdivide the land if you don't own it.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You can't choose to subdivide the land if you don't own it.

The post said the land could not be subdivided. It can be.

[CaptainYooh]

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.

Why do I even bother, honestly. Your post suggests that my opinion is either ignorant, obtuse or dumb. Why are you trying to make it personal? Nowhere did I assert that contributing to the new arena is a good investment decision for the City. I know, it is not a good financial investment. But I do want the City to contribute, because I want the team to stay here and; therefore, as a taxpayer, I support and approve this contribution (subsidy). There are many tax-paying Calgarians who do as well. There are also many who don't. I don't support a whole bunch of other multi-million dollar subsidies, but they are given out anyway, because they are supported by the majority of our Council members at one time or another. For the City, this is a political decision, which will have financial benefits and non-financial benefits to the City either way. For CSEC it has only one non-financial benefit - the pride of ownership, but their financial risks are incomparably higher than they are for a large municipality.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The post said the land could not be subdivided. It can be.

CSEC cannot subdivide the land if the City of Calgary owns it, which was the proposal under discussion.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

But I do want the City to contribute, because I want the team to stay here and; therefore, as a taxpayer, I support and approve this contribution (subsidy). There are many tax-paying Calgarians who do as well.

You are forgetting the Law of Subsidy, as pithily put by Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes, Minister:

‘Subsidy isn't for what people want. It's for what they don't want but ought to have!’

[timun]

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).

Copies of the drawings at my office.

[timun]

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?

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.

Originally Posted by timun

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

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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

Unless I missed an earlier post he didn't explain, he just stated it as fact and pretended as though we must to take it at face value.

[powderjunkie]

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.

There is nothing stopping CSEC from purchasing land and building an arena on it...like many other businesses do.

The bolded is an interesting argument, though I'm skeptical that it works if you factor inflation/opportunity costs. A lot can happen in 40 years...the city-owned Saddledome lands became an enclave of Stampede Park, with a net result of it becoming worthless to anybody else.

Something very similar could happen again, considering this parcel is already bordered on three sides by Stampede...

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.

Please explain? The original deal had the city getting 2% of ticket tax (IIRC CSEC gets 6%, and they bumped non-sporting events to 7.5% in the renegotiation), and some share of building naming rights.

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.

You can't substantiate this argument (because it isn't true), but then admonish a poster for ignoring it?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Why do I even bother, honestly. Your post suggests that my opinion is either ignorant, obtuse or dumb. Why are you trying to make it personal? Nowhere did I assert that contributing to the new arena is a good investment decision for the City. I know, it is not a good financial investment.

Why did you mention that the value of the land can be recouped four decades down the road, if not to support the argument you were making that spending taxpayer dollars on it is a good idea? It is, at best, entirely irrelevant, which you forgot in your listing of "ignorant, obtuse, or dumb".

[The Familia]

What are the chances the arena will be redesigned if a new deal is reached, especially with a third party possibly in the mix?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

There was a compromise on increasing costs.



The city gave up their project manager so that CSEC could get theirs, they'd split the increase in costs known at the time, and in exchange CSEC agreed to take on future cost overruns.



The city might as well pay for the whole thing if every stage CSEC wants to they can just say 'we're walking away unless you pay this now and you better take it because it's the best deal you're gonna get' and people suggest they take it.





That's a Peace Bridge. That's five full cycle track networks. That's over 57 blue rings.



If it's just a rounding error, the billionaire could pay for it. But they don't want to, because they have half a business brain.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If anyone thinks that the “pause” was caused by anything other than massively increasing construction costs, give your head a shake.

The mutually agreed deal had the city capped below $300 million, and it was probably looking like C-SECTION was going to have to put in an additional $100-$150 million themselves over what was budgeted for.

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You mean it wasn’t for spite because the Mayor tweeted?

Three important posts in a row.

[Freeway]

I think both sides felt they had a good deal for their specific interests before the pandemic utterly mangled existing supply chains and caused cost/time escalations for everything they would need to build the thing.


But what the heck do I know?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I think both sides felt they had a good deal for their specific interests before the pandemic utterly mangled existing supply chains and caused cost/time escalations for everything they would need to build the thing.


But what the heck do I know?

If you're the Flames? Maybe strike any number of good deals in the last 15 ****ing years instead of trying to hardball into the ultimate deal? The first project didn't work on polluted land for a number of reasons, so the can was kicked down the road. Their next move was the city of Edmonton was stupid, and the Flames tried to chase that stupid to the point of trying to install their own puppet mayor when a real mayor didn't budge on their demands, except our city is smarter and didn't cave. Now a pandemic happened and that was a factor that had them blame the city publicly while they cheered in the backroom for successfully stopping the current deal due to rising costs.

But ultimately they failed a hundred ways from Sunday dating back more than a decade while being held up as "smart businessmen" by far too many in this city.

****, sorry for the rant, but I'm personally happy to keep having fun in the Dome before we get a majorly scaled back, barebones, money making, cookie cutter arena that prices a large percentage of the city even further out of attending local events than before.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

You can make the exact same case about Quebec City. Except they have a ready arena that any new team could pay 0 dollars for. They’ve been waiting for years and are gonna keep on waiting.

Nobody is moving a fresh team here without a new arena. Not a deal to build to one where the new team pays half. Not happening. That’s where people have the leverage all wrong, it’s all on the teams side and not on the city. The city needs a new arena much more than a potential NHL franchise does because they have options and we don’t. Maybe you don’t care about Calgary having a team, which is fine, but if you do then we need a new arena within the next 5-7 years.

Is the Quebec City take serious or are you joking? It has to be a joke right?

A City that isn’t even half the population of Calgary is a market that will attract owners because they have a building? Maybe if we were Winnipeg that argument could carry weight but Calgary is a far bigger market, with a far bigger corporate backing.

Very weird to say “maybe I don’t care about Calgary having a team” when I post about this team on this forum for 14 years and also have mentioned numerous times I have Season Tickets. Clearly I care but I don’t think the threat of moving is a real one. The city hasn’t scrapped the deal they are willing to make one. If there wasn’t a willing partner in the city then I would have concern.

End of the day the timing is awful as many trades are seeing massive increases in material and shipping costs that are already pushing a tight budget over the limit. I do think this deal gets done eventually and both sides agree we need a new rink.

[Flames1217]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Is the Quebec City take serious or are you joking? It has to be a joke right?

A City that isn’t even half the population of Calgary is a market that will attract owners because they have a building? Maybe if we were Winnipeg that argument could carry weight but Calgary is a far bigger market, with a far bigger corporate backing.

Very weird to say “maybe I don’t care about Calgary having a team” when I post about this team on this forum for 14 years and also have mentioned numerous times I have Season Tickets. Clearly I care but I don’t think the threat of moving is a real one. The city hasn’t scrapped the deal they are willing to make one. If there wasn’t a willing partner in the city then I would have concern.

End of the day the timing is awful as many trades are seeing massive increases in material and shipping costs that are already pushing a tight budget over the limit. I do think this deal gets done eventually and both sides agree we need a new rink.

I live in Quebec city and there is no chance the Flames move here.

Population aside, Calgary has a huge corporate backing that trump's anything Quebec city can offer.

If ever we get a team it's going to be Arizona. We could probably rake in better money than a few teams but definitely not Calgary.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Flames1217

I live in Quebec city and there is no chance the Flames move here.

Population aside, Calgary has a huge corporate backing that trump's anything Quebec city can offer.

If ever we get a team it's going to be Arizona. We could probably rake in better money than a few teams but definitely not Calgary.

The Coyotes are heading to Texas if they move. Zero chance Quebec City gets a team. Team owners want no part of a no growth location.

I have heard there are 3 U.S. locations the NHL is considering before any Canadian option

[Flames1217]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

The Coyotes are heading to Texas if they move. Zero chance Quebec City gets a team. Team owners want no part of a no growth location.

I have heard there are 3 U.S. locations the NHL is considering before any Canadian option

I would relocate Arizona and then Expand to the other US markets.

At some point in time Quebec will get a team back just depends on when Bettman steps down.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I think both sides felt they had a good deal for their specific interests before the pandemic utterly mangled existing supply chains and caused cost/time escalations for everything they would need to build the thing.


But what the heck do I know?

No doubt.

But would be interested in knowing if other major construction projects, public or private, have been similarly delayed or scuttled. Or did those parties figure out a way to manage the rising costs of supply?

This isn't something I really follow but I'm really not aware of major projects being cancelled left and right.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

1) They don't push it back and forth.

They absolutely did. Do you not remember the dueling proposals that saw the city propose a structure that saw CSEC owning it and CSEC proposing that the City own it?

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

2) City's contribution should be based PRIMARILY on its belief in the value of having an NHL franchise.

That's just an opinion. CSEC is a business... if they want the city to make an investment in their operations then they need to make a business case to the City as a potential investor. I won't deny that there is an element of sentimentality involved but sentimentality only goes so far. Which for the city seems to be "we want to break even or at least appear to break even" so the sentimentality is essentially

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

3) % of revenue streams cannot be offered by CSEC, period. You probably meant % of profits

Revenue actually. I said streams because in the agreement they spelled out what operations the money came from (2% ticket price user fee, x dollars from naming, etc. etc.). I mean it makes sense to me... if the investment is greater then the return should likewise escalate.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

No doubt.

But would be interested in knowing if other major construction projects, public or private, have been similarly delayed or scuttled. Or did those parties figure out a way to manage the rising costs of supply?

This isn't something I really follow but I'm really not aware of major projects being cancelled left and right.

Most large projects aren't based around entertainment.

If Flames think they'll lose money on a new arena they'll drive the saddledome into the ground then just leave or let someone else build it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by DJones

Most large projects aren't based around entertainment.

If Flames think they'll lose money on a new arena they'll drive the saddledome into the ground then just leave or let someone else build it.

Is this true? Hotels, mixed use, stadiums, concert venues...

I feel like most large scale projects have a significant "entertainment" or leisure component, no?