[News] Calgary, Alberta, & CSEC agree in principle to $1.223bn Event Centre + infrastructure

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But some money does get spent on things other than health care. And infrastructure is one of them.

Again, we all know that. But that’s not a defence of this particular deal and project at this particular time.

Trying to defend the deal with vague generalizations everybody understands like “money gets spent on infrastructure” or “public money does go to infrastructure projects” does not seem any better than the people you claim would be against this if any public money went to it.

I’m not against public money. I’m not against arenas. It is just not encouraging that every defence of this is either a lie (no taxpayer money, cash deal! this money had to go to this!) or an incredibly vague retelling of surface-level city economics (money is spent on infrastructure!). Why bother?

[Enoch Root]

Every defense? I might be mis-remembering, but I am pretty sure I have read several posts talking about city development, infrastructure upgrades, etc. But you don't seem to want to discuss those, you want to claim that every defense is a lie or incredibly vague.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

What would the terms of the worst possible acceptable deal have been to you?

If the city gets the money from the naming rights since it is their arena that makes this a better deal. If they get all the money from non CSEC events that would make it a better deal and if it is a triple net lease that makes it an even better deal. I don’t think they will get fair market value for the parcels of land that would also be good.

Curious to see if they get the money for the name of the building they own, if they get the money from non CSEC entities and if they have a triple net lease with their main tenant.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Weird that that chart is counting every cost for bother levels of government twice. Without even factoring the 1% addition per year, $17M for 35 years adds up to $595M. $1.5M for 35 years is another $22.5M, again without factoring in the 1% annual increase. Neither of those figures seem to add up to the $381M on the chart.

There's probably a point to be made with the numbers, but it's kind of muddied in whatever that chart presentation is attempting to achieve.

Try to understand NPV (Net Present Value). It's kinda hard to explain, but not really that complicated.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Your not wrong but how many employees does CSEC have?

Im guessing its north of 300.

Maybe 50 full timers? + 30 millionaires and a couple hundred minimum wage part-timers.

Pretty big difference to an HQ that employs hundreds of decent wage full-timers, and I doubt many subsidies net in the negative hundreds of millions like this.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Every defense? I might be mis-remembering, but I am pretty sure I have read several posts talking about city development, infrastructure upgrades, etc. But you don't seem to want to discuss those, you want to claim that every defense is a lie or incredibly vague.

You're equally guilty of mischaracterizing every criticism as 'absolutely no public $$ whatsoever!!!'. Very few people have said that. It's a natural thing to happen in these debates and hard to avoid, but it's silly as we end up arguing against imaginary arguments that nobody is actually making.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You're equally guilty of mischaracterizing every criticism as 'absolutely no public $$ whatsoever!!!'. Very few people have said that. It's a natural thing to happen in these debates and hard to avoid, but it's silly as we end up arguing against imaginary arguments that nobody is actually making.

Umm, what? I have said no such thing. Or anything even remotely like that.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

A lot of people that are against this deal are the same people that have made it clear, over and over, that they are against ANY deal.

Uh, yes you did

Literally a page ago

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

Uh, yes you did

Literally a page ago

read the two again, and then tell me they're the same

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Try to understand NPV (Net Present Value). It's kinda hard to explain, but not really that complicated.

I understand the time value of money and NPV. I'm not sure what the rate of return is where the $17M+1% annually for 35 years equals $316M today. Most of the online models and calculators assume the same payment for every period, not an escalating one.

And NPV first explain the double counting of most of the public funding

I'm not suggesting anything about the deal. I'm suggesting it's a poor chart.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

I understand the time value of money and NPV. I'm not sure what the rate of return is where the $17M+1% annually for 35 years equals $316M today. Most of the online models and calculators assume the same payment for every period, not an escalating one.

And NPV first explain the double counting of most of the public funding

I'm not suggesting anything about the deal. I'm suggesting it's a poor chart.

Did you catch that the Flames are putting up the cash for the Flames?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Other than personal angst, how does this affect you, or taxpayers in general?

Umm, because we're the ones paying for it. I thought that was pretty apparent.

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

It doesn’t.
But it sure gives him something else to add to his lengthy list to bitch about…

lol, it's a pretty long list, but I didn't create it. We're all very clear what your completely unbiased opinion is.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Maybe 50 full timers? + 30 millionaires and a couple hundred minimum wage part-timers.

Not that it matters, but they employ more than 50 in just the hockey ops department of the Flames.

Then add in, the Stampeders, the Wranglers, the Hitmen and the Roughnecks.

[Infinit47]

Here are my questions, and I apologize if these details are out and I missed them.

1. Who gets arena naming money - this is significant and people are assuming CSEC gets all of it, which is a worst case scenario.

2. Who gets money from additional events. I'm not so sure this is 100% CSEC. CSEC was responsible for ops and maintenance costs last deal, which would make more sense to have them then get all revenue. The current deal makes CSEC look much more like a simple tennant with a 35 year lease term. I don't think it's a slam dunk that they get all revenue.

3. who gets parking revenue. This could be significant with the BMO expansion next door.

4. What mechanisms will exist to ensure any land CSEC gets to develop is purchased at market value? If the value is fair, and the city obviously retains it typical zoning control then maybe this isn't an issue.

5. The previous agreement had a small city fee on tickets. Has this been mentioned either way? It was $3mln a year, so not nothing.

Unlike the last deal the current council voted unanimously in favour of this deal, so perhaps some of these items will fall to the city's benefit.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Umm, what? I have said no such thing. Or anything even remotely like that.

I'll grant it's not exactly as I paraphrased, but it's not remotely...remote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I didn't say either of those things.

A lot of people that are against this deal are the same people that have made it clear, over and over, that they are against ANY deal. Most of the complaints are the same complaints we would hear, regardless of the details of the deal, as long as there was even a single dollar of public money involved. And a lot of people are trying to argue that the deal is paying for an NHL team, or has no benefit to the city - ridiculous. The public money is going to the development of the east village, to building an event centre for the city, and to upgrading the infrastructure in the area.

As for you, you have been banging that same, "where's the benefit" drum. And implying that hospitals aren't going to get built as a result. I am pretty sure that you are more reasonable than those comments would suggest.

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Here are my questions, and I apologize if these details are out and I missed them.

1. Who gets arena naming money - this is significant and people are assuming CSEC gets all of it, which is a worst case scenario.

2. Who gets money from additional events. I'm not so sure this is 100% CSEC. CSEC was responsible for ops and maintenance costs last deal, which would make more sense to have them then get all revenue. The current deal makes CSEC look much more like a simple tennant with a 35 year lease term. I don't think it's a slam dunk that they get all revenue.

3. who gets parking revenue. This could be significant with the BMO expansion next door.

4. What mechanisms will exist to ensure any land CSEC gets to develop is purchased at market value? If the value is fair, and the city obviously retains it typical zoning control then maybe this isn't an issue.

5. The previous agreement had a small city fee on tickets. Has this been mentioned either way? It was $3mln a year, so not nothing.

Unlike the last deal the current council voted unanimously in favour of this deal, so perhaps some of these items will fall to the city's benefit.

I admire your optimism, but do you really think they would have left all of the 'good news' out of the press conference?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Again, we all know that. But that’s not a defence of this particular deal and project at this particular time.

Trying to defend the deal with vague generalizations everybody understands like “money gets spent on infrastructure” or “public money does go to infrastructure projects” does not seem any better than the people you claim would be against this if any public money went to it.

I’m not against public money. I’m not against arenas. It is just not encouraging that every defence of this is either a lie (no taxpayer money, cash deal! this money had to go to this!) or an incredibly vague retelling of surface-level city economics (money is spent on infrastructure!). Why bother?

I think it's fair to wait and see as the revenue sharing (to my knowledge) hasn't been detailed.

I know it's incredibly unlikely, but if all non CSEC event revenue, parking revenue, and naming right revenue accrues to the city would you feel differently?

What if the new district includes significant public areas for day use that we won't see until the design phase? Will the $300mil in infrastructure upgrades benefit the entire area, or just the arena?

I think there is so much we don't know that making a decision either way is premature. Although I will say my guy reaction is the deal is bad, but I don't know how bad.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'll grant it's not exactly as I paraphrased, but it's not remotely...remote:






I admire your optimism, but do you really think they would have left all of the 'good news' out of the press conference?

I did say it was impossible in a follow up. But would even some sort of a split of that revenue make a difference? I'm sayi g it's possible, and to wait before we get the guillotine out.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's possible some of that stuff hasn't been agreed on 100% yet and the agreement in principle just covers the big picture. They could also be gaging public response before solidifying those details.

I think it was a unanimous agreement in city council due to the large lump sum infrastructure investment from the province, so the money the city is kicking in for the arena is traded off. Provinces typically help municipalities with infrastructure costs, but not always targeted and all at once like that. It would be hard for a city council to turn that down.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Spend their money elsewhere? Strange, I thought the Flames and their families spend more than half the year in Calgary. What about the alumni or even the players who spend time here during the offseason? Doesn’t Koenekny spend time here? It didn’t really occur to me the other day when I crossed paths with Mikael Backlund, his wife and his daughter at my kid’s daycare that he must be getting free service there.

You and Backlund using the same daycare isn’t much proof that having a pro sports team in town creates a bunch of jobs the way moving a head office would.

Of all the things to debate, this seems like the most ridiculous.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If the city gets the money from the naming rights since it is their arena that makes this a better deal. If they get all the money from non CSEC events that would make it a better deal and if it is a triple net lease that makes it an even better deal. I don’t think they will get fair market value for the parcels of land that would also be good.

Curious to see if they get the money for the name of the building they own, if they get the money from non CSEC entities and if they have a triple net lease with their main tenant.

Very fair and good ideas and I agree. I wonder if they tried these things in the negotiations and they didn’t work. That’s the other part of this, what’s the city’s BATNA and does this deal surpass that? Even though people may think it’s a bad deal, is this not still preferable than the Flames leaving? I truly wonder if they polled broadly Calgarians what the answer may be and it may leave many of us huge fans a bit disappointed haha.

This all presupposes people believe the risk of them leaving is real too, and there’s obviously much debate about that too. Personally I think it is real only based on the fact that Edwards and owners would sell and there could be only potential buyers that are able to get some other city to build them a rink or view the business case of relocating as superior which I do believe is possible.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

I think it's fair to wait and see as the revenue sharing (to my knowledge) hasn't been detailed.

I know it's incredibly unlikely, but if all non CSEC event revenue, parking revenue, and naming right revenue accrues to the city would you feel differently?

What if the new diateict includes significant public areas for day use that we won't see until the design phase? Will the $300mil in infrastructure upgrades benefit the entire area, or just the arena?

I think there is so much we don't know that making a decision either way is premature. Although I will say my guy reaction is the deal is bad, but I don't know how bad.

Yeah, if the details come out that there’s a bunch of non-CSEC event revenue going to the city, including something like naming rights, it makes the deal better to me. Do I think they would have left those major benefits to the city out of the initial announcement? No, unless they’re saving them to announce with some other details that aren’t so flattering to provide some balance. But it’s not like I have any personal stake in the perception of this deal, so if it looks better than it is now that’s nothing but good to me.

I’ve said it before, but I really like the Rivers District. I’ve read through the plans and with or without an arena I think it’s going to be awesome. Do I think it requires an NHL team as the anchor? Absolutely not, so most of my view of this (aside from the POV that there’s just more urgent ways to spend the money atm) is how does this compare to something like a world-class concert hall, or theatre, or something more geared toward how it’s going to be used the other 250-300 days per year.

I think that’s missing from the discussion. Could the deal look better for this specific kind of deal? Yeah, I hope it does. But is this even the best project for this area in this category? I don’t know, I’d like some strong justification for that being true if we’re going to be stuck with a bad deal for it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Very fair and good ideas and I agree. I wonder if they tried these things in the negotiations and they didn’t work. That’s the other part of this, what’s the city’s BATNA and does this deal surpass that? Even though people may think it’s a bad deal, is this not still preferable than the Flames leaving? I truly wonder if they polled broadly Calgarians what the answer may be and it may leave many of us huge fans a bit disappointed haha.

This all presupposes people believe the risk of them leaving is real too, and there’s obviously much debate about that too. Personally I think it is real only based on the fact that Edwards and owners would sell and there could be only potential buyers that are able to get some other city to build them a rink or view the business case of relocating as superior which I do believe is possible.

This is it. The city had no true BATNA and Edwards did.