[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Benched

K serious question here:

Fieldhouse Standalone Square Feet = 595,000
Fieldhouse Integrated Square Feet = 150,000

What? That's not parking that makes up that difference, that's already accounted for. So why the 400,000 square foot difference?????? Is this supposed to be 'surrounding grounds and roads'? or what?

Stadium Standalone Square Feet = 520,000
Stadium Integrated Square Feet = 250,000

Again why is the Stadium so much smaller? And shouldn't this number be 0? As in 'already inside the fieldhouse'

...

Someone fill me in, 'cause I don't get their math...

Their proposal also has 500,000sqft of "shared space" - so things like a shared main lobby for both facilities, rather than separate lobbies for three buildings in three spots.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

As mentioned the numbers were made up, and for illustrative purposes.
We need to know what the numbers are, and right now neither of us knows. If and when we find out, you might be right, I might be right, or somewhere in between.

My example is exactly how it works. Just the numbers are completely unknown.

I could say the same thing to and about you, but won't.

The speculation that this will bring economic benefits to the surrounding area has been resolutely debunked on so many occasions

http://economics.umbc.edu/files/2014/09/wp_03_103.pdf

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I did not know you were an expert on CRLs.

What taxes are currently brought in from this area?
How much will be brought in by the new taxes, which do not currently exist?
How much new revenue, which does not currently exist, will there be after the CRL apportionment to the construction is covered?
How much of this tax revenue will be required for the operation of sites?

For example, and all numbers are 100% made up, and used for illustrative purposes only.

Current tax revenue from the area: $10MM per year.
Current costs required to service area: $5MM per year.
Net benefit to City: $5MM per year.

New tax revenue from area: $100MM per year.
New costs to service the aea: $50MM per year.
CRL Allocation: $25MM per year.
Net Benefit to City: $25MM per year for the first ten years.
$50MM per year for the next X number of years.

We do not know the numbers above, at all. But, if the numbers are run, and look like that, I see that as a net benefit to the City, and bringing in new money.
But, as you said, I don't understand how a CRL works.

I am also glad you have no say in the matter.

With admittedly completely fabricated numbers your funding model works. Hoorah!

Even if I accept your numbers the cash flow, or repayment of debt might look more like this:

City of Calgary 2016/17 cash outlay: $250,000,000

CRL repayment:

2016: $0 (no new tax revenues)
2017: $0 (no new tax revenues)
2018: $0 (no new tax revenues)
2019: $0 (no new tax revenues)
2020: $0 (no new tax revenues - no other aspect of the West Village will complete before the Flames proposal)
2021: $8 million - not all new tax generating developments will come on line at once
2022: $16 million
2023: $25 million
2024: $25 million
2025: $25 million

So 10 years out, the debt and accrued interest is only paid down by $100 million. It will be another 6+ years before the CRL is repaid - using your numbers.

We may as well talk about the ticket tax while we're at it.

These are the terms of the Oilers agreement with the City of Edmonton:

Ticket Surcharge

• The ticket surcharge will be levied by the City, with the rate set by the Edmonton Arena Corporation (EAC).
• The amount collected must fund the principal and interest payments for repayment of $125-million over a 35-year term, plus a $1.5-million annual contribution to the City to create a fund for ongoing major capital expenditures.

So potentially, and if we're honest with ourselves we know this will be the preferred option of the Flames owners, the City will front $250,000,000 in 2016/17 and the money to repay that loan/financing, will trickle in over the next 25-30 years.

The Flames owners are nice guys, so they'll agree to repay the loan over a much shorter period than the Oilers.

Anyway you try to spin it, the current proposal will have the City front $690,000,000, including the Field House money, and $490,000,000 of that will be repaid over 25-30 years.

Sounds like a sweet deal.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by dino7c

there would obviously be development come on now

with the land cleaned up and the stadium right there, location right by the river...it would be a prime spot

people develop neighborhoods in farmers fields for christ sake

There will be development without a stadium! More development! The location of the stadium is isolating.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You realize that by a substantial margin, the Flames are the biggest beneficiaries of this new facility right?

they are also putting in 200M and generating the majority of the ticket tax

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Where was it confirmed the the ticket tax will be financed by the city?

It took the reporters yesterday 4 times re-asking the question before King finally said they would go to private financing if the city said no. They clearly implied the city should front that money.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It took the reporters yesterday 4 times re-asking the question before King finally said they would go to private financing if the city said no. They clearly implied the city should front that money.

Where was it confirmed that the ticket tax would be financed by the city?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I am also glad you have no say in the matter.

Wait, what?

I'd say the taxpayers in the City of Calgary have final say in this matter.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Except the article is crap. Flames are on the hook for 450M - just over 50%.
One can certainly argue that is not enough - I absolutely get that. But one should have their facts straight.

Does your $450m, include the $250m ticket levy? That's users of the facility, not CSE. Opportunity cost? hahahah, that's some smoke and mirrors.

Besides - anything written by anyone name of Lambert is obviously garbage.

LOL, did you put alot into that?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Cappy

There will be development without a stadium! More development! The location of the stadium is isolating.

stadium is the catalyst to get this started, city has had 70 years to clean up the land and do something with it

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Where was it confirmed that the ticket tax would be financed by the city?

Oh for **** sakes Resolute, come on.

You ask for confirmation but you and the boosters on this site continue to rely on "development" "prestige"

[Benched]

Originally Posted by Igottago

You raise some valid concerns, but if now isn't the right time, when is? When is the right time to spend money on new stadium ventures? When is the right time to finally clean up the west village?
There will always be a reason not to spend money on a football stadium. McMahon stadium is an absolute POS. Location and access sucks, the stadium itself sucks, and it isn't use for anything more than Stamps games. You can't even have concerts there.

A new well suited location could be vastly more useful not only for stamps games, but much more.

Might as well look at a solution that address multiple needs for Calgary as a city. The Dome and McMahon are way past their best days, and it gives an impetus to clean up the west village sooner rather than later.

What future proposal is going to come along at the right time that people won't just find more reasons to "leave it alone"?

True there never is a 'good time' to build these massive infrastructure projects. They're always going to be contentious.

I think the West Village clean up and revitalization should be done if/when the East Village is packed and we're looking to start moving into more urban sprawl. I also think it needs to go hand in hand with fixing the whole Bow Trail/Crowchild Trail infrastructure, so that's a huge project and price tag.



I guess part of this that I never understood is I'm a billionaire. I own the team. I pay millions in salary to players. I recoup millions in ticket prices. The building itself, why don't I own it? Why don't I charge my ticket holders a nominal fee to pay myself back for the building I need and provide.

If the building is such a great investment then why am I not renting it out when I'm not using it and making money back?

I guess I don't get the whole building-owernship-tenant-revenue generating side of things. I'm not sure why the city is on the hook at all for these giant buildings.

"But we want to use it for amateur sports, to host events, etc.". Cool. See if the Flames will rent you time/space. Why is the tax payer involved in building ownership at all?

Maybe that's the way it works, like do we own the Bow Building downtown? We all helped pay the cost to build it and get revenue from it? Or is this only for sports facilities???

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by dino7c

stadium is the catalyst to get this started, city has had 70 years to clean up the land and do something with it

WOW, keep telling yourself that.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by dino7c

how long have you lived in Calgary?

15 Years.

Originally Posted by dino7c

they haven't done anything productive with the land for 70 years

That's irrelevant. Any impediments to land development there are equally as applicable to CS&E's proposal as any other potential development.

[EldrickOnIce]

From what I understand, Concordia University economics professor Moshe Lander will be part of the CBC Calgary evening news broadcast regarding the project.
Lander is, in my mind, the top Canadian academic authority when it comes to the economics of professional sports.
I will be very interested in his thoughts.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Their proposal also has 500,000sqft of "shared space" - so things like a shared main lobby for both facilities, rather than separate lobbies for three buildings in three spots.

oic. shared concourse between the fieldhouse and event center too?

or just shared entrance between the two buildings rather than having 4 buildings all with their own entrances and concourses?

[442scotty]

In the news thread I certainly like Kings point about the new 200 mil library to come... Personally if there ever was a waste of 200 Mil this is it... 200 Mil to serve at best a couple of hundred regular locals ...now that's money poorly spent... I know I will get flack or saying it but I don't care... Its just my opinion and shared by many others I suspect

[dino7c]

90% or more of the ticket tax would be generated by the Flames or teams the Flames own...I honestly don't see the issue with that

if the city doesn't want to front that money private financing will work its not like there is any risk of not recouping that money. People are gonna stop going to events because of a 10% tax?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Benched

oic. shared concourse between the fieldhouse and event center too?

or just shared entrance between the two buildings rather than having 4 buildings all with their own entrances and concourses?

Dunno. The one universal complaint about this has been the lack of details on the facilities themselves. But those are certainly possibilities. The renderings, such as they are, do suggest that one row of luxury suites could look at either the hockey game or the football game.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

No. As straight government coffer money (government cash), vs user money (ticket tax), are two additional as well.

It's a very easy bullet to write, funny it was overlooked.

I'll give you the ticket tax (although it's unclear where the upfront cash would come from and it very well could end up being the city) but the straight coffer (government cash) is tax dollars. That's where the government get's its revenue from. If any government cash went into this from outside COC, then I would be pretty ticked if I wasn't a Calgarian.

Either way, I agree there's not enough owner stake. If they wanted to contribute the total value of the event centre, I would be fine with that. I don't think $200 mil is enough to cover that.