[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bingo

They do need to work together if the city wants a say in adding to a development though. The East Village is the city's vision, they've asked the Flames to look at it, basically taking control of things. The Calgary Next project was the Flames.

If they want an arena over there, of course they are driving the bus.

I think you are probably correct in reality, though IMO it's not the way it should work. It makes the sense that the city evaluates all possible options, and determines which one(s) align with their vision for the city, and can punt the ball back to Flames court saying "this/these are the only concepts we will entertain supporting - bring something back to the table and we'll go from there, or you're welcome to pursue any other ideas you want on your own".

I'm hopeful that this will still work out better for the city - if they are in the driver's seat they can layout the best deal for Calgary and manage the communications rollout, so the city doesn't look like the bad guys if the Flames balk at the terms.

Originally Posted by Robbob

IMO this is exactly why they went public, because the behind the scenes work wasn't moving. I also think the stand alone arena will go faster considering that is what they worked on ages ago when Maclean first dropped that the new arena announcement was coming. As it has been mentioned, all that was tabled when they acquired the Stampeders.

As his been said, there is only evidence contrary to the idea that the Flames were actively pursuing things behind the scenes. I imagine CSEC probably did backchannel the CalgaryNext concept...and they were probably told how stupid it was. But in CSEC's infinite wisdom, they figured the public would buy the idea if they included a few youtube videos of Brett Wilson saying it's a good idea.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

But Nenshi is being wildly inconsistent? He's had one position this whole time: no city of Calgary dollars for a successful and thriving private enterprise. He's held that position for as long as Johnny Gaudreau has been a Flame. If anything, he's been remarkably consistent.

I agree with your whole post, except I don't think Nenshi's position has been a consistent HARD NO to public money, but a consistent soft no unless the deal actually makes good sense for the city with a reasonable ROI. Just not in as many words.

[Cappy]

King moved on CalgaryNext because the city was riding high on their playoff appearance. They wanted to capitalize on it. It didn't work. They missed the playoffs last year. Then this year right before the playoffs he pulls out the move threat. Again riding off of sentiment.

I would have to double check the Edmonton timeline but it would seem they might have done the same thing. Riding high off of the hope they were selling with 1st overalls.

Telling the city to move on this is a dick move and doesn't mean anything. If king was serious we would see something other than the crap he's fed us

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Don't think I ever said equal. If you don't think Nenshi has been political, a grand stander, and wildly inconsistent then fine. Not trying to convince you.

Give me a break.

Most politicians just want to do enough to get re-elected. Working with the Flames and their powerful/rich backers and network is a really good way to do that. So is waving a shiny new toy to the citizens of Calgary who might not know better.

In my opinion, Nenshi is doing the DIFFICULT thing. He's making enemies with deep-pocketed people who could have a big impact on his re-election and I think he's making big statements in order to get uninformed Calgarians to start understanding the issue(s).

I've lost a lot of respect for Nenshi in the past few years on a variety of issues. This isn't one of them.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

Give me a break.

Most politicians just want to do enough to get re-elected. Working with the Flames and their powerful/rich backers and network is a really good way to do that. So is waving a shiny new toy to the citizens of Calgary who might not know better.

In my opinion, Nenshi is doing the DIFFICULT thing. He's making enemies with deep-pocketed people who could have a big impact on his re-election and I think he's making big statements in order to get uninformed Calgarians to start understanding the issue(s).

I've lost a lot of respect for Nenshi in the past few years on a variety of issues. This isn't one of them.

Give me a break.

He's carrying the protect the citizen's tax dollar card towards getting elected all the while also wanting to have his name associated with an olympic games that will have a need to build new facilities.

Pretty easy to see through.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Just to argue devil's advocate: Nenshi isn't taking the Flames seriously either, so if this is our baseline for "bush-league negotiating", then the mayor is just as guilty. Also, Nenshi is one vote on council. He's the most important member of council, of course, but he can't dictate terms by himself.

That said, I think everyone knows the Flames aren't getting the 'Edmonton deal', and nor should they. But from the team's perspective, if they get 50% of the Edmonton deal rather than perhaps 20%, it's still a big win, and why they are trying to negotiate from such a stance.

What is the "Edmonton deal" that the Flames are looking at? What does it include that makes it such a attractive deal? I am sorry I don't know, if someone please fill me in.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Par

What is the "Edmonton deal" that the Flames are looking at? What does it include that makes it such a attractive deal? I am sorry I don't know, if someone please fill me in.

Breakdown of the Edmonton arena deal:

https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...agreement.aspx

All the Oilers are paying for that arena is:

$132.5-million. $112.8-million of their contribution will be paid to the City as rent over 35 years, and cover the City’s principal and interest costs. The remaining $19.7-million will be paid as cash.

Which essentially breaks down to $19.7 million cash up front and then $3.2 million per year for the next 35 years for a $613.7 million project. There is also a ticket tax which does cut into some of the money the Oilers could potentially make.

Not to mention the money the Katz group will make developing the surrounding land.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Give me a break.

He's carrying the protect the citizen's tax dollar card towards getting elected all the while also wanting to have his name associated with an olympic games that will have a need to build new facilities.

Pretty easy to see through.

This isn't new, he has been tough with all companies that work with the city. As one example, he was pretty tough on the company that built the 96th ave bridges that we're flagged for insufficient concrete.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

This isn't new, he has been tough with all companies that work with the city. As one example, he was pretty tough on the company that built the 96th ave bridges that we're flagged for insufficient concrete.

I don't see how those two are related sorry

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't see how those two are related sorry

Unless I read what you are saying wrong, you make it seem like Nenshi is using the new Arena and playing politics with it to make it seem like he is defending tax payers. I'm saying Nenshi has a history of making a stand against companies he views are trying to take advantage of tax payers.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Give me a break.

He's carrying the protect the citizen's tax dollar card towards getting elected all the while also wanting to have his name associated with an olympic games that will have a need to build new facilities.

Pretty easy to see through.

Your position on this makes a lot more sense now. You've invented a narrative to counter the publicly stated stance of the mayor. Your posts come tinted with the belief that the mayor is legacy hunting.

[Par]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Breakdown of the Edmonton arena deal:

https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...agreement.aspx

All the Oilers are paying for that arena is:


Which essentially breaks down to $19.7 million cash up front and then $3.2 million per year for the next 35 years for a $613.7 million project. There is also a ticket tax which does cut into some of the money the Oilers could potentially make.

Not to mention the money the Katz group will make developing the surrounding land.

Thanks for this, Edmonton just gave them a couple of blank cheques.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Your position on this makes a lot more sense now. You've invented a narrative to counter the publicly stated stance of the mayor. Your posts come tinted with the belief that the mayor is legacy hunting.

Wow that's a lot of loaded language there.

Would have been faster to say you just disagree with me, rather than creating a witch hunt in my head.

If you don't think a politician is legacy hunting than I guess I question where you've been for the last 100 years of human history. Of course he is.

The sad thing is the defense of the mayor responses to my posts seem to completely ignore the fact that I've said both sides have been pretty pathetic in this. I'm not in on either side making me a lot less "invented" or "tinted" than many.

I'm equally disappointed in both.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wow that's a lot of loaded language there.

Would have been faster to say you just disagree with me, rather than creating a witch hunt in my head.

If you don't think a politician is legacy hunting than I guess I question where you've been for the last 100 years of human history. Of course he is.

The sad thing is the defense of the mayor responses to my posts seem to completely ignore the fact that I've said both sides have been pretty pathetic in this. I'm not in on either side making me a lot less "invented" or "tinted" than many.

I'm equally disappointed in both.

It's the fact that you're "equally" disappointed in both that shows your view on this is tinted.

One side has been snarky. It's an absolute character flaw in the mayor.

The other has:
- end run their supposed "partner" to go direct to the public before discussion with a half baked proposal
- tried to fall back after response was lukewarm at best to claim this needed to be a partnership
- used a visit to a dying woman to leverage public support for their project
- threatened to move, but not a threat, just a fact of what would happen
- done basically nothing since the CalgaryNEXT rollout except let the city do a bunch of their footwork, while still taking veiled snipes in the media.

They're not equal. It would take a pretty serious slant to think they were.

As for invented. You've passed out something you think as a fact in this process. One is publicly stated. No public dollars unless a public good can be quantified. The other is the mayor wanting to attach his name to an Olympic bid which so far the extent of is a study into the feasibility of a bid. Which somehow negates his concern for pursuing an avenue which has been a burden to many municipalities?

Pretty easy to see through.

People have "sides" in this, and that's fine. There are fundamental disagreements on how this should be done. But lets not try to pretend the scale of hamfisted approach in this isn't pretty significantly tilted to King's favour.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's the fact that you're "equally" disappointed in both that shows your view on this is tinted.

See I just don't have the save view as you that you are the barometer of truth in this manner.

You summarize 18 months of the mayor's posturing as snarky and then go into detail on King, that shows a tint every bit as much as you say I do.

The equivalency thing may be a bad use of words by me however, as I haven't created spreadsheet to assign points of blame to both sides to come out with an actual split of evil doing.

When I say both sides are equal I should have said, both sides have been disappointing and left it at that. The level of arrogance from both men has been astounding.

Will give you my biggest disappointment was the move card however.

[nik-]

But you're defining repeating a pretty consistent position as posturing. Do you really think that's fair?

The mayor is taking a public stand against what is typically a bum deal for a city. If he's posturing, at least he's posturing on reasoned ground.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

But you're defining repeating a pretty consistent position as posturing. Do you really think that's fair?

Elaborate, not sure I follow

[nik-]

I think it might be easier to elaborate on what you're viewing as posturing. Because I see his snarky responses for sure, I hate that he does that, but the content of his statements have retained the same position on this issue. If he's asked, on camera, his stance on this issue and he states what he thinks which he has stated before is that posturing?

[Bingo]

I see a bunch of BS in what he's been saying, and it's all posturing.

Doubting the concert issues vs Edmonton when it's clear as day.

Shortening the rink life to suite his narrative

Pursuing an olympic bid that will need new facilities at the same time he questions the need to replace the saddledome.

Saying there is no hurry, and then turning around and saying time is off the essence.

Unilaterally calling CalgaryNext dead when the Flames side was told to put it on hold while they look into the City lead plan B.

So yeah this stuff bothers me as does Ken King's initial presentation and his smug responses to the media afterwards. The city deserves better than these two megalomaniacs furthering their social standing in the city.

[nik-]

Fair enough. We have a disparity in value assignment to these I guess.

I disagree with the life span comment though, 30 years is a pretty reasonable statement. The latest "this needs to hurry" was said by someone else which forced the mayor to qualify.

As far as the Olympic bid. They're obviously looking into it, and they've also come up with a plan to facilitate a Saddledome replacement in Vic Park. So ok, he question the need while at the same time the City is doing all the work for the Flames.

Even if I grant a push on the statements (I don't, but for the sake of argument) perhaps lets weigh the actions here too. What have the Flames done except snipe and threaten? The city did their feasibility study on CalgaryNEXT for them and then the city came up with an alternate plan for them.

Just not equal.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm equally disappointed in both.

So you claim, but all you seem to talk about for solutions is the City doing other than they've already done, and this after the City has gone far beyond what CSEC has done, in a shorter period of time.

The only way someone could be "equally disappointed" is if that person has a huge bias towards the side that is pretty clearly bungled their way along for the last decade. Other than an amateur-hour presentation and some vague threats, what have CSEC and Ken King done over the last ten years? That's a far more egregious failure than the mayor being adversarial for a few months.

If you want naive, look at the guy who doesn't see King trying to play the political game first, and failing because he picked the wrong guy to try to play hardball with. Nenshi loves conflict, not knowing that in advance is yet another inexcusable failure on CSEC's part, and shows yet again which party to any potential deal is flailing around aimlessly with incompetence at the head.