You won't use it. The Flames (CSEC) will use it and then charge you to watch them use it.
I'm fully not in favor of dolling out taxpayer money to defacto subsidize the capital costs of a single business owned by some of the wealthiest people in Canada. That's not to say that I'm completely opposed to using public money on it, but It'd have to be in the form of an investment and in an investment the city should insist on the thing that investors typically insist on... a reasonable projected rate of return (frankly I think they should get equity but I'm flex on the means of return).
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
Had to fly to Vancouver recently to see a concert that skipped Calgary. That was money that could have been spent here and also brought in people to our city.
Huge amount of people buying dinner, going to bars, staying in hotels and going out after,
But yes, zero vibrancy
Reminder that a new building does not guarantee jack####. The fact most major acts only play Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal will not suddenly change because we have a new building. Maybe we can beat out Edmonton now for some shows, but then again maybe not. Banking on a new arena to start suddenly bringing in big acts is a very hopeful, and likely foolish, bet.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
The best part of this thread is when people talk about how a new stadium is important to attract players when:
a) we just signed on of the top players in the entire NHL (Hub)
b) we just signed a top FA
c) this argument drives most of us tax dollar for arena folks further away from wanting to invest any public money into a new arena.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mull For This Useful Post:
The best part of this thread is when people talk about how a new stadium is important to attract players when:
a) we just signed on of the top players in the entire NHL (Hub)
b) we just signed a top FA
c) this argument drives most of us tax dollar for arena folks further away from wanting to invest any public money into a new arena.
Like I said, it doesn't apply for every player but I think it factors in somewhat and will only continue to get worse as time goes on. For some reason Calgary isn't the most appealing market, would a new arena change that? Maybe not but it certainly can't hurt. Now should this be the main reason we need a new arena? No. It doesn't make sense to me given that Calgary is a world class city and always recognized very highly in global ranks. Or it could just be a weather inditement. This is just my opinion. Lot of arguments being made on each side have validity to them, hopefully when a deal is reached it makes sense for the people of Calgary.
Like I said, it doesn't apply for every player but I think it factors in somewhat and will only continue to get worse as time goes on. For some reason Calgary isn't the most appealing market, would a new arena change that? Maybe not but it certainly can't hurt. Now should this be the main reason we need a new arena? No. It doesn't make sense to me given that Calgary is a world class city and always recognized very highly in global ranks. Or it could just be a weather inditement. This is just my opinion. Lot of arguments being made on each side have validity to them, hopefully when a deal is reached it makes sense for the people of Calgary.
I think it is one box players check. I doubt it is high on the list, but probably one of the pros and cons they when when it is a tough decision. Like if I am offered 2 cars, one is a blue Tesla and the other a red Civic. I really want a red car, but I am still taking the blue Tesla. If I am offered red and blue Teslas, colour would be the point that helps make my decision on which one I choose. Team facilities are probably similar when players make decisions on where to play.
It's kind of moot point though. If Calgary does not get a new arena within the next decade, there won't be a team to lure players to.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-01-2022 at 04:52 PM.
Which there was two threads one for Arena updates, and one for all of this. I read lots of dribble when you just want to read what's been newly reported.
CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryred
Which there was two threads one for Arena updates, and one for all of this. I read lots of dribble when you just want to read what's been newly reported.
I mean there are two threads for exactly that reason…
Reminder that a new building does not guarantee jack####. The fact most major acts only play Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal will not suddenly change because we have a new building. Maybe we can beat out Edmonton now for some shows, but then again maybe not. Banking on a new arena to start suddenly bringing in big acts is a very hopeful, and likely foolish, bet.
If the artist is looking at 5+ Canadian dates on a tour, they'd absolutely go through Calgary if we were sporting a new building that had generated some media chatter.
Many pop stars do less than that though and likely keep to mtl/tor/van.
You would be guaranteed all the biggest country stars as yyc would be seen as a hot spot and some rock groups for sure.
The transition wouldn't be instant, but eventually Calgary would be a regular stop for big artists again.
you'll *pay* to use it. this isn't a city park or library with unfettered access, why the hell should it be a "public works" project. Are we going to get access to ice times?
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I want an arena to get built. The best chance of that happening is with public funds, therefore I want public funds used for this.
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I want an arena to get built. The best chance of that happening is with public funds, therefore I want public funds used for this.
If the artist is looking at 5+ Canadian dates on a tour, they'd absolutely go through Calgary if we were sporting a new building that had generated some media chatter.
Many pop stars do less than that though and likely keep to mtl/tor/van.
You would be guaranteed all the biggest country stars as yyc would be seen as a hot spot and some rock groups for sure.
The transition wouldn't be instant, but eventually Calgary would be a regular stop for big artists again.
When you're touring, every city is the same - airports and hotels. The only thing that matters for booking a tour stop is the venue - how good is the venue, and how many tickets can you sell?
(and geography can matter too, of course, if a city is too out of the way)
This is amazing. You are guys are responding to all the Bo Levi troll posts in here so he doesn't pollute the off topic threads with his terrible posts.
You guys are doing Gods work.
__________________ Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
Reminder that a new building does not guarantee jack####. The fact most major acts only play Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal will not suddenly change because we have a new building. Maybe we can beat out Edmonton now for some shows, but then again maybe not. Banking on a new arena to start suddenly bringing in big acts is a very hopeful, and likely foolish, bet.
It would likely mean a return to how things were 15+ years ago when most tours came through and played both Edmonton and Calgary (often along with Saskatoon, Winnipeg, etc. on a bigger national tour). We still wouldn't get the absolute biggest shows that only play the big 3 cities, but there have been many acts that have had to skip Calgary in recent years due to the Saddledome's inability to accommodate their stage setup (or they've played a scaled-back show relative to what they did in Edmonton).
Any act that currently plays Edmonton, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg on a tour but skips Calgary would fall into that category. There's usually a few of those every year.
Also, both Edmonton and Calgary having top-tier 15,000+ venues might bring a few more acts that just skip the prairies altogether right now because it can be worth their while at that point.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Even now there are still a few acts that hit Calgary but not Edmonton. I compared calendars for a few specific years and there were like 4 YEG only and like 3 YYC only...and then there were another handful that played Rogers in Edmonton and the Corral in CGY, or vice-versa.
Now I will preface this that I understand that Dallas/Fort Worth has like 5 times the amount of people relative to Calgary and that the absolute vast amount of resources that have been used on stadiums there probably is a sign of a toxic culture in the opposite direction . . . However I find the fact that a city with a metro population now over 1.5 million people in North America is still trotting out a crumbling arena built in the early 80s (it's going to take 50-$100 million to repair the Saddledome's roof in 5-10 years) and a basic venue made from concrete slabs that cost $10 million in 2020 dollars in 1960 as it's professional sports stadiums as absolutely embarrassing and so much so that it probably impacts some peoples decisions with tourist dollars and even deciding to move here in the first place.
Last edited by Cowboy89; 09-01-2022 at 06:30 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
