Saddledome literally falling apart

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That could be what I am thinking of.

It was in the episode The First Duty.

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I’ve had a number of people from the middle east (never mind Europe) that knew of Calgary because of the stampede.

It’s surprising how well known it is.

Most of the Europeans I deal with know of Calgary due to the Olympic Games. Sadly our chance to build on that again is gone.

[powderjunkie]

I still haven't heard an answer to exactly what the city has screwed up so far (beyond tweets after the fact)?

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Why is it hard to believe that a new event centre would attract more and bigger events and concerts?
They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading and expanding the BMO centre for the very same reason. To attract bigger and more conferences and exhibitions that would never consider coming to Calgary previously. We're the 4th largest city in Canada, we host a world famous event every July, we have an international airport that services over 15,000,000 passengers a year(pre-pandemic), and we're at the doorstep to a world famous national park.
A new event centre and the redevelopment of that area is the final piece. I think it has the potential to transform not only the area, but the city and truly make Calgary a more desirable destination.

A new arena doesn't significantly change the calculus for most promoters beyond removing a * on Calgary (weight loads).

Most of the wonderful new features that help CSEC optimize their revenue generation (suites/concessions) don't really trickle down to a promoter - they are booking the non-revenue generating aspects of a facility (building ops/utilities, ushers, custodial, security, medical, local crew, etc). There is a lot of nuance here and some variation on agreements, but the two main margins to identify are:

- CSEC could theoretically charge a bit less for the venue to entice more bookings, since they should make more on ancillary items and might have slightly reduced variable costs like staffing and utilities
- The ticket tax (which was going to be higher for non-sporting events after the CMLC buyout negotiation) would actually make the market a bit less attractive for promoters, as it reduces their cut of total ticket transaction


Touring is all about optimization and risk mitigation. And it's heavily data driven. Calgary may prove itself to be a golden-goose over some time, but there are some weird anomalies where great markets on paper don't actually sell that well, and vice versa (though this can become a bit of a reputational feedback loop).

Ultimately we'll get a few more 'heavy' shows. But they may still skip one or both of CGY/EDM. Hell, sometimes it makes more sense to do two 70% shows at one city instead of selling out both towns.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jammies

I can't speak for nik, but this habit of never qualifying or explaining your position besides a generic statement of "both sides" implies you do believe both sides are equally to blame. Maybe try not making bland, generic statements that actively shy away from taking a position, and clarify what you mean, instead of bloviating pointlessly and expecting people to read your mind in what you haven't said.

If you don't know, and couldn't say, who is more at fault in the arena debacle so far, why opine at all? What do you seek to accomplish? A victory for neutrality?

Anyone else under this restriction for posting or just me? Wasn't aware of these rules ... odd I've never run into them.

My position is most things in life is there are always two sides, their are complications, and there is almost always more going on behind the scenes than a bunch of know it alls on a message board are privy too.

Because of that I definitely get triggered when people pick of extremes on issues and run with it, essentially filtering out anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

[Flames_Gimp]

wow the c of red is really rockin

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Anyone else under this restriction for posting or just me? Wasn't aware of these rules ... odd I've never run into them.

My position is most things in life is there are always two sides, their are complications, and there is almost always more going on behind the scenes than a bunch of know it alls on a message board are privy too.

Because of that I definitely get triggered when people pick of extremes on issues and run with it, essentially filtering out anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

Well said. The world is ****ed cause a lot of people on both sides of the discussion don't understand the concept of listening.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

The world is ####ed because people are discussing a failed arena deal and assigning blame based on the info available? Oh the humanity! It truly is the end times.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The world is ####ed because people are discussing a failed arena deal and assigning blame based on the info available? Oh the humanity! It truly is the end times.

Yes that’s exactly what the guy said.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Yes that’s exactly what the guy said.

It is. He literally said the world is ####ed. Lol. In an arena discussion thread.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

It is. He literally said the world is ####ed. Lol. In an arena discussion thread.

I think he was saying in general people don't listen to each other ... just get behind the soap box and re-narrate their one sided views.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think he was saying in general people don't listen to each other ... just get behind the soap box and re-narrate their one sided views.

Well turning the hyperbole up to 11 and declaring the world is ####ed because people aren’t listening doesn’t help.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by jammies

I can't speak for nik, but this habit of never qualifying or explaining your position besides a generic statement of "both sides" implies you do believe both sides are equally to blame. Maybe try not making bland, generic statements that actively shy away from taking a position, and clarify what you mean, instead of bloviating pointlessly and expecting people to read your mind in what you haven't said.

If you don't know, and couldn't say, who is more at fault in the arena debacle so far, why opine at all? What do you seek to accomplish? A victory for neutrality?

And right there is a perfect example of what is wrong with public discourse. Critical thinking to see pros and cons of both sides which leads to compromise gives way to having to pick a side and dig in and not listen to the other side? I'm reading more into your post than you say i know. But sorry I feel your post is crap. Unfortunately, you are probably in a majority in thinking this way.

[Strange Brew]

Taking the both sides approach isn't the default high road IMO, nor is it necessarily any indicator of greater critical thinking. Better to explain what both sides need to do differently and I'm not entirely sure what the city should be doing here. I'd love to hear more about that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Taking the both sides approach isn't the default high road IMO, nor is it necessarily any indicator of greater critical thinking. Better to explain what both sides need to do differently and I'm not entirely sure what the city should be doing here. I'd love to hear more about that.

I'm certainly not claiming any high ground for seeing both sides.

It's who I am.

I'm not extreme in almost anything. I usually see both sides and try hard to understand where people are coming from.

Was told I shouldn't even bother to waste people's time with that approach though, which was interesting.

And explain both sides? No thanks. You know how that will go.

[PepsiFree]

This arena issue reminds me a lot of the Israel/Palestine conflict tbh.

[powderjunkie]

I've still yet to see anyone articulate what the city has actually done here that can be viewed as a screwup/villainy? (aside from tweets after the fact)

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Anyone else under this restriction for posting or just me? Wasn't aware of these rules ... odd I've never run into them.

I asked you what the purpose was in posting a non-opinion. Care to answer? Or, as per usual, you could retreat behind the "I'm being repressed!" argument.

I'm not telling you not to post. I'm telling you your posts lack all relevance when your opinion is that you have no opinion. It is meaningless noise.

Originally Posted by Bingo

My position is most things in life is there are always two sides, their are complications, and there is almost always more going on behind the scenes than a bunch of know it alls on a message board are privy too.

There it is, it's like a Bingo bingo card hit! I'll leave aside the "always two sides" statement, since that's apparently an axiom you are unwilling to question, but humans work on incomplete data all the time and form opinions on that data. It's not possible to navigate life without doing so, you'd be forever mired in decision paralysis.

It is, though, still understandable to not have an opinion when you have very little data upon which it could be based, but that isn't the case here. There is over a decade of publicly available information on this topic, not having any opinion on the subject besides "we'll never know, we can't possibly know, we forever live in ignorance!" doesn't make you seem thoughtful and impartial, it makes you look afraid to take a position for fear that later you might be proven wrong.

Originally Posted by dustygoon

And right there is a perfect example of what is wrong with public discourse. Critical thinking to see pros and cons of both sides which leads to compromise gives way to having to pick a side and dig in and not listen to the other side?

I'm not saying pick an extreme and defend it to the death, though. I'm saying that if you don't have an opinion when there are facts to support one, that's just as bad as picking an extreme. An opinion is formed by what you think you know about a subject and the context your personal experiences apply to that knowledge, emphasizing some 'facts', and deemphasizing or outright rejecting others. If you know nothing that can inform an opinion, or profess a lack of judgement that prevents you from holding one, that is nothing to celebrate.

Critical thinking has to lead somewhere to be of purpose, else it is functionally identical to ignorance. Either way, you're sure you don't know what you think.

[transplant99]

train wrecks are awesome when no one gets hurt.

Just my opinion of course.