[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by Benched

Something inherently wrong with this statement.

I guess I'm in the 'they're not a public service' camp. Which maybe is the disconnect going on between the 2 camps. CFL is not a service or something inherently beneficial to our society. I love it...doesn't mean that it falls in that camp. Hence, why are we 'ponying up' to 'save it'.


If it's a business, which I think it is...then it needs to be run like a business. Stand on it's own merits, or fold.

Where you draw that line is pretty arbitrary, is a museum or an art gallery or the music centre a business? Should they raise admission prices to cover their costs or fold, instead of being subsidized by tax payers? In any event, I can tell you that every other city in the CFL appears to have determined it is beneficial to our society because they all have publicly funded stadiums. The CalgaryNext proposal offers even further benefit that it will be a fieldhouse for recreational and amateur athletes across the city.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Simanium

Where you draw that line is pretty arbitrary, is a museum or an art gallery or the music centre a business? Should they raise admission prices to cover their costs or fold, instead of being subsidized by tax payers? In any event, I can tell you that every other city in the CFL appears to have determined it is beneficial to our society because they all have publicly funded stadiums. The CalgaryNext proposal offers even further benefit that it will be a fieldhouse for recreational and amateur athletes across the city.

Except the public can only use it when CSE is not, stamps games, stamps practices, I'm guessing large events at the event centre will make it a pain in the butt or impossible to use the field house as well.

Why not build the field house somewhere else and without the stamps so we the people can truly use it whenever.

[Cube Inmate]

Leaving the stadium issue aside for a moment, let's assume the Flames owners foot the bill for a new arena by themselves. There's talk that owners go bankrupt when building their own buildings...so is there really even a business case for it?

What increase in revenue, on an annual basis, is needed to offset an initial cost of $450M amortized over (say) 25 years? It depends on the interest rates of course, but even at 0% interest they would need a minimum of $18M more / year (and more likely $25M+ to account for a reasonable interest / investment rate) to break even on a $450M arena.

I assume hockey-related revenues for the Flames are well in excess of $140M / year, given that the league-wide average is around that amount (based on the $70M cap). It seems reasonable to think that the increased ticket costs, luxury boxes, and (non-HRR) additional event revenue could easily add up to an extra $18-25M/year with a state-of-the-art building, especially if they're allowed to build it right next to downtown.

is it really uneconomical for them to pay for their own building? Are my increase-in-revenue assumptions inaccurate? Again, leaving the stadium issue aside--I'm perfectly willing to accept that building a CFL stadium is a money-losing proposition.

[Table 5]

I tend to think government funding is around to provide us with things that are impossible, or at least extremely hard, to have by private investment alone. Things like roads, bridges, parks, nature conservation, hospitals, public art, museums, schools, libraries, riverfront bike paths, playgrounds...those things would be a lot harder to have without some, or all, of it being funded by the public. And those things are accessible to the vast majority of citizens.

While I do think they bring value to the city, professional hockey and football teams don't really qualify for the above. They are a private entertainment enterprise, and one that is outside of the reach of a lot of Calgarians.

There's only so much funding to go around, and it's the responsibility for our leaders to divide that money in the best way possible, to benefit as many Calgarians as possible. At the end of the day, it really does come down to things like a Cancer Centre vs Sports Stadium. As much as I like the Flames, if the NHL or CFL can't survive here without public money, then they either need to change their business model, or leave.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I tend to think government funding is around to provide us with things that are impossible, or at least extremely hard, to have by private investment alone. Things like roads, bridges, parks, nature conservation, hospitals, public art, museums, schools, libraries, riverfront bike paths, playgrounds...those things would be a lot harder to have without some, or all, of it being funded by the public. And those things are accessible to the vast majority of citizens.

While I do think they bring value to the city, professional hockey and football teams don't really qualify for the above. They are a private entertainment enterprise, and one that is outside of the reach of a lot of Calgarians.

There's only so much funding to go around, and it's the responsibility for our leaders to divide that money in the best way possible, to benefit as many Calgarians as possible. At the end of the day, it really does come down to things like a Cancer Centre vs Sports Stadium. As much as I like the Flames, if the NHL or CFL can't survive here without public money, then they either need to change their business model, or leave.

I don't understand this line of thinking.

No, it doesn't come down to "a cancer center or a sports stadium". That is just hyperbole.

The Flames either need to change how the professional sports industry operates or move away from Calgary?

Come on, this is just unrealistic. Modern arenas and stadiums get public funding these days. You don't need to agree with current funding model, or the location, or the design, or whatever, but it's unreasonable to expect for the Flames to pay for the entire things in today's world.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by bax

I don't understand this line of thinking.

You might not understand it, but funding decisions are made every day based on priority and available resources. The examples might change (feel free to replace "Cancer Center" with new buses, or snow removal, new interchanges, or pot hole maintenance), but cities make these types of decisions all the time. The Province cut the Cancer Center exactly because of funding issues. Does the Province now magically have some extra money for the Flames, just because this is how it's done in "todays world"?

The money is either there or it isn't. If they pay for a stadium, something else has to be cut. There simply isn't enough money to do everything on our wish list. We're not Dubai.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I tend to think government funding is around to provide us with things that are impossible, or at least extremely hard, to have by private investment alone. Things like roads, bridges, parks, nature conservation, hospitals, public art, museums, schools, libraries, riverfront bike paths, playgrounds...those things would be a lot harder to have without some, or all, of it being funded by the public. And those things are accessible to the vast majority of citizens.

While I do think they bring value to the city, professional hockey and football teams don't really qualify for the above. They are a private entertainment enterprise, and one that is outside of the reach of a lot of Calgarians.

There's only so much funding to go around, and it's the responsibility for our leaders to divide that money in the best way possible, to benefit as many Calgarians as possible. At the end of the day, it really does come down to things like a Cancer Centre vs Sports Stadium. As much as I like the Flames, if the NHL or CFL can't survive here without public money, then they either need to change their business model, or leave.

Would you classify ballet halls, Orchestra halls, playhouses in the same category as the Flames? Often those are funded by public money under the "public art" category. They often only benefit a select few Calgarians (my wife and sometimes me among them).

What the Flames are proposing is on a much larger scale, but would benefit many more Calgarians than say an Opera House would. In fact, it would be on the same scale as the Sydney Opera House budget in 1973, which their government fully funded.

If your stance is no to any public buildings for art, then I can see the point. However, if it is yes to museums, recital halls, and the like we need to keep in mind the Flames are just as much a part of Calgary. Yes, artists build their own venues with private donation, like the Jack Singer. So are the Flames. Just on a larger scale.

I am in the camp this could be a better negotiated deal, but I think there is promise here. Something that can work out to benefit many Calgarians. If the city owns the building then demand the Flames donate 500 seats/game to kids up front. Now that would be an awesome idea.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Table 5

You might not understand it, but funding decisions are made every day based on priority and available resources. The examples might change (feel free to replace "Cancer Center" with new buses, or snow removal, new interchanges, or pot hole maintenance), but cities make these types of decisions all the time. The Province cut the Cancer Center exactly because of funding issues. Does the Province now magically have some extra money for the Flames, just because this is how it's done in "todays world"?

The money is either there or it isn't. If they pay for a stadium, something else has to be cut. There simply isn't enough money to do everything on our wish list. We're not Dubai.

I understand that governments have funding decisions to make. What I don't understand is your opinion that if the flames can't finance this stadium on their own then they need to leave the city. Some public money will end up going towards this project in the end. It's just the reality of the situation.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Would you classify ballet halls, Orchestra halls, playhouses in the same category as the Flames? Often those are funded by public money under the "public art" category. They often only benefit a select few Calgarians (my wife and sometimes me among them).

The difference is that many Arts simply do not survive without benefactors or public funding, and even then it's often on a shoe-string budget. That and most museums and performance halls are non-profit organizations.

The Flames are a private enterprise, not a non-profit, in a hockey-mad market. The reality is that Canada is the hockey hotbed of the world, and Calgary is one of the wealthiest cities in that market. If professional hockey isn't sustainable here, it doesn't really make sense anywhere. The Flames aren't going anywhere, and they know it. We've just convinced ourselves that not only should we pay to attend these events, we should also prop up the owners of these teams with tax deals, free loans, and as is often the case, the venues themselves. Again, to prop up a private enterprise.

Btw, I am all for the city subsidizing amateur sports...and we already do. Community Centers, bike paths, parks, soccer fields, baseball fields...all provided by government. How many of these are sacrificed when half a billion dollars of funding disappears?

[Frequitude]

This would be my preferred deal structure.

1) Owners pay the cost of the arena. I will assume this is $450M and they can pay for it however they want (up front cash, ticket tax, Murray Edwards' Visa, etc.). Just so long as the ticket tax loan isn't fronted by the taxpayer at an artificially low interest rate.

2) City kicks in $200M of Fieldhouse funds.

3) Owners pay the incremental cost of bringing a basic fieldhouse up to the standards required for CFL. I will assume is the $250M the CRL is needed for. Again, they can finance this however they want, so long as it isn't with a sweetheart loan from the tax payer.

4) The creosote liability is funded by whichever level of government holds the liability. (note, I don't know who technically holds it or even if a level of government does for sure).

5) The city owns the new arena and obtains revenue by leasing it out to the owners. Major improvements are footed by the owners. I'm uncertain on how to chop up maintenance.

6) The city fixes the surrounding road infrastructure. This is where I want the $250M CRL money going, even though that would be effectively the city lending money to itself.


So basically take the existing proposal, make the owners pay for the fieldhouse->arena scope upgrade and use the CRL to instead pay for the roads.

[Tyler]

I'm looking forward to The City bending over and giving the Flames what they need, Calgary having a beautiful multi-sport venue that we can boast about for a generation and a half, and all you bleeding heart taxpaying know it alls to gobble up tickets as fast as you can and not a word of CRL or economic trickle down talk you parroted from Twitter or John Oliver to be spoken a month after the red ribbon is cut.

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by Tyler

I'm looking forward to The City bending over and giving the Flames what they need, Calgary having a beautiful multi-sport venue that we can boast about for a generation and a half, and all you bleeding heart taxpaying know it alls to gobble up tickets as fast as you can and not a word of CRL or economic trickle down talk you parroted from Twitter or John Oliver to be spoken a month after the red ribbon is cut.

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that.

yep, just not going full tilt 'give them what they want' because it's trendy right now. I'm such a sheep.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tyler

I'm looking forward to The City bending over and giving the Flames what they need, Calgary having a beautiful multi-sport venue that we can boast about for a generation and a half, and all you bleeding heart taxpaying know it alls to gobble up tickets as fast as you can and not a word of CRL or economic trickle down talk you parroted from Twitter or John Oliver to be spoken a month after the red ribbon is cut.

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that.

Best post of the thread.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Tyler

I'm looking forward to The City bending over and giving the Flames what they need, Calgary having a beautiful multi-sport venue that we can boast about for a generation and a half, and all you bleeding heart taxpaying know it alls to gobble up tickets as fast as you can and not a word of CRL or economic trickle down talk you parroted from Twitter or John Oliver to be spoken a month after the red ribbon is cut.

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that.

And I'm really looking forward to people continuing to whine about things like snow removal, "Spendshi" raising our taxes, packed LRT trains, police using red-light cameras to generate revenue, having to play amateur hockey at 11pm because there aren't enough community rinks, etc etc......all because they don't realize that every damn thing comes down to how we distribute our money. Spending a dollar here, has consequences somewhere else.

It is quite odd how so many fiscal conservatives suddenly become raging socialists as soon as pro sports is involved.

[GioforPM]

I think a nice HS stadium would do.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

This would be my preferred deal structure.

1) Owners pay the cost of the arena. I will assume this is $450M and they can pay for it however they want (up front cash, ticket tax, Murray Edwards' Visa, etc.). Just so long as the ticket tax loan isn't fronted by the taxpayer at an artificially low interest rate.

2) City kicks in $200M of Fieldhouse funds.

3) Owners pay the incremental cost of bringing a basic fieldhouse up to the standards required for CFL. I will assume is the $250M the CRL is needed for. Again, they can finance this however they want, so long as it isn't with a sweetheart loan from the tax payer.

4) The creosote liability is funded by whichever level of government holds the liability. (note, I don't know who technically holds it or even if a level of government does for sure).

5) The city owns the new arena and obtains revenue by leasing it out to the owners. Major improvements are footed by the owners. I'm uncertain on how to chop up maintenance.

6) The city fixes the surrounding road infrastructure. This is where I want the $250M CRL money going, even though that would be effectively the city lending money to itself.


So basically take the existing proposal, make the owners pay for the fieldhouse->arena scope upgrade and use the CRL to instead pay for the roads.

I came to almost the same conclusion as you, with the exception of #5. If the Flames put up the money for the building, let them own and operate the building (on long-term leased land from the city). The city benefits from taking property tax on the building, and can theoretically re-sell the land at the end of the lease period (e.g. 50 years); conversely, we'd be on the hook for rental fees if the city (we) want to use any of the facilities for public good (e.g. practice facility as a public rink).

Oh-- and I'd much prefer the Stadium outside the WV. I really dislike the integrated design at that cramped location. I have looked at the figures in King's presentation and I frankly think the "savings" are a bunch of BS. They've given high-ball costs for individual components to come to $1.2B, then magically knocked $330M off that without explaining how.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Table 5

And I'm really looking forward to people continuing to whine about things like snow removal, "Spendshi" raising our taxes, packed LRT trains, police using red-light cameras to generate revenue, having to play amateur hockey at 11pm because there aren't enough community rinks, etc etc......all because they don't realize that every damn thing comes down to how we distribute our money. Spending a dollar here, has consequences somewhere else.

It is quite odd how so many fiscal conservatives suddenly become raging socialists as soon as pro sports is involved.

dont forget about how the NDP ruined our economy like everyone said they would

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by stone hands

dont forget about how the NDP ruined our economy like everyone said they would

How did they do that? The narrative begins awfully early

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

How did they do that? The narrative begins awfully early

We are talking about hypothetically, when the government needs to give 800 million dollars that dont exist today, and taxes need to be raised to pay for it

Because despite what many people on this board and around the city think, money doesnt grow on trees

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by stone hands

We are talking about hypothetically, when the government needs to give 800 million dollars that dont exist today, and taxes need to be raised to pay for it

Because despite what many people on this board and around the city think, money doesnt grow on trees

Sorry, didn't read the post quoted. I thought you were being serious