[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[stone hands]

yeah my bad, should have used green text

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

How did they do that? The narrative begins awfully early

They forced the price of oil down. In fact they sneakily did it a year before getting into power.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

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.

Good call. I like the city owned and leased land idea with the Flames owning the building. When I wrote the post I was for some reason thinking that I wanted the city to own the building+land as a package so they could have the land back at the end of the day without thinking of segregating the two. Really, I just want the city to hold onto the land.

To be honest though, I wouldn't be terrible fussed if the city owned the building. Its probably at the bottom of my list in terms of wants for the deal (although not trivial).

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on integration savings. It feels like the right order of magnitude on a cocktail napkin level gut feel analysis.

[Northendzone]

interesting comment in today's herald from a "hydrology" guy noting that a little more than a year removed from the floods that the proposed location of this new facility is along the river on a flood plain.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

interesting comment in today's herald from a "hydrology" guy noting that a little more than a year removed from the floods that the proposed location of this new facility is along the river on a flood plain.

I saw that. Of course Mewata, Shaw Millenium Park and immediately west were the areas not affected in 2013. For whatever reason.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 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.

Based on the flames current proposal they can afford to build the arena themselves. 450 for an arena, 250 ticket tax (the stamps dates weren't generating a lot of this relative to the flames dates and concert dates) and the flames 200 million. Not sure of the business case but they certainly have the money to build an arena without going bankrupt.

There is no business case for spending x million dollars to convert a field house to a stadium for the CFL. The riders paid 25 million of their stadium and no other team has paid any. So if the stamps are as profitable as the riders then the flames might be able to chip in 25 mil.

In this way the stamps are very similar to a museum or and opera house. If CFL football is culturally significant and you want it to exist it requires government subsidy. The question around the CFL is do the stamps need more than McMahon which I believe they do not.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I saw that. Of course Mewata, Shaw Millenium Park and immediately west were the areas not affected in 2013. For whatever reason.

I think that reason is the location is not on the floodplain, notwithstanding the proximity to the river.

Not sure what constitutes a floodplain, but I know after the last flood, there was a fair bit of politics and negotiation involved in determining the floodplain surrounding the Elbow, as those residents had different outcomes if they decided to rebuild.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by GGG

Based on the flames current proposal they can afford to build the arena themselves. 450 for an arena, 250 ticket tax (the stamps dates weren't generating a lot of this relative to the flames dates and concert dates) and the flames 200 million. Not sure of the business case but they certainly have the money to build an arena without going bankrupt.

There is no business case for spending x million dollars to convert a field house to a stadium for the CFL. The riders paid 25 million of their stadium and no other team has paid any. So if the stamps are as profitable as the riders then the flames might be able to chip in 25 mil.

In this way the stamps are very similar to a museum or and opera house. If CFL football is culturally significant and you want it to exist it requires government subsidy. The question around the CFL is do the stamps need more than McMahon which I believe they do not.

I tend to agree with this as well. Totally understand the issues people have funding the arena, but somehow the football stadium feels more like a public issue (even though I recognize it is owned by the same owners).
Certainly the fieldhouse is public, and I do think that creating a space that the Stamps can play in would be extremely advantageous, as I don't see the need for a separate CFL and fieldhouse facility.

It may be wishful thinking, but I do like the plan conceptually, building these facilities in the same space, near downtown. Funding is obviously a huge hurdle, but I wonder if the mood changes if the Flames/Stamps kick in more and acknowledge that the plan should include remediation and Bow Trail location, on the city/provincial/feds (election year!) dime.

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

interesting comment in today's herald from a "hydrology" guy noting that a little more than a year removed from the floods that the proposed location of this new facility is along the river on a flood plain.

Isn't the Province already finalizing it's plan of action to minimize flooding on the Bow and Elbow? If so, not sure why this would be an issue, considering it didn't flood in 2013.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Tough to say. The Flames do not release their financials so we would be guessing at this point. It's easy to claim poor when we cannot actually see how poor one is.

It is also tough to sell the city on an arena when QC and Vegas are going full steam on a 500 million dollar payment just to get a team... I am assuming running a team must be pretty lucrative, but again, just speculation

[bax]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Tough to say. The Flames do not release their financials so we would be guessing at this point. It's easy to claim poor when we cannot actually see how poor one is.



It is also tough to sell the city on an arena when QC and Vegas are going full steam on a 500 million dollar payment just to get a team... I am assuming running a team must be pretty lucrative, but again, just speculation

I would have to assume the majority of NHL owners are wealthy because of their other ventures. Owning an NHL franchise is not a money maker for (most) owners.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by bax

I would have to assume the majority of NHL owners are wealthy because of their other ventures. Owning an NHL franchise is not a money maker for (most) owners.

I disagree. There certainly are bad investments, but there's money to be made in accumulated equity. The flames were bought for 16 Million and are worth about 50 times that now

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by bax

I would have to assume the majority of NHL owners are wealthy because of their other ventures. Owning an NHL franchise is not a money maker for (most) owners.

I don't mean lucrative in the sense of the owner's are rich because of the teams (although that is the case for many NFL owners), but I don't think we can assume the majority are money losers. We have no reason to assume so, other than owners claiming they lose money, which again, can never be proven unless they open their books (which they don't do)

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

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.

Would have to imagine the majority of the $330M cost savings come combining the field house and stadium. Uncoupling the arena from the other two and removing one of them from the WV might be a good plan B. Flames organization could then fund the arena separately and the costs over and above the $200M the city will pay for the field house/stadium.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

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.

The classic line of *everyone* in front of government goes
'The money I want is an investment, all these other expenditures are subsidies'.

conservatives and socialists alike. And they're all equally convinced their investment is the moral and rational one.

[saillias]

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.

Let's be honest. All that will continue status quo regardless of what happens with the arena deal

[corporatejay]

One thing that has been overlooked, that people haven't factored into the money the city would be given is the land value itself.

That land, once remediated, would have to be worth a fair chunk of cash. Stating that "the city would continue to own it" is kind of bull#### because it can't be developed.

Just pulling a number out of thin air, but assume that it has an estimated value of $100 million. That's revenue the city is foregoing. Why isn't that also factored in to the taxpayer money that's being poured into this project?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

From an outsider POV who is a Flames fan, I should want the arena because it is what's best for the Flames and my money isn't going toward it anyway, but I just can't wrap my head around this proposal just the same. The Flames kicking in even 450m and getting a 890m facility in addition to not having to help with the clean up/receive the land for free is utter insanity IMO. I don't have a stake in this as I don't live in Calgary (or even AB), but I feel the city/province is getting completely boned by the Flames proposal.

The province/city should clean up the land (going to have to anyway) and then sell it to the highest bidder, that is what is logical. Of course, this is pro sports and civic pride so logic really need not apply. I just feel there has to be a more equitable way forward here and I love the Flames as much as anyone. Even if this is a just their first offer to kick off negotiations, I don't see how this can result in a fair deal, even if the city meets them half way.

[Cube Inmate]

For those who haven't seen it, the area redevelopment plan (ARP) from 2010 can be found here (beware it might be a large download): http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documen...illage-arp.pdf

Of course, this report is only a concept and/or guidance for future possible development, but I found the concept to be pretty attractive and it's an area I could even see myself (a sad suburbanite) going to visit or even living in when I get older. In this report, the number one thing to address is the realignment of bow trail to open up the riverfront. Any plan that doesn't do this is (IMHO) not adequate.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by trew

The current plan is to build the fieldhouse on university lands next to McMahon Stadium. They could either continue with these plans, or select a different site, and build it on whatever time frame city budgeting allows.

I just don't think that it makes sense to build it smack dab in the middle of the West Village.

Then where does the new football stadium go?

The Foothills plan only included a maximum 10,000 seats and those stands would be temporary because they would be covering a lot of the gyms and courts.
The infield would also be where the racquet courts would be located.

Originally Posted by The Ditch

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.

The plans say that the MS Fieldhouse would be open 365 days a year because the gymnasia, tracks and courts would be separate from the football field.

That makes sense. They wouldn't close all of that simply because a hockey game is going on a block down the hall. Jack Simpson doesn't shut down during speedskating events.