[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by getbak

How about the photographer with the super-zoom lens for what appears to be a girls' youth soccer practice. I think he'll be having a conversation with the police before he leaves the building.

Also, the runners have no shadows. I won't ever be going to a place that allows vampires to use their facilities.

[PeteMoss]

If there wasn't $200m budgeted (or planned) for a fieldhouse by the city - there is no way the Flames would be putting one in their plan.

I think in general they are probably fine with paying for the vast majority of the arena themselves and through a ticket tax.

But I doubt they want to spend much on a new stadium for the Stamps so this is a chance to get some money from the city to lower their costs in that regard. Wouldn't surprise me if the arena ends up being built solo and the Flames ownership will have to decide how much they really want to put into a stadium.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

This website recently popped up from a friend, on my Facebook newsfeed.

http://www.calgarynope.com/

CalgaryNIXT?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

This website recently popped up from a friend, on my Facebook newsfeed.

http://www.calgarynope.com/

A whopping 68 likes on their facebook page.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

If there wasn't $200m budgeted (or planned) for a fieldhouse by the city - there is no way the Flames would be putting one in their plan.

I think in general they are probably fine with paying for the vast majority of the arena themselves and through a ticket tax.

But I doubt they want to spend much on a new stadium for the Stamps so this is a chance to get some money from the city to lower their costs in that regard. Wouldn't surprise me if the arena ends up being built solo and the Flames ownership will have to decide how much they really want to put into a stadium.

The fieldhouse is pegged to be in the range of $450 million so if you take away the fieldhouse money you are still left with enough money to make a little outdoor stadium like Hamilton's but I expect the owners prefer an indoor venue as Calgary fans are pretty fair weather and fall/spring conditions are milder out east where they can get away with playing in October/November outdoors without fans freezing.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by erick estrada

Calgary fans are pretty fair weather

you watch your mouth!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

http://www.calgarynope.com/

So the anti-subsidy crowd is against a ticket tax? Even though that's pretty much a user fee? Nitwits.

(The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is also screwing this up.)

[The Ditch]

That is assuming that CSE secures their own private loan for the money that will be repaid through the ticket tax, because I can guarantee you they want the city to front them that money, how is that not a subsidy?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

That is assuming that CSE secures their own private loan for the money that will be repaid through the ticket tax, because I can guarantee you they want the city to front them that money, how is that not a subsidy?

Supposing the city provides subsidized interest - the value of the subsidy is still not the value of the ticket tax - which is how it's being presented.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by RM14

Not sure if possible, but the northbound bow trail needs to be a tunnel. The cut up of the village does not look very pedestrian friendly.

Ummmm huh? (Couldn't resist)

Agreed it looks pedestrian unfriendly, but I also suspect a tunnel would be ridiculously infeasible with the river (and probably high water table) there. Just start running car-transport service on the west LRT and shut down bow trail completely!

(Sarcasm at Calgary next, not above poster)

[PeteMoss]

Recent article on government funding on arena/stadiums - http://www.psmag.com/business-econom...ports-stadiums

US focused of course.

[RM14]

West Village is a mess. Even the non-arena concepts (beginning on page 54 of the linked document) are not the greatest. http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documen...illage-arp.pdf

[SebC]

Originally Posted by RM14

West Village is a mess. Even the non-arena concepts (beginning on page 54 of the linked document) are not the greatest. http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documen...illage-arp.pdf

Wanna elaborate on what you don't like about it?

[getbak]

After the reaction to the city adding a couple of bike lanes downtown earlier this year, there's a part of me that wants to see CalgaryNext fail just so the city can push forward with that ARP design.

I want to witness the collective head-explosion over adding what appears to be 5 new intersections (presumably, each controlled by a set of lights) in each direction on Bow Trail between Crowchild and 14th St. to turn Bow Trail into a pedestrian-friendly area.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by SebC

So the anti-subsidy crowd is against a ticket tax? Even though that's pretty much a user fee? Nitwits.

(The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is also screwing this up.)

A ticket tax is not a user fee. It's not like without the ticket tax tickets would suddenly be X amount cheaper.

It's effectively a tax on the ticket seller, not the ticket buyer. This "ticket seller tax" allows a slice of future ticket revenues to essentially be securitized and borrowed against.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

A ticket tax is not a user fee. It's not like without the ticket tax tickets would suddenly be X amount cheaper.

It's effectively a tax on the ticket seller, not the ticket buyer. This "ticket seller tax" allows a slice of future ticket revenues to essentially be securitized and borrowed against.

The point is that it doesn't factor into public taxes, and therefore shouldn't be included in their grievances.

And yes, the ticket tax will most certainly be worked into the price of seats at the new stadium. It likely won't show as an separate fee on your receipt, or be a flat 5% on each ticket or whatever, but ticket prices will be higher in the new stadium and you can bet that whatever they are having to pay back on the debt is a factor in what they decide to charge for their tickets. They gave it a name of ticket tax, and since ticket prices are increasing partially as a result of them having to pay that back, yes, the user is paying for it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by MattyC

The point is that it doesn't factor into public taxes, and therefore shouldn't be included in their grievances.

And yes, the ticket tax will most certainly be worked into the price of seats at the new stadium. It likely won't show as an separate fee on your receipt, or be a flat 5% on each ticket or whatever, but ticket prices will be higher in the new stadium and you can bet that whatever they are having to pay back on the debt is a factor in what they decide to charge for their tickets. They gave it a name of ticket tax, and since ticket prices are increasing partially as a result of them having to pay that back, yes, the user is paying for it.

The CTF probably heard "tax" and that was the end of the thought process.

[Coach]

That is exactly what happened.

[Barnes]

Some news! Well, not really but a few things we assumed/feared are clarified in this interview with KK.

If the project costs more to do “then we can’t build it,” says King.

There will be no sweetening of the $200-million pot from the owners.

“This is not a starting position,” says the CEO.

‘This is the position we can handle.”

And, if it falls apart, King says there is no “implied threat” about what the future holds.

No implied threat but we know what it means. $200mm is what the owners will be offering to pay for and there is no plan B.

King includes the ticket tax/user pay because the city would lend the dough and be paid back over time with interest.

“It’s a loan,” says King.

“We just want to get the best rate. If the city has the best rate and the capacity then that’s where we’d love to get it from.”

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/09/12...ls-calgarynext

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Barnes

No implied threat but we know what it means. $200mm is what the owners will be offering to pay for and there is no plan B.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/09/12...ls-calgarynext

This is a very odd way to negotiate. Basically saying "this is our best offer, take it or leave it."