Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The City can't shut down the Saddledome without breaching the lease with CSEG, I suspect.

What is their lease right now? The 20 year deal they signed in 1994, to get the original renovations done, expired in 2014.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is break even better than losing a couple hundred million?

If the argument is that the city needs a venue, which I and apparently the city agree that it does, does it make more sense to build a venue that breaks even or one that loses 15 million a year?

What makes you think that option even exists? Break-even is what happens in large markets. Losing a couple of hundred million is what happens in small markets. The City of Calgary can't just decide to have a population of 3 million.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

What is their lease right now? The 20 year deal they signed in 1994, to get the original renovations done, expired in 2014.

I looked into it - everyone says it was renewed in 2014 but I can't find the term. The max term would be to 2033, when the Saddledome Foundation's head lease with the City expires.

[vanisleflamesfan]

I think the most important thing to note is that there is a place called:

Autism Rocks Arena Dubai, United Arab Emirates

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

And go to the list provided, use your Google-fu skills, and realize the reality of the large arenas and stadiums. The public foots the bills for these things and the returns to the public is pretty much nil. These buildings are break even at best, which is why the business owners want no part of them.

Maybe that means all cities need to recoup more of the money from the artists and sport teams that visit them.

You can't say arenas can't be self funding when you have 120million NBA payrolls, 200 million NFL payrolls, 80 million Hockey pay rolls and multiple concert tours grossing 100 million in a year.

The money to fund arenas exist. Cities are being stupid with tax dollars.

[The Fonz]

If the entertainment cannot pay for it's own venue, then why is the entertainment being paid so much money? Money that it is so obviously not worth.

The taxpayer is subsidizing player salaries, by way of paying for the venue.

Cut ~35% from every NHL team's roster payroll, and the owners could buy themselves new arenas every 20 years. The owners will never fight this battle though, because it'd take multiple lockouts to get there, with a lot of pain along the way... so why not just continue over-paying the players, and sticking taxpayers with the arena debt? Everyone's happy (except the taxpayer).

[RM14]

If you think top level entertainment will take a major pay cut for the good of the fans you're out to lunch. It's logical but the entertainment world won't miss us (Calgary).

And cities will always continue to one up each other to attract events, rather than coming together to reduce costs for patrons.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by RM14

If you think top level entertainment will take a major pay cut for the good of the fans you're out to lunch. It's logical but the entertainment world won't miss us (Calgary).

And cities will always continue to one up each other to attract events, rather than coming together to reduce costs for patrons.

I never did say that I think it'll happen. I don't.

There will always be a government willing to concede to these leagues, so I assume it'll always be the way that we're seeing today.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I never did say that I think it'll happen. I don't.

There will always be a government willing to concede to these leagues, so I assume it'll always be the way that we're seeing today.

there recently was a MLB player who said they play too many games.
he said personally, he'd be fine with a pay cut to play fewer games.

in the same article the players union head said they'd be willing to consider less games but for the same pay. they'd never do anything that involved less money.
these leagues are cutting their own throats. owners and players.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

If the entertainment cannot pay for it's own venue, then why is the entertainment being paid so much money? Money that it is so obviously not worth.

The taxpayer is subsidizing player salaries, by way of paying for the venue.

Cut ~35% from every NHL team's roster payroll, and the owners could buy themselves new arenas every 20 years. The owners will never fight this battle though, because it'd take multiple lockouts to get there, with a lot of pain along the way... so why not just continue over-paying the players, and sticking taxpayers with the arena debt? Everyone's happy (except the taxpayer).

It sounds nice, but in reality the owners would just cry wolf about some other aspect of the business making it unrealistic to fund a new building despite having lowered payroll etc.

These jerks all feel they are owed a publicly funded arena. It has nothing to do with the actual cost.

[Reneeee]

Not to toot my own flute but I'm pretty sure Winterpeg is making more money right now than they were a few years ago sans Jets. Which means pro sports = monetary gain for any city.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[JD]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

I think the most important thing to note is that there is a place called:

Autism Rocks Arena Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Yup, and its location makes the Senators arena (Canadian Tire Centre?) seem inner city. It's waaay out there in urban sprawl Dubai, the part that isn't so glitzy. Although there is a mall out there... but then again, where isn't there a mall in the UAE?

As for the name, it's a UK-based charity for autism.

As for the arena, I don't believe its configuration is suitable for hockey. Too bad.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Cities are being stupid with tax dollars.

There’s something we can all agree on, to the point it seems to be the statement of the obvious. Cities do need to be smarter with tax payer dollars. They need to get the biggest bang for the buck out of the money they spend. Sadly, that is something that all levels of government are not very good at and rarely make decisions that positively affect the greater need and instead focus on the minority. I think there are more than enough examples of the CoC making bad fiscal decisions and throwing money away on projects that support the few. I personally don’t see making sure the city has the facilities to hold large scale sporting and entertainment events a bad use of money. How they use it, the quality of the facilities, and the sustainability of the facilities will determine whether the investment was good or bad.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Not to toot my own flute but I'm pretty sure Winterpeg is making more money right now than they were a few years ago sans Jets. Which means pro sports = monetary gain for any city.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

*Citation needed

[RM14]

Looks like the Arena will be smack dab in the middle of what the City is calling the "CULTURE, ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION" area of the Rivers District Master Plan.

Ironically, they spelled Education wrong on the CMLC site.

http://www.calgarymlc.ca/riversdistr...district-intro

CULTURE, ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCTION

Here’s the heart and the hub: modern amenities in the BMO Centre and Arena Facility, along with the Youth Campus, are integrated with lively festival streets, urban plazas, and riverfront parks. Here is a dynamic national destination and centre of civic pride, gathering, activity, history, and modern uses. This district thoughtfully integrates long-standing agricultural, convention, and sports venues with emerging cultural facilities, arts and education, shopping, entertainment, and hotels. Organized around a network of festival streets, urban plazas, and riverfront parks, this district will become a hub of activity.

Map:

Spoiler!

[GioforPM]

The arena area doesn't look big. I'm not sure what they've set aside for parking given that it's on the current parking lot (remember a lot of critics of the west village plan commented on a lack of parking, too).

[Toonage]

May be a dumb comment / question on my part but would the arena still be the inverted bowl design with the smaller overall footprint? Would that allow for more parking around a smaller building?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The arena area doesn't look big. I'm not sure what they've set aside for parking given that it's on the current parking lot (remember a lot of critics of the west village plan commented on a lack of parking, too).

Parking I find should be of low priority, and not that big of a focus. Ideally, majority of the attendees would take transit to the game since at the time, there would be two LRT stations from two lines in that area.

If people want to park, there would probably be a small parkade built connected to the arena, and there could be on street parking in the area, and surrounding it.

[Flamenspiel]

I think you could still use most of the Stampede parking lot in this plan. I usually use street parking, as long as you arrive early this is reasonable.

I have issues with relying on the LRT as Calgary public transit is very minimal. It usually entails a park and drive for most people, which defeats the purpose.

[burn_this_city]

You just know they will social engineer out the majority of parking.