[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Timbo

Important to note that building will commence in 3-4 years. Let’s not lose sight of that.
The economic climate might be different then. The 60 million business tax relief may not be a factor anymore.

The info graphic indicated construction starting in Spring 2021, so only 20 months from now. I agree that even in 20 months the economic climate could be somewhat different though.

[sureLoss]

Nice to see that the Edmonton media are trying to push that this deal is somehow worse than Edmonton's arena deal.

https://edmontonjournal.com/business...-flames-owners

Based on what is written, it doesn't look like Staples even took the time to research the deal before posting that drivel.

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Nice to see that the Edmonton media are trying to push that this deal is somehow worse than Edmonton's arena deal.

https://edmontonjournal.com/business...-flames-owners

Based on what is written, it doesn't look like Staples even took the time to research the deal before posting that drivel.

This could be said about literally every one of his articles.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Nice to see that the Edmonton media are trying to push that this deal is somehow worse than Edmonton's arena deal.

https://edmontonjournal.com/business...-flames-owners

Based on what is written, it doesn't look like Staples even took the time to research the deal before posting that drivel.

Methinks the Lady Doth Protest Too Much.

[TGH44]

Originally Posted by Flamin' DBag

You make a really good point. It's hard for the city to spend public dollars to benefit all Calgarians and we shouldn't expect the Arena deal to do that. I think that the difference with the arena deal, when compared to the library, is that the city is spending public funds to subsidize a private business that will make good returns. I don't necessarily have an issue with this, but if the city will equally share in the risk of this deal, they need to equally share in the rewards. The current deal is much improved on previous suggestions but its difficult to understand whether or not it's a good investment for the city.

Dealing with a private entity does make things difficult and I do agree that the deal needs to be fair and I wouldn't support the City agreeing to a one sided deal. That being said, I also feel that all capital projects have to be treated equally i.e. adding value to the citizens of Calgary (and as I mentioned because of the involvement of a private entity the deal needs to be fair). CSEC must make a profit or at least break even otherwise the benefit of the Flames in Calgary will not be available. I don't begrudge CSEC from having a good deal. For all the reasons I mentioned, I think the City struck a fair deal and will add value for its citizens. I can see both sides and I understand that some people will not see a benefit for Calgary's citizens but that should not negate the benefit that I and a lot of other people will receive. Same as the library, bike lanes, art work on 16th Ave etc. As long as its a fair deal and generally makes Calgary a better place then its a good thing.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Nice to see that the Edmonton media are trying to push that this deal is somehow worse than Edmonton's arena deal.

https://edmontonjournal.com/business...-flames-owners

Based on what is written, it doesn't look like Staples even took the time to research the deal before posting that drivel.

Wow. What an asshat. And not even a basic understanding of the economics behind a ticket tax.

Thanks for the hot take buddy.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Nice to see that the Edmonton media are trying to push that this deal is somehow worse than Edmonton's arena deal.

https://edmontonjournal.com/business...-flames-owners

Based on what is written, it doesn't look like Staples even took the time to research the deal before posting that drivel.

So basically what Staples is saying is that the $155.1 million "facility fee" actually constitutes the majority of CSEC's $275 million contribution to the deal?

My understanding was that it was entirely separate and recouped after-the-fact...? CSEC is paying $275 million PLUS that fee, right?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Wow. What an asshat. And not even a basic understanding of the economics behind a ticket tax.

Thanks for the hot take buddy.

It is completely irresponsible journalism. Even if Staples calls himself a blogger, he posted a completely erroneous take on the deal with little to no factual basis on a major Canadian media company website.

I am all for media criticizing the deal, but do some actual work and get the information right before posting on such an controversial topic.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

So basically what Staples is saying is that the $155.1 million "facility fee" actually constitutes the majority of CSEC's $275 million contribution to the deal?

My understanding was that it was entirely separate and recouped after-the-fact...? CSEC is paying $275 million PLUS that fee, right?

Yes based on what is being reported so far CSEC is giving a cash contribution of $275 million.

The city is getting the facility fee themselves as a method to recoup some of their contribution.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1154056300482838530

[The Yen Man]

Does Staples even have a high school education? Dude is so dumb and clueless in just about everything he writes. I wonder who's asses he's had to kiss along the way to be where he is, and keep doing what he does.

[GreenLantern2814]

Called my councilor and let him know I support the project. Weird, I've never called an elected representative before.

[Wormius]

I am not keen on the deal as it stands. I also think it set a bad precedent for other private industries who try to use the same trickle down and intangible benefits argument. What would have been the harm if the City could have reached a deal where it actually recoups its entire contribution?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I am not keen on the deal as it stands. I also think it set a bad precedent for other private industries who try to use the same trickle down and intangible benefits argument. What would have been the harm if the City could have reached a deal where it actually recoups its entire contribution?

Governments are not businesses - whether or not something 'recoups its entire costs' is not what they base their decisions on.

Other companies and industries will always try and get government support for their projects - that's the way of the world. But they aren't the hockey team, and like it or not, this is Canada. The hockey team occupies a particular place in our city that some random corporate entity never will.

The Bow was built as a public/private partnership. This is a public/private partnership. Those happen all the time. This isn't handing Amazon $7 billion in tax breaks because you want HQ2. It's a 50/50 split for a project that's key to the redevelopment of the Rivers District and the Stampede grounds as well.

Furthermore, most of the money spent on this project is going to stay right here. I don't see why you would need to hire very many people from outside Calgary to make this project work given the number of skilled workers who don't currently have a gig.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

It is completely irresponsible journalism. Even if Staples calls himself a blogger, he posted a completely erroneous take on the deal with little to no factual basis on a major Canadian media company website.

I am all for media criticizing the deal, but do some actual work and get the information right before posting on such an controversial topic.

Just wait until the final designs make their way to the public and the Edmonton inferiority complex kicks in full gear and he starts writing articles on how much better Rogers Place is.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Nice to see that the Edmonton media are trying to push that this deal is somehow worse than Edmonton's arena deal.

https://edmontonjournal.com/business...-flames-owners

Based on what is written, it doesn't look like Staples even took the time to research the deal before posting that drivel.

this junk also got posted on the Calgary Herald website. why is the Staples Reality Distortion Field so large that it reaches 300km south now too?

[1991 Canadian]

Originally Posted by TGH44

I am a tax payer and long time STH. For me, this issue is pretty straightforward. The City makes investments in capital projects that it believes will enhance and add value to the lives of its citizens. For example the public library enhanced the lives for a segment of citizens but I (and my family) will never use it or get any value from that $235M investment, however, I am fine that a portion of my tax dollars went towards that project because I see the value for other citizens. Likewise, the Flames in Calgary add value to me and my family (I take my hockey playing sons to every game) and I'm fine with my tax dollars going towards an event centre which will ensure the long term viability of the Flames in Calgary. Having gone through the deal and online documents, this seems a fair deal to me (I agree a fair deal is important and I wouldn't support a very one sided deal, but a blanket statement that public $ should never be used for these types of capital projects is ignoring and discounting the benefit that I, my family and many other citizens get from the Flames being in Calgary and the other events etc.). The NPV and IRR are not private industry level, however, I'm comfortable in saying the cashflow the City will receive from the Event Centre over its life will be significantly more than that received by the City from the new public library. Again, I'm happy that my tax dollars support both projects as a big portion of the citizens of Calgary will receive value from both projects. If the City only had funds for one of the two projects then things become more contentious but that isn't the case.

This has been debated endlessly before, but the major difference is libraries target a much broader and in some cases vulnerable demographic than paying event centre customers like you and me.

I have been fortunate to go to hundreds of Flames games with my dad. Dozens with my own quarter season tickets since I’ve starting splitting tickets with friends. A handful of concerts. It is hard not to notice that Flames fans and concert goers are generally very wealthy. Not exactly a demographic that needs a public subsidy.

I am firmly part of this group, so I can safely say that the people that go to arena events don’t truly need the extra value that comes with a new arena. My life or your life is not drastically going to improve by sitting in seats that have never been farted on, waiting in shorter washroom lines, or drinking $13 beers from fresh beer lines.

Coding programs for kids. English second language spaces. Career and resume services. These library services have a much greater impact than an improved entertainment experience for people who already have good lives. It is not an apples to apples comparison in terms of value.

Even though I benefit more from a new arena, it feels wrong to me. I don’t need or want a public subsidy for my entertainment. The central library is already built, but there are going to be some worthwhile public endeavors that don't get funding because the money is spent on this arena. An extra low income housing unit or access to ESL services could make or break someones life. Your kids are going to grow up into happy productive Calgarians, with or without a new arena.

[Weitz]

I never did really understand why fan bases clamor for new arenas/stadiums. You just pay more money for the exact same thing. It never made much sense for me.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I never did really understand why fan bases clamor for new arenas/stadiums. You just pay more money for the exact same thing. It never made much sense for me.

pretty much

lots of people are pretty excited to pay more for the exact same experience so that csec to make more money off luxury boxes

[PepsiFree]

I think you guys are missing the obvious: new arenas as directly tied to teams sticking around. People aren't stupid, they know that.

No new arena? no Flames.

The arenas themselves make no difference. I find Edmonton arena to be a moderate upgrade on the Saddledome, and in some areas, it's somehow worse.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I never did really understand why fan bases clamor for new arenas/stadiums. You just pay more money for the exact same thing. It never made much sense for me.

I'd pay more money to be able to actually relieve myself at a hockey game without missing five minutes of play.

How much more? I don't know.

But given that we all tend to get a little more comfortable financially with time, while also getting less comfortable from a bladder standpoint over the same time frame ... I'd suggest that acceptable premium will go up.