CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Joborule]

If a fire was to break out and people had to head to the exits, that is a stampede in the making.

A new venue with wider concourses would still be chaotic most likely, but at least not as such as it would be in the dome.

[Lil Pedro]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The Saddledome is one of the largest buildings in the NHL and if the Flames can’t summon up ways to create more revenue from their 19,289 seats then they shouldn’t be in business.

Or is it a vantage point thing? I’ve sat in the lower bowl plenty of times and I have no problem watching the game from there. What’s the issue with this lack of lower bowl seats?

It's not about size or attendance any more, its all about luxury boxes. KK has said from day one that any new arena would likely be smaller in capacity compared to the dome but have many more luxury boxes. Thats where the ownership group will see a significant bump in revenue. They can't do that with the limited amount of boxes in the dome now.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Muta

There's no issue with the view, it's just an outdated bowl (it's too small). There's a premium for those lower bowl seats (as there is in every arena in the league), and the Flames are losing out on some revenue as a result. I think that's the reason.

Oh no! Not lost revenue!

They should charge more for the second level, then. IMO, it’s the best angle to watch the game from.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Joborule

If a fire was to break out and people had to head to the exits, that is a stampede in the making.

A new venue with wider concourses would still be chaotic most likely, but at least not as such as it would be in the dome.

Any building with 18,000+ people would create a stampede in the case of a fire. Nothing would change, there.

I guess what I’m saying is that there’s nothing wrong with the ‘Dome to justify the public paying $600 million to fix. If KK and Co. really want to build an arena - which they charge us to enter, with them getting all the profits - they should pay for it themselves.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Oh no! Not lost revenue!

They should charge more for the second level, then. IMO, it’s the best angle to watch the game from.

Ticket prices are already high enough as it is, and with a new arena, it's gonna be a bit more pricier most likely, but even with that increasing second level seats to compensate from lost revenue from more lower bowl seats and luxury boxes is a great way to lose even more out of potential revenue.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Any building with 18,000+ people would create a stampede in the case of a fire. Nothing would change, there.

I guess what I’m saying is that there’s nothing wrong with the ‘Dome to justify the public paying $600 million to fix. If KK and Co. really want to build an arena - which they charge us to enter, with them getting all the profits - they should pay for it themselves.

There is also the player factor you gotta consider. After Detroit's is done, playing in the oldest venue in the league, which isn't up to modern standards (at both the spectator and event level), isn't a great selling point in trying to draw players in. It may not be a big factor in relation to the others, but when free agents are weighing their options between teams, they would take it into consideration.

[sureLoss]

They pretty much have the funding they need to build an arena.

The money the owners are putting up and the ticket tax financed portion of CalgaryNEXT is pretty close to building an NHL arena.

Where the whole thing gets complicated funding wise is trying to build the CFL stadium for the Stampeders.

The Flames have tried to get creative and combine the footprint and buildings with the arena and make it a hybrid fieldhouse/stadium and using a CRL to make the financing work.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Joborule

There is also the player factor you gotta consider. After Detroit's is done, playing in the oldest venue in the league, which isn't up to modern standards (at both the spectator and event level), isn't a great selling point in trying to draw players in. It may not be a big factor in relation to the others, but when free agents are weighing their options between teams, they would take it into consideration.

Hey. I’m not opposed to a new arena.

But CSE has to pay for everything.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Except it is a 50-50 split. The ticket tax money would be a business loan with the city acting as the bank, but since they would be paying it back with interest it is their money.

In fact it's not even that. All that is needed from the city (or province) is their name, as a guarantor. The money would be raised in the bond markets, and paid back through the ticket tax. No money would come out of the city's coffers for that.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In fact it's not even that. All that is needed from the city (or province) is their name, as a guarantor. The money would be raised in the bond markets, and paid back through the ticket tax. No money would come out of the city's coffers for that.

Unless the ticket tax doesn't cover the payments needed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Unless the ticket tax doesn't cover the payments needed.

Based on what?

They own the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks. And it's in their interests to book as many concerts and events as possible.

Please site an example where a ticket tax didn't cover the payments.

(And no, St Louis doesn't count - they simply didn't have a long enough tenant agreement, which would obviously be mandatory in this case)

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Based on what?

They own the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks. And it's in their interests to book as many concerts and events as possible.

Then they should be able to cover the loan themselves, shouldn't be a need for the city to take on any risk whatsoever if it is this much of a slam dunk, right?

It's in their interests to book as many as they can, but what happens if there's another lockout and 800,000 tickets don't get sold?

Please site an example where a ticket tax didn't cover the payments.

(And no, St Louis doesn't count - they simply didn't have a long enough tenant agreement, which would obviously be mandatory in this case)

Why would it be mandatory in this case? Just because? What if the Flames don't want a mandatory one and instead want more flexibility? We can take it on their word that as arena managers it is in their best interest to keep the Flames around as long as the arena is there. Just like how people seem to trust that the CRL idea is a good funding idea and not a laughably terrible one.

I'd point right back to Glendale but you'd probably try to move the goalposts on that one, so there's:

Newark's ridiculous mess http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/0...nd-like-crazy/

And there's the fancy accounting of the American Airlines Arena http://deadspin.com/for-the-first-ti...ent-1469960778

And just for good measure because it came up in the search, North Bay Ontario http://www.nugget.ca/2015/01/29/team...harge-increase


$250M is also unusually large for a ticket tax. Twice as much as Edmonton's and most American funding models package them with a variety of other taxes like sales and tourism taxes (that counties and cities can impose down there, but not up here).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Then they should be able to cover the loan themselves, shouldn't be a need for the city to take on any risk whatsoever if it is this much of a slam dunk, right?

Obtuse argument. A civic or provincial guarantee gets a much more favorable interest rate. Individual companies that don't have established credit lines can't just go into public debt markets and pitch a tent. It's a little more complex than that. By having the guarantee, the bond gets substantially better terms. Also, in the extremely unlikely event that it did go south, it would be a massive ####show to have a civic arena being controlled by private creditors. And the city would likely get sued in that scenario anyway.

It's in their interests to book as many as they can, but what happens if there's another lockout and 800,000 tickets don't get sold?

pretty easy to establish provisions for that in the agreement

Why would it be mandatory in this case? Just because? What if the Flames don't want a mandatory one and instead want more flexibility? We can take it on their word that as arena managers it is in their best interest to keep the Flames around as long as the arena is there. Just like how people seem to trust that the CRL idea is a good funding idea and not a laughably terrible one.

Umm, because the city would demand that in order to agree to the loan provision? They're called negotiations.

I'd point right back to Glendale but you'd probably try to move the goalposts on that one, so there's:

Newark's ridiculous mess http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/0...nd-like-crazy/

And there's the fancy accounting of the American Airlines Arena http://deadspin.com/for-the-first-ti...ent-1469960778

And just for good measure because it came up in the search, North Bay Ontario http://www.nugget.ca/2015/01/29/team...harge-increase


$250M is also unusually large for a ticket tax. Twice as much as Edmonton's and most American funding models package them with a variety of other taxes like sales and tourism taxes (that counties and cities can impose down there, but not up here).

If you think those situations are relevant here, I don't know what to say to you. Just because a couple of deals were poorly negotiated and/or contested on silly items, does not mean that all rental agreements are crap. Believe it or not, there are actually a few sports facilities in NA where the tenants are paying their bills.

Your argument is essentially: here is an example of a bad deal, therefore all these types of deals are bad.

Hating for hating's sake.

[Mr.Coffee]

Why not cut the fieldhouse / football stadium part and use that land for parking, a bar or two that's owned / operated by the Flames, or use the space in a more productive way?

What about selecting the same site, dropping the football stadium and only taking half the land, enough for the arena that way the city can develop on the other portion where the fieldhouse was going to go? Then the city can own the land and do whatever they want with it, not to mention there's more incentive to fund the pending clean-up for the city?

At any rate a new rink doesn't really help me. I can handle long lines, packed concourses (the damn truck in the middle of it isn't helping and nobody cares to have it there..................) and the Saddledome in exchange for a far better atmosphere at games since there'll be more luxury boxes and a quieter corporate environment, not to mention less affordable, less parking and harder to get to... overall there's just not a lot there for me to get excited about.

Also, how this has taken as long as it has and how it's been handled so atrociously with nobody losing their job is shocking.

[powderjunkie]

The word 'need' has been thrown around a ton in this thread, and in nearly every case it should have been 'want'. No one is disputing that there aren't a ton of reasons why a new arena would be good...of course almost all of those reasons are only important for hockey fans.

It's still mind bottling what we're seeing after so many years of "you'll love what you see". That is undermining my confidence more than anything, and makes me skeptical that they can execute any plan, and that they wouldn't be competent enough to incorporate a project like this into any bigger possibilities, such as an Olympic bid. This all seems to be an attempt to scam their way into a free new stadium...the Olympics would have been a much better catalyst for that than this boondoggle.

[Cyclops]

A friend of mine is an Oiler season ticket holder in the 2nd level of Rexall. His season tickets are nearly double for next season. Games are already too expensive to go to for many people yet tax payers are paying for quite a bit of the arena. They are trying to attract more fans yet they are pricing themselves out of many households.

This is the Oilers that havent made the playoffs in 10 years, what are the Flames prices going to increase by? billionaires own these teams yet they don't want to build a new arena? And people are okay with paying for it for them? Awful.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

A friend of mine is an Oiler season ticket holder in the 2nd level of Rexall. His season tickets are nearly double for next season. Games are already too expensive to go to for many people yet tax payers are paying for quite a bit of the arena. They are trying to attract more fans yet they are pricing themselves out of many households.

This is the Oilers that havent made the playoffs in 10 years, what are the Flames prices going to increase by? billionaires own these teams yet they don't want to build a new arena? And people are okay with paying for it for them? Awful.

The Oilers have missed the playoffs for a decade running and still sell out which tells me they could easily raise ticket prices and sell out the new building regardless.

[gilligans_off]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

A friend of mine is an Oiler season ticket holder in the 2nd level of Rexall.

You know you're allowed to pick your friends right?

[Strange Brew]

So is it typical for a city to guarantee debt in these cases? I would expect that to be a negotiating point and not something taxpayers just have to agree to for no reason.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Obtuse argument. A civic or provincial guarantee gets a much more favorable interest rate. Individual companies that don't have established credit lines can't just go into public debt markets and pitch a tent. It's a little more complex than that. By having the guarantee, the bond gets substantially better terms. Also, in the extremely unlikely event that it did go south, it would be a massive ####show to have a civic arena being controlled by private creditors. And the city would likely get sued in that scenario anyway.

It shouldn't be a civic arena in the first place, so who cares if it is controlled by private creditors? That's the norm in Canada, and why U.S. cities have been continuously screwed over in their deals.

pretty easy to establish provisions for that in the agreement

Umm, because the city would demand that in order to agree to the loan provision? They're called negotiations.

Who do you think has more leverage in a negotiation. The product that has other options, or the suckers holding onto the debt for construction of a facility that needs a product to pay off that debt?

There's a reason cities continuously get screwed in these deals, they have the leverage with what actually makes the investment a success, and because of people like you.

If you think those situations are relevant here, I don't know what to say to you. Just because a couple of deals were poorly negotiated and/or contested on silly items, does not mean that all rental agreements are crap. Believe it or not, there are actually a few sports facilities in NA where the tenants are paying their bills.

Your argument is essentially: here is an example of a bad deal, therefore all these types of deals are bad.

Hating for hating's sake.

Oh okay. Ask me to show some bad deals then dismiss them because not all deals are bad?

I get that you want an arena so bad you're just drinking the kool-aid that every sports team begging for public money has done in North America, but here's some more bad deals:

Florida: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/br...020-story.html

Pittsburgh: http://triblive.com/home/2950649-74/...xpansion-taxes

The Steelers have offered a solution for the SEA — place a $1 surcharge on tickets and $2 to $3 on parking to pay for these bonds. And if those sources are inadequate, the SEA would have to find other sources.

Columbus: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...oor-arena.html

San Francisco: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-...ce=infinite-up


The ticket tax is definitely the least egregious thing the team is asking for, mostly because it is the fans getting hit the most, and while the risk is low, it is easy to spot a snake oil salesman when they try to dismiss $250M of public guaranteed debt as anything other than public help.

Add the disingenuous approach to the ticket tax portion of the funding to the flat-out terrible and indefensible CRL approach and you have a deal I don't want my city to go near, so there better be a Plan B coming somewhere.