[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Most of the vocal supporters though know arena deals suck. They are educated. They are just unwilling to accept any deal that isn't 100% privately financed. Not uneducated, more like hardliners.

If anyone thinks they are going to get a new arena that is 100% privately financed outside of major, major US city (I doubt Toronto or Vancouver would be privately financed if they were building new rinks today), they are delusional.

Look at all the new ball parks in the US. Mostly state government funded. Right or wrong, you either do it or you don’t get one and you use it as a vehicle for commercial development around the new rink.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I don't know why it's so hard for some people here to come to grip with other peoples opinions. Disagree all you want... but having the opinion that it's ####ty to give a quarter billion dollars so a wealthy individual can make more money by building a new hockey rink is a legitimate , good faith opinion. You can make a case that community need and solidarity provide a good enough benefit... but to pretend the people who are opposed are all knuckle dragging idiots is the height of arrogance. 47% of Calgarians are idiots? #### off.

You are wrong.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I don't know why it's so hard for some people here to come to grip with other peoples opinions. Disagree all you want... but having the opinion that it's ####ty to give a quarter billion dollars so a wealthy individual can make more money by building a new hockey rink is a legitimate , good faith opinion. You can make a case that community need and solidarity provide a good enough benefit... but to pretend the people who are opposed are all knuckle dragging idiots is the height of arrogance. 47% of Calgarians are idiots? #### off.

I don’t think that the 47% of people who oppose it are all knuckle dragging idiots, but I do think the ones trying to extend consolation are. A line in the sand has been drawn, no more consolation is going to change anyone’s mind other than CSES’s who may just say we’ve had enough. Time to let council do their job and move on.

[Bingo]

I have zero issue with people being against this because public money is going towards a mostly private enterprise.

Not a problem.

I personally love cool things in Calgary. I'll never be in the library but I love it. I'll never be in the Bell Music building, but I love it. The Peace bridge seemed redundant but I love it now.

Do wonder if we had this much consultation with the voter on any of those deals though.

Anyway ... to each their own. My view is the city shouldn't give them a building, but the team shouldn't have to do it alone. If a building costs $550M and the exchange rate stats where it is, the Flames will take what 50 years to pay it off if they did it alone? So what is a valid answer, and I get that too.

But there are only so many people willing to tie up a pile of capital in an asset that returns so little year over year. Run through that list and pro hockey is no longer viable.

Calgary needs nice things too. Lets not over think this.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I'm happy with consultation. I just wish there was a way to only consult people that are informed, whether they agree with me or not is irrelevant

It’s an unpopular opinion but I think we’d be better off if elections were that way. If you’re clueless stay home and let those of us who are engaged make the important decisions.

[Torture]

I hate the one week consultation period - just reeks of used car salesman and pressure tactics. I get the argument of not consulting to death but seriously, a week? Why not two, or a month at least? Council is supposed to make a decision on how to spend almost $300M in a complex deal in a week? That's ridiculous. I've hummed and hawed about whether I should buy things from Amazon for less than $100 for longer than a week!

I don't mind the deal overall but I think it could have been better as IMO it's still pretty Flames-slanted. I would have preferred to see more public benefit (either a higher % of naming or ticket tax, or for the Flames to own the building for instance, or a firmer commitment to the community arena).
I don't really buy that the $75M over 35 years is new money. I think there's a small case for benefit from spurring redevelopment in an area the City clearly has plans for but we all know about displacement if we've been listening to any economists so I don't buy that it's significant.

So overall, I think it's close, but I would prefer to see the city participate a bit more in the upside for $275M.

And one more thing, every time somebody says that the Flames are going to leave Calgary without a deal (or without a deal made in a week) I get firmer in my resolve that the city should see more benefits or not contribute at all.

Oh and just for the record, I don't live in a trailer and I happen to have an education.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I don’t think that the 47% of people who oppose it are all knuckle dragging idiots, but I do think the ones trying to extend consolation are. A line in the sand has been drawn, no more consolation is going to change anyone’s mind other than CSES’s who may just say we’ve had enough. Time to let council do their job and move on.

This is a sales pitch a door to door knife salesman would use.

1 week for the public to be consulted on spending a quarter billion dollars during our current economic situation? Do I get a lint roller with these steak knives?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I personally love cool things in Calgary. I'll never be in the library but I love it. I'll never be in the Bell Music building, but I love it. The Peace bridge seemed redundant but I love it now.

Do wonder if we had this much consultation with the voter on any of those deals though.

Have any examples that have $60 average ticket prices and a TV deal?

[White Out 403]

For full disclosure, if it came to a public vote, I'd likely vote yes.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Have any examples that have $60 average ticket prices and a TV deal?

I think I was pretty clear that I'm aware of the differences.

Do you honestly want the oldest building in the league forever? I just don't. I think the city getting raked over the coals is silly and I think the team paying for it alone makes little sense either.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think I was pretty clear that I'm aware of the differences.

Do you honestly want the oldest building in the league forever? I just don't. I think the city getting raked over the coals is silly and I think the team paying for it alone makes little sense either.

It's not our building though so I attach no personal value to it being old or being new. It's the Flames as a corporation who benefit the most from this by a landslide. The City owning it is just the city having the liability for it while the Flames jack their revenue. I gain nothing from this building, and not in the same way that I gain nothing from an overpass built in a far flung community, but in a way where private enterprise reaps the lions share of the reward. Sure it's great to have, but I still don't buy an economic case for value based on total hypotheticals. It raises massive red flags for me and it should for others.

I just don't understand celebrating the team getting this handout when we all know it's going to be quickly followed by a 25-40% ticket increase as a thank you. It seems outrageous to me that some people not only welcome this, but clamour for it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

If anyone thinks they are going to get a new arena that is 100% privately financed outside of major, major US city (I doubt Toronto or Vancouver would be privately financed if they were building new rinks today), they are delusional.

Look at all the new ball parks in the US. Mostly state government funded. Right or wrong, you either do it or you don’t get one and you use it as a vehicle for commercial development around the new rink.

Who's paying in Seattle? It's funny that other cities around the world manage to do this, but we can't possibly consider it here. The soccer team I follow in London just finished a £1bn stadium, which is magnificent, and there was no public money for that. The reality is professional sports franchises are spoiled in North America. We all know, deep down, that this is only a good deal "for", and not a good deal. It's maybe slightly better or the same as what Edmonton got, and that seems to be the bar here, so as far as multi-million dollar spending for a private corporation goes it's ok I guess. Better than subsidizing Bombardier again, or at least a little enjoyment for me!

And I say all that as someone who just accepts that it's going to happen. I do want a new arena and I think we need one. I just don't think that this deal is amazing. It's just OK.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's not our building though so I attach no personal value to it being old or being new. It's the Flames as a corporation who benefit the most from this by a landslide. The City owning it is just the city having the liability for it while the Flames jack their revenue. I gain nothing from this building. Sure it's great to have, but I still don't buy an economic case for value based on total hypotheticals. It raises massive red flags for me and it should for others.

I just don't understand celebrating the team getting this handout when we all know it's going to be quickly followed by a 25-40% ticket increase as a thank you. It seems outrageous to me that some people not only welcome this, but clamour for it.

Yep ... never claimed it was mine.
Certainly not celebrating anything.

Being pretty straight forward. Understand the reasons behind the no at any cost crowd, but there is a "would like to have a new arena" crowd too. And a "makes the most economic sense to share the costs" crowd.

As I said ... nobody that owns a hockey team is getting a good return on investment. Hopefully the line of people willing to tie their capital up doesn't run out. The building would make it pretty rough to stay in the mix.

[ricosuave]

From what was said, there were 2 main reasons that the deal had to happen now:

1- Councillors last meeting is today, then they break for the summer until mid-September.

2- There are aspects of the deal that involve other parties timelines (IE Stampede expansion)

Thus, this negotiated deal has somewhat of a time-limit. These projects in their own right had all been approved with Council's blessing previously, and are being brought together under this particular umbrella.

I believe the 3 parties involved people who state that this is a 'good' deal for everybody. I think what they really mean is, this is the best deal we are going to get (after extensive closed-door negotiation), and that was pretty much confirmed by Davidson, IMHO.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

If anyone thinks they are going to get a new arena that is 100% privately financed outside of major, major US city (I doubt Toronto or Vancouver would be privately financed if they were building new rinks today), they are delusional.

Look at all the new ball parks in the US. Mostly state government funded. Right or wrong, you either do it or you don’t get one and you use it as a vehicle for commercial development around the new rink.

Right but on the other side of the delusional scale is anyone who thinks this deal is "good". As I've said before good is totally relative to all arena deals sucking. This one just doesn't suck as bad as others, but it's not a good deal. What good deal involves a private business receiving a public subsidy to turn around and then increase the price of it's product by anywhere from 20-40% when the experience is almost certainly going to be 90-95% the same as before?

Also PSLs are how you privately finance sports venues, but we all know that's a non-starter with season ticket holders, although it is in fact the fairest way to finance sports venues.

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's not our building though so I attach no personal value to it being old or being new. It's the Flames as a corporation who benefit the most from this by a landslide. The City owning it is just the city having the liability for it while the Flames jack their revenue. I gain nothing from this building, and not in the same way that I gain nothing from an overpass built in a far flung community, but in a way where private enterprise reaps the lions share of the reward. Sure it's great to have, but I still don't buy an economic case for value based on total hypotheticals. It raises massive red flags for me and it should for others.

I just don't understand celebrating the team getting this handout when we all know it's going to be quickly followed by a 25-40% ticket increase as a thank you. It seems outrageous to me that some people not only welcome this, but clamour for it.

The less tax dollars that go to this then the higher % that ticket increase is going to be

When I look at the city operating budget and see how much of my tax money is going to city transit and roads - when I paid significantly more to be within walk/cycle distance to downtown...I'll take every penny of tax money going to the barn as a win

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Mayo

The less tax dollars that go to this then the higher % that ticket increase is going to be

When I look at the city operating budget and see how much of my tax money is going to city transit and roads - when I paid significantly more to be within walk/cycle distance to downtown...I'll take every penny of tax money going to the barn as a win

No, that's not how that works. The Oilers made out like bandits on their deal and still raised prices through the roof. So there goes that attempt at a theory. They'll bump it what the market will bear.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Oilers spiked tickets more than 20% despite sucking ass for a decade straight. I think in general 20% is about what you can expect for ticket increases, and up to 40% will be in play depending on how good the Flames are as they move in to the new building.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Oilers spiked tickets more than 20% despite sucking ass for a decade straight. I think in general 20% is about what you can expect for ticket increases, and up to 40% will be in play depending on how good the Flames are as they move in to the new building.

It's actually worse.

https://www.coppernblue.com/2015/7/2...s-rexall-place

There's no reason for us to expect much different, but maybe the Flames don't run as wild since the economy here still hasn't recovered. It's doubtful though.

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, that's not how that works. The Oilers made out like bandits on their deal and still raised prices through the roof. So there goes that attempt at a theory. They'll bump it what the market will bear.

With 0 tax dollars the pain will come in the form of personal seat licenses

Either way - I'm in favour of tax dollars going to this for reasons stated above