[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Professional hockey should go the way of the NFL, where all owners pool an annual sum that helps subsidize stadiums.

It's a nice idea, but the NHL hasn't got the financial clout to make that happen. The NFL gets the lion's share of its revenue from national media rights, and that money all flows through league headquarters. This gives the individual owners a strong incentive to go along with what the league wants.

The NHL still gets the majority of its money from the box office and local media rights, and the individual owners have never shown any willingness to give up any part of that money into a league-wide revenue pot for any purpose.

[GGG]

There's a 70 million cap. If that's 50 million each team can save 20 million per year and get a new building every 30 years.

If the above happened they would still be out begging for More because why would any owner ever pay when the cities cave every time.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Robbob

From my understanding the 250M would be fronted by the Flames owners so it isn't a loan secured by taxpayers. It is a user fee paid by the users paid back to the owners who fronted the money.

Isn't that what people really want? The people that want and use the arena will pay off the ticket tax. If it makes the concert/game/event more expensive then that cost is still being covered by the users.

It's been my understanding that the city would back the loan because the city gets a better rate and would be owning the arena and the ticket tax goes to the arena owners, not the operators, to repay the construction cost of the arena.

It isn't a good deal for the city to own he arena in the first place, and while a user fee is the least egregious of the Flames funding models, it is a tax that if "supply and demand dictate" people don't want to pay the city of Calgary is otherwise committed to paying it. Either way the tax paying base is on hook for the loan, voluntarily or involuntarily.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

It's been my understanding that the city would back the loan because the city gets a better rate and would be owning the arena and the ticket tax goes to the arena owners, not the operators, to repay the construction cost of the arena.

It isn't a good deal for the city to own he arena in the first place, and while a user fee is the least egregious of the Flames funding models, it is a tax that if "supply and demand dictate" people don't want to pay the city of Calgary is otherwise committed to paying it. Either way the tax paying base is on hook for the loan, voluntarily or involuntarily.

The Flames asked the City to take out the loan due to interest rates yes, but they also said that if the city declined they would take the loan out themselves. So the ticket tax could very well go to the Flames.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Owners: 200m
Ticket tax: 100m
Province: 75m
Feds: 75m
City: Infrastructure and land grant

Done...

I'd love to know why you think the province or feds would give any money to a flames arena.
(taking away an Olympic bid)

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I'd love to know why you think the province or feds would give any money to a flames arena.
(taking away an Olympic bid)

Public good.

1) Lots of people derive well being from Calgary flames without going to games. They're free riding. So are bars, restaurants etc.

2) A state of the art arena is good for quality of life - hockey, concerts, special events. It helps to attract and retain talent and young people, which eventually flows into higher salaries and standard of living.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by RM14

Sight lines on the end will not be better in a new arena. They will be worse because rows will have more leg room and thus be further away and the lower bowl will be almost double the rows. Row 12 of the 2nd bowl in the saddledome is equivalent to row 25 from the ice. This would be top of the lower bowl and stepped way back. 25 rows from the ice will in a new building have to pay lower bowl prices for seats further away. Double or triple the price for a worse view.

Seats will be better in new stadium because instead of building up (like the saddledome), you build outwards. As a result, everyone watching feels closer to the game.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

The Flames asked the City to take out the loan due to interest rates yes, but they also said that if the city declined they would take the loan out themselves. So the ticket tax could very well go to the Flames.

Ticket tax to the Flames then. Easy deal. Better deal, they can own the building and pay the property tax on it.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Public good.

1) Lots of people derive well being from Calgary flames without going to games. They're free riding. So are bars, restaurants etc.

2) A state of the art arena is good for quality of life - hockey, concerts, special events. It helps to attract and retain talent and young people, which eventually flows into higher salaries and standard of living.

that's a load of hooey.

no government is going to give the flames/Calgary money for an arena for that claptrap, especially as they didn't give Edmonton any.

and an arena doesn't help attract and retain talent.

the only way upper levels of government give the city and the flames money is to buy votes. simple as that.
Trudeau doesn't need calgary's votes, but the NDP sure do.

but if all you got is your two make up reasons which can easily be argued against, it will never happen.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Seats will be better in new stadium because instead of building up (like the saddledome), you build outwards. As a result, everyone watching feels closer to the game.

For sure in NJ when I went the high seats are way up there. Preffered the atmosphere and view in Nassau compared to the Prudential center.

Looks pretty upward in Edmonton.

Spoiler!

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Squeezing in a football stadium WITHOUT a roof will be icing on the cake. I'll take an unrenovated McMahon over a brand new state of the art indoor stadium any day.

This. The Stamps need a new stadium so bad. But if the only option is a permanently roofed dome, I'm totally against it and would prefer if they just stayed at McMahon. At least it's in a pretty area of town with great viewpoints.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Public good.

A lot more public good could be derived from putting public money into things the general public has cheap (or better yet, free) access too. More bike paths, more hockey arenas (so people don't have to play at 11pm on a Tuesday), more swimming pools, soccer centers, skate parks....those are things that help the public good.

NHL games are a luxury good for a privileged few. This scam of giving sports teams public money has to stop. The NHL could easily fix it's own money issues by putting an arena fund into it's operating budget... by why do so when cities and governments bend over every couple of decades?

Unless we get a cut of the profits too, the only thing our governments should be doing for the Flames is giving them special treatment when it comes to processing their proposals.

[RM14]

Edmonton upper bowl analysis:

The vast majority of ticket holders on the sides of the arena in Colonnade level will see an increase of either 59% or 85% should they choose to occupy a similar seat in Rogers Place, a few lucky ones will only have to cough up 34% more. And those in the cheap seats are actually much worse off. Just getting into the building will cost an additional 32%. If you're not interested in sitting behind the net the increase will be at least 119%.

http://www.coppernblue.com/2015/7/28...s-rexall-place

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Seats will be better in new stadium because instead of building up (like the saddledome), you build outwards. As a result, everyone watching feels closer to the game.

This is the exact opposite of the Oilers new rink. You build up so you are closer. But you are also higher.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Seats will be better in new stadium because instead of building up (like the saddledome), you build outwards. As a result, everyone watching feels closer to the game.

Doesn't outward get you further away from the ice?

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Seats will be better in new stadium because instead of building up (like the saddledome), you build outwards. As a result, everyone watching feels closer to the game.

I too believe you have this mixed up, build up(ala The Molson Centre or CenturyLink Field) to stay closer to the action. you build outward and you have people further away from the ice.


Or am I missing something?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Since1984

I too believe you have this mixed up, build up(ala The Molson Centre or CenturyLink Field) to stay closer to the action. you build outward and you have people further away from the ice.


Or am I missing something?

No I believe you are correct. You build up not out. However the Flames will want the lower bowl larger than the Saddledome which was reduced for the suite renovations.

[tfi racing]

Only in Quebec.I wonder how much of the $350 million in provincial funding is actually coming from the federal government which means the taxpayers of Alberta and BC.We will probably ending up paying for this albatross as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle26218729/

[East Coast Flame]

Those second level seats in Edmonton are crazy steep. Navigating those stairs after a couple $12 beers was an adventure.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by RM14

For sure in NJ when I went the high seats are way up there. Preffered the atmosphere and view in Nassau compared to the Prudential center.

Yeah, Prudential is a beautiful facility, but it's the opposite of intimate. The action was so far away, it felt more like a football stadium than a hockey arena.
The lobby is fantastic, but I wasn't a huge fan of the game experience. I'd much rather be in an arena where it feels like you are on top of the action.