Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[nik-]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

The reality of it is this. Calgary's a small market city with 1.2M people. No team owner is going to be willing to privately 100% fund an arena because the economics of it doesn't work with a city so small. We aren't New York or LA, where their arenas are constantly overbooked due to all the different events that occur throughout the year.

Come summer time, the arena pretty much sits empty most of the time. Now, you can argue that's the price owners pay to have a hockey team in a city like Calgary. But the alternative (other than moving the team) is they just keep playing out of the oldest building in the league, and owners eventually stop spending money on the team other than bare minimum to stay competitive (see Ottawa). We lose all our good players to UFA, and we'll probably have even less draw for mid tier UFAs because of outdated facility. Eventually (if we aren't there already), we get the McMahon stadium equivalent of hockey arenas.

Almost no owners anywhere, with any amount of people, are willing to 100% fund their arena because it's been consistently demonstrated that municipalities will cave to their tactics. So why would they?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

The reality of it is this. Calgary's a small market city with 1.2M people. No team owner is going to be willing to privately 100% fund an arena because the economics of it doesn't work with a city so small. We aren't New York or LA, where their arenas are constantly overbooked due to all the different events that occur throughout the year.

Come summer time, the arena pretty much sits empty most of the time. Now, you can argue that's the price owners pay to have a hockey team in a city like Calgary. But the alternative (other than moving the team) is they just keep playing out of the oldest building in the league, and owners eventually stop spending money on the team other than bare minimum to stay competitive (see Ottawa). We lose all our good players to UFA, and we'll probably have even less draw for mid tier UFAs because of outdated facility. Eventually (if we aren't there already), we get the McMahon stadium equivalent of hockey arenas.

So be it.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

The reality of it is this. Calgary's a small market city with 1.2M people. No team owner is going to be willing to privately 100% fund an arena because the economics of it doesn't work with a city so small. We aren't New York or LA, where their arenas are constantly overbooked due to all the different events that occur throughout the year.

Come summer time, the arena pretty much sits empty most of the time. Now, you can argue that's the price owners pay to have a hockey team in a city like Calgary. But the alternative (other than moving the team) is they just keep playing out of the oldest building in the league, and owners eventually stop spending money on the team other than bare minimum to stay competitive (see Ottawa). We lose all our good players to UFA, and we'll probably have even less draw for mid tier UFAs because of outdated facility. Eventually (if we aren't there already), we get the McMahon stadium equivalent of hockey arenas.

Agree on small market to an extent but isn't the only reason big concerts don't come here is because the Saddledome can't accommodate them? New arena solves that problem and then it's probably booked way more than current. Southern Alberta has to be around 2 plus million people who would travel 2 hours or less for big concerts/events.

[The Yen Man]

Just speaking about me personally as a taxpayer, I'm way more willing to have my tax dollars go towards the arena vs. the public library. Again, I get the greater good argument. I get way more usage out of MY tax dollars from an arena than I would out of the library. I've visited it once since it was built, and the only reason was solely so I can say I've seen where part of my tax dollar went.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Mull

So be it.

I mean, that's the crux of the whole argument. Some of us (me specifically) don't want it to be "so be it".

Like I said, I get the anti arena funding crowd. But that's their opinion, and my opinion disagrees with theirs.

[Canadianman]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Just speaking about me personally as a taxpayer, I'm way more willing to have my tax dollars go towards the arena vs. the public library. Again, I get the greater good argument. I get way more usage out of MY tax dollars from an arena than I would out of the library. I've visited it once since it was built, and the only reason was solely so I can say I've seen where part of my tax dollar went.

That's fine, but the arena isn't a public good. I can't drop in to watch a Flames game for free.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I mean, that's the crux of the whole argument. Some of us (me specifically) don't want it to be "so be it".

Like I said, I get the anti arena funding crowd. But that's their opinion, and my opinion disagrees with theirs.

I don't understand why you replied to me, isn't everything you said that I quoted already covered?

Or do you think I am not aware that you want Arena funding?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Yes, the team owners should pay for a new arena - unfortunately it's cheaper for them to move the team to one of many other markets with an arena in place - Quebec City, Houston (top ten US TV market), Portland, Kansas City, (IIRC, Seattle was an option before expansion), even San Antonio (build up that Texas rivalry).

This is the cost of doing business - everyone wants something paid for with other people's money.

Moving a team isn't that easy. Not impossible obviously but most of those sites you mention have an arena controlled by someone else who may not be interested in a landlord/tenant relationship. In other words, they'd need to sell vs. move.

[shutout]

Houston Flames

Probably still cheer for them.

https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/369154500680746527/

https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/fl...15036-24417126

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

Does anyone know if The Flames can/will add gambling/casino in the new arena complex?

Arizona is passing a law that allows Team owners in AZ to have gambling on site at their arenas. This is going to be huge for the Coyotes owners who already run casinos in Reno/Vegas

There's already a casino right across the street from the new arena site, so that won't be happening.

During the negotiations, I know the Flames suggested that a percentage of the casino's revenue be used towards funding of the new arena, but I don't know if anything came of that.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Just speaking about me personally as a taxpayer, I'm way more willing to have my tax dollars go towards the arena vs. the public library. Again, I get the greater good argument. I get way more usage out of MY tax dollars from an arena than I would out of the library. I've visited it once since it was built, and the only reason was solely so I can say I've seen where part of my tax dollar went.

It's not a greater good argument lol. One is building a public resource, the other is a handout to help a private business make more money. Not complicated.

[The Yen Man]

I've said my opinion, so I'll stop now, as it's just a circular arguments at this point where the two sides aren't going to agree.

Now that I kind of understand what the council update is about (sounds more like they want to keep the capital funding update private rather than have Joe Blow freak out again over potential cost overruns, and it's not about them cancelling it), whatever. As long as the arena's still being built, I'm happy, and will refrain from this thread until an new news updates.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Now that I kind of understand what the council update is about (sounds more like they want to keep the capital funding update private rather than have Joe Blow freak out again over potential cost overruns, and it's not about them cancelling it).

If this is true Council should be fired today, as it means they are directly lying to us about the reason why its private.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Weitz

That’s how you get a boring arena like in Edmonton. I assume the same will happen here. All the good things get taken out due to budget.

exactly. the Oiler arena would have been much nicer if they didn't cut so much to come in near budget.

the new Calgary Council will probably do the same thing. why spend X when the cheaper Y will be good enough?

[nik-]

The owners could always just pay the difference to achieve their vision.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by nik-

The owners could always just pay the difference to achieve their vision.

I don't think the owners care about street appeal as much as the City does, they care about number of corporate boxes and increasing $ earned per game.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I do understand the ciritism's of cities funding arenas/stadiums, and not really arguing against it, but once it's built and established in the community, do people really bitch about it anymore?

How do Edmontonians feels bout the Rodgers Centre several years after construction? Are a fair amount upset about paying so much for it in the end? Any other North Amercian cities that have had recent venues completed with lots of public funding backlash? How about Montreal's Olympic Stadium? The best example of a project that's a financial white elephant. Are citizen's in that city more prideful of the venue, or have more remorse over the cost?

Like any civil project, I feel that during the funding, construction, and initial post construction phase, the costs can be a big controversy if the price tag sticks out. But the following year after it's not thought of at all anymore, and the project itself is a fabric of the community and viewed as a positive asset. One recent example of this I feel is the peace bridge where lots of people balked at the price, but it's a internationally recognized featured in our city.

I'm not saying that this should excuse cities pay much more for projects than they should be when the argument of who's benefiting more could be skewed more to the third party, but if it comes down to having no arena, continue skipping of major concerts/events, and thus no team at all, versus a new arena that brings it more events, and renewed commitment of professional sport team staying, then the cost in the long run really won't be a concern at all.

I mean, how many of us knows how much the Saddledome cost? And was it worth it?

I agree with your premise, but referencing the Olympic Stadium is not a good call. Everyone in Montreal and QC hate this building, since it (a) has no function, and (b) is still a money pit.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

I agree with your premise, but referencing the Olympic Stadium is not a good call. Everyone in Montreal and QC hate this building, since it (a) has no function, and (b) is still a money pit.

I used that one as the most controversial, but based on recent news of the stadium, the city still seems to want it to function and invest money into it. They're intended to have it done by World Cup in 2026.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6035430/o...esign-pitches/

Timeline for design and public feedback does seem to be behind schedule though since this article is from late 2019. Covid likely has effected this.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean that they want to host World Cup matches doesn't change that it's a total embarrassment. It mostly speaks to the status of the Canadian stadium scene that it's probably still a top five stadium in Canada.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I do understand the ciritism's of cities funding arenas/stadiums, and not really arguing against it, but once it's built and established in the community, do people really bitch about it anymore?

How do Edmontonians feels bout the Rodgers Centre several years after construction? Are a fair amount upset about paying so much for it in the end? Any other North Amercian cities that have had recent venues completed with lots of public funding backlash? How about Montreal's Olympic Stadium? The best example of a project that's a financial white elephant. Are citizen's in that city more prideful of the venue, or have more remorse over the cost?

Like any civil project, I feel that during the funding, construction, and initial post construction phase, the costs can be a big controversy if the price tag sticks out. But the following year after it's not thought of at all anymore, and the project itself is a fabric of the community and viewed as a positive asset. One recent example of this I feel is the peace bridge where lots of people balked at the price, but it's a internationally recognized featured in our city.

I'm not saying that this should excuse cities pay much more for projects than they should be when the argument of who's benefiting more could be skewed more to the third party, but if it comes down to having no arena, continue skipping of major concerts/events, and thus no team at all, versus a new arena that brings it more events, and renewed commitment of professional sport team staying, then the cost in the long run really won't be a concern at all.

I mean, how many of us knows how much the Saddledome cost? And was it worth it?

To me the Edmonton situation almost makes sense for the city. They moved the arena to an area where they could build up around it. Calgary isn't doing that. They are building the arena where the arena currently is. They aren't improving much about that area overall, that couldn't have already been done. Sure there will be some more stuff down there, but it's not going to drastically improve a dead area, like Edmonton.

If its a good investment you wouldn't have billionaire investors fighting to not invest. Case closed. It's a bad investment, especially for the city. I'd find it much easier to accept the original deal where the City paid a third, but still, I find it aggravating.

The cost in the long run is a big issue as far as I'm concerned, we're cutting money, jobs, increasing taxes and now we're handing billionaires money for something that doesn't have a ton of benefit when it's all said and done. Families can't really afford to go to games, and they will still spend their money, it's not like people spend their money at flames games or nothing.

I've also been a flames fan my whole life, so I understand the other side, of the argument, but just looking at it with no bias, it's not a good deal.