Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: What are your thoughts on the Flames CalgaryNext presentation? (select multiple)
Get digging, I love it all! 259 37.27%
Too much tax money 125 17.99%
Too much ticket tax 54 7.77%
Need more parking 130 18.71%
I need more details, can't say at this time 200 28.78%
The city owns it? Great deal for Calgary 110 15.83%
Need to clean up this area anyway, its embarassing 179 25.76%
Needs a retractable roof 89 12.81%
Great idea but don't think it will fly with stake holders 69 9.93%
Why did it take 2 years to come up with this? 161 23.17%
Curious to see the city's response 194 27.91%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 695. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-19-2015, 12:16 PM   #1941
saillias
Franchise Player
 
saillias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southside View Post
Concerts, mud trucks, wrestling, rodeos, Oprah....
What about Oprah, and pretty trees?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobHopper View Post
The thing is, my posts, thoughts and insights may be my opinions but they're also quite factual.
saillias is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:18 PM   #1942
Tinordi
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Basic point: we're the flames privately financing the 250 million for the ticket tax they would have said so because the deal looks a lot better for the taxpayer that way. The fact that they didn't should be all you need to understand where they're hoping the finance comes from.
Tinordi is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:19 PM   #1943
Hockeyguy15
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
These are major points to a deal not small details. I love how glib some people are being as though they should just agree and then work out these annoying details later on... When the taxpayer has essentially NO leverage.
How would they have dealt with the major points already? They made their presentation like 24 hours ago.

It's going to take a lot of meetings between the Flames and city to get anything negotiated.
Hockeyguy15 is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:20 PM   #1944
CroFlames
Franchise Player
 
CroFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
Basic point: we're the flames privately financing the 250 million for the ticket tax they would have said so because the deal looks a lot better for the taxpayer that way. The fact that they didn't should be all you need to understand where they're hoping the finance comes from.
The financier of the ticket tax will get his money back, just like a mortgage is paid back. What is your problem with that?


There will be more than one investor ready to loan money to one of the most stable franchises in the NHL.
CroFlames is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:20 PM   #1945
dino7c
Franchise Player
 
dino7c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
That's an argument one could make but dino7c was making an economic argument vs. the status quo... which is the wrong point of comparison.
you are assuming the city would do something else productive with this land...the status quo is the proper comparison. Its been status quo for 70 years this is their best chance to get this crap cleaned up
dino7c is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:21 PM   #1946
CroFlames
Franchise Player
 
CroFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saillias View Post
What about Oprah, and pretty trees?
Oprah herself could donate $100 million to the project, no prob.
CroFlames is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:22 PM   #1947
Hockeyguy15
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
Basic point: we're the flames privately financing the 250 million for the ticket tax they would have said so because the deal looks a lot better for the taxpayer that way. The fact that they didn't should be all you need to understand where they're hoping the finance comes from.
So what? The city can come back during negotiations and tell them to privately finance it.

The Flames and city don't negotiate before the Flames go public with their vision.
Hockeyguy15 is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:23 PM   #1948
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

If people think the posters on this forum are critical of the plan, they obviously haven't been listening to the reaction of the wider public. This thread is a ticker-tape parade for Ken King in comparison.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:24 PM   #1949
dino7c
Franchise Player
 
dino7c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Exp:
Default

I can assure you that if all Murray Edwards wanted to do was make a buck there are far better investments than putting 200M into a city owned complex
dino7c is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:24 PM   #1950
hockey.modern
First Line Centre
 
hockey.modern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: CGY
Exp:
Default

@CalgaryNext: @tbaker_94 Parking will be included in the final plan - these initial images are just preliminary.

@CalgaryNext: @awgdognoah the images shared today are not final. For info on the elements: http://t.co/CBmx3osV78
__________________
Sam "Beard" Bennett
hockey.modern is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:25 PM   #1951
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

It would be interesting to compare the posting habits regarding Edmonton's funding model in that thread to the ones in this thread.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
nik- is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:25 PM   #1952
Zarley
First Line Centre
 
Zarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi View Post
Maybe you could explain this further because I don't see it that way.

What costs/risks are CSE bearing in this case?
The Flames borrow $250M upfront for construction.

The organization then is responsible for placing a surcharge on tickets that will support an annual revenue stream to pay back the loan. The risk is that demand for tickets drops and CS&E is forced to lower prices, hurting their bottom line. The risk to the lender is that the teams fold and CS&E goes under.

Financing can be sourced commercially at a low rate because there is a steady dedicated income stream and the organization is well established with a good credit history.

The other alternative is that the City borrows on behalf of CS&E at the Alberta Capital Finance Authority rate and takes a spread on that to account for additional risk.

In either case, it is the Flames organization bearing that cost.
Zarley is online now  
The Following User Says Thank You to Zarley For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2015, 12:25 PM   #1953
dino7c
Franchise Player
 
dino7c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
If people think the posters on this forum are critical of the plan, they obviously haven't been listening to the reaction of the wider public. This thread is a ticker-tape parade for Ken King in comparison.
people just see public money going to professional athletes and businessmen, the media is partly to blame
dino7c is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:27 PM   #1954
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c View Post
people just see public money going to professional athletes and businessmen, the media is partly to blame
Absolutely. I mean there are no examples of this type of thing happening in other municipalities all over North America.

Damn media.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
nik- is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:28 PM   #1955
Locke
Franchise Player
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
If people think the posters on this forum are critical of the plan, they obviously haven't been listening to the reaction of the wider public. This thread is a ticker-tape parade for Ken King in comparison.
I was initially quite happy with it, but theres reason that the financial slide comes at the end.

At the moment I'd have to say that I'm disappointed and underwhelmed. With the amount of time and resources available and this was the best they could come up with?

I dont like that the Fieldhouse and the CFL Stadium are the same thing. I think thats going to cost a lot of Brand Identity.

Theres a lot of things that I dont like about it, but I put that out of my mind because I cannot convince myself that this is even remotely the finished product.

That presentation was heavy on hopes and dreams and very, very light on actual concrete.

People keep saying that that was not the 'final product' there will be changes and improvements and whatever else, and I understand that, but then guess what, $890 isnt the final price either and I think they were hiding some costs and keeping them out of that number.

I'm still digesting the whole thing.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!

This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.

The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans

If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Locke is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2015, 12:30 PM   #1956
cam_wmh
Franchise Player
 
cam_wmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

This article shares my sentiments.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...hort-of-brazen

The owners are not putting enough of their own dollars into this.

What an elementary oversight, not to include "Owners need to contribute more" as an option in the poll, but in the least, it expedites understanding the poll creators slant.
cam_wmh is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:30 PM   #1957
Coach
Franchise Player
 
Coach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15 View Post
How would they have dealt with the major points already? They made their presentation like 24 hours ago.

It's going to take a lot of meetings between the Flames and city to get anything negotiated.
Personally I find it odd that this wasn't done before announcing the project. I guess King and Co. were probably getting fed up with the amount of questions about so they decided to put together a presentation. "This is what we want to do but have no idea where the money will come from." is pretty much what this was, when it's kind of useless as, while Flames fans certainly want to see what a new building will look like, the general tax payer wants to know where the money's coming from.

He put such a stress on the PUBLIC field house, I assume that with the amount of tax dollars going into it, that as a member of the PUBLIC I will be allowed to show up at the field house an pay no fee to use the facility? And if I do that literally zero of those dollars will end up in the hands of CSE, which is then just user pay paying back the tax no different than the ticket tax?
__________________
Coach is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:31 PM   #1958
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

John Bender @johnw_bender
Estimates to refurbish the saddledome $325 M #yyc #CalgaryNEXT
sureLoss is offline  
Old 08-19-2015, 12:31 PM   #1959
hockey.modern
First Line Centre
 
hockey.modern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: CGY
Exp:
Default

Here's the key points from Ken King's CalgaryNEXT presentation yesterday:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/com...ion_and_heres/

There is no Plan B. King said you can't have a grand vision if you have a Plan B. To King, it's this or nothing. When asked what he'd do if this didn't go ahead, King jokingly said he'd kill himself.

The football stadium (aka Field House) will have a permanent non-retractable roof. The plan is for the Field House roof to be translucent so light can get in, but that's not a guarantee.

The cost of a retractable roof for the Field House would be $150,000,000. King says it's not worth it for something that would only be open approx. 10 times a year (for CFL games).

King said the ticket tax would be south of 10%. He also have two examples of how a ticket tax would work. The first example was an $8 tax on a $100 ticket. The second example was a $17 tax on a $100 ticket.

There were misleading graphs to show the age of the Saddledome and McMahon compared to other stadiums in those respective leagues. The construction date was used to plot the Dome/McMahon on the X-axis, while latest renovation dates were used to plot other stadiums on the same axis. This, for example, lead Commonwealth Stadium (Eskimos) to be plotted on the 2000's while McMahon was plotted at 1960.

King envisions the Field House mostly being used for amateur athletics, using the example of kids playing soccer on it at noon, then the Stamps hosting a CFL game in the evening.

The seats in the field house will fold up to expose the running track when it's needed, and fold out to get fans/people closer to the field for soccer or football games.
There will be minimal parking. Possibly as little as legislation will allow. King expects those who work downtown to stay parked where they work, and then to take transit or walk to the new arena. He said there'll be ample parking for amateur events since they won't be as heavily attended.

For the hockey rink/arena, there's some revolutionary new design planned that King said could make the upper bowl better than the lower bowl. He mentioned seating for hockey in the 18,500 to 19,500 range.
King likes Bow Trail just the way it is because it gives east and west access to the new arena.

Ward 6 Councillor Richard Pootmans was in attendance. King mentioned a few times that he's been working with Pootmans and his colleagues, but Pootmans never said anything.

King mentioned there are 3 subcontractors short-listed for construction. King said there will be no over-run on the $890,000,000 project estimate because he looked one of the subcontractors in the eye and said "you know those projects that run over with costs? This will not be one of them!"

The two car dealerships on the proposed property for CalgaryNEXT have demolition clauses in their contracts. No word on who pays that out.

King talked to Greyhound about kicking them off their site. Greyhound's response apparently was "we just want a better deal on our lease." King said Greyhound was agreeable though.

King mentioned future Olympics, but only that we could host them again if we wanted to. Other big events he mentioned were the Junos, We Day, and the FIFA Woman's World Cup.

No plan for an MLS soccer team. King said "maybe 10 years maybe 15 years" down the road. Right now it's not viable.

It's a fully integrated complex, meaning they don't think they can build the field house without the event space/arena.

If CalgaryNEXT proceeds, King proposed the Saddledome be renovated to become a trade-show space, and McMahon be demolished so that the University can build something else on that land. (The Dinos would play football at the CalgaryNEXT Field House just like the Stamps).

There's another ice surface planned for CalgaryNEXT where the Flames/Hitmen will practice and kids will get to use it when the pros aren't using it. No word on how often.

King calls CalgaryNEXT the "catalyst" for getting the creosote in the area cleaned up, but expects some combination of the city, province, and country to fully pay for it. The estimate is $300,000,000, but King has a feeling it might be lower. King had a slide with this creosote page during his presentation.

King kept referring to the proposed CalgaryNEXT location currently as "urban blight."

A few other observations:

Ken King is good public speaker and salesman. He diffused tougher questions with jokes (usually about the Oilers, Leafs, or Roughriders), and constantly repeated his key message about this being an urban redevelopment as opposed to just a stadium. He did slip up a few times, most notably when he suggested CalgaryNEXT would be a bad investment from a business perspective.

The food provided was a sandwich (tuna, veggie, roast beef, black forest ham, egg salad, or turkey), quinoa salad, babybel cheese, perrier water, apple, rice crispy square

The presentation took an hour, and King took questions for another half hour.
King opened and closed the presentation by mentioning the new $200,000,000 library and how it's a great idea and space for Calgary even though not everyone uses it. Then he'd draw a direct comparison to CalgaryNEXT.

On the slide that showed how much CalgaryNEXT was going to cost, the $890,000,000 price tag was shown next to a $1.3B price tag to build the Field House and Event Space separately (which King had already said wasn't an option), and the largest number on that slide (in font size) was "$300,000,000 in savings." This, to me, seemed particularly and intentionally misleading.

King vaguely mentioned the CRL portion of the funding would take 20 years.
Overall this felt like a sales pitch to get a small army of season ticket holders to spread the good word about CalgaryNEXT to anyone who will listen. The last thing King asked before we left was if we feel this is a good thing for Calgary, and he got a large applause back in return.
__________________
Sam "Beard" Bennett
hockey.modern is offline  
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to hockey.modern For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2015, 12:32 PM   #1960
Coach
Franchise Player
 
Coach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_wmh View Post
What an elementary oversight, not to include "Owners need to contribute more" as an option in the poll, but in the least, it expedites understanding the poll creators slant.
I would think "Too much tax dollars." covers that no?

Those are the only two possible sources of income.
__________________
Coach is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:47 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy