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% |
08-19-2015, 12:33 PM
|
#1961
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Zarley: the other costs to the taxpayer is that it will increase the city's borrowing rate. Also there is very likely to be cost sharing agreements should the tax not perform to expectations. Anyway I'm skeptical that should this be financed by taxpayers that they'll be able to transfer risk to the flames. Otherwise a private loan would sufficient.
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:38 PM
|
#1962
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
John Bender @johnw_bender
Estimates to refurbish the saddledome $325 M #yyc #CalgaryNEXT
|
I'd be curious to know what this includes.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:40 PM
|
#1963
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
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.
|
Obviously the Flames would love to have the $250 million come off the city's line of credit. Several people have already offered various reasons why. But the fact remains - and which you are conveniently ignoring because it hurts the narrative that you want to present - is that King also specifically mentioned conventional corporate lenders as an option for that portion of funding as well. In short, King strongly implied that if the city says no to fronting the money to be paid by the ticket tax, the Flames will just go private with it. But it isn't their first choice.
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:41 PM
|
#1964
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
I would think "Too much tax dollars." covers that no?
Those are the only two possible sources of income.
|
No. As straight government coffer money (government cash), vs user money (ticket tax), are two additional as well.
It's a very easy bullet to write, funny it was overlooked.
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:41 PM
|
#1965
|
I believe in the Jays.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
you are assuming the city would do something else productive with this land
|
No, I'm assuming they could do something else productive with the land and that's what CS&E proposal should be evaluated against (If you're making a strictly economic argument) and not the nothing that you're assuming will happen otherwise.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:47 PM
|
#1966
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
I did not know you were an expert on CRLs.
What taxes are currently brought in from this area?
How much will be brought in by the new taxes, which do not currently exist?
How much new revenue, which does not currently exist, will there be after the CRL apportionment to the construction is covered?
How much of this tax revenue will be required for the operation of sites?
For example, and all numbers are 100% made up, and used for illustrative purposes only.
Current tax revenue from the area: $10MM per year.
Current costs required to service area: $5MM per year.
Net benefit to City: $5MM per year.
New tax revenue from area: $100MM per year.
New costs to service the aea: $50MM per year.
CRL Allocation: $25MM per year.
Net Benefit to City: $25MM per year for the first ten years.
$50MM per year for the next X number of years.
We do not know the numbers above, at all. But, if the numbers are run, and look like that, I see that as a net benefit to the City, and bringing in new money.
But, as you said, I don't understand how a CRL works.
I am also glad you have no say in the matter.
|
New revenue for the CRL is entirely speculative, so we cannot say 250 million just like that. In the end we have no idea what it would be.
NO NEW TAX REVENUE COMES FROM THE ARENA!
development from around the arena is speculative. What happens when the tax revenue doesn't add up? shortfalls are covered by the general tax base.
This response proves you don't know anything about how a CRL works. It is a loan on future tax revenue, that's it.
There is literally zero point in arguing with you over this. The density.
Last edited by Cappy; 08-19-2015 at 12:54 PM.
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:49 PM
|
#1967
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_wmh
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.
|
Except the article is crap. Flames are on the hook for 450M - just over 50%.
One can certainly argue that is not enough - I absolutely get that. But one should have their facts straight.
Besides - anything written by anyone name of Lambert is obviously garbage.
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:50 PM
|
#1968
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: CGY
|
I wonder if the Flames are trying to go for something similar to Staples Center which holds 18,181.
__________________
Sam "Beard" Bennett
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to hockey.modern For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:54 PM
|
#1969
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Maybe you could explain this further because I don't see it that way.
What costs/risks are CSE bearing in this case?
|
CSE is bearing $200M up front and foregoing $250M (plus interest possibly) in future ticket revenue.
Supply and demand will determine the ticket price. Then, say, $10 will come off the price of each ticket and go to the $250M lender instead of CSE's pockets. It's not like the price of tickets would suddenly drop by $10 if there were no ticket tax.
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:55 PM
|
#1970
|
Franchise Player
|
I know the economics behind smaller capacity stadiums, but I think it would be cool if the Flames built a 20,000 seater. I can dream can't I.
The ONLY complaint I have with Staples is the gradual slope of the lower bowl. If you are behind the net, up to about row 15 I think, you have a really hard time seeing the goal line due to the gradual slope.
Other than that, friggen awesome rink.
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:58 PM
|
#1971
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
New revenue for the CRL is entirely speculative, so we cannot say 250 million just like that. In the end we have no idea what it would be.
NO NEW TAX REVENUE COMES FROM THE ARENA!
development from around the arena is speculative. What happens when the tax revenue doesn't add up? shortfalls are covered by the general tax base.
This response proves you don't know anything about how a CRL works. It is a loan on future tax revenue, that's it.
|
Of course that's how it works - this is not news, my friend.
And of course it's speculative.
So no, we can't say 250 M just like that.
Maybe it's 100. Maybe it's 400.
Development springing up surrounding facilities like these has been both incredibly successful, and has been incredibly not successful.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-19-2015, 12:58 PM
|
#1972
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
Absolutely. I mean there are no examples of this type of thing happening in other municipalities all over North America.
Damn media. 
|
catch global news last night? stadium for flames and stadium for stamps no mention of anything else
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 01:00 PM
|
#1973
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Victoria, BC
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
Except the article is crap. Flames are on the hook for 450M - just over 50%.
One can certainly argue that is not enough - I absolutely get that. But one should have their facts straight.
Besides - anything written by anyone name of Lambert is obviously garbage.
|
How are the Flames on the hook for a ticket tax financed by the city?
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 01:02 PM
|
#1974
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
No, I'm assuming they could do something else productive with the land and that's what CS&E proposal should be evaluated against (If you're making a strictly economic argument) and not the nothing that you're assuming will happen otherwise.
|
how long have you lived in Calgary? they haven't done anything productive with the land for 70 years
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 01:03 PM
|
#1975
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
New revenue for the CRL is entirely speculative, so we cannot say 250 million just like that. In the end we have no idea what it would be.
NO NEW TAX REVENUE COMES FROM THE ARENA!
development from around the arena is speculative. What happens when the tax revenue doesn't add up? shortfalls are covered by the general tax base.
This response proves you don't know anything about how a CRL works. It is a loan on future tax revenue, that's it.
There is literally zero point in arguing with you over this. The density.
|
As mentioned the numbers were made up, and for illustrative purposes.
We need to know what the numbers are, and right now neither of us knows. If and when we find out, you might be right, I might be right, or somewhere in between.
My example is exactly how it works. Just the numbers are completely unknown.
I could say the same thing to and about you, but won't.
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 01:04 PM
|
#1976
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
catch global news last night? stadium for flames and stadium for stamps no mention of anything else
|
You realize that by a substantial margin, the Flames are the biggest beneficiaries of this new facility right?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 01:05 PM
|
#1977
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
New revenue for the CRL is entirely speculative, so we cannot say 250 million just like that. In the end we have no idea what it would be.
NO NEW TAX REVENUE COMES FROM THE ARENA!
development from around the arena is speculative. What happens when the tax revenue doesn't add up? shortfalls are covered by the general tax base.
This response proves you don't know anything about how a CRL works. It is a loan on future tax revenue, that's it.
There is literally zero point in arguing with you over this. The density.
|
there would obviously be development come on now
with the land cleaned up and the stadium right there, location right by the river...it would be a prime spot
people develop neighborhoods in farmers fields for christ sake
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-19-2015, 01:05 PM
|
#1978
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: ...the bench
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
The Flames owners won't be willing to stay in the Saddledome forever and I doubt they will eventually decide to pay for a $900 million complex all by themselves. Eventually the Saddledome will be a money losing arena for the Flames and after that point it won't be long before the team would be up for sale. Maybe local buyers buy them and maybe not.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhettzky
Here's the breakdown from the site...

|
K serious question here:
Fieldhouse Standalone Square Feet = 595,000
Fieldhouse Integrated Square Feet = 150,000
What? That's not parking that makes up that difference, that's already accounted for. So why the 400,000 square foot difference?????? Is this supposed to be 'surrounding grounds and roads'? or what?
Stadium Standalone Square Feet = 520,000
Stadium Integrated Square Feet = 250,000
Again why is the Stadium so much smaller? And shouldn't this number be 0? As in 'already inside the fieldhouse'
Event Center Standalone SF = 820,000
Event Center 'Shared' (even though it's stand alone next to the fieldhouse) = 475,000
Makes 0 sense again.
Like wtf.
To me it should read
Standalone
2500 SF - parking
595,000 SF - Fieldhouse
520,000 SF - Stadium
820,000 SF - Event Centre
CalgaryNext
1500 SF - parking
595,000 SF - Fieldhouse
0 SF - Stadium
820,000 SF - Event Centre
All you save on is parking and by having the fieldhouse and stadium combined. So you save 520,000 SF.
Also, if you look at the totals....CalgaryNext goes from "Shared = 500,000 SF" to "Total Building Area: 1,375,000 SF" So is that fail math on the graphic up top? Or does the total build area total at the bottom include the 'development' in the area?
Someone fill me in, 'cause I don't get their math...
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 01:06 PM
|
#1979
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHotHeat
How are the Flames on the hook for a ticket tax financed by the city?
|
Where was it confirmed the the ticket tax will be financed by the city?
|
|
|
08-19-2015, 01:07 PM
|
#1980
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHotHeat
How are the Flames on the hook for a ticket tax financed by the city?
|
I could not say it better than this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley
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.
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:05 PM.
|
|