[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Cowboy89]

Surprised the province’s / country’s reaction to Covid / omicron hasn’t been talked about enough in how it relates to the Flames. Clearly cost inflation has something to do with this, however I don’t think it’s completely a coincidence that the Flames informed the mayor of their decision to pull out the same day the province blindsided them with restrictions that probably zap 60-70% of their game day revenue. Maybe pausing on $300MM+ in investment in a market where the province restricts attendance for a cold with 1/3rd to 1/2 of the electorate angry and wanting harsher restrictions is a smart idea. If we’re in a constant hammer and dance with Covid here with the hospitality and the live entertainment industries bearing the brunt of the cost then almost any marginal US market is more prospective. Cancelling this agreement and avoiding $300MM in commitments keeps that option open.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Surprised the province’s / country’s reaction to Covid / omicron hasn’t been talked about enough in how it relates to the Flames. Clearly cost inflation has something to do with this, however I don’t think it’s completely a coincidence that the Flames informed the mayor of their decision to pull out the same day the province blindsided them with restrictions that probably zap 60-70% of their game day revenue. Maybe pausing on $300MM+ in investment in a market where the province restricts attendance for a cold with 1/3rd to 1/2 of the electorate angry and wanting harsher restrictions is a smart idea. If we’re in a constant hammer and dance with Covid here with the hospitality and the live entertainment industries bearing the brunt of the cost then almost any marginal US market is more prospective. Cancelling this agreement and avoiding $300MM in commitments keeps that option open.

User name checks out.

Edit: I mean, I agree with the premise of your post. But calling it "a cold" and acting like the province is the unpredictable part of this equation is pretty blatant. You don't think Alberta would rather be collecting more taxes from more revenues instead of having to constantly enable restrictions to protect everyone from the lunatics who still think it's all a conspiracy?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Surprised the province’s / country’s reaction to Covid / omicron hasn’t been talked about enough in how it relates to the Flames. Clearly cost inflation has something to do with this, however I don’t think it’s completely a coincidence that the Flames informed the mayor of their decision to pull out the same day the province blindsided them with restrictions that probably zap 60-70% of their game day revenue. Maybe pausing on $300MM+ in investment in a market where the province restricts attendance for a cold with 1/3rd to 1/2 of the electorate angry and wanting harsher restrictions is a smart idea. If we’re in a constant hammer and dance with Covid here with the hospitality and the live entertainment industries bearing the brunt of the cost then almost any marginal US market is more prospective. Cancelling this agreement and avoiding $300MM in commitments keeps that option open.

This is a huge part of the equation.

EDIT: although I don't agree with the cold comment.

[FanIn80]

Meant to edit my previous post, but made a new one cause I'm a noob.

[GGG]

I also wonder if there is a fear of a longer term shift away from live sports as a place for your entertainment and corporate dollars. 2 years is a long time for new habits to be formed.

What’s does this year attendance and demand accords the NHL tell us a new arena should be. Were the flames about to build a sky dome?

I think this sits until the next election when we are at about six years left in the old building and something gets done. Not to worried yet.

[FanIn80]

Here's a crazy thought. If the NHL franchises are, well, franchises - then why doesn't the NHL provide the facilities for those franchises to operate in?

If I want to own a McDonald's, I don't just pay a franchising fee and then I'm sent off on my own to find some land somewhere and build my own restaurant and source all my own ingredients and design my own menus, etc.

The NHL should be the ones that manage the facilities in each city, negotiate the construction and land deals etc. The franchisee should just be paying rent on the NHL facilities they're using and that's the end of their involvement.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

User name checks out.

I’m not an anti-vaxxer, I’m even boosted. That said we effectively know omicron is mild, but yet either our health system is too fragile to handle endemic cold, flu, and Covid season or too many Canadians are being entirely unreasonable with their acceptance/demands for restrictions. Either/or or a combination of both are poison for this kind of business.

There are serious long term economic consequences this country will have to atone for if we find it acceptable to indefinitely move through intermittent periods of lockdowns and restrictions. If two years into this thing and people cannot even set wedding dates or make travel plans a few months out for worries about what the government is or isn’t going to allow, how are we expecting a business to invest $300MM plus when the government might not even let them fill the place or sell concessions?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Why can't we have a progressive mayor who likes tech industries AND sports?

Edit: I keep forgetting there's a new mayor. Is it a good sign when the new mayor seems exactly like the old one?

The old mayor and council were the ones that approved the deal, although I thought it was really uncharacteristic of Nenshi, considering how he was coming out of the previous election.

Anyway, I'm totally fine if the next deal come along the the City offers less and the CSEC needs to put in more.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

We get it. You hate CSEC. You hate Edwards. You hate the other owners.

Why are you a fan of an organization you hate so much?

What does being a fan of the Flames have to do with their crappy organization?

They don't deserve what they are (were) getting from the City. If they built it themselves, fine. I wouldn't have anything to complain about, to be honest.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Here's a crazy thought. If the NHL franchises are, well, franchises - then why doesn't the NHL provide the facilities for those franchises to operate in?

If I want to own a McDonald's, I don't just pay a franchising fee and then I'm sent off on my own to find some land somewhere and build my own restaurant and source all my own ingredients and design my own menus, etc.

The NHL should be the ones that manage the facilities in each city, negotiate the construction and land deals etc. The franchisee should just be paying rent on the NHL facilities they're using and that's the end of their involvement.

That is not how fast food franchises work.

Not at all.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just don't see it as such.

The final decision was made in and around the costs that the mayor eluded to, but both sides have been nervous with the rising costs for the past 18 months.

I may make a decision to cut my losses on a 5% move on a stock price, but if I've lost 30% in the last three weeks it's not the 5% that is the killer ... it's the additional 5%.

Again, explain how both sides are getting nervous about rising costs when it was agreed that the Flames were the ones eating the cost increases.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by nik-

Again, explain how both sides are getting nervous about rising costs when it was agreed that the Flames were the ones eating the cost increases.

That agreement was made a lot less than 18 months ago. Up to that point, the costs were already rising and were split 50-50. It isn't just CSEC that was on the hook for more than they expected.

That said, with CSEC having to pay for all overruns during construction, at a time when the entire global supply chain is subject to frequent and expensive disruptions, it's a no-brainer for them to refuse that risk. There is simply no telling how much this project would actually have cost by the time it was actually completed. Anybody remember Jean Drapeau's baby?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1478344672732983297

[Lanny_McDonald]

That was an interesting read, but for different reasons than I anticipated. Some of the comments from Carter in that article were made on this site long before those were published in this Calgary Herald article. Almost word for word. Almost feels like the exposure of a disinformation agent in our midst.

[Major Major]

First I've heard of a roof repair needed. Sounds like bad info leaked to Corbella to stir it up.

Flames don't negotiate in public, just email print ready articles to Calgary Herald shills.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Again, explain how both sides are getting nervous about rising costs when it was agreed that the Flames were the ones eating the cost increases.

It was agreed at 50/50 then the city said they were no longer comfortable with that and asked to not be on the hook for cost overruns.

So again, when one side doesn't want to share in cost overruns after agreeing to share 50/50 I'm assuming they had some tension about where said costs were going.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It was agreed at 50/50 then the city said they were no longer comfortable with that and asked to not be on the hook for cost overruns.

So again, when one side doesn't want to share in cost overruns after agreeing to share 50/50 I'm assuming they had some tension about where said costs were going.

Wasn't this issue at the time CSEC wanting to add features for themselves the city didn't want to cover, so it was agreed CSEC would take on the extra costs of changes, should they desire them? To me it seems CSEC negotiated themselves into a situation they ended up not wanting to be in.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wasn't this issue at the time CSEC wanting to add features for themselves the city didn't want to cover, so it was agreed CSEC would take on the extra costs of changes, should they desire them? To me it seems CSEC negotiated themselves into a situation they ended up not wanting to be in.

Could easily be the case. Didn't see it my reading, but that would make sense.

Doesn't really change my simple statement that keeps getting challenged however.

Both sides were nervous with rising costs.

[Northendzone]

seems that there are reasons for both sides to get cold feet right now.

it will be interesting to see if any kind of deal comes back to life and what it looks like.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

That was an interesting read, but for different reasons than I anticipated. Some of the comments from Carter in that article were made on this site long before those were published in this Calgary Herald article. Almost word for word. Almost feels like the exposure of a disinformation agent in our midst.

Any links? I'm just curious and didn't make the connection.