Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-13-2017, 11:19 AM   #1001
MacDaddy77
First Line Centre
 
MacDaddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Exp:
Default

Why are people getting bogged down with Nenshi? Yes hes Mayor but he's only one vote.

There's alot more politically informed posters on here but I'd be interested to see is where do the politicos on this forum feel these Councillors will vote on an arena. Does it need to pass by a certain amounts of votes or just majority?

Ward 1 - Ward Sutherland
Ward 2 Joe Magliocca
Ward 3 Jim Stevenson
Ward 4 Sean Chu
Ward 5 Ray Jones
Ward 6 Richard Pootmans
Ward 7 Druh Farrell
Ward 8 Evan Woolley - onside with West Village it seemed, will he vote for East village location - new arena remains in his ward
Ward 9 Gian-Carlo Carra
Ward 10 Andre Chabot
Ward 11 Brian Pincott -
Ward 12 Shane Keating
Ward 13 Diane Urquhart - seemed to support arena idea initially
Ward 14 Peter Demond

is it possible that Flames can get a majority by supporting challengers in other wards?
MacDaddy77 is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:19 AM   #1002
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustygoon View Post
Opinions are so polarized! How can both sides on here not see there is some room for public funding? There is some benefit to the local economy even if small to having a team here. Fully private deal is ridiculous. Also a massive injection of public money (over 50% of cost) would be just as ridiculous.
As a taxpayer I'd be elated. Ridiculous in what sense? For the owners? Or the mere concept of it happening?
Ozy_Flame is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:22 AM   #1003
GullFoss
#1 Goaltender
 
GullFoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Exp:
Default

Maybe the owners came to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense to build a new stand-alone arena without $200m in funding. Perhaps the economic benefit to the flames is only $200m, so thats all they're willing to invest. And perhaps the city doesn't think a new arena provides $200m in public benefit.

And perhaps - as a result - the owners came to the conclusion that it makes economic sense to continue playing in the saddledome - a stadium with high ticket prices and 19,000 setas - for the next 10 years. Thats certainly a conclusion that makes sense to me.
GullFoss is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:22 AM   #1004
EldrickOnIce
Franchise Player
 
EldrickOnIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustygoon View Post
Opinions are so polarized! How can both sides on here not see there is some room for public funding? There is some benefit to the local economy even if small to having a team here. Fully private deal is ridiculous. Also a massive injection of public money (over 50% of cost) would be just as ridiculous.
Please don't let common sense prevail when hyperbole and drama are winning
EldrickOnIce is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:23 AM   #1005
MacDaddy77
First Line Centre
 
MacDaddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_wmh View Post
His brother's voice works....
Are the Seamans still owners? I thought they weren't and the Flames page seems to confirm this

https://www.nhl.com/flames/team/owners
MacDaddy77 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to MacDaddy77 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 11:23 AM   #1006
fotiou22
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Exp:
Default

Imagine if a group of billionaires pulled this crap on Ralph Klein. They're unwilling to pay for even ONE THIRD of the cost of THEIR arena. Am baffled by posters here who have convinced themselves that there's some ulterior motive to a mayor standing up for citizens/taxpayers (whatever we want to call ourselves).

King and Bettman have bumbled this terribly. Nenshi should be arrogant. He's standing up for Calgarians. Ralph Klein would be proud.

(Source on the deal the owners are walking away from: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/spo...ticle36241562/)
fotiou22 is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:23 AM   #1007
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calf View Post
Doesn't that prove the point? An arena is a bad investment for both sides. The team can't make it work without "free" government money. The city can't make it work without some sort of return or payback on their investment. There's a reason people aren't investing in these things other than governments that have been "held hostage". They don't make much financial sense at all for both sides.
Exactly.

Arenas are a bad investment. That's why we should make sure much of the load is carried by average citizens rather than the billionaires who could buy them outright without any meaningful diminishing of their almost inexhaustible wealth.

That's a terrible argument. Especially when you consider that most of those citizens will never use the new facility.

I've been reading a lot lately about the Roman Empire, another era when a small number of extraordinarily rich owned much of the wealth of the world. And you know who built the remarkable public facilities that still stand today - the colosseums, public baths, and forums? Those incredibly rich individuals. Paid for them outright, in exchange for the prestige of being famed patrons of their city.
__________________
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 09-13-2017, 11:24 AM   #1008
EldrickOnIce
Franchise Player
 
EldrickOnIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame View Post
As a taxpayer I'd be elated. Ridiculous in what sense? For the owners? Or the mere concept of it happening?
No. Just to keep a viable team in the market.
EldrickOnIce is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:24 AM   #1009
Insane_Flame
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Exp:
Default

Interesting quotes from NHL sources.

The NHL's response will be fascinating, but talking to a few sources today they aren't exactly sounding like the Flames are heading to Seattle any time soon....

One source noted that King "has to be bolder and we are glad he is being more bold. Trying to wait for action from this government has not been working..."

When I asked that source if the Flames could be moving to Seattle or elsewhere I was told. "This is still a long game. It took Edmonton forever to get that new building approved...almost 7 years.."
Insane_Flame is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:26 AM   #1010
Vinny01
Franchise Player
 
Vinny01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CGY
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame View Post
As a taxpayer I'd be elated. Ridiculous in what sense? For the owners? Or the mere concept of it happening?
Considering it is a public use facility that is a huge infrastructure project that will be part of Calgary for the next 30 years this should be a shared city-private venture imo. Any hopes of this being 100% private is a pipe dream.

The fact cities are flipping this bill has to be one of the biggest reasons spots teams are going from being worth $300-$500M to $2B
Vinny01 is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:27 AM   #1011
Backlunds_socks
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Exp:
Default

Woooooohooo, now that my ban is over here's my first comment.

The Flames are not leaving Calgary - there is no way this happens. Its not like the NHL is having an amazing time with all their franchises; there are a limited number of cities which can support an NHL franchise.

The NHL can build an amazing stadium and a cup contending team but they cannot build revenue mechanically - Calgary offers revenue and thats the bottom line.
Backlunds_socks is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:29 AM   #1012
Cappy
First Line Centre
 
Cappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing View Post
They've been talking to the media, but not talking to CSEC, nor responding to a presented offer. CSEC has no idea what the City actually wants.
Where are you getting your information? it's suspect at best.

According to sources, the Flames haven't made an offer, the city did and the Flames rejected.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/spo...+Article+Links

Quote:
Calgary offered to pay for one-third of the arena, in equal instalments over a number of years, according to a source. The money would have to be paid back. The ownership group, according to this proposal, would cover another third of the total cost and surcharge on tickets would pay for the remaining third, the source said.

The Flames organization rejected the offer, the source said.

EDIT: Sorry, reply to an old post. didn't realize this was over 50 pages already!
Cappy is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:29 AM   #1013
OldDutch
#1 Goaltender
 
OldDutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North of the River, South of the Bluff
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
How much do the interests of Save Calgary coincide with getting a favourable Calgary next slate of politicians on council?

Are the councilors targeted by Save Calgary also prominent opponents of CalgaryNext type developments?
I have read that train wreck of a website and the general theme is they want the tax and spenders out, and responsible candidates in.

However, I wonder if that reconciles with spending 1.3+ on CalgaryNEXT, or subsidies to rich developers? Probably. As we have seen fiscal hawks sure can twist higher debt as a good thing to help "stimulate the economy".

For example, "The $250 million for a library should be scrapped. It is tax and spend at its finest. Now what we should do is hand it over to the Flames. They bring an intangible amount to the local economy. Like think of all the beer sales and stuff. What has a library done for us? Psssh can't even buy beer there!"
OldDutch is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:30 AM   #1014
Hot_Flatus
#1 Goaltender
 
Hot_Flatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel View Post
Holy drama..."holding the city hostage" to me would equate to asking for 100% funding or we are leaving. The Flame's "greedy owners" aren't even asking for what Edmonton got. And they aren't even threatening (at this point) to move. All they are saying is that they will continue to play in the Saddledome as the economics of the deal offered by the city doesn't work for them (which is their right as owners). It comes down to a philosophical difference between the Flames and the City with respect to how much of a partnership it should be.

The Flames (and I agree) believe that a state of the art arena is something the City should support financially as it is a valuable part of a vibrant city. Others seem to think an arena is nothing more than a toy house built by billionaires where overpaid hockey players skate (which is an equally valid opinion).

However, to me, this rant against the owners comes across as spiteful and jealous rage more than anything. People have to get over the fact that enticing "rich people" to invest in communities is a good thing. Capital is mobile and will be invested where it makes sense. We should be attracting investment, now more than ever.
Right. So the "we'll just leave" or "not actively shopping" statements don't strike you as passive aggressive threats? Read between the lines and don't be silly about it. They're trying to convince every voter in Calgary that is dumb enough to believe them that they are ready to move if the right option becomes available.

For 200M plus, the city can get far better return on "rich investment" as you say and maybe that's where the focus should be. The Flames are lucky they are in a market like Calgary to begin with and if they don't see it as such it might be time they sell to someone that does or hit the road. A deal will get done with people that actually want to be fair about it. I've seen zero evidence to suggest the City is not attempting to be fair and a whole lot of BS out of the Flames camp to suggest they are not.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Hot_Flatus is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:30 AM   #1015
cam_wmh
Franchise Player
 
cam_wmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDaddy77 View Post
Are the Seamans still owners? I thought they weren't and the Flames page seems to confirm this

https://www.nhl.com/flames/team/owners
Apologies guys, that's quite recent news then.
cam_wmh is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:31 AM   #1016
Bigtime
Franchise Player
 
Bigtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDaddy77 View Post
Why are people getting bogged down with Nenshi? Yes hes Mayor but he's only one vote.

There's alot more politically informed posters on here but I'd be interested to see is where do the politicos on this forum feel these Councillors will vote on an arena. Does it need to pass by a certain amounts of votes or just majority?

Ward 1 - Ward Sutherland
Ward 2 Joe Magliocca
Ward 3 Jim Stevenson
Ward 4 Sean Chu
Ward 5 Ray Jones
Ward 6 Richard Pootmans
Ward 7 Druh Farrell
Ward 8 Evan Woolley - onside with West Village it seemed, will he vote for East village location - new arena remains in his ward
Ward 9 Gian-Carlo Carra
Ward 10 Andre Chabot
Ward 11 Brian Pincott -
Ward 12 Shane Keating
Ward 13 Diane Urquhart - seemed to support arena idea initially
Ward 14 Peter Demong
Just a note here, the proposed arena location in Vic Park will become Ward 11 on election day. So no longer in Woolley's riding, but rather the open race that is Ward 11 with Pincott stepping down.
Bigtime is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 11:32 AM   #1017
morgin
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlan View Post
Show me 1 funding model that suggested the city pays for the entire venture. If you are referring to the contaminated soil clean-up costs for CalgaryNext (?)...it is going to have to be done, and the sooner the better, the cost of which will continue to raise, costing the tax payer A LOT more. (not that I am behind any of the proposed projects as presented to date)
For the record, soil remediation is not something that necessarily increases in cost over time. Cost of labour can go up or down depending on other economic factors. Technology improvements in remediation techniques can decrease costs as well. Any argument that presupposes the creosote will be more expensive to remediate as time goes on is flawed in that sense. It could be more expensive, but it could also be less expensive. It's sort of unknown ATM.
morgin is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to morgin For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 11:32 AM   #1018
GullFoss
#1 Goaltender
 
GullFoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Exp:
Default

Ok...

So based on the rumors that the flames have asked for similar terms to Calgary next, I would speculate the flames have presumably offered: 1/3 city via CRL, 1/3 ticket tax, and 1/3 owners. And the city provides infrastructure and land


And as per the quote below, the city has offered: 1/3 ticket tax, 2/3 owners and city provides some infrastructure and land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlobeAndMail View Post
Calgary offered to pay for one-third of the arena, in equal instalments over a number of years, according to a source. The money would have to be paid back. The ownership group, according to this proposal, would cover another third of the total cost and surcharge on tickets would pay for the remaining third, the source said.
Jeezus...so they're basically apart by $150m. Just split the difference and get it done. I feel bad for the flames...
GullFoss is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:32 AM   #1019
MacDaddy77
First Line Centre
 
MacDaddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_wmh View Post
Apologies guys, that's quite recent news then.
Have no idea if its accurate. just going off what their page says
MacDaddy77 is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:35 AM   #1020
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDutch View Post
I have read that train wreck of a website and the general theme is they want the tax and spenders out, and responsible candidates in.

However, I wonder if that reconciles with spending 1.3+ on CalgaryNEXT, or subsidies to rich developers? Probably. As we have seen fiscal hawks sure can twist higher debt as a good thing to help "stimulate the economy".

For example, "The $250 million for a library should be scrapped. It is tax and spend at its finest. Now what we should do is hand it over to the Flames. They bring an intangible amount to the local economy. Like think of all the beer sales and stuff. What has a library done for us? Psssh can't even buy beer there!"
It's like 6 councilors being targeted, right? Do those 6 councilors happen to be outspoken opponents of the Calgary next project? I dont know enough about Calgary Civic politics.
Flash Walken is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 08:12 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021