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

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't want to give you a hard time because I appreciate all your updates and info on the topic. But frankly, we've been hearing exactly this for more than a decade already. And we are further away now than we've ever been.

Disagree, the bones of a somewhat reasonable deal now exists (too generous for many, apparently not generous enough for others). As long as neither side demands seismic changes, it should come back together easily once external factors settle.

The good thing IMO is that this gives reasonable certainty to another prospective owner if Murray can't/won't get his #### together. The NHL wouldn't blink at pulling anchor from an overly obstinate city, but it would be counter-productive to their grift to allow an easy move from a city that came to the table in good faith. As much as I think the city is overplaying their hand with rushed votes and tripping over themselves to form a new committee, it should ensure a fair chance for new ownership content to remain in Calgary to step in before any move is contemplated.

And yes, there are probably several [probably but not necessarily Canadian] billionaires who would be fine with that arrangement, since TOR/MTL/VAN simply aren't possible.

[Bs&Cs]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think it’s not that complicated. Sometimes people just want to convince themselves a publicly funded arena is a great idea because they just really want a new arena.

Or perhaps people are okay with the idea of their tax dollars being used on infrastructure that makes their city a more vibrant place to live.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Bs&Cs

Or perhaps people are okay with the idea of their tax dollars being used on infrastructure that makes their city a more vibrant place to live.

A new arena doesn’t make the city more vibrant. It helps make an already rich owner even more obscenely rich.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

A new arena doesn’t make the city more vibrant. It helps make an already rich owner even more obscenely rich.

It actually does both

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It actually does both

Only if you don’t know what vibrant means.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Forgot the NFL relocations but doesn’t overly matter

I appreciate the effort of that post - but the point stands that large metro cities don’t let their only sports team leave

You can argue it was mathematically unlikely - which your above post does support -
There is also a very real fact that every major large city has a sports franchise and the impact on the city shouldn’t be overlooked

And the only thing Calgary hasn't done at this point is completely capitulated on a mildly contentious bump in the road (sidewalks and roads) - they offered to take on about half of those costs (can't recall if it was slightly more or less than 50%)

It's kinda interesting to take a real cursory glance at the relocations since 2000:

Vancouver - not a building issue
Atlanta - not a building issue

Montreal - largely a stadium issue?

Seattle - arena issue, though hardball seems to have worked pretty damn well

Charlotte - The city was keen to build a new arena (despite a failed referendum), but not for the current owner: "City leaders then devised a way to build a new arena that did not require voter support, but let it be known that they wouldn't consider building it unless then-Hornets' owner George Shinn sold the team."


The recent NFL moves and their stadium issues are an entirely different kettle of fish. Seattle is the only arena related move, and 15 years later they've got a privately built arena, new NHL team, and are 1st in line for an NBA relocation (though Vegas is heavily rumoured for expansion, maybe in the neighbourhood of 2.5BILLION)

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It actually does both

All that Saddledome 'vibrancy' will move 2 blocks north?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Bs&Cs

Or perhaps people are okay with the idea of their tax dollars being used on infrastructure that makes their city a more vibrant place to live.

Let's not pretend a building for billionaires' playthings is infrastructure.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Great idea and economic reality aren’t the same thing

I don’t think it’s a “great idea” to give large corporations tax breaks to move to your city . I also understand other cities are willing too so if you don’t you won’t get them .

You can stand of some altruistic principles all you want , but you’ll end up with no sports teams and no corporate headquarters on your city

Creating a desirable tax environment is different than gifting billionaires a building.

The first is often a good idea. The second never is.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Only if you don’t know what vibrant means.

What do you think vibrant means ?

Full of energy is the definition I use … you don’t think having an arena - and therefor sports , concerts and events , adds energy to a city

Please educate me on my lack of understanding of the English language ! Or any of your thank minions that also clearly have a better grasp of the English language then me !

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Creating a desirable tax environment is different than gifting billionaires a building.

The first is often a good idea. The second never is.

The you don’t get a sports team. Cause another city will pay

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The you don’t get a sports team. Cause another city will pay

Okay.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Bs&Cs

Or perhaps people are okay with the idea of their tax dollars being used on infrastructure that makes their city a more vibrant place to live.

Yeah. Again whatever you want to convince yourself. I’m in favour of it because I want it and I pay a lot of taxes and for things I don’t even use. I’ll use this, so I want it.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Only if you don’t know what vibrant means.

Funny I was driving through downtown Vancouver this evening right by Rogers Arena and BC Place. So many cool places to live, work and play. Tons of people out on the street. I thought to myself, what a vibrant city.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It actually does both

It does? I've been to a few games and concerts in the last 7-8 months and there's nothing that isn't going on down there that would be with a new building. Concerts were incredible in the dome (which is saying something) and the hockey experience was great as well. If the owners don't want to step up to the plate and be decent about it, I don't give a hoot at all. The greed is astounding considering it would probably be tolerated by the masses if they simply offered a 65-35 split - but even that is unpalatable for the ultra rich.

Let this building run until it rots for all I care. It doesn't make my life as a Calgarian any better to fund a new building that will only drive up the cost of every game and event and pry away funds that could otherwise be used to build critical infrastructure, schools or a field house.

[The Fisher Account]

Edit: nm

[8sPOT]

'News Roundup' is pretty misleading here, should be 'Opinion Roundup'.

I can't wait until this thing is done. Been a decade of nothing but bickering.

[CGY12]

Tricky situation from my point of view. I think for the long term on ice success the team needs a new arena, as I do think it plays a role in attracting and keeping elite talent (not for every player but for the majority). We all know the Flames are a team that contributes positively to the leagues revenue sharing model, so this isn't to say they cant be revenue positive in the dome, but as time goes on I think the Dome will hurt in recruiting (especially with the younger generation). This is just my own hunch but I believe the Flames being on players NTC lists has a lot to do with the dome than anything else. So from that perspective I think we need a new arena. However I do not want the city bending backwards for billionaire owners and handing them whatever they want at the expense of tax payers. Hopefully a resolution can be found that makes sense for both sides and they can break ground on the project.

[Jbo]

Had to fly to Vancouver recently to see a concert that skipped Calgary. That was money that could have been spent here and also brought in people to our city.

Huge amount of people buying dinner, going to bars, staying in hotels and going out after,

But yes, zero vibrancy

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Yeah. Again whatever you want to convince yourself. I’m in favour of it because I want it and I pay a lot of taxes and for things I don’t even use. I’ll use this, so I want it.

you'll *pay* to use it. this isn't a city park or library with unfettered access, why the hell should it be a "public works" project. Are we going to get access to ice times?