[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[Locke]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

According to the Francis article the Flames ownership group is willing to put up $200 million.

The article does not indicate one way or the other but I suspect this would include any ticket tax..

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

So, about a third of the price.

And the City puts up a third.

Ticket tax puts up a third.

I'm really eager to see the sticking points on this.

[MacDaddy77]

ends up being 2/3 and around $400MM doesn't it? Flames pay back 1/2 over 30 yrs or something?

Still seems pretty fair

[Locke]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

We'll see.

I'm sure we'll see the Flames are after a deal very similar to what the Oilers and Edmonton got to in the end, and I'm not going to think that's "unreasonable" because it's just about the best comparable there could be.

Except it isnt. Edmonton got their cake and got to eat it too.

Thats a sweetheart deal that we shouldnt be offering.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

We'll see.

I'm sure we'll see the Flames are after a deal very similar to what the Oilers and Edmonton got to in the end, and I'm not going to think that's "unreasonable" because it's just about the best comparable there could be.

It still doesn't make it a good deal. IIRC Katz really ended up putting up a relatively minuscule amount and the fans/city effectively floated the rest.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Going to guess CSEC's proposal was basically a win-lose proposal benefitting only CSEC and fans of their teams, while the City's was a fair proposal whereby the city could recoup their portion over a long period of time which also seems fair.

KK and the old boys kind of digging their own PR grave with their move yesterday. Gonna look like greedy ####s in the coming hours.

Savvy response by Nenshi. But it's not going to go over well on the other side.

So let me get this straight.

You're going to ignore the opportunity to see actual facts and instead pre-judge which side you are on because of an inherent dislike of one, and blind trust in the other?

Not trying to pick on you specifically, but there is a lot of this happening within the thread. Will those that support ownership be prepared to call it a one sided deal once the actual facts are presented? Will those who support the mayor be prepared to say that the City should have acted more quickly or reasonably?

Surely we can wait a few moments to get facts rather than rumour?

[MacDaddy77]

what exactly is so wrong with the Edmonton arena deal (only the arena)

I thought the biggest screw job wasn't the arena itself but that Katz owned all the area around for development at reduced or deferred tax

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

We'll see.

I'm sure we'll see the Flames are after a deal very similar to what the Oilers and Edmonton got to in the end, and I'm not going to think that's "unreasonable" because it's just about the best comparable there could be.

It shouldn't be a comparable. Have you visited downtown Edmonton prior to the new arena district? Edmonton needed the revitalization of the downtown area in ways that Calgary doesn't.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Flames looking for 33% of cost from the city. City has offered ~11-12%

Actually, it looks like the City is willing to fund 1/3 but recouping at least some of that investment by participating with the Flames on revenues/profits.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

what exactly is so wrong with the Edmonton arena deal (only the arena)

I thought the biggest screw job wasn't the arena itself but that Katz owned all the area around for development at reduced or deferred tax

This:

https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...agreement.aspx

Katz put up 20M in cash upfront and the rest of his 132.5M is paid out over 35 years.....a complete joke when you're considering he only actually chips in 25% and can spread it out like that for so long. Meanwhile taxpayers and fans get to carry the burden hard and immediately for the foreseeable future.

Upfront cash, lease agreements and term could all be what Nenshi is referring to.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

what exactly is so wrong with the Edmonton arena deal (only the arena)

I thought the biggest screw job wasn't the arena itself but that Katz owned all the area around for development at reduced or deferred tax

Why do you think the flames want the west village so bad and why guys like Brett Wilson think it is such a great idea?

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why do you think the flames want the west village so bad and why guys like Brett Wilson think it is such a great idea?

What land do the flames own in the West Village?

[MacDaddy77]

^ I'm not aware of Flames owning land around west village.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

what exactly is so wrong with the Edmonton arena deal (only the arena)

I thought the biggest screw job wasn't the arena itself but that Katz owned all the area around for development at reduced or deferred tax

The small portion of the arena that was funded by Katz, is essentially being paid back to Katz from the city through rental in Katz' office properties. The rests was MSI (Provincial money given to the cities to build stuff like interchanges & other infrastructure), and CRL. The CRL portion probably made sense for that area. Using MSI funding means that other needed projects around the city don't have funding (i.e. An LRT extension, or something like that).

[getbak]

First video of Nenshi's comments: https://twitter.com/Simon_JonesCTV/s...35987372097536

[Freeway]

At $550m, the splits would be $183m each way or something close to that.

[s_procee]

That edmonton arena deal was during the upswing also, I don't think the optics would be the same if it was matched.

I can't believe that katz pays his portion of 35 years, is that with interest?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Freeway

At $550m, the splits would be $183m each way or something close to that.

And if Edmonton is a comparable for the Flames, which it sounds like it is, the Flames are probably thinking they can get away with fronting only $40-50M and then concoct some sort of Darryl Katz sweetheart deal to pay the rest over the lifetime of the building. If someone proposed this in a private real-estate sale I'm sure it would be borderline illegal.

If these offers were legitimately a 1/3 split you'd see a deal done by now. Get serious and stop treating the city like your personal financial institution CSEC.

[topfiverecords]

So with the news of the 1/3 1/3 1/3 deal, how can CSEC think it's fair that their profits from the new arena recover their 1/3 investment and earn them massive additional profits over and above during the lifespan of the building but it's unfair for the City to just want to break even after 30 years?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by RM14

What land do the flames own in the West Village?

It's the opportunity to own it immediately prior to it becoming valuable. The city Victoria park plan apparently takes this into consideration with some zoning or parceling of adjacent property for development.

[s_procee]

Originally Posted by getbak

First video of Nenshi's comments: https://twitter.com/Simon_JonesCTV/s...35987372097536

How can you not side with the City, everything he said made sense (edit).

Thanks for posting