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

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Not entirely - most of those charities are supported by the community, they just happen to use the Flames or Flames personalities as the face.

Just because the Flames leave, doesn't mean minor hockey and the other various causes taken up by Flames related charities disappear.

If anything, the City can take some of the 200 million and spray a few more rinks around the city.

I'm staunchly in the Flames should pay the lion's share of the cost camp, but honestly the community/charity aspects of having the Flames here is probably my reason #1 to be trying to work with them on some sort of contribution. Until I saw it firsthand, I had no idea how much time and effort everyone involved with the team dedicates to the local community. That's a really strong argument in the "public benefit" camp. It's not economic in the traditional sense as they act more as a catalyst for charitable giving, but it's irreplaceable. The Flames are an incredible resource for a ridiculous number of local causes and charities.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

On twitter now from journalist Carrie Tait but not confirmed:

"Flames proposal: No rent, no property tax, no profit sharing, money from the city w/o it paying it back - municipal source."

https://twitter.com/CarrieTait/status/908371279891320832

If the City offered to contribute 150 million on those terms and the Flames turned it down, I truly think they are out of their minds.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Not entirely - most of those charities are supported by the community, they just happen to use the Flames or Flames personalities as the face.

Just because the Flames leave, doesn't mean minor hockey and the other various causes taken up by Flames related charities disappear.

If anything, the City can take some of the 200 million and spray a few more rinks around the city.

Of course. No denying the city won't have more resources for other local projects without pouring 200M into an arena.
Let's just not pretend the Flames are staying without it. ITTT. But that's OK too, as it seems to be the will of the people.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

The urban logistics of putting an arena that far out of the city center in and of itself make it an awful idea. The build-in-the-middle-of-nowhere-and-have-everyone-drive-in approach to arena construction is dead and gone whether you like it or not. Ask the Senators how well playing way the hell out in Kanata has been working out for them, I think they've just had to rip out a couple thousand seats to keep their attendance percentage looking respectable.

Thanks for the info. I agree that it is not optimal, I was just really curious as to what the challenges would be. The Coyotes were considering a similar angle, and it was very beneficial to the owners and could have sheltered them from a ton of tax, but they elected to look at ASU and other options for the time being. I think the sovereignty issue and public safety requirements may have made them second guess their idea of reservation lands. I'm not sure what it would be like in Canada. Would it also be as bad as suggested, as doesn't the local First Nations have land right up to where CFB Calgary was? Isn't it accessible from Glenmore and Sarcee? Would that be considered too far out to Calgarians? I'm a proponent of centralized arenas, but was curious about the various options. If Blackfalds is an option, almost anything could be an option.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Makarov

If the City offered to contribute 150 million on those terms and the Flames turned it down, I truly think they are out of their minds.

they didnt. Thats why nenshi keeps saying two proposals. As I understand it what has been offered is 150M with repayment.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Guys, you realize garth brooks just played here, right?

That is pretty rare though...most acts do tours and if they pass you by they don't come back at a later date with a show customized to your building.

If fact I can't imagine anyone else doing it

I suppose there is a debate on the economic impact to the city but there is no debate that Calgary is missing out on concerts because our stadiums aren't up to snuff

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Guys, you realize garth brooks just played here, right?

And that's the exception not the rule. Not many other bands are massively modifying stage setups to come here, they're just skipping it instead. For Garth it makes some sense, for other bands and singers it makes no sense

[transplant99]

Coun. Diane Colley-Urquhart comes out guns blazing and adds another layer of intrigue to this whole deal.

“Bronco always had a way of getting deals done. He’d get ‘er done,” says the veteran councillor, slamming Nenshi’s “vacuum of leadership.”

“You’re measured by what your outcomes are, not on a bunch of talk and useless closed-door meetings about nothing and letting things stagnate.”

“There’s no evidence the mayor ever felt a new facility was needed. He’s never been in favour of it.”

“If you start out from that view two years ago you’re not going to get far when it comes to being genuinely engaged in a negotiated deal.”

“It’s disgraceful. It’s such an affront to the owners of the Flames and what they’ve contributed to this city. It’s really embarrassing.”

“Where there’s a will, there’s a way. But it’s obvious to me after two years there’s no will.”

Colley-Urquhart says there are “many moving parts to what this deal could look like.”

LOL..sounds like things have been pretty testy for a while now for all involved.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/09/14...r-arena-fiasco

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

The urban logistics of putting an arena that far out of the city center in and of itself make it an awful idea. The build-in-the-middle-of-nowhere-and-have-everyone-drive-in approach to arena construction is dead and gone whether you like it or not. Ask the Senators how well playing way the hell out in Kanata has been working out for them, I think they've just had to rip out a couple thousand seats to keep their attendance percentage looking respectable.

yeah, i think it would be a bad decision long term to not have the stadium downtown, or at the very least, accessible by LRT....but even that is not ideal

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

And that's the exception not the rule. Not many other bands are massively modifying stage setups to come here, they're just skipping it instead. For Garth it makes some sense, for other bands and singers it makes no sense

I'm not trying to be a dick asking this, but is there a reasonable list of acts that have actually skipped? Edmonton always drew the big rock acts even when all they had was rexell largely because they sold more tickets and they have a population more aligned with those shows. Both Edmonton and Calgary get skipped for Vancouver regularly too, and again that was true even before the BC Place reno. I know this gets tossed around, but there's a lot that goes into tour scheduling and I suspect even with a new building we'll still find certain shows don't see Calgary as a #1 destination.

[peterh]

See knew it Nenshi is the problem, he doesn't want a new arena. He has lost my vote.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

On twitter now from journalist Carrie Tait but not confirmed:

"Flames proposal: No rent, no property tax, no profit sharing, money from the city w/o it paying it back - municipal source."

https://twitter.com/CarrieTait/status/908371279891320832

CS&E everyone... billionaire moochers. Ken King and the well-heeled beggers he represents can go #### themselves.

[Looch City]

Ken King for mayor.

[Strange Brew]

Seems to me this might be down to Flames wanting to be property tax exempt.

City could invest money in the deal, without repayment. and could rationalize on the basis of future property taxes on the arena.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peterh

See knew it Nenshi is the problem, he doesn't want a new arena. He has lost my vote.

Totally!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by morgin

I'm not trying to be a dick asking this, but is there a reasonable list of acts that have actually skipped? Edmonton always drew the big rock acts even when all they had was rexell largely because they sold more tickets and they have a population more aligned with those shows. Both Edmonton and Calgary get skipped for Vancouver regularly too, and again that was true even before the BC Place reno. I know this gets tossed around, but there's a lot that goes into tour scheduling and I suspect even with a new building we'll still find certain shows don't see Calgary as a #1 destination.

It's not about how old the arena is. It's not about how old or new EDM's or VAN's arena were. Its not about your conjecture that EDM supports more rock. It's about the fact you can't hang speakers and lights from the ceiling in the Saddledome in the same way you can in any other arena because of the fracking roof design of our unique building. Certain tours cannot come here because their stage set up literally doesn't work at all because of the Saddledome design.

I guess it has to be repeated over and over again because people keep missing this key point.

We have no viable alternatives either. McMahon cannot have concerts due to noise bylaws. Max Bell is a hole. In Vancouver you have UBC Thunderbird stadium, you had the PNE coliseum, you have the hockey arena. Here the only other viable venue is U of C which is awful and Marquee which is tiny.

[csnarpy]

Originally Posted by peterh

See knew it Nenshi is the problem, he doesn't want a new arena. He has lost my vote.

Smith has pretty much had mine since he said he was entering the race. He's more straight forward and reminds me more of Bronco.

[Flash Walken]

"what I respected most about mayor bronconnier was how effective he was making deals regardless of how bad they were for the tax payers or even if they personally enriched him with millions of dollars. What mattered was that the deals happened in rapid succession. So many deals. Get 'er done even if the deal is awful. I respect hastily made bad deals more than I respect well structured deals with the necessary due diligence because good deals take time to negotiate and I just want to be able to pint at the quantity of deals made rather than their quality."

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There are varying studies. Granted, lots of positive ones are commissioned and therefore may be biased. But have you considered Feng and Humphreys (2008)?

http://web.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/F...ertyValues.pdf

I would say most of the studies done on this issue are academic papers just like this one.

The paper doesn't dispute the conclusions drawn by other academics with respect to the local income and employment growth. It is important to note that these are the metrics that CSEC and other clubs have used to champion the use of public funds (increased economic growth and more jobs).

Ultimately, this is their conclusion:

Past research generally focused on the economic impacts of sports facilities on local income and employment growth, but ignored intangible benefits enjoyed by the residents derived from the presence of a sports facility, such as cultural importance, increased community visibility, and public image enhancement. This paper evaluates the intangible benefits of professional sports facilities, in terms of the economic impacts on residential property values, using a spatial hedonic approach applied to Nationwide Arena, home of the Columbus Blue Jackets and Crew Stadium, home of
the Columbus Crew. The results show that the presence of both facilities has a significant positive effect on the value of surrounding houses and this positive effect decreases as the distance from the facilities increases.

I don't think anyone on this board has claimed the city doesn't gain some level of cultural importance from the Flames - the so called intangible benefits. The argument has always been, that the value of this benefit is generally far less than the amount the city is forced to pay.

The CBC had a good article today on the economic arguments that are debated during these issues:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/spor...dies-1.4289149

Studies show that intangible benefits of professional sports are measurable and go far beyond ticket sales, according to Dan Mason, a professor of sport management with the University of Alberta.

"The research shows that there actually are substantial intangible benefits," he said, citing as an example the smiles on Edmonton faces during the Oilers' playoff run last spring.

"However, because in North America we work in a closed market system where the leagues artificially reduce the number of franchises and then they use cities against one another, typically the public subsidy is greater than what the intangible benefits are."

Mason said some research finds that facilities built for professional sports teams may increase property values in nearby neighbourhoods, therefore boosting tax revenue for the city, but suggestions that job creation and tourism also benefit are generally not true.

EDIT: Go read Regorium's post on this https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...postcount=1249

[Table 5]

Ah yes, the good old Bronco days of getting things done....as long as those things were done for your developer friends and interests.