Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by New Era

Can we please stop with all this hyperbole of what a favor the City is doing the Flames by giving them a sweetheart deal in a building they didn't build or own? Its not like the City of Calgary paid for the Saddledome all by its little lonesome either. The city paid $31.5M of the $100M it took to build the arena.

Hmm... City paid approx 1/3 for the Saddledome and is proposing to pay approx 1/3 for the new arena. Sounds fairly consistent..

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Hmm... City paid approx 1/3 for the Saddledome and is proposing to pay approx 1/3 for the new arena. Sounds fairly consistent..

Except the City didn't want the 1/3 money repaid then. It was a just a contribution (though they of course owned the building).

[442scotty]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except the City didn't want the 1/3 money repaid then. It was a just a contribution (though they of course owned the building).

Some people just can’t or don’t want to wrap their head around the fact that the city wants the money back.

I mean , it’s a duck, it looks like a duck and walks like a duck... it’s not a dog lol.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except the City didn't want the 1/3 money repaid then. It was a just a contribution (though they of course owned the building).

On one hand you have 35+ years of NHL hockey, a stanley cup, playoff runs, minor league hockey, world juniors, UFC fights, WWE events, literally too many concerts to name from the biggest performers at the time, monster truck rallies, preseason NBA games, really the only good venue to spend an entertainment dollar in this city, the goddamn freaking olympics...

On the other hand you have 30 million city money that nobody cares about or misses today

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by getbak

Exactly. With the city's offer, they're either getting 1/3 of the building paid for by the city and paying regular property taxes, or they're paying back the city for 1/3 of the building's cost and paying nothing for property taxes.

Either way, it's a hell of a deal.

Not only is it a hell of a deal, it is a STARTING point. If the flames would negotiate off of it, they could do even better. But nope. That would require a modicum of good sense and a hair less pride.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

People that say the Flames would move are just using shorthand for a sale, for the most part. I haven't heard anyone claim that relocation would occur with the same owners.

As for another group buying the team and keeping it here, there's pretty much no way that happens without an arena deal.

Move is shorthand for sell? You learn something new everyday. Then there are also those who are equalting sale with move, which is (again) what I and he other poster are talking about, the fact that one does not automatically lead to the other.

To your second point, considering the city is absolutely willing to make an arena deal (just not one the current Flames ownership group have come to accept) then I don’t really see that as a large obstacle. The profitability and local importance of owning a team like the Flames is not negated by the city’s current arena funding model.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Hmm... City paid approx 1/3 for the Saddledome and is proposing to pay approx 1/3 for the new arena. Sounds fairly consistent..

And did I say that wasn't consistent, or wasn't fair? I just stated I'm sick of all the hyperbole surrounding the building, like the City of Calgary is doing anyone a favor with the arrangement in place. They were gifted 2/3rds of the cost to build the arena, then 100% of the cost to renovate the building. The City has done quite well for their investment. Based on the study completed for the renovation, and adjusting for inflation over the years, the Flames have contributed over $4.156B in spinoff benefits to the Calgary economy over the past 36 years. Not bad for a $31.5M investment. I think we should all agree that a deal between the two parties that extends these spinoff benefits for another 35-40 years is well worth the $150-200M investment. The only question is how to strike a fair deal.

[Phil1111]

Originally Posted by New Era

And did I say that wasn't consistent, or wasn't fair? I just stated I'm sick of all the hyperbole surrounding the building, like the City of Calgary is doing anyone a favor with the arrangement in place. They were gifted 2/3rds of the cost to build the arena, then 100% of the cost to renovate the building. The City has done quite well for their investment. Based on the study completed for the renovation, and adjusting for inflation over the years, the Flames have contributed over $4.156B in spinoff benefits to the Calgary economy over the past 36 years. Not bad for a $31.5M investment. I think we should all agree that a deal between the two parties that extends these spinoff benefits for another 35-40 years is well worth the $150-200M investment. The only question is how to strike a fair deal.

Setting aside the accuracy and independence of those numbers.

You have covered the four corners of what happens after the city election. Everyone knows that a egg is broken for an omelet. That the restaurant (the city) will have to sell the meal to the ratepayer. To avoid indigestion everyone will have to limit something.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by New Era

Based on the study completed for the renovation, and adjusting for inflation over the years, the Flames have contributed over $4.156B in spinoff benefits to the Calgary economy over the past 36 years. Not bad for a $31.5M investment.

Spinoff benefits are always numbers used when someone can't justify an actual investment. They are ALWAYS exaggerated and include things that are dubious at best. What is next, spinoff benefits of building a bridge because $$$ in merchandise is driven across it?

[RM14]

Originally Posted by calculoso

What is next, spinoff benefits of building a bridge because $$$ in merchandise is driven across it?

Yes, this is exactly how infrastructure is valued during planning

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Spinoff benefits are always numbers used when someone can't justify an actual investment. They are ALWAYS exaggerated and include things that are dubious at best. What is next, spinoff benefits of building a bridge because $$$ in merchandise is driven across it?

Really? Well the City conducted this in 1993-94 and also did a cost/benefit analysis to determine the viability of the investment and justify it at all levels of government. I would also guess that the City could also put those numbers together pretty easily, based on the data they collect and all. But I guess they just couldn't justify the investment back then, right?

Oh, and yes, there are significant spinoff benefits to infrastructure spending like a bridge. Or have you never seen urban sprawl take place as a result of expanded infrastructure? New communities mean new businesses which means an expansion in the tax base. But I think you probably already knew that, but are just digging in rather than acknowledging the reality of spinoff benefits of making certain investments.

If there were no spinoff benefits from spending, why would cities invest in infrastructure at all? Why would they try and attract other businesses if there is no spinoff benefit? Because there is money to be made in those investments, and the money made from those spinoffs pay for stuff like pedestrian bridges and libraries.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by RM14

Yes, this is exactly how infrastructure is valued during planning

Only if said planning completely ignores the debit side of the ledger. Build Bridge "A" it'll have "B" $$$ in merchandise driven across it!... just ignore that Bridge "X" will now no longer have "Z" amount driven across it.

I'm with calculoso, no one ever quotes "spinoff benefits" when there are actual benefits it's mostly weasel word propaganda. Do they exist... sure, but they exist in a way that requires a pretty thorough economic study to determine their true value (if any). Absent that quoting it is just propaganda.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Move is shorthand for sell? You learn something new everyday. Then there are also those who are equalting sale with move, which is (again) what I and he other poster are talking about, the fact that one does not automatically lead to the other.

"We've got to move these microwave ovens..."

Seriously, has any NHL team moved out of its area (leaving aside little moves like NYI) with the same ownership?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Seriously, has any NHL team moved out of its area (leaving aside little moves like NYI) with the same ownership?

You've got it backwards; the right question here is whether NHL teams have been sold without moving. Which they have. How often? I don't know, but I'm sure the information is available somewhere.

I doubt they'll sell though.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You've got it backwards; the right question here is whether NHL teams have been sold without moving. Which they have. How often? I don't know, but I'm sure the information is available somewhere.

I doubt they'll sell though.

I don't have it backwards as it related to what was being discussed, which was if the ownership group would move the team and retain ownership versus selling to a local group in the new area (like Seattle).

The owners here can and will sell their interests - it's happened from time to time. Hotchkiss, Kwong, Scurfield, Green all sold. I'm pretty sure, however, that there are ROFRs or other restrictions involved.

[trumpethead]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

"We've got to move these microwave ovens..."

Seriously, has any NHL team moved out of its area (leaving aside little moves like NYI) with the same ownership?

I'm pretty sure that Norm Green owned the Minnesota North Stars for a few years in Minnesota before moving them to Dallas in 1993.

[northcrunk]

I've started cheering for a second team thanks to this politicising of the arena deal just in case Nenshi's mouth looses us the flames. If they leave I'll just be a VGK fan.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I've started cheering for a second team thanks to this politicising of the arena deal just in case Nenshi's mouth looses us the flames. If they leave I'll just be a VGK fan.

There's a "loosening" proposition

[nik-]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I've started cheering for a second team thanks to this politicising of the arena deal just in case Nenshi's mouth looses us the flames. If they leave I'll just be a VGK fan.

#northcrunkstrong

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Yoho

There's a "loosening" proposition

Yeah they are no good. But still better than the no good Oilers and tickets are cheap.