What does the current location of McMahon have to do with anything? The city can build a new stadium anywhere else in the city.
I believe the City's stated position is they'd prefer a renovated stadium to a new location for a variety of reasons. I also believe they'd be willing to participate in such a project, but it seems arena is priority number 1 ahead of that right now.
I believe the City's stated position is they'd prefer a renovated stadium to a new location for a variety of reasons. I also believe they'd be willing to participate in such a project, but it seems arena is priority number 1 ahead of that right now.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
A) the deal he supported did include public money - speaking of dichotomies- yours is a false one, not supporting 100% public funding does not equal no public funding. The Mayor has stated repeatedly the City didn’t table a final offer and will return to the table whenever the Flames want to.
Never said it did...why would you even claim such? His dichotomy is trying to say the city cannot afford the deal the Flames proposed to them, whilst trying to BS us that the Olympics are possible at some lower cost? Give me a break.
Quote:
B) hosting an Olympics is contingent on a good deal from the IOC to make sure it’s financially sustainable. This has been made clear many times.
Uh huh. Excuse me if I don't think such a deal exists, while also thinking that he will sell any deal as a good one because he will be getting funding (maybe) from provincial and federal levels.
Quote:
C) Calgary has Uber. Capitulating to every demand, particularly a company like Uber is not in the public interest. It took a little longer, but a good deal is better than a bad deal done quickly.
A little longer? LOL..over 2 years Bunk. Somehow every major city in the world was able to integrate ride sharing in their city as soon as it was available. This BS of hiding behind some faux safety reasoning is and has been long blown out of the water as nothing more than politicking at its finest...something he has really become quite good at. I dont buy everything out of his mouth and this particular issue was the first one where it was plain as day to me how full of himself he had become. If he doesn't want something, it's not happening regardless of reasoning until the public pressure becomes unrelenting.
Quote:
D) the City doesn’t have much to do with McMahon. Owned by the University and therefore the Province. The City could participate, but certainly not the obvious choice to lead on a project that’s not really their jurisdiction.
Yeah i am quite familiar with who owns McMahon and who the owners are of the major tenant there. You see what I believe, is that the idea of CalgaryNEXT was a great one. Maybe the rendering and all that went along with it was subpar, well in fact it was, but the IDEA was brilliant. Thinking outside the box/norm as it were. What did his highness ever say about that part of the project? Nothing. Like it never existed, cause in his mind it was a non starter....so it never started.
Nenshi has made it clear he has one location, and one location only, for his vision of one new arena. Hell, he launched his re-election campaign with it. Victoria Park or bust! And no where was there any room for a new home for amateur sports, the Stamps or anyone else that could use it.
No where in that plan was a field house or anything else that his supposed partners (CSEC) proposed in their initial offerings. It's pretty easy to see why that relationship soured to the point it did and from both sides.
I am not here to advocate for full public funding on anything that will be used mainly by private enterprise. However, I am also not going to sit here and be sucked into how Nenshi only has the best interests of Calgary on his behalf, because if that is true, the Olympics would be as much of a non-starter as any project involving the CSEC. That's not what is happening.
The Olys are his legacy project...period. You can spin it and try to sell it any way you like, but I'm not gullible enough to buy it. I have a feeling a majority in Calgary aren't either.
As others have said in this very thread, if we can afford to bring the Olympics back (which i would love as 88 was as good a time/feeling Calgary ever experienced collectively) then the city can afford an arena deal like the Flames have proposed with a few tweaks and changes here and there.
It makes NO sense to build an arena for the Olys without the input of the tenant you then want occupying it for the following 3 decades, but that is where the negotiations have gotten too. Why would the Flames do anything he wants them to do....now? I can see where they just sit back and say...go ahead and build your arena with none of our money, and then when the olympics are over we will sit down and negotiate a lease against your other major tenant...lol...how does that deal look for the city at that point?
__________________
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I think the cities strategy is a bit more nuanced than that. Everyone knows the Sadledome isn't on its last year, so their is time. If the city does get the Olympics, they can leverage funding from the province and the feds, which makes the arena easier to fund. Their is no rush here, so if the city does their due diligence on the Olympic bid, it isn't hurting anything, and could end up with a much better arena deal. They may also be able to find funding for a McMahon replacement at the same time, and fund a field house.
The Olympics are about more than 2 week party. Getting money from other levels of government is tough, so if you can leverage it through the Olympics, I think it is a good strategy.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Yeah i am quite familiar with who owns McMahon and who the owners are of the major tenant there. You see what I believe, is that the idea of CalgaryNEXT was a great one. Maybe the rendering and all that went along with it was subpar, well in fact it was, but the IDEA was brilliant. Thinking outside the box/norm as it were. What did his highness ever say about that part of the project? Nothing. Like it never existed, cause in his mind it was a non starter....so it never started.
"Well Ken the idea was brilliant except for the funding model, the ownership model, the location, the infrastructure changes needed, and the presentation."
Why bother talking about non-starters? Hell, it wasn't even an original idea like people claimed.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
I think the cities strategy is a bit more nuanced than that. Everyone knows the Sadledome isn't on its last year, so their is time. If the city does get the Olympics, they can leverage funding from the province and the feds, which makes the arena easier to fund. Their is no rush here, so if the city does their due diligence on the Olympic bid, it isn't hurting anything, and could end up with a much better arena deal. They may also be able to find funding for a McMahon replacement at the same time, and fund a field house.
The Olympics are about more than 2 week party. Getting money from other levels of government is tough, so if you can leverage it through the Olympics, I think it is a good strategy.
Getting major infrastructure projects built with higher government money is the maintenance kotivator for cities. Vancouver got their Canada Line because of them as well as upgrades on the Sea to Sky Highway. The city spending a billion dollars so they can get two billion in federal and provincial funding that might not have been there on a set timeline can be worth the cost.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
Never said it did...why would you even claim such? His dichotomy is trying to say the city cannot afford the deal the Flames proposed to them, whilst trying to BS us that the Olympics are possible at some lower cost? Give me a break.
Literally no one is saying we can afford one but not the other. People just have different opinions on which project delivers better ROI.
Quote:
Yeah i am quite familiar with who owns McMahon and who the owners are of the major tenant there. You see what I believe, is that the idea of CalgaryNEXT was a great one. Maybe the rendering and all that went along with it was subpar, well in fact it was, but the IDEA was brilliant. Thinking outside the box/norm as it were. What did his highness ever say about that part of the project? Nothing. Like it never existed, cause in his mind it was a non starter....so it never started.
Actually, I think he said the idea wasn't even half-baked. Out of context, that might sound like a total dismissal, but IIRC he was really saying that the plan didn't think through or address a myriad of major obstacles to it's success. The city had to step in to do that work, which unsurprisingly confirmed the gravity of challenges involved.
Quote:
Nenshi has made it clear he has one location, and one location only, for his vision of one new arena. Hell, he launched his re-election campaign with it. Victoria Park or bust! And no where was there any room for a new home for amateur sports, the Stamps or anyone else that could use it.
No where in that plan was a field house or anything else that his supposed partners (CSEC) proposed in their initial offerings. It's pretty easy to see why that relationship soured to the point it did and from both sides.
I don't think the city has ever said they wouldn't approve permits for CSEC to build anywhere else. But, if you want any public money, I think ensuring the location is most sensible for the city's BIG PICTURE vision (for the entire city) is a no-brainer.
Also, the city is still planning on a field house.
Quote:
The Olys are his legacy project...period. You can spin it and try to sell it any way you like, but I'm not gullible enough to buy it. I have a feeling a majority in Calgary aren't either.
Perhaps there's some truth to this, but does anyone even expect him to be mayor in 2026? Kind of a weird legacy project when you won't be there to take the credit.
Quote:
As others have said in this very thread, if we can afford to bring the Olympics back (which i would love as 88 was as good a time/feeling Calgary ever experienced collectively) then the city can afford an arena deal like the Flames have proposed with a few tweaks and changes here and there.
See point #1. Not about able to afford. It's about ROI. Despite what so many seem to believe, nobody has yet staked a position that the Olympics are a better investment.
Quote:
It makes NO sense to build an arena for the Olys without the input of the tenant you then want occupying it for the following 3 decades, but that is where the negotiations have gotten too. Why would the Flames do anything he wants them to do....now? I can see where they just sit back and say...go ahead and build your arena with none of our money, and then when the olympics are over we will sit down and negotiate a lease against your other major tenant...lol...how does that deal look for the city at that point?
This is simply fantastical - the city is absolutely not going to build an arena 100% on it's own.
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
I don't think the city has ever said they wouldn't approve permits for CSEC to build anywhere else. But, if you want any public money, I think ensuring the location is most sensible for the city's BIG PICTURE vision (for the entire city) is a no-brainer.
If you're asking for city money AND city land, then the city kind of holds all the cards when it comes to location. Not only that, they want the city to own the arena so it would be a city owned property on city owned land. Why would anybody think that CSEC should have any say at all for the location with such an arrangement?
International Olympic Committee (IOC) officials are in Calgary this week, surveying the city’s potential for a 2026 Winter Olympic bid.
The City of Calgary released a statement Tuesday, saying the IOC is visiting the city in advance of the bid in order to provide support and resources to help make a bid stronger. Previously, the city said, the IOC would visit cities only to listen and evaluate pitches.
While in town, the IOC team will be visiting the winter sports facilities in Calgary and the surrounding area to fact-find and listen to the city’s plan for hosting the Games, including exploring venues, event coordination, evaluating transportation and security - among other things.
Calgary is the first city to be engaged in the new Interested Cities approach with the IOC.
Time to break out the briefcases of unmarked bills.
The IOC should be the ones bringing the briefcase. They need us a lot more than we need them. You can't keep having your big event held in a different despotic banana republic every two years and expect to survive.
The IOC should be the ones bringing the briefcase. They need us a lot more than we need them. You can't keep having your big event held in a different despotic banana republic every two years and expect to survive.
I thought they were bringing the bills to the tune of $1 billion subsidization?
His dichotomy is trying to say the city cannot afford the deal the Flames proposed to them, whilst trying to BS us that the Olympics are possible at some lower cost? Give me a break.
Cities break even or even make a small profit on the organization of the Olympics. It's the construction costs that are ruinous, but Calgary already has the sporting venues it needs for the Olympics with only some upgrades to existing venues required.
CTV news at 6 reporting whistler would host ski jumping and Edmonton would host events too. Unsure where they got the info from. Also indicated the IOC has suggested not building new venues and looking outside your city/province.
CTV news at 6 reporting whistler would host ski jumping and Edmonton would host events too. Unsure where they got the info from. Also indicated the IOC has suggested not building new venues and looking outside your city/province.
CTV news at 6 reporting whistler would host ski jumping and Edmonton would host events too. Unsure where they got the info from. Also indicated the IOC has suggested not building new venues and looking outside your city/province.
It was suggested a while back they were looking at a multi city bid. Of course you wouldn't see that reported here, all of the local coverage of the Olympic bid and the arena situation has been beyond abysmal.
