CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[OldDutch]

Interesting article on St. Louis and how badly they got hosed.. Good little section quarter way down talking about a similar approach the Flames are pitching but the economics are fuzzy at best.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...d_stadium.html

[Flash Walken]

That's the thing I really don't understand from the ownership perspective.

They want money/land from the city and if they don't get it, their long term viability in the city might in question.

From the cities perspective, you just introduced a whole bunch of risk into this equation. You're telling me you are considering moving? Why would I build you an arena then if the long-term viability of staying in Calgary was in question?

The Flames have established an argument for why it doesn't make sense to fund their project; they might not be here.

Don't believe me? Ask St. Louis.

[Cappy]

http://www.newstalk770.com/2016/02/0...sc_ref=twitter

Metro Survey on support for project. Pretty similar to the poll we have here.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Interesting article on St. Louis and how badly they got hosed.. Good little section quarter way down talking about a similar approach the Flames are pitching but the economics are fuzzy at best.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...d_stadium.html

And yet St. Louis was willing to invest $400 million to build a new facility to keep the Rams.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

And yet St. Louis was willing to invest $400 million to build a new facility to keep the Rams.

Sunk Cost fallacy in action.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Cappy

St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland vs. Los Angeles.

Portland, Seattle, Markham vs. Calgary

The comparison to the situation in the NFL is weak. LA is one of the top 5 markets in the US. St Louis and Oakland are small and have substantially worse economic conditions.

Also, the NFL has capitulated and is willing to give the Chargers 300 million for a new arena in SD.

To your second point, again it comes down to the (irrational) emotional attachment we have with local sports teams - and professional sports in general. Is that emotional attachment worth 450 million bucks? What is it worth? (according to the Field of Schemes, 40 million)

Not for football. The market has failed at least twice and this time the difference is TV money. If they had to survive on attendance this market will fail again.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That's the thing I really don't understand from the ownership perspective.

They want money/land from the city and if they don't get it, their long term viability in the city might in question.

The owners have never stated this. This is all speculation generated from Bettmans discussion from the Chamber of Commerce.

My questions is why did the Chamber of Commerce host Bettman anyways, and what is the Chamber of Commerce's role in this whole thing?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Cappy

http://www.newstalk770.com/2016/02/0...sc_ref=twitter

Metro Survey on support for project. Pretty similar to the poll we have here.

There's actually a very interesting nugget in there that tells me getting public funding may be impossible

The poll also found most people surveyed don’t even think new buildings are needed.

“You’ve only got 30 per cent who say the Saddledome needs replacing and 26 per cent who say McMahon needs replacing, You’re not going to have widespread support for a project people don’t think needs to happen.”

Only 3 out of 10 people in Calgary think the Saddledome needs to be replaced? Wow that is a tough, tough hill to climb for ownership. They aren't getting any money until they convince a majority of fans they need it, and they are a long way from that number.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

There's actually a very interesting nugget in there that tells me getting public funding may be impossible

Only 3 out of 10 people in Calgary think the Saddledome needs to be replaced? Wow that is a tough, tough hill to climb for ownership. They aren't getting any money until they convince a majority of fans they need it, and they are a long way from that number.

We need to keep in mind that most Calgarians rarely, if ever, go to an event at the Saddledome. Unless you're into live music, or plugged into the corporate sports scene, it's just something you drive past once in a while. This is a much bigger city than it was 30 years ago, and the events held at the Saddledome are much more expensive. That's why it's increasingly difficult to justify an arena as a civic good, when it hosts events that most citizens aren't interested in or can't afford.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Not for football. The market has failed at least twice and this time the difference is TV money. If they had to survive on attendance this market will fail again.

I wouldn't put LA's lack of teams entirely on the backs of the fans.

Many cite the financial struggles of the LA Rams to the owner herself, Georgia Frontiere. The NFL was very reluctant to allow her to relocate and rejected the proposal until they were threatened with a lawsuit. The new Rams owner, Kroenke, actually had to purchase 30% of the team to help it move to St. Louis. The stadium situation was also an issue to Georgia. Her being from St. Louis could be as well.

The Raiders issue was, again, because of a stadium. They played at the Collesium and shared it with the Trojans. They didn't like the neighborhood and it lacked luxury suites.

Also, TV revenue from the NFL is gigantic compared to the 80's. Blackouts aren't as prevalent, and the NFL has become, far and away, the most dominant professional sports league in the US.

Couple that with revenue sharing, TV revenue, merchadising, and one of the largest cities in the US, you should be able to turn a healthy profit. enough so that youre willing to build the stadium with private money, which they are

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Only 3 out of 10 people in Calgary think the Saddledome needs to be replaced?

As a season ticket holder in the first couple rows of the bleeds, I know my seat will get more expensive and worse. While a new arena would be cool, and I'm sure my concourse experience would improve, I'm not very upset this is going to drag on for years.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sunk Cost fallacy in action.

Nice try but you know that's not true. The fact is that the city wanted to keep its NFL team and was willing to pay as it's not like city and state officials are oblivious to the pros and cons of public funding as it's been beaten to death.

You can now carry on with your nonsensical CalgaryNEXT bashing.

[nik-]

nonsensical?

haha jesus EE, you really have a hard on for this project. There's plenty of sense to oppose this project that's been shown again and again here.

Kind of odd that a poster that seems to be pretty right leaning on other issues is so eager to hand over millions to a corporation so they can make more money.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Nice try but you know that's not true. The fact is that the city wanted to keep its NFL team and was willing to pay as it's not like city and state officials are oblivious to the pros and cons of public funding as it's been beaten to death.

You can now carry on with your nonsensical CalgaryNEXT bashing.

it is almost like governments don't do stupid things...

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/9...-money-part-i/

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by nik-

Kind of odd that a poster that seems to be pretty right leaning on other issues is so eager to hand over millions to a corporation so they can make more money.

I've noticed some of the most ardent supporters of the Flames plan are the posters who live outside of Calgary, and don't have to live with any financial consequences.

Originally Posted by nik-

Sounds like a good reason to invest more to ensure their business then.

That's what's funny about this. The Flames and NHL keep trying to make this into a conversation about the need for a new stadium (as if someone is trying to stop them?) and the only way forward is with public approval/money. If the Flames feel that they need a stadium to be viable for the long-term, there is a pretty obvious solution....buy some land and build a stadium. I'm sure the City will even fast-track their approval.

I'm sure the Flames have 50 reasons why a new stadium will be good for their business. I've yet to hear one compelling, and economically sound reason, why they shouldn't be the ones paying for it's construction when they are the ones benefitting financially from it.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I've noticed some of the most ardent supporters of the Flames plan are the posters who live outside of Calgary, and don't have to live with any financial consequences.

I'd actually be curious to see what the results of a seperate poll with only City of Calgary property tax payers would say. As far as I'm concerned they're the only people who matter

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I've noticed some of the most ardent supporters of the Flames plan are the posters who live outside of Calgary, and don't have to live with any financial consequences.

That's what's funny about this. The Flames and NHL keep trying to make this into a conversation about the need for a new stadium (as if someone is trying to stop them?) and the only way forward is with public approval/money. If the Flames feel that they need a stadium to be viable for the long-term, there is a pretty obvious solution....buy some land and build a stadium. I'm sure the City will even fast-track their approval.

I'm sure the Flames have 50 reasons why a new stadium will be good for their business. I've yet to hear one compelling, and economically sound reason, why they shouldn't be the ones paying for it's construction when they are the ones benefitting financially from it.

Are you talking about the arena or stadium?

By contributing $450 million, the Flames are essentially paying for the arena portion of the project. They could easily build a standalone arena at that cost.

The wrinkle is the need for a new stadium. The financials for a privately funded stadium do not work in Canada and a new venue is going to require public funding regardless of whether it's combined with an arena or not. McMahon has served us well but has reached the end of its economic life and a new stadium is needed more than a hockey arena right now. The proposal as it stands offers a way to reduce costs while providing additional public benefit via the fieldhouse. It's really the case of a good concept with poor presentation. I think that you'll see greater public support for the project once this populist outrage dies down and we see more concrete plans for the site

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We need to keep in mind that most Calgarians rarely, if ever, go to an event at the Saddledome. Unless you're into live music, or plugged into the corporate sports scene, it's just something you drive past once in a while. This is a much bigger city than it was 30 years ago, and the events held at the Saddledome are much more expensive. That's why it's increasingly difficult to justify an arena as a civic good, when it hosts events that most citizens aren't interested in or can't afford.

This is interesting to me. I can't think of anyone in my circle of friends or acquaintances who hasn't attended an event at the Saddledome or McMahon in the past year. I wonder what the actual percentage is - would be a good poll topic.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'd actually be curious to see what the results of a seperate poll with only City of Calgary property tax payers would say. As far as I'm concerned they're the only people who matter

As a rent payer whose rent is impacted by property tax - I strongly disagree.

Oh ya- I also vote for the council people who will approve or disprove the arena.

The whole argument that property taxpayers should get more say in civic matters then non-property owning citizens gets bored and old quick.

If I own 1000 apartment units, should I get 1000 votes?

[powderjunkie]

Random point re: L.A. football; the league was in no rush to move back to LA since the threat of moving there helped them extort new stadium deals for several teams. It's no surprise that San Antonio, Las Vegas, and any of St Louis/Oakland/San Diego have already been floated as possible locations, as a legitimate threat offers huge leverage.

The NHL isn't really in the same boat. Kansas City, Quebec and Las Vegas are the only options out there, none of which is an upgrade for anyone but the bottom 5-10 markets. The NHL probably should have found a better way to use Hamilton/Markham as an LA like threat, but Balsillie's public battle made it tougher.

Originally Posted by Zarley

This is interesting to me. I can't think of anyone in my circle of friends or acquaintances who hasn't attended an event at the Saddledome or McMahon in the past year. I wonder what the actual percentage is - would be a good poll topic.

I'm guessing your friends and acquaintances largely share your socio-economic profile.

I would hazard a guess that the Dome sees 150-250000 unique visitors each year (and I would guess that maybe 40% of those attend 2 or fewer events). There could be around 1 million people in the metro area that don't set foot in the building on an annual basis.

It would be really interesting to see any actual metrics on this, but I reckon the Flames are the only ones that would have anything resembling this info, and it doesn't exactly favour them in this discussion.