[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lonestar

Asking this question out of curiosity because while growing up in Calgary I've never paid taxes there myself. What would be the tax impact on a single family household in an area like Citadel under the proposed deal?

I get the reluctance of common citizens to line the pockets of billionaires, but I also know there is community value to having the Flames in Calgary, we can argue about the quantitative data behind that value until we're blue in the face, but just the fact that this is a talking point on a Flames fan forum screams that the community value of the team exists. The point at which the cost exceeds the value is going to be different for everyone.

Super quick not accurate math, there are ~ 500 000 houses in Calgary, so the average house would add $1000 in taxes to cover it. I'm sure not willing to pay that for an arena.

[Nsd1]

Mayor will be speaking live about the CSEC statement soon.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DJones

They'd sell the team, someone else would relocate it. I assume the relocation fee would be signifcantly less than the expansion fees.

And they’d be required to try to sell to local buyers who want to keep the team in Calgary. So again, relocation falls down the list of possible outcomes.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by taffeyb

CSEC didn’t make any threats of moving. Their statement says they will continue to play out if the Dome. They know better than to play that card. Just us folks speculating. That being said, if they do comment on relocating, I’d be worried.

I didn't imply there was a threat of moving other than the previous ones they've made coded or otherwise. This was a response to the bolded statement in the post I was replying to.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And they’d be required to try to sell to local buyers who want to keep the team in Calgary. So again, relocation falls down the list of possible outcomes.

Finding a local buyer that will buy the team and fund the new arena seems unlikely. That's a lot of money to find locally.

That's why Houston is always brought up, they have an arena already. Money's not an issue. They just need to pay the relocation fee which would probably lower the teams price proportionately.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Calgary is a great city, but don't discount others. Houston (#4 for population). Portland (#25). San Diego (#8). Salt Lake City. Oklahoma City (#22). San Antonio (#7). Jacksonville (#12). Charlotte (#16). ​Indianapolis (#15). Kansas City (#36). Cleveland (#54). Austin (#11). Still some interesting markets out there from the league's perspective.

Great population samples, but I believe it falls apart when you apply the context of interest in hockey.

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by Toonage

How much would the team increase in value if moved to a market with a newer building w/ suites, etc?

Edmonton Oilers was just recently valued north of $1B

[Nsd1]

Mayor was supposed to speak at 1pm. Looks like the Flames decided to go for 1pm also.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1473747910554578945

https://twitter.com/user/status/1473749624624087040

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

^^ I think the flawed roof design and its impact on concerts is a factor. But for the team, the additional suites was a huge part.

The new building is supposed to have fewer suites than the Saddledome. It will have more other "premium" options, like "theatre boxes" and more club spaces, but it only has 48 suites, including the Owner's Suite and 2 double-sized suites in the corners which will likely be rented as party suites.

The Saddledome currently has 41 lower suites, 31 upper suites, and 6 party suites.

As designed, the suite level in the new building will be about 12 rows higher than the lower suites in the Saddledome.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by taffeyb

Edmonton Oilers was just recently valued north of $1B

So with team values moving up in markets where they have the resources to continue improving, a payout to move the team would be recouped with the value of the team rising year over year.

Moving is absolutely an option.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Super quick not accurate math, there are ~ 500 000 houses in Calgary, so the average house would add $1000 in taxes to cover it. I'm sure not willing to pay that for an arena.

This whole discussion about where tax dollars go to reminds about the debate of the peace bridge when people bitched about it's price (and look how much it's appreciated now) and the costs of interchanges/freeways in the city. Even though one technically may never use it in their lifetime, they still pay for it through taxes.

[Muta]

[La Flames Fan]

Meh. They'll figure it out. The Calgary Stampede has a big stake in this thing - no doubt they're throwing their hats into this discussion behind the scenes.

[KipperFaNaTic]

I love the Flames... Fleury, Vernon, Iginla, Kiprusoff, Johnny, Tkachuk... but if ownership is unhappy with the contribution of the city (which I believe is already fair) then it might be time to move on.

I guess I'll cheer for the Kraken?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

Meh. They'll figure it out. The Calgary Stampede has a big stake in this thing - no doubt they're throwing their hats into this discussion behind the scenes.

For sure. As said before, there's way too much to be gained from all parties for an agreement to come to fruition. It just sucks if this pushes back the timeline by a year or more once again. This venue should've been built yesterday.

[handgroen]

I did it! I read the whole thread all the way to the end!
not worth it

[dammage79]

I read these statements and I ask. Why weren't these climate costs baked into the original and even the tweaked agreement?

Just doesn't make sense that after everything had gone through all the red tape that the new council would just all of a sudden mandate these costs be covered by CSEC.

I dont know, seems like the ever evolving costs were expected but forced incurred costs were not. Which seems like the city did wrong on that part.

End of the day, whatever. Flames will play hockey in Calgary as long as they will. Then who knows.

Just seems extremely Janky to me to throw this all out over forced costs by the city.

Doesn't matter I suppose. Life has more important things to worry about than how much Billionaires spend and how City's negotiate deals. It all seems so stupid.

[Nsd1]

CSEC CEO John Beans press conference summary by Adam MacVicar. Spoiled for size.

Spoiler!

Bean says the primary objective of the project was to provide a first-class entertainment centre for Calgarians. But "it's clear the City and CSEC have been unable to resolve issues" regarding costs. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean says the City of Calgary informed CSEC in July they wouldn't be able to fufill their half of the arena will costs increasing, so CSEC offered to take a higher amount of the price tag and shoulder additional costs. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

According to Bean, the cost of the event centre is now at $634M due to cost increases. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary
Bean says there are infrastructure and climate mitigation costs that are being "insisted" by the City of Calgary.

Those costs are related to conditions related to the approval of the development permit. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary
Bean says the additional costs for CSEC would be around $81M. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean says the agreement always allowed for a no-go decision prior to breaking ground. He says both sides could've bailed, and that decision was scheduled for tomorrow. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean says the plan was to announce the end of the deal together with the City of Calgary. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean says the Calgary Flames will continue to play in the Saddledome. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Was this out of left field for CSEC. Bean says they were open to achieving LEED certification. He says they weren't expecting the building to be net-zero by 2035 and the solar panels. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean says they were open to that and supportive of that climate mitigation. But they wanted the City of Calgary to help with those costs. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean says when the costs rose from $608M to $634M it had more to do with construction costs rising. He says the surprise came around costs for the sidewalks and roads around the building and the climate mitigation - he says it wasn't included in the $608M cost. #YYC #YYCcc

Will CSEC go back to the table with the City of Calgary? Bean doesn't answer. He says there were many factors behind this decision by CSEC other than cost increases. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean says he won't get into the ifs and buts. He doesn't want to negotiate in public on this situation. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean says CSEC accepted to shoulder all reasonable cost increases. He says those additional costs for things like roads and sidewalks wasn't on the table and should've been on the table. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean is asked if this is an attempt to make the City of Calgary the villain in this despite the inflationary costs. Bean says he's not looking for a villain and they were prepared to proceed. He says this isn't CSEC looking for a way out. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Bean adds that the right-of-way costs and climate costs should've been on the table and not the responsibility of CSEC. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary
Bean says the goal for CSEC is to continue providing a great entertainment experience for fans at the Saddledome for "many years to come." #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DJones

Finding a local buyer that will buy the team and fund the new arena seems unlikely. That's a lot of money to find locally.

That's why Houston is always brought up, they have an arena already. Money's not an issue. They just need to pay the relocation fee which would probably lower the teams price proportionately.

Why does it seem unlikely? It’s the most likely solution in any sale scenario, still below CSEC and the city just working it out.

A new ownership group would have zero requirement to continue on with this arena at this time. They may feel it completely reasonable to play out of the dome while prices stabilise and design their own arena in conjunction with the city.

Discounting it as unlikely is meaningless. It’s more likely than relocation in any scenario.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Great population samples, but I believe it falls apart when you apply the context of interest in hockey.

Maybe, maybe not. Some of those cities already have a history with hockey. Add in local rivalries and the immediate success which comes with an established team, and a major league sport may be just what the market needed. Remember when Vegas was going to be a huge risk? A good team in a good building in a good location is certain to draw in fans.