Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-13-2017, 12:57 PM   #1
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default NEWS ONLY- Flames/City Arena negotiation

MOD NOTE- This thread is to post new updates ONLY. If you wish to discuss something posted in this thread, please quote then copy into one of the other arena discussion threads. The purpose is so that people can turn to this thread throughout the day and not have to dig through hundreds of posts to find news.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Since it likely will get buried in the other thread

Calgary arena deal scuttled over tax exemption, recouping city investment: Sources

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...g-sources.html

Quote:
Sources have told Metro the latest deal on the table involved a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model, where the City of Calgary would provide 1/3 of the upfront cost for the new arena, 1/3 would be recouped through a ticket surcharge and 1/3 would come from the Calgary Flames ownership.

Early cost estimates for a new arena were $500 million, but those familiar with the situation said some city officials believed the final tab would be higher - in the range of $600 million.

Where talks broke down, according to sources, was in how the city might recoup its initial investment, either through property taxes or a revenue sharing model. It was hoped the city could get back its initial investment over the next 30 years through a lease or rental arrangement with the Flames.

Information provided to Metro indicated those were the areas the two sides couldn’t agree upon.

CSEC was apparently looking for property tax exemption and wouldn’t flex on models for the city to recoup its investment, including possible revenue sharing options.

News Update

sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 09-15-2017, 04:27 PM   #2
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Mod note- spot reserved for a sureLoss edit.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 08:25 PM   #3
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

More rumored demands by CSEC:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...ticle36276378/

Quote:
The Calgary Flames, in negotiations with local politicians over a new $555-million arena, demanded the city pick up the tab for extra police needed at games and let people ride transit to the facility for free when the team is playing, according to multiple municipal sources.

The requests would put a multimillion-dollar dent in the city's finances and could result in higher taxes. Waiving transit fares on game days, for example, would mean giving up about $10-million in revenue annually, according to one of the sources. Calgary would then have to fill this gap, perhaps by cutting transit services to other parts of the city or raising property taxes, the source said. Covering the cost of extra policing would also amount to an operating subsidy, according to the source who provided the detail about security expenses to The Globe and Mail.

Calgary bureaucrats had been providing updates to councillors throughout the negotiations between the city and the team's owners, municipal sources told The Globe. The updates were always verbal, frustrating some councillors because it made it difficult to keep track of the negotiations.

The Flames' owners, according to one source, also wanted the city to pay for most of the arena's construction. Further, the ownership group demanded an exemption from property taxes and rent, the source said.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 09-15-2017, 08:35 PM   #4
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Mod note- spot reserved for a sureLoss edit.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 06:59 PM   #5
ken0042
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
 
ken0042's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Default

We created this thread, as mentioned in the first post, to have a single place for news. If you know of a post from one of the other threads that should be in here, please report the post and we can insert it in. That way it also stays in chronological order.

Two blank posts were left in place in case SureLoss has anything to edit in there.

Like with the NHL lockout, this thread is only to be for news updates. I know how tempting it is to reply to something in here; please don't.
ken0042 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 11:02 AM   #6
nobles_point
Scoring Winger
 
nobles_point's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

Flames following predictable formula in attempt to bilk Calgarians

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/f...lk-calgarians/

Quote:
The proper way to see all of this, of course, is that it’s work being performed by both sides of this debate – although for the life of me I don’t understand why this issue wasn’t dealt with while the circumstances would have favoured ownership: sympathetic Conservative provincial and federal governments, at a time when the economy of the province was more robust. The Saddledome didn’t just become outdated in the last three years. (And, yes, I am aware of the unforeseen circumstances created by the flood of 2013.)
nobles_point is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2017, 06:52 AM   #7
calculoso
Franchise Player
 
calculoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ontario
Exp:
Default

From: News Talk 770 <insiders@newstalk770.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:40 AM
Subject: Calgary Flames ownership releases arena proposal details


The Calgary Flames say they were prepared to contribute $275 million dollars upfront to the city's Victoria Park vision that includes a new arena. The team's proposal also included $225 million in funding from a community revitalization levy.
calculoso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2017, 07:13 AM   #8
kermitology
It's not easy being green!
 
kermitology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the tubes
Exp:
Default

https://www.nhl.com/flames/fans/arena

Quote:
The City's proposed funding model, as presented, did not accurately reflect the total Flames funding required. Total funding by the Flames would equate to $613M, or 123% of the cost of the building.

CityFlamesTotal
Original City Proposal($130M)($370M)($500M)
Impact of Incremental Property Tax($243M)($243M)$0
Total Benefit to City(Cost to Flames)$113M($613M)($500M)
The cost for Roger's Place was $484M funded by the City of Edmonton's contribution of $226M derived from Community Revitalization Levy, new parking revenues and other sources. The Oilers contributed upfront cash of $20M; the remaining $238M was financed by the City of Edmonton and will be paid back by the Oilers over a 35 year period in the form of rent of $113M and user fee of $125M.
__________________
Who are the people in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired?
kermitology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2017, 11:46 AM   #9
Bunk
Franchise Player
 
Bunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Mod edit- we moved this post from the ongoing discussion thread as it does help explain a lot more about CRL.

A little CRL 101:

The purpose of a CRL, based on the American model of Tax Increment Financing is to pull an area out of "blight" (yes that is the term that is used) borrowing public capital to invest in an area that would not otherwise see private investment. Development would not happen, but for that public investment. In Calgary, we used CRL to bring a truly destitute area with virtually no potential for private investment - the East Village. It was spent on parks, pathways, streetscapes, flood protection, historic preservation, cultural facilities, programming of public space and so on. It has brought in private investment as promised.

The property tax amount generated from the area at the outset (around 2007) would continue to flow to general revenue. The incremental amount of tax above that starting amount goes back to pay the initial loan from the City. The other thing most people don't know is that education property taxes (40% of the total property tax take) is also earmarked to pay back the loan. The province is a participant.

However, the City cheated a bit - it pulled in the Bow building, which was being built in any event, to mitigate risk. So in the event nothing happened, they could still pay back the initial investment over time. Remember, how risky the East Village was from a market standpoint - there were very few Calgarians that could have even imagined wanting to walk through East Village in broad daylight, let alone live there or start a business. The Bow was cheating, but it was thought of as a necessary risk mitigator.

The other context of the East Village is that it was initiated in the midst of the biggest economic expansion in the city's history - and the sense that the level of future growth was boundless.

Now, let's look at the proposed $225 million CRL here.

We have an anchor use and expenditure (completely aside from the other improvements to the neighbourhood the City's making) that would not produce any taxes. The $225 million would be paid back through other uses it would spur on.

I think there's a decent chance it could spur some hotel, some retail, and some multi-family. But as with the CRL proposed for West Village, it was clear from CMLC that a large commercial anchor was needed. Commercial uses pay 3.85x the mill rate as residential uses. A million square feet of office or commercial would pay about $10 million in taxes a year toward debt.

You may also have to convince the province to forego their share of the property tax, as with the East Village for this extension of the CRL debt. The good news would be that it is already in an existing CRL zone, so that would be one less barrier.

The problem here is that we are sitting at 30% office vacancy, have soft downtown condominium and rental market, and no clear path to see how that sheer scale of development that would be needed to pay back that much debt could occur. In such a soft economy, you also have a rob Peter to pay Paul problem. Say if a downtown commercial tenant moved to this district, you're just making an already difficult situation with vacancy in the downtown core worse. If it inspired a new company to move to Calgary and set up because they like what this could bring, that would be a net benefit that could begin to justify it.

This would be little bit like a developer trying to finance a mall with zero signed tenants, a retail environment which is cratering and a neighbouring mall which has 30% of its storefronts empty. Would you as a banker want to finance that? Should the City in this case?

The Edmonton situation has been brought up. I don't think anyone would disagree that this section of Downtown Edmonton was blighted. It needed investment. They had a guarantee of the City becoming a tenant (they happened to vacate one of the buildings the company I work for owned... but that's another story) and they had the global headquarters of a 22k employee company (Stantec) consolidate and come into the district. It was also a boom time. Don't know if you know, but we're not booming.

Could a CRL (or an expansion of the existing one) work in Victoria Park? Maybe - but I think it would have to be smaller and would have to invest in the things that will have a good chance of spurring investment.

It all comes down to risk - in this case the City is taking 100% of the risk, and zero percent of the facility's reward. It could get reward from other development, but balanced against the scale of the initial investment, it appears they think it's too risky to the public.
__________________
Trust the snake.

Last edited by ken0042; 09-21-2017 at 07:31 PM. Reason: .
Bunk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Old 09-21-2017, 07:29 PM   #10
Tyler
Franchise Player
 
Tyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

City's rebuttal:

Quote:
Questions and Answers Regarding Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation's Arena Proposal 1.

Question: What is the total cost of the arena project? Answer: The full cost of the arena is estimated at $555 million. This includes $30 million for land and $25 million for Saddledome demolition and interim maintenance. The Flames state the arena cost is $500 million
https://www.scribd.com/document/3595...ring-proposals
Tyler is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tyler For This Useful Post:
Old 09-21-2017, 07:38 PM   #11
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Mod edit- copied from other thread due to the simplicity of this image.
May have already been posted, but city's response to the Flames releasing their proposal



source: https://www.scribd.com/document/3595...ring-proposals
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 09-22-2017, 09:19 AM   #12
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Flames wanted veto on Victoria Park developments, parking revenue
https://www.metronews.ca/news/calgar...g-revenue.html

Quote:
Along with free transit and policing on event nights, the Calgary Flames owners asked for a veto on future Victoria Park developments and a cut of Stampede parking revenue as part of a new arena deal, Metro has learned.
On Thursday, Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation released their last arena proposal to the city, delivering a plan that would have seen them pony up $275 million for a new building with an additional $225 million being generated through a Community Revitalization Levy, which is a tax on new development in a specified area.
In a February letter to the city, the Flames outlined their additional requests, multiple sources confirmed to Metro. These requests were not in the document CSEC provided to media Thursday.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 09-28-2017, 08:28 AM   #13
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...medium=twitter

Quote:
Gary Bettman said he knew six months ago an arena deal would not get done in Calgary under the city’s current administration.

Bettman said a meeting in Calgary with Naheed Nenshi in March made it crystal clear where the mayor’s head is at with regards to the importance of pro sports in a city.

“When I was with the mayor on March 15, he was describing to me the terms of a deal that I knew were just not from the real world,” said the NHL commissioner in a phone interview from his New York office, mere hours after updating the NHL’s board of governors on the Calgary situation.

“We were having a theoretical conversation about the importance of arenas and major league sports franchises to a city, which he indicated he didn’t believe in. I said, ‘Well … what if the end result of this is that the Flames have to move?’ And he said to me, ‘Then they’ll have to move.’”

“Based on that meeting, I knew (the Flames owners) had no prospect of getting a new building on any terms that made sense. And that being the case, I completely understood their decision to disengage.”


Bettman was in Calgary two weeks ago to be informed by Flames ownership they too couldn’t see a resolution and would cease attempts to negotiate with the city.

When asked how the various impasses in Edmonton’s arena negotiation compared to the stalemate in Calgary, Bettman pointed out the big difference stems from the will of the respective mayors.

“(Reports of the Edmonton arena deal being dead) was the media reporting – the fact of the matter was I was in constant contact with Mayor (Stephen) Mandel and (Oilers owner) Daryl (Katz), and I always believed that would get done,” said Bettman.

“This couldn’t be more opposite.”

Nor could the financial outlook of the two Alberta clubs given the significant disadvantage the Flames are at without all the revenue streams a new building like Rogers Place provides over the 34-year-old Saddledome.

“I think that’s the critical element,” said Bettman, when asked how big a role the Flames’ aging arena has played in the team’s demise from being a top-10 revenue generator in the league to being a recipient of revenue-sharing cheques.

“This has been happening over the last couple years. We’re going down a road — we’ve already started on it — and it’s heading in the wrong direction.”

Which begs the question, how long can the Flames realistically expect to stay in Calgary without a new arena?

“They’re not moving this season, but I don’t know how long they can hang on,” said Bettman.

“This isn’t an imminent issue, but it’s something that’s coming around the bend at some point. I’m not a soothsayer, and I’m not going to prognosticate other than to say the situation will continue to deteriorate.”
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 09-28-2017, 12:45 PM   #14
herashak
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Exp:
Default

Edit
herashak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2017, 08:24 PM   #15
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

CSEC is eyeing more than an arena

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...+Article+Links

Quote:
The partnership that owns the Calgary Flames proposed a deal for a new arena that would give the private company a chance to transform into the real estate developer for a potentially lucrative new community, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corp. (CSEC), which owns the Flames and other sports teams, made its first arena offer to the city in a letter and two-page list of terms Feb. 21. The documents provide a glimpse of the club's vision for a complex more extensive than just an arena.

As part of the proposal, the Flames' owners insisted on receiving an option to buy and develop land near the events complex, a slice of the Stampede Casino's revenue, all parking revenue from major events it would manage at the events complex and other goodies. The demands included the city of Calgary covering the cost of flood insurance, reimbursing the club for all provincial property taxes that may be imposed on the facilities, and requiring local ratepayers to pick up the bill for a public gathering place suitable for festivals next to the arena.

The documents underscore how the multimillion-dollar arena negotiations are – for both camps – about far more than a concrete structure in Victoria Park, an underdeveloped zone east of Calgary's downtown.

If Calgary acquiesced to the terms, for example, it would give some of Canada's wealthiest men business opportunities in part thanks to financial support from taxpayers. Further, some of the sticking points would affect the Calgary Stampede's balance sheet. The Stampede, which hosts the city's famous 10-day festival and other events, is a not-for-profit organization and parking and gambling revenue are important to its operation.

"Our proposals in the enclosed term sheet outline the minimum requirements for a robust competitive sports environment and the infrastructure needed to compete on the world stage from an entertainment perspective," Ken King, president of CSEC, said in the letter.

Any deal that is "not consistent" with the Flames' demands would be "a disappointment and would create an untenable environment," Mr. King wrote. The city rejected the deal.

The Flames and city bureaucrats continued negotiations after the February offer. Naheed Nenshi, who is campaigning for his third term as mayor, in a news conference last month said the Flames' subsequent pitch was "not particularly different" than the first.

Mr. King, in an interview on Friday, disagreed.

"The process evolved and we ended up in quite a bit different place than where we started," he said, declining to say what changed because negotiations are over. "It is quite academic what, if any, the difference was."
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2017, 01:21 PM   #16
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Globe and Mail reveal the tensions that happened at a July 31st meeting:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...ticle36593459/

Quote:
On July 28, the president of the Calgary Flames wrote a letter to the city's mayor. The hockey club wanted something it had never had and felt it badly needed: a private meeting between the NHL team's owners, the mayor and city council to explain the Flames' position in negotiations over a new arena.

And so the parties gathered behind closed doors at City Hall three days later. The meeting began and ended with handshakes. In between, it was tense, peppered with barbs, interruptions and threats. An uncomfortable silence brought it to a close.

"You could have heard a piece of dust fall," said Diane Colley-Urquhart, a local politician running for her seventh term as a councillor in Calgary's municipal election on Monday. "It was over."




The fervour of that meeting, which happened roughly six weeks before the team walked away from the negotiations, hasn't dissipated and the fallout will influence the entire city – physically, financially, and psychologically – for decades.

The stalled arena negotiations are about more than who should pay to replace the Scotiabank Saddledome, which is Calgary's most recognizable building. It is about Naheed Nenshi's style throughout his seven-year tenure as Calgary's mayor and how his personality affects his re-election campaign. It is about the city's changing demographics. And it is intertwined with the 2026 Winter Olympic Games, which Calgary is considering bidding on.

The fight over an arena in Calgary's Victoria Park encapsulates a debate cities around the world have over what spurs development, attracts businesses and enhances lifestyles.

"Due to the significant impact of success or failure in moving this project forward, it is important that all stakeholders including council have all the facts with which to make this important decision," Ken King, president of the organization which controls the Flames, wrote in his July 28 letter. "We do not wish to negotiate with city council during this meeting but rather inform.

"The meeting will afford council and Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation an opportunity to understand each other's position and opportunities to move forward," said the letter, obtained by The Globe and Mail.

A handful of people who participated in the July 31 meeting have described it to The Globe. Further, individuals on both sides of the debate have made public comments about the private gathering since the warring camps started negotiating publicly in September.

The evening meeting began in council's new boardroom. Mr. King stood on the podium and did most of the speaking on behalf of the Flames. The owners sat on the periphery of the room. Flames' executives, city bureaucrats, and the mayor's chief of staff were also there.



Tension escalated when the mayor and some councillors challenged the Flames' financial calculations and the fact the club refused to open its books throughout the negotiations. Mr. Nenshi, in particular, pressed the ownership group. Then it got testy between him and Murray Edwards, the billionaire oilman who is the most powerful member of the Flames' owners.

"Both the mayor and Murray are snipers," one of the sources said. "The little shots and the interrupting and stuff – yes … definitely it was between both of them."


Other participants in the meeting echoed this analysis of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Nenshi. "It wasn't angry, but it was snappy," another source said. "And both of them are totally like that."

Ms. Colley-Urquhart's recollection of the tone is similar except she remembers it as being one-sided. "I just found that the way Murray Edwards was treated was disrespectful and condescending," she said. Druh Farrell, another municipal politician seeking her sixth term at city hall, described the exchanges as tense but said council was "respectful" and the mayor was "remarkably restrained."

The descriptions of Mr. Nenshi interjecting and perhaps agitating are consistent with his style, which is now a ballot-box issue. Mr. Nenshi's challengers are trying to exploit his freewheeling approach, arguing the stalled arena negotiations prove his running commentary is harmful to the city.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 10-31-2017, 10:23 PM   #17
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Councillor wants to kickstart arena deal discussions:

https://www.metronews.ca/news/calgar...th-flames.html

Quote:
Now that the election is through, the Ward 13 councillor wants to get going on the next steps in an arena deal.
"I wanted to put it on the agenda because the Olympic Exploration Bid Committee was a good model," said Colley-Urquhart. "It was separate from a bid, it was an exploratory committee and I really think we need to restart, but we need different people at the table."
She said what she wants to do is get the issue out from behind closed doors and the mayor's office and into the hands of a third-party appointed group made up of people in from the Flames and from city hall.
"I've chatted briefly back and forth with Ken," she said. "But it's up to us to show leadership in my view as elected officials and city administration in finding a way forward."
Metro reached out to King for comment but didn't receive an answer by press time.
Coun. Jeff Davison met with Ken King during his municipal election race and says before thinking about a third-party board council needs to get talks back to a conversation level to look at feasibility.
"We need to understand before we move this forward if there's even a deal to be put on the table," said Davison. "At that point, if there is, then we can potentially look at how we evaluate costs from an objective perspective."
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 11-08-2017, 10:45 AM   #18
Otto-matic
Franchise Player
 
Otto-matic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
Exp:
Default

https://renx.ca/new-calgary-flames-a...k-master-plan/

Quote:
The Calgary Municipal Land Corporation will reveal its master plan in January for the Victoria Park neighbourhood in Calgary, adjacent to the Calgary Stampede, and the plan includes provision for a new arena, RENX has learned.
Otto-matic is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Otto-matic For This Useful Post:
Old 11-16-2017, 03:58 PM   #19
Backlunds_socks
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Exp:
Default

https://sports.yahoo.com/gary-bettma...203751218.html

Quote:
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman reiterated at the recent Yahoo Finance Summit that the Flames must find some common ground with city officials, or risk losing market viability.

“It needs to be replaced, and if the team is going to maintain its competitiveness and be viable for the long term, they’re going to need a new arena.”
Backlunds_socks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2017, 11:15 AM   #20
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Had a brief chat with CAL owner Murray Edwards. Said team is not for sale. He didn’t want to say more than that...although, when asked, added there are no meetings planned with the city at this time.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:37 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016