09-14-2017, 10:06 AM
|
#261
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Seems like the Flames were pissed about being used to score political points during an election cycle so they shot back trying to get rid of the mayor and council. I support getting a new building done and I support the city helping out the residents of Midfield. With what the city has spent on bull#### over the past couple years a new building would be something actually useful.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 10:10 AM
|
#262
|
Franchise Player
|
A building would be useful, but lets not bring Midfield into this thread.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 10:10 AM
|
#263
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Wait, are you arguing that opposition to a massive government subsidy for a private business is the anti-capitalism position in this debate?
|
Oh you know that ol' stereotype.. the fat cats down on wall street with their cigars, loose women and library cards.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 10:25 AM
|
#264
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
Along with Makarov's point, it's interesting that you were a huge proponent of a government bailout for Midfield park too. Doesn't seem like you actually like capitalism that much.
|
I guess I've misunderstood the deal. I thought the city would be getting a return on their 200 million. Didn't realize it was 100% corporate donation. My bad.
Midfield is different completely. The city has spent ten years, 3 million capital dollars and an army of psychologists and counselors for the past year plus future social assistance costs for homeless residents and we are still screwing people over. How could you not think that's stupid? For a total cost of about six million bucks they could have developed the land a decade ago and made all residents capital whole.
But let's use the popular Midfield argument.....if there was a business plan for a private arena that works, it would already be built by the private sector. So see ya later Flames.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 10:26 AM
|
#265
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
I guess I've misunderstood the deal. I thought the city would be getting a return on their 200 million. Didn't realize it was 100% corporate donation. My bad.
Midfield is different completely. The city has spent ten years, 3 million capital dollars and an army of psychologists and counselors for the past year plus future social assistance costs for homeless residents and we are still screwing people over. How could you not think that's stupid? For a total cost of about six million bucks they could have developed the land a decade ago and made all residents capital whole.
But let's use the popular Midfield argument.....if there was a business plan for a private arena that works, it would already be built by the private sector. So see ya later Flames.
|
There was just a developer approved, however, they won't be able to build for a year. Which helps nobody in the park when they are going to be homeless in 15 days.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 10:32 AM
|
#266
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by northcrunk
Seems like the Flames were pissed about being used to score political points during an election cycle so they shot back trying to get rid of the mayor and council. I support getting a new building done and I support the city helping out the residents of Midfield. With what the city has spent on bull#### over the past couple years a new building would be something actually useful.
|
Why is this the conservative position?
I don't understand why my staunchly conservative friends are pro-arena. The argument is that we wasted so much money on the Peace Bridge, Library and the Blue Ring we should just build the Arena so we get something useful.
This is a horrible argument and betrays conservative principles. Its absolutely hypocritical to say since I like this waste of money we should do it because I want something for my team and the liberals go their bike lanes and Art.
Instead support the projects on its Merits. (Not economics because they don't exist). Just say that I would like my tax dollars to subsidize a corporation because I like the flames. Admit it doesn't fit your conservative philosophy on every other issue. Admit that you want money spent on a Public Good that has intrinsic rather than real value. Admit that on this issue you are a leftist. I know its hard but its better than being a hypocrite. The cognitive dissonance required to keep on that blue jersey is amazing.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-14-2017, 10:40 AM
|
#267
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Why is this the conservative position?
I don't understand why my staunchly conservative friends are pro-arena. The argument is that we wasted so much money on the Peace Bridge, Library and the Blue Ring we should just build the Arena so we get something useful.
This is a horrible argument and betrays conservative principles. Its absolutely hypocritical to say since I like this waste of money we should do it because I want something for my team and the liberals go their bike lanes and Art.
Instead support the projects on its Merits. (Not economics because they don't exist). Just say that I would like my tax dollars to subsidize a corporation because I like the flames. Admit it doesn't fit your conservative philosophy on every other issue. Admit that you want money spent on a Public Good that has intrinsic rather than real value. Admit that on this issue you are a leftist. I know its hard but its better than being a hypocrite. The cognitive dissonance required to keep on that blue jersey is amazing.
|
It's because your staunchly conservative friends aren't conservative, they just pass off self interest for a political ideology.
|
|
|
The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
|
Art Vandelay,
Cali Panthers Fan,
CliffFletcher,
D as in David,
Deelow,
Flames Draft Watcher,
Funkhouser,
GGG,
GioforPM,
JayP,
jayswin,
KevinKlineReadingABook,
mikeecho,
Passe La Puck,
redflamesfan08,
Rubicant,
SebC,
Stillman16,
stone hands,
TopChed,
topfiverecords,
vennegoor of hesselink
|
09-14-2017, 10:48 AM
|
#268
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Why is this the conservative position?
I don't understand why my staunchly conservative friends are pro-arena. The argument is that we wasted so much money on the Peace Bridge, Library and the Blue Ring we should just build the Arena so we get something useful.
This is a horrible argument and betrays conservative principles. Its absolutely hypocritical to say since I like this waste of money we should do it because I want something for my team and the liberals go their bike lanes and Art.
Instead support the projects on its Merits. (Not economics because they don't exist). Just say that I would like my tax dollars to subsidize a corporation because I like the flames. Admit it doesn't fit your conservative philosophy on every other issue. Admit that you want money spent on a Public Good that has intrinsic rather than real value. Admit that on this issue you are a leftist. I know its hard but its better than being a hypocrite. The cognitive dissonance required to keep on that blue jersey is amazing.
|
What? Most conservatives I've come across are completely opposed to using tax dollars to subsidize an arena just as they're opposed to using tax dollars to subsidize the public art policy - it's the whole reason the arena issue is at an impasse in the first place. If they were all so in favour of subsidizing as you're claiming they are, the arena would have been publically paid for years ago to rapturous citywide applause and it'd be getting built as we speak.
Last edited by CorbeauNoir; 09-14-2017 at 10:50 AM.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 10:51 AM
|
#269
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by new era
houston oilers moved to memphis, spurning an expansion team in houston.
|
Wrong! FAKE NEWS!
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 10:53 AM
|
#270
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Wrong! FAKE NEWS!
|
It is?
__________________
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:00 AM
|
#271
|
Franchise Player
|
I've been noodling this around in my brain. I think both sides are going to dig into current positions. Something creative probably needs to happen to dislodge impasse.
Instead of a 1/3,1/3,1/3 fairly conventional split of funding, how about:
1/4 owners
1/4 ticket tax
1/4 city
1/4 citizen ownership
Citizen Ownership:
Flames sell the City 1/4 share in the franchise. The City in turn sells shares to citizens. For sake of argument, 1/4 share $150m (and a corresponding $150m share of the capital cost of the building).
Sell 150,000 shares at $2000 a piece to people that want to participate - they own a 1/4 of the franchise and have paid for a 1/4 of the building outright. It's an equity share, so they're share price increases with the value of the franchise - it would likely get an instant boost upon completion of the building. (I'd probably by 3-4 shares myself - we could have a Calgarypuck owners group).
City portion - either strike a rent deal if the City owns the building, or a property tax deal if the Flames own the building.
Pros:
- It reduces the capital outlay to each party.
- It shares the risk and up-side more.
- It reduces the amount needed from ticket tax, which in turn keeps ticket prices a bit lower and more accessible
- It gives people who want to participate, a real stake
Cons:
- Risk that not enough shares could be sold, City has to retain unsold shares.
- Owners would need to give up a 1/4 of their share in the franchise and corresponding up-side (probably somewhere between a non-starter and extremely unlikely).
__________________
Trust the snake.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:03 AM
|
#272
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
It is an interesting compromise, Bunk, but would go against most of what we know about the flames ownership group.
If anything they appear to want an increasingly smaller group of owners, not open it up to a bunch of random jabronis.
It would also open up their financials for public consumption and that is something the BOG definitely do not.want.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:09 AM
|
#273
|
broke the first rule
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Sell 150,000 shares at $2000 a piece to people that want to participate - they own a 1/4 of the franchise and have paid for a 1/4 of the building outright. It's an equity share, so they're share price increases with the value of the franchise - it would likely get an instant boost upon completion of the building. (I'd probably by 3-4 shares myself - we could have a Calgarypuck owners group).
City portion - either strike a rent deal if the City owns the building, or a property tax deal if the Flames own the building.
Pros:
- It reduces the capital outlay to each party.
- It shares the risk and up-side more.
- It reduces the amount needed from ticket tax, which in turn keeps ticket prices a bit lower and more accessible
- It gives people who want to participate, a real stake
Cons:
- Risk that not enough shares could be sold, City has to retain unsold shares.
- Owners would need to give up a 1/4 of their share in the franchise and corresponding up-side (probably somewhere between a non-starter and extremely unlikely).
|
I like this type of thinking. The 1/4 shares could be set up as a different class of shares (limited voting rights, 3rd in line for dividends (or set at a nominal rate)). Make it like a glorified fan club like the Saskatchewan Roughriders did...give a fancy share certificate, merchandise discounts, behind the scenes tours, pre-sale codes for events.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to calf For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:10 AM
|
#274
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Back in Calgary!!
|
We don't know what exactly has gone on behind closed doors and likely never will. Maybe Nenshi is playing the innocent Martyr, I don't know.
Though, on the surface, to me, with the scrum and releases from Nenshi the city is looking a million times better than the Flames ownership.
Ownership took the step to appeal to public opinion and influence an election, yet they are the ones looking like children.
If they truly want to wage a war in the court of public opinion, the ownership needs to re-emerge from thrir self imposed exile and make a reasonable statement. Because they look like a two year old who can't have the lollipop.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to sa226 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:12 AM
|
#275
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Citizen Ownership:
Flames sell the City 1/4 share in the franchise. The City in turn sells shares to citizens. For sake of argument, 1/4 share $150m (and a corresponding $150m share of the capital cost of the building).
Sell 150,000 shares at $2000 a piece to people that want to participate - they own a 1/4 of the franchise and have paid for a 1/4 of the building outright. It's an equity share, so they're share price increases with the value of the franchise - it would likely get an instant boost upon completion of the building. (I'd probably by 3-4 shares myself - we could have a Calgarypuck owners group).
|
I'd probably do this, as long as a) I saw the business plan for the arena and how a typical building usage schedule would look with Flames / concerts / events, etc. and b) if there was a possibility for my shares to be tied to more of the development of the district as a whole... residential and commercial included.
I also don't mind my tax dollars (within reason) going to a new arena / stadium / fieldhouse (if that was still on the table), because likely I'd use those facilities more than other city facilities anyways. The spurred surrounding development would be a good investment in the city, as well (who knows what cool places would pop up around it). I might be alone on that though, but I'm cool with that.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:31 AM
|
#276
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
It is?
|
The poster likely believes the Oilers moved to Nashville, not Memphis. But they did play in Memphis during their first year in Tennessee.
It changes the substance of the entire argument, don't you know.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:41 AM
|
#277
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Stuff like the bridge and library we can use for free how do people not get that? The arena is for only like 5% of the city population (probably even less than that for regular users) and will cost us insane amounts of money. Flames want public money? Make them sign a contract where they can never increase the ticket prices food or parking prices while they use our arena.
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:46 AM
|
#278
|
Monster Storm
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Look Bunk I like you but this is no time to try and mediate an alternative solution. Either pick a side and be very extreme about your position or get out.
__________________
Shameless self promotion
|
|
|
The Following 32 Users Say Thank You to surferguy For This Useful Post:
|
Anduril,
Art Vandelay,
atb,
Bunk,
burn_this_city,
Cali Panthers Fan,
Flame On,
Flashpoint,
Funkhouser,
GreenHardHat,
Isikiz,
jammies,
jayswin,
Mazrim,
MolsonInBothHands,
mrkajz44,
Nandric,
Phaneufenstein,
Rhettzky,
Rubicant,
slybomb,
squiggs96,
stone hands,
Strange Brew,
Table 5,
terryclancy,
the2bears,
TopChed,
topfiverecords,
woob,
You Need a Thneed,
zuluking
|
09-14-2017, 11:46 AM
|
#279
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesforcup
Stuff like the bridge and library we can use for free how do people not get that? The arena is for only like 5% of the city population (probably even less than that for regular users) and will cost us insane amounts of money. Flames want public money? Make them sign a contract where they can never increase the ticket prices food or parking prices while they use our arena.
|
Really?
Only 65,000 people have ever used the saddledome?
Quite the claim.
__________________
|
|
|
09-14-2017, 11:54 AM
|
#280
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Really?
Only 65,000 people have ever used the saddledome?
Quite the claim.
|
How many people regularly use the arena?
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:45 PM.
|
|