Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

IMO the right timing for either project is ~15 yrs away; given the choice at that point, the clear winner in public $$ ROI (both tangible and intangible) for me would be WV.

It'll be longer then that I think. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have a competing development zone and they just extended the CRL on the EV.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Parallex

It'll be longer then that I think. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have a competing development zone and they just extended the CRL on the EV.

Fair. It'll be a funky timeline one way or the other with a few years of cleanup and Bow Trail re-alignment, then actual residential construction. It probably makes sense to wait a few more decades for a lot more demand to build up.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I didn't see that while I was writing but my response would be to call balderdash... he's gonna say he knows with perfect clarity what he would spend hypothetical money on? Sure. He would almost certainly spend the money local v. non-local in roughly the same % that he does now.



Sigh... you don't need an arena to build residential. Period. If you could build residential in the EV with an arena then you could build residential in the EV without an arena. An arena doesn't affect market need for residential.

No need to sigh.... nobody ever said you need an arena to build residential. It doesn't affect market need but 100% affects market demand.

There are dozens of debates to be had about the arena but I am still discussing the single thing you called me out on. I stand by my point that an arena is millions each year in income for the city that they would not have otherwise had. Period.

[jayswin]

TravisMunroe's and other anecdotes aside, isn't there studies that show that the bulk of entertainment spending doesn't leave a city due to lack of a sports team or concerts? Not trying to be snarky, I just feel I've seen a few of these over the years.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

Burke mentioned some of this on Tim and Sid talking about how the Saddledome also has an undersized lower bowl throttling their ability to charge for premium seats.

haha, I was going to reference you to an earlier discussion where me and others spoke to the Saddledome actually charging more for the second tier than the lower bowl as food for thought, but it was actually you I was responding to there where you said exactly what you said here.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...=171363&page=3

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

Burke mentioned on Tim & Sid that the main problem with the Dome is an undersized lower bowl that limits the amount of revenue they can generate.

When you look at the seating structure it makes sense.

Originally Posted by jayswin

But don't they charge more than the lower bowl for the bottom of the second tier because they and the fans know it's the best view in the arena?

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yep, just checked the Dallas game. $190 a ticket in section 105, 107 etc, (any row), $292 avison young club (lower bowl) and then $305 for the first few rows in the second tier middle, then down to $216, then $190 after that for a few rows.

They can't say with a straight face they're losing revenue because of a smaller lower bowl when they're charging a premium and in some cases more to sit in the lower second tier. I mean literally their most expensive tickets are in the second tier, FFS.

Originally Posted by getbak

Yeah, it's something Burke said a lot while he was here, but the argument doesn't really hold up when they charge lower bowl prices for the first 10 rows of the 200s anyway.

Also, they really overcharge for some of the lower-quality seats in the 200s. I gave up my season seats last year but when I had them, I really liked them, but it annoyed me to know that my seats in row 20 on the goal line cost exactly the same as seats in row 11 at centre ice.

In virtually every other arena in the league, those would be two different price levels, and in many arenas there would be at least one other price level in between.

….

[chemgear]

Why hasn't somebody scribbled "10 Bajillion dollor RETURN ON INVESTMENT" onto a napkin and handed it our mayor yet?

Nenshi would eat that #### up like the Olympics joke.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by jayswin

TravisMunroe's and other anecdotes aside, isn't there studies that show that the bulk of entertainment spending doesn't leave a city due to lack of a sports team or concerts? Not trying to be snarky, I just feel I've seen a few of these over the years.

Yeah, but you can't trust academic studies because of their biased world view.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jayswin

TravisMunroe's and other anecdotes aside, isn't there studies that show that the bulk of entertainment spending doesn't leave a city due to lack of a sports team or concerts? Not trying to be snarky, I just feel I've seen a few of these over the years.

But if you think about it, there is really no way for this to be tracked in any kind of accurate way.

Pure speculation and conjecture by the authors.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I stand by my point that an arena is millions each year in income for the city that they would not have otherwise had. Period.

Do you think this applies to a new arena replacing the 'dome too?

I don't think anyone is really disputing that there is significant economic activity related to an arena. The question is whether it is worth a 9 figure investment + special annual exemptions compared to other businesses...


FWIW my personal limit is a one-time $99M city contribution (be it land, cash, or otherwise). CSEC owns building, covers maintenance, and pays property taxes. Unrealistic, but IMO it's a more than fair subsidy.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yeah, but you can't trust academic studies because of their biased world view.

Academic studies only conclude what they set out to conclude.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But if you think about it, there is really no way for this to be tracked in any kind of accurate way.

Pure speculation and conjecture by the authors.

No less accurate than most other economic studies. There is plenty of quality data that can be gathered and analyzed. As with anything, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, so you can never be certain of causation...but the world has progressed to it's current state through 'educated guesses'.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

No less accurate than most other economic studies. There is plenty of quality data that can be gathered and analyzed. As with anything, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, so you can never be certain of causation...but the world has progressed to it's current state through 'educated guesses'.

Where is this data, and what does it show? How can you track if people spent entertainment money outside the city or not? You can't. And even if you could, you would have no way of determining if it had increased or not, or what the cause of that increase was.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Where is this data, and what does it show? How can you track if people spent entertainment money outside the city or not? You can't. And even if you could, you would have no way of determining if it had increased or not, or what the cause of that increase was.

Maybe cities that lost an NFL team in the States or an NHL team in Canada? Just spitballing.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Maybe cities that lost an NFL team in the States or an NHL team in Canada? Just spitballing.

Okay, you have a city that lost a team. Great. Now tell me how you are going to measure the entertainment spending of the citizens, how much they spent outside the city, and the degree to which it increased or decreased (if at all)?

[Flash Walken]

How do I know when I look up the sky that what I'm describing as blue is what you're seeing as blue?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

How do I know when I look up the sky that what I'm describing as blue is what you're seeing as blue?

Is that all you've got? Do you think that was clever? I know you're capable of critical thinking - how would you measure how much the citizens of a city are spending on entertainment outside the city, and how much it changed, based on the impact of a single event (team leaving)?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Is that all you've got? Do you think that was clever? I know you're capable of critical thinking - how would you measure how much the citizens of a city are spending on entertainment outside the city, and how much it changed, based on the impact of a single event (team leaving)?

I'd count the change in their pockets as they cross the border.

BUT I would only pull people out of line who are wearing a team jersey. You know, to keep the study accurate.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Academic studies only conclude what they set out to conclude.

No. Academic studies or any “study” worth the paper it was written on conclude what they can measure based on empirical evidence.

There is no empirical evidence that truly measures what a sports team brings to a city because it is subjective. At the extremes it’s everything & nothing to
citizens at the same time.

Attempting to quantify it is like knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

But what is self evident value is something as genuine &
cool as the Red Mile organically rising in 2004.

You can’t plan it, force it, or will it to happen. You can only enable a setting for it to happen in.

Now, the Red Mile was a bit of a unicorn, but it showed what is possible.

With the right placemaking a similar scene could be generated by an entertainment district that would chug along happily day to day & peak during events.

[Flash Walken]

I think it's too soon to talk about a new arena, the old arena is still standing.