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

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I'm curious if things would've played out differently if Gondek didn't come out aggressively on social media saying the Flames are ending the deal because of 20M. She didn't have to mention that she didn't like the arena deal in the first place in her posts.

CSEC/Bean said the day after that after the deal was going to die, there was the intention for the city and Flames to do a joint statement, like they did with previous announcements on the status of the project. If Gondek didn't do what she did, and the joint statement was done, the messaging could be a lot different from the media, and the general public. It could be a lot more amicable; with the focus primarily being not the right time to start digging.

Gondek started this fire publicly, and she's burned herself by doing it. She made it easy for CSEC to be quiet, and let the media carry out the narrative that it's hers and the city's fault the previous deal died.

It's the first time in all of this that you could say that the city is the one on the defensive. It was generally CSEC ####ing up the PR game pretty much the whole time.

I'd argue that we'd be in the exact same spot we are now, with the same articles blaming the city/mayor and the same articles blaming the Flames.

You may be right that Gondek messed up by releasing it via twitter and giving some people fodder, but I suspect they'd just use something else to get to the same point.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'd argue that we'd be in the exact same spot we are now, with the same articles blaming the city/mayor and the same articles blaming the Flames.

You may be right that Gondek messed up by releasing it via twitter and giving some people fodder, but I suspect they'd just use something else to get to the same point.

negotiating or divulging discussions via social media makes Gondek look like an amateur either way.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And how do you know what to accept as facts (unless you already know) when it is full of non-truths? Sure, Fox news has some facts, too, but I'm not going to try to figure out which parts those are. It's a fair position to disregard an article if you can't trust the messenger.

So your biased?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You've picked a side. I respect that.

But show a little more respect for those that disagree. He doesn't have to be a parrot for the team to have an opinion different than yours.

There are very clear verifiable facts and then there is outrage that a person tweeted. I know what side I’ll stick to.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Goriders

So your biased?

Of course, we all are.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Not sure what Covid restrictions have to do with arena negotiations.

Also, are you trying to say that Flames and Oilers ownership told Kenney to put in restrictions on attendance? and that somehow that was going to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue?

Is this a disguised vaccine rant?

I should have conveyed my thoughts a little clearer. I have it on good authority that when some of the wealthiest, more powerful and politically connected business leaders in Alberta asked about a Vax Passport, they were tipped off in advance to make arrangement for that. They needed confirmation and business certainty and given their political and business connections, they got it in advance, unlike small time players like your average Joe who may have a restaurant or coffee shop.

Flames and Oilers ownership groups, ski hill operators and more etc.

This article from August highlighted a proof of vaccination policy for Flames ownership group. September 15th implementation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...csec-1.6150459


This article here is from CTV News the day that the "Restrictions Exemption Program" was launched to include a passport style system. It was announced and confirmed on September 15th.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/proof-of-...ared-1.5586827

What I should have done a better job of clarifying is that when your government leaders are telling Joe and Jane Public that this and that policy regarding Covid rules and restrictions etc won't be enacted, others are getting other info. Behind the scenes the wealthy, influential and politically connected leaders of muilti billion dollar businesses like the owners of the ski hills and sports franchises are being told point blank what is going to happen in advance.

How this comes back to the arena deal is that the Mayor and council members better make sure we get something additional out of these new found negotiations. Something that has a benefit materially to the taxpayer. We shouldn't need to fund cost increases for the arena when billionaires like Edwards make a business deal that they will cover cost overruns in exchange for something they want, like Calagry Municipal Land Corp off as project manager.

They made a deal and the situation has evolved rapidly since summer 2021 and now all of a sudden it's our responsibility to increase our portion? Why? Who else is getting these deals?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

There are very clear verifiable facts and then there is outrage that a person tweeted. I know what side I’ll stick to.

I think anyone trying to build a case for either side being largely in the right is just fooling themselves.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think anyone trying to build a case for either side being largely in the right is just fooling themselves.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, Gondek is grossly incompetent and should lose their job?

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Wormius

There are some columnists who are so over the top in their bias that you can help but feel trolled by the audacity and zeal they emanate. Articles by Corbella, Bell, Conrad Black, Don Braid all have that quality.

I don’t know if there are any facts in the Corbella article, and as commented earlier she’s already lied outright so what else is a lie? Now the burden is on me to fact check?

I’d be curious to hear about some over-the-top shill articles that try to puff up the City’s position in a similar vain.

Not Braid. He's often gone out of his way in all eras to be fair and reputable to both sides (or other perspectives). He's blasted and praised just about every politician from time to time, depending on circumstances. I've been reading him since he moved to YYC in the early 90s and that has never changed.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think anyone trying to build a case for either side being largely in the right is just fooling themselves.

It would be nice if it was a discussion about being "right" - it seems to be much more about who is "wrong" (when there doesn't necessarily need to be a culprit there, either).

It seems that most of us can agree that Gondek's tweets were probably a tactical error, though now that we are past the shock and things have played out a bit maybe it's worth a sober second look at the oft-referenced "tweet storm":

1/6 Today, I spoke with Murray Edwards, primary shareholder of Calgary Sports & Entertainment Corp (CSEC), about the future of the Event Centre project.

He informed me of the Flames intention to pull the plug on the Event Centre deal.

Why? Here’s what I know:

2/6 The deal struck in summer of 2019 envisioned a $550 m deal w/costs split equally between CSEC & the City. In addition, the City provided land, 90% demolition of the ‘Dome, excess flood/site remediation, & levies. Total City contribution: $275m + $22.4m = $297.4 plus land.

3/6 Plus the value of the land. I supported that deal. In July 2021, CSEC asked to make changes to the above deal. CMLC removed as devel manager, both parties added $12.5m for potential cost overruns & City added up to $10m in event management costs.

Total value: $307.4 + land

4/6 I did not support that deal.

Since I was elected Mayor, Administration & my office have been working with CSEC to mitigate any additional costs. Two costs were identified: climate mitigation of around $4m and road/sidewalk right of way issues of $12.1m.

5/6 The City came to the table to assist with $6.4m in roadways leaving $9.7m for the Flames. Based on this gap, CSEC informed me they are walking away from our deal.

On a project worth over $650m, to have one party walk away for 1.5% of the value of the deal is staggering.

6/6 I wanted Calgarians to be the first to know. I am as disappointed as all of you that this is the way things are ending.

A pretty succinct summary of everything that has played out, but I see two instances where she should have done a lot better.

The red was poorly phrased and left a ton of ambiguity about how/when these costs came to light, and what they actually were. A lot more detail would have helped here.

The purple is just a bad argument, and comes across as putting words into CSEC's mouth.

I also think she could have/should have explained why she supported July 2019 but not July 2021.


Maybe this was a simple case of Gondek shooting herself in the foot for no good reason, but it seems more likely to me that she was expecting the PostMedia onslaught that we've seen [my speculation would be that Murray may have threatened that]. Does it seem likely that Gondek lit this grenade herself when a cordial joint statement was on the table? I acknowledge it is possible, but I struggle to square that kind of unforced blunder with someone who just demonstrated sufficent PR competency to win an election...



All that said, I'm still not sure I see anything here worthy of the outrage, indignation, and assignment of blame [to her]. I don't blame CSEC for backing out in the totality of the circumstances; though I think mutually "hitting pause" would have been in everyone's best interest (again, we'll never know if that was actually on the table from CSEC).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think anyone trying to build a case for either side being largely in the right is just fooling themselves.

Both sides right?

One side walked away from a deal, even after they had agreed to additions. The other side put out an early tweet.

Different actions have different gravity. It's not just an action scoreboard 1-1.

This has been demonstrated in this thread numerous times. Why do you continue to ignore it? Is your desire to paint every issue directly in the middle this essential?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So if I'm hearing you correctly, Gondek is grossly incompetent and should lose their job?

How can you say hearing me correctly and then just put words I never said out there?

That's kind of odd.

Honestly I'm not all that worked about any of it. I think there were mistakes made on both sides ... assumptions that didn't turn out ... leverage points that were misinterpreted.

Wouldn't say Gondek is off to a roaring start, but she has time to turn it around.

Calgary owners have been solid citizens but they don't seem to understand PR at all.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Both sides right?

One side walked away from a deal, even after they had agreed to additions. The other side put out an early tweet.

Different actions have different gravity. It's not just an action scoreboard 1-1.

This has been demonstrated in this thread numerous times. Why do you continue to ignore it? Is your desire to paint every issue directly in the middle this essential?

I think one side renegotiated a deal to get out of a 50/50 split. The other side thought they won the lottery because that meant they could take control. Then the world went to hell and I don't think both sides wanted the deal as it stood.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

How can you say hearing me correctly and then just put words I never said out there?

That's kind of odd.

Honestly I'm not all that worked about any of it. I think there were mistakes made on both sides ... assumptions that didn't turn out ... leverage points that were misinterpreted.

Wouldn't say Gondek is off to a roaring start, but she has time to turn it around.

Calgary owners have been solid citizens but they don't seem to understand PR at all.

Singling out my response to Manhattanboy, suggesting I was in the wrong by picking a side, you yourself (perhaps by bias) picked a side.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think one side renegotiated a deal to get out of a 50/50 split. The other side thought they won the lottery because that meant they could take control. Then the world went to hell and I don't think both sides wanted the deal as it stood.

That’s totally reasonable and it should have been presented that way. I think everybody would have been fine with, “costs are too high right now to build the kind of event centre we want; we also need to address future environmental concerns and so it’s better to stop and regroup”.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

How can you say hearing me correctly and then just put words I never said out there?

That's kind of odd.

Honestly I'm not all that worked about any of it. I think there were mistakes made on both sides ... assumptions that didn't turn out ... leverage points that were misinterpreted.

Wouldn't say Gondek is off to a roaring start, but she has time to turn it around.

Calgary owners have been solid citizens but they don't seem to understand PR at all.

See...this is the part that doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

I see where you're coming from, I do. But these are people who have made their livings in various different businesses and have probably dealt with various Governments of varying levels.

So I find it odd that they're having so much difficulty in this instance.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Singling out my response to Manhattanboy, suggesting I was in the wrong by picking a side, you yourself (perhaps by bias) picked a side.

Nope.

Just pointed out a snotty response. You can pick any side you want, but suggesting someone else is on the payroll to have a view different than yours is weak.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Nope.

Just pointed out a snotty response. You can pick any side you want, but suggesting someone else is on the payroll to have a view different than yours is weak.

Anyone that takes offense to such a simple humouristic retort back against an incredibly absurd statement is clearly clouded by bias.

Nowhere did I suggest anyone was on a payroll to post here a la OEG, however it’s certain there are many posters here with ties to the businesses and families of the CSEC owners. There are also many involved in local business immediately up in arms over anything that the City or council does.

You didn’t take offense to someone calling me Jyoti’s lap dog, suggesting that I’m on a payroll.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think one side renegotiated a deal to get out of a 50/50 split. The other side thought they won the lottery because that meant they could take control. Then the world went to hell and I don't think both sides wanted the deal as it stood.

Here is this canard again. There's only the indication that one side no longer wanted the deal as it stood.

Originally Posted by Bunk

Conjecture. City asked, CSEC agreed. City structured condition to their liking. Even if what you say is true and they really didn't want to do it, felt railroaded by Administration, they could have asked the approval authority, Calgary Planning Commission on Nov 18, to remove the condition. They didn't. Still after the fact, if they didn't want the condition, they could have appealed the condition to SDAB up to just over a week ago. They didn't do that either.

Here it is again one more time. The actions are not equal, no matter how badly you want them to be.

These are the facts.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think one side renegotiated a deal to get out of a 50/50 split. The other side thought they won the lottery because that meant they could take control. Then the world went to hell and I don't think both sides wanted the deal as it stood.

Do we really know how the July 2021 renegotiation went (ie. who initiated it? which issues were most pressing - cutting the community rink, booting CMLC, etc.)?

The original July 2019 deal had a 50/50 split on the $25M buffer, but then it was a little ambiguous beyond that (IIRC)...I think it's weird to say "one side renegotiated a deal to get out of a 50/50 split" when the scope of the 'deal' had simply been exceeded...