[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Cappy]

And just like that, Falcore provides an example jayswin's statement hhah

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Cappy

And just like that, Falcore provides an example jayswin's statement hhah

Yeah how terrible of a person to want to see some tax dollars go to something they'd actually use. What a rich a$$hole.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Schultzie

It won't happen, but I'm at the point where I'm actively hoping they move.

How do you actively hope? Seems like kind of a passive activity.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Yeah how terrible of a person to want to see some tax dollars go to something they'd actually use. What a rich a$$hole.

I know you're responding to Cappy, but I was the one who made the original post he was referencing.

I certainly wasn't meaning to come across the way you're portraying in your post. I went out of my way to ensure I was just merely explaining why many wealthier citizens will support excess tax spending on stadiums while opposing most other tax spending in their cities, without trying to characterize them as a-holes

It came from many posters expressing confusion as to why normally fiscally conservative CP posters that are all over the city for ANY spending, be it on libraries, bridges, social services for low income earners, all of a sudden do a 180 on handing hundreds of millions to rich business men to build a stadium that they own.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

How do you actively hope? Seems like kind of a passive activity.

Try this: shut your eyes really tight, raise your hands in front of your face, and cross your fingers.

That's active hope. The longer you do it for, the more effective it is!

[HOWITZER]

As a taxpayer, I'd be willing to pony up cash as part of the initial construction on two conditions:

1. The primary tenant (aka Flames) takes responsibility for all facility maintenance and operating costs
2. No "ticket tax"

If that responsibility falls on the Flames, it should bring down the cost of the building as the team will not be demanding all the extreme bells and whistles that they will have to pay to maintain.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by HOWITZER

As a taxpayer, I'd be willing to pony up cash as part of the initial construction on two conditions:

1. The primary tenant (aka Flames) takes responsibility for all facility maintenance and operating costs
2. No "ticket tax"

If that responsibility falls on the Flames, it should bring down the cost of the building as the team will not be demanding all the extreme bells and whistles that they will have to pay to maintain.

I can't see a scenario with no ticket tax. It's the new standard way for sports teams to add in a "contribution" to an arena/stadium that actually isn't a contribution. It's brilliant.

"Okay, so the city just has to pay $200mil, while we'll pay $150 mil in a ticket tax, PLUS $50mil out of our own pockets. How can the tax player lose! We're both contributing the same and we get all the profits, plus the $150mil back!!!. The city should be thanking us!!!!".

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's interesting to see the poll at two to one when it seems like the balance of discussion of the thread could essentially be summed up as "the Flames can go #### themselves." Seems to be a silent majority who are at least tentatively with the team on this...

Of course, this is a Flames board so you'd expect some bias in favour of the team's view. My impression just from people I talk to is that most people are in the "go pound sand" camp as to the use of any public funds (or any beyond say $100mm). Is that pretty much the tempterature of the city, in other peoples' experiemce?

[Reneeee]

Does anybody actually know the $ amount their taxes might go up or are just blindly opposed to any increase?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's interesting to see the poll at two to one when it seems like the balance of discussion of the thread could essentially be summed up as "the Flames can go #### themselves." Seems to be a silent majority who are at least tentatively with the team on this...

Of course, this is a Flames board so you'd expect some bias in favour of the team's view. My impression just from people I talk to is that most people are in the "go pound sand" camp as to the use of any public funds (or any beyond say $100mm). Is that pretty much the tempterature of the city, in other peoples' experiemce?

I want to say that the level of staunch opposition to a new arena deal amongst actual fans of the team(people who would actually be setting foot in the arena) in this proposal seems unprecedented, but that's purely anecdotal.

It definitely feels like public sentiment could not have gone any worse for Flames management.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I think it has something to do with the fact that they are bringing it up so early in the game. It's been two years since they made their proposal, which in the grand scheme of arenas, is very short.

They jumped a few chapters in the field of schemes playbook.

But it's also hard for them to try and tug at the emotional angle (the fans, the sick kids, the charity) and talk about how integral the team is to the city, and then threaten to leave it all behind. It's kind of a slap in the face.

If they want to make a business case, then we, as a city, will make a business case too. We can leave emotion out of it... unfortunately the business case for stadium subsidies has been disproved so many times that it's amazing people still argue it.

Disingenuous to transfer the emotion of fans to the organization.
This is the last statement from King regarding any 'threat' to move.

“We’re not threatening people,” King said. “And furthermore, I think and hope we’re going to get a deal. The truth of the matter is, we would just move. Which is not to be confused as a threat.”

King said the Flames wouldn’t use “silly tactics” like shopping the team to different cities and touring arenas to force a decision, alluding to Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz’s trip to Seattle in 2012 while the fate of Rogers Place was still up in the air.

Many saw the visit as a threat to move the team, drawing enough public outrage that Katz issued an apology to Edmontonians.

“This has to be good for everybody, and if it isn’t good for everybody it shouldn’t happen, pure and simple,” King said. “And if it turns out to be not working for us then nobody’s going to argue that we should try to secure our future in whatever way’s necessary.”

Doesn't get much more business (and less emotional) than this statement.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...just-move-king

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Does anybody actually know the $ amount their taxes might go up or are just blindly opposed to any increase?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Being blindly opposed to any amount of taxpayer money towards a private business venture isn't exactly an unbecoming position to take.

[GGG]

Stating a fact doesn't make it not a threat.

If I said if you don't give me $100 I am going to kick your ass and I fully intend to do it doesn't make it not a threat. I am still threatening you. That the threat is real of made up does not change that it is a threat.

If the flames didn't want to threaten to move they would say we will do everything in our power to remain a viable franchise in Calgary. By stating the "facts" they are threatening the city and fans.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Does anybody actually know the $ amount their taxes might go up or are just blindly opposed to any increase?

I doubt it's a matter of taxes going up. It's more a matter of money going to an arena instead of other facilities (leisure centres, parks, transit, etc.).

[Mr.Coffee]

I think it'll I increase taxes, it's a perfect opportunity for council to do it.

[Freeway]

From what I'm hearing, it's basically just the cost of financing the debt for the arena contribution that'll prevent the City from doing some other things.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by HOWITZER

As a taxpayer, I'd be willing to pony up cash as part of the initial construction on two conditions:

1. The primary tenant (aka Flames) takes responsibility for all facility maintenance and operating costs
2. No "ticket tax"

If that responsibility falls on the Flames, it should bring down the cost of the building as the team will not be demanding all the extreme bells and whistles that they will have to pay to maintain.

A ticket tax is not HRR, though, while an increase in ticket price is.
So a portion of the funding needs to go to a ticket tax.

[HOWITZER]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

A ticket tax is not HRR, though, while an increase in ticket price is.
So a portion of the funding needs to go to a ticket tax.

Oh I know that the team will want to impose a ticket tax. What I'm saying is that as a taxpayer I'd be willing to put up cash to get the building built so that people who can't afford season tickets at higher rates can enjoy Flames games and other events without a ticket tax.

[Tinordi]

Use a ticket tax all you want, just don't ask the city to bank roll it. There are capital markets out there for exactly this reason. It's absolutely not the city's responsibility to be taking on risk.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Use a ticket tax all you want, just don't ask the city to bank roll it. There are capital markets out there for exactly this reason. It's absolutely not the city's responsibility to be taking on risk.

Not paying Brouwer, Stajan, and bouma would pay the interest on over $200m in bonds. I'm aware that the contracts are guaranteed, but being an internally capped team to pay for an arena isn't the worst idea.