Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Locke

When my children pout and throw a tantrum the only thing I can guarantee is that I wont give them what they want.

Unless they want a piledriver into the stairs.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nik-

Unless they want a piledriver into the stairs.

Look....that only happened one time!

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Just to add on here...using my financial wizardry skills:

The city has offered a loan $150-200m with full recoupment of costs. The value of what the city is proposing is worth between C$50-75m based on whether the size of the loan is $150-200m. That works out to a funding ratio of 11-12% based on an arena cost of $450-600m.

The CSEC has asked for 1/3 of arena cost with no recoupment, equating to $150-200m. So the flames are asking for a funding ratio of 33%.

The two sides are off by C$100-125m

Which again, is meaningless if the Flames are also expecting their own third to be paid out over the life of the building like the Katz deal in Edmonton. The city cannot allow itself to be raked over the coals like that.

[Strange Brew]

Is the city's desire to charge property taxes the same as trying to recoup their investment?

They charge property taxes on your house and they're not trying to recoup anything. It's how they earn revenue.

If the Flames want the city to kick 1/3 of the cost and be exempt from property taxes, those are two different asks, no?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm never going to try and convince anyone on a funding model, I think people make valid points on rich owners, and public use, and the like. I get it.

However I do see the logic in the ownership group starting with the Edmonton model. I'd do the same it's logical.

Things are a bit more muddied in the Calgary situation as well because of a few elements.

1. Nenshi said he wants the Flames downtown in his presser today. That suggests city gains in my mind.
2. He talked about the arena in his vision of East Village, which also says city gain to me.
3. The group taxed with coming up with the olympic bid analysis had a new arena as a principal piece in the bid, and went further to talk about cost savings for security in having the old and new building close together.

So this isn't just an NHL issue and with that I see city having to kick in more than if this building was going next door to Cross Iron Mills without the olympics on the horizon.

Now go ahead and rip me one!

In my books the Flames lose all ability to talk location, grandeur and ultimate total cost unless they are funding this building 100%. That should not even be up for debate. The Edmonton model is so completely terrible for the city you can't even make sense as to why anyone would agree to allow someone to put up so little on such a large project.

I.E. You want CalgaryNEXT - go build it 100% on your own dime and you've got it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

If the figures in this thread are accurate, I'm struggling to understand Ken King's demeanour yesterday. The gap isn't big, certainly not insurmountable.

So what lies behind it?

Could it be the owners want to move the team?

King himself might be between a rock and a hard place, which may explain some of his personal demeanor. Saying he spoke to Nenshi and then backtracking etc, but this is obviously coordinated by flames ownership to announce it at a flames event with league commissioner in attendance.

This might even have seen BOG coordination to have background quotes ready for media etc throughout the league. There is more than just Calgary's arena deal at stake here.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Which again, is meaningless if the Flames are also expecting their own third to be paid out over the life of the building like the Katz deal in Edmonton. The city cannot allow itself to be raked over the coals like that.

That is a big if, but yeah, there is no way CSES should expect the Edmonton deal. That was brutal.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

In my books the Flames lose all ability to talk location, grandeur and ultimate total cost unless they are funding this building 100%. That should not even be up for debate. The Edmonton model is so completely terrible for the city you can't even make sense as to why anyone would agree to allow someone to put up so little on such a large project.

I.E. You want CalgaryNEXT - go build it 100% on your own dime and you've got it.

Well then brace yourself!

If the city gets to decide location, grandeur and cost they clearly need to be a bigger stake holder in it.

Why would a private company give up complete control in a project and then pay 100% of the costs?

And the Edmonton model is what it is. It's recent, it's nearby, it fits into the same industry ... of course they're going to refer to it. You would too.

[bob-loblaw]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

If the figures in this thread are accurate, I'm struggling to understand Ken King's demeanour yesterday. The gap isn't big, certainly not insurmountable.

So what lies behind it?

Could it be the owners want to move the team?

I was wondering the same thing. Quebec, Kansas City, and Seattle need tenants, and there's at least three franchises that could move. With the Flames, other than Edwards it seems like most of the owners are second generation owners. With Edwards in the UK, why wouldn't he not want divest some assets?

It's a lot easier to sell them when they're not anchored to a new building.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

King himself might be between a rock and a hard place, which may explain some of his personal demeanor. Saying he spoke to Nenshi and then backtracking etc, but this is obviously coordinated by flames ownership to announce it at a flames event with league commissioner in attendance.

This might even have seen BOG coordination to have background quotes ready for media etc throughout the league. There is more than just Calgary's arena deal at stake here.

Out of thanks, so thanks.
They are a band of brothers, when it comes to things like this anyway. The Edmonton deal is the high water mark for NHL owners.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well then brace yourself!

If the city gets to decide location, grandeur and cost they clearly need to be a bigger stake holder in it.

Why would a private company give up complete control in a project and then pay 100% of the costs?

And the Edmonton model is what it is. It's recent, it's nearby, it fits into the same industry ... of course they're going to refer to it. You would too.

Where does the company lose complete control in this? They lose choice of location, but the land is free.

[bob-loblaw]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Out of thanks, so thanks.
They are a band of brothers, when it comes to things like this anyway. The Edmonton deal is the high water mark for NHL owners.

Edmonton and the Oilers always eff things up for everyone. They're just no good.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well then brace yourself!

If the city gets to decide location, grandeur and cost they clearly need to be a bigger stake holder in it.

Why would a private company give up complete control in a project and then pay 100% of the costs?

And the Edmonton model is what it is. It's recent, it's nearby, it fits into the same industry ... of course they're going to refer to it. You would too.

Of course!

Except if the person/organization you're dealing with has told you that its off the table.

Its widely renowned as a terrible deal, why would anyone use it as a comparable?

I get it, but now the attitude is:

"The Oilers took a pound of flesh out of the City of Edmonton, now every City has their Guard up."

[Flash Walken]

The oilers arena deal is the equivalent of the Penner offersheet.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The oilers arena deal is the equivalent of the Penner offersheet.

haha, first thing that popped into my head.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

Edmonton and the Oilers always eff things up for everyone. They're just no good.

Is there a worse organization in the league? Screwed up the draft, screwed up the second contract (twice), screwed up the arena deal....

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Where does the company lose complete control in this? They lose choice of location, but the land is free.

he said location, grandeur and costs. That's total control.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Scott Dippel
@CBCScott
#yyccc vote to release arena offer.
Y: Carra, Demong, Farrell, Jones, Keating, Pootmans, Woolley, Nenshi.
N: Chabot, Chu, Colley-Urq, Magliocca

I'm not sure what you might read into this, but there it is.

Why is Sean Chu a total failure at life?

Fiscal hawk, transparency, defence of tax dollars. Yet votes like this.

WHY DOES HE STILL GET ELECTED!!>!> #triggered

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

Of course!

Except if the person/organization you're dealing with has told you that its off the table.

Its widely renowned as a terrible deal, why would anyone use it as a comparable?

I get it, but now the attitude is:

"The Oilers took a pound of flesh out of the City of Edmonton, now every City has their Guard up."

Pretty common to be told things are off the table in a negotiation. Certainly doesn't mean they are off the table permanently, or that parts of said deal can't be on the table.

These guys are sharper than that.

It's a clear cut comparable, and a logical first position for the Calgary group.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

he said location, grandeur and costs. That's total control.

Yes, I understand if they lost all of that it would be total control. Why are they losing the grandeur of the project and the costs?

Also, being given a large chunk of land immediately eliminates the "paying 100%" stance.