[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[oldschoolcalgary]

To be honest, this thread is starting to go the way of the city/flames public statements...

we're in a bit of a vacuum - so there's a lot of speculation and assumptions fueling some of the posts...discussion is giving way to arguing...kinda where were the flames/city were a few days ago...

both the city and the flames have said talks are ongoing and still positive...so that's all we can hope for at this point...

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

You are only looking at direct benefits to the Municipality of the City of Calgary, being a legal entity unto itself, others are looking at benefits to Calgarians and their businesses, which are the city.

The economic benefits of sports arenas and professional teams isn't something we have to rely on anecdote and speculation to reach a conclusion about. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of case studies, and the verdict is in: they provide little to no benefit. That's what the independent studies have concluded. Any other conclusions are wishful thinking or alternative facts.

[Johnny Makarov]

At least Dennis Wideman has to be happy with this thread, as he is no longer the most hated Flame on this board. and well deserved Ken King.

[Nage Waza]

The debate should not be about feelings. A simple chart that shows the revenue generated for the city and jobs for the public, vs the cost to the city, would help us understand this more.

You would think as well that cities could put together a special project where all the tax goes to the city somehow, versus federal taxes.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The fact we keep talking about King as the bad guy and not Edwards and co. means he is doing his job well, I'd say. I don't like it or him, but he's the messenger people are shooting at, which makes the owners look good.

King is the mouth of CSEC, so all images of him should be replaced with:

When King is the face of your business and he's making your business look like a bunch of incompetent boobs, thats not a good thing for anyone in that business. By that measure, If King is doing a good job, then Kevin Lowe is a frigging genius.

[Flamenspiel]

If you read between the lines, it seems like KK is still stuck on the WV idea. Until they come off that position there will be no movement. The mayor sees it for what it is, essentially an extreme position asking for the highest dollars possible.

As a result the city has gone to the opposite extreme of "no public financing....". That is the counteroffer, full stop. To me the ball is in Flames court, come back with a reasonable plan B in Vic Park. KK saying the city should put forward a plan B makes no sense, he wants the arena, step off the WV idea and let's go.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

If you read between the lines, it seems like KK is still stuck on the WV idea. Until they come off that position there will be no movement. The mayor sees it for what it is, essentially an extreme position asking for the highest dollars possible.

As a result the city has gone to the opposite extreme of "no public financing....". That is the counteroffer, full stop. To me the ball is in Flames court, come back with a reasonable plan B in Vic Park. KK saying the city should put forward a plan B makes no sense, he wants the arena, step off the WV idea and let's go.

He's staying attached to the West Village idea moreso for optics, since it's not just an arena they're looking for. Something needs to be done for the Stampeders and their football venue situation. Considering the CFL is what it is, they need to seek large government funding for either renovations, new stadium, or building the new fieldhouse to support football stadium capabilities. If CSEC is going to put a lot of money into an arena, they don't have the appetite for putting a lot into also a football stadium. And the general trend throughout the league has been government funding has contributed a fair portion to new or renovated CFL stadiums.

[heep223]

That letter was hard to read. He sounds desperate. He's using semantics to try and justify his position. New low. Neither side is showing any professionalism, humility, or vision. Looks bad on the entire community.

Both sides are idiots.

[MrDJZak]

nm.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Remember what happened to that guy? Aragorn cut his head off for spouting stupid ####

And that might be King's role at the end of the day.

People will still love the team, they'll hate the face of the organization which will be him and not the owners (like people were up north with Katz) so they stay clean, and their business gets the best deal it can to maximize their returns.

By that time King will probably be ready to retire anyway, so he steps down having done his job with a nice going-away package, and the whole era can start fresh with a new President and the ugliness of the arena negotiations are stuck with King as he rides off to the sunset because everybody associates it with him and not the group that remains that was directing the whole thing.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Don't be insulting. It doesn't benefit the discussion.

The difference in the positions is small "c" city vs. big "C" City.

You are only looking at direct benefits to the Municipality of the City of Calgary, being a legal entity unto itself, others are looking at benefits to Calgarians and their businesses, which are the city.

We're getting desperate with this one.

Are you saying the City as a democratic organisation that represents Calgarians somehow has less legitimacy than a specific business who might see a benefit?

The "City" is looking at the sum of all the benefits and the costs to Calgarians and is rightfully concluding that on average the costs are much higher than the benefits to Calgary taxpayers. That is democratic representation.

An individual business or small group of people that might benefit does not "the city" make.

[FireGilbert]

I don't have an opinion on this either way but wow Ken King is coming across really poorly. Threatening to move and then saying you are not threatening to move? What a tool.

[Tinordi]

An alternate City vision for a Victoria Park event centre was brought forward (by the City) and council directed a comparison to CalgaryNEXT be made and brought to council by late October, 2016.

This passage should sink in. Evidently the City is being constructive in this process contradicting some heated opinions seen previously in this thread.

[EldrickOnIce]

This battle of semantics or definition of xyz is tiresome.
There is no question there is some economic benefit to a municipality to have a professional sports team and facility. Both tangible/measurable and intangible.
The real question is how much benefit that is. The city should/will contribute an amount commensurate to that value. I have no doubt they will not contribute more, nor should they.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

I am preparing 2 different offers for clientele right now after showing properties all morning and afternoon.

With my lack of intelligence and reading comprehension, it takes a bit longer to get things done so I hope you can understand.

Posting on CP and explaining to a class act like yourself who calls someone on their reading comprehension and intelligence is not at the top of my list, especially when it is as ridiculous as explaining how wrong they are to say that Calgary has NO financial benefit to having the flames.

I don't expect a reply anyways. I've already shown how every dollar spent by someone before and after the games (the original discussion point) from outsiders at the pub goes directly towards the provincial or federal government. I know you cannot refute that. I know you can't refute the revenue streams of the city, which do not entail local business purchases and revenue.

Since our original discussion you've shifted things. When I agree that local businesses benefit from game day tourism, you're like "Aha, so you admit you were wrong!!". Although I can't assume you're engaging in deliberate posturing when you're misconstrued my post, because quick frankly, the alternative of you lacking the cognitive abilities is also possible. Either way, both show a lack of maturity and intelligence. I just call it as I see it. You take it as an insult, but it's true - I cannot know if you're capable or not?

In any case, it's clear you have no intention of seeking the truth. I can understand people not being exposed and I can understand people absorbing the quickest information to them, but ultimately if you really wanted to understand how this arena affects you in an honest, intelligent manner, you would seek out the cold hard facts independently​ of this debate and you and I would then be aligned. The fact that you're not only debating commonly held knowledge, but you're also not budging from a position of ignorance, tells me this isn't a healthy discussion with any sort of progression or resolve. It is simply beyond my responsibility to help you become a smarter man, that should hopefully be something you're motivated to achieve on your own.

So I apologize if I offended you, and good luck. I will no longer exhaust valuable time needlessly.

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The economic benefits of sports arenas and professional teams isn't something we have to rely on anecdote and speculation to reach a conclusion about. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of case studies, and the verdict is in: they provide little to no benefit. That's what the independent studies have concluded. Any other conclusions are wishful thinking or alternative facts.

As someone that lived in Winnipeg for the Jets 1.0, was there when they left Winnipeg and when they returned to Winnipeg, I can tell you that there is much more than the economic standpoint of things. When the Jets left, part of the soul of the city left with them and it was a different place to live. And since they have returned it brought people together, whether interested in hockey or not. There are intangibles of civic pride and social benefits that are provided by the Flames to this city. Not everything that counts can be measured. Do not take them for granted.

[socalwingfan]

As an outsider looking in - has this fiasco taken a big bite out of the playoff excitement? It seems to be there was not much energy in the dome last night, wondering if the timing of this has dampened the celebration?

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Simanium

As someone that lived in Winnipeg for the Jets 1.0, was there when they left Winnipeg and when they returned to Winnipeg, I can tell you that there is much more than the economic standpoint of things. When the Jets left, part of the soul of the city left with them and it was a different place to live. And since they have returned it brought people together, whether interested in hockey or not. There are intangibles of civic pride and social benefits that are provided by the Flames to this city. Not everything that counts can be measured. Do not take them for granted.

I can see this. I'm sure if you read my posts you can tell I am a strong believer that there are little to no economic benefits to the arena project, but nowhere do I dismiss the arena entirely. There absolutely are cultural benefits to a sports team, IMO. Sometimes those aren't always good (ie, fanaticism, rioting, in-grouping) but sometimes they are very good.

I would even goes as far to argue that the spiritual value of a sports franchise is greater than a lot of public service intangibles. But of course my argument couldn't go far because it could never be empirical. But hypothetically speaking, is a sports team more valuable than a film festival to a city? Is it more valuable than artwork?

Well anyone who remembers the Red Mile in the SCF saw a large percentage of the population dressed up universally in Red and celebrating in unity. I don't recall such a group taking place for any other type of event. You would have to be ignorant to suggest the Flames franchise don't serve a cultural value.

So like I mentioned before, if someone wants to argue "the Flames mean something to me, therefore I support public dollars", that's not something anyone else can refute and I can respect that. But when someone argues something measurable, such as "there's economic returns to putting public dollars towards the Flames", that's easily refuted. People who are arguing the latter because they are driven by the former, and then ignore empirical evidence refuting their argument, are not smart people anymore. At no point should one ignore truth and accept lies to support an agenda, no matter how important it might seem.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by socalwingfan

As an outsider looking in - has this fiasco taken a big bite out of the playoff excitement? It seems to be there was not much energy in the dome last night, wondering if the timing of this has dampened the celebration?

King only reopened this conversation because they made the playoffs. Everything about their actions right now are greasy.

[Frequitude]

So can we put to rest the idea that Nenshi and the city are just exercising the power of no and not countering or participating at all?

Basically it sounds like the Flames are still dead set on CalgaryNEXT and won't take the city's no for an answer. I wonder if they're even putting genuine effort into a Victoria Park alternative.