Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-13-2017, 02:00 PM   #41
GullFoss
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce View Post
So describe it as a loan, with the city picking up the interest.
Accuracy is important
Exactly - Nenshi is saying the city offered to fund 1/3. Its actually only offered to fund about 1/9th.
GullFoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:02 PM   #42
Table 5
Franchise Player
 
Table 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
Exp:
Default

I'd be curious to see what a typical ticket surcharge like this amounts to. I think it's a fair way to put the onus on those who use the arena, but am curious what these tend to run. What is the typical charge in Edmonton?
Table 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:02 PM   #43
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss View Post
Except conceptually, the flames aren't asking for a loan. They're asking for a financial contribution from the public at large in order to finance a piece of infrastructure that has a public benefit component.
Sure. Show me the component that benefits the public.

I'm pretty sure thats all the Mayor has asked for. Show it.

Splitting the cost into thirds seems like a more than fair deal, but talks have broken down over that?
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:04 PM   #44
GullFoss
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5 View Post
I'd be curious to see what a typical ticket surcharge like this amounts to. I think it's a fair way to put the onus on those who use the arena, but am curious what these tend to run. What is the typical charge in Edmonton?
Based on some back of the envelope math its about $7-10/ticket in year one, and increases at roughly 3-5% annually.
GullFoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:05 PM   #45
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss View Post
Exactly - Nenshi is saying the city offered to fund 1/3. Its actually only offered to fund about 1/9th.
No. Its fronting 2/3rds and asking for a repayment.

Honestly, and maybe I'm in the minority on this, I always wanted the City to help pay for the arena and then be in a position to get a percentage of the profits.

Neither side here is a Charity.
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:05 PM   #46
Tyler
Franchise Player
 
Tyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Scrum from today:

Tyler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tyler For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:06 PM   #47
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5 View Post
I'd be curious to see what a typical ticket surcharge like this amounts to. I think it's a fair way to put the onus on those who use the arena, but am curious what these tend to run. What is the typical charge in Edmonton?
You don't ever see it I don't believe. Prices for tickets went up like 20-60% depending where you sit. Lots of options don't exist anymore (like nosebleeds). Pay more for isle seats etc.

There are now 38 price points at the arena.
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:06 PM   #48
EldrickOnIce
Franchise Player
 
EldrickOnIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss View Post
Exactly - Nenshi is saying the city offered to fund 1/3. Its actually only offered to fund about 1/9th.
And if that's their offer, so be it. I'm not saying it should be 1/3 or any amount.
But for Nenshi to say city offered to pay 1/3 of the cost is disingenuous at least, and more accurately a big fat lie.
EldrickOnIce is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:09 PM   #49
kermitology
It's not easy being green!
 
kermitology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the tubes
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce View Post
And if that's their offer, so be it. I'm not saying it should be 1/3 or any amount.
But for Nenshi to say city offered to pay 1/3 of the cost is disingenuous at least, and more accurately a big fat lie.
By that same line, the owners aren't fronting 1/3 the cost either since they get to recoup that cost from ticket sales. For the life of me, I don't understand why it's unreasonable for the city to be repaid for their financial investment.

In what loan transaction is that not an expectation?
__________________
Who are the people in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired?
kermitology is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to kermitology For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:09 PM   #50
GullFoss
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
Sure. Show me the component that benefits the public.

I'm pretty sure thats all the Mayor has asked for. Show it.

Splitting the cost into thirds seems like a more than fair deal, but talks have broken down over that?
The larger the public benefit, the more the city should fund. No public benefit? city pays 0%. All public benefit? city pays 100%. This is clearly somewhere in between.

And the city offered the equivalent of 11%, so clearly the city sees some public benefit. It just doesn't seen enough to justify a 33% spending rate.

My point is that Nenshi should say so. Instead, he's saying the city has offered 33%, when it clearly has not. Its disingenuous
GullFoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to GullFoss For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:09 PM   #51
Thunderball
#1 Goaltender
 
Thunderball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
Sure. Show me the component that benefits the public.

I'm pretty sure thats all the Mayor has asked for. Show it.

Splitting the cost into thirds seems like a more than fair deal, but talks have broken down over that?
I suspect the Flames see one public benefit as agreeing to remain the anchor tenant of Victoria Park and spurring the entertainment/bar district that the City and the Stampede desperately want. I think the Flames expect that the City recoups their investment from those new businesses/condos/etc.

I think the 1/3 model is pretty reasonable for all sides, but the sticking point is who repays the City and as others have pointed out, that's a 9 digit spread.

I think the Flames should have some role there, but I think if the City wants Victoria Park to not be a barren wasteland between Stampede Park and East Village, they have to ante up more than an interest free loan that the Flames alone are on the hook to repay.
Thunderball is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thunderball For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:14 PM   #52
GullFoss
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology View Post
By that same line, the owners aren't fronting 1/3 the cost either since they get to recoup that cost from ticket sales.
If there was no ticket tax, the flames would simply charge higher ticket prices. So, the ticket tax is being fully funded by the flames.

Also, its is misconception that the city is putting up the initial funding for a ticket tax. The way a ticket tax works is that the flames take out a loan for 1/3 of the arena cost ($200m). And the ticket tax funds the interest on that loan and the principal repayment over a 30 year period.

The flames might ask the city to guarantee the loan so the flames get a lower interest rate, but the flames are the ones paying the interest and repaying the principal
GullFoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:17 PM   #53
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss View Post
Also, its is misconception that the city is putting up the initial funding for a ticket tax. The way a ticket tax works is that the flames take out a loan for 1/3 of the arena cost ($200m). And the ticket tax funds the interest on that loan and the principal repayment over a 30 year period.
That's not how it was pitched for CalgaryNext. The way it was pitched for CalgaryNext was that the Flames preferred to have the Ticket tax fronted by the City.

Frankly... I'm surprised that the NHLPA hasn't publicly complained about ticket taxes. That's money that would otherwise be HRR being taken out of their pockets.
__________________
Ken King should be fired.

Last edited by Parallex; 09-13-2017 at 02:20 PM.
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:18 PM   #54
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology View Post
By that same line, the owners aren't fronting 1/3 the cost either since they get to recoup that cost from ticket sales. For the life of me, I don't understand why it's unreasonable for the city to be repaid for their financial investment.

In what loan transaction is that not an expectation?
What is fronted, and what is ultimately paid by each side is not going to be the same thing. That obviously is a point of contention between the two.

Also, the Flames clearly are clearly looking for a level of straight public funding, not just a loan, so that is a second point.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:19 PM   #55
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce View Post
And if that's their offer, so be it. I'm not saying it should be 1/3 or any amount.
But for Nenshi to say city offered to pay 1/3 of the cost is disingenuous at least, and more accurately a big fat lie.
I don't get your math. I get that you're trying to make Nenshi look as bad as possible, but I just don't see how you're doing it.

You're saying that only the financing portion is the part that's being given by the City. Using the same math, how much are the Flames putting in?

If the City is putting in 1/9th of the cost, as you suggest, who is putting in the other 8/9ths?
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:19 PM   #56
calf
broke the first rule
 
calf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
Sure. Show me the component that benefits the public.

I'm pretty sure thats all the Mayor has asked for. Show it.

Splitting the cost into thirds seems like a more than fair deal, but talks have broken down over that?
Exactly. "Civic Pride" and "Economic Activity" aren't tangible for the municipal government as an entity. If the Flames say it will happen like they say it will, then show your cards. Prove it, but I don't think they can. And the city being so quick and willing to release the offers should demonstrate that.
calf is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to calf For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:20 PM   #57
Bunk
Franchise Player
 
Bunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss View Post
Since it likely will get buried in the other thread

Calgary arena deal scuttled over tax exemption, recouping city investment: Sources

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...g-sources.html
They are saying things like could be a rent deal, or property tax (from just the arena, the district it spurs) - it seems they're flexible to how that recovery happens over time and through what mechanism. So keep talking and hash it out - why is one side stomping its feet and walking away? These don't seem like insurmountable obstacles. I'll be curious to see more detail.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Bunk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:25 PM   #58
GullFoss
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk View Post
They are saying things like could be a rent deal, or property tax (from just the arena, the district it spurs) - it seems they're flexible to how that recovery happens over time and through what mechanism. So keep talking and hash it out - why is one side stomping its feet and walking away? These don't seem like insurmountable obstacles. I'll be curious to see more detail.
Yeah I dont get it either...

The flames pitched 1/3 city , 1/3 tix tax, 1/3 flames
The city countered wtih 1/9 city, 1/3 tix tax, 5/9 flames

And the flames came back with "NO MORE NEGOTIATING; WERE DONE HERE!!!"
GullFoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GullFoss For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:26 PM   #59
EldrickOnIce
Franchise Player
 
EldrickOnIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology View Post
By that same line, the owners aren't fronting 1/3 the cost either since they get to recoup that cost from ticket sales. For the life of me, I don't understand why it's unreasonable for the city to be repaid for their financial investment.

In what loan transaction is that not an expectation?
I have no problem with that. Then call it what it is... an interest free 30 year loan. Don't say you are paying for 1/3 of the project.
EldrickOnIce is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 02:26 PM   #60
GreenLantern2814
Franchise Player
 
GreenLantern2814's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss View Post
Yeah I dont get it either...

The flames pitched 1/3 city , 1/3 tix tax, 1/3 flames
The city countered wtih 1/9 city, 1/3 tix tax, 5/9 flames

And the flames came back with "NO MORE NEGOTIATING; WERE DONE HERE!!!"
How are you arriving at 1/9th? I'm a history grad, math isn't my thing.
GreenLantern2814 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:23 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016