[News] Islanders arena bid selected for Belmont Park

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Yoho

How does that argue his point?

Just because private investors can build an arena in New York City and expect to make money, does not mean they could do so in Calgary. I'd have thought that was blatantly obvious.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Just because private investors can build an arena in New York City and expect to make money, does not mean they could do so in Calgary. I'd have thought that was blatantly obvious.

I didn't realize they were demolishing Madison Square Garden, Barclay's Center, Met Life Stadium, Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, Radio City Music Hall, Apollo Theater, and the other major venues to host events in the MTA of New York.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Just because private investors can build an arena in New York City and expect to make money, does not mean they could do so in Calgary. I'd have thought that was blatantly obvious.

Doesn’t sound like it’s blatlenty obvious to anyone, especially city hall.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I didn't realize they were demolishing Madison Square Garden, Barclay's Center, Met Life Stadium, Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, Radio City Music Hall, Apollo Theater, and the other major venues to host events in the MTA of New York.

When Barclays Center was built with private money, I suppose you said you didn't realize they were demolishing Madison Square Garden, Met Life Stadium, Yankee Stadium, etc., etc. When Billboard magazine reported that Barclays surpassed MSG as the highest-grossing venue for non-sporting events in the United States, they were obviously lying, because clearly there can only be enough business for one arena in a town. I defer to your superior knowledge.

Clearly one large venue for all events, indoor and outdoor, ought to be sufficient for the City of New York; and all the venues that exist are perfectly interchangeable and any business done by one must necessarily be robbed from another.

Obviously there can be no business for an 18,000-seat arena with an NHL team for an anchor tenant, when the Islanders could just as easily play hockey games on the stage of the 1,500-seat Apollo Theater, or in the 6,000-seat Radio City Music Hall. And clearly an outdoor venue like a baseball park is perfect for all the kinds of events that are held in indoor arenas. This must be so, or you would not have mentioned those places in your list as if they were the same kind of venue as a hockey arena.

The fact is that none of those venues are as easily accessible to the three million residents of Long Island outside NYC as the Belmont arena will be. And there is not enough arena space in the city to hold all the events that could profitably be held there. MSG is host to about 350 events per year, and Barclays Center approached 200 in its first year, before the Islanders moved there. The management of Barclays are turfing the Islanders out, in part, because they can make more money by holding other events there on the 40-odd nights that the Islanders have been taking out of their schedule. Both Barclays and MSG are turning away numerous events, which the owners of the Belmont group hope to book and make money on.

Why, it's almost as if a metropolitan area of 20 million people can furnish bigger crowds on more occasions, and at higher ticket prices too, than a provincial town of 1.4 million. Who ever would have guessed?

[Bunk]

Let’s be clear, the Flames owners can finance this arena on their own, they just don’t want to.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Let’s be clear, the Flames owners can finance this arena on their own, they just don’t want to.

Your point is likely true. Does that mean they should? This actually has nothing to do with whether they can finance this on their own, or even whether they could still be profitable if they did.

It has to do with what the right move is from a business perspective based on the specific situation. And this is where it gets muddy for people. If the city feels it's in the cities best interest to let the Flames leave and not build a new arena at any point down the road unless it's completely funded by private business, because they don't see the value, then it should be all on the Flames owners to pay for it. If the cities vision for Calgary includes an arena and a full time major league tenant occupying that building, and would pursue such a venture and try to attract another team here if the Flames didn't exist, then they have stake in this project and should be paying for some.

It's that simple. It actually has nothing to do with what is or isn't possible from the ownership point of view, it has to do with what this specific situation dictates is the right business move (for both the owners and the city). You don't become wealthy enough to own a hockey team by simply doing things because you can "afford it", you get that way by making the proper business deals.

[NiklasSundblad]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

It has to do with what the right move is from a business perspective based on the specific situation. And this is where it gets muddy for people. If the city feels it's in the cities best interest to let the Flames leave and not build a new arena at any point down the road unless it's completely funded by private business, because they don't see the value, then it should be all on the Flames owners to pay for it. If the cities vision for Calgary includes an arena and a full time major league tenant occupying that building, and would pursue such a venture and try to attract another team here if the Flames didn't exist, then they have stake in this project and should be paying for some.

Nothing in this paragraph represents reality in any way.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad

Nothing in this paragraph represents reality in any way.

Happy to hear out your point of view with some of reasons to back up that opinion.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jaydub74

Interesting information and great renderings, looks like an awesome project and arena.

I can't image the Flames are thrilled with resent announcements made by both Seattle and New York. Two arena projects, with private funding. I don't see any way the City backs away from its position now.

The Flames will probably do as they said, "do nothing" and try and wait this thing out but by all appearances, if the Flames want a new arena they're going to be building it themselves.

Were you aware that the Isles moved to Barclays and Wang ultimately sold his majority to the minority shareholders because he couldn't get an arena/development deal with Nassau public money included?

The Belmont Park development is going to be huge and has a lot more profit centres than just the arena (which in turn has a lot more profit generators than just hockey). It's got a hotel, entertainment district, and offices. All of which will be owned by the developers. That's a whole different animal than the Vic Park concept.

[sureLoss]

This deal also hurts the Nassau Coliseum which is a county owned facility and just had a $260 million renovation completed. Lucky for the taxpayers that renovation was privately funded, but what is not so lucky is that 8% of the gross revenues, 12.75% of parking revenues, and $4 million per year in rent over a 34 year lease was going to the county.

Once the Belmont arena is built ~8 km away from Nassau Coliseum, the county now has a 2nd tier building. Would not be surprised if the lease agreement needs to be reworked or even if it leads to the demolition of the Coliseum.

[JBR]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

This deal also hurts the Nassau Coliseum which is a county owned facility and just had a $260 million renovation completed. Lucky for the taxpayers that renovation was privately funded, but what is not so lucky is that 8% of the gross revenues, 12.75% of parking revenues, and $4 million per year in rent over a 34 year lease was going to the county.

Once the Belmont arena is built ~8 km away from Nassau Coliseum, the county now has a 2nd tier building. Would not be surprised if the lease agreement needs to be reworked or even if it leads to the demolition of the Coliseum.

2 arenas eh?

The New York IslandFlames..?

[NiklasSundblad]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Happy to hear out your point of view with some of reasons to back up that opinion.

Do I really need to reiterate the arena drama timeline from the autumn?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

If the cities vision for Calgary includes an arena and a full time major league tenant occupying that building, and would pursue such a venture and try to attract another team here if the Flames didn't exist, then they have stake in this project and should be paying for some.

They have offered to pay for some, a significant some at that... unless what you're doing is towing the CSEC party line that they (CSEC) should be exempt from the same capital costs and taxes that every other business in the city pays.

Sorry, I don't accept CSEC ludicrous position that *gasp* paying taxes means they're paying for more then everything. The Flames dress it up in language of "partnership" but they have a seriously disturbing vision of partnership where any money they put in counts as investment but the only thing that counts as investment for anyone else is what they lose.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Were you aware that the Isles moved to Barclays and Wang ultimately sold his majority to the minority shareholders because he couldn't get an arena/development deal with Nassau public money included?

The Belmont Park development is going to be huge and has a lot more profit centres than just the arena (which in turn has a lot more profit generators than just hockey). It's got a hotel, entertainment district, and offices. All of which will be owned by the developers. That's a whole different animal than the Vic Park concept.

It doesn't have to be. If additional revenue from ancillary development is what's really needed or desired, I'm sure that's a point of negotiation that could easily be discussed.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

This deal also hurts the Nassau Coliseum which is a county owned facility and just had a $260 million renovation completed. Lucky for the taxpayers that renovation was privately funded, but what is not so lucky is that 8% of the gross revenues, 12.75% of parking revenues, and $4 million per year in rent over a 34 year lease was going to the county.

Once the Belmont arena is built ~8 km away from Nassau Coliseum, the county now has a 2nd tier building. Would not be surprised if the lease agreement needs to be reworked or even if it leads to the demolition of the Coliseum.

And that arena is run by the Barclay's folks, ironically.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It doesn't have to be. If additional revenue from ancillary development is what's really needed or desired, I'm sure that's a point of negotiation that could easily be discussed.

It was discussed... the Flames wanted municipal property tax exemptions (and for the city to provide reimbursement on the provincial portion)...

I have zero interest in allowing the Flames to socialize the cost of doing business while wholly privatizing the profit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It doesn't have to be. If additional revenue from ancillary development is what's really needed or desired, I'm sure that's a point of negotiation that could easily be discussed.

The Belmont Park area is going to be completely owned and run by the development group, so they get 100% of the net revenues, I believe. What remains unclear is the rent/taxes to the county.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad

Do I really need to reiterate the arena drama timeline from the autumn?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

No you don't, but then why offer up you baseless one liner? If you don't want to go there, then actually don't go there, but that's not what you did.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Let’s be clear, the Flames owners can finance this arena on their own, they just don’t want to.

It would be an incredibly foolish investment on my part but I could finance a $100k sports car. Since I'm smart I don't want to. Some of the privately financed NHL arenas have not worked out well just look at what happened to the Gilletts.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Parallex

They have offered to pay for some, a significant some at that... unless what you're doing is towing the CSEC party line that they (CSEC) should be exempt from the same capital costs and taxes that every other business in the city pays.

Sorry, I don't accept CSEC ludicrous position that *gasp* paying taxes means they're paying for more then everything. The Flames dress it up in language of "partnership" but they have a seriously disturbing vision of partnership where any money they put in counts as investment but the only thing that counts as investment for anyone else is what they lose.

I'm not towing any line. The city wants and needs this arena, the Flames want and need this arena. When you look at the costs all in, no matter what format or source they come from, my only belief is that the city and the Flames both have very very significant stake, desire and needs for this project, so both should be paying.

I don't think either side has come with reasonable proposals (that we've heard yet) and the truth is I do actually feel the CSEC evaluation of the cities 1/3 a 1/3 a 1/3 proposal was closer to accurate than how the mayor articulated it, but that doesn't mean that I'm on board with the CSEC statements or angles either.

A lot of propaganda to date from both sides, but it's just easier for the City to articulate and gain sympathy for their argument, because the private business vs. public entity is a very polarizing and easy argument to make that works in their favor, which makes any point of view that suggests the city might have more to gain from this seem like a very pro CSEC point of view.