Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I know we've been over this a million times, but after every visit I make to the current 'dome, the more I think there is absolutely no rush to do this. I see no reason we shouldn't try to get 50 years out of the current facility, and another 50 out of the next one.

That said, figure out a ticket tax NOW, and start building at least some funds.

You can't start a ticket tax now. 50% of it would be HRR.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Oh good. I am glad Gord Gillies spoke up. I wonder when Lesley Horton will weigh in.

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Gord Gillies - LOL

Look everyone, the breakfast show guy wants a new arena deal.

Im just playing catch up, but not sure why Gord Gillies is just a big LOL. Guy has been a proud Calgarian for a long time, and in the media. I guess only certain members of the press can comment then?

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You're aware that in the last poll about the new arena, almost 50% of people want the city to stand firm on their current offer right? The Flames obviously want no part of said offer, but the plurality of the city wants them to come down off what they want, not for the city to start caving. With the clock now ticking on Bill Smith's donor list becoming public, it's really the Flames who need to be extending olive branches, because that nearly 50% number could easily become nearly 65% or more once we see the donor list.

But if they really are dead set on the Edmonton deal at a minimum (and based off what we've seen reported, they want even more than that), they probably will wait until 2021 and hope Bill Smith Jr or Bill Smith III or whoever wants to hand them an arena gets another crack at becoming mayor.

Also, as always has to be asked, you are cool with the guaranteed 20% at a minimum price increase in the new arena right? Cause if not, ummm, yeah...

Okay so 50% want to stand firm, leaving the other 50%...?

Also, who cares who the Flames backed in the election? How is it any different then any lobby or interest groups throughout the history of democracy? I never said it is right, but its not like its illegal.

Do I have problem paying more to get this done, as someone who will use the facility...not at all. Curious where you got the guaranteed 20% though.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

He has extended an olive branch and said he is always willing to get back to the table and negotiate. I don't know what more he can do that doesn't screw over the tax payers.

Originally Posted by Parallex

what do you consider an "olive branch"? The owners walked away, the city says they'll be welcomed back to the table when they want to sit back down... the standing invite back to the table is an olive branch. Especially after the Flames failed in their rather transparent attempt to strong-arm council through the ballot box. The Flames left the table, the onus is on them to come back to it.

Okay, my last post to catch up to the replies. But other then a quick comment following the election win, what dialog has there been?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Jbo

Okay, my last post to catch up to the replies. But other then a quick comment following the election win, what dialog has there been?

This is one of the opinions I dont understand. The flames are the ones who walked away from negotiations when they didn't get their way right away. The City has always been there, ready to talk. The impetus is on the flames to make that dialogue, not the city.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You're aware that in the last poll about the new arena, almost 50% of people want the city to stand firm on their current offer right? The Flames obviously want no part of said offer, but the plurality of the city wants them to come down off what they want, not for the city to start caving. With the clock now ticking on Bill Smith's donor list becoming public, it's really the Flames who need to be extending olive branches, because that nearly 50% number could easily become nearly 65% or more once we see the donor list.

But if they really are dead set on the Edmonton deal at a minimum (and based off what we've seen reported, they want even more than that), they probably will wait until 2021 and hope Bill Smith Jr or Bill Smith III or whoever wants to hand them an arena gets another crack at becoming mayor.

Also, as always has to be asked, you are cool with the guaranteed 20% at a minimum price increase in the new arena right? Cause if not, ummm, yeah...

Are you sure you know what plurality means?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

You can't start a ticket tax now. 50% of it would be HRR.

Why would a ticket tax now be HRR (and also why 50% of it), but a ticket tax on a new arena wouldn't be?

[PepsiFree]

Has anybody mentioned libraries and bike lanes yet?

[CaptainCrunch]

I doubt that we'll see any meaningful negotiations for the next 3 or 4 years. The Flames backed themselves into a bit of a corner by making the strong statement that they won't pursue a new arena, and my feeling is that they won't. They're going to let this stew for a few years, and then start with the courting of other cities, and the Bettman will release statements saying that the NHL would be ok with pursuing a new venue that's not Calgary.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Has anybody mentioned libraries and bike lanes yet?

Sadly yes, since for some reason stuff that the City funds that is free for all citizens to use is somehow the same as stuff that the City funds that the citizens are gouged if they want to use.

As a side note, I happily donated a few hundred to the library because a) I use it a lot, and b) the "Windows of Opportunity" was actually a very cool fund-raising idea. Maybe the CSEC should get some pointers on how to pique private citizen's desire to fund them.

Hey CSEC - how about a 25% off any events for anybody who can prove they're a Calgary citizen who helped pay for the arena? I doubt that will go over well, since they'd have to give that discount to everybody, despite their claims that the arena will bring it tons of people and their money from outside to drive the local economy.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

You can't start a ticket tax now. 50% of it would be HRR.

What if it was a facility fee that goes into a account held by the City of Calgary?

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Has anybody mentioned libraries and bike lanes yet?

(sshh, don't let on that the projected arena cost is double the library and bike lane costs combined. You'll really trigger the blue-collars.)

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I doubt that we'll see any meaningful negotiations for the next 3 or 4 years. The Flames backed themselves into a bit of a corner by making the strong statement that they won't pursue a new arena, and my feeling is that they won't. They're going to let this stew for a few years, and then start with the courting of other cities, and the Bettman will release statements saying that the NHL would be ok with pursuing a new venue that's not Calgary.

The longer this drags out, the more benefit to taxpayers - at least in the short term.

When I go to the Saddledome, (it has been about 4 years), I do not see a decrepit building desperate for replacement. It seems like a very nice building. I am not convinced that it needs replacing. McMahon, on the other hand, is showing its age much more so, but that's another point altogether.

The Saddledome was built in 1983, but it has seen massive reno dollars to improve the facility over the years. I don't see why the rink needs replacing, and the longer it stands, the better.

One day a new arena will need to be built, and hopefully it will last more than 35 years. I'd think a minimum of 50 years should be the expectation of the huge amount of infrastructure dollars that it takes to build.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Sadly yes, since for some reason stuff that the City funds that is free for all citizens to use is somehow the same as stuff that the City funds that the citizens are gouged if they want to use.



...

Just wondering - how about the city funding things that make the city better...

Sure, there is a value to libraries and bridges and art... obviously different people put different values on those things personally, but it's fair to say they add to what Calgary is on one level or another, so let's leave that alone.

The reality is that a new arena/center/whatever (and the Flames as well) also add something to what this city is. Some people think more, and some think less, but we are still talking about the fabric of what Calgary is.

Guess I'm less concerned about being free to use for everyone and more concerned about Calgary overall.

Just me, of course, but then again I do make use of the current facility and would expect to make use of the new one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jbo

Okay so 50% want to stand firm, leaving the other 50%...?

Also, who cares who the Flames backed in the election? How is it any different then any lobby or interest groups throughout the history of democracy? I never said it is right, but its not like its illegal.

Do I have problem paying more to get this done, as someone who will use the facility...not at all. Curious where you got the guaranteed 20% though.

Well the general public will care if it ends up looking like the Flames tried to buy the mayor's office so they could be given a handout. Suffice to say that's not going to bring more people on side with folding to the Flames. And I believe the number was 39% want the city to budge, so it's not an even split. Those undecideds likely become strong city supporters if the donor list goes how most of us think it will.

A 20% increase is just what we've seen in most other markets. The Flames of course aren't opening a new barn to not make much more money. There's scenarios where the increase could be massive.

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Are you sure you know what plurality means?

Unless I am forgetting the poll number, 48% is indeed the plurality. So yeah I do, thanks for asking.

[corporatejay]

I liked the gillies article but this:

But there are ways to make it more affordable. For four years I owned a quarter share of season tickets in section 223. A pair of second level seats for 11 games added up to about $1200 a season or $100 a month.

I could fit that into my budget. I’ve also sat in the “press” level (nose bleed!) seats a few times and it can be more fun there than any cushy club seat. I do appreciate that even a night out there with family can add up in a real hurry.


I'm not sure he a) understands that 1200 a season is a lot of money for a large percentage of calgarians; and b) tickets in the bleeds for a family of 4, with food can add up to 2-300 dollars.

[CaptainCrunch]

There's no reason for the Flames to really do anything but sit on this.

They can wait to see if the City is going in on a proper Olympic bid and let the city build the needed facility and they just become a tenant.

They can sit back and either ramp up the selling to an outsider talk, or actually sell to an outsider and leave the negotiations to them.

But these owners are not going to go crawling back to Nenshi its just not going to happen.

We're at a 3 or 4 year impasse and then maybe cooler heads will prevail and get things done, or the team leaves shortly after that and we go without an NHL team until a new rink is built

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

The longer this drags out, the more benefit to taxpayers - at least in the short term.

When I go to the Saddledome, (it has been about 4 years), I do not see a decrepit building desperate for replacement. It seems like a very nice building. I am not convinced that it needs replacing. McMahon, on the other hand, is showing its age much more so, but that's another point altogether.

The Saddledome was built in 1983, but it has seen massive reno dollars to improve the facility over the years. I don't see why the rink needs replacing, and the longer it stands, the better.

One day a new arena will need to be built, and hopefully it will last more than 35 years. I'd think a minimum of 50 years should be the expectation of the huge amount of infrastructure dollars that it takes to build.

Replacing the Saddledome is a luxury at this point as the building is still very serviceable as you say. What does it say about modern construction, concept design etc if these mega-structures cannot hold up against time for more than 35 years? An adult in today's society should not be outliving the life span of 2 NHL buildings in the same city.

This is exactly the culture of fatcat entitlement our city needs to stand up against in these negotiations. Edmonton caved in a big way and Calgary is in hard place because of it but this doesn't mean our city can't take a stand.

[thymebalm]

There is absolutely no point in returning to the table until the Olympics are sorted out.

If Calgary is bidding, and likely to win - then we can start talking again.

For now enjoy the heroine beers at the iconic dome, and hope the team starts to play like it was built.

[Table 5]

One thing CSEC has to keep in mind, is that if Calgary does get the Olympics, the needs and wants of the Flames will most likely be secondary to the event itself. While there will most likely be more federal/provincial funds to build something, I doubt that the Flames influence and control of the project, and what's built around it, will be higher than what they potentially have now.