[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

Yup. And an excellent point.

In an age where private corporations do space better than NASA, why do we think we have to be tied to the age old stadium funding model that Edmonton went with?

Lots of options out there.

Call me skeptical the city is going to get as good a deal as was on the table with CSEC. Remember that whatever happens, as soon as this ends up being >$20MM more net to the city it will be a worse deal than just sticking to what was in place and absorbing the extra costs.

Pretty obvious here Gondek screwed up, and actually possibly CSEC too. This could be one of those lose lose scenarios due to huge egos.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Freeway

AEG and Oak View Group have been active equity partners in T-Mobile, UBS Arena and Climate Pledge Arena. And that's just in the past few years.

Lol is this a serious post?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Call me skeptical the city is going to get as good a deal as was on the table with CSEC. Remember that whatever happens, as soon as this ends up being >$20MM more net to the city it will be a worse deal than just sticking to what was in place and absorbing the extra costs.

Pretty obvious here Gondek screwed up, and actually possibly CSEC too. This could be one of those lose lose scenarios due to huge egos.

Was CSEC really the best partner to create a world class arena / events centre with anyway? I have more faith in the City leading these ventures given a pretty good track record with infrastructure projects, CPL, Studio Bell, etc. What is CSECs track record?

If the City can provide an ice surface and seating for the Flames, maybe that should be the extent of CSEC / City partnership. I don’t know who the right partner is, but I’d like it to be more equitable for those putting the money and resources in. If we pay $20m more and get a better deal from it, that’s better than what was on the table before.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Freeway

AEG and Oak View Group have been active equity partners in T-Mobile, UBS Arena and Climate Pledge Arena. And that's just in the past few years.

So could you expand on that? Seems that something like that is more for CSEC to pursue should they not be interested in running an arena.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Was CSEC really the best partner to create a world class arena / events centre with anyway? I have more faith in the City leading these ventures given a pretty good track record with infrastructure projects, CPL, Studio Bell, etc. What is CSECs track record?

If the City can provide an ice surface and seating for the Flames, maybe that should be the extent of CSEC / City partnership. I don’t know who the right partner is, but I’d like it to be more equitable for those putting the money and resources in. If we pay $20m more and get a better deal from it, that’s better than what was on the table before.

I think the answer to your question / my opinion is it depends on what date or timeframe we are talking about. Were they the best partner for the project since 2020, when the agreement was in place and everything scoped out?

Yes. It takes a crazy amount of work and fortitude to get to where both parties were at. Didn’t both sides reportedly already sink something like $10-20 MM into the project?

So I think they were but perhaps not when the project started or perhaps not in a couple years from now.

[Amethyst]

Because you've already put a little money into something is a terrible reason to keep going, if things aren't working out.

[The Yen Man]

So how exactly does the city come out ahead on this? They end up funding the whole thing, as well as bearing all the risks. Flames end up with leasing it, sell tickets and luxury boxes to their games as normal, and then can walk away once the arena gets old. Sounds like a great deal for the city lol.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Lol is this a serious post?

Actually yes it is. I hadn’t really thought about this before, but it’s effectively doing what Katz and CalgaryNext tried to do. The whole point of Katz’s demands and CalgaryNext was to be more about real estate versus a tenant of an arena. CSEC we’re just dopes about it with CalgaryNext because they proposed a terrible location and wanted the city to be on the hook for what could potentially be nearly $1B in site remediation costs, but that was their main hope; they want to diversify.

This would actually be amazing for the city, and if there was a brand new arena that the Flames then leased all they get is the operating revenue.

The money isn’t in the arena, it’s in the development around it. Everyone should be praying for this option to work out.

[Strange Brew]

The city can’t decide to cut CSEC out of the equation unilaterally. Are they planning to get the Coyotes to relocate here or something?

CSEC is the prime tenant and like it or not, there is no new arena without them on board.

[carmenshoes]

Don't the flames have a lease in the Saddledome? What happens when the lease is over?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by carmenshoes

Don't the flames have a lease in the Saddledome? What happens when the lease is over?

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The city can’t decide to cut CSEC out of the equation unilaterally. Are they planning to get the Coyotes to relocate here or something?

CSEC is the prime tenant and like it or not, there is no new arena without them on board.

By the same token, are CSEC planning on relocating to a better market than Calgary or something? And are they planning on getting the NHL Board of Governor's permission to do so?

I'm not sure which party has more leverage (I'm inclined to think it's the City), but there is certainly plenty of pressure on both parties to just get a deal done.

[taxbuster]

Part of the issue in designing a new rink is that it's not just a rink with seating...it needs to house exercise equipment, guest facilities, lounge for players and families etc etc...that needs intense cooperation from the Flames front office (ie CSEC). "Building" something without them would be stupid if they want them as tenants.

Good article in the Athletic on the competition in facilities (paywalled) and how it affects attracting free agents:
https://theathletic.com/3018496/2022...r-free-agents/

Gondek is out of her mind if she thinks that the City can build and design something and then go to the Flames and say "Here it is...how much are ya gonna pay us to rent it?".

[PeteMoss]

These negotiations really get some of you going eh. Everyone knows how this will end - the city and the Flames will get a deal. All of this is just posturing.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by getbak

No, of course they're not serious, same as any suggestion that they'll be redesigning the BMO because of this.

CSEC is out getting its shills to dance for them, so the city is doing the same. It's all just theatre.

Everyone knows where this is going, just like the other half dozen times in the last few years when CSEC has declared they were going to play at the Saddledome forever because the city doesn't like them.

This must be it. In a small/medium sized metro area it would be the pinnacle of stupidity for the city to essentially build an arena on spec without working with the only potential local tenant who could lease and fill the building on 1/3rd to 1/2 of the days of the year. That's how white elephants get born or worse yet an arena that's sub-optimal for the Flames long term and they leave anyway after 10-15 years leaving the city left paying the full operating costs on an underutilized arena.

This needs de-escalation in the public sphere, a bit of time to pass on and both party's need to give a concession somewhere to save face. Clearly by announcing that

"I would like to make sure that Calgarians understand that building an event centre is still a strategic direction of [city] council," Gondek said.

it's either acknowledging that the city itself needs an arena as much or nearly as much as the Flames do or there's really no intent on the city's part and it's simply theatre and Stephen Carter's way to try to create a narrative 3.5 years from now for the re-election campaign that it's entirely the Flames fault there's no replacement in the works for the Saddledome.

[Press Level]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

These negotiations really get some of you going eh. Everyone knows how this will end - the city and the Flames will get a deal. All of this is just posturing.

They have been posturing for over a decade. Unfortunately, each municipal election cycle seems to derail everything for a couple of years, then the parties start talking again, progress is made, then... another election.


At some point you have to pi** or get off the pot.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Actually yes it is. I hadn’t really thought about this before, but it’s effectively doing what Katz and CalgaryNext tried to do. The whole point of Katz’s demands and CalgaryNext was to be more about real estate versus a tenant of an arena. CSEC we’re just dopes about it with CalgaryNext because they proposed a terrible location and wanted the city to be on the hook for what could potentially be nearly $1B in site remediation costs, but that was their main hope; they want to diversify.

This would actually be amazing for the city, and if there was a brand new arena that the Flames then leased all they get is the operating revenue.

The money isn’t in the arena, it’s in the development around it. Everyone should be praying for this option to work out.

Calgary is not New York or Las Vegas...my issue was with the comparisons. Honestly I can't see it, Calgary isn't exactly on the rise right now.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

These negotiations really get some of you going eh. Everyone knows how this will end - the city and the Flames will get a deal. All of this is just posturing.

I'm actually not convinced. I think we have a serious ego problem right now.

Also if you've ever dealt with a Murray Edwards company before, 'unreasonable' is a kind way to put business dealings with them. So it'll come down to the city budging, which doesn't look like it's in the cards here.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Calgary is not New York or Las Vegas...my issue was with the comparisons. Honestly I can't see it, Calgary isn't exactly on the rise right now.

It is in the short term for sure. Long term, not sure.

Have you been following oil?

Also- can we build buildings that last more than 40 years? Seriously if this much public money must be spent, make it last.

[Monahammer]

Calgary not on the rise... hm.

http://blog.oxfordeconomics.com/cont...-more-moderate

Someone better tell oxford economics that.