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

[KipperFaNaTic]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Literally this is how 99% of the outside world currently recognizes Calgary, and a new arena or having an NHL team doesn't change that. That you personally value a city on it's sports teams, arenas, or lack thereof, is on you. Calgary could have the greatest arena in human history and 99% of the outside world will still view Calgary as the city with the Stampede and the stop before Banff.

Slightly disagree. In my opinion, the Flames do put Calgary on the map. I have a friend in Austria who mainly knows Calgary because of the Flames.

I agree with you that without the Flames, Calgary will still thrive, but it would be a blow to Calgary's international standing. Would you know Jacksonville if not for the Jaguars?

[ComixZone]

Crazy that Gondek blew this deal over some sidewalks and her “climate emergency” grandstanding. Flames were taking on the actual building cost increases, yet Gondek felt the need to kill hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment in the city.

How disappointing.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why does it seem unlikely? It’s the most likely solution in any sale scenario, still below CSEC and the city just working it out.

A new ownership group would have zero requirement to continue on with this arena at this time. They may feel it completely reasonable to play out of the dome while prices stabilise and design their own arena in conjunction with the city.

Discounting it as unlikely is meaningless. It’s more likely than relocation in any scenario.

Whose going to buy the team to stay at the Saddledome? The price would have to be super cheap at which point someone from another city would easily beat the offer.

[TorqueDog]

Well, someone sure called it when it was announced....

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Aside from being a stupid, meaningless bit of moral grandstanding, that approach actually concerns the hell out of me. In the lower mainland, having everything the municipality does filtered through the lens of "climate emergency" language really just hurts people who aren't already settled. Try to get a house built there and the changes to building code explicitly for climate-change-oriented reasons has basically increased the cost of building to approximately double what it was ten years ago, in exchange for dubious or negligible environmental impact. You see municipalities demanding that solar panels be installed on city buildings even when the costs and recovered energy don't justify it because they want to "set an example". It is not a good mode for a municipal government to be in.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...64#post8032264

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yeah I'm not a fan of Murray Edwards the person...but all this talk of better ownership, and finally having a good ownership group is quite ridiculous.

These guys stepped up to save this team when nobody else wanted to, continue to spend to the cap every season, try to put a good product on the ice, and actually were willing to put more of their own money into a rink than Katz and the ownership group in Edmonton.

Really in the end I think the deal the city came to with the Flames was quite fair, especially with the Flames covering cost overruns.

Trying to add these additional costs is a bad move by the city IMO. They had a deal that was fair for both sides, and won the battle in July when the Flames agreed to cover cost overruns. This is the city getting greedy at this point IMO.

I have no love lost for the Flames ownership group and never thought I'd side with them in leveraging public funds to improve their franchise value, but the original deal was a 50/50 split of cost. For the city to repeatedly add extras onto the equation and to not continue to honor this arrangement is not a good look. Especially considering it should have been in the discussions a few months ago.

Amusing the city still allows real estate developers to pay for next to nothing relating to roadways and utilities compared to other significant cities but needs to throw the screws to CSEC for this latest straw breaking the camels back.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Isn't the climate change piece of this increase in costs a bit of a red herring? Instead of placing panels on the roof of the building, couldn't the Flames commit to buying "green power" on the open market vs trying to generate their own? You get to the same goals without incurring the capital cost.

Besides, I think it'd be far most cost effective to generate solar power at a dedicated facility in Southern AB vs trying to do it on the roof of a new arena. Or is this more about the optics of having panels on the roof?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Crazy that Gondek blew this deal over some sidewalks and her “climate emergency” grandstanding. Flames were taking on the actual building cost increases, yet Gondek felt the need to kill hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment in the city.

How disappointing.

She had nothing to do with it. It was discussed with Administration and happened prior to her even being elected Mayor. And as Cllr Dhaliwall and Cllr Wong stated in the press conference, the Approval Authority, Calgary Planning Commission heard the application Nov 18, and no concerns were raised, and the applicant were supportive, even "boasting" about those climate mitigation conditions. Again, even if they had buyers remorse post approval, they could have appealed.

Even Further, The Mayor has offered, and offered again to seek provincial and federal funding to cover those costs. The structure of the condition enables that to happen.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Crazy that Gondek blew this deal over some sidewalks and her “climate emergency” grandstanding. Flames were taking on the actual building cost increases, yet Gondek felt the need to kill hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment in the city.

How disappointing.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Well, someone sure called it when it was announced....

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I have no love lost for the Flames ownership group and never thought I'd side with them in leveraging public funds to improve their franchise value, but the original deal was a 50/50 split of cost. For the city to repeatedly add extras onto the equation and to not continue to honor this arrangement is not a good look. Especially considering it should have been in the discussions a few months ago.

Amusing the city still allows real estate developers to pay for next to nothing relating to roadways and utilities compared to other significant cities but needs to throw the screws to CSEC for this latest straw breaking the camels back.

This makes me think of this:



Granted, Flames just took their ball and went home...

[curves2000]

A few points on my end as a fan, citizen, a business person and someone who cares about the team, the city and our overall way of life.

You can only push businesses so much before they just balk at ever increasing costs associated with government run or mandated projects/regulations etc. Sooner or later they will just say no and the issue seems to be partially that from ownership perspective.

From a pure business point of view, ownership did agree contractually absorb any additional construction related costs and those costs have increased significantly and may well continue to do so. I don't see things materially improving in the next year or two as global economies will be roaring back from Covid. This is a business decision that clearly didn't work out for ownership. If the situation was reversed, ownership would hold a contractor or the city liable.

At the end of the day, this is about revenue generation and that is it. The Flames ownership NEEDS a new rink for this own business purposes. On a recent article describing the financial hit to capacity limits and Canadian markets, Elliot Friedman said that a team like Toronto generates $3.5 million in average home game revenue, Oilers about $2.3 million and Calgary $1.4. Different markets for sure but the picture is painted. This also occurs with concerts, trade shows, other events and more at these arenas. The Flames ownership will benefit financially from their new building both in franchise values, revenue for all associated events, real estate holdings around development and a lot more. They have a significantly higher business need for that building than your average taxpayer and fan.

To those who are concerned with relocation and such, that really doesn't seem to be a real risk at this stage. Gary Bettman recently said in regards to the Arizona market that all NHL clubs are healthy and doing great. If they continue to allow Arizona to be the tire fire that it is and a hole host of other financially cash strapped teams, Flames ownership will continue to do well in Calgary with their specific deal at the Dome for the foreseeable future.

I have zero issue with the city actually paying for the remainder $10 million in costs with a very very stern warning to ownership. Honor your deal now or in another year or the future deal will not be as favorable. End of story.

I hate to say this but if the Flames just pack and move, which they wouldn't, how long until we get a Flames 2.0 team relocating from a subpar market? Players and ownership split revenues 50/50, you don't just give up on a market like Calgary, with a signed arena deal and their revenue and corporate base just like that. Play hardball and the big boys may actually respect you a little more.

[Flame On]

So let me get this straight. Murray is civic minded and happy to spend money, and hasn't tied up this deal for like decades, whilst a brand new mayor is at fault? And oh yeah the Climate Crisis deserves quotation marks.

[Nsd1]

Quick summary of Mayor Gondeks press conference by Adam MacVicar

Spoiler!

Mayor @JyotiGondek speaking now. She is joined by Councillors @YYCTKW and @RajDhaliwal_YYC. Gondek says the prior to release conditions on the development permit came from the Calgary Planning Commission. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says this is a common factor in development permits. She says CSEC knew climate resiliency was a requirement one year ago. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says it was well known with CSEC prior to the election of this new council. She says the City of Calgary is insisting on things like sidewalks. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says the expectation that when a development permit goes to planning commission, climate resiliency is one factor that the building is scrutinized under. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

NEW: Mayor Gondek says she is committed to getting the $3.8M for the climate mitigation from provincial and federal partners. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary
Gondek says the city’s contribution is $307.4M, not $287M as CSEC said. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

On the Dec 23 no-go date, Gondek says she learned there was no ability from CSEC to pay for this. Both her and Edwards agreed to go public on the deal falling through. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says she is disappointed that the building isn’t being built. She says the goal was shovels in the ground by Jan 2022. She calls it an unreal sense of loss. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says administration is working on next steps and updates will be coming soon. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says it’s hard to say whether things will get cheaper over time due to the supply chain. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

[handgroen]

That brand spanking new Convention centre is gonna look great next to the old dome.

Those two projects have been and should always be seen as a package deal IMO one without the other is going to look like Calgary slapped rims and a spoiler on the old dodge neon.

[getbak]

We need some clarity on the timing of things.

As I understand it, these revisions were incorporated between the application being submitted in August and the updated application being submitted in October (and approved in November), based on feedback from the Planning Dept during that time (before the election, BTW). I don't believe these are new additions that the city's trying to tack on in the last week.

The presentation of the application that was before the Planning Committee in November includes a promise to be net-zero by 2035 with PV solar panels.

This is page 18 of the presentation:

Climate Resilience

• Target Carbon Neutrality by 2035
• Solar photovoltaic (PV) Equipment
• District Energy Connection Higher Efficiency Building Design
• Stormwater Irrigation Capture and Reuse for Landscaping
• Climate Resilient Planting
• Designed to Withstand Climate Events
• Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Stalls
• Oversized Tree Soil Vaults
• Car Free Access Prioritized
• Achieve LEED Silver or Better

I'm not sure what the other changes include, but I know some of the revisions between the original design and the updated one were to add more windows facing 12th Ave and 5th Street and reworking the sidewalks along those roads to make them more appealing. These are also the things that most people were complaining about when the first designs were released and happy to see revised.

[zamler]

I've read this entire thread and I still don't know what's going on.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DJones

Whose going to buy the team to stay at the Saddledome? The price would have to be super cheap at which point someone from another city would easily beat the offer.

That didn’t really answer the question. Who’s going to buy the team to stay in the Saddledome? Someone, probably. The thing isn’t a month away from collapsing. The Saddledome has plenty of life left to make it through an ownership change and new negotiations with the city. Oh, and who else is going to keep the Flames in the Saddledome? CSEC, apparently. Unless we choose to believe everything else in their statement but that.

Who is going to buy the Flames and move them to Houston? Anyone? A billionaire who had a chat with Bettman 4 years ago and we’ve heard nothing related from since?

As far as it needing to be super cheap, that’s not how that works. And even it were, it’s not an auction.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by zamler

I've read this entire thread and I still don't know what's going on.

Neither do the politicians.

[Manhattanboy]

As Robert DeNiro's character said at the end of Casino, so that's that.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Nsd1

Quick summary of Mayor Gondeks press conference by Adam MacVicar

Spoiler!

Mayor @JyotiGondek speaking now. She is joined by Councillors @YYCTKW and @RajDhaliwal_YYC. Gondek says the prior to release conditions on the development permit came from the Calgary Planning Commission. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says this is a common factor in development permits. She says CSEC knew climate resiliency was a requirement one year ago. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says it was well known with CSEC prior to the election of this new council. She says the City of Calgary is insisting on things like sidewalks. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says the expectation that when a development permit goes to planning commission, climate resiliency is one factor that the building is scrutinized under. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

NEW: Mayor Gondek says she is committed to getting the $3.8M for the climate mitigation from provincial and federal partners. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary
Gondek says the city’s contribution is $307.4M, not $287M as CSEC said. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

On the Dec 23 no-go date, Gondek says she learned there was no ability from CSEC to pay for this. Both her and Edwards agreed to go public on the deal falling through. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says she is disappointed that the building isn’t being built. She says the goal was shovels in the ground by Jan 2022. She calls it an unreal sense of loss. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says administration is working on next steps and updates will be coming soon. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Gondek says it’s hard to say whether things will get cheaper over time due to the supply chain. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Well for better or worse this will be her legacy.

[Fuzz]

Will CSEC go back to the table with the City of Calgary? Bean doesn't answer. He says there were many factors behind this decision by CSEC other than cost increases. #YYC #YYCcc @GlobalCalgary

Ding ding ding. I think we have the answer here. These are just excuses to pull out, the real reason lies elsewhere.

[getbak]

Is there any requirement to start the work by a certain date, or could this approval sit in limbo for a few months/years and get resurrected without further delays when thing settle down (or they resolve themselves to things never settling down)?