[News] Calgary, Alberta, & CSEC agree in principle to $1.223bn Event Centre + infrastructure

[Aarongavey]

https://twitter.com/richardapeddie/s...837713432?s=12

Cities should not fund arenas and stadiums. Pro teams are owned by wealthy individuals that can fund them

This guy should take his eastern opinion back to eastern Canada, this is Alberta, taxpayers pay for professional sports arenas.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://twitter.com/richardapeddie/s...837713432?s=12



This guy should take his eastern opinion back to eastern Canada, this is Alberta, taxpayers pay for professional sports arenas.

Your new twitter hero was CEO of a government built stadium for 5 years - The Skydome

I imagine he changed his tune from those days

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Your new twitter hero was CEO of a government built stadium for 5 years - The Skydome

I imagine he changed his tune from those days

It appears he did. Probably around the time Toronto (like most NHL teams) paid for their own arena.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It appears he did. Probably around the time Toronto (like most NHL teams) paid for their own arena.

So, here's the thing:

The Flames aren't going to. You may believe they ought to, but your belief in such matters is not relevant to what is actually happening. If the Flames were willing to invest in such an endeavour then it would have happened by now.

The City and the Flames have come to an agreement, and the province has offered to assist with infrastructure costs to help facilitate that agreement. That's the deal as it exists.

I personally believe that if this deal falls apart, the Flames will leave Calgary for greener pastures. I don't believe Murray Edwards will sell the team, and I don't particularly see why he would want to when he could relocate the team to somewhere like Houston. From the NHL's perspective, Houston is a much larger market and would likely better serve the NHL as a whole better than a small market Calgary-based team who is in the bottom 3rd of revenue league-wide (according to Forbes' 2022 rankings).

If people don't like the deal - that's entirely reasonable, but don't dislike it because you think there's some magic better deal on the table or that you believe the deal should be different. This has been a long process to get to this deal, and it doesn't matter if it's worse than the last one - the last deal isn't on the table any longer. So if you're that opposed to it, then reframe what you're saying. You're actually saying "This is a bad deal, and I'll be happy if it falls apart and the Calgary Flames leave Calgary" - because that's what the stakes (likely) were in this negotiation.

Our city officials assessed the situation and believed this to be the best path forward for the City of Calgary in the face of alternative outcomes.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

So, here's the thing:

The Flames aren't going to. You may believe they ought to, but your belief in such matters is not relevant to what is actually happening. If the Flames were willing to invest in such an endeavour then it would have happened by now.

The City and the Flames have come to an agreement, and the province has offered to assist with infrastructure costs to help facilitate that agreement. That's the deal as it exists.

I personally believe that if this deal falls apart, the Flames will leave Calgary for greener pastures. I don't believe Murray Edwards will sell the team, and I don't particularly see why he would want to when he could relocate the team to somewhere like Houston. From the NHL's perspective, Houston is a much larger market and would likely better serve the NHL as a whole better than a small market Calgary-based team who is in the bottom 3rd of revenue league-wide (according to Forbes' 2022 rankings).

If people don't like the deal - that's entirely reasonable, but don't dislike it because you think there's some magic better deal on the table or that you believe the deal should be different. This has been a long process to get to this deal, and it doesn't matter if it's worse than the last one - the last deal isn't on the table any longer. So if you're that opposed to it, then reframe what you're saying. You're actually saying "This is a bad deal, and I'll be happy if it falls apart and the Calgary Flames leave Calgary" - because that's what the stakes (likely) were in this negotiation. It's an entirely reasonable opinion to hold, I just don't understand hoping for things to be some other way at this stage of the game.

Our city officials assessed the situation and believed this to be in the best path for the City of Calgary in the face of alternative outcomes.

The Flames being unable to sell tickets for chunks of the 2021/2022 season probably had something to do with the revenue situation.

And those are not the stakes, you have as much of an idea of knowing that the Flames would leave as I or anyone else has that a private entity could have built the arena. Puzzling how now is the time they would leave for sure and not 2017.

I am sure if the Arizona deal falls apart where I understand the taxpayer is paying 10% and the owner is paying 90% we could maybe entice Arizona to Calgary for a 30% taxpayer 70% owner paid arena, maybe even better than that.

[Demzy84]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The Flames being unable to sell tickets for chunks of the 2021/2022 season probably had something to do with the revenue situation.

And those are not the stakes, you have as much of an idea of knowing that the Flames would leave as I or anyone else has that a private entity could have built the arena. Puzzling how now is the time they would leave for sure and not 2017.

When the last deal fell apart, they literally said they would play in the dome until they could no longer play there. Given the age of the dome and how they have to put a net around the roof to catch pieces of concrete falling, it’s pretty easy to guess they wouldn’t stick around much longer.

[marsplasticeraser]

The new arena deal should have been conditional on flames owners selling out.

We have some of the worst owners in the league, as evidence by the consistently terrible on and off-ice product we’ve had for 30 years.

A new arena won’t change the inept ownership we have. The flames will continue to Flames each season until Edwards is out.

All this deal does is Murray edwards and his buddies richer and make all flames fans pay an extra 25% for their tickets.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

So, here's the thing:

The Flames aren't going to. You may believe they ought to, but your belief in such matters is not relevant to what is actually happening. If the Flames were willing to invest in such an endeavour then it would have happened by now.

The City and the Flames have come to an agreement, and the province has offered to assist with infrastructure costs to help facilitate that agreement. That's the deal as it exists.

I personally believe that if this deal falls apart, the Flames will leave Calgary for greener pastures. I don't believe Murray Edwards will sell the team, and I don't particularly see why he would want to when he could relocate the team to somewhere like Houston. From the NHL's perspective, Houston is a much larger market and would likely better serve the NHL as a whole better than a small market Calgary-based team who is in the bottom 3rd of revenue league-wide (according to Forbes' 2022 rankings).

If people don't like the deal - that's entirely reasonable, but don't dislike it because you think there's some magic better deal on the table or that you believe the deal should be different. This has been a long process to get to this deal, and it doesn't matter if it's worse than the last one - the last deal isn't on the table any longer. So if you're that opposed to it, then reframe what you're saying. You're actually saying "This is a bad deal, and I'll be happy if it falls apart and the Calgary Flames leave Calgary" - because that's what the stakes (likely) were in this negotiation.

Our city officials assessed the situation and believed this to be the best path forward for the City of Calgary in the face of alternative outcomes.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I personally believe that if this deal falls apart, the Flames will leave Calgary for greener pastures. I don't believe Murray Edwards will sell the team, and I don't particularly see why he would want to when he could relocate the team to somewhere like Houston. From the NHL's perspective, Houston is a much larger market and would likely better serve the NHL as a whole better than a small market Calgary-based team who is in the bottom 3rd of revenue league-wide (according to Forbes' 2022 rankings).

If people don't like the deal - that's entirely reasonable, but don't dislike it because you think there's some magic better deal on the table or that you believe the deal should be different. This has been a long process to get to this deal, and it doesn't matter if it's worse than the last one - the last deal isn't on the table any longer. So if you're that opposed to it, then reframe what you're saying. You're actually saying "This is a bad deal, and I'll be happy if it falls apart and the Calgary Flames leave Calgary" - because that's what the stakes (likely) were in this negotiation.

If this is the fear, then the Flames portion of the deal would need to be weighted against the cost of relocation (the NHL isn't going to abandon a solid market, and give up the potential expansion fee for another) as well as the cost of renting out the Toyota Center because Feritta and the Rockets have operation of the building.

So in addition to the lease payment portion of the deal, which gets CSEC far more than Edwards relocating the team to Houston would provide, add a presumed relocation fee to what the stakes (likely) were in the negotiation.

So by this metric, the city really, really ####ed up in negotiations.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The Flames being unable to sell tickets for chunks of the 2021/2022 season probably had something to do with the revenue situation.

And those are not the stakes, you have as much of an idea of knowing that the Flames would leave as I or anyone else has that a private entity could have built the arena. Puzzling how now is the time they would leave for sure and not 2017.

I am sure if the Arizona deal falls apart where I understand the taxpayer is paying 10% and the owner is paying 90% we could maybe entice Arizona to Calgary for a 30% taxpayer 70% owner paid arena, maybe even better than that.

Yeah, I don't know for sure - of course.

I do look at yet another failed deal, and the arena now being nearly another decade older...and the Flames having said last time "we'll stay in the Saddledome as long as we can", the time left is shrinking. As I said, I don't personally believe the Flames will sit around through another failed deal.

As far as Arizona is concerned - that's irrelevant to this situation. The NHL clearly wants to maintain that market (large population, so large potential). "We could maybe entice Arizona to Calgary" you're speculating on something that just won't happen. The NHL has gone through great lengths to keep the Coyotes in Arizona - they're not going to all of a sudden say "Hey, that City that doesn't have an arena, a private investor that wants to build an arena on their own dime, nor a government that wants to fund an arena themselves - let's move this team there..even though they just lost one!". The NHL is allowing the Coyotes to play in an NCAA arena - that's how badly they want to maintain that market.

On the revenue front - Toronto ranked 3rd, Montreal 4th, and Edmonton 5th in that Forbes 2022 ranking - so I'm not sure why Calgary would tumble so far when compared to those teams (if it were just due to inability to sell tickets?). The Flames are a bottom 3rd team from a revenue perspective and have been for a number of years if I'm remembering correctly. I believe the last time a deal came out it was revealed that the Flames are now receiving funds from the NHL revenue sharing program.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I guess we just have to go with your non-sensical math over the calculation of one of the more prominent economists in Canada.

It’s probably because Trevor Tombe is on drugs. That’s the only explanation when Deluxe doesn’t understand something, since he has such a wealth of knowledge and an uncanny ability to follow simple conversations.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If people don't like the deal - that's entirely reasonable, but don't dislike it because you think there's some magic better deal on the table or that you believe the deal should be different. This has been a long process to get to this deal, and it doesn't matter if it's worse than the last one - the last deal isn't on the table any longer. So if you're that opposed to it, then reframe what you're saying. You're actually saying "This is a bad deal, and I'll be happy if it falls apart and the Calgary Flames leave Calgary" - because that's what the stakes (likely) were in this negotiation.

Nah, nobody is “actually” saying that. Someone can believe this is an objectively bad deal while feeling no joy when it falls through and genuine sadness were the Flames to leave as a result. This idea that everybody pointing this out secretly hate the Flames and will jump for joy when they leave is just pretty ridiculous.

It’s cool if you don’t want to criticize the deal for fear of the Flames leaving if it falls through though. We don’t have that power, but do you.

People who are completely happy with this seem dead set on either lying about the benefits, ignoring the issues, or painting critics as some nasty Flames-haters, which is all very weird to me. I think you were on the right track by admitting it’s the only deal you think there was and you’re happy to pay the price to keep the Flames. Just stick with that honesty instead of the other nonsense.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s probably because Trevor Tombe is on drugs. That’s the only explanation when Deluxe doesn’t understand something, since he has such a wealth of knowledge and an uncanny ability to follow simple conversations.



Nah, nobody is “actually” saying that. Someone can believe this is an objectively bad deal while feeling no joy when it falls through and genuine sadness were the Flames to leave as a result. This idea that everybody pointing this out secretly hate the Flames and will jump for joy when they leave is just pretty ridiculous.

It’s cool if you don’t want to criticize the deal for fear of the Flames leaving if it falls through though. We don’t have that power, but do you.

People who are completely happy with this seem dead set on either lying about the benefits, ignoring the issues, or painting critics as some nasty Flames-haters, which is all very weird to me. I think you were on the right track by admitting it’s the only deal you think there was and you’re happy to pay the price to keep the Flames. Just stick with that honesty instead of the other nonsense.

I certainly wouldn't say I'm completely happy with the deal - but I am happy a deal has been struck. I think it would be a really sour day for Calgary if the Flames left - and I don't think it would be of any benefit to our already struggling downtown core.

I'd greatly prefer if there was a proposal on the table where we had another potential owner willing to buy the team and fund the arena privately 100%, and have that line up with Murray Edwards actually wanting to sell. You know I'm not exactly happy with how the Flames have been run, I just don't see Murray Edwards selling though.

I also know it's not in my control at all. What will happen will happen, I just find the futility in arguing about "the deal shouldn't be this way, it should be this way!" just as useless as "I can't believe we paid Nazem Kadri $7M a year, they should have paid $6M a year!" - it was the reality of the situation. Kadri wouldn't have come here without the Flames paying that premium, just like how I believe the Flames won't stay here without the City paying the premium they may be paying in this deal. It has taken a long time to get to this deal, and this is the deal that they've come up with this far into the process...so, I think this is just where we are.

Originally Posted by Roughneck

If this is the fear, then the Flames portion of the deal would need to be weighted against the cost of relocation (the NHL isn't going to abandon a solid market, and give up the potential expansion fee for another) as well as the cost of renting out the Toyota Center because Feritta and the Rockets have operation of the building.

So in addition to the lease payment portion of the deal, which gets CSEC far more than Edwards relocating the team to Houston would provide, add a presumed relocation fee to what the stakes (likely) were in the negotiation.

So by this metric, the city really, really ####ed up in negotiations.

I just don't look at Calgary as being some wonderful unicorn market. Corporate dollars have shrunk significantly here, and the fanbase just isn't as rabid as it is up North (*yuck* E=NG)

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Honestly I’m not super into grifting billionaires or giving them a ton of money either, but I’m not even sure it’s all that relevant. This isn’t like some private bakery getting a handout, let’s get real. A pro sports team obviously does way more for the culture and fabric of a community than many other types of businesses because it literally represents the place you’re from. It’s not like Rob’s auto body has the same emotional appeal to the masses.

I’m also a little surprised that people value negligible tax impacts more than keeping the Flames in Calgary. Because that’s really the impact to you. If you do a deal you need to not so much view it as to if the opposite side is “winning or losing” (because in this situation, they were always going to “win”), but moreso view it holistically as are you winning. And I think if the Flames are staying in Calgary for decades, you’re winning. Does it mean there are real opportunity costs for taxes that could be otherwise “better” spent? Yes. Do we know what those are or could have been? No. So what’s the point of all this angst? I dunno. Calgarians are more and more starting to be, well, kinda just ####ty fans, really.

So why don't taxpayers just pay for the whole thing? Why ask the Flames to pay anything? I think most people here are happy that a new arena is being built. The consternation isn't around whether a new arena is needed or not, it clearly is. The debate is how much private versus public funding should go into it?

So, how much is reasonable?

[liamenator]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Counterpoint: Ottawa.

No shortage of interest to buy that team without any framework for a deal yet.

...

Actually, there is a framework in place in Ottawa. The Senators were the preferred bid selected by the National Capital Commission to develop Lebreton Flats, about 8 acres of land along the river, right on the edge of downtown, owned by the NCC. The parties signed an MOU that will survive the change of ownership.


Most around Ottawa agree that interest in purchasing the team has been driven as much by the real estate/development opportunities at Lebreton Flats as anything else. Developers and investors have been trying to get a foothold into the area for decades. Purchasing the team offers the opportunity to walk into an exclusive development deal, which is unanimously supported by the new-ish mayor, city council and the NCC. Hence the sale price of +$950M or more, which has been surprising to most outside the city.


Plus, having the hockey team anchor the project will likely foster goodwill and accelerate approvals, permitting, construction. If the Algonquin nations make a land claim for the area, prospective buyers likely think having the team in tow will help maintain support for the project. And they are probably correct -- for better or worse, policymakers and voters look more fondly upon developments that are anchored by (and guarantee the future of) a pro sports team than those that are not.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I guess we just have to go with your non-sensical math over the calculation of one of the more prominent economists in Canada.

What math is this?

I’m asking you to explain it.

Guess you don’t understand

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

So why don't taxpayers just pay for the whole thing? Why ask the Flames to pay anything? I think most people here are happy that a new arena is being built. The consternation isn't around whether a new arena is needed or not, it clearly is. The debate is how much private versus public funding should go into it?

So, how much is reasonable?

I have no idea and neither does anyone else. We need access to confidential spreadsheets, which is kind of the point. We don't know how revenues get split, we don't know how much access or not CSEC gets to property development or sweetheart other developments, like, we don't know a lot.

Anyway, as to how much is reasonable, theoretically if you can agree with me that the city would one day build something like this on its own anyway, then theoretically we should be happy we are getting ANY private or provincial funding, shouldn't we? But, not really, because again, we have to understand the revenue split and how all the detailed numbers look.

I dunno, and neither does anyone else, but what I do know is the Flames will stay in Calgary. That's a big win isn't it? I think there's much to find out and there are probably some shady things going on, I guess, but that #### seems to happen on an almost hourly basis with virtually all levels of government these days so maybe I'm just massively cynical. If it means in this instance the Flames stay then that's great. I also think Calgarians massively underestimate the risk of the team leaving if this did not get done and massively overrate themselves as a "good" fanbase (it's not).

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I love all the “mean girls” from the political threads trying to convince everyone in the main Flames forum that getting a new building is bad.

Lol stay in your high five each other threads.

“We need a new addictions Center instead”

No people that actually go to work and contribute to this city are allowed to have something nice to have, be entertained, and show off.

Not everything has to be about placating to ground zero with healthcare ect..

No one asked me about building library’s and no one’s asked you about building an arena so I think we are good.

Who would have thought, the most vocal conservative / anti-government spender in the politics threads is over the moon about this deal.

I feel like the only way you could like this deal more is if Elon was the one getting the arena.

Also, as a pretty active poster on ideas for fixing the drug/homeless crisis in the city, you seem to scoff at the idea of a new addiction center?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

What math is this?

I’m asking you to explain it.

Guess you don’t understand

I do understand but I am confident you would not even if I explained it.

Just go with it cost 5 bucks a person and feel good about that rudimentary math.

[Bonded]

Also the ####ty deal would be easier to cope with if the Flames were committed to a more viable path towards building a contender. Meddling ownership and a more painful rebuild as a result or a continual attempt to get in and go on a run. I guess from Murray’s point of view, if he cans Sutter it will cost him 20% of what he is paying for the arena.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I love all the “mean girls” from the political threads trying to convince everyone in the main Flames forum that getting a new building is bad.

Hi, Corey. Say Hi to Jane for us.

[liamenator]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It appears he did. Probably around the time Toronto (like most NHL teams) paid for their own arena.

Not trying to nitpick here, just want to point out some important context for the construction of the ACC that highlights why it's so hard to compare arena projects across different cities and different historical moments.

The Leafs didn't just decide to build their own rink with private money. They took over and modified an arena project that was already underway for the Raptors when Maple Leaf Gardens Limited purchased the Raps in 1998.

Building an arena was a condition of Toronto being granted an expansion franchise in 1993. The reason it was privately financed had as much to do with the intense competition between three local expansion bids as anything else: John Bitove & Allan Slaight, Larry Tanenbaum, who was not yet involved with MLGL, and his Palestra group (including Richard Peddie), and a group including Magic Johnson. Bitove & Slaight were surprise winners -- Tanenbaum's group had been courting David Sterne for years and were thought to be front runners.

During the bidding process, none of the groups wanted to bog their bid down in lengthy negotiations with the city and/or province, so each pitched a different location for a privately financed arena (Magic's group proposed Exhibition Place, Tanenbaum's original location was near Bay & Bloor). I think the city and province agreed to fund infrastructural updates and changes required at each location (similar to what we saw Smith commit to in Calgary).

The way the Leafs get involved is interesting: Bitove & Slaight's original arena plan fell through, so did a revised version, and they were twice fined $1M by the NBA for missing deadline to begin construction. This meant they were playing at SkyDome for I think the Raps first four seasons (Tanenbaum, who by that point was had an ownership stake in MLGL, obviously refused to let them play at the Gardens).

By 1998, the Raps arena project was moving ahead but Bitove & Slaight's relationship had broken down. MLGL had also elbowed their way in, proposing to build an arena for the Leafs basically right next door to the Raptors site (on top of Union Station tracks). So Slaight excercized a shotgun clause and purchased Bitove's stake in a hostile takeover. Tanenbaum and MLGL pounced immediately, purchasing the team and the arena project from Slaight, who clearly just wanted to get out. They rebranded as MLSE, fine-tuned the arena project to make it suitable for hockey and, voila, the ACC was born.

All of this is to say: each arena project is so different, so subject to local forces and egos and political climates, that it's basically impossible to compare them.