09-12-2017, 09:17 AM
|
#21
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
"Tentative" and "Deal" are words that don't work well together.
|
I would think that the final infrastructure components being agreed to by the municipality and county. There is a component in there for transportation improvements which are in the neighborhood of $40-100M, and that is being picked up by the local governments. Nothing is a deal until they have approval from those two bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rage2
OVG was chosen back in June for this reno with this plan, so what's actually new today?
|
Seems they are close to having a completed deal. It's one thing to select the interest that will do the possible renovation, but its another to announce the deal is done and shovels will break dirt in as little as four months. That is substantial.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 09:35 AM
|
#22
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: I don't belong here
|
If you build it, they will come...
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 09:52 AM
|
#23
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Privately financed - it begs the question, why can't the Flames do the same? Or at minimum, privately finance the majority of the project?
|
I think this has been the crux of the matter since the very beginning: They probably can, they just dont want to.
Its not a matter of 'cant' its a matter of 'want.'
Other Canadian cities and sports markets have set precedents of Public money for sports arenas, the CSEC is a private enterprise and are likely trying to get as much of that for themselves as they can. Represent the shareholders, etc.
But they couldnt have timed it worse.
Edmonton's deal being the shining pinnacle of bad deals left a bad taste in everyone's mouths and now nobody wants to commit public cash to an arena. Which is understandable.
But between 'The Edmonton Deal,' the crash of Oil Prices (which affects Calgarians significantly), unstable Political climate, and various other factors, having their hands out for Public cash could not have been done at a worse time.
If they'd done this 4-5 years ago when cash was flowing through the streets, a favourable Government was in place, Oil prices were high, the CSEC would have had more expendable cash to commit to the project and the City probably would have cut a cheque for the rest without blinking.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:03 AM
|
#24
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Privately financed - it begs the question, why can't the Flames do the same? Or at minimum, privately finance the majority of the project?
|
Not a case of "Can't", it's a case of not having the class to do something like this when they can take the taxpayers for a ride like Katz and Co did in Edmonton.
At the very least, I hope this makes the Flames ownership group lose a little sleep at use of their tactics in the matter.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:06 AM
|
#25
|
NOT breaking news
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
|
It's just the Canadian way isn't it? Winnipeg just got TWO publicly funded facilities. Regina too!
Videotron Center in Quebec City is half and half right?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:30 AM
|
#26
|
Franchise Player
|
Seattle is three times the size of Calgary (and growing rapidly), and the new arena will likely have two major-league tenants, not one. These facts should suggest to you some reasons why it's easier to justify $600 million in private money for an arena there.
Building an NHL-quality arena with your own money in a city of a million and change is a good way to throw your money away, and significantly more entertaining than flushing it down the toilet. People keep mentioning privately financed arenas in places like New York, Toronto, and now Seattle. Well, boys and girls, we're not in that league, and an arena here won't draw that kind of cashflow. The closest parallel for us is Ottawa, where they built an arena with private money, and it promptly went broke.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
|
Deelow,
Enoch Root,
Fighting Banana Slug,
Fire,
Flamezzz,
jayswin,
Lanny_McDonald,
Locke,
OBCT,
redforever,
rotten42,
socalwingfan,
soulchoice,
squiggs96,
Tyler
|
09-12-2017, 10:41 AM
|
#27
|
Norm!
|
Ladies and Gentlemen please rise for your SEATTLE FLAMES!!!!!
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:46 AM
|
#28
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
It's just the Canadian way isn't it? Winnipeg just got TWO publicly funded facilities. Regina too!
Videotron Center in Quebec City is half and half right?
|
Very much the American way as well. Not sure the rest of the world.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to RM14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 11:06 AM
|
#30
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Seattle is three times the size of Calgary (and growing rapidly), and the new arena will likely have two major-league tenants, not one. These facts should suggest to you some reasons why it's easier to justify $600 million in private money for an arena there.
Building an NHL-quality arena with your own money in a city of a million and change is a good way to throw your money away, and significantly more entertaining than flushing it down the toilet. People keep mentioning privately financed arenas in places like New York, Toronto, and now Seattle. Well, boys and girls, we're not in that league, and an arena here won't draw that kind of cashflow. The closest parallel for us is Ottawa, where they built an arena with private money, and it promptly went broke.
|
Also this.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 11:25 AM
|
#31
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Seattle is three times the size of Calgary (and growing rapidly), and the new arena will likely have two major-league tenants, not one. These facts should suggest to you some reasons why it's easier to justify $600 million in private money for an arena there.
Building an NHL-quality arena with your own money in a city of a million and change is a good way to throw your money away, and significantly more entertaining than flushing it down the toilet. People keep mentioning privately financed arenas in places like New York, Toronto, and now Seattle. Well, boys and girls, we're not in that league, and an arena here won't draw that kind of cashflow. The closest parallel for us is Ottawa, where they built an arena with private money, and it promptly went broke.
|
I'm not sure this is true.
http://www.northlands.com/rexall-pla...d-by-pollstar/
Rexall was the 5th busiest venue in North America in a 2014 poll.
Now around 30 of these dates would have been junior games which probably don't come close to making the same money as other events, but I think that an arena in Calgary would be very profitable.
The Alberta cities aren't really equatable to Ottawa that can't sell out the building when their team was just in the conference finals.
I'm also not sure that you can group Calgary's ownership which is worth billions to the situation in Ottawa, where Rod Brydon didn't appear to have net worth of anywhere close to a billion. I can find one article that puts his personal net worth at under $10 million in 1990 after the collapse of another one of his businesses.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/rep...l.com&page=all
I would think that the Calgary ownership group could easily afford to finance their own rink without financial peril.
When the the other privately funded Canadian arena owners were having difficulty in the 1990s you had skyrocketing player salaries. That's not the case anymore. The cost inputs are much more stable now.
Edmonton's politicians should have held out for a better deal, but Mayor Mandel was looking for a legacy project and did his best to push the council into accepting Katz's sweetheart deal.
Calgary's politicians can do better and still have a new arena built.
Last edited by Oil Stain; 09-12-2017 at 11:36 AM.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 11:47 AM
|
#32
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Seattle is three times the size of Calgary (and growing rapidly), and the new arena will likely have two major-league tenants, not one. These facts should suggest to you some reasons why it's easier to justify $600 million in private money for an arena there.
Building an NHL-quality arena with your own money in a city of a million and change is a good way to throw your money away, and significantly more entertaining than flushing it down the toilet. People keep mentioning privately financed arenas in places like New York, Toronto, and now Seattle. Well, boys and girls, we're not in that league, and an arena here won't draw that kind of cashflow. The closest parallel for us is Ottawa, where they built an arena with private money, and it promptly went broke.
|
So the we should throw our money away paying for a stadium? How does that make sense?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 12:03 PM
|
#33
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
I would think that the final infrastructure components being agreed to by the municipality and county. There is a component in there for transportation improvements which are in the neighborhood of $40-100M, and that is being picked up by the local governments. Nothing is a deal until they have approval from those two bodies.
|
Exactly the right approach. Private money for private building, public money for the public infrastructure in support of it.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 12:09 PM
|
#34
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Seattle is three times the size of Calgary (and growing rapidly), and the new arena will likely have two major-league tenants, not one. These facts should suggest to you some reasons why it's easier to justify $600 million in private money for an arena there.
Building an NHL-quality arena with your own money in a city of a million and change is a good way to throw your money away, and significantly more entertaining than flushing it down the toilet. People keep mentioning privately financed arenas in places like New York, Toronto, and now Seattle. Well, boys and girls, we're not in that league, and an arena here won't draw that kind of cashflow. The closest parallel for us is Ottawa, where they built an arena with private money, and it promptly went broke.
|
Agree with all this.
I don't think people realize how much money there is in Seattle nowadays.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 12:19 PM
|
#35
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
The Canucks owner also went broke building his own arena.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 12:20 PM
|
#36
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Then Canucks fans can cheer for Seattle's NFL and NHL teams!
|
There are way too many Seahawk fans here in Calgary. Do they not know they are the Vancouver Canucks of the NFL?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny Makarov For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 12:56 PM
|
#37
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
The Canucks owner also went broke building his own arena.
|
Here's an interesting article about it:
To summarize, Arthur Griffiths started building the rink without even having all of the financing in place. A projected $100 million dollar project ended up costing $160 million which is a pretty huge overrun. He then brought in an NBA team at the cost of $125 million with the McCaws as a minority partner. He soon ran into cashflow issues and the Mccaws forced him out.
I don't think this is so much a story about an arena being impossible to finance privately so much as it being a story about Arthur not being a very good business man compared to his father who built the business empire.
http://www.lcshockey.com/issues/57/feature10.asp
Here's a shorter article giving some other reasons why the Canuck went bankrupt:
http://www.taxpayer.com/blog/why-can...krupt--part-2-
It's by the the Canadian Taxpayers federation so it is obviously biased, but I think they make some fair points.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 01:08 PM
|
#38
|
Franchise Player
|
I'm almost 100% sure there'll be some public money on the table - but not in the same ballpark as the Flames want.
__________________
Trust the snake.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 01:11 PM
|
#39
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov
There are way too many Seahawk fans here in Calgary. Do they not know they are the Vancouver Canucks of the NFL?
|
Incorrect, the Seahawks have a championship, there has never been a riot in Seattle following a football game, their coach has never waved a white towel in an embarrassing fashion, and they aren't constantly whining about officiating.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Flacker For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 01:27 PM
|
#40
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
I'm almost 100% sure there'll be some public money on the table - but not in the same ballpark as the Flames want.
|
At this point, we don't actually know what the Flames want. CalgaryNext is dead, so there's no point going back to it. Haven't heard yet what they would be looking for for an NHL arena only proposal.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 PM.
|
|