[News] Ken King: Flames' owners no longer pursuing new arena with City of Calgary

[gunnner]

Dont understand the political move from the flames side. If their goal is to sway the election against Neshi, wont this in fact do the opposite. Judging from this board, 80% are in support of Neshi on this board, 15% think both sides are dumb, and "I am ken king" supports ken king and the flames. If this is representative of the general publics opinion, the flames idiocy will only help Neshi win a close election. their better political play would have been to shut up and hope he loses the election on other merrits. Dont know who is advising them behind the scenes, but they are doing a poor job.

[MacDaddy77]

^ believe Flames would need 8 councillors in their "pocket" excluding mayor to make sure it passes.

maybe new community arenas in those districts?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Why compare to other sectors? It's irrelevant.

Pro sports is purely entertainment. It's grouping of 31 billionaire ownership groups that collude to extort money from local governments, and they've done a mighty fine job over the years.

Calgary can't be the lone white knight who finally stands up to all of pro sports and says NO!. Calgary isn't just fighting Murray Edwards, et al. Calgary is fighting a (losing) battle against all 31 clubs who have colluded, as well as a North American tradition of cities subsidizing pro sports.

I don't like it at all. But I love hockey. So I'm at a crossroads, but I think I know what will happen. The city will eventually pony up, just like the dozens or hundreds of other cities have. That's pro sports, and I hate that aspect.

Other cities have fought giving funds to team owners. This isn't a Calgary exclusive issue.

The vast majority of the new California stadiums have been privately funded.

What the Flames are trying to do is easier to do in the US as mentioned and you can pit counties against each other within small distances of cities. You can't really do that in Canada since its not like some small city just outside of Calgary will have the money to fund this.

Flames best bet to getting a ton of public funding is to hope the city bids for Olympics and then the province and feds will contribute.

[morgin]

Had there been any discussion of the City being a partner, in the sense that they could pay up front costs for the arena but be repaid over 20 years from building revenues? That's a lot more like the City acting like a low cost lender, but seems a lot more palatable than handing over a bunch of money with no upside other than these intangible factors.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Redlan

Show me 1 funding model that suggested the city pays for the entire venture. If you are referring to the contaminated soil clean-up costs for CalgaryNext (?)...it is going to have to be done, and the sooner the better, the cost of which will continue to raise, costing the tax payer A LOT more. (not that I am behind any of the proposed projects as presented to date)

Who said 800M was the entire cost of the venue? It was projected in the 1B neighborhood and the flames commited 200M directly to the project. Ticket tax is a loan they don't need to pay back. They are only contributing $200M out of pocket for a $1000M project that they will benefit from financially, I as a tax payer will not benefit other than being able to pay more to see the product ialready do. Now I realize Calgarynext is dead(thank god for that), but king has mentioned their Victoria park proposal was the same payment ratio as Calgary next which is unpalatable for me

Personally I'm against any and all public funding, so take that as you will

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's like 6 councilors being targeted, right? Do those 6 councilors happen to be outspoken opponents of the Calgary next project? I dont know enough about Calgary Civic politics.

No. DCU is one of the Councilors they're targeting and she attended the original CalgaryNext reveal session on behalf of Council and seemed to be generally in favour of it.

[djsFlames]

This thread already sucks.

[sureLoss]

Calgary arena deal scuttled over tax exemption, recouping city investment: Sources

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...g-sources.html

Sources have told Metro the latest deal on the table involved a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model, where the City of Calgary would provide 1/3 of the upfront cost for the new arena, 1/3 would be recouped through a ticket surcharge and 1/3 would come from the Calgary Flames ownership.

Early cost estimates for a new arena were $500 million, but those familiar with the situation said some city officials believed the final tab would be higher - in the range of $600 million.

Where talks broke down, according to sources, was in how the city might recoup its initial investment, either through property taxes or a revenue sharing model. It was hoped the city could get back its initial investment over the next 30 years through a lease or rental arrangement with the Flames.

Information provided to Metro indicated those were the areas the two sides couldn’t agree upon.

CSEC was apparently looking for property tax exemption and wouldn’t flex on models for the city to recoup its investment, including possible revenue sharing options.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by fotiou22

Imagine if a group of billionaires pulled this crap on Ralph Klein. They're unwilling to pay for even ONE THIRD of the cost of THEIR arena. Am baffled by posters here who have convinced themselves that there's some ulterior motive to a mayor standing up for citizens/taxpayers (whatever we want to call ourselves).

King and Bettman have bumbled this terribly. Nenshi should be arrogant. He's standing up for Calgarians. Ralph Klein would be proud.

(Source on the deal the owners are walking away from: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/spo...ticle36241562/)

a. I'm not sure I want Ralph Klein to be proud of my actions if I'm Nenshi.

b. Klein pushed hard for both public funding and overriding the wishes of the local community (to the extent he convinced the province to take over the land so they could override municipal rules) when building the Saddledome in the first place.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Who said 800M was the entire cost of the venue? It was projected in the 1B neighborhood and the flames commited 200M directly to the project. Ticket tax is a loan they don't need to pay back. They are only contributing $200M out of pocket for a $1000M project that they will benefit from financially, I as a tax payer will not benefit other than being able to pay more to see the product ialready do. Now I realize Calgarynext is dead(thank god for that), but king has mentioned their Victoria park proposal was the same payment ratio as Calgary next which is unpalatable for me

Personally I'm against any and all public funding, so take that as you will

There is nothing wrong with being against any and all public funding. This is a perfectly reasonable position. The understanding that follows is that the Flames will not be part of the local 'public' long term. Which is also OK. Not every city can support professional sports.

[Rollin22x]

Ken King just became the pin in a rising balloon of the 2017/18 season and Bettman is the sound of the flatulent air rapidly escaping.
I was excited for the season but this feels like a black cloud waiting to dampen the team's success.
The timing just seems so bad.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Why compare to other sectors? It's irrelevant.

Pro sports is purely entertainment. It's grouping of 31 billionaire ownership groups that collude to extort money from local governments, and they've done a mighty fine job over the years.

Calgary can't be the lone white knight who finally stands up to all of pro sports and says NO!. Calgary isn't just fighting Murray Edwards, et al. Calgary is fighting a (losing) battle against all 31 clubs who have colluded, as well as a North American tradition of cities subsidizing pro sports.

I don't like it at all. But I love hockey. So I'm at a crossroads, but I think I know what will happen. The city will eventually pony up, just like the dozens or hundreds of other cities have. That's pro sports, and I hate that aspect.

If you like sports then you should like some funding for an arena. It shows that the city cares about what you care about. We fund many things as taxpayers, add this to one we at least like. Yes entertainment is also a benefit, not just purely entertainment.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Calgary arena deal scuttled over tax exemption, recouping city investment: Sources

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...g-sources.html

"Up front costs" means essentially a loan to the Flames. So they were asking for the Flames to ultimately bear 100% (including the "ticket tax"). That's obvioulsy a position many here advocate. But IMO it's kind of unrealistic and perhaps not economically feasible for the Flames.

[CorbeauNoir]

Maybe it got brought up somewhere deep within the preceding 50+ pages but wasn't the city talking pretty positively about the Victoria Park option? Did that fall through at some point I missed? Or is this KK doing a CalgaryNEXT-or-nothing move?

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not according to the study:

Interesting.

I find that a very hard thing to quantify. I know I make specific trips out to watch hockey games at a bar, especially around playoff time...i.e a Wednesday night. I can't say if there wasn't a game that night I'd go spend $50 on a steak and a beer at a different establishment, in fact I'd argue I'd just stay in.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Calgary arena deal scuttled over tax exemption, recouping city investment: Sources

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...g-sources.html

If this doesn't stink of pure greed I don't know what does, especially if they weren't willing to negotiate at all on that front. Good on council for sticking to their guns and pushing for this if true.

Even so, I don't think this is as far off as it seems. The Flames simply need to realize that they are not going to be getting $200M with no strings attached and the city will obviously bend and contribute something (much less than 1/3) to get this done.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

There is nothing wrong with being against any and all public funding. This is a perfectly reasonable position. The understanding that follows is that the Flames will not be part of the local 'public' long term. Which is also OK. Not every city can support professional sports.

Yup, if that's the will of the public then Calgary can turn into Hartford and that's fine.

[Locke]

Remember when Ken King said that they werent going to resort to 'Edmonton Tactics?'

Essentially extortion?

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

"Up front costs" means essentially a loan to the Flames. So they were asking for the Flames to ultimately bear 100% (including the "ticket tax"). That's obvioulsy a position many here advocate. But IMO it's kind of unrealistic and perhaps not economically feasible for the Flames.

Who owns the arena and land in the end? if it's the Flames then they shouldn't expect to be exempt from property tax

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

Who owns the arena and land in the end? if it's the Flames then they should expect to be exempt from property tax

What? why?