Calgary Flames New Arena Update

[ExtraSlow]

Combine this with an Olympic bid and make two poor financial decisions at once!

I would personally benefit from a new arena. I know how poor the Saddledome is for events. So I WANT a new arena, but I can't pretend it's a smart financial choice.

[C_Dave45]

I'm all for the new venue. Don't care how much I will end up paying in taxes. It's not like whenever the city/province/country decides to NOT go ahead with a planned project, I all of a sudden have extra money in my wallet. At this rate it will be 10 years before an arena gets built. Do we never build one?

1. We will always pay taxes
2. They will always increase.
3. World class cities need to spend world class dollars for many things I'm not interested in.

[Buster]

Put a surcharge on every hockey/concert ticket sold to cover the cost of the interest and principal payments.

Done.

[adam c]

Originally posted by Buster
Put a surcharge on every hockey/concert ticket sold to cover the cost of the interest and principal payments.

Done.

Another fee on top of the fees already being charged ?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Buster
Put a surcharge on every hockey/concert ticket sold to cover the cost of the interest and principal payments.

Done.

They already have the ticket surcharge tied to $200M worth of construction loans.

[Buster]

Originally posted by adam c


Another fee on top of the fees already being charged ?

You want to attend a game in a fancy new building... a fee makes sense.

It's the best, most "fair" way to do it. You use the building, you pay for it.

[Marsh]

Let them "leave". This is just business 101. Rich team owners demand new arena financed by public, city says no, owners threaten to leave and city caves. Look at any negotiation between owners and the city for new arenas, in NFL, NHL, NBA over the last several years. This is just the process.

Sad to say, but KK has no real move here. Highly unlikely they'd ever move anywhere else, this is just a tactic to get more money from the public for financing.

Look at SF 49ers, they held firm and had the ownership group pay for the new stadium themselves. More and more people and cities are realizing this is just a tactic owners use to get public financing, and its crap. Don't fall for it here in Calgary too.

As much as he wants to BS, its not that easy to move a team, they would need approval from majority of other owners and the league itself.

[R!zz0]

Originally posted by Buster
I don't want the Flames to move. I'm a fan.

So are half the People that live here. It's a bluff they can't move. City is going to lose ton's of money if they do.

[Buster]

Originally posted by R!zz0


So are half the People that live here. It's a bluff they can't move. City is going to lose ton's of money if they do.

Sports teams are not a net economic positive for a community. at least not to any degree they would justify paying for a stadium.

[Gestalt]

Billionaires looking for charity.

Don't let the door hit yoa on the way out!

The way things go, the 500 million, will turn into 1.5 billion. That's a lot of desperately needed a community arenas.:

[speedog]

Originally posted by C_Dave45
I'm all for the new venue. Don't care how much I will end up paying in taxes. It's not like whenever the city/province/country decides to NOT go ahead with a planned project, I all of a sudden have extra money in my wallet. At this rate it will be 10 years before an arena gets built. Do we never build one?

1. We will always pay taxes
2. They will always increase.
3. World class cities need to spend world class dollars for many things I'm not interested in.

Is the blue ring world class?

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by speedog


Is the blue ring world class?

Dunno. Don't care.
Neither do I care about any Art, History, or Theatre type venues.

Would you have noticed an increase in your net worth had the city not spent $400k+ on it? Would that have enabled you to add another vacation to your family spending?

[adam c]

Originally posted by Buster


You want to attend a game in a fancy new building... a fee makes sense.

It's the best, most "fair" way to do it. You use the building, you pay for it.

Considering flames tickets are already some of the most expensive in the league no it doesn't make sense to add fees on top of existing fees

It's like the fucking carbon tax, you're getting taxed gst on top of this stupid tax which is a tax on your usage which is also taxed by gst

[Buster]

Originally posted by adam c


Considering flames tickets are already some of the most expensive in the league no it doesn't make sense to add fees on top of existing fees

It's like the fucking carbon tax, you're getting taxed gst on top of this stupid tax which is a tax on your usage which is also taxed by gst

A fee on a ticket to a private event is not a tax.

[killramos]

I think the city should just build it, subsequently own it, and charge the flames and everyone else who uses it an economic price to use the facility. Sell the naming rights, advertising rights whatever. Factor in estimated future economic benefits to the city.

Let the flames choose their own ticket pricing scheme on top of that that makes their bottom line work.

Why this has to be so far removed from a normal business decision is mind boggling to me.

[ExtraSlow]

No sports team would choose to pay full economic price, that's a "terrible" deal for them. In your scenario, the city would build it, and the flames would still move.

[C_Dave45]

...

[Buster]

Originally posted by killramos
I think the city should just build it, subsequently own it, and charge the flames and everyone else who uses it an economic price to use the facility. Sell the naming rights, advertising rights whatever. Factor in estimated future economic benefits to the city.

Let the flames choose their own ticket pricing scheme on top of that that makes their bottom line work.

Why this has to be so far removed from a normal business decision is mind boggling to me.

For the Flames that would be "something for something".

What they want is "something for nothing".

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
No sports team would choose to pay full economic price, that's a "terrible" deal for them. In your scenario, the city would build it, and the flames would still move.

Terrible deal? They make millions playing a childrens game.

Terrible deal is tax payers footing an always losing, never profitable bill for billionairs and millionaires.

[btimbit]

https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/mess...ns/c-288359250

The interesting bits

All of which brings us to the news reports of threats to move. In response to a question, are you going to use the threat of moving as a tactic, I said we would not. I also said we would "just move." The facts are we need a solution and if it is deemed that there is no made in Calgary solution we will have to make a decision at that time, which logically could include deciding to move the team. It is merely one out of a few possible outcomes if we are unable to reach a deal with the City that will work for both sides.

No one, including me, should speculate on what the decision will be. Time will tell.

Now, a quick history of our process:

1. In August, 2015, we presented a concept, CalgaryNEXT, that included an event centre, public fieldhouse and football stadium.

2. The City reviewed the concept and, in their view, determined it was not feasible. We challenged their findings in city council in June, 2016, with some success.

3. An alternate City vision for a Victoria Park event centre was brought forward (by the City) and council directed a comparison to CalgaryNEXT be made and brought to council by late October, 2016.

4. Just prior to the October comparison we were asked to abandon CalgaryNEXT in favour of exploring the Victoria Park city vision. We did not agree to abandon CalgaryNEXT, but did agree to put the comparison on pause while we listened to their proposal. We did so with the understanding the process would be expedited and that certain parameters would be understood to be our position. This was agreed to by both parties.

5. Since October, 2016, to now we have been meeting with City administration on the Victoria Park option. Recently we received their proposal in response to our stated parameters in which there are differences. We continue to meet for further discussion.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.