cross16

I think it's was a calculated risk trade that didn't work out but also resulted in no loss. Grandlund was a so/so 3rd liner on one of the worst teams in the NHL and I don't think he would have a top 9 spot here. Flames took a risk and it didn't pan out but that happens and if the situation came up again I would expect them to do it again. You need to take risks sometimes. I know others liked Granlund and that's fine but even watching him in Vancouver I don't see a top 9 player on a good team. I think the majority of his success last year was due to the fact he was put in roles that you wouldn't get on other teams and I really don't think he would have got the same opportunities here. It's too bad Shinkaruk was their target because I never liked him either but i also don't think Granlund had a lot of value when they dealt him.

Not sure you are missing something but I also don't think its a valid comparison. The Victoria park option is 555m including land and some infrastructure costs but $890 was for facilities only (unless i'm forgetting something?). Since neither proposal included interest/financing charges I think a more valid comparison would be Calgary Next costs about 1.2-1.3 billion (when you factor in land cost, utilities etc) and the Victoria park option at 555 million. Probably not equal but at least closer because then you are including infrastructure costs into the Calgary Next budget. So if Victoria Park costs 555 million that is still almost 700 million you could spend on a fieldhouse, stadium and remediation of West Village to get the same result as CalgaryNext. Probably end up spending more money yes but then you have usable land in West Village the city can use at their own discretion. I believe you are right that nothing more can be done in West Village until it is cleaned up because the creosote is contained until you start digging. I think this opens up a much larger debate as to what is best in the long term interest of the city. Building them all separately, which i'm not sure would cost all that much more than building CalgaryNext, and then having the city being able to sell West Village and develop it like East Village. Personally I think that is the better long term vision for the city and in the long run actually wouldn't be as expensive. The problem I have with CalgaryNext is it is a lot of taxpayer money for a project that will end up providing, IMO at least, not a lot of positive economic spin off to the city because you will eat up so much real estate in a building that won't generate any property tax for the city. However, I am also fully aware that would require a council that would value sport enough to the level that they would want to invest in all of those projects separately and given that the fieldhouse has been agreed to for about 3-4 years now and is still unfunded i'm not very confident that is going to happen but IMO it's the best vision for the long term future of Calgary.

The City commissioned a report that took about 6 months to report their findings. http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=43230. It is a pretty thorough report, especially with the attachments, and also provides a lot of information on the contamination and the potential health risks etc. People can disagree with the city's position, but I think it's pretty unfair to say the never considered CalgaryNext when they were the ones that did this type of analysis on the project. They measured the cost at either 85 million for a more measured approach (which would take 8-10 years) or 140 million which would be done in 6-8 years

I will lead by saying that I agree this should be cleaned up. Not because of CalgaryNext but because it's the right thing to do and at an estimated 80-150 million dollar cost it should be a no brainier for the city/province. It would also make the land usable for further development which I think could be financially beneficial to the city and get their money back but I agree the fear mongering is a bit much. Testing done between 2010-2014 found no risk to people and it has be contained for now. Again, yes it should be fixed but to suggest that we are being poisoned is a bit much. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-creosote-monitoring-west-hillhurst-province-calgarynext-west-village-bow-river-1.4086136 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-creosote-contamination-cleanup-larry-bentley-1.4088288

The costs were broken down of CalgaryNext in a report that the city commissioned (see below). I"m not sure why the Green Line should be included in the Victoria Park discussion given it is already approved and going ahead and really is not meant to serve that new arena at all,same with the 17th Ave extension on the stampede grounds. The City did estimate the utility cost in their proposal but the Flames excluded it in there's. It's why there is a 50 MIll gap in the City and Flames proposals. Of course you will never know all the costs prior to construction that is impossible in a project like this. There will be overruns and unforeseen expenses and i'm sure that is part of the negotiations we will never hear about. That being said I think its pretty clear that the cost of Victoria Park is significantly different, and IMO more affordable than CalgaryNext.

Did they? I think it depends on how you define the project. The Flames put forward the cost to actually build the facilities but the city took it one step further and look at what is the entire project going to cost. Clean up, utilities, land transfer, traffic re routing, interest etc which IMO is what they should do especially when you consider how many investment the City was being asked for.

Well it grosses 4 billion a year and the avg franchise value is 500 million according to Forbes. NHL will dispute that but that's a long way from a trillion dollars. Like I said NFL isn't even worth a trillion according to most estimates. But its doesnt really matter becuaee what a franchise is worth is irrelevant to a city unless they provide part of those profits back to the city. Something the Flames are refusing to do.

The nhl is a 4 billion dollar industry and the flames are pegged at about 410 million franchise value according to Forbes. NFL is the most valued sports franchise in NA and they arnt worth a trillion dollars so the data id already there on that. The evidence is over welming that pro sports do not provide an economic benefit to a city. The debate is how much of a indirect or cultural benefit so they provide and then what is the value of that indirect benefit to you, but the economy debate just isn't there. Oh and if we want to get our facts right CalgaryNext was going to have a total cost of 1.8 billion dollars with the taxpayers picking up 1.3 of that when you could consider the whole project.

Problem is that an actual economist will tell you that CESCs number are out to lunch. Ther is literally a mountain of evidence that shows that the economic benefit to a pro sports team to a city is minimal at best. CESC grossly over estimated those numbers. It would be a easy decision if cesc were even close to correct but they are not.

City responded to the flames "proposal" and gave further details. Not a pretty look for the information the Flames put out today. That being said I don't like this approach by the city. Comes across as very combative and a "your wrong, were right" mentality when the goal should be getting back together to find some common ground.

FWIW, King stated today "we aren't getting one" and is insisting that he is not talking about the arena issue anymore and that it is done.

That is not what I've read/been made to understand. The Flames already collect a ticket tax on the tickets and it is already included in their revenue. The City wants, and should be pointed out that it was actually the Flames that first proposed this for CalgaryNext, that to instead of going to their general revenues go to paying back the arena. Comes out of their revenue yes but it isn't a "new" tax though

and I don't disagree in theory but the skeptic in me is also saying that prices are going to rise with the new buliding (let's be honest here when do they not) so not only do the Flames want to keep the current ticket tax they enjoy they want to increase it. They want to have their cake and eat it too, which is what most people do so i'm not blaming them but I do think its a point they should flex on. I don't mind a small CRL, and apparently the area in Victoria Park is already zoned for one. My problem would be a CRL to the tune of 200 million because I don't believe that would get paid back. I can see the area attracting bars, restaurants etc but I can't see it bringing in an anchor tenant like a commercial building or condo development that it would likely need in order to pay back that 200 million. The easiest thing I'm seeing is keep the 1/3 City, 1/3 Flames and split the middle 3rd between a CRL and a ticket tax. City owns the building and the Flames pay rent.

That is one area I side with the City in that a ticket tax is the better way to fund this. I don't like the idea of a CRL because I really don't think an arena is near the magnet for investment that CESC argues so I really don't think it will generate enough to pay back the CRL (at least not to the tune of hundreds of millions but maybe a smaller amount). I also think a user fee (which is essentially what a ticket tax is) is the most fair way to provide repayment given this is not a facility everyone in Calgary necessarily has access to. Biggest problem is the Flames view the ticket tax as their revenue so they view using the ticket tax to pay back the arena as them losing revenue which is why they keep pushing the CRL. Also the CRL sounds cheap, easy and beneficial to the tax payer which it really isn't so King and CESC seem to think it will go over well with the public (even though it isn't). I also don't think its fair to combine the Flames paying rent as part of their total contribution. Still a big gap to close here unfortunately but I think the framework proposed by the city is still the more fair of the two options to work off of.

CESC didn't really put out a proposal they put out a PR campaign press release. It's difficult to form an opinion using it because it really doesn't give us any information. They say they are going to contribution $275 million but don't clarify how, is it cash up front or is it a pre payment of rent like the Oilers deal (which they hint at). If it's not cash up front and the city has to front it then their numbers won't add up. Also they keep coming in 50million under the city, which the city says is becasue they are not factoring in utilities to the building like the should, so that's unaccounted for as well. Would also love to know this study they did that showed a $400 million impact to the city as i suspect those numbers are completely fudged but they don't provide a link to access the report to see who actually did it (at least I can't find it). Either way what CESC put out today really doesn't provide much. -

Certainly is but you could appeal to the fan experience. Case in point I own a share in the Green Bay Packers. I get zero capital appreciation, can never sell it for a profit and get to only vote on already approved shareholders, it is strictly a fan item and they did that to raise money for their Stadium renovation. Not sure if that was what Mike OX was referring to or not. But yes that is not legal.

Zirak is right the fund for the firehouse is unfunded. They have the plans and have set aside the budget for it but they have not made a determination about how to fund it which is frustrating because its been almost 3 years since they decided to build one and they already have the location/plans for it. But I agree with your premise that under the last 2 mayors this city has really not made sports a high priority and that disappointing because there is already so much here to work with. U of C has a great sports medicine and Kinesiology department, athletes from all over the world already come here and we've got 4 "professional" sports teams already here. Would be nice to see the City divert more attention to sport. Doing a bit better with 4 rec centers coming online in the next 2-3 years which is great for Youth but then you run into the problem that is so common in Canada that we can get youth involved but we fail in the transition from youth to high performance. Instead of the arts and culture district Nenshi wants to create i'd much rather see an arena and field house built with upgrades to McMahon. There is an opportunity to really make Calgary into a high performance athletics destination which probably has as many positive benefits to the city as an art and cultural district does but that's clearly not what Nenshi will focus on.

This isn't meant to criticize but I am wondering what CESC's plan was when they started this. Was it to make it an election issue? win the PR campaign? Kickstart negotiations? Get fans on their side? I only wonder because I think CESC is getting killed in the PR game here. I've very surprised that the majority of people i've taked to the in the last few days have not changed their mind and are sticking with the city and want CESC to pay more. I just find it very interesting and was really expecting people to turn on Nenshi but that doesn't appear to be happening. King certainly didn't help things with his mess of a press conference today.

How is it not? What investors in the world do you know that are willing to pay upfront cost with no chance at repayment? City views themselves as an investor in this project and why shouldn't they? Don't the Flames plan to recoup the 2/3 they are paying towards the project? (under the city's proposal) i understand that yes the City is making themsevles out to be the better of the two here and are playing the PR game but that doesn't mean their philosophy is incorrect. Don't think we need to re debate the merits of CalgaryNext but keep in mind it was almost 4 times the price tag of the new arena. Don't see an improved benefit/cost in Calgarynext versus this Victoria Park option especially considering I would argue Victoria Park is the better location anyway (closer proximity to DT, will have 2 C Train stations and close to Stampede so can still hold Stampede concerts etc).

According to Nenshi the city is open to both. If City owns the building, Flames pay rent, if the Flames own the building they pay property tax but the end goal is that the city should share in the upside and revenues the building creates.

Well first off, if the Flames are going to receive 100% of the profits why is that an unreasonable request from the City that the recoup the investment? If you look at CESC position they expect the City to partake in the risk but are basically excluded from the upside so why is that position fair? Secondly I don't agree with King that they would wind up paying for the whole thing and I don't view the city's offer as 100% private payment. It sounds like the numbers thrown around was around 5 million per year in tax payment and over 30 years that would not pay back the City's initial investment anyway, never mind the fact that the City would face interest costs, plus the lost opportunity cost of what else they could do with the land. Is CESC paying the bulk of this, absolutely, but is it 100%? No I don't see it that way. To be clear I am not suggesting this is all on CESC either nor am I suggesting that they call up the City and say accept. I understand some of their frustrations and I get why they havn't said yes yet but for them to flat out say there is nothing there they can even work off of I think is an unreasonable position. Yes both sides need to flex, but from a fundamental perspective I side with the City's approach to this and not CESC's. I think CESC is still looking for an Edmonton style deal and are basically saying "here is our proposal, it will work so accept it" and that's all. neither approach is reasonable IMO.

The last 48-72 hours have definetly not helped CESC's case here and I agree King today is coming off looking very poorly. Not his fault as he is just standing up for the owner's position in all of this but his answer and his position sells VERY poorly in a city that isn't flourishing economically. Flames are in the top 20, according to Forbes, for team Valuation and basiclaly the same spot for revenue generation in the NHL. to make the claim that they would be better off in the Saddledome than to accept the City's proposal and you see numbers like that it's really hard to support CESC's position here. I don't think the City's proposal's is perfect but it should be the basis for negotiations and I thinks its quite disappointing that CESC seems to think it's completely unreasonable.

Guess it depends on terminology. I know they pay "rent" and perhaps they are willing to again but most of what's out there is making it seem like the Flames aren't willing to pay anything outside of their initial investment plus the ticket tax. My personal opinion, but I think its unfair of CESC to work off of current arrangements. Saddledome is 30 years old and the financing for it was split between all 3 level of government. Much different ballgame this go around with the city being the only one at the table so I think CESC needs to be willing to share more of the upside given the City's risk and investment level is significantly higher.