cross16

True, although he even admitted he thought he was going to be a Flame last summer. So even if they were on there it sounds like he was ready to come here and wasn't going to block it.

I would add Winnipeg to that list too. Sounds like people are getting antsy/frustrated with constantly being held back by goaltending. Depends on how the trade markets shakes out I guess but with at least 4 obvious suitors (Calgary, Dallas, Philly, WPG) plus maybe more I think it will be tough to get him for less than 4 and I really don't want to sign any goalie for 4 years.

Pending cost and term I have to agree that Bishop would be the preferred option. However, cost and term will be important. Like to see someone for 3 years or less to give young guys a realistic time frame. Think Bishop winds up getting more term than that.

I have to agree on Elliott. Sure he can be great when he is on but he is off too much for a guy you want to be your number 1. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he was starting to play well in big games but I didn't love his play down the stretch and i really have not liked him in the playoffs, outside Game 1. Not the worst option a 1 or 2 year deal under 4 million but not the best either. Flames will need to work their options I think.

Was probably 50/50 at best at the end of the year that Elliott would be back. Now I don't think it's very likely he will be back.

Ok, but they didn't cost that so again your are ignoring the facts. You keep quoting the total costs of the entire project and assuming Calgary would face the same costs. both of the actual areas are costing around 500 million. The extra 100-200 million are in additional costs. Rogers Arena, including parking, cost just under 500 million as did the new Detroit. In Detroit 200 mill of the 733milion is included in retail and office space. Why is that guaranteed to be part of a new arena that isn't part of Calgary Next? There is 1 indoor stadium now in the CFL that is it, 2 if you include that when Montreal hosts the Grey Cup they move inside to Olympic Stadium (for now). so 7 or the 9 teams in the CFL are outdoor stadiums. Having an indoor Football stadium is not going to impact their abilty to host Grey Cups. Not to mention there is no evidence that would suggest more people would go to Stamps game in an indoor stadium. If that were true then why isn't the Stamps attendance significantly higher in the summer than the fall? I don't have an agenda at all, other than what is best for Calgary. I think the difference here is you are thinking short term and i'm thinking long term. I agree, and have said elsewhere, that I understand it may be somewhat "cheaper" in the short term to build CalgaryNext, probably to the tune of around 150Million. King said by putting all the structures in 1 footing that is what they would save and I don't buy the CalgaryNext estimate of 300 million in savings. Even if you did. I think the City of Calgary would make more than 300 million in revenue if the develop WV on their own and still put money for the separate projects, plus I think the locations make sense separately versus CalgaryNext. So no agenda at all. I just thing long term an arena in Victoria Park, a renovated McMahon, a field house at the U of C, and the City developing WV on their own is a much better plan for Calgary. If it "costs" the city an extra 200 mill or so in the short term that's fine by me for the increased benefits in the long term. They'll make it back, I don't think they will with CalgaryNext.

I don't see how you think it will take 700-800 million to build a new arena. Edmonton was 600 million and that included land cost, LRT extension, development around it and an additional area. The actual arena cost was under 500 million (including parking). Why is it going to be 200-300 mill to build one here? A new Stadium in Regina did cost that much. however, there was a report also done that said McMahon can be renovated for around 200 Million. Not sure to what degree however and I'd want to see it for sure as McMahon is in bad shape. That being Its not for sure that a new stadium is needed. Not to mention Hamilton built theirs for under $200 million and Winnipeg was estimated at under $250 million. Few years apart, so not automatic that a new stadium costs the same as it did in Regina. A roof is not necessary for McMahon either so i'm not sure why we need to factor that into the cost. The City of Calgary has plans for a fieldhouse that would have a roof http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Pages/Research-and-development/Redevelopment-of-Foothills-Athletic-Park.aspx. This is included in the 200 million they've allocated. A report pegged the contamination cleanup of West Village between 85-140 million, so not sure where 200 Million comes from. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgarynext-city-report-torpedoes-project-1.3545509 I also don't see how you figure it's going to take another 10,20, or 30 years more to do it separately. i would actually argue the opposite consider the estimates on the land cleanup in West village will be a MINIMUM of 6 years before land is ready. Rogers Arena was up faster than that and because the City already owns the land in Victoria Park you could literally have a new building for the Flames before the West Village is even ready to be developed. I also don't agree with the logic of "saving" tax payers 300 million with a combine project. You ignore that the fact that if Plan B goes ahead the City can then develop West Village on their own and make more revenue off of the land than building CalgaryNext on it. So I don't agree that the costs are going to be higher with separate projects and in fact I think the net benefit to Calgary is great with building an Arena in Victoria Park, Renovations to McMahon, their own fieldhouse at the U of C and then developing the WV on their own.

I'm going to assume you work for CalgaryNext? Considering most of what you are saying is not accurate or grossly inflates the project estimates and cost But to each his own. Think we can agree for sure that Calgary needs new facilities. Hopefully soon the debate can open up and we can see all the options we have.

Maybe, but key word though is "in their mind". I already don't think CalgaryNext is a viable project and it sure sounds like council is leaning that way too. Just to much debate in the last few weeks that they may have to put the Green LIne on holding due to cost and the Green LIne is one that almost all of council thinks is a huge priority for Calgary. Just not a good sign if they don't have the money for that they will be willing to shell out hundreds of millions for CalgaryNext. also would be equally as presumptuous to learn the "facts" based on CalgaryNext's website. Some are fine, but its obviously very slanted to what CalgaryNext wants you to know and is not a very objective view of the debate. Think people should read all evidence before deciding whether or not they want to support a project. Also just because I, or anyone else, doesn't support CalgaryNext doesn't mean you don't support a new arena for the Flames. Hopefully when we start debating this again, City and Flames I mean, the debate can just be around an arena for the Flames and what is best and not just CalgaryNext or no CalgaryNext. Debate seems to have moved that direction, mostly Nenshi's fault IMO, and that's too bad.

All badly needed but IMO a major blow to CalgaryNext. Cit of Calgary right now just has too many ambitious plans they aren't sure how they will pay for but will value over CalgaryNext. Between things like this expansion, SW Ring Road, Green Line, Airport LRT etc etc I don't think CalgaryNext is ever going to be a viable option in their mind. Sounds like King is already here anyway, but sounds like Plan B will become Plan A pretty soon and CalgaryNext will die.

They are officially in. Stockton clinched a playoff spot last night.

Stockton needs 1 point in its last 2 games to clinch a playoff spot. Havn't lost in regulation in 9 straight and 6 wins in their last 9 games.

There is for sure talent there (also why I advocate keeping the pick) its' just not as good as previous years that's all. I think there are probably around 20 players or maybe less than I've seen so far that I would give a first round grade to. so in the back half of the first round I think you'll be picking players that would normally go in the 2nd round in a typical draft. I think its going to resemble 1999. Few good players at the top, some steals later that you didn't see coming, surprises all over the place, but a good chance a good chunk of the first round never sees the NHL.

I think they will keep the pick. I dont' think the value of what you are going to get in trade for your first rounder is going to be very good because this is such a softer draft. Plus I also don't see Treliving wanting to be without any picks in the first 3 rounds. cliche, but they'll target the best player on their board. With how wide open the draft is looking like that could be anyone. It's really hard to pinpoint becuaes I think the first round is going to be all over the place. I think there are going to be many surprises both in terms of players who "slip" and who go much higher because teams are going to be so over the map with how they rate prospects this year. Huge lack of consensus.

Sorry conundrumed i'm not following what you are saying. What would the area, once cleaned up, not generate attractive from developers? I am not suggesting that the land be sold off to the developers as is, the City would still have to re mediate and clean it up. I'm suggesting do that and then sell. I think if that land was fit for use it would be very popular with developers because it's a fantastic location in terms of proximity to downtown, right by the water, not in a flood plain, close to transit etc etc. So yes I do think it would be better use of the land, in terms of revenue for the City, to pay to fix the land and then develop it their own way then by building an arena/stadium complex.

The public stance the Flames are putting out there is that it's now their policy to not extend management contracts until they expire. Burke made it pretty clear however that they are very happy with Treliving and don't expect him to go anywhere.

Bingo. This is what ive have been trying to say for a while now. To me the key debate is not whether or not calgarynext is a good or bad idea. The key debate is the city better off with calgarynext or better off cleaning up the land and then selling it for developlement with future property taxes? I vote the latter and I honestly don't think it would be close.

From a project standpoint I agree. From an allocation of public funds perspective I do not. The amount of public funds used in any project, including CalgaryNext, should consider the entire project.

I agree to a point. The issues should be a separate debate because the clean should be done whether or not CalgaryNext gets built I agree there. However, to clean it up AND build CalgaryNext means you are now asking for a siginifance amount of public money PLUS using up a large chunk of what is very viable and likely pricey land the city could be selling to developers. The city has to decide do we pay for the cleanup, yes imo irregardless of CalgaryNext, then pay 100s of millions for the arena, and lose that land to a building they will own and make little money off of. That's why I think you have to consider the costs lumped together

Thats interesting because based on the proposal it looks like there would be a walking bridge from the Sunalta train station right to the arena and it would be a shorter walk than it currently is. I'd be curious to know that persons opinion. Maybe because it's on the slower of the 2 transit lines (SW to NW more popular) and would require more people transferring? i have read a large concern is the parking because so far the CalgaryNext proposal hasn't demonstrated where parking would be. It would require a complete rework of the traffic on the area though, specifically the crowchild bridge, but a lot of that is already being discussed. Not sure if city has allocated funds though

I don't even think it relates to the economy. Even in a good economy it's never a smart idea to spend as much public money on a project like this as the flames were asking for. I think the only way this works, especially in West Village, is of then flames contribute much more to the project. I think if the deal was an arena/stadium/clean up project, no fieldhouse, and the city picked up the tap on the clean up plus another 300million, via CRL, to the project and the flames find a way to finance the rest I think you would have a workable deal.

King is a business man and this is business. Without a new arena the Flames won't be as economically viable as they need to be so they will need to find a way to be economically viable (although I would challenge King to find a better business market than Calgary) so that all makes sense. I have no problem with that. Here is why I'm so disappointed in him. It's been almost 10 years since the idea of wanting a new building was discussed, believe it was around 2008, for the Flames and King to put forward a proposal. It's taken the city less than 2 to have a discussion, mostly because I think the proposal wasn't a strong one on the financing side, but now King is playing the "well if we aren't wanted...." card. He is trying to push it back on the City like it is their fault and "doesn't understand why its taken so long" but yet it was them that took so long to come up with the proposal. I don't believe this is a "threat" and I don't believe for a second the Flames will move it just continues to disappoint me how King is handling this. Part of the reason the Dome is so old and they are playing in it is their own fault so I just don't like how quickly he is trying to dump this on the city. Especially given they asked for a crazy amount of public money to begin with.

Im not surprised at all but to me it's dissapointing he is willing to resort to this low already. Especially when I don't think he put forward a very good idea to begin with, especially on the financing side. Just to be clear I fully recognize he is not making a direct threat and is just suggesting the possibilities. It's just disappointing this has to be out there at this point and that he has to go there.

Just in case anyone still wants to give King credit for how he has handled the arena project, or suggest he is acting in a "classy" way.... now it is April Fools, but in his radio interview the other day King did hint several times that relocating the team was something they would have to look at if they weren't going to get the support on their project. So while this article might be a joke, the threat is not. The radio link if people want to hear further. No direct threat but a lot of not so subtle hints that he is prepared to talk moving the team over the project.

The Creosote cleanup costs have been estimated to be between 85-150 million depending on how quickly the city wants it done. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/toxic-creosote-in-calgarys-west-village-not-our-problem-says-domtar I woudln't say so personally, only becuase I don't see the value in spending the money to clean up the land, give up the future property tax revenue, just so they can move an Arena from Victoria Park to West Village. Might as well stay in Victoria Park and let the city develop West Village on its own. I think the main attraction to CalgaryNext, at least for me, is the idea of moving a Stadium downtown so if you are not going to do that I personally don't find value in the arena being there. City of Calgary has had plans to build a fieldhouse long before CalgaryNext came around and have already budgeted (but not funded) 200million to do so and yes the existing City plans called for a roof. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-development/Concept-plan-full.pdf CalgaryNext pulled this into their project as way to try and "save" the city money and get more public funding for the building without appearing as they were taking as much from the tax payer. It can be cleaned up yes just depends on how long you want to wait and how much you want to spend. Above articled I linked, and form what I remember about the report, as that it would be between 85 - 150 million. The 85 million option could take upwards of 7-8 years however before the land was ready to be built upon while the $150 million would take around 4-6 years. Worth noting, that CalgaryNext disputes this data but to date has not gone public with their own data or own survey to demonstrate it.