cross16

I don't think is quite that black and white, there is some more gray. I do agree that it is a case they've lost some faith in Hiller and they should have. While Hiller was great to start the year and I think played a large part in giving he team confidence, the fact is he was average at best down the stretch and not very good in the playoffs. So rightfully so, the Flames should not have complete faith in Hiller, but with Ortio I don't agree its a case of them thinking he is not cloe to being ready. The Flames, as do alot of teams, view goaltending as a premium position and not one you want to take a lot of chances with. Ortio is a chance. he has looked great at times in the NHL and has had great success in the AHL but remember last off season some people thought Ortio might be ready and he came in and had a sub par camp, IMO at least. If he does that again and they didn't bring back Ramo where does that put the Flames goaltending? You are either scrambling to find a verteran option of waviers, trade etc or you stick an unprepared Ortio in there and are one injury away from haivng to use a rookie in Gilles. I think signing Ramo was an insurance policy. an expensive one yes, but if money is not an object (which it isn't this year) why not keep a guy you know then roll the dice on someone you don't?

While I agree that if you want to rank Crawford you'd have a hard time putting him in the top 10 when you think about regular season play and stats, but i would counter by saying that if you look at how he played in the SCF last year, he played at an Elite level. I think that's what it comes down to for goalies. If you have a good time, you can have a guy like a Ward, Osgood or Crawford that while they may not be elite, they can raise their games to meet the challenge. They sent Nik Hagman down whose salary at the time was 3million. Mind you yes they didn't keep him down there for the full season, i think it was about half the year, but I think it shows if they can win they will do it. They are paying the salary regardless so if its in the NHL or the AHL not sure there is really a difference. All things being equal for sure i thikn they would keep the salary at the NHL level and try to get value out of it but I think if there is a clear difference they would send a player down in a hearbeat.

No one is saying the team won in spite of the goaltending. I think, won't for sure speak for all but I think i get the theme, all we are saying is the goaltening was average. If the Flames want to be better this year they are going to need more out of everyone but I think they need even more out of their goaltending. If they just want to be a playoff team, the performance they got last year might be OK but I tihnk they need more, thats all we are saying.

I'm not suggesting they choked away leads what I mean is they keep making games interesting, either by letting in goals early of by letting in softies during the game to keep i close. Yes the Flames came from behind alot last year but is it realistic to think they can do dit again? IMO, you can't continue to do that, you can't continue to rely so much on 3rd period comebacks year after year because eventually the law of averages suggest you will not get the bounce or two you need in order to do that. so they need to improve in other areas and that means their goalies either keep more goals out early, or reducing the amount of soft goals they let that keep games close. with how competitive things are in the West, if the Flames want to be a contender I don't belive they can rely on coming back form 2,3 or 4 goal defecits. Have to start taking more games over and having your goalie stand tall is a big part of that IMO. Every goalie lets in soft goals yes, but its the frequency. elite or top end goalies will here and there and then you have someone like Hiller who got the point he was letting in a softie at least once in every 2 or 3 starts I would say which is too much. Ramo was better with the softies but still has penchant to let in weaker goalies becuase he is too active in the crease.

I agree in part but also not in others. the biggest problem I have with Ramo/Hiller is their lack of ability to close to the door and that IMO is a huge diffrence between your top end and your average goalies. I think anyone would agree that no matter how much the Flames were in their own end, Hiller and Ramo gave up way too many soft goals last year or put the team in holes early. I do agree that if the Flames can increase their pocession numbers it will lead to better statistics from Hiller and Ramo, but I also agree with JJ that its not going to suddenly vault them into the top 10 in goaltending. If the Flames are to have top end goaltending, which i don't think you NEED to have in order to contend, Ortio is their best chance IMO. I think Ramo and Hiller have proven they are what they are in this league so i think expecting them to suddenly become borderline elite talents is not likely. To this point, ortio hasn't shown me characteristics he could be an Elite goalie, but he has shown certain characteristics that he could lead a team. If you've got strong team i don't think you need the level of goaltending you get form a Price/Rask etc and in fact i would argue in a cap world you are almost penalizing yourself by having 7 mill plus tied up in a goalie. At a minimum i think what you need is a Corey Crawford style goalie. Not someone who is elite, but can be elite when they are called upon. if you have that, you've got a chance to contend and Ortio I think could be that if all he stars align. I'll stop short saying he will becuase goalies are too tough to peg but i think he has the characteristics to be that.

is this really a rebuild anymore though? As i've said before i get people have different defenitions but i'm not sure whatever definition you want would you classify the Flames as rebuilding. The Flames have their core, they've identified the main pieces, locked up their captain long term and have left themslves room to lock up the young core. They gave up picks to get another core piece and locked him up, and were active in free agent. Yes they have some holes on their roster but who doesn't? and for all of those holes they have they have young players potetnially available to fill the spots. I'm not saying they are a contending, but to me your rebulding when you are shipping guys out, not brining in. i think the rebuild is over and now everything is about adding missing pieces needed to be a contender.this should be a tough team to make otherwise i would question the job Treliving has done. I get you are probably signalling out more the "dead weight" of Smid, Engelland and Raymond and while I do agree there is a bit of concern with those contracts i still would rather have a deep and competitive team then one where we are pencilling in rookies to the top line who havnt earned it yet.

Oh ok, that makes sense. And maybe that's the debate that will need to get clarified becasue thats not my understanding. My understanding is that the just literally take all of the taxes that would normally go to the city and use it to pay back the financing given via the CRL. I understand it to be essentially borrowing against future tax revenue.

Not sure I understan how you are arriving at this conclusion. how are the other locations not taxable? all locations in the city are taxable via property taxes, development fees etc etc. All the CRL is is financing. the CRL just taxes the money the city would normally get via property taxes etc and pays it against loan it takes out to build the arena. Loan is paid back, CRL goes away and during that time money that the city normally would have recevied via the same taxes goes against the loan, so i'm not following your logic here. The "new" money element is the CRL assumes that by developing the area propety taxes will increase relative to other areas in the city but as the article I linked earlier suggests that's not always the case.

Probably not an option. Between finding "ok" land in a suitable location,being able to acquire that land from the city or owner AND then pay out of pocket to the tune of 400-500 million that i would be shocked if the Flames actually had i would say that's pretty unlikely. I dn't think the City would mind at all if the Flames wanted to build their own area they would still see the tax revenue from it without have having to put a dollar into it. the Flames need the City's help, most clubs do. Its about getting a fair deal that works for both sides and hopefully the Flames and City can reach something. Not going to be easy though.

I disagree with that notion though Peeps. i don't agree that it is "newfound" money it's simply a redistribution of money. I guess it depends on what you beieve/how optimistic you are about Calgary's growth but here is what I think/beleive. I'll use easy numbers that are not accurate/not to scale. let's say every year 1 billion gets spent on new delevelopment, ie condos, new restuarants etc that come in to calgary. What King is trying to make is us believe is that the development of an arena would make that number maybe 1.5 billion. I don't agree. I think the numbers would stay at around 1 billion becuase I don't think opening up that land is going to increase developement its just going to move projects from anothre location to this land. So when you see that it won't lead to more growth AND the fact that the city would actually not gain revenue from the CRL until the land is paid back essentially the City's budget stays where it is. with the needs in Calgary and the pressure for money in so many different area where do you think th emoney to keep growing the cities budget is going to come from? I'm not saying the net benefit from the CRL would be exactly zero, I jsut don't believe it's going to be this massive cash cow for the city and erase the burden of tax payer commitment becuase again i don't believe that the CRL will increase already schedulded growth and therefore I don't think it will contain near as may "new" dollars as you think. There are 2 discussions here though and I want to make my stance known on both becuase I don't want to come across as someone who does not want this built. Building it and paying for it are IMO two different disucssion. I love the idea of building it and I love the idea of cleaning up the land, and as a matter of fact even without the new arena I believe that land should be cleaned up. the 2nd part is paying for it and IMO right now what has been proposed is not a fair deal for the taxpayer IMO. My argument is the 2nd one, i am not suggesting this project is no good, i'm suggesting that the method they have proposed for paying for it is not good enough and IMO has been "sold" to us without all the facts really put on the table.

Bu you are assuming that by open up the West Village it will add to Calgary's overal growth and i dont' agree. I think Calgary's overal growth will be the same it will just open up new land to move projects too. The net benefit to Calgary is not going to be nera as big as you think and certainly not enough to warrant the near 600-700 million the City will likely be asked to put into the project all said and done. Again keep in mine the City won't actually see a benefit at all to the West Village until the CRL pays the financing back. here is an article that does a much better job explaining what i'm trying to say : http://www.taxpayer.com/commentaries/ab--revitalization-levy-sleight-of-hand let me be clear on something though, I am NOT suggesting this is a bad project, shouldn't get done, or that it will be bad for the city. In fact I am saying the opposite i think this is great for the city, will get done, and i support the project. What I am sayig is that the funding model likely won't work, and I would encourage people to look behind the financing model that King sold you. King made it seem like the burden on the tax payer would be minimal and I strongly disagree with that notion, that is the point i'm trying to mix. We ARE going to pay for the vast majority of this and the CRL is jsut a fancy sales trick to make us believe we won't. My argument is that the financing plan given by the Flames and King will need to be reworked with less emphasis on the tax payer IMO in order for this to get done.

And don't get me wrong I am fully behind this project and want to see it done. My only point is that let's not let the Flames off the hook here and praise them for suggesting an idea that won't affect tax payers because it will. The CRL does not remove the tax burden off the city or the taxpayer its jsut a fancy way of asking for city help. I think the CRL will be a tax burden on the city that is all i'm saying. I think this project is going to be great for the city and i agree civic dollars need to and should go to it. All i'm saying is that i think the burden on the taxpayer right now is too high and is much higher then the Flames are letting one. I'm fine with that becuase as i said this is just an intial proposal but I think it needs to be reworked with less burden on the tax payer and some more money coming from the Flames or non tax generated sources.

I guess to summarize what i was saying is that i think people are assuming that the surrounding land will increase growth within Calgary and create all these new dollars and i don't agree with that. Aboslutly yes, there will be some new dollars created but I don't think at the level people are expecting because you can only grow as fast as money is available so i don't agree that by opening up this space that it will exponentially increase Calgary's overal growth needed to view the dollars created as "new" dollars. i think a vast majority of the money collected by taxes in this area will be net dollars and not "new" dollars, if that makes more sense. I don't doubt it will help pay for it, but I don't agree it till be a "cash cow". i think it would lead the city have to re allocate dollars elsehwere.

i think this is the key point though that needs to be addressed becuase i disagree with the notion that it will be a "cash cow". yes there will be future development in the area but that will come form business who probably already had plans to devleop anyway they jsut move their location. For example, let's say Shanks wants a piece of the action and wants a bar in that area. Do you think they would open up a brand new location and run 3 locations or would they close one and move it to that area? for companies that are likely going to want to look into building condo's in the area do you think they are going to get the idea to do so only becuase there is an arena, or will they take pre exising plans and move them to that location becuase of the proximity? Basically what i'm saying is that i think assuming that the arena will lead to actual tangible growth is misealding IMO. i think what i more likely to happen is for the net growth to actually be quite small becuse you will see development that would have taken place elsewhere get re directed to this area. So yes, there will be some new revenue genreated becuase you can likely add on ome tax due to the proximity to the arena, but from a City perspective its a minimal gain becuase they lose the revenue from projects that would have taken place elsewhere and move it here. not to mention, until the arena is paid back they won't see any revenue from it at all. having said that i do support the project and i do competely agree that the concept of fixing up the area is in itself a worthwile business venture. However, I disagree that what the Flames has propossed is a cash cow for the city and in fact i would probably argue the opposite right now.

I was dissapointed by Katz too and I feel at the end of the day he bullied Edmonton into getting what he wants. Unfortuantely the reason why Cities and taxpayers end up funding these massive projects is they feel the alternative is the team will move and they will lose out on it and Katz played that card. I would realy, really hope that even if the city plays hardball the Flames would not stoop to that level but as the saying goes you can't really have friends in business. It depends on how you view both the project and the role of government i guess. yes this is a business venture but I would argue its a business venture for the city as well as for the Flames. yes the Flames will take alot of the extra revenue but i think there are alot of net benefits to the city as well but not necessairly from a pure financial perspective. I view this as a shared business deal between the two and hope the two sides can come to an arrangement that works for both. I agree, that at first tax this probably is not a good deal for the City of Calgary and I hope the Flames and their owners are open to negoating further.

let's also keep in mind that this if how the Flames propose the project gets paid for. When was the last time anything of this scope was settled on the first proposal. No question in my mind that the funding proposal the Flames put forward will not be what the final agreement is that is why you negotiate. What King and the Flames have done is say, here is our proposal so let's start talking and find out what works for both that is all. I agree with you that there is too much burden on the tax payer in this proposal and complete agree about the levy. The levy is just a fancy way of moving numbers around on the balance sheet to make it look like they havn't gone to the city or the taxpayer to ask for "additional" funds, but make no mistake that Community levy comes out of the cities coffers so in a round about way it is tax payer dollars. Where I disagree though is when you say this won't pay for itself. these projects always eventually pay for themselve,heck even the disaster that was Olympic Stadium in Montreal paid for itself, but it is a question of how long and how the financing was done. While John Oliver makes some good points in his discussion he also uses some very extreme examples and most of his examples come from the US where its not uncommong to see Arenas 100% financed by taxpayers and government and that is not being proposed by the Flames. At the end of the day i think this project needs to happen and will happen but fully agree how it gets paid for needs to be reworked. Restoration costs aside for a second, I think a more happier medium is the Flames owners kicking in an extra say 50-75 million, another 50 mill or so in a ticket tax and thus less money that is required thorugh actual tax dollars. however, i think its completely unrealistic nor accurate to expect that a building that will be used for city benefit be funded entirely by private enterpirse. I understand that stadiums don't produce a bundle of cash for a municpality but they do provide some benefit and adding to that the city does projects all the time that do not produce a net benefit to the city. do you think the city will get its 300 million back on the airport tunnel? do you think the new Calgary library will produce enough revenue to warrant its $260 million dollar cost? i don't think is accurate to look at funding a project by saying when and are we going to get our money back becuase i would argue that the city doesn't get its "money back" on most of the projects they would finance. You have to look at the net impact of the city and thats where I do agree that over the long term the actual net benefit to governments throwing large amounts of financing towrads arena projects isn't really there which is why i do think that when push comes to show the Flames owners need to put more money up and find another way to raise money that does not involve using tax payer dollars, but i also don't think its fair that governments dont' share in financing this at all becuase there is going to be a net benefit to the city. As has been said, the fieldhouse will essentially be another leisure center that anyone can use and i think both the stadium and fieldhouse facilities will help create an athletic legacy in Calgary and that has to be considered when you use public funds too. Keep in mind another fact too, and that is that taxpayer dollars build the Saddledome. Would you call that a bad investment?

There is no way you can call eithre the saddledome or McMahon "Decent". They both are below average buildings especially McMahon. McMahon is to the point now where its actulaly taken away form the experience of going and iMO is one of the reasons you see the attendance falling. If you want to go to the bathoom you basiclaly have to pick between missing parts of the game or standing in line for your entire halftime. Good luck getting any decent food there either and then go have a seat on concrete and cold metal. I love football and I love the Stamps and even I second guess going to games in person becuase the "experience" is not worth the money. here is the reality, its not about sports anymore. I think people who think the Dome or McMahon are ok or fine just want to go there and watch a game but thats not relaity anymore. With how expensive it is to go to these things you have to sell an experience, you can't just sell the product on the ice/field, you have to sell the total package. Otherwise, why would anyone go? Every game is on TV now so if you are just selling the product you would see fans choose to stay home. its the experience people want, they don't want to wait in line up 20-30 mins to go to the bathoom, they don't want to bounce off 5 or 6 people trying to walk to get a beer, they want to have the stadium/arean interact with them etc etc etc. with the Flames its less of an issue because of how much we love hockey in Canda but no doubt in my mind that a large reason you see attendance decreasing for the Stamps is becuase more and more fans get a better experience watching the game at home or at a bar then watching it at McMahon. the other issue for me is attraction. IMO, Calgary is a world class City that should attract the best of the best and in order to do that you have to have the facilities. I personally found it embarassing that with the Women's World Cup just here Calgary could not host a game becuase we didn't have an appropriate facility. Thats embarassing IMO. i think its terrible that we can't attract the top concerts, that we can't have an MLS of a soccer team or really any type of competitive soccer of any kind and I also think its terrible that while we have top notch winter atheletic facilities we have basically nothing for summer athletics. I would recommnend those not in favor of a new arena/stadium etc look at the big picture here and realise that this is only in small part about the Flames and the Stamps. Look at the legacy that facilities for the 88 games has created. You don't think having a top notch facilities for athletics or soccer can do the same? you don't think that potentially having an MLS of professional soccer team in Calgary would not help make Canadian soccer more competitive across the World? this is a ramble and I apologize but i'm very passionate about Calgary being a World class city and i think in order to do that you need World Class facilties. i get not everyone cares about that and that's fine I get it, but I would really stress that there is a much bigger picture here then the Flames and their owners wanting to make some more money. of course thats a primary motivator but there are other factors here too, many of which would help Calgary grealty.

Main details are all out. Will be a "Events center" (not calling it an arena) and a Stadium/Fieldhouse to house the Stamps, a FIFA regulations soccer center and track. Fieldhouse will convert from Stadium to fieldhouse as required and will be covered so no more outdoor football games. Roofs on both facilities are translucent so sun will shine into the arena as well as Stadium. Estimated cost - 890Milion. Broken down with 200 million from Flames, 200 million from City for the fieldhouse (as I said above city has already approved 200 million for a fieldhouse elsewhere) 250$ million in a tax on business in the area and the remaning 240/250 million will come via tickets. Really important note though - that 890 does NOT include the remediation cost of the land which as Peeps said is estimated to be as much as 300 million. King noted that he expects all levels of government (Fed, Provs and Municipal) to help with the Flames to assess and get the land ready. All in all, Flames are asking various levels of governement for anywhere between 500million and 800 million in some sort of funding so i think this is going to be a HUGE battle for King and co. On a personal note, while the project features some cool things i'm not overly impressed. i don't like the idea of a translucent roof on either structure, I will miss football games outdoors. As a season ticket holder i don't love that i will finance a big chunk of this and as a taxpayer will fund another chunk.

I don't think a building outside of the downtown core is a good idea either i think projects like this need to be as close to DT as possible. A lot of pepole are going to complain about traffic and how are they suppose to get around etc, but forget that if you have an arena/stadium that close to downtown i think a large number of people won't even bother to drive. workers downtown could work an extra hour or two befor heading over or have dinner and then head over and I think right now becuase the Dome is just a little ways outside the Core no one really wants to do that. I've always found in other arenas that i've visited that downtown arena's actually reduce the amount of traffic, not increase it. The only really traffic concerns i see with this location is anyone who wants to head North on Crowchild after the game and has to cross the bridge. I konw this on the cities radar to correct anyway, but its going to be a nightmare for anyone trying to get out of there and head north up to the NW as it is currently arraigned.

Something Nenshi has already suggested he won't do either.... Thats where I agree Peeps and thats where I would look for council to help. I think the City should be part of this process so if they give certain breaks on land acquisition or permit processing etc i think they should. The only thing that would dissapoint me is if the city said "hey you are a private company so you do it all yourself with zero help form us". That would be dissapointing because I do think there is going to be a significant fianncial gain for the City of Calgary with this project, just not enough to justify million or hundres of million dollars of investment worth.

A few facts getting lost in this.... 1- The $200 million is only for the field house NOT the arena. it's already been reportd (and the Flames have basiclaly confired) that the Arena will be full funded by the Flames and they are not asking for a penny from any level of government for that. 2- The $200 million is for the fieldhouse and the city has already approved a $200 million field house to be built in the NW Foothills park. Now what is not clear yet is if the Flames are asking for an additional $200 million or are saying if the plan is to spend $200 million anyway why not incude that in our project? Its not yet clear if the Flames are planning a project to include an Arena, Stadium for Stamps AND the fieldhouse, or if the project would be an Arena and a Stadium/Fieldhouse with the City then re allocating the $200 million from the NW Fieldhouse project to the CalgaryNext project. I agree that the City is not going to put in a penny and its been strongly rumored that when the Flames made the proposal to Nenshi and council it was a solid No and a its never going to happen message. I actually think a major reason this has been to delayed is that the Flames had to go back to the drawing board becuase they've been told there are no City funds, and probably no provincial funds either, going towards a private project

i'm not even sure you really save much $ anymore i just think its part of the package. I think you use to save money but now they are so common place its just assumed that if you are a big target you need to be talking the right language and that means a NTC. I bet some players now don't even initiate converstions unless one is in there.

Its basically impossible these days to sign a high profile player without a NTC. That's just the market you operate in now so if Treliving and the Flames refuse to use NTCs or NMCs then they won't be getting many guys to come and player here. Its unfortuate becuase i agree they should be sparce but thats not the marketplace. Having said like, like someone just mentioned, they are typically limited NTCs and that i'm fine with. As long as you have the flexability to trade a player to at least a handfull of teams iwthout their consent its enough to keep yourself from being backed ino a corner.

Sorry kehatch but this makes no sense to me. the pont of the game is to win so if signing a player helps you win in what way is that a bad deal? i would agree if the Flames went way above market to sign him but they didn't. I've read from more then one source that were several teams in on Englelland all offering similar money. i get you don't like him and i do so we will never see eye to eye and thats fine i just don't understand this view. I think if you fill a need by paying someone market value and that player helps you win then you've done a good job. Is it a good contract? no but that doesnt' automatically make it a bad one IMO.

The reason i say that though is who takes the minutes for Gio? You would have one of Schlemko, Potter, or proabably wotherpsoon who all would have had to play significant minutes. i'm not sure the Flames get in if thats the case. Not saying Englelland was the main reason or a primary reason, but i think what he added to the flames depth defiently helped them make the playoffs. i think people are already forgetting just how shallow this d core was prior to the start of last season.