Saddledome Sadness

[Carty]

I think it's worth pointing out the arena has more impact then just the flames. Consider how many events and or concerts that skip calgary because the roof cannot support their equipment. Those concerts are generally not small names and typically would draw people from around the calgary area which means more positive tourism impact.

 

I have said the same thing in other threads over the last few years, and in support of the point cross is making here even Rexall Place has been much busier than the Dome throughout the history of both buildings...    I remember traveling to Edmonton from Calgary several years ago to see concerts that could not be held in Calgary because the Dome could not facilitate their stage show...   Even still when I go into Edmonton to see a concert there is always money spent on things like restaurants and often there are other friends also going to the concerts that also spend money on hotels, etc...

 

In 2012 Rexall Place was ranked the 26th busiest arena in the world and the Dome was ranked 101st with Edmonton selling over 3 times as many concert tickets as Calgary...   That's a lot of tickets, a lot of tourism, and a lot of money...   Of the 15 Canadian venues listed by Pollstar (a website covering live music around the world), Rexall landed third behind Montreal’s Bell Centre and Toronto’s Air Canada Centre...   http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/01/19/edmontons-rexall-place-ranked-among-busiest-arenas-in-the-world

 

Alberta is able to attract the big shows due to the fan base that will support them and the disposable income to pay the high prices for tickets...   Calgary has not been able to capitalize on the opportunity that has been at hand for a long time already to increase revenue for the city itself because the Dome is not capable of handling so many of these events...

 

Just to add insult to injury, in the same year 2012, Bleacher Report (among others) had Rexall Place listed amongst the top 10 sports arenas that should be torn to the ground...   http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1023910-10-sports-arenas-that-should-be-torn-to-the-ground/page/6

[stubblejumper1]

Hospitals, schools (for the most part) and roads are areas where the private sector is not allowed to invest because they are the governments responsibility.  The government should focus on there type of expenses.

 

The government should not be in the business of risking tax payer dollars on investments (such as a private arena) that may or may not pay out. 

 

If the city wants to donate land for the rink, at least that does not take cash out of the tax payers pocket (however it does cost the tax payer because the city could likely sell the land for a profit.)

 

Maybe the way to fund the arena is to substantially increase the price of Flames tickets. 

[Carty]

Maybe the way to fund the arena is to substantially increase the price of Flames tickets. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wreckening]

Hospitals, schools (for the most part) and roads are areas where the private sector is not allowed to invest because they are the governments responsibility. The government should focus on there type of expenses.

The government should not be in the business of risking tax payer dollars on investments (such as a private arena) that may or may not pay out.

If the city wants to donate land for the rink, at least that does not take cash out of the tax payers pocket (however it does cost the tax payer because the city could likely sell the land for a profit.)

Maybe the way to fund the arena is to substantially increase the price of Flames tickets.

Wait......what?????

[DirtyDeeds]

Hospitals, schools (for the most part) and roads are areas where the private sector is not allowed to invest because they are the governments responsibility.  The government should focus on there type of expenses.

 

The government should not be in the business of risking tax payer dollars on investments (such as a private arena) that may or may not pay out. 

 

If the city wants to donate land for the rink, at least that does not take cash out of the tax payers pocket (however it does cost the tax payer because the city could likely sell the land for a profit.)

 

Maybe the way to fund the arena is to substantially increase the price of Flames tickets. 

This thinking might be okay if only Flames games were to be played in the arena. Sure in that case let the Flames Fans who use it pay for it, however there is a lot more to an arena than just one sport.

 

Arenas and their capabilities bring higher status to cities. Just like any or all major sports they bring in dollars for the community other than just from the venue.  Concerts, Conventions, expos to mention a few things that happen there. The spin offs to hotels, bars, restaurants shopping & stores are all benefits along with higher property values for surrounding businesses and buildings.

 

Should they pay too? because this is a lot of "public" that benefit from a single arena. Oh wait you want the  Flames to foot all of the bill ...

[Kulstad]

To get back to the topic of location, there was a suggestion in the media quite awhile back about developing the land up where the Cannons used to play

• Right next to McMahon Stadium, Hockey Canada, and the University
• Still next to C-Train stations (Banff Trail and University)
• Ever since AAA baseball left town, the baseball diamond has been under-used
• Major traffic access

It's not downtown, but it could definitely work.

[Wreckening]

To get back to the topic of location, there was a suggestion in the media quite awhile back about developing the land up where the Cannons used to play

• Right next to McMahon Stadium, Hockey Canada, and the University
• Still next to C-Train stations (Banff Trail and University)
• Ever since AAA baseball left town, the baseball diamond has been under-used
• Major traffic access

It's not downtown, but it could definitely work.

I like the idea myself but I think the Flames brass would prefer to stay in the downtown core.  But you're quite right, all the amenities are there.

[Wreckening]

Just to give those who don't know Calgary very well a better idea, this is the area Kulstad is talking about.  Its approximately 15 mins to the downtown core from the university depending on traffic.

 

[stubblejumper1]

This thinking might be okay if only Flames games were to be played in the arena. Sure in that case let the Flames Fans who use it pay for it, however there is a lot more to an arena than just one sport.

 

Arenas and their capabilities bring higher status to cities. Just like any or all major sports they bring in dollars for the community other than just from the venue.  Concerts, Conventions, expos to mention a few things that happen there. The spin offs to hotels, bars, restaurants shopping & stores are all benefits along with higher property values for surrounding businesses and buildings.

 

Should they pay too? because this is a lot of "public" that benefit from a single arena. Oh wait you want the  Flames to foot all of the bill ...

 

So because some people (other than the Flames ownership) may benefit from the arena, everyone should have to pitch in?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  Let the concert promoters, etc pay for the arena.  The average tax payer will see no financial benefit from a new arena, so the average tax payer shouldn't have to pay.  That is how capitalism works.

[DirtyDeeds]

So because some people (other than the Flames ownership) may benefit from the arena, everyone should have to pitch in?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  Let the concert promoters, etc pay for the arena.  The average tax payer will see no financial benefit from a new arena, so the average tax payer shouldn't have to pay.  That is how capitalism works.

Have you ever been to a game? Gone to a bar to watch the game? Gone to a restaurant before a game or concert? Even the local taxpaying taxi driver usually sees a boost in his income on a game night.

 

 

When companies look for places to expand to the facilities of that city determines which city is more corporate friendly. (Insert jobs for those average taxpayers you are talking about)

 

The average taxpayer sees a lot of benefit from facilities like a new arena, you seem to blind to see those benefits.

[kehatch]

Should and could don't matter. Big cities have sports complexes. They are generally built with at least partial funding from the municipality.

Like any negotiation it's all about leverage. The city needs the complex and wants to keep the Flames. The Flames dont want to move. A new facility is needed.

Right now both sides are posturing for better leverage. There will be municipal and ownership money because both sides see the need and both sides need a new facility. It's just a matter of how long and how much the split is.

[stubblejumper1]

Have you ever been to a game? Gone to a bar to watch the game? Gone to a restaurant before a game or concert? Even the local taxpaying taxi driver usually sees a boost in his income on a game night.

 

 

When companies look for places to expand to the facilities of that city determines which city is more corporate friendly. (Insert jobs for those average taxpayers you are talking about)

 

The average taxpayer sees a lot of benefit from facilities like a new arena, you seem to blind to see those benefits.

 

I have been to games, gone to restaurants, gone to bars etc.  I will continue to do those things.  The government doesn't need to contribute tax payer dollars to a new arena for those things to happen.

[FlamesLogic]

Just to give those who don't know Calgary very well a better idea, this is the area Kulstad is talking about.  Its approximately 15 mins to the downtown core from the university depending on traffic.

 

I believe the university owns that land and I dont think they would be looking to part with it for a large/important long term structure to be built there. The land they own is meant for expansion of the university. Look at the airport and barlow trail. When it came time for a new run way bye bye major artery. Cant do that with an arena as easily.

[Carty]

So because some people (other than the Flames ownership) may benefit from the arena, everyone should have to pitch in?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  Let the concert promoters, etc pay for the arena.  The average tax payer will see no financial benefit from a new arena, so the average tax payer shouldn't have to pay.  That is how capitalism works.

 

While you are handing out nonsensical explanations of your home brewed theory of capitalism, consider what you are then also saying is that the taxpayers who don't use public libraries, swimming pools, skating rinks, etc. shouldn't be contributing any of their tax dollars towards those facilities either...   Although those facilities charge a nominal fee, they are heavily subsidized by tax dollars, and not all tax payers use them, nor does the average tax payer see financial benefit from them...

 

You seem to lack any understanding how the City of Calgary, and then as a result also its taxpayers, would receive both direct and indirect long term benefits of having a new arena that would more than offset the percentage of the cost to build it that they contribute...   They realize that, and as has already been mentioned in this thread, they will chip in, it's just a matter of how much...

 

The City of Calgary spends substantial amounts of money every year on much more frivolous things that perhaps you should be more concerned about...   They are also easier to complain about without having to put much thought or effort into having even a basic understanding of what is involved beforehand...  

 

Here is just one example of that from last fall, but there are many more that add up to a very considerable amount of tax dollars ...   From:   http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/10/07/city-of-calgary-spends-470000-on-giant-blue-hole-on-far-flung-stretch-of-road-in-the-name-of-public-art

 

 

Then there's the $2 million worth of sticks jutting out of Ralph Klein Park, and various examples of hidden art like the ice cream cone sculpture erected behind the water building on 25th Ave. S.E. and don't forget the $8.6 million worth of art they claim is needed for the West LRT, that they also forgot to budget for...   The list goes on and on...   Over time on a number of occasions the city has attempted to justify these kind of expenditures by saying that they contribute to Calgary's identity...   Well so do the Flames...

 

So perhaps instead of trying to educate us with your "That is how capitalism works" theory, you should consider that the City of Calgary could do a whole lot worse than investing in something for which they are guaranteed to not only recoup their investment, but also continue to benefit from long term...

[stubblejumper1]

While you are handing out nonsensical explanations of your home brewed theory of capitalism, consider what you are then also saying is that the taxpayers who don't use public libraries, swimming pools, skating rinks, etc. shouldn't be contributing any of their tax dollars towards those facilities either... Although those facilities charge a nominal fee, they are heavily subsidized by tax dollars, and not all tax payers use them, nor does the average tax payer see financial benefit from them...

You seem to lack any understanding how the City of Calgary, and then as a result also its taxpayers, would receive both direct and indirect long term benefits of having a new arena that would more than offset the percentage of the cost to build it that they contribute... They realize that, and as has already been mentioned in this thread, they will chip in, it's just a matter of how much...

The City of Calgary spends substantial amounts of money every year on much more frivolous things that perhaps you should be more concerned about... They are also easier to complain about without having to put much thought or effort into having even a basic understanding of what is involved beforehand...

Here is just one example of that from last fall, but there are many more that add up to a very considerable amount of tax dollars ... From: http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/10/07/city-of-calgary-spends-470000-on-giant-blue-hole-on-far-flung-stretch-of-road-in-the-name-of-public-art

Then there's the $2 million worth of sticks jutting out of Ralph Klein Park, and various examples of hidden art like the ice cream cone sculpture erected behind the water building on 25th Ave. S.E. and don't forget the $8.6 million worth of art they claim is needed for the West LRT, that they also forgot to budget for... The list goes on and on... Over time on a number of occasions the city has attempted to justify these kind of expenditures by saying that they contribute to Calgary's identity... Well so do the Flames...

So perhaps instead of trying to educate us with your "That is how capitalism works" theory, you should consider that the City of Calgary could do a whole lot worse than investing in something for which they are guaranteed to not only recoup their investment, but also continue to benefit from long term...

A couple of points:

1.There is a difference between public pools/libraries and a professional sports arena. The difference is that when I go to a pool or library the fees go into the City's pocket, not a private owner's pocket.

2. If the investment in a new arena was "guaranteed" to pay out in a reasonable time frame, private investors would be lining up to help fund the project so they could make guaranteed returns.

3. While I do not like blue ring any more than anyone else, that doesn't change the fact that the City has a rule that all infrastructure projects must have an art component. Investing money in an arena would not reduce the amount of money the City spends on ugly art.

[The_People1]

A couple of points:

1.There is a difference between public pools/libraries and a professional sports arena. The difference is that when I go to a pool or library the fees go into the City's pocket, not a private owner's pocket.

2. If the investment in a new arena was "guaranteed" to pay out in a reasonable time frame, private investors would be lining up to help fund the project so they could make guaranteed returns.

3. While I do not like blue ring any more than anyone else, that doesn't change the fact that the City has a rule that all infrastructure projects must have an art component. Investing money in an arena would not reduce the amount of money the City spends on ugly art.

 

Creating tax revenue is an art form like, "how do i help you make money so that i can make money from you making money?"

 

Cities make money primarily from taxes.  They do not invest in 20 Tim Horton's franchises and generate profits that way.  If you want the government to only spend money on money losing businesses like libraries and swimming pools so that the public can purchase subsidized products and then everyone is taxed to fund that program when there's no jobs for them, then that's not going to work long term.  At some point, the city will go bankrupt.

 

Nobody works for free and nothing in this world is free.  Money is used to fund a city and that money has to come from somewhere. In order to tax the average Joe, you need big corporations in your city to employ them. Then, in order to tax the big corporations, you need them to provide a place for the average Joe to spend money.  As such, we see governments work with giant corporations in all sectors of the economy all the time.  ie. Banks, Oil Producers, etc.  All that money invested in the big corporations trickle down to the average Joe and then when the average Joe makes money and spends money, the government's got their hands in there.

 

A professional sports arena IS money in the pocket for the city through tax revenue.

[stubblejumper1]

Creating tax revenue is an art form like, "how do i help you make money so that i can make money from you making money?"

 

Cities make money primarily from taxes.  They do not invest in 20 Tim Horton's franchises and generate profits that way.  If you want the government to only spend money on money losing businesses like libraries and swimming pools so that the public can purchase subsidized products and then everyone is taxed to fund that program when there's no jobs for them, then that's not going to work long term.  At some point, the city will go bankrupt.

 

Nobody works for free and nothing in this world is free.  Money is used to fund a city and that money has to come from somewhere. In order to tax the average Joe, you need big corporations in your city to employ them. Then, in order to tax the big corporations, you need them to provide a place for the average Joe to spend money.  As such, we see governments work with giant corporations in all sectors of the economy all the time.  ie. Banks, Oil Producers, etc.  All that money invested in the big corporations trickle down to the average Joe and then when the average Joe makes money and spends money, the government's got their hands in there.

 

A professional sports arena IS money in the pocket for the city through tax revenue.

 

I agree with the bolded statement...but how much money in the pocket for the City?  More than the City invested?  More than the City invested plus inflation?  More than the City invested plus the average return on the TSX? 

[The_People1]

I agree with the bolded statement...but how much money in the pocket for the City?  More than the City invested?  More than the City invested plus inflation?  More than the City invested plus the average return on the TSX? 

 

The bolded.  Our interest as Calgarians/Albertans should be invested in the projected tax potential of building a new arena to house the Calgary Flames for the next 3 to 4 decades.  If it ultimately makes more money than the city invested plus inflation, then the investment will be justified.

 

There's a lot of focus on the money the Calgary Flames and the NHL makes but that's a distraction from the most important point and that is the city of Calgary, province of Alberta, and country of Canada makes as well.

[DirtyDeeds]

I have been to games, gone to restaurants, gone to bars etc.  I will continue to do those things.  The government doesn't need to contribute tax payer dollars to a new arena for those things to happen.

I'm sorry weren't you the one who said:

 

 

 

I mentioned multiple examples of how an arena benefits the average taxpayer.  I didn't even touch on the construction and employment benefits and surrounding businesses benefit from that too. ( likeTim Hortons)

[Wreckening]

I'd like to put another spin on this if I can.  Peeps touched on it briefly.  The fact that the city should be invested in this in order to keep the Flames in the city for the foreseeable future, like the next 3-4 decades.  We're not just talking a sports team here that plays games to entertain, think of all the charitable work they do and contribute too.  Imagine the Calgary Flames moving (God forbid) to another city because they couldn't get the support they needed to fund a new arena.  Imagine the impact on tax dollars, charitable funds and other sources of revenue.  Losing the Flames would cost the city more than actually putting the funding forward to build a new arena.  Why do you think places like Seattle, Quebec and another team in southern Ontario are chomping at the bit to get franchises?  They know the benefit that's why.

[stubblejumper1]

I'm sorry weren't you the one who said:

 

 

 

I mentioned multiple examples of how an arena benefits the average taxpayer.  I didn't even touch on the construction and employment benefits and surrounding businesses benefit from that too. ( likeTim Hortons)

Is being able to go to a hockey game/bar/restaurant a financial benefit to the average tax payer?  It is just a way to spend money.  Plus, the people who are going to spend money at a new rink/bar/restaurant are the same ones who are already spending money at the Saddledome and on 17th Ave.

[DirtyDeeds]

Is being able to go to a hockey game/bar/restaurant a financial benefit to the average tax payer?  It is just a way to spend money.  Plus, the people who are going to spend money at a new rink/bar/restaurant are the same ones who are already spending money at the Saddledome and on 17th Ave.

I don't know what to say to you. If you can't see the benefit of having a hockey team and the fact you yourself said you go to games, spend money on games and food and stuff, you are contributing to the cash flow on a game day. Taxis. cafes, bars, the hockey team, the souvenir shops and much more all benefit and so do the workers(average taxpayers)  Duh. 

 

No Flames here and all this wouldn't be generating extra money in the city. No arena no concerts, no hockey team, no trade shows..

no arena and no NHL hockey team and suddenly Calgary is no longer a prestigious city.. the list goes on..

[cross16]

I'd like to put another spin on this if I can. Peeps touched on it briefly. The fact that the city should be invested in this in order to keep the Flames in the city for the foreseeable future, like the next 3-4 decades. We're not just talking a sports team here that plays games to entertain, think of all the charitable work they do and contribute too. Imagine the Calgary Flames moving (God forbid) to another city because they couldn't get the support they needed to fund a new arena. Imagine the impact on tax dollars, charitable funds and other sources of revenue. Losing the Flames would cost the city more than actually putting the funding forward to build a new arena. Why do you think places like Seattle, Quebec and another team in southern Ontario are chomping at the bit to get franchises? They know the benefit that's why.

Agree with this 100%. Sure the owners pocket money and make money as theg should. But Don't forget the amount kf money the flames give back to the economy that many tax payers benefit from. Think of the Ronald Macdonald house or all kf the arena projects the flames have either financed themselves or helped finance. You may not use them yourself but the flames doing that saves your tax dollars from doing it.

[stubblejumper1]

Agree with this 100%. Sure the owners pocket money and make money as theg should. But Don't forget the amount kf money the flames give back to the economy that many tax payers benefit from. Think of the Ronald Macdonald house or all kf the arena projects the flames have either financed themselves or helped finance. You may not use them yourself but the flames doing that saves your tax dollars from doing it.

I agree that having the Flames in Calgary is a great thing. They create jobs, do a lot of charity work, etc. I think having them here is great for the community and I support the team by buying tickets.

But... so do a lot of other private sector companies. I fail to see why the Flames need/deserve more government assistance than any other company in the private sector. Why would the government invest in the Flames over an oil and gas company/tech company/investment bank, etc? These type of companies also employ a lot of people and donate a lot of money to charity.

I simply don't see the benefit of forcing every taxpayer in the city/province/country to contribute to a new arena for the Flames. The government should focus on providing essential services instead of entertainment venues.

[The_People1]

Vancouver has the worst bottleneck for traffic and is probably the worst city in Canada for traffic. Anywhere you go during rush hour, traffic is horrible. They fit Rogers Arena in the DT core quite well. Not that I know anything about Calgary's downtown, but I think it's doable anywhere when you look at how Vancouver made theirs. 

 

But in terms of traffic, it can't be any worse than Vancouver's. 

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vancouver-home-to-worst-gridlock-in-canada-traffic-study-finds-1.1850311

 

It's official.  Vancouver has the worst rush hour traffic in Canada.