Saddledome Sadness

[420since1974]

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.

 

 

 

But all levels of governments are giving money to the oil companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks and we, as taxpayers, are "forced to contribute".

 

I fail to see the difference.

[stubblejumper1]

But all levels of governments are giving money to the oil companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks and we, as taxpayers, are "forced to contribute".

I fail to see the difference.

The difference is that the Flames already receive all of the subsidies that other businesses do. The government's contributions to a rink would be in addition to all of those subsidies.

[Carty]

There in no question a replacement is needed for the Saddledome...   Any further delay in getting a location agreed upon, a design approved and groundwork started is only more time wasted...   Ken King has been talking about it for years already, and Edmonton has already started on their arena, so it's past time for King and Co. to finally get the ball rolling...  

 

There is also no doubt in my mind that the City will contribute towards building a new arena, it is rather just a matter of what the amount will be...   With the amount of money different levels of government including the City of Calgary waste on a daily basis, it never fails to astound me as to how some people somehow manage to let that slide without ever complaining about it...   But when subject arises of the city participating in the funding for a new arena which is actually one of the best tangible investments that is an available option for them, and also one of the few that has guaranteed benefits, the objecting and grumbling starts immediately...

 

For those that are unable to grasp the concept of how Calgary having a new arena would be beneficial for all taxpayers that reside in the City, perhaps taking a few of these courses would help towards gaining an understanding of the basic principles involved...   http://econ.ucalgary.ca/courses/s14   After all. it has never been advisable to go to a gunfight carrying only a stick...   

[DKim]

But all levels of governments are giving money to the oil companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks and we, as taxpayers, are "forced to contribute".

 

I fail to see the difference.

 

 

As the manufacturing industry in the east has continued to decline, the main driver of the Canadian economy on whole is the oil and gas industry.  So as a matter of priority, when the government invests in the oil and gas industry through subsidies, infrastructure, ect, it does so because the return is exponentially greater and because of the importance of the industry to the prosperity of all Canadians.  It is the main contributor to all of the government services to all Canadians (through provincial transfer payments).

 

Sports arenas boost the economy of the local city.

 

 

There in no question a replacement is needed for the Saddledome...   Any further delay in getting a location agreed upon, a design approved and groundwork started is only more time wasted...   Ken King has been talking about it for years already, and Edmonton has already started on their arena, so it's past time for King and Co. to finally get the ball rolling...  

 

There is also no doubt in my mind that the City will contribute towards building a new arena, it is rather just a matter of what the amount will be...   With the amount of money different levels of government including the City of Calgary waste on a daily basis, it never fails to astound me as to how some people somehow manage to let that slide without ever complaining about it...   But when subject arises of the city participating in the funding for a new arena which is actually one of the best tangible investments that is an available option for them, and also one of the few that has guaranteed benefits, the objecting and grumbling starts immediately...

 

For those that are unable to grasp the concept of how Calgary having a new arena would be beneficial for all taxpayers that reside in the City, perhaps taking a few of these courses would help towards gaining an understanding of the basic principles involved...   http://econ.ucalgary.ca/courses/s14   After all. it has never been advisable to go to a gunfight carrying only a stick...   

 

 

With public money. everything comes down the political ideology of what government should actually be doing and from that flows priorities.  The fact that we are rapidly going further into debt on both the provincial and federal levels suggests to me that the government is involved in too many things and is spread too thin.  We have a HUGE unfunded pension liability that is looming around the corner and a potential healthcare underfunding as the boomers age and require more care.  In light of this, I draw a line at unessential government spending, and to me that includes private sports arenas.

 

If we were to invest in a new arena, it would be from debt financing and would further increase our debt burden.  I don't deny that on the whole, there will be an economic boost to the local economy of Calgary with a new arena. However, we must also take into account that the increased economic impact from the arena comes largely out of disposable income, so we must also consider that there is an opportunity cost to this spending as those dollars are not being used to buy the other things they normally would. The increase in property values is debatable as it depends on how the project is developed  (ie, surrounded by new large commercial zones, large condominium projects).  Apart from that, I would argue that the effect on existing housing would be marginal as it would be weighed against the negative impact from being close to a noisy arena, 

 

This is not an investment in innovation, it's entertainment.  Also, when we include the the debt servicing costs and the fact that the whole investment depends on the Flames providing a compelling product in the long term, it is not as risk free as some of your have suggested.

 

I am positive that Ken King has an alternative plan should the government not contribute significant public money into a new arena, I remember him saying something to that effect in an interview a few years ago.  That is the outcome that I would like them to pursue, but of course he will wait until the door to free public money is closed before they go ahead with plan B. 

 

I'm torn because I would love to have a new arena for the flames, but I would rather the government control their finances so that my children will not have to suffer austerity.

 

Ultimately, regardless of how I feel about it, I believe that it will receive public funding, it's just a question as to how much.

[The_People1]

With public money. everything comes down the political ideology of what government should actually be doing and from that flows priorities.  The fact that we are rapidly going further into debt on both the provincial and federal levels suggests to me that the government is involved in too many things and is spread too thin.  We have a HUGE unfunded pension liability that is looming around the corner and a potential healthcare underfunding as the boomers age and require more care.  In light of this, I draw a line at unessential government spending, and to me that includes private sports arenas.

 

Why would you begin by saying the government is spread too thin and then go on to suggest the money should go instead to pensions, which is the biggest money sucking one-way street burden the government carries.  Retired people on pensions don't work, so it's hard to tax them.  Without making money, the project is unsustainable long term.

 

Instead, start investing in profitable projects and in Canada, hockey is a pretty safe investment of money.  Oil and Gas is a good one.  Computer and tech is a good one.  Pharmaceuticals is a good one. etc.  After you reap the rewards of your investments, then put the excess money from profits toward social programs like pensions, education, roads, etc.  If we run out of excess money and profits, then we should pull back on social programs and re-invest in profitable programs.  This is the way to fund social programs successfully and sustainably long term. 

 

Otherwise, if we keep pouring money into non-profitable social programs without adequately investing money into profitable programs, we will become Ukraine v2.0.

[DKim]

Why would you begin by saying the government is spread too thin and then go on to suggest the money should go instead to pensions, which is the biggest money sucking one-way street burden the government carries.  Retired people on pensions don't work, so it's hard to tax them.  Without making money, the project is unsustainable long term.

 

 

I'm not talking about new pensions but existing government obligations pensions to public sector employees that are currently unfunded.  In addition, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is also unsustainable and we have a nightmare waiting for us very soon as the boomers come of age.

 

The National Post Dec 16, 2013, puts the liability at a account value of $150 billion, with an estimated fair value of over $270 billion.

 

The Globe and Mail Jan 19, 2014, puts the liability at over $300 billion.

 

Unfunded means that the money must come out of budget surpluses, higher taxes, and/or additional debt.

[The_People1]

 

 

I'm not talking about new pensions but existing government obligations pensions to public sector employees that are currently unfunded.  In addition, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is also unsustainable and we have a nightmare waiting for us very soon as the boomers come of age.

 

The National Post Dec 16, 2013, puts the liability at a account value of $150 billion, with an estimated fair value of over $270 billion.

 

The Globe and Mail Jan 19, 2014, puts the liability at over $300 billion.

 

Unfunded means that the money must come out of budget surpluses, higher taxes, and/or additional debt.

 

Or, invest in the private sector to generate GDP which generates tax revenue which generates money to pay for social programs.

[DKim]

Or, invest in the private sector to generate GDP which generates tax revenue which generates money to pay for social programs.

 

Preaching to the choir

 

Make the Northern Gateway happen.

[The_People1]

Preaching to the choir

 

Make the Northern Gateway happen.

 

It's approved since a couple days ago,

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/17/northern-gateway-oil-pipeline-approved-now-enbridges-work-begins/

 

Rejoice!

[PokernHockey]

Let me start by saying I do believe the city should help with the funding. I take exception to your implication that anyone who disagrees with your belief in the economic benefits is clearly ignorant however.

 

For those that are unable to grasp the concept of how Calgary having a new arena would be beneficial for all taxpayers that reside in the City, perhaps taking a few of these courses would help towards gaining an understanding of the basic principles involved...   http://econ.ucalgary.ca/courses/s14   After all. it has never been advisable to go to a gunfight carrying only a stick...   

 

I have is a degree in finance and I just wrote the CFA II and am currently studying for the second FRM test. For all of these I have had to do a ton of economics in my background. I also have peer reviewed academic literature backing up my opinion. Using your metephor I guess I would say I am hoping to bring a tank to your gunfight as well as calling in an air strike. I personally think is far more sensible then showing up to a gun fight with only a gun.

 

At a local level, the recent lockout showed that people actually do not stop spending their discretionary money when local sports are not on, they just go to different places. True, it was hard on bars on 17th avenue, but community pubs,bars outside of the core, and pottery classes were far better off. Having the stadium (and sports team) simply transfers the location and activity on which people spend money.

 

The same argument for the economic bonanza that stadiums will bring is used for hosting international sporting tournaments such as the Olympics. Yet in spite of all the rosy pictures, since 1976, the Olympics have lost roughly US$12 Billion combined.This does not include Nagano - where losses were big enough that the Olympic committee ordered accounting documents burned, Vancouver where I have never seen anything saying they made money, or Sochi, where I have trouble believing they have made up the US$51B considering two years earlier london made about US$15B on their $14.6B. It also includes a $146M gain off a $44B spend in China, which I again have trouble believing considering the source of the information and the fact that no other Olympics is known to have had more then $15B in revenue. But hey, maybe china had 3x as much revenue as anywhere else in the world. Between 1932 and 1984 not a single Olympic tournament made money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

 

In Chapter 12 of "Soccernomics" written by a professor of economics and MBA Dean at Cass Business School in London the central thesis is that though there are cathartic reasons to build stadiums, the economic ones are only touted by the economists who are paid by the owners to provide projections. Most other economists no longer buy that argument. One book you can read if you want to learn about the racket of "economic impact studies" for stadiums is called "Field of Schemes."

 

A Peer reviewed paper by the economics professor Rob Baade, entitled "The Sports Tax" included the conclusion that investments in stadiums do not provide a good return for taxpayers. In College Baade captained the Wisconson basketball team, so I would be hard pressed to say he had a bias against sports. He is respected and influential enough that not only has he testified in front of the US Congress that the idea that stadiums create wealth is a fallacy, but the commissioner of the NFL at the time showed up to the hearing  to try to influence it.

 

The Economic benefits to construction workers, etc. largely assumes that these people are just sitting on their hands and cannot find work. The Keynesian/Roosevelt Public works argument may fly in Ontario, but not in a provide that has a real unemployment rate that is near or below 0%. Any workers on these projects will not be working on other projects, Slowing down the other projects will negate the benefit.

 

Professional sports are also a great consolidator of wealth. They largely take money from the middle class, trickle a small portion "down" and suck most of it up to millionaires and billionaires.neither of which spend as much money in Calgary as they make.

 

Please let me know if you think I should bring more evidenced based artillery to the gun fight.

 

Even if we pretend that the idea that there is economic benefit to this new stadium, because people will be working at this new location, local bars will prosper, etc. by extension does this not mean that the current location will see basically the same reduction because fewer people will be working in the old location, local bars will suffer, etc?  The Dome is home to 19.5k seats. The biggest arena in the NHL is I believe 20.5k. How many extra staff with this new stadium require to service 1k extra people? I mean, sure, having more lower bowl seats will mean higher average ticket prices, but the last time I checked security guards and concession vendors are paid the same hourly rate whether they are in the bleeders on the main concourse, or serving popcorn in the lower bowl. I have seen a lot of arguments for new places include that "X street could be the new red mile," if this is the case, how many fewer people will head to the red mile? Basic project finance requires that you only claim the incremental benefits, something that the intermediate economics, and basic finance classes teach.   

 

There in no question a replacement is needed for the Saddledome...   Any further delay in getting a location agreed upon, a design approved and groundwork started is only more time wasted...   Ken King has been talking about it for years already, and Edmonton has already started on their arena, so it's past time for King and Co. to finally get the ball rolling... 

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

There is also no doubt in my mind that the City will contribute towards building a new arena, it is rather just a matter of what the amount will be...   With the amount of money different levels of government including the City of Calgary waste on a daily basis, it never fails to astound me as to how some people somehow manage to let that slide without ever complaining about it...   But when subject arises of the city participating in the funding for a new arena which is actually one of the best tangible investments that is an available option for them, and also one of the few that has guaranteed benefits, the objecting and grumbling starts immediately...

 

I couldn't agree more and I do think the city should contribute. However not because of some pie in the sky expectation for economic benefit, but rather for the culture, community and happiness benefits.  However your reasoning in this paragraph is suspect. How is that "investment" working out for Phoenix? It is weird, in places that have a large following where the arena could actually be a money maker the teams seem to own all of the revenue streams attached to the arena - such as Edmonton. but yet in places like Phoenix they are willing to rent the venue from the city.

 

I already have discussed the economic argument (its not even close to a good "investment"), but personally I have never thought a good reason for government to spend money was because they waste money in other places. I mean, I guess someone could say that the city should purchase a bunch of brown squares since we already have blown half a million on a blue ring, but personally I wouldn't propose that.

[PokernHockey]

One further point. which I don't want to add to the previous post because of the disaster that is editing posts with quotes. Lets ignore that annoying "time value of money" thing that reduces your ROE. The average "positive" ROE is 10.2%. if you ignore LA's 60% ROE the average drops to 3.9%. I think that is fair to remove the 1 positive outlier if you are going to remove the 9 that are known to have lost money. I sure hope a 3.9% that ignores the fact that you spend the money far earlier then you earn money is not what you would consider "one of the best tangible investments available".

 

Also, London brought in $15B on their $14.6B spend, they did not make $15B. ($52.8M pound profit after spending US$14.6B) I don't think I worded that well in my last post.

[Carty]

Let me start by saying I do believe the city should help with the funding. I take exception to your implication that anyone who disagrees with your belief in the economic benefits is clearly ignorant however.

I am not saying, and never did say that "anyone who disagrees with your belief in the economic benefits is clearly ignorant"...   So I have to take exception to that...      

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion...  But what I do find annoying is when someone criticizes something such as funding for a new arena and then attempts to argue against a point that has been explained in a logical way by attempting to get their own point of view across without properly addressing why they disagree with it and then also failing to refute the original viewpoint...

 

Some of the arguments that have been made against the city contributing towards the funding of a new arena are entirely groundless...   A good example of that would be trying to compare the situation the Coyotes were in with that of the Flames...   *cough*   Apples and oranges...

 

I would also have to question the relevance of expenditures related to the Olympics...  

 

When it comes to "The Keynesian/Roosevelt Public works argument may fly in Ontario, but not in a provide that has a real unemployment rate that is near or below 0%. Any workers on these projects will not be working on other projects, Slowing down the other projects will negate the benefit."   did they take into consideration that many of the workers would quite likely come from out of town and even out of province thereby also adding to economic input?...   Of course they didn't, because that would also blow their "theory" of slowing down other projects right out of the water...

 

As far as your comment "personally I have never thought a good reason for government to spend money was because they waste money in other places. I mean, I guess someone could say that the city should purchase a bunch of brown squares since we already have blown half a million on a blue ring, but personally I wouldn't propose that." never did I suggest that the city should purchase "brown squares"...   What I am suggesting is that they would be far better off ceasing any such purchases, and instead funneling that same money into the new arena project instead of just wasting it...   I think most of us are aware that the city will contribute, it's only a matter of the amount, and that would be a logical way to come up with the money without actually increasing spending...   In other words quit squandering it, and spend it on something more useful and beneficial instead...

 

So it seems that some of the tanks, air strikes and evidence based artillery missed their mark...  

[stubblejumper1]

Let me start by saying I do believe the city should help with the funding. I take exception to your implication that anyone who disagrees with your belief in the economic benefits is clearly ignorant however.

I have is a degree in finance and I just wrote the CFA II and am currently studying for the second FRM test. For all of these I have had to do a ton of economics in my background. I also have peer reviewed academic literature backing up my opinion. Using your metephor I guess I would say I am hoping to bring a tank to your gunfight as well as calling in an air strike. I personally think is far more sensible then showing up to a gun fight with only a gun.

At a local level, the recent lockout showed that people actually do not stop spending their discretionary money when local sports are not on, they just go to different places. True, it was hard on bars on 17th avenue, but community pubs,bars outside of the core, and pottery classes were far better off. Having the stadium (and sports team) simply transfers the location and activity on which people spend money.

The same argument for the economic bonanza that stadiums will bring is used for hosting international sporting tournaments such as the Olympics. Yet in spite of all the rosy pictures, since 1976, the Olympics have lost roughly US$12 Billion combined.This does not include Nagano - where losses were big enough that the Olympic committee ordered accounting documents burned, Vancouver where I have never seen anything saying they made money, or Sochi, where I have trouble believing they have made up the US$51B considering two years earlier london made about US$15B on their $14.6B. It also includes a $146M gain off a $44B spend in China, which I again have trouble believing considering the source of the information and the fact that no other Olympics is known to have had more then $15B in revenue. But hey, maybe china had 3x as much revenue as anywhere else in the world. Between 1932 and 1984 not a single Olympic tournament made money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

In Chapter 12 of "Soccernomics" written by a professor of economics and MBA Dean at Cass Business School in London the central thesis is that though there are cathartic reasons to build stadiums, the economic ones are only touted by the economists who are paid by the owners to provide projections. Most other economists no longer buy that argument. One book you can read if you want to learn about the racket of "economic impact studies" for stadiums is called "Field of Schemes."

A Peer reviewed paper by the economics professor Rob Baade, entitled "The Sports Tax" included the conclusion that investments in stadiums do not provide a good return for taxpayers. In College Baade captained the Wisconson basketball team, so I would be hard pressed to say he had a bias against sports. He is respected and influential enough that not only has he testified in front of the US Congress that the idea that stadiums create wealth is a fallacy, but the commissioner of the NFL at the time showed up to the hearing to try to influence it.

The Economic benefits to construction workers, etc. largely assumes that these people are just sitting on their hands and cannot find work. The Keynesian/Roosevelt Public works argument may fly in Ontario, but not in a provide that has a real unemployment rate that is near or below 0%. Any workers on these projects will not be working on other projects, Slowing down the other projects will negate the benefit.

Professional sports are also a great consolidator of wealth. They largely take money from the middle class, trickle a small portion "down" and suck most of it up to millionaires and billionaires.neither of which spend as much money in Calgary as they make.

Please let me know if you think I should bring more evidenced based artillery to the gun fight.

Even if we pretend that the idea that there is economic benefit to this new stadium, because people will be working at this new location, local bars will prosper, etc. by extension does this not mean that the current location will see basically the same reduction because fewer people will be working in the old location, local bars will suffer, etc? The Dome is home to 19.5k seats. The biggest arena in the NHL is I believe 20.5k. How many extra staff with this new stadium require to service 1k extra people? I mean, sure, having more lower bowl seats will mean higher average ticket prices, but the last time I checked security guards and concession vendors are paid the same hourly rate whether they are in the bleeders on the main concourse, or serving popcorn in the lower bowl. I have seen a lot of arguments for new places include that "X street could be the new red mile," if this is the case, how many fewer people will head to the red mile? Basic project finance requires that you only claim the incremental benefits, something that the intermediate economics, and basic finance classes teach.

I couldn't agree more.

I couldn't agree more and I do think the city should contribute. However not because of some pie in the sky expectation for economic benefit, but rather for the culture, community and happiness benefits. However your reasoning in this paragraph is suspect. How is that "investment" working out for Phoenix? It is weird, in places that have a large following where the arena could actually be a money maker the teams seem to own all of the revenue streams attached to the arena - such as Edmonton. but yet in places like Phoenix they are willing to rent the venue from the city.

I already have discussed the economic argument (its not even close to a good "investment"), but personally I have never thought a good reason for government to spend money was because they waste money in other places. I mean, I guess someone could say that the city should purchase a bunch of brown squares since we already have blown half a million on a blue ring, but personally I wouldn't propose that.

Thank you. You just wrote down all of my thoughts in a MUCH more articulate manner. This is why I do engineering at work and the finance guys do the finance.

[stubblejumper1]

Let me start by saying I do believe the city should help with the funding. I take exception to your implication that anyone who disagrees with your belief in the economic benefits is clearly ignorant however.

I am not saying, and never did say that "anyone who disagrees with your belief in the economic benefits is clearly ignorant"...   So I have to take exception to that...      

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion...  But what I do find annoying is when someone criticizes something such as funding for a new arena and then attempts to argue against a point that has been explained in a logical way by attempting to get their own point of view across without properly addressing why they disagree with it and then also failing to refute the original viewpoint...

 

Some of the arguments that have been made against the city contributing towards the funding of a new arena are entirely groundless...   A good example of that would be trying to compare the situation the Coyotes were in with that of the Flames...   *cough*   Apples and oranges...

 

I would also have to question the relevance of expenditures related to the Olympics...  

 

When it comes to "The Keynesian/Roosevelt Public works argument may fly in Ontario, but not in a provide that has a real unemployment rate that is near or below 0%. Any workers on these projects will not be working on other projects, Slowing down the other projects will negate the benefit."   did they take into consideration that many of the workers would quite likely come from out of town and even out of province thereby also adding to economic input?...   Of course they didn't, because that would also blow their "theory" of slowing down other projects right out of the water...

 

As far as your comment "personally I have never thought a good reason for government to spend money was because they waste money in other places. I mean, I guess someone could say that the city should purchase a bunch of brown squares since we already have blown half a million on a blue ring, but personally I wouldn't propose that." never did I suggest that the city should purchase "brown squares"...   What I am suggesting is that they would be far better off ceasing any such purchases, and instead funneling that same money into the new arena project instead of just wasting it...   I think most of us are aware that the city will contribute, it's only a matter of the amount, and that would be a logical way to come up with the money without actually increasing spending...   In other words quit squandering it, and spend it on something more useful and beneficial instead...

 

So it seems that some of the tanks, air strikes and evidence based artillery missed their mark...  

 

If the city wanted to direct $500,000 to a new arena instead of a blue cicle near the airport, I wouldn't even bother taking the time to type a 100 word post about it.  However, it is likely that the City's contribution would be in the 10's or 100's of millions.  That sort of contribution would likely result in one or a combination of the following:

- an increase in property taxes.

- a decrease in spending on other infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.)

- layoffs.

 

I find it hard to support any of those three consequences.

 

Why would it be so terrible to increase ticket/merchandise/concession/beer prices to help pay for a new arena?

[Carty]

If the city wanted to direct $500,000 to a new arena instead of a blue cicle near the airport, I wouldn't even bother taking the time to type a 100 word post about it.  However, it is likely that the City's contribution would be in the 10's or 100's of millions.  That sort of contribution would likely result in one or a combination of the following:

- an increase in property taxes.

- a decrease in spending on other infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.)

- layoffs.

 

I find it hard to support any of those three consequences.

 

If the city chose not to fund something as silly as the blue circle 200 times, then there is $100 mil saved for a better purpose...   The blue circle is only one example as the City of Calgary overspends on many overpriced pieces of "art" on a regular and ongoing basis...   Many of them (or groups of them) cost a lot more than the blue circle...   They are also often in out of the way spots and not only go unseen by many "average taxpayers", but are quite often not liked by those who do see them...   City projects often have an obligatory percentage of the total budget that has to be spent on "art" and it is typically chosen last minute from a limited selection of what is available at the moment in order just to "spend that amount of money on art" as it must be done to "complete the project"...   Case in point is the recent $8.6 mil worth of art they claimed was needed to complete the West LRT project and that they had to request additional funding for because somehow it had been forgotten about...   10 items such as that on the budget would be $86 mil...   It adds up quickly, doesn't it?...  

 

These are only a few examples, but once once again, if the city quit squandering money on unnecessary purchases and instead funneled that same money into more worthwhile projects such as a new arena, no additional money would actually be required, no other infrastructure projects would have to be sacrificed, and every taxpayer would be better served...

 

 

Why would it be so terrible to increase ticket/merchandise/concession/beer prices to help pay for a new arena?

 

Simply put, the prices for everything listed has been plenty high enough for quite some time already and the cost of taking a family to a game is already ridiculous...   Considering that there are some NHL games in the sunbelt where for about $20 bucks you can get a ticket, hot dog, pop and parking, your beef belongs with Bettman and his dream of expansion into areas that don't support the cost of their own teams at the expense of those already buying much more expensive tickets elsewhere, including Calgary...

[senor_incendiarse]

Why would it be so terrible to increase ticket/merchandise/concession/beer prices to help pay for a new arena?

Prices go up every year anyways, but another problem is people are overestimating actual demand right now and the actual impact that tickets and concessions do to overall revenues.  Fact is attendance for the last 3 or so seasons is falsified by the team, plenty of seats are actually unsold, in my estimation actual bodies in the seats on average has probably been more in the 17k range.  It's not quite as bad as the previous 7 year drought, but the demand isn't at the '04-'09 levels either and the wait list time is quite quicker, the bigger difference is that better sponsorship deals were locked up earlier and a better tv deal.  Plus the Hitmen and Roughnecks could be severely impacted by higher prices.

[stubblejumper1]

If the city chose not to fund something as silly as the blue circle 200 times, then there is $100 mil saved for a better purpose... The blue circle is only one example as the City of Calgary overspends on many overpriced pieces of "art" on a regular and ongoing basis... Many of them (or groups of them) cost a lot more than the blue circle... They are also often in out of the way spots and not only go unseen by many "average taxpayers", but are quite often not liked by those who do see them... City projects often have an obligatory percentage of the total budget that has to be spent on "art" and it is typically chosen last minute from a limited selection of what is available at the moment in order just to "spend that amount of money on art" as it must be done to "complete the project"... Case in point is the recent $8.6 mil worth of art they claimed was needed to complete the West LRT project and that they had to request additional funding for because somehow it had been forgotten about... 10 items such as that on the budget would be $86 mil... It adds up quickly, doesn't it?...

These are only a few examples, but once once again, if the city quit squandering money on unnecessary purchases and instead funneled that same money into more worthwhile projects such as a new arena, no additional money would actually be required, no other infrastructure projects would have to be sacrificed, and every taxpayer would be better served...

Simply put, the prices for everything listed has been plenty high enough for quite some time already and the cost of taking a family to a game is already ridiculous... Considering that there are some NHL games in the sunbelt where for about $20 bucks you can get a ticket, hot dog, pop and parking, your beef belongs with Bettman and his dream of expansion into areas that don't support the cost of their own teams at the expense of those already buying much more expensive tickets elsewhere, including Calgary...

The west lrt took ~ two years to build, and had $8.6MM spent on art. 10 more projects with +$1,000,000,000 price tags (ring road and then what?) would get to total to $86MM over 20 years. That is a lot different scope/budget than $86MM spent in 1 or 2 years for a hockey rink.

[The_People1]

Professional sports are also a great consolidator of wealth. They largely take money from the middle class, trickle a small portion "down" and suck most of it up to millionaires and billionaires.neither of which spend as much money in Calgary as they make.

 

I don't think governments should lose money so that private sector millionaires can make millions.

 

But if goverments can make even $1 by helping private sector millionaires make millions, then that's a worthwhile project.

 

I feel some in this thread look at the Flames making hundreds of millions off a new arena while the goverment only makes a few million and think it's not a fair trade of mutual benefits so they don't support the project.  I don't agree with that perspective of looking at it.