The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[cross16]

20 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Totals.

 

Except, who the hell will move here to the Saddledome?  The answer is nobody. 

 

So therefore, if the Flames move away, then we will have to build a new arena from scratch to attract a team to move here or to attract an expansion franchise.  We as Calgary is back at square one, or worse, we have to build a new arena and pay 100% of it.

 

This is of course, the exact conversation the flames want us fans to have.  And we are falling right into their trap.

 

Depends on the owner. If i was the owner of the Panthers and drawing no fans I would be very interested in what the city has proposed. The city is not saying we won't build you a new area an in fact are saying they opposite. They are saying we will build you an arena but we want you to pay us back. I think teams like Carolina, Florida, Pheonix etc would have much better situations by looking into Calgary and taking that deal than what they are currently dealing with. 

[xmiika]

3 hours ago, CheersMan said:

Imagine for a moment the city of Calgary without the Flames, or Toronto without the Maple Leafs or Montreal without the Canadians or NY without the Rangers.  These teams not only entertain each fan base but they stimulate their city/state/provincial economy in unimaginable ways.  How many dollars would you estimate exchanged hands due to just one regular season or playoff game?  Planes, trains, buses, cars, restaurants, hotels, etc are all receiving the benefits of having an NHL team in their city. To say zero public money should be given to a business that stimulates the economy on a regular basis would be rather narrow minded.  I prefer a dynamic city that offers various entertainment venues even though I can not support all.  I certainly don’t mind supporting the proposed structure which provides the largest entertainment value for this city.  For those who prefer stoic and less dynamic municipalities there are plenty of those in rural AB that would love your support.  

Wow! What a misquotation! 

"I am just saying no public funds to help out a private business in this magnitude at this time."

 

You just took the first part of my sentence and ran with it. You totally misunderstood my point and put words into my mouth. Come on! You did not highlight the most important part of my sentence: in this magnitude at this time. So lets put those two parts together: 

 

"I am just saying no public funds to help out a private business in this magnitude at this time."

 

Maybe you now understand that I never said: No public funds to help out a private business! or  To say zero public money should be given to a business that stimulates the economy on a regular basis would be rather narrow minded.

 

I want the new arena! But I want it to be a fair deal because at this economic downturn, a massive amount of public funds spent in a hasty deal, can seriously damage our city and it's economy. Please in the future read with an open mind before attacking someone with a misquote!

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Depends on the owner. If i was the owner of the Panthers and drawing no fans I would be very interested in what the city has proposed. The city is not saying we won't build you a new area an in fact are saying they opposite. They are saying we will build you an arena but we want you to pay us back. I think teams like Carolina, Florida, Pheonix etc would have much better situations by looking into Calgary and taking that deal than what they are currently dealing with. 

 

So they would move into the Saddledome first, and then immediately accept/negotiate the city of Calgary's new arena proposal?

 

Fair enough.

[cross16]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

So they would move into the Saddledome first, and then immediately accept/negotiate the city of Calgary's new arena proposal?

 

Fair enough.

 

I was thinking the would pre negotiate a deal with the city to start building an arena then move and play out of the saddledome while it's being built. As much as we can complain about The dome I think it can easily support NHL hockey for years to come and I think given the increase in fan base it would still make a ton of sense for owners of the panthers, hurricanes etc. 

 

still not a likely scenario mind you

[The_People1]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I was thinking the would pre negotiate a deal with the city to start building an arena then move and play out of the saddledome while it's being built. As much as we can complain about The dome I think it can easily support NHL hockey for years to come and I think given the increase in fan base it would still make a ton of sense for owners of the panthers, hurricanes etc. 

 

still not a likely scenario mind you

 

Wouldn't it be crazy if the Tampa Bay Lightning relocated to Calgary...

 

But good points.  The Saddledome sounds like a maintenance nightmare in today's world.  I don't believe teams would move here without first having a new arena deal in place.

 

That said, the city would probably prefer to build the new arena where the Saddledome currently is so u don't have to find new land for it.

 

Also, one obstacle remains and that competing cities like Seattle are building the entire arena themselves and making it very attractive for teams to move there.  Free of financial risk and investment.

[cross16]

42 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Wouldn't it be crazy if the Tampa Bay Lightning relocated to Calgary...

 

But good points.  The Saddledome sounds like a maintenance nightmare in today's world.  I don't believe teams would move here without first having a new arena deal in place.

 

That said, the city would probably prefer to build the new arena where the Saddledome currently is so u don't have to find new land for it.

 

Also, one obstacle remains and that competing cities like Seattle are building the entire arena themselves and making it very attractive for teams to move there.  Free of financial risk and investment.

 

Well and there is the obstacle as well that if the Flames were move on Bettman's watch and with his support how likely is it going to be he lets another team just waltz right back in? Would seem very hypocritcal of him to say Flames can't survive but then have another owner come in a disagree.

 

But the reason I keep coming back to the idea is the Flames are in the top 10 in terms of tickets prices in the NHL and basically sell out every night with great corporate support as well. I get the benefits to places like Seattle but IMO it's pretty much impossible to find another market like that in North America. 

[xmiika]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

Also, one obstacle remains and that competing cities like Seattle are building the entire arena themselves and making it very attractive for teams to move there.  Free of financial risk and investment.

 

One might add the Seattle arena will be build entirely without the use of direct public funding. Even the old proposal had Seattle and King County shelling $200M towards the arena, but this would of been paid back in rent and tax revenue. What I understand the CSEC wants the City of Calgary to pay 1/3 of the cost of the new arena, period! No revenue sharing, no rent and no paying back the public funds. We shall see soon as the proposals will be published.

[travel_dude]

16 minutes ago, xmiika said:

 

One might add the Seattle arena will be build entirely without the use of direct public funding. Even the old proposal had Seattle and King County shelling $200M towards the arena, but this would of been paid back in rent and tax revenue. What I understand the CSEC wants the City of Calgary to pay 1/3 of the cost of the new arena, period! No revenue sharing, no rent and no paying back the public funds. We shall see soon as the proposals will be published.

 

The city proposal suggests that the city has no investment in the arena other than taking out a loan and getting repaid.  How do you make a big for the Olympics for an arena that has no public ownership whatsoever?  

 

Speaking of the Olympics - isn't the benefit for hosting one of these outweighed by the cost?  Even if the city has no involvement in the arena funding, the cost of security and other required investment would sink the city in debt.  Economists often bring up the lack of benefit of public funds spent on sports teams, but somehow that goes out the window when an Olympic bid is considered.

 

Somewhere between the two sides is a solution.  Perhaps the Flames ownership can build an office tower and lease the space back to the city as a concession.    

 

 

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The city proposal suggests that the city has no investment in the arena other than taking out a loan and getting repaid.    

 

 

 

That isn't quite accurate. City would basically be donating the land, by-passing any other development dollars they could make off it (which would be more profitable to them than an arena) and also paying the interest on it which would likely wind up being 10s of millions of dollars. Everything I've read suggests the City is only asking CESC to pay back the principle amount. I get your saying the may not have as much capital investment in the project but that's too narrow minded of a focus IMO when you are dealing with a project this size. 

 

Is CESC paying more? for sure. But given they stand to reap the vast majority of the profits why shouldn't they?

[xmiika]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The city proposal suggests that the city has no investment in the arena other than taking out a loan and getting repaid.  How do you make a big for the Olympics for an arena that has no public ownership whatsoever?   

 

 

But that's just the thing. In the CSEC proposal (only based what's in the media right now) they would just want the City of Calgary to pay 1/3 of the cost of the arena, BUT city would not own the arena, partly or otherwise. It would be owned by the CSEC and all revenue would go only to the CSEC. Plus it was reported the CSEC would like to be exempt of paying property taxes to the city. So in short, they just want public funds with no direct financial returns to the city + more. 

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

That isn't quite accurate. City would basically be donating the land, by-passing any other development dollars they could make off it (which would be more profitable to them than an arena) and also paying the interest on it which would likely wind up being 10s of millions of dollars. Everything I've read suggests the City is only asking CESC to pay back the principle amount. 

 

Is CESC paying more? for sure. But given they stand to reap the vast majority of the profits why shouldn't they?

 

I sit corrected.  What I had heard was that it wasn't just principal.  I think that one of the sticking points is that the ticket surcharge was already part of the Flames revenue.  So they would have to forgo that to have a new one, and use that entirely on the cost of the arena.  If I understand it correctly, that is basically asking the fans for more money so that the arena can be paid for by the team.

 

[cross16]

5 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I sit corrected.  What I had heard was that it wasn't just principal.  I think that one of the sticking points is that the ticket surcharge was already part of the Flames revenue.  So they would have to forgo that to have a new one, and use that entirely on the cost of the arena.  If I understand it correctly, that is basically asking the fans for more money so that the arena can be paid for by the team.

 

 

And to be fair until all the details are released, if they are, some of this is speculation but this is what I understand so far.

From what I understand on the Cities proposal is that they would front 2/3 of the project (their portion and the ticket tax portion) and Flames pay the other 3rd. The city expects the ticket tax to repay a portion of the money they fronted which would obviously come via a loan and i read that City will pay interest (unconfirmed). City then expects the Flames to pay property tax on the building, or share in the revenue it generates.I think the confusion on the cities portion revolves around being made "whole". Does that mean they want CESC to repay the entire amount or are they wanting just the ticket tax portion to be made whole and their portion remains? I think it would be fair to expect the Flames to repay the portion of the ticket tax.

 

Sounds like CESC is refusing to negotiate any deal that involves them paying property taxes or sharing in the revenue but why is that? Could be a bit of a greed in that they want to keep the profits and are claiming that they need to in order to be economically viable (Druh Farrell hinted on Twitter yesterday that this could be a sticking point) or does the relate to the city being made "whole". If the City is saying we will front you 2/3 but then pay us back via a ticket tax and property tax revenues for 30 years so we get all our $ back (less land and interest cost) but we own the building then I could see CESC points about that not being all that fair a deal. 

 

Think long story short more details need to come out before we have a firm understanding of what is going on but it does sound like CESC is adament that they shouldn't pay property taxes or share revenue and I think that's an unreasonable position. 

 

 

[ABC923]

19 minutes ago, xmiika said:

 

But that's just the thing. In the CSEC proposal (only based what's in the media right now) they would just want the City of Calgary to pay 1/3 of the cost of the arena, BUT city would not own the arena, partly or otherwise. It would be owned by the CSEC and all revenue would go only to the CSEC. Plus it was reported the CSEC would like to be exempt of paying property taxes to the city. So in short, they just want public funds with no direct financial returns to the city + more. 

 

This is an example of why I generally don't support public money for arenas and stadiums.  If a proper revenue sharing agreement could be made that would be great, but it rarely works out that way.  Just look at how the arena deal in Edmonton shook out.  Katz put up about $20 million in cash, and the oilers will then lease the building for 35 years from the city for a total cost of about 3.22 million per year.  The city owns the building outright, but Katz and the Oilers collect all revenue generated from events held at Rogers Center including games, concerts, and other events, and even naming rights.  So let's look at how this shakes down.

Total Arena Cost: $483.5 Million

City Expenses: ~463.5 Million, much of it borrowed, to be paid by ticket levees, revitalization levees, and oilers rent money

City Benefits: Revitalization, a little over 3 million in annual revenue from the team, a "promise" not to move the team for 35 years.

Oilers Expenses: $20 million in cash upfront, 3.22 million annually for 35 years

Oilers Benefits: All revenue (parking, ticket sales, concessions, advertising, concerts, etc.)

 

So legally the city owns the building, and paid for the lion's share of the cost.  The oilers pitched in about 5% of the cash upfront and will pay most of their contribution in the form of rent.  In return, the oilers receive all of the profits directly associated with the building.  Seems like Katz basically got a brand new arena for $20 million plus another 112 million spread out over 35 years. The city will never see a direct profit from this building, and will eat a pretty significant loss.  I hope for Edmonton's sake that the spin off revenue sources surrounding the arena pan out, but as other posters have mentioned it's the province and the feds who will reap most of the tax benefits.  And how likely is it that Roger's Stadium is still functioning in 35 years anyway? The Saddledome is considered a dump by the Flames and Bettman, and is only about 30 years old.

[DKim]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Think long story short more details need to come out before we have a firm understanding of what is going on but it does sound like CESC is adament that they shouldn't pay property taxes or share revenue and I think that's an unreasonable position. 

 

I believe that this is the current arrangement with the Saddledome. 

[cross16]

19 minutes ago, DKim said:

 

I believe that this is the current arrangement with the Saddledome. 

 

Guess it depends on terminology. I know they pay "rent" and perhaps they are willing to again but most of what's out there is making it seem like the Flames aren't willing to pay anything outside of their initial investment plus the ticket tax. 

 

My personal opinion, but I think its unfair of CESC to work off of current arrangements. Saddledome is 30 years old and the financing for it was split between all 3 level of government. Much different ballgame this go around with the city being the only one at the table so I think CESC needs to be willing to share more of the upside given the City's risk and investment level is significantly higher. 

[The_Tribal Chief]

See that is were it Doesnt make sense i was under the impression the land that the flames were using for the new arena was owned By Calgary stampede not the city and calgary stamepede was gonna give them that land for the saddledome land now if that is the case why do they need to pay rent they own  the land period

[420since1974]

It is my understanding that the City would acquire the land in question from the Stampede in a land swap.

[The_Tribal Chief]

I had heard they were Giving it to the Csec in a trade for the saddledome property

[cross16]

[The_Tribal Chief]

Press Confrence in 20 minutes from ken king

[cross16]

 

 

[The_Tribal Chief]

These 2 are sooooo far apart

[JTech780]

I could only listen to that for so long. Everytime King talks about the arena deal all I hear is "Whah whah the city won't give my billionaire owners as much free money as they want, Whah whah". There is almost no monetary benefit for the city to pay for a building. In fact most publicly funded arenas lose money. If a new arena was going to make lots of money the billionaire sport franchise owners would just build it themselves. But the new thing in sports is for the owners to blackmail the city into paying for half an arena and flush money down the toilet, or they might move the team to a city that will pay for the arena. 

 

I don't even live in Calgary, and it is frustrating to hear Ken King speak. I say if they think they can make more in Seattle let them try, but I doubt they make near as much money there as they do in Calgary. 

[AlbertaBoy12]

5 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

I could only listen to that for so long. Everytime King talks about the arena deal all I hear is "Whah whah the city won't give my billionaire owners as much free money as they want, Whah whah". There is almost no monetary benefit for the city to pay for a building. In fact most publicly funded arenas lose money. If a new arena was going to make lots of money the billionaire sport franchise owners would just build it themselves. But the new thing in sports is for the owners to blackmail the city into paying for half an arena and flush money down the toilet, or they might move the team to a city that will pay for the arena. 

 

I don't even live in Calgary, and it is frustrating to hear Ken King speak. I say if they think they can make more in Seattle let them try, but I doubt they make near as much money there as they do in Calgary. 

It honestly seems like neither side is willing to budge in the least on the issues, and at the same time both sides trying to portray themselves as the good guy.

[cross16]

The last 48-72 hours have definetly not helped CESC's case here and I agree King today is coming off looking very poorly. Not his fault as he is just standing up for the owner's position in all of this but his answer and his position sells VERY poorly in a city that isn't flourishing economically. 

 

Flames are in the top 20, according to Forbes, for team Valuation and basiclaly the same spot for revenue generation in the NHL. to make the claim that they would be better off in the Saddledome than to accept the City's proposal and you see numbers like that it's really hard to support CESC's position here. 

 

I don't think the City's proposal's is perfect but it should be the basis for negotiations and I thinks its quite disappointing that CESC seems to think it's completely unreasonable.