The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[The_People1]

15 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

heres a link from flames nation

https://nhl.bamcontent.com/images/assets/binary/291222978/binary-file/file.pdf

 

and then their take on it 

https://flamesnation.ca/2017/09/21/flames-release-their-arena-funding-proposal/

 

 

So from a distance, it seems one huge obstacle is the Flames want some kind of Community Revitalization Levy to pay for the new arena.  The city wants some kind of ticket tax to pay for the new arena.

 

Sounds like there is little to no CRL to be had in that geographical area.  Flames prefer to use the ticket tax to fund their own share of the payments.  

 

And, the Flames appear interested to pay more up front to be alleviated of property tax and rent throughout their stay.

[cross16]

CESC didn't really put out a proposal they put out a PR campaign press release. It's difficult to form an opinion using it because it really doesn't give us any information.  They say they are going to contribution $275 million but don't clarify how, is it cash up front or is it a pre payment of rent like the Oilers deal (which they hint at). If it's not cash up front and the city has to front it then their numbers won't add up. Also they keep coming in 50million under the city, which the city says is becasue they are not factoring in utilities to the building like the should, so that's unaccounted for as well.

 

Would also love to know this study they did that showed a $400 million impact to the city as i suspect those numbers are completely fudged but they don't provide a link to access the report to see who actually did it (at least I can't find it). Either way what CESC put out today really doesn't provide much. 

 

- 

 

 

[AlbertaBoy12]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

ICESC didn't really put out a proposal they put out a PR campaign press release. It's difficult to form an opinion using it because it really doesn't give us any information.  They say they are going to contribution $275 million but don't clarify how, is it cash up front or is it a pre payment of rent like the Oilers deal (which they hint at). If it's not cash up front and the city has to front it then their numbers won't add up. Also they keep coming in 50million under the city, which the city says is becasue they are not factoring in utilities to the building like the should, so that's unaccounted for as well.

 

Would also love to know this study they did that showed a $400 million impact to the city as i suspect those numbers are completely fudged but they don't provide a link to access the report to see who actually did it (at least I can't find it). Either way what CESC put out today really doesn't provide much. 

 

- 

 

 

True its not a proposal in the correct sense of the word, but it is the framework for something more. I think there is obviously alot of parts that need to be fleshed out before anyone can make an informed decision, but the numbers look ok to me.

[AlbertaBoy12]

28 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

So from a distance, it seems one huge obstacle is the Flames want some kind of Community Revitalization Levy to pay for the new arena.  The city wants some kind of ticket tax to pay for the new arena.

 

Sounds like there is little to no CRL to be had in that geographical area.  Flames prefer to use the ticket tax to fund their own share of the payments.  

 

And, the Flames appear interested to pay more up front to be alleviated of property tax and rent throughout their stay.

I think so. Honestly I dont care what the deal is, I just want it to get done. Obviously I want the best deal to be had, but my wanting it to get done has nothing to do with my being a flames fan. I think an arena is a big boost to a city, and this whole thing is just a sideshow to what matters. Id be intertested to see where all the money is going to come from in this latest idea but I think it needs to get done sooner then later.

 

On top of that no matter where your taxes go, its very likely that it will be something you have no interest in, which seems to be a common argument among non hockey fans. Ive heard loads of them say I dont watch hockey or like hockey why should my taxes pay for this the NHL makes enough money as it is.

[cross16]

59 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

So from a distance, it seems one huge obstacle is the Flames want some kind of Community Revitalization Levy to pay for the new arena.  The city wants some kind of ticket tax to pay for the new arena.

 

Sounds like there is little to no CRL to be had in that geographical area.  Flames prefer to use the ticket tax to fund their own share of the payments.  

 

And, the Flames appear interested to pay more up front to be alleviated of property tax and rent throughout their stay.

 

That is one area I side with the City in that a ticket tax is the better way to fund this. I don't like the idea of a CRL because I really don't think an arena is near the magnet for investment that CESC argues so I really don't think it will generate enough to pay back the CRL (at least not to the tune of hundreds of millions but maybe a smaller amount). I also think a user fee (which is essentially what a ticket tax is) is the most fair way to provide repayment given this is not a facility everyone in Calgary necessarily has access to. 

 

Biggest problem is the Flames view the ticket tax as their revenue so they view using the ticket tax to pay back the arena as them losing revenue which is why they keep pushing the CRL. Also the CRL sounds cheap, easy and beneficial to the tax payer which it really isn't so King and CESC seem to think it will go over well with the public (even though it isn't). I also don't think its fair to combine the Flames paying rent as part of their total contribution. 

 

Still a big gap to close here unfortunately but I think the framework proposed by the city is still the more fair of the two options to work off of. 

[The_People1]

31 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I think so. Honestly I dont care what the deal is, I just want it to get done. Obviously I want the best deal to be had, but my wanting it to get done has nothing to do with my being a flames fan. I think an arena is a big boost to a city, and this whole thing is just a sideshow to what matters. Id be intertested to see where all the money is going to come from in this latest idea but I think it needs to get done sooner then later.

 

On top of that no matter where your taxes go, its very likely that it will be something you have no interest in, which seems to be a common argument among non hockey fans. Ive heard loads of them say I dont watch hockey or like hockey why should my taxes pay for this the NHL makes enough money as it is.

 

Many are using bad art as an example of wasted money but in comparison, $200-million can buy 200 blue rings.  We have to be 200x more responsible with this project than any art the city is buying.

 

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

That is one area I side with the City in that a ticket tax is the better way to fund this. I don't like the idea of a CRL because I really don't think an arena is near the magnet for investment that CESC argues so I really don't think it will generate enough to pay back the CRL (at least not to the tune of hundreds of millions but maybe a smaller amount). I also think a user fee (which is essentially what a ticket tax is) is the most fair way to provide repayment given this is not a facility everyone in Calgary necessarily has access to. 

 

Biggest problem is the Flames view the ticket tax as their revenue so they view using the ticket tax to pay back the arena as them losing revenue which is why they keep pushing the CRL. Also the CRL sounds cheap, easy and benefifical to the tax payer which it really isn't so King and CESC seem to think it will go over well with the public (even though it isn't).

 

Still a big gap to close here unfortunately. 

 

In theory, ticket prices are set to what the market can bare.  If you add tax on top of that, then you will inevitably lose sales. So the Flames have a legit argument to make that ticket price revenue is theirs.

 

A CRL sounds fair to me because new infrastructure will benefit and impact the local surrounding more so than anywhere else in the city.  A new arena will draw customers to nearby parking, hotels, restaurants, bars/pubs, etc.

 

Unfortunately, while the impact would have been a huge benefit to the West Village, the East Village is already experiencing revitalization without the new arena.  The added economic benefits to the area is debatably zero.  Therefore, no CRL from the Victoria Park and East Village area should go to the project.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

In theory, ticket prices are set to what the market can bare.  If you add tax on top of that, then you will inevitably lose sales. So the Flames have a legit argument to make that ticket price revenue is theirs.

 

and I don't disagree in theory but the skeptic in me is also saying that prices are going to rise with the new buliding (let's be honest here when do they not) so not only do the Flames want to keep the current ticket tax they enjoy they want to increase it. They want to have their cake and eat it too, which is what most people do so i'm not blaming them but I do think its a point they should flex on.

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

 CRL sounds fair to me because new infrastructure will benefit and impact the local surrounding more so than anywhere else in the city.  A new arena will draw customers to nearby parking, hotels, restaurants, bars/pubs, etc.

 

Unfortunately, while the impact would have been a huge benefit to the West Village, the East Village is already experiencing revitalization without the new arena.  The added economic benefits to the area is debatably zero.  Therefore, no CRL from the Victoria Park and East Village area should go to the project.

 

I don't mind a small CRL, and apparently the area in Victoria Park is already zoned for one. My problem would be a CRL to the tune of 200 million because I don't believe that would get paid back. I can see the area attracting bars, restaurants etc but I can't see it bringing in an anchor tenant like a commercial building or condo development that it would likely need in order to pay back that 200 million. 

 

The easiest thing I'm seeing is keep the 1/3 City, 1/3 Flames and split the middle 3rd between a CRL and a ticket tax. City owns the building and the Flames pay rent. 

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

A CRL sounds fair to me because new infrastructure will benefit and impact the local surrounding more so than anywhere else in the city.  A new arena will draw customers to nearby parking, hotels, restaurants, bars/pubs, etc.

 

Unfortunately, while the impact would have been a huge benefit to the West Village, the East Village is already experiencing revitalization without the new arena.  The added economic benefits to the area is debatably zero.  Therefore, no CRL from the Victoria Park and East Village area should go to the project.

 

You need to do addition by subtraction on this , meaning this area would experience a negative effect if the Stadium were to leave (for the West Village for example). So a better stadium that attracts even more events and usage will be a huge benefit . I still believe the desire to not drop the values in that area is what made Nenshi demand it stay in Vic Park.

 

If it were just a choice of A (City) and B (Flames) .. then offer B kicks butt on A hands down . The City spun it as fair, but as a business deal its not , and B also involves NO taxpayer money .

City Offer :

Flames put in 1/3-- fine 

City Puts in 1/3 .. where do they get it?  guess what-- taxpayer $

Ticket surcharge --  who is fronting it to be paid back from the surcharge ?  they don't say .

 

Flames own a building with no guarantees of area development , and the city not only gets full benefit if they do but the flames have essentially paid for the anchor. Of course the City wants this deal .

But KK is doing good math at the end of the day . it is about 120% of the cost , when you factor in that the city wants a Flames owned building and they will pay property tax on top of paying back the city's 3rd as well

KK is right , they have a better deal now .. why shell out $ for a worse deal

 

 

Flames offer :

Flames front 275 MILL

City takes out a CRL Loan .. that will be paid back thru increased development and taxes in the area

Joe blow Icouldcarelesstaxpayer  hasn't shelled out a dime for this to happen 

 

the only reason the city should hate this deal is if they have no confidence in the development of the area 

 

 

There are definitely points to be ironed out , but if as a taxpayer you came to me and told me to choose A or B?  id be taking B in a second 

 

[The_People1]

37 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

and I don't disagree in theory but the skeptic in me is also saying that prices are going to rise with the new buliding (let's be honest here when do they not) so not only do the Flames want to keep the current ticket tax they enjoy they want to increase it. They want to have their cake and eat it too, which is what most people do so i'm not blaming them but I do think its a point they should flex on.

 

For sure ticket prices will rise.  Shiny new building, fans will be willing to pay more.  Yet, there is still an upper limit to what the market can bare.  Flames marketing will be responsible for determining that magic number.

 

Once established, that magic number should be the new ticket price.  So the City wants to add a tax on top of the magic number.  That's going to cost a loss of total ticket sales. If it turns out the market can handle consuming tickets at the magic number + tax, then clearly that should be the adjusted magic number either right away or the following season.

 

Ticket prices should not remain as is today and money should not be left on the table because the Flames are a business.  Revenue should be maximized.

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

For sure ticket prices will rise.  Shiny new building, fans will be willing to pay more.  Yet, there is still an upper limit to what the market can bare.  Flames marketing will be responsible for determining that magic number.

 

Once established, that magic number should be the new ticket price.  So the City wants to add a tax on top of the magic number.  That's going to cost a loss of total ticket sales. If it turns out the market can handle consuming tickets at the magic number + tax, then clearly that should be the adjusted magic number either right away or the following season.

 

Ticket prices should not remain as is today and money should not be left on the table because the Flames are a business.  Revenue should be maximized.

 

That is not what I've read/been made to understand. The Flames already collect a ticket tax on the tickets and it is already included in their revenue. The City wants, and should be pointed out that it was actually the Flames that first proposed this for CalgaryNext, that to instead of going to their general revenues go to paying back the arena. 

 

Comes out of their revenue yes but it isn't a "new" tax though

[cross16]

FWIW, King stated today "we aren't getting one" and is insisting that he is not talking about the arena issue anymore and that it is done. 

 

 

[ABC923]

Man, that infographic on the main page today is pretty Mickey Mouse.  I could have probably produced something more convincing.  On one page they have a comparison of the cities plan Xed out with 'flames pay 120%', with almost no explanation to back that up besides 'we say so'.  They count the ticket tax as their revenue, but as mentioned earlier they actually suggested such a tax for the West Village proposal.  In fact, on the very same page they then show user fees as being part of how Edmonton is recouping it's cost, but for some reason that isn't 'Oiler's Money', but it would be 'Flames Money'.  What a joke!

[rickross]

19 minutes ago, ABC923 said:

Man, that infographic on the main page today is pretty Mickey Mouse.  I could have probably produced something more convincing.  On one page they have a comparison of the cities plan Xed out with 'flames pay 120%', with almost no explanation to back that up besides 'we say so'.  They count the ticket tax as their revenue, but as mentioned earlier they actually suggested such a tax for the West Village proposal.  In fact, on the very same page they then show user fees as being part of how Edmonton is recouping it's cost, but for some reason that isn't 'Oiler's Money', but it would be 'Flames Money'.  What a joke!

Flames aren't doing themselves any favours, they aren't garnering any public or civic sympathy or support through their latest actions. They really do sound like a bunch of whinny owners right now. They are an important piece of Calgary but they don't define the city by themselves. The sense of entitlement and this air of arrogance is stinking up the place. They are no longer willing to negotiate, nor interested in pursuing an arena yet they've spent thousands of dollars on a ridiculous ad in an attempt to sway the public in their favour? 

[Cowtownguy]

Some cities in Texas have an airport tax that funds sports venues. While a lot of Calgarians would pay that tax, a lot of people outside the city would pay into it too. It would generate substantial revenue. I don't know why this has not been discussed (from what I can gather).

 

Pulling out of negotiations this way has dampened my excitement about the upcoming season. I usually attend 1-4 games per year with my wife. I feel less interested in shelling out this year.

[jjgallow]

 

 

huh.

[cross16]

City responded to the flames "proposal" and gave further details. Not a pretty look for the information the Flames put out today. That being said I don't like this approach by the city. Comes across as very combative and a "your wrong, were right" mentality when the goal should be getting back together to find some common ground. 

 

 

[DKim]

I appreciate the rebuttal from the city, because they were forced to do it since the Flames released their ridiculous proposal.  When they suggest that they will put in 275 million, I knew that it had to include the ticket tax.  We can see in the rebuttal that the offer was only 100(+25) million from the Flames and 150 million is from a ticket tax FINANCED BY THE CITY.  While it feels nicer to call it a CRL, in this case, it's a pure taxpayer subsidy as the effect of the new arena will have a minimal impact on the development that is already occurring in the area.

 

All that aside, the real sticking point here is that the Flames do not want to pay rent or property taxes and want to keep all of the revenue.  Would we give this kind of deal to Amazon?  Free downtown land, tax payer subsidy for 225 million and no expectation to receive any rent or property tax.

 

[redfire11]

Maybe they can make a new arena with a solar paneled roof. Then get Notley to pay for the whole thing.

[The_People1]

11 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

Maybe they can make a new arena with a solar paneled roof. Then get Notley to pay for the whole thing.

 

I've been saying this all thread.  Generate solar energy.  Excess energy not used by the facility goes into the grid and charge Enmax.  Bam! The sun is paying for the new building.

[redfire11]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I've been saying this all thread.  Generate solar energy.  Excess energy not used by the facility goes into the grid and charge Enmax.  Bam! The sun is paying for the new building.

Central and Southern Alberta has the highest average sunlight hours per year in Canada.

https://www.livingin-canada.com/sunshine-hours-canada.html

 

I still think another form of revenue for the Flames would be miniature HD cameras in the players helmets with an additional 60 placed around the boards or top of glass. Charge a fee per game so we can sit at home and switch between feeds.  (not going to happen but it would be interesting)

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, redfire11 said:

Central and Southern Alberta has the highest average sunlight hours per year in Canada.

https://www.livingin-canada.com/sunshine-hours-canada.html

 

I still think another form of revenue for the Flames would be miniature HD cameras in the players helmets with an additional 60 placed around the boards or top of glass. Charge a fee per game so we can sit at home and switch between feeds.  (not going to happen but it would be interesting)

 

I don't care if they even use the roof as a giant launch pad for Amazon's army of drones.  Technology is where it's at.  

 

I want to hear one side say they are talking to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos on a mega project that would use the new arena to create green energy and help turn Calgary into a tech leader on the world stage.

 

Miniature HD?  No.  Virtually Reality HD?  Yes.  Virtual reality cameras on players.  Let me put on my VR glasses and get the virtual perspective of the players on the ice.  Let me toggle from camera to camera and even rewind live action.

[stubblejumper1]

It is getting harder and harder to side with the Flames when Eric Francis is their biggest supporter.  The team should probably tell him to stick to schlepping pancakes at his diner.  That might help the situation. 

[conundrumed]

I like how KK proclaims, "it isn't economically viable to build it ourselves in a small market".

For me, that reads, "so we need house money because it isn't economically viable".

That's a compelling argument for taxpayers to say, "if it isn't economically viable with private funds, maybe it's just not economically viable and everyone loses".

The guy is a disaster. Someone, please, shut him up.

KK, hire me, I'll be your spokesperson. Just please, stop making public statements.

Let's look at Detroit again, putzy. Maybe 1/3 Calgary's pop. Bankrupt.

Surrounding area for them? Sure. That isn't massive unless you wanna really stretch boundaries.

They were still in bankruptcy when the plan was unveiled.

They injected 1.2bil into their economy, for jobs, for investment back into the city, etc.

They were bankrupt as a city.

What has it has created? A spark. Sure, you can find all of the woebegone stories to fill your boots if that's your angle. But in reality, it has established Detroit, again, as a world class city for facilities, and a current aura of great excitement and hope.

 

Then I watch what's happening here, it's totally 180 degrees, and all negative. Between the City and the CSEC, they waste $1bil/year plus on elbowinge that benefits no one, or very few.

The Flames make it sound like it's the City's responsibility to keep them profitable, that's laughable. The City makes it sound like there is no money in the coffers outside of loans so it's a massive taxpayer expense down the toilet, not an investment in the economy and luring investors. Not unlike most of their misadventures.

How much has been sunk in the East Village "yeah whatever" so far?

Could have used that to clean up many of your LRT locations, because they're dicey.

First things first.

[The_Tribal Chief]

You Know I was Discussing this issue with my father and he said everyone is saying it is nenshi this nenshi that political this or that but even if nenshi is removed tomorrow that changes nothing The City Council Votes on stuff like this as a council and he is just the bad guy to give the bad news

[redfire11]

Nenshi isn't the only problem in our city counsel. But!

 

To unclog a plugged toilet you must first remove the biggest piece of #@%#.