The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[CheersMan]

It’s over man, negotiations are done….or are they?  It’s apparent our elected officials do not appreciate what we have.  WE, citizens of Calgary were offered a GRAND DESIGN and VISION, providing solutions for ALL of our entertainment needs as well as RECLAMATION and development of prime DT waste-land in one fell swoop (CalgaryNext). 

The CalgaryNext vision was brilliant, exactly what the city needed to bring our aging or non existent facilities onto the worlds stage.  Our incapable and elected officials failed to comprehend the vision and rejected it outright with little explanation.  The City instead distracted CSEC by having them look at the opposite side of town while only considering 1/4-1/3 of the CSEC initial vision.  The CSEC dumbed it down and entertained the City by providing numbers, real numbers, to an inferior product, ultimately calling it on the inept city bureaucracy.

The City is focused on a stand alone arena in East Village.  What is the City going to do when the Stamps immediately ask for separate assistance on a new stadium?  Or the $260M fieldhouse?  Or the eventual clean up on the west side?  Where is all the cash ($0.75-1B) going to come from?  Those future discussions should be equally as painful considering present discussions on arena have been terminated.  What is the city’s financial plan for these three issues?  There isn’t one, because the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

It’s apparent that our elected officials and some citizens do not appreciate what CSEC brings to this city.  The CSEC have asked, “please tell us what the public benefit is to this City by having us here”?  Nobody would answer that question.  The CSEC answered their own question a few days ago because everyone else was afraid too or incapable of. 

The CSEC proposal’s outline many public benefits.  If you look solely at the economic benefit it looks something like this.

$481M x 35 yrs = $16.8B.  Maybe the CSEC is over estimating and its closer to $10B.  Maybe it’s accurate but with inflation over 35 yrs could push it closer to $20B.

The CSEC proposes the City contribute $185-225M depending on A or B proposal.  What is $185-225M when the end game is a continual and sustained economic public benefit over 35 years in the $10-20 BILLION range?  I’m no economist but that looks like a Warren Buffett investment to me (rent and land taxes aside).

The Flames have offered to pay near half in either proposal, both rejected.

I’m not saying this team is anywhere near pulling up stakes and leaving town, but they just got a lot closer to it.  For those who say “let them go”, you had better be careful with your ignorant bluff, it just might happen.  I’m not saying the tax payer needs to foot the entire bill either.  I’m all for paying less as a tax payer but I also want my city on the worlds stage and now is probably the time to do it when ALL of our facilities are rock bottom.

I don’t get the dislike for KK either that I read from a few select posters, that’s your business.  I think KK has done an admiral job building, preparing and delivering the two extremely complex proposals/designs and representing the owners who have quietly contributed handsomely to this city.

Its sad but next summer shall be interesting when KK (or other) is spotted touring new vacant arena’s around the USA, kicking tires so to speak.  If the Flames ever left town, through the now wide open door, there is no way in hell Bettman would ever allow another NHL team back here out of spite.

I’ve seen the two proposals, I want negotiations to proceed on proposal A.

[redfire11]

Interesting read in the sun a couple days ago.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/09/21/arena-conflict-could-lead-to-loss-of-calgary-flames-like-has-happened-in-other-nhl-cities

[cross16]

On 2017-09-24 at 0:00 AM, CheersMan said:

The CSEC proposal’s outline many public benefits.  If you look solely at the economic benefit it looks something like this.

$481M x 35 yrs = $16.8B.  Maybe the CSEC is over estimating and its closer to $10B.  Maybe it’s accurate but with inflation over 35 yrs could push it closer to $20B.

The CSEC proposes the City contribute $185-225M depending on A or B proposal.  What is $185-225M when the end game is a continual and sustained economic public benefit over 35 years in the $10-20 BILLION range?  I’m no economist but that looks like a Warren Buffett investment to me (rent and land taxes aside).

 

 

Problem is that an actual economist will tell you that CESCs number are out to lunch. Ther is literally a mountain of evidence that shows that the economic benefit to a pro sports team to a city is minimal at best. CESC grossly over estimated those numbers. It would be a easy decision if cesc were even close to correct but they are not. 

[The_People1]

On 9/24/2017 at 0:00 AM, CheersMan said:

It’s apparent that our elected officials and some citizens do not appreciate what CSEC brings to this city.  

 

CSEC proposed a Rolls-Royce Phantom when we can only afford a Toyota Corolla at the moment.  Of course CalgaryNext was beautiful.  No one disputes this fact.

[CheersMan]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Problem is that an actual economist will tell you that CESCs number are out to lunch. Ther is literally a mountain of evidence that shows that the economic benefit to a pro sports team to a city is minimal at best. CESC grossly over estimated those numbers. It would be a easy decision if cesc were even close to correct but they are not. 

In there lies the problem.  Is it zero benefit or something much greater than that?  Hard to negotiate a deal when people don’t have a clue what the product is worth or understand what the product(s) need.  If one team is worth a Billion dollars then maybe the league is worth upwards of a Trillion.  A city with 1/30^th of a share in a Trillion dollar industry has no benefit?

 

 

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

CSEC proposed a Rolls-Royce Phantom when we can only afford a Toyota Corolla at the moment.  Of course CalgaryNext was beautiful.  No one disputes this fact.

A Roll’s is hand crafted with parts made from the finest and rarest of materials used occasionally by a single person. 

CalgaryNext would be built by blue-collar tradesmen, using basic construction materials to provide a roof over the heads of every Calgarian who had an interest in participating in or viewing daily entertainment events which this city would host over the next 30-50 yrs.  Three million people would likely pass thru its doors every year.  That’s no job for a Corolla and we certainly don’t need a Roll’s.  What we need is more like a Jeep/Suburban/Hummer…. CalgaryNext, a home town solution.

[The_People1]

17 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

A Roll’s is hand crafted with parts made from the finest and rarest of materials used occasionally by a single person. 

CalgaryNext would be built by blue-collar tradesmen, using basic construction materials to provide a roof over the heads of every Calgarian who had an interest in participating in or viewing daily entertainment events which this city would host over the next 30-50 yrs.  Three million people would likely pass thru its doors every year.  That’s no job for a Corolla and we certainly don’t need a Roll’s.  What we need is more like a Jeep/Suburban/Hummer…. CalgaryNext, a home town solution.

 

Including creosote clean up costs, CalgaryNext wood have ranked among the top 10 most expensive stadium/arenas the world has built.  Just a Jeep?  Not really.  It's the Benz G Wagon of SUVs, at least.

 

https://seatgeek.com/tba/sports/the-top-ten-most-expensive-sports-stadiums/

 

Just too expensive, period.  I'm curious what's the price threshold for you?  What is the price at which too expensive makes something beautiful not worth it?  $2-billion? $5-billion.  If CSEC proposed a $7-billion mega complex, would that be enough for you to say 'no'?

[CheersMan]

37 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Including creosote clean up costs, CalgaryNext wood have ranked among the top 10 most expensive stadium/arenas the world has built.  Just a Jeep?  Not really.  It's the Benz G Wagon of SUVs, at least.

 

https://seatgeek.com/tba/sports/the-top-ten-most-expensive-sports-stadiums/

 

Just too expensive, period.  I'm curious what's the price threshold for you?  What is the price at which too expensive makes something beautiful not worth it?  $2-billion? $5-billion.  If CSEC proposed a $7-billion mega complex, would that be enough for you to say 'no'?

I believe the estimate was $890M, lets keep the numbers real to not scare the uninformed.  Football, soccer, hockey, field-house, concerts, reclamation, Done.

[travel_dude]

47 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Including creosote clean up costs, CalgaryNext wood have ranked among the top 10 most expensive stadium/arenas the world has built.  Just a Jeep?  Not really.  It's the Benz G Wagon of SUVs, at least.

 

https://seatgeek.com/tba/sports/the-top-ten-most-expensive-sports-stadiums/

 

Just too expensive, period.  I'm curious what's the price threshold for you?  What is the price at which too expensive makes something beautiful not worth it?  $2-billion? $5-billion.  If CSEC proposed a $7-billion mega complex, would that be enough for you to say 'no'?

 

If you include the cost of the cleanup, then it's two sides disputing the costs.  City says x amount.  CSEC says y amount.  Either way it's something that needs to be dealt with unless you want to have unused land in the downtown and hope it never impacts life.  Maybe the Olympic bid can talk about the "Creosote Museum" as an attraction for visitors to come and see.   

[The_People1]

12 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

I believe the estimate was $890M, lets keep the numbers real to not scare the uninformed.  Football, soccer, hockey, field-house, concerts, reclamation, Done.

 

The $890-mil proposed by CSEC did NOT include creosote clean-up, correct me if my memory serves me wrong. Including cleanup was $1.2-billion. The city then did their own study and reported a $1.8-billion total price tag.

 

That's an aside from the discussion but are you still interested in CalgaryNext at $1.8-billion. Not even saying that is accurate, but just wondering if you are still personally a 'yes' at that price?

[cccsberg]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

The $890-mil proposed by CSEC did NOT include creosote clean-up, correct me if my memory serves me wrong. Including cleanup was $1.2-billion. The city then did their own study and reported a $1.8-billion total price tag.

 

That's an aside from the discussion but are you still interested in CalgaryNext at $1.8-billion. Not even saying that is accurate, but just wondering if you are still personally a 'yes' at that price?

Perhaps a better question is whether the City/Province should be shouldering their responsibility and clean-up the ongoing pollution leaking poisins into the Bow River, and if so, is there some way we can lessen the burden or at least end up with something great and long-lasting as a result?

 

The clean-up should be happening regardless of anything related to the CSEC.  

[The_People1]

41 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Perhaps a better question is whether the City/Province should be shouldering their responsibility and clean-up the ongoing pollution leaking poisins into the Bow River, and if so, is there some way we can lessen the burden or at least end up with something great and long-lasting as a result?

 

The clean-up should be happening regardless of anything related to the CSEC.  

 

The clean up should be and is, the responsibility of the City/Province. 100%.

[cross16]

5 hours ago, CheersMan said:

In there lies the problem.  Is it zero benefit or something much greater than that?  Hard to negotiate a deal when people don’t have a clue what the product is worth or understand what the product(s) need.  If one team is worth a Billion dollars then maybe the league is worth upwards of a Trillion.  A city with 1/30^th of a share in a Trillion dollar industry has no benefit?

 

The nhl is a 4 billion dollar industry and the flames are pegged at about 410 million franchise value according to Forbes. NFL is the most valued sports franchise in NA and they arnt worth a trillion dollars so the data id already there on that. 

The evidence is over welming that pro sports do not provide an economic benefit to a city. The debate is how much of a indirect or cultural benefit so they provide and then what is the value of that indirect benefit to you, but the economy debate just isn't there. 

 

Oh and if we want to get our facts right CalgaryNext was going to have a total cost of 1.8 billion dollars with the taxpayers picking up 1.3 of that when you could consider the whole project. 

[CheersMan]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The $890-mil proposed by CSEC did NOT include creosote clean-up, correct me if my memory serves me wrong. Including cleanup was $1.2-billion. The city then did their own study and reported a $1.8-billion total price tag.

 

That's an aside from the discussion but are you still interested in CalgaryNext at $1.8-billion. Not even saying that is accurate, but just wondering if you are still personally a 'yes' at that price?

 

14 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

The clean up should be and is, the responsibility of the City/Province. 100%.

The $890M for a multi-facility structure seems like a real number considering what it serves.  The clean-up should be a 100% federal issue considering the creosote was used to treat ties to build a railway across the western provinces connecting Canada.  The country has and continues to benefit greatly from the railway which was built at a time when the environment meant nothing to people.  Wiki says the combined revenue for CN and CP is near $20B annually.  If you want to run trains through AB, pay up for past damages caused by your business.

[CheersMan]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

The nhl is a 4 billion dollar industry and the flames are pegged at about 410 million franchise value according to Forbes. NFL is the most valued sports franchise in NA and they arnt worth a trillion dollars so the data id already there on that. 

The evidence is over welming that pro sports do not provide an economic benefit to a city. The debate is how much of a indirect or cultural benefit so they provide and then what is the value of that indirect benefit to you, but the economy debate just isn't there. 

 

Oh and if we want to get our facts right CalgaryNext was going to have a total cost of 1.8 billion dollars with the taxpayers picking up 1.3 of that when you could consider the whole project. 

NYR, MTL, TOR and CHI are all worth more than $1B each.  A Trillion is a pretty big number, have no idea what the NHL business is truly worth.

[cross16]

17 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

NYR, MTL, TOR and CHI are all worth more than $1B each.  A Trillion is a pretty big number, have no idea what the NHL business is truly worth.

 

Well it grosses 4 billion a year and the avg franchise value is 500 million according to Forbes. NHL will dispute that but that's a long way from a trillion dollars. Like I said NFL isn't even worth a trillion according to most estimates. 

 

But its doesnt really matter becuaee what a franchise is worth is irrelevant to a city unless they provide part of those profits back to the city. Something the Flames are refusing to do. 

[DirtyDeeds]

Every time I ask about all the studies done on arena contributions to economies all people can and have referenced is a bunch of studies done on stadiums.

 

Of course stadiums that only get used a few times per season wont add a lot to the local economy but an arena gets used 40+ times per year and if it has dual basketball hockey use I would think it adds a fair amount to the economy.

 

If the Flames were to leave you wont get the lean mean charity machine they run year round. Kidsport alone injects millions into Calgary.

 

As much as I detest Eric Francis he makes a good point. If the Flames arent going to build they will eventually move. The city will pay especially if they go ahead and win an Olympic bid.

 

The city still needs to clean up the creosote with or without Calgary next..

 

They are still way behind building the fieldhouse. They should have 3 of them by now. The stadium is a dinosaur. There comes a time your reno dollars are going to cost as much or more than a new stadium. We are close now.

 

Side note:

If the city only offers a loan for their portion they aren't really contributing much.

If there is a ticket tax to pay a portion it is us who uses the facility who is paying reguardless who puts up the financing

 

[JTech780]

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Every time I ask about all the studies done on arena contributions to economies all people can and have referenced is a bunch of studies done on stadiums.

 

Of course stadiums that only get used a few times per season wont add a lot to the local economy but an arena gets used 40+ times per year and if it has dual basketball hockey use I would think it adds a fair amount to the economy.

 

If the Flames were to leave you wont get the lean mean charity machine they run year round. Kidsport alone injects millions into Calgary.

 

As much as I detest Eric Francis he makes a good point. If the Flames arent going to build they will eventually move. The city will pay especially if they go ahead and win an Olympic bid.

 

The city still needs to clean up the creosote with or without Calgary next..

 

They are still way behind building the fieldhouse. They should have 3 of them by now. The stadium is a dinosaur. There comes a time your reno dollars are going to cost as much or more than a new stadium. We are close now.

 

Side note:

If the city only offers a loan for their portion they aren't really contributing much.

If there is a ticket tax to pay a portion it is us who uses the facility who is paying reguardless who puts up the financing

 

 

https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/08/do-basketball-arenas-spur-economic-development/2804/

 

Here is a good article suggesting that arenas don't add economic value to a city.

[The_People1]

12 hours ago, CheersMan said:

 

The $890M for a multi-facility structure seems like a real number considering what it serves.

 

I certainly don't speak for everyone but at $890M, I would venture to say most Calgarians appreciate what the flames bring to the city.  However, most aren't operating at that number.  Most are operating at a number between $1.2-billion to $1.8-billion.

 

So when you say, "I guess the city doesn't appreciate what CSEC brings to the city", it's a point made out of context.  It's not completely accurate to say.

 

A good comparison may be the Flames negotiating Mark Giordano's latest contract.  At $6-mil, we all appreciate what he brings at that price.  At the rumored $9-mil, no.  He needs to pack his bags and go.

[tmac70]

Quote

 

 

Any one have a sniff how much the cost is to the owners? Is there economic spin from this type of business, It is hard to believe that there is not. I love the fact that everyone thinks the owners are getting rich at their expense. People in business especially large businesses such as this are usually local people wanting to invest in there community, is there money to be made sure, and their is money to be lost absolutely. The issue is if Pro sports are a great money maker why do not cities or municipality take them on? Cause they are to chicken elbowing and are clueless how to make money. The city I live in built a huge complex worth millions, cut corners building it,  took capital donated by local business and placed it in the city coffers.  The city runs the operations because of the millions they believed it made. It has lost over  Millions dollars in 5 years, it has NEVER made money EVER because they have no clue, but assumed it was like printing money. For those who want an eye opener just research, how many public funded facilities of recreational, arts or culture centers make a profit for the city, you will be surprised. Yet some private person or entity would take the risk of running it at their own expense, why?

 

Personally I side with the owners, if they are willing to invest in the facility and Calgary isn't interested move to where your welcome. You have multiple cities that are WILLING to provide you begging you to come and your fighting to stay in a place that has none....as an owner yeah I would be pissed the way it is being handled, sad how a progressive city has now gone the other way

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I certainly don't speak for everyone but at $890M, I would venture to say most Calgarians appreciate what the flames bring to the city.  However, most aren't operating at that number.  Most are operating at a number between $1.2-billion to $1.8-billion.

 

So when you say, "I guess the city doesn't appreciate what CSEC brings to the city", it's a point made out of context.  It's not completely accurate to say.

 

A good comparison may be the Flames negotiating Mark Giordano's latest contract.  At $6-mil, we all appreciate what he brings at that price.  At the rumored $9-mil, no.  He needs to pack his bags and go.

 

Well, the city is disputing the cost of cleanup and saying that it is un-doable.  Not the same thing.  They have tainted the Next proposal by inflating the cost to make their argument, as did the Flames in underselling it.  So, who pays for the cleanup?  You want to use the land for someting other than Next, but you don't even want to clean it up for Next.

[The_People1]

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Well, the city is disputing the cost of cleanup and saying that it is un-doable.  Not the same thing.  They have tainted the Next proposal by inflating the cost to make their argument, as did the Flames in underselling it.  So, who pays for the cleanup?  You want to use the land for someting other than Next, but you don't even want to clean it up for Next.

 

It's fair to say the true costs lays somewhere in between $890M and $1800M.  It just sounds like even at $1800M, Cheersman seems content on moving forward with CalgaryNext.  I'm just wondering is this true?

 

Because at $890M, we are there with him.  $890M is a fair price for such a grand vision.  $890M will have massive support behind it.

 

Unfortunately, most Calgarians are saying 'no' to $1800M but Cheersman thinks Calgarians are saying no to $890M.

[cross16]

38 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Well, the city is disputing the cost of cleanup and saying that it is un-doable.  Not the same thing.  They have tainted the Next proposal by inflating the cost to make their argument, as did the Flames in underselling it.  So, who pays for the cleanup?  You want to use the land for someting other than Next, but you don't even want to clean it up for Next.

 

Did they?

I think it depends on how you define the project. The Flames put forward the cost to actually build the facilities but the city took it one step further and look at what is the entire project going to cost. Clean up, utilities, land transfer, traffic re routing, interest etc which IMO is what they should do especially when you consider how many investment the City was being asked for. 

[cccsberg]

23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's fair to say the true costs lays somewhere in between $890M and $1800M.  It just sounds like even at $1800M, Cheersman seems content on moving forward with CalgaryNext.  I'm just wondering is this true?

 

Because at $890M, we are there with him.  $890M is a fair price for such a grand vision.  $890M will have massive support behind it.

 

Unfortunately, most Calgarians are saying 'no' to $1800M but Cheersman thinks Calgarians are saying no to $890M.

Let's put it this way.  The west end of downtown is a mish mash of car lots, disorganized businesses and empty land.  The traffic flow is pretty pathetic and the tie into the primary Crowchild Trail artery is a joke.  Add into that there is an ongoing major environmental disaster with toxic poisons leaking not only in a big part of that area but also under and into the Bow River, which is a major drinking water and irrigation source for southern Alberta, as well as underneath communities across the river.  Perhaps the city/province should get their act together and fulfill their responsibilities to their own communities by cleaning up their own backyards, without throwing all those costs onto a beautiful CSEC proposal and pretending it is so costly it will never get done.  If it costs a $B to do what needs to be done with or without CSEC then so be it and let's get it done.

 

As far as the stadiums go, I'm surprised the fire marshalls/ health officials allow continued use of either due to the massive overcrowding of the hallways and limited bathrooms.  I guess the fact that concrete and steel doesn't burn, and figuring you can spread WC use out over a whole game (not reality) makes that acceptable?  And then the lack of a single field house, whereas Edmonton supposedly already has 5, and even little Airdrie has one just goes to show where Calgary really stands in discussions about great cities.  

 

One thing, though, even Calgary can't screw up the fact that we're just an hour from Banff.  Take that, Edmonton!

[cccsberg]

23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's fair to say the true costs lays somewhere in between $890M and $1800M.  It just sounds like even at $1800M, Cheersman seems content on moving forward with CalgaryNext.  I'm just wondering is this true?

 

Because at $890M, we are there with him.  $890M is a fair price for such a grand vision.  $890M will have massive support behind it.

 

Unfortunately, most Calgarians are saying 'no' to $1800M but Cheersman thinks Calgarians are saying no to $890M.

Let's put it this way.  The west end of downtown is a mish mash of car lots, disorganized businesses and empty land.  The traffic flow is pretty pathetic and the tie into the primary Crowchild Trail artery is a joke.  Add into that there is an ongoing major environmental disaster with toxic poisons leaking not only in a big part of that area but also under and into the Bow River, which is a major drinking water and irrigation source for southern Alberta, as well as underneath communities across the river.  Perhaps the city/province should get their act together and fulfill their responsibilities to their own communities by cleaning up their own backyards, without throwing all those costs onto a beautiful CSEC proposal and pretending it is so costly it will never get done.  If it costs a $B to do what needs to be done with or without CSEC then so be it and let's get it done.

 

As far as the stadiums go, I'm surprised the fire marshalls/ health officials allow continued use of either due to the massive overcrowding of the hallways and limited bathrooms.  I guess the fact that concrete and steel doesn't burn, and figuring you can spread WC use out over a whole game (not reality) makes that acceptable?  And then the lack of a single field house, whereas Edmonton supposedly already has 5, and even little Airdrie has one just goes to show where Calgary really stands in discussions about great cities.  

 

One thing, though, even Calgary can't screw up the fact that we're just an hour from Banff.  Take that, Edmonton!

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Did they?

I think it depends on how you define the project. The Flames put forward the cost to actually build the facilities but the city took it one step further and look at what is the entire project going to cost. Clean up, utilities, land transfer, traffic re routing, interest etc which IMO is what they should do especially when you consider how many investment the City was being asked for. 

 

Yes, it's all part of the overall costs.  How much of the $1.8B is the cleanup?  How much is infrastructure?  The Victoria Park estimates have no mention of the cost of the Green Line extension and utility upgrades.  So they axed a vague estimate that other gov't funding may account for a lot of the cleanup costs and put forward a Victoria Park estimate with TDB $$ for utility and extension.

 

I'm not saying Next was a great deal for the city.  But the unknowns for Victoria Park make it hard to say whether the costs will equivalent.