The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[cross16]

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

 

The costs were broken down of CalgaryNext in a report that the city commissioned (see below).

 

I"m not sure why the Green Line should be included in the Victoria Park discussion given it is already approved and going ahead and really is not meant to serve that new arena at all,same with the 17th Ave extension on the stampede grounds. The City did estimate the utility cost in their proposal but the Flames excluded it in there's. It's why there is a 50 MIll gap in the City and Flames proposals. 

 

Of course you will never know all the costs prior to construction that is impossible in a project like this. There will be overruns and unforeseen expenses and i'm sure that is part of the negotiations we will never hear about. That being said I think its pretty clear that the cost of Victoria Park is significantly different, and IMO more affordable than CalgaryNext. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cccsberg said:

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!

 

Is the creosote really leaking to any significant levels though?  If we left it in there for another 100 years, will anyone die?  Or even get sick from it?  Part of CSEC's strategy was to wake up Calgarians to the existence of these toxins.  So did CSEC exaggerate the potential for disaster, just a bit to help their cause?  I feel so (I certainly don't know so but I feel that's what they tried to do).  And it's working...

 

The creosote is leaking and seeping into the river. But, let's put it into perspective.  Adding fluoride back to our drinking water is arguably more a health concern than creosote embedded 30 feet under ground not moving.  Brain damage vs teeth damage.  I'll take teeth damage, thank you very much.

[cross16]

22 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Is the creosote really leaking to any significant levels though?  If we left it in there for another 100 years, will anyone die?  Or even get sick from it?  Part of CSEC's strategy was to wake up Calgarians to the existence of these toxins.  So did CSEC exaggerate the potential for disaster, just a bit to help their cause?  I feel so (I certainly don't know so but I feel that's what they tried to do).  And it's working...

 

The creosote is leaking and seeping into the river. But, let's put it into perspective.  Adding fluoride back to our drinking water is arguably more a health concern than creosote embedded 30 feet under ground not moving.  Brain damage vs teeth damage.  I'll take teeth damage, thank you very much.

 

I will lead by saying that I agree this should be cleaned up. Not because of CalgaryNext but because it's the right thing to do and at an estimated 80-150 million dollar cost it should be a no brainier for the city/province. It would also make the land usable for further development which I think could be financially beneficial to the city and get their money back 

 

but I agree the fear mongering is a bit much. Testing done between 2010-2014 found no risk to people and it has be contained for now. Again, yes it should be fixed but to suggest that we are being poisoned is a bit much. 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-creosote-monitoring-west-hillhurst-province-calgarynext-west-village-bow-river-1.4086136

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-creosote-contamination-cleanup-larry-bentley-1.4088288

[CheersMan]

3 hours 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.

I’m looking at the $890 and how it solves our many issues.  The cleanup is incidental to the construction of the facility.  The CSEC has stated that they did do some research, they consulted a so-called expert in Minnesota who had a similar mess to clean up.  I believe their number was estimated at $200-250M to clean up.  Both these numbers ($890 & $250) especially the second one needs explored imo, not just discounted outright.  Maybe it can’t be done for that, maybe it can, but I don’t think the city seriously considered it.  I also think the cleanup should be assisted largely by the Feds, is anyone kicking the tires there?  I’m not for providing a blank cheque but I feel unsatisfied that option 1 was seriously looked at to determine if viable. 

[JTech780]

If they can't come to an agreement on how to split the costs of a $500-600m building, how on earth are they going to be able to do the same at double the cost?

 

Also for those that say that arenas drive a local economy, I am sorry but that is flat out wrong. People who live in and around Calgary are going to spend the same amount of their entertainment dollars in the city regardless if the Flames are here or not, they will just find other things to spend their money on. It's the people coming in from out of town (Northern Alberta, BC, Sask.), that help drive the local economy from a rink, and unfortunately for hockey games and concerts, the out of town revenue isn't enough to offset the $300-600m investment from the city.

[cross16]

29 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

 but I don’t think the city seriously considered it.  

 

The City commissioned a report that took about 6 months to report their findings. http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=43230. It is a pretty thorough report, especially with the attachments, and also provides a lot of information on the contamination and the potential health risks etc. People can disagree with the city's position, but I think it's pretty unfair to say the never considered CalgaryNext when they were the ones that did this type of analysis on the project. 

 

They measured the cost at either 85 million for a more measured approach (which would take 8-10 years) or 140 million which would be done in 6-8 years

[tmac70]

27 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

If they can't come to an agreement on how to split the costs of a $500-600m building, how on earth are they going to be able to do the same at double the cost?

 

Also for those that say that arenas drive a local economy, I am sorry but that is flat out wrong. People who live in and around Calgary are going to spend the same amount of their entertainment dollars in the city regardless if the Flames are here or not, they will just find other things to spend their money on. It's the people coming in from out of town (Northern Alberta, BC, Sask.), that help drive the local economy from a rink, and unfortunately for hockey games and concerts, the out of town revenue isn't enough to offset the $300-600m investment from the city.

Originally both sides believed that it would be a huge benefit for Calgary to have a NHL franchise. Now they vary on opinions...If you break down the cost per year or month day it would cost a tax payer it would be minimal. Frankly, most tax payers are paying for 90% of the elbowing they don't utilize any way.

I agree with the owners, you don't want us here, see no benefit, we move to where we are welcome. If they have to stand on a soap box to advocate to city council and citizens the importance of having a club, you relocate, simply.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

The costs were broken down of CalgaryNext in a report that the city commissioned (see below).

 

I"m not sure why the Green Line should be included in the Victoria Park discussion given it is already approved and going ahead and really is not meant to serve that new arena at all,same with the 17th Ave extension on the stampede grounds. The City did estimate the utility cost in their proposal but the Flames excluded it in there's. It's why there is a 50 MIll gap in the City and Flames proposals. 

 

Of course you will never know all the costs prior to construction that is impossible in a project like this. There will be overruns and unforeseen expenses and i'm sure that is part of the negotiations we will never hear about. That being said I think its pretty clear that the cost of Victoria Park is significantly different, and IMO more affordable than CalgaryNext. 

 

Just talking here, but the Next proposal eliminates McManon stadium, provides a new arena and a fieldhouse.  $890m.  Victoria Park is $555m for a stadium only.  Or did I miss something.  Everything else is noise.  Maybe I'm uninformed, but if the cleanup isn't done (it should be) the land really isn't usable for anything valuable.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Just talking here, but the Next proposal eliminates McManon stadium, provides a new arena and a fieldhouse.  $890m.  Victoria Park is $555m for a stadium only.  Or did I miss something.  Everything else is noise.  Maybe I'm uninformed, but if the cleanup isn't done (it should be) the land really isn't usable for anything valuable.

 

Not sure you are missing something but I also don't think its a valid comparison. The Victoria park option is 555m including land and some infrastructure costs but $890 was for facilities only (unless i'm forgetting something?). Since neither proposal included interest/financing charges I think a more valid comparison would be Calgary Next costs about 1.2-1.3 billion (when you factor in land cost, utilities etc) and the Victoria park option at 555 million. Probably not equal but at least closer because then you are including infrastructure costs into the Calgary Next budget. So if Victoria Park costs 555 million that is still almost 700 million you could spend on a fieldhouse, stadium and remediation of West Village to get the same result as CalgaryNext. 

 

Probably end up spending more money yes but then you have usable land in West Village the city can use at their own discretion. I believe you are right that nothing more can be done in West Village until it is cleaned up because the creosote is contained until you start digging. I think this opens up a much larger debate as to what is best in the long term interest of the city. Building them all separately, which i'm not sure would cost all that much more than building CalgaryNext, and then having the city being able to sell West Village and develop it like East Village. Personally I think that is the better long term vision for the city and in the long run actually wouldn't be as expensive. The problem I have with CalgaryNext is it is a lot of taxpayer money for a project that will end up providing, IMO at least, not a lot of positive economic spin off to the city because you will eat up so much real estate in a building that won't generate any property tax for the city.

 

However, I am also fully aware that would require a council that would value sport enough to the level that they would want to invest in all of those projects separately and given that the fieldhouse has been agreed to for about 3-4 years now and is still unfunded i'm not very confident that is going to happen but IMO it's the best vision for the long term future of Calgary.  

[CheersMan]

7 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

The City commissioned a report that took about 6 months to report their findings. http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=43230. It is a pretty thorough report, especially with the attachments, and also provides a lot of information on the contamination and the potential health risks etc. People can disagree with the city's position, but I think it's pretty unfair to say the never considered CalgaryNext when they were the ones that did this type of analysis on the project. 

 

They measured the cost at either 85 million for a more measured approach (which would take 8-10 years) or 140 million which would be done in 6-8 years

Thanks for the link Cross.  I’ve heard various bits of information extracted from this report but never seen it.  One thing that surprised me was the city’s estimate ($85-140M) depending on the approach for clean up.  I think that was less than what the Flames estimated.  It looks like the city operated in good faith right up until they talk about additional investigation, regulatory approvals and permitting taking 3-5 years on either approach.  This is what I’m talking about when I say not looking at it seriously. 

One of the worst environmental disasters (Deepwater Horizon) contaminated the entire Gulf of Mexico.  It was declared cleaned up within 4 years from the spill.  Our city needs 5 years to get a permit in place and an additional 3 years to dig a hole for the expedited approach. 

[rickross]

These arena talks have become quit fascinating, a very intriguing and unique process unfolding before us. This will be the new comparable for future arena builds with all the sly politics and business savy talk. Love how Ken King is crying about the Flames now being revenue bottom feeders in the league and receiving cheques from revenue sharing like its a welfare cheque. We get it. Your rich BUT u should be even richer! The city is in a tough position, if they fold they risk a potential backlash from taxpayers. Let's be real, less than 20,000 Calgarians can actually fit into the Dome, as symbolic and important of an arena it is, it really facilitates a fraction of the city's population. I'm all for a new arena but let's find some balance already! I agree there is little economic benefit from arenas other than from parking lot owners and public transit seeing a good boost. In the end it becomes more of expense, all the amenities will see price increases (beer, nachos and merchandise) however, will we see a better product on the ice? I'd be pretty pissed to simply watch the Flames continue to falter in the 1st round of the playoffs  after they've been handed a shiny new arena.  

[cccsberg]

17 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Not sure you are missing something but I also don't think its a valid comparison. The Victoria park option is 555m including land and some infrastructure costs but $890 was for facilities only (unless i'm forgetting something?). Since neither proposal included interest/financing charges I think a more valid comparison would be Calgary Next costs about 1.2-1.3 billion (when you factor in land cost, utilities etc) and the Victoria park option at 555 million. Probably not equal but at least closer because then you are including infrastructure costs into the Calgary Next budget. So if Victoria Park costs 555 million that is still almost 700 million you could spend on a fieldhouse, stadium and remediation of West Village to get the same result as CalgaryNext. 

 

Probably end up spending more money yes but then you have usable land in West Village the city can use at their own discretion. I believe you are right that nothing more can be done in West Village until it is cleaned up because the creosote is contained until you start digging. I think this opens up a much larger debate as to what is best in the long term interest of the city. Building them all separately, which i'm not sure would cost all that much more than building CalgaryNext, and then having the city being able to sell West Village and develop it like East Village. Personally I think that is the better long term vision for the city and in the long run actually wouldn't be as expensive. The problem I have with CalgaryNext is it is a lot of taxpayer money for a project that will end up providing, IMO at least, not a lot of positive economic spin off to the city because you will eat up so much real estate in a building that won't generate any property tax for the city.

 

However, I am also fully aware that would require a council that would value sport enough to the level that they would want to invest in all of those projects separately and given that the fieldhouse has been agreed to for about 3-4 years now and is still unfunded i'm not very confident that is going to happen but IMO it's the best vision for the long term future of Calgary.  

Wow there, I'm pretty sure CalgaryNext included major transportation/infrastructure costs that need to be done anyways, stadium or not, e.g. Crowchild interchanges whereas Victoria Park excluded those same type of costs, e.g. Green Line which the city is already moving ahead on.  Is this not the case?

[cccsberg]

10 hours ago, rickross said:

These arena talks have become quit fascinating, a very intriguing and unique process unfolding before us. This will be the new comparable for future arena builds with all the sly politics and business savy talk. Love how Ken King is crying about the Flames now being revenue bottom feeders in the league and receiving cheques from revenue sharing like its a welfare cheque. We get it. Your rich BUT u should be even richer! The city is in a tough position, if they fold they risk a potential backlash from taxpayers. Let's be real, less than 20,000 Calgarians can actually fit into the Dome, as symbolic and important of an arena it is, it really facilitates a fraction of the city's population. I'm all for a new arena but let's find some balance already! I agree there is little economic benefit from arenas other than from parking lot owners and public transit seeing a good boost. In the end it becomes more of expense, all the amenities will see price increases (beer, nachos and merchandise) however, will we see a better product on the ice? I'd be pretty pissed to simply watch the Flames continue to falter in the 1st round of the playoffs  after they've been handed a shiny new arena.  

20,00 or less is the actual seating for the Saddledome, multiplied by xxx number of events, plus Calgary Hitmen/Roughnecks/xxx, plus the access by xxx millions every year during the Stampede for multiple events (more with the Corral coming down).... So, in total, not just 20,000 rich guys watching hockey.  

[cross16]

10 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Wow there, I'm pretty sure CalgaryNext included major transportation/infrastructure costs that need to be done anyways, stadium or not, e.g. Crowchild interchanges whereas Victoria Park excluded those same type of costs, e.g. Green Line which the city is already moving ahead on.  Is this not the case?

 

In the study the city did yes but I never saw that in the Flames proposal that indicated a cost of 890 million. The Flames proposal, again correct me if i'm wrong, only indicated it would cost 890 million to actually build the facilities. 

[cccsberg]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

In the study the city did yes but I never saw that in the Flames proposal that indicated a cost of 890 million. The Flames proposal, again correct me if i'm wrong, only indicated it would cost 890 million to actually build the facilities. 

Agree, which is the point.  Arena/Stadium/Fieldhouse($200mm)/Riverside-District kickstart for $890mm versus Arena for $555mm. 

[travel_dude]

18 hours ago, cross16 said:

Not sure you are missing something but I also don't think its a valid comparison. The Victoria park option is 555m including land and some infrastructure costs but $890 was for facilities only (unless i'm forgetting something?).

I think the city valued the land at $80m.  

[cross16]

36 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Agree, which is the point.  Arena/Stadium/Fieldhouse($200mm)/Riverside-District kickstart for $890mm versus Arena for $555mm. 

 

No, the point is those 2 costs include different things. 

 

My point is if you are trying to argue total cost and saying its 890 million vs 555 mill and decide which is better that isn't accurate. I think you need to take a more holistic view because costs are not the same for every project. 

[rickross]

41 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

20,00 or less is the actual seating for the Saddledome, multiplied by xxx number of events, plus Calgary Hitmen/Roughnecks/xxx, plus the access by xxx millions every year during the Stampede for multiple events (more with the Corral coming down).... So, in total, not just 20,000 rich guys watching hockey.  

Yup, I was just referring to the attendance for a single Flames game not over the coarse of the year or including events/concerts or Stampede. Ken King is saying the Flames are struggling to generate revenue from those 20,000 in attendance because the current state of the Dome offers little incentive to raise ticket prices and amenity costs. The Flames now become heavily reliant on deep playoff runs to incur profitable revenue. Truth be told this actually puts more pressure on the team to perform in order to increase their overall business revenue. King is right in the sense they are financially handcuffed by a depreciating arena however the city did offer  the Flames to keep all revenues generated from a new building...that's a substantial amount of residual income. I can see why the city is asking them to foot a sizeable amount of the initial costs. 

[zima]

I think when the Flames move to Seattle or Quebec they will never fill the arena like they do here. If the team starts failing like they did here for yrs they will never get the support they got while the team was not seeing any progress in the playoff and played like an AHL team. I'm not happy with the threat Management pulled lost a ton of respect for the Flames owner ship knowing the Flames will be moving has put me into a I just don't really care about the Flames any more. I guess the good thing for the Flames forum you will hear alot less from me thats for sure.

[cross16]

48 minutes ago, rickross said:

King is right in the sense they are financially handcuffed by a depreciating arena 

 

I think King was laying this on pretty thick and his point was generally very misleading. 

 

All of these numbers are from sites not supported by the Flames so they may dispute them but the NHL will never open their books so we can't confirm this but here is how I see it.

Flames were 8th in the league last year for avg ticket prices. http://blog.tiqiq.com/2016/10/2013-14-nhl-average-ticket-prices-team/

They are 16th in Team valuation according to Forbes 

They were 18th in terms of revenue (this is why they would receive a revenue cheque as typically all teams outside the top 15 get some form of revenue sharing)

They were 10 in operating income. (all data from Forbes and is from 2016 https://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome_sortreverse:true)

They are one of the smaller markets in the NHL.

 

While I do agree an new arena would add revenue, I can't get behind King playing the "woe is us" card when it comes to their ability to make money in this market. What is far more likely the reason they've gone from top 10 to 18th is the Canadian dollar and a new arena will not solve or alleviate the strain of dealing with that. Flames still do very well when you consider the market they are in. I don't think a new arena is suddenly going to vault the Flames back into the top 10 unless the dollar rises too. 

 

Just to be clear this is not a "we don't need a new arena" post or an "anti Ken King" post either. I am only intending to express that i don't buy the argument that taxpayers should fork over hundreds of millions because the Flames are "struggling". As i've stated all along I think Calgary needs a new arena but the price has to be right. 

[rickross]

21 minutes ago, zima said:

I think when the Flames move to Seattle or Quebec they will never fill the arena like they do here. If the team starts failing like they did here for yrs they will never get the support they got while the team was not seeing any progress in the playoff and played like an AHL team. I'm not happy with the threat Management pulled lost a ton of respect for the Flames owner ship knowing the Flames will be moving has put me into a I just don't really care about the Flames any more. I guess the good thing for the Flames forum you will hear alot less from me thats for sure.

The opportunity to move is definitely there but it's far from a guarantee that it'll be successful. In a city such as Seattle they'd have to compete with other pro teams like the Mariners and Seahawks and potentially an expansion NBA team. Also you have to consider the costs on investing in a new city, they'd have to create new trademark logos and patents and aggressively market themselves and hope it sticks. You can't buy culture and you can't buy history. Flames already have those firmly established in Calgary. The province of Quebec is already heavily marred in debt and rampant corruption throughout its government, it would pose its own challenges and that's not including having to cater to the French base and culture. Not so sure a bunch of rich, English speaking oil tycoon cowboys are the perfect match there. Also they would be competing directly with a massive Maple Leafs AND Habs base...good luck with that!

[rickross]

35 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I think King was laying this on pretty thick and his point was generally very misleading. 

 

All of these numbers are from sites not supported by the Flames so they may dispute them but the NHL will never open their books so we can't confirm this but here is how I see it.

Flames were 8th in the league last year for avg ticket prices. http://blog.tiqiq.com/2016/10/2013-14-nhl-average-ticket-prices-team/

They are 16th in Team valuation according to Forbes 

They were 18th in terms of revenue (this is why they would receive a revenue cheque as typically all teams outside the top 15 get some form of revenue sharing)

They were 10 in operating income. (all data from Forbes and is from 2016 https://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome_sortreverse:true)

They are the 23rd biggest market in the NHL. 

 

While I do agree an new arena would add revenue, I can't get behind King playing the "woe is us" card when it comes to their ability to make money in this market. What is far more likely the reason they've gone from top 10 to 18th is the Canadian dollar and a new arena will not solve or alleviate the strain of dealing with that. Flames still do very well when you consider the market they are in. I don't think a new arena is suddenly going to vault the Flames back into the top 10 unless the dollar rises too. 

Ken King is doing his job but he's gross about it! I was saying you'd think they were receiving a damn welfare cheque the way he was talking. Calgary is far from a small market...its sustained all of their sports teams which they have monopolized in this city. King and co. are being greedy but what smart business man isn't? Not giving him credit but it is what it is, I too wish they'd stop playing the "woe is us" card but that and threatening to move is their strongest hand. 

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, rickross said:

Ken King is doing his job but he's gross about it! I was saying you'd think they were receiving a damn welfare cheque the way he was talking. Calgary is far from a small market...its sustained all of their sports teams which they have monopolized in this city. King and co. are being greedy but what smart business man isn't? Not giving him credit but it is what it is, I too wish they'd stop playing the "woe is us" card but that and threatening to move is their strongest hand. 

 

They are very much a small market as they are one of the smallest markets in the NHL. so in King's defence he does have a point I just think he was pointing in the wrong direction but this is very much a small market from an NHL perspective but that doesn't make it a bad market either. 

[rickross]

12 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

They are very much a small market as they are one of the smallest markets in the NHL. so in King's defence he does have a point I just think he was pointing in the wrong direction but this is very much a small market from an NHL perspective but that doesn't make it a bad market either. 

Totally. I was referring to him saying its a small market in the sense that it's unsustainable which isn't the truth. They have rabid fan support here, Flames sell out near every night...we all know what happens to this city come playoff time...I mean women get so excited some go as far as flashing their boobies( yeah I totally said boobies lol). It may be a small market but it's one thats unique to them as they completely dominate it. 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

What is far more likely the reason they've gone from top 10 to 18th is the Canadian dollar and a new arena will not solve or alleviate the strain of dealing with that. Flames still do very well when you consider the market they are in. I don't think a new arena is suddenly going to vault the Flames back into the top 10 unless the dollar rises too. 

 

Ya, I believe the comments about becoming a Have Not team was slight of hand because the Canadian dollar was so slow against the USD last year.  They make sales in CAD and then pay salaries in USD.  That's got to hurt.

 

That said, the exchange rate is back to $0.80.  it's decent.  It's where it should have always been.  Not par and not $0.69.