The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[conundrumed]

I think this should rest. They say opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one.

Floating them becomes a rumour and rumours lead to misinformation via social media and become real through popular opinion. Never a good idea. Can listen to both sides, but unfortunately, both sides are slanted and then everything is a slant based on the author's belief.

It's always tough to know the truth unless you're at the table. Even then, which side of the table are you on?

Let's be Switzerland and let the 2 sides continue to negotiate.

The court of public opinion is a really bad idea.

[cross16]

Arena deal is officially dead. Both sides had until Dec 31st to waive conditions to start building and obviously neither side did. So far neither side has demonstrated a desire to re negotiate. 

Really poor look for both City and Club

 

 

 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

56 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Arena deal is officially dead. Both sides had until Dec 31st to waive conditions to start building and obviously neither side did. So far neither side has demonstrated a desire to re negotiate. 

Really poor look for both City and Club

 

 

 

How long before Bettman comes strutting in trying to put on some power move on behalf of the league?

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

How long before Bettman comes strutting in trying to put on some power move on behalf of the league?

 

I'm shocked it hasn't already happened. 

[tmac70]

35 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Arena deal is officially dead. Both sides had until Dec 31st to waive conditions to start building and obviously neither side did. So far neither side has demonstrated a desire to re negotiate. 

Really poor look for both City and Club

 

 

 

So after once again reading the details it was not cost over runs the owners had issue with,  It was late add on's from the city. This deal is now collapesed, could it get regeneragted with a new offer sure. However, the issue is the longer you go the larger the costs of construction. Like most municipal goverance this is not a surprize. They tend to make decisions and correction that constantly create conflict in the development world with out any knowledge of business and the long term effects it could have. Really if the city needs these add ons, its a cost to the tax payers of less than $7.63 to pay this off in a year, this is not taking in to consideration businesses taxes. Simply put if you allocated the payment over 5 Years, its $1.52 cents a year per tax payer and .76 cents over 10 year payment plan. In prosective your city administration just lots one of the largest invetors in the city, businesses will be effected, jobs, and tourism for less than a f'ing coffee at star bucks, makes sense. 

[redfire11]

Would you invest RIGHT NOW in a large sports bar, large indoor dining restaurant, a mall, or anything that requires a large volume of people? With the federal, provincial, and local governments controlling your rate of income/traffic also determining your expenditures through "safety"  measures; I think NOT. The city just gave the CSEC a life line to bail without making the CSEC look like the antagonist. I think the CSEC would have walked if it was a 1 million additional expenditure.  

[The_People1]

Aside from Edmonton, what other arenas were built with so much public money?  Seattle Kraken's arena costed $1.2-bil and was completely funded privately by VCs.  Maybe the city of Seattle gave land tax free? 

[tmac70]

15 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

Would you invest RIGHT NOW in a large sports bar, large indoor dining restaurant, a mall, or anything that requires a large volume of people? With the federal, provincial, and local governments controlling your rate of income/traffic also determining your expenditures through "safety"  measures; I think NOT. The city just gave the CSEC a life line to bail without making the CSEC look like the antagonist. I think the CSEC would have walked if it was a 1 million additional expenditure.  

They may very well may have walked, its a princple of dealing in good faith. This is not a cost over run its a want by the city whcih was not brought forth in the orginal agreement. In other words it was not inside the written agreement which was condtitionally agreed to.  Your quesion is valid but entreprenuers take risks where others would not., it all depends from how you view things. From an investment point commercial land, buildings would be the perfect investment right now. The world will not stay the way it is, so right now is a possible great time to invest in assests. Business wise public enterprises that require people traffic are a huge risk right now and in trobule based on your assesment. For example you want to buy a business where I live I can sell you 10, want to buy commercial property there is nothing of good quality because they sell lots sight unseen if they are of any quality. So would I buy the building that these operations are in right now hell , yeah. Would I invest in the a business right now that requires foot traffic depends on the business. The venues that you have mentioned if in the vincity of the traffic flow of this project just got kicked in the balls again. When you have investors WANTING to invest in your city in this current market, you most definetly do not try and ram crap down their throats in a bear market like this, typical city goverance at its best. 

[cross16]

As i've said before I think laying this all at the feel of the city is unfair. It takes 2 sides and the City did not change the contract parameters on the Flames. If it was why did the bother to negotiate at all they would have walked months ago.

 

At the end of the day I think redfire is right that both sides probably got some cold feet due to the rising costs and i'm sure CESC regretted their offer to handle all cost overruns. I still think this entire process, dating back almost a decade ok, is a bad look for both the city and club but I think the current climate made this project really hard to push through on. Not just the rising costs but the fact that the government keeps moving the goal posts on fans/capacity probably all played an impact in the decision and CESC took their out. 

 

It's still a risky bet by CESC though. They walked over 9 million but what if the costs never come down?

[cross16]

36 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Aside from Edmonton, what other arenas were built with so much public money?  Seattle Kraken's arena costed $1.2-bil and was completely funded privately by VCs.  Maybe the city of Seattle gave land tax free? 

 

In Canada, none of them outside of Edmonton. Most of them were either fully privately funded or governments kicked in a portion but the organizations paid the majority. 

 

however, this is part of the problem. The costs and financing of the arenas were all major contributors to the bankruptcy or sell of the Canucks, Sens and Habs. Toronto is a rare success story of private financing for a Stadium and the other examples is part of the reason for the huge increase in the public/private model, IMO at least. 

 

But I don't disagree with your point, more creativity is needed here. 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

17 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

In Canada, none of them outside of Edmonton. Most of them were either fully privately funded or governments kicked in a portion but the organizations paid the majority. 

 

however, this is part of the problem. The costs and financing of the arenas were all major contributors to the bankruptcy or sell of the Canucks, Sens and Habs. Toronto is a rare success story of private financing for a Stadium and the other examples is part of the reason for the huge increase in the public/private model, IMO at least. 

 

But I don't disagree with your point, more creativity is needed here. 

You could sell naming rights of different portions of the complex.  I'll throw $100 in but I get to put FFIJL on one of the ice cleaner girls shovels.

 

For $5000 you can have the Adam Fox toilet or the James Neal trash bin.

 

 

 

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, redfire11 said:

Would you invest RIGHT NOW in a large sports bar, large indoor dining restaurant, a mall, or anything that requires a large volume of people? With the federal, provincial, and local governments controlling your rate of income/traffic also determining your expenditures through "safety"  measures; I think NOT. The city just gave the CSEC a life line to bail without making the CSEC look like the antagonist. I think the CSEC would have walked if it was a 1 million additional expenditure.  

 

Good points and obviously the prices of construction material are too volatile right now.  It could easily add 30% to 50% of costs over 3 to 4 years if supply chains continue to trend poorly.  And inflation should get out of control soon due to infinite money printing.  Safe to exit this deal for now and negotiate a new deal in 2 to 3 years once all the craziness dies down.

[The_People1]

Apparently some rumours suggests Eugene Melnyk may be broke and needs to sell the Senators unless fans are allowed back to attend games.  I'm sure all Canadian teams are feeling the pinch right now.

[medatswhoP]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/braid-kenney-blasts-city-for-losing-arena-deal-a-new-councillor-faults-gondek/ar-AASqPqB#comments

 

[robrob74]

Can the Flames sue the city? If I were them I’d go legal on them. There probably were some out-clauses that lets the city off the hook. But it’s a bit ridiculous on both sides… 

 

if I were mayor I’d reject the deal too, only based on the stadium designs lol. 
 

the Flames should move.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, medatswhoP said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/braid-kenney-blasts-city-for-losing-arena-deal-a-new-councillor-faults-gondek/ar-AASqPqB#comments

 

 

I don't know if I can entirely trust a news story these days, but I always thought that the mayor was litigating through Twitter.  She has no standing as the only one to negotiate any T&C's of the deal.  That's my opinion at least.  What will happen if all the projects are cancelled?  Blame the Flames?  The province had a stake in at least one project, so how did the mayor get to take a chance on killing that deal as a result.

 

 

[tmac70]

9 hours ago, cross16 said:

As i've said before I think laying this all at the feel of the city is unfair. It takes 2 sides and the City did not change the contract parameters on the Flames. If it was why did the bother to negotiate at all they would have walked months ago.

 

At the end of the day I think redfire is right that both sides probably got some cold feet due to the rising costs and i'm sure CESC regretted their offer to handle all cost overruns. I still think this entire process, dating back almost a decade ok, is a bad look for both the city and club but I think the current climate made this project really hard to push through on. Not just the rising costs but the fact that the government keeps moving the goal posts on fans/capacity probably all played an impact in the decision and CESC took their out. 

 

It's still a risky bet by CESC though. They walked over 9 million but what if the costs never come down?

It appears the premier disagrees and is blaming the city.  You have a mayor and city council that just cost this city far more than what they were asking for in the long run. IMHO, the Mayor and council should come forth agree that they made a mistake and get the orginal agreement back in place immediatley.  When goverance can  not see the macro advancement is just another prime example of stupitity at the goverance level.  

[tmac70]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

Can the Flames sue the city? If I were them I’d go legal on them. There probably were some out-clauses that lets the city off the hook. But it’s a bit ridiculous on both sides… 

 

if I were mayor I’d reject the deal too, only based on the stadium designs lol. 
 

the Flames should move.

No conditions were never removed so its all legal,as would have been the ammendment submitted by the city. I have been witness to multi develops get F'ed because of 11th hour BS from cities, its actually more common than one thinks.  Problem is councils only see the current impact not the long term beneifts. What is hilarious we are suppose to be the most intellegent of animals, yet we put the stupiest and weakest in charge of the herd lol

[jjgallow]

 

I see a lot of finger pointing here in many directions.

 

You're all correct.  Actually.

 

Nobody's coming out of this as a hero or a genius.

[The_People1]

The only way costs come down is if we have a global economic meltdown similar to 2008 (which cannot be ruled out at this point).  Usually when stocks crash and the world economy feels pain, then that's when cash is king.  Not only will labour be much cheaper when everyone is looking for work but materials will be as well because construction slows to a halt.  Most of us here will remember 2008/09, you could buy a house in Vegas with a swimming pool for $50,000 USD.  The Canadian dollar could also go to par with USD again and CSEC can buy US materials for a new arena at a better price.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

18 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Good points and obviously the prices of construction material are too volatile right now.  It could easily add 30% to 50% of costs over 3 to 4 years if supply chains continue to trend poorly.  And inflation should get out of control soon due to infinite money printing.  Safe to exit this deal for now and negotiate a new deal in 2 to 3 years once all the craziness dies down.

From what I've been experiencing lately basic materials (steel at least) are currently running about 2.5x the pre-pandemic costs.  But one of the major issues is supply and acquisition times, any deals going forward will most likely have stipulations over looser completion times and time overrun considerations.

[jjgallow]

9 hours ago, The_People1 said:

The only way costs come down is if we have a global economic meltdown similar to 2008 (which cannot be ruled out at this point).  Usually when stocks crash and the world economy feels pain, then that's when cash is king.  Not only will labour be much cheaper when everyone is looking for work but materials will be as well because construction slows to a halt.  Most of us here will remember 2008/09, you could buy a house in Vegas with a swimming pool for $50,000 USD.  The Canadian dollar could also go to par with USD again and CSEC can buy US materials for a new arena at a better price.

 

2 hours ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

From what I've been experiencing lately basic materials (steel at least) are currently running about 2.5x the pre-pandemic costs.  But one of the major issues is supply and acquisition times, any deals going forward will most likely have stipulations over looser completion times and time overrun considerations.

 

Agreed on both counts.

 

The reality is that the event center, which probably wasn't really economically feasible before covid, is now definitely unfeasible.

 

Now I know many of you have defended the Flames position, and many of you have defended the City's position, and many of you are very close to it.    But the thing is, all they needed to do is come out and say the costs have escalated too much.   This whole song and dance is so preschool.   The way this unfolded demonstrates that we have s.h.i.t ownership and a s.h.i.t mayor.  Sorry.   It unfolded in the worst, and most unprofessional way possible with neither side being honest with the public.

 

Quite honestly, I like the Saddledome.  It needs more washrooms.  That's all.  Once again, this isn't a garth brooks concert nor is anyone planning mega concerts for some time.    Even if they were, the equipment for them...everything, is getting smaller and lighter.     There was never a factual justification for a new event center which, by the way, looks ugly even in the renderings.

 

On costs coming down:   We should absolutely be prepared for a possible crash, but I would stop short of expecting it.   There are so many factors at play.   Cancelled projects, is one of those factors.    The supply chain improving, is another.  The world is probably going to be more productive and efficient in 2022/2023.    Sure, another crash will happen, but we could boom 2-3 years before seeing it.   Historically markets do boom the years following a major incident, followed by corrections.    IMHO, none of this matters, because a new event center is unlikely to make sense in a boom or a bust market.

 

 

[travel_dude]

28 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

Quite honestly, I like the Saddledome.  It needs more washrooms.  That's all.  Once again, this isn't a garth brooks concert nor is anyone planning mega concerts for some time.    Even if they were, the equipment for them...everything, is getting smaller and lighter.     There was never a factual justification for a new event center which, by the way, looks ugly even in the renderings.

 

I like the design from a visual perspective.  I think it misses the boat in modern design, but it is iconic.

The thing is, it's older than Noah.

The cost to maintain it and potentially fix andy structual issues will far exceed the low ball of $48m.

Closer to $200m at pre-pandemic prices most likely.

That's not a lot of improvements.

And likey still has the same pissers.

 

How much was the upgrade to the MSG?

Over a billion?

 

My issue is that this was dealt with in the public eye, starting back with Nenshi, ending with Gomorrah.

Yes, the Flames did the same thing, but who is the adult?

Obviously the mayor isn't a great example of one.

[sak22]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I like the design from a visual perspective.  I think it misses the boat in modern design, but it is iconic.

The thing is, it's older than Noah.

The cost to maintain it and potentially fix andy structual issues will far exceed the low ball of $48m.

Closer to $200m at pre-pandemic prices most likely.

That's not a lot of improvements.

And likey still has the same pissers.

 

How much was the upgrade to the MSG?

Over a billion?

 

My issue is that this was dealt with in the public eye, starting back with Nenshi, ending with Gomorrah.

Yes, the Flames did the same thing, but who is the adult?

Obviously the mayor isn't a great example of one.

The Flames in all situations were the ones to end discussions, so I give them the more childish standpoint.  They didn't want to listen to alternatives to CalgaryNext for over a year, walked away completely for 2 years in 2017, and killed the deal as construction was set to begin.  Gondek could've handled things better in regards to involving council, and that is troubling in so many levels being in only month 2 of a 4 year term, but not sure she needed to beg a billionaire to come back to the table.  I have a large list of complaints of Nenshi and city council over the past 2 decades, but I give them a little slack, they know they need it but why do most of the work for a childish bully.  

[cross16]

Honestly the more I sit on this the less upset I get and the more I don't think this is a situation where blame needs to be found. From the perspective of the Flames they entered into this expecting to shell out around $250 Mill and saw it balloon up to almost 100mill, through no fault of anyone, and were most likely even higher. The goalposts were not moved on anyone in this situation but rather as the project closer and closer to reality the costs simply were getting further and further refined. They just so happened to also be going up and up and I think it's as simple as it got too much for CESC to stomach, especially given the Flames are looking at another big revenue hit this year and uncertainty around when the revenues will stabilize. 

 

I wish the Flames didn't just end the deal and I wish the Mayor would have not taken to Twitter and rather engaged council to see if there was anything they could do but at the same time her hands are a bit tied when a private company makes a decision like that. 

 

And Kenney weighing in on this is nothing but laughable. Not only does he likely have no idea what he is talking about he is using the same tactic he is blasting the city for with the Green Line.