The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

2 hours 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.

 

Ya that's the most perplexing part of this whole thing from CSEC's perspective because maintaining the Saddledome is costing something like $10-million per year with constant mechanical/electrical issues and getting contractors in/out to do the work.  The dome was also flooded before so maybe they are dealing with mold as well.

 

And now they walk away from the project because of $10-mil.

[sak22]

12 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

Ya that's the most perplexing part of this whole thing from CSEC's perspective because maintaining the Saddledome is costing something like $10-million per year with constant mechanical/electrical issues and getting contractors in/out to do the work.  The dome was also flooded before so maybe they are dealing with mold as well.

 

And now they walk away from the project because of $10-mil.

With $20-25 Mil already spent.  Can't wait for my renewal invoice in the next few months.  Thankfully the league is doing everything in their power to ensure no refunds will be given.

[tmac70]

I am not here picking sides however the reasoniong for not moving forward has been defined by the add ons. The cost of building was always apparent for CESC, them walking away is a peer speculative, there is no proof or indication that they are sitting back going thank god that happened so we could get out.  CESC knew the costs of construction when the agreement was in place, most certian they understood the potential for increased costs as well. When improvements are to be add on to a project there is usally a balanced agreement that takes place. If one side required these add ons than a compenstated arrangement or concession could have been requested by the city to counter act the costs for CESC. The add on did nothing for CESC, it was a benefit to the city of which they wanted CESC to incur.   

 

Example. 

 

Your leasing a house, the landlord and you come to a written agreement that a garage will be constructed so you can use it for additional revnue. You both agree to what costs each side is willing to absorb to make this happen. This is a benefical process for you and increases the property value for the owner,  A written agreement is drawn up with the final draft to be signed in a few weeks. Seven days prior to the agreement getting signed the owner makes an amendment.  The amendment states, He may wish to install solar panels on the roof at a later date of which a speical barrier needs to be applied. Plus a larger walkway to the garage he thought would be a nice touch. The extra costs are $15,000.00 of which he wants you to pay the total amount with no compensation from orginal building costs or monthly operational costs. Any one ok with this? 

[cross16]

20 hours ago, tmac70 said:

I am not here picking sides however the reasoniong for not moving forward has been defined by the add ons. The cost of building was always apparent for CESC, them walking away is a peer speculative, there is no proof or indication that they are sitting back going thank god that happened so we could get out.  CESC knew the costs of construction when the agreement was in place, most certian they understood the potential for increased costs as well. When improvements are to be add on to a project there is usally a balanced agreement that takes place. If one side required these add ons than a compenstated arrangement or concession could have been requested by the city to counter act the costs for CESC. The add on did nothing for CESC, it was a benefit to the city of which they wanted CESC to incur.   

 

Example. 

 

Your leasing a house, the landlord and you come to a written agreement that a garage will be constructed so you can use it for additional revnue. You both agree to what costs each side is willing to absorb to make this happen. This is a benefical process for you and increases the property value for the owner,  A written agreement is drawn up with the final draft to be signed in a few weeks. Seven days prior to the agreement getting signed the owner makes an amendment.  The amendment states, He may wish to install solar panels on the roof at a later date of which a speical barrier needs to be applied. Plus a larger walkway to the garage he thought would be a nice touch. The extra costs are $15,000.00 of which he wants you to pay the total amount with no compensation from orginal building costs or monthly operational costs. Any one ok with this? 

 

A more appropriate analogy would be that in the original agreement both sides agree to certain features of the garage, in particular that it meet certain climate requirements, and pass those asks on to the builder/designer. Also at the same time the tenant agrees to cover all future cost overruns but when builder/designer comes back with the plans the costs is higher than originally anticipated. The owner still agreed to cover a little under half of that $15,000 increase but the tenant doesn't and walks. 

 

On top of that, that $15,000 was around $10-12,000 less than a year ago and the revenue you planned to collect using that garage just got cut in half and you don't know for how long. 

 

All of this just depends on who you want to believe. If you want to believe CESC then sure the city tried to put costs in at the last minute but personally I think this spin. Those closest to the situation are not suggesting that the City moved anything but rather this is as simple as costs just rose too quickly and outside of CESC's comfort zone (and the cities to a certain extent). 

And i'm sure below all of this CESC is not a fan of Gondek and certainly wasn't going to cave to a new council.

 

Think there is just a lot of layers to this and blaming the city, or even CESC to a certain extent, is just scapegoating. 

[cross16]

Arena is still a topic of conversation for council and was discussed last night. Pike has a good thread on it here but quick highlights:

 

- Council agrees with the need and wants to keep pursuing

- Will set up a new committee and will engage a 3rd party. This includes discussion with the Flames but also any other 3rd party/investors that are interested. 

- View it as a key part of the Rivers District Master Plan

- Will update in March. 

 

 

[phoenix66]

while there may be some blame to go around, I'm sorry this is the result of the City , primarily the mayor trying to pull a powerplay , it blew up in her face .

NOWHERE in the original plans were there Solar panels, for starters .. if you believe there were, why was the CMLC not aware of it ?  were they not involved in the design of the location until they were kicked off the project with the amended deal in July 2021?

 

For the record, I worked closely with a member who was very involved at the table ..and all these facts are publicly accessible 

 

Here is a timeline, I even included links ...

 

July 26, 2021-- new deals were updated to increase the shares of each side, with the CSEC shouldering any "overruns" in future , and in return they would now be free to hire their own management firm, no longer the CMLC 
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=179649

 

** it should be noted , JG was vehemently opposed , especially to the now exclusion of the CMLC

 

Nov 15- council voted 13-2 to declare a state of climate emergency in Calgary , aiming for Net Zero emissions by 2050
- this had immediate impact on all future development permits to include rigorous environmental concessions 

 

Nov 18, in council , conditions to the approval of the arena permit , were drawn up to include 

 

"Provide a detailed terms of reference to the satisfaction of the Development Authority,
for the completion of Part 3 of the Calgary Event Centre Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Assessment (October 15, 2021). The terms of reference are to describe the matters to
be addressed in the analysis of opportunities and implementation pathways to achieve
carbon neutrality for the Event Centre facility with a target date of 2035"

and 

 

"Amend the plans to identify the areas intended for installation of solar photovoltaic
equipment, comprising no less than 60% of the lower roof areas and no less than 50% of
the upper roof area."

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=186208

 

what does "amend " mean ?   it means change .. it means it did not already exist ..

 

A copy of these conditions were sent to CSEC, resulting in the owners denying to proceed ..

 

Now lets look how this went down ..

-- Mayor Jyoti gets off the phone with Murray Edwards, and immediately hits Twitter .. "the flames are pulling out "

- council members requested an emergency council meeting to discuss , the Mayor declined 

- multiple scenarios were proposed to discuss , or debate , or look at options -- the mayor refused all..

- Her astonishment that they would " walk away over 1.5%" is simply an admission that she thought she could get away with it 

- now that it's over , she's all gung ho to find a new way ? Find a new partner ?-- finding  a way to solve $10M would have been way easier and WAY cheaper ..

- She blocked any attempt at finding a way to salvage the deal , she wanted THIS one dead 

 

No , she was opposed to the deal as a councilor.. her over the top environment policies and anti oil  stand as Mayor, made her think they could slip this in the deal by making it a condition of the development permit 

 

CSEC called her on it. , she never thought that would happen .. but here we are..

 

Could CSEC have just swallowed the $10M?  sure.. but that sets a precedent ..cant say I blame them..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[medatswhoP]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/third-party-to-determine-if-new-partnership-possible-on-cancelled-flames-arena-deal/ar-AASKyNS

The latest update on third party not responsible for how accurate this report is.

[travel_dude]

Why does this seem like the city wants to get a better or cheaper deal.

Cost $10m to wind down the old deal.

I don't think the Flames really want to go down this road again.

 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

 

"Amend the plans to identify the areas intended for installation of solar photovoltaic
equipment, comprising no less than 60% of the lower roof areas and no less than 50% of
the upper roof area."

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=186208

 

what does "amend " mean ?   it means change .. it means it did not already exist ..

 

Are you sure it wasn't already there?  "Amend" could also mean a modification to the original details meaning, the provisions for solar panels could have always been there but the location of them were to be changed.

[tmac70]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Are you sure it wasn't already there?  "Amend" could also mean a modification to the original details meaning, the provisions for solar panels could have always been there but the location of them were to be changed.

An amendment is a change to the orginal agreement. It could have been in there and the city in the 11th hour tried to get it put forth. Someone thinks they are going to try and be the fing hero on council to the public. Those in the public that were against this are so happy, fools don't realize your paying for the 3rd party to medigate. This party that will negoitate the process will cost tax payers most likey 750- 1 Million before anything gets back to the table. Than what all the Hash Rate clowns forget for every year that goes by add another 18 Million to the price tag based off simple inflation. The stalement of this deal didn't save the city anything, your city council may have just cost you roughly Millions more a year and thats if it gets back to the table. If anyone thinks that the city has the upper hand in this your gravley mistaken. The city needs this more the owners need them. If you don't want them there they can move. Than your stuck with a huge tax burden of the saddledome which would also cost more to tax payers than what they just walked away from. 

 

 Frankly, if I were the Flames owners I be talking to Bettman about a relocate and would not engage the city's request for a least 18 months. Let the tax payers eat the costs of the decisions of the fools they voted in. Than I would relocate  them to where your wanted and people appreciate jobs, recreation, economic stimulus and entertainment. As much as many citzens could careless and want to save the addition $7.50 a year on their taxes, the overall damage to losing the Flames will be far more detrimental to your city than to the Flames. 

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, tmac70 said:

An amendment is a change to the orginal agreement. It could have been in there and the city in the 11th hour tried to get it put forth. 

 

That's what I mean.  Maybe provisions for solar panels have always been there and modifying the details created the $10-mil extra cost.

 

3 hours ago, tmac70 said:

the overall damage to losing the Flames will be far more detrimental to your city than to the Flames. 

 

Sadly, it will hurt both enough that I don't think the Flames really want to move to another city.

 

The Flames could try Houston but the hockey market there is zero and they will have to begin from square one.  Houston's arena is privately owned by a billionaire who was rumoured to not want to own a hockey team and only seeks a tenant.  This might sound like the perfect match but what's the cost to the Flames to rent the arena?  Surely not cheap and possibly as expensive as building a new arena over a ten year lease.  In Calgary, the city is building half the arena and then the Flames get to manage the new arena and make profit on the side.  They don't get this in Houston.

 

Sure, maybe a hockey team in Houston can be as successful as the Dallas Stars.  It will take time though.  Meanwhile, the city of Calgary could attract a new team like the Coyotes who could be looking for a new home as early as next season and can move into the Saddledome while they build a new arena together.  Takes time.

 

All in all, it's just a lose-lose for all parties involved if the Flames decide to leave.

[phoenix66]

11 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Are you sure it wasn't already there?  "Amend" could also mean a modification to the original details meaning, the provisions for solar panels could have always been there but the location of them were to be changed.

The telling point again was that CMLC was not aware or it would have been in the budget for construction before they were removed from the project 

Remeber again this wasn't so much a change to the deal, but a new requirement to be approved for a development permit .. the deal had simple language stating the permit would be approved based on satisfying permit requirements by a deadline .. they changed the requirements to get a permit.. like a back door way to force a deal change essentially without violating the deal

.to be somewhat fair, it's not just the flames.. you wanna build a house in Calgary now you're gonna have to make it solar ready now due to this "emergency" 

It the fact she let it die and pushed back on any recourse of discussion during a period it may have been possible to look for a solution that riles me and should rile many..  the fact shes proudly proclaiming that the city is " unshackled" from the deal says it all

 

Now , I also believe the CSEC when they say "fine we'll just play in the dome " .. they're not pulling a move threat.. Edwards isn't being caught hanging out at Rockets games ..  COVID aside this is a profitable location in a Canadian market..  but at the end of the day the next deal, and there will be one, will be far worse for the city.. 

If the flames find a way to build somewhere else in the city..that whole downtown renovation will be a ghost town 

People also forget the part of the deal that gave them first right of purchase of 2 other land lots there...  I don't think it's a coincidence one of them (bus shelters) is the perfect size for a football stadium 

 

And again I'm.not saying the flames are angels here.. they could have sucked up $10m and added wording to assure no future back door surprises.. but I do agree they were blindsided with add ons , and not overages ..  but they had a right to push back , ..

 

 

 

 

 

[phoenix66]

This is awesome ..lol

 

http://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/corbella-council-voted-in-camera-to-ban-mayor-gondek-from-negotiating-the-next-arena-deal/wcm/983fc38b-0ca4-49f0-87e2-4fefac8f6ade

[sak22]

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

That's what I mean.  Maybe provisions for solar panels have always been there and modifying the details created the $10-mil extra cost.

 

 

Sadly, it will hurt both enough that I don't think the Flames really want to move to another city.

 

The Flames could try Houston but the hockey market there is zero and they will have to begin from square one.  Houston's arena is privately owned by a billionaire who was rumoured to not want to own a hockey team and only seeks a tenant.  This might sound like the perfect match but what's the cost to the Flames to rent the arena?  Surely not cheap and possibly as expensive as building a new arena over a ten year lease.  In Calgary, the city is building half the arena and then the Flames get to manage the new arena and make profit on the side.  They don't get this in Houston.

 

Sure, maybe a hockey team in Houston can be as successful as the Dallas Stars.  It will take time though.  Meanwhile, the city of Calgary could attract a new team like the Coyotes who could be looking for a new home as early as next season and can move into the Saddledome while they build a new arena together.  Takes time.

 

All in all, it's just a lose-lose for all parties involved if the Flames decide to leave.

I don't buy the theory if the Flames move another team will swoop in to build a new arena in Calgary.  And I don't get any vibes that Meruelo will be any better to negotiate with than CSEC.  If the Flames leave it will be a while before anyone replaces them in this city, but the thought shouldn't exist they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[zima]

Wouldn't it cost a ton of money to rebuild this team in another City with the rebranding and setup paying a ton for another Arena rental plus it's a huge risk that they will beable to bring in fans to fill a new arena.  I do however believe they will not admit to moving to a new city or looking to move to a new city because they know fans here will stop supporting this team and they would lose even more in revenue. The way this economy is heading makes it even tougher to move on that is why they have opted out of the new arena the future is not so bright right now.

[cross16]

9 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

That's what I mean.  Maybe provisions for solar panels have always been there and modifying the details created the $10-mil extra cost.

 

 

This is my understanding of what happened. While "solar panels" were not specifically in the agreement prior to the development permit throughout the whole process it was agreed upon that the building was going to meet certain environmental standards and that they were going to be high. All the development permit did was outline exactly how they were going to achieve that so while the cost was new the concept was not. That's not outrageous of a development IMO. 

 

I get people want an arena but I'm not so sure I see what is so wrong about this dealing being dead. I don't think this was honestly a great deal for either side, the City probably didn't like CLMC being removed and the Flames certainly probably regretted agreeing to cover cost overruns, so I still see this as both sides just walking away rather than this need to be framed as a fight. I see a ton of logic of putting this on pause for a couple of years, let the COVID situation provide more clarity around costs, revenues etc and get back at it when the picture is clearer. If the Flames were so pissed about the deal falling apart why did they not come forward a month earlier when the development permit was issued? Why not pursue legal options if in fact the goal posts moved? The fact that they waited until very late in the process tells me I don't think they were that upset about the solar panels and just got uncomfortable with the deal altogether. 

 

Unless Murray Edwards is interesting in selling the team I don't think the Flames are going anywhere and would actually argue they need Calgary more than Calgary needs them. I don't think there is a better market out there for them and they know it. 

[sak22]

28 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

Unless Murray Edwards is interesting in selling the team I don't think the Flames are going anywhere and would actually argue they need Calgary more than Calgary needs them. I don't think there is a better market out there for them and they know it. 

I don't know how I feel about this.  Things on both sides are pretty down, I don't see much going right for the city right now, and team support was dwindling well before COVID, it's not quite at 2000 level, but I think its trending towards that level.  When I got my seasons tickets I never imagined I wouldn't be able to give away games, I do know some people too that don't go just because the Dome, which I can honestly say I hit that point with McMahon Stadium.  The team IMO can thrive anywhere as long as they a) win, b) avoid long stretches of futility, c) build an arena in a stupid location.  Calgary will continue to trend down until either a new arena is built or it wins a championship, just a gut feeling the first option will be the quickest.

[tmac70]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

That's what I mean.  Maybe provisions for solar panels have always been there and modifying the details created the $10-mil extra cost.

 

 

Sadly, it will hurt both enough that I don't think the Flames really want to move to another city.

 

The Flames could try Houston but the hockey market there is zero and they will have to begin from square one.  Houston's arena is privately owned by a billionaire who was rumoured to not want to own a hockey team and only seeks a tenant.  This might sound like the perfect match but what's the cost to the Flames to rent the arena?  Surely not cheap and possibly as expensive as building a new arena over a ten year lease.  In Calgary, the city is building half the arena and then the Flames get to manage the new arena and make profit on the side.  They don't get this in Houston.

 

Sure, maybe a hockey team in Houston can be as successful as the Dallas Stars.  It will take time though.  Meanwhile, the city of Calgary could attract a new team like the Coyotes who could be looking for a new home as early as next season and can move into the Saddledome while they build a new arena together.  Takes time.

 

All in all, it's just a lose-lose for all parties involved if the Flames decide to leave.

If the Flames leave or sell the franchise to another buyer and potenially leave, prettty sure NHL doesn't say hey CGY is a great alterantive for ARZ. If you can not get a deal in with somone who has been here forever, pretty sure the problem isn't instanly solved with another club. I don't think they want to move either, but really why stay where your not welcome. My whole point is this it may appear like a ton of money from a tax payer end its not. The owners are venturing into an area of uncertainty with costs, this only makes its more costly than moving forward with the orgianl agreement. 

[cross16]

14 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I don't know how I feel about this.  Things on both sides are pretty down, I don't see much going right for the city right now, and team support was dwindling well before COVID, it's not quite at 2000 level, but I think its trending towards that level.  When I got my seasons tickets I never imagined I wouldn't be able to give away games, I do know some people too that don't go just because the Dome, which I can honestly say I hit that point with McMahon Stadium.  The team IMO can thrive anywhere as long as they a) win, b) avoid long stretches of futility, c) build an arena in a stupid location.  Calgary will continue to trend down until either a new arena is built or it wins a championship, just a gut feeling the first option will be the quickest.

 

I notice the same. I deferred my tickets this year in large part due to the fact it's been very challenging to offload games I can't go to. 

This is just in my circle but the feedback I get is it's not the arena it's a combination of apathy towards the team, apathy towards sports consumption, and the cost. It's easy to say now but the people I talk to, a new arena would not change how they interact with the Flames they want the team to be better and better operated.  That's just my observation. 

 

to be clear I would be very upset if the Flames left so I'm not advocating that or suggesting that should happen. I just see this is a tremendous market for the NHL that's all. 

[phoenix66]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This is my understanding of what happened. While "solar panels" were not specifically in the agreement prior to the development permit throughout the whole process it was agreed upon that the building was going to meet certain environmental standards and that they were going to be high. All the development permit did was outline exactly how they were going to achieve that so while the cost was new the concept was not. That's not outrageous of a development IMO. 

 

The agreement was amended in July , The election was in October .. Environmental Emergency criteria was added to the development approval process in November.

Prior to that these were not criteria in the developmental approval process , had they been, they would have been itemized in the previously released budgets , and the CMLC would have been aware to include them . 

[sak22]

 

 

 

[sak22]

Or is there a 3rd party

 

 

[travel_dude]

Impressive.  3 months and already they have talked to somebody that is in the process of possibly becoming a 3rd part, to reach out the Flames ownership....At this rate there should be an agreement in place just in time for the next election.  

[conundrumed]

20 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Impressive.  3 months and already they have talked to somebody that is in the process of possibly becoming a 3rd part, to reach out the Flames ownership....At this rate there should be an agreement in place just in time for the next election.  

Bureaucracy at it's finest.

Reminds me of a kid's joke.

A turtle got mugged by a gang of snails. When the cops arrived they told the turtle, "Tell us everything that happened".

The turtle says, "I'm not sure, it all happened so fast".

[DirtyDeeds]

On 8/21/2014 at 9:04 PM, DirtyDeeds said:

Where the hell is it??? What is the holdup?

I started this thread in 2014 with the above comment that is even more relevant today.