cross16 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 So the highlights: City owned building 50/50 cost split on a 550$ mill cost. (City has broken down there share but I haven't seen how the Flames account for theirs) 35 year deal. Flames take care of day to day maintenance but city on the hook for any "uninsured major structural repairs" Flames pay a fee (not property taxes) which is caped at 3 mill for the first 5 years. City gets 2% of all ticket revenues the rest to CESC City gets $250K/yr from naming rights, rest to CESC City to demolish Dome and CESC pays 10% (1.5mill) CESC can't relocate during the 35 year term. All in all, CESC made out like bandits here and I don't understand why the City had such a hard line. The dressed up the language and there are some small wins but overall I think CESC got a pretty sweetheart deal here. Not quite a Darryl Katz style deal but the net benefit on this for the city is probably not going to be positive (which their own analysis in the report supports). Guess I should just be happy it's over details I posted come from here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 34 minutes ago, cross16 said: So the highlights: City owned building 50/50 cost split on a 550$ mill cost. (City has broken down there share but I haven't seen how the Flames account for theirs) 35 year deal. Flames take care of day to day maintenance but city on the hook for any "uninsured major structural repairs" Flames pay a fee (not property taxes) which is caped at 3 mill for the first 5 years. City gets 2% of all ticket revenues the rest to CESC City gets $250K from naming rights, rest to CESC City to demolish Dome and CESC pays 10% (1.5mill) CESC can't relocate during the 35 year term. All in all, CESC made out like bandits here and I don't understand why the City had such a hard line. The dressed up the language and there are some small wins but overall I think CESC got a pretty sweetheart deal here. Not quite a Darryl Katz style deal but the net benefit on this for the city is probably not going to be positive (which their own analysis in the report supports). Guess I should just be happy it's over details I posted come from here this is a bit clearer .. some of those numbers were a bit off from Trevor , like the renaming rights are $2.5 M not 250K i actually think this is tilted quite in the City's favor .. I'm impressed overall .. i see no reason for people to hate this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, phoenix66 said: this is a bit clearer .. some of those numbers were a bit off from Trevor , like the renaming rights are $2.5 M not 250K i actually think this is tilted quite in the City's favor .. I'm impressed overall .. i see no reason for people to hate this Sorry i fixed it. It's 250K/yr (2.5 million over 10 years). It'ts a very small % of what CESC gets for those rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, cross16 said: Sorry i fixed it. It's 250K/yr (2.5 million over 10 years). It'ts a very small % of what CESC gets for those rights. Fair. . that's I'm sure a big concession .. but at the end of the day a $400M return on a $290m investment isn't bad No tax increase , not in any way affected by the current budget crisis. Anybody who really reads it should be ok with it . I know scotiabank paid a boatload for Torontos naming right..love to know what Rogers paid in Edmonton.apparently was never made public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 I'm excited to see what we come up with for a building. With it still being 2 years away from breaking ground I think there is a lot of time for good planning, but I still proceed with caution because of the Green Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 17 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: Fair. . that's I'm sure a big concession .. but at the end of the day a $400M return on a $290m investment isn't bad No tax increase , not in any way affected by the current budget crisis. Anybody who really reads it should be ok with it . I know scotiabank paid a boatload for Torontos naming right..love to know what Rogers paid in Edmonton.apparently was never made public Given how these deals usually go it's fine and the city probably got the best deal they were going to. Bigger picture thinking, this is still a private corporation getting a much, much better deal than they should IMO. I think those numbers are very budged and the report I mentioned there says so as well. This won't be a very good economic deal for the city but it probably will be a good social one. Edit: Another feature of the deal is CESC is getting options to develop the land around the Event Center as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, sak22 said: I'm excited to see what we come up with for a building. With it still being 2 years away from breaking ground I think there is a lot of time for good planning, but I still proceed with caution because of the Green Line. Yups, time to farm out the architectural work to a firm in Sweden, Mechanical Engineering in Houston, Structural Engineering in the UK, raw materials from China and India, construction labourers from undocumented refugees... Just kidding. Glad this is over... Well "tentatively in principle" anyways. After all the cost over runs and stuff, Calgary will be out of a recession and nobody will care how much it costed in total. It's gonna be a party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 9 hours ago, cross16 said: Given how these deals usually go it's fine and the city probably got the best deal they were going to. Bigger picture thinking, this is still a private corporation getting a much, much better deal than they should IMO. I think those numbers are very budged and the report I mentioned there says so as well. This won't be a very good economic deal for the city but it probably will be a good social one. Edit: Another feature of the deal is CESC is getting options to develop the land around the Event Center as well. Reminds me of a lot of ski hills. The skiing is secondary to the reality that many of them are real estate ventures for the wealthy. 7 hours ago, The_People1 said: Yups, time to farm out the architectural work to a firm in Sweden, Mechanical Engineering in Houston, Structural Engineering in the UK, raw materials from China and India, construction labourers from undocumented refugees... Just kidding. Glad this is over... Well "tentatively in principle" anyways. After all the cost over runs and stuff, Calgary will be out of a recession and nobody will care how much it costed in total. It's gonna be a party. Maybe they are not specifically undocumented refugees, but we do bring in immigrants to do a lot of construction/mining work. Governments need to identify ways that we can grow our knowledge base when we initiate such large projects. We could extend the economic benefits of these ventures to more people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 I think the big key in this that finally got it done was the ability to incorporate the CRL.. both rejected flames earlier proposals called for one but didn't meet the criteria. The Cities proposals were straight cash Doing it under this umbrella , using that met the criteria There will always be those that only see " the city funding millionaires" and already seeing uneducated comments on social media to that affect . But the key here is while yes, the flames are definitely benefitting, the city and the people of Calgary are looking at a return on an investment as well as benefit going forward that has nothing to do with hockey Businesses that build in close proximity will benefit directly from the center, the city will collect taxes from those , the flames will only benefit from those businesses if they build one themselves and if they do they will pay taxes too (I can see a new flames central being a great idea ) The flames are paying $275M basically to build a business and run a business in a building they don't own and will pay rent ..and just like any business will run it to hopefully turn a profit but the city will get a piece of everything they do in return In the big picture this is the best possible results a taxpayer could have hoped for ..in comparison to previous proposals this was a major turn for the flames side .. but the CRL being included made it possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Tribal Chief Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 Great Day to be a Flames fan know our team is staying for another 35 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM_3300 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 YAY ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Tribal Chief Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 Now im Curious Why are they announcing a Agreement when theoretically this agreement isnt official untill council votes on it it can be vetoed anytime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, The_Snowbear said: Now im Curious Why are they announcing a Agreement when theoretically this agreement isnt official untill council votes on it it can be vetoed anytime Pretty much formality in theory .. the negotiations teams of all 3 sides have a deal they all agree to.. council needs to officially vote to accept it.. at that point it's an agreement in principal..who will pay what and the basics of where it will go After that it's the details.. what will it look like, ..etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC923 Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 I still wish the city’s portion was lower, but I can live with it. My only major problem is that more time should be given for public feedback to council. One week is nothing, should have been at least 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Tribal Chief Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 Yeah but No Offense they Shouldnt be Announcing it imo untill the council has agreed cause imo if they voted it down after the announcement woudnt that be a Real sting in the Hash Rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 9 hours ago, ABC923 said: I still wish the city’s portion was lower, but I can live with it. My only major problem is that more time should be given for public feedback to council. One week is nothing, should have been at least 2. I do get that, and on the other hand understand why it's not . Polls were done earlier ..Calgarians polled that they were in favor of a new arena . Primarily so long as it did not raise their taxes . I am a strong believer in plebescites, but in this case I'm seeing a very polarizing topic. It meets the criteria of not being tax effecting, the bulk of the city money is from a. CRL, which many negatives don't care to realize is unique and only applies to revitalizing an area .. they don't choose to investigate and see this is not money that can be spent anywhere else . There are many vocal who even if this thing grew money and spit unicorn dust in the air would only ever see a city funding millionaires ..and on the other you have the die hards who'd vote for it even if it did jack their taxes up ... The minority seems to be those who can look at it analytically and responsibly and dissect it As much as I ran for council on the platform of public consultation, I'd say the consultation was done when the city was polled .. the city seems to have acted on that public directive..the week period now should be to get information and confirm that is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Tribal Chief Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 I Got another Question here why are they taking 2 years to start construction it doesnt take that long to prepare what they want it to look like... Like you Want this Built Asap and why is this Arena taking three years to build when Rogers arena in EdmonChuck Took 2 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 42 minutes ago, The_Snowbear said: I Got another Question here why are they taking 2 years to start construction it doesnt take that long to prepare what they want it to look like... Like you Want this Built Asap and why is this Arena taking three years to build when Rogers arena in EdmonChuck Took 2 years At this point , assuming approval on Monday..they simply have an agreement on concept and who pays for what. Now they have to agree /design the building itself .. consult on what goes where (cityscape , walkways , accesses etc) choose a contractor etc Kind of like you have agreed to buy a parcel of land ..the financing is now in place ..now you have to build a house ..choose your style ..find a builder etc Based on concepts , ours will likely be underground which I can see takes a bit longer than the above ground most like Edmonton are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 1 hour ago, phoenix66 said: I do get that, and on the other hand understand why it's not . Polls were done earlier ..Calgarians polled that they were in favor of a new arena . Primarily so long as it did not raise their taxes . I am a strong believer in plebescites, but in this case I'm seeing a very polarizing topic. It meets the criteria of not being tax effecting, the bulk of the city money is from a. CRL, which many negatives don't care to realize is unique and only applies to revitalizing an area .. they don't choose to investigate and see this is not money that can be spent anywhere else . There are many vocal who even if this thing grew money and spit unicorn dust in the air would only ever see a city funding millionaires ..and on the other you have the die hards who'd vote for it even if it did jack their taxes up ... The minority seems to be those who can look at it analytically and responsibly and dissect it As much as I ran for council on the platform of public consultation, I'd say the consultation was done when the city was polled .. the city seems to have acted on that public directive..the week period now should be to get information and confirm that is the case. I agree with ABC923 that they should have given Calgarians more time to react to the plan. Even if they do not include a plebiscite, they should let people react within a reasonable timeframe. I understand that the deal will not change, but allowing people to vent might be helpful. I don't think that public engagement on this issue was well done at all. The process itself needs to be reconsidered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebrewcrew Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said: I agree with ABC923 that they should have given Calgarians more time to react to the plan. Even if they do not include a plebiscite, they should let people react within a reasonable timeframe. I understand that the deal will not change, but allowing people to vent might be helpful. I don't think that public engagement on this issue was well done at all. The process itself needs to be reconsidered. What I heard was the Flames and the city didn’t want it out longer than a week due to the public backlash that would generate the longer the deals terms are out. One week they can sign, seal and deliver it, any longer gives people time to express their dislike for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 An area has been discussed for probably a decade and it's been 3 years since CalgaryNext dropped and another 2 since they both walked away from the table. I think there has been more than enough time for people to share their opinion because I highly doubt an opinion is going to change very much by looking at these numbers. Those for and those against are typically in those camps for philosophical reasons that are unlikely to change based on this deal or any other deal. I think the public should get a lot of say in terms of ideas for what the building should look like and the surrounding areas but that can come after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said: What I heard was the Flames and the city didn’t want it out longer than a week due to the public backlash that would generate the longer the deals terms are out. One week they can sign, seal and deliver it, any longer gives people time to express their dislike for it I can completely understand not wanting any feedback at this point. 3 minutes ago, cross16 said: An area has been discussed for probably a decade and it's been 3 years since CalgaryNext dropped and another 2 since they both walked away from the table. I think there has been more than enough time for people to share their opinion because I highly doubt an opinion is going to change very much by looking at these numbers. Those for and those against are typically in those camps for philosophical reasons that are unlikely to change based on this deal or any other deal. I think the public should get a lot of say in terms of ideas for what the building should look like and the surrounding areas but that can come after. Theoretically, we have infinite time to express ourselves as we can virtually contact our council any time, any day. It seems to me that after discussions "broke down" and council formed a committee to generate a deal, Calgarians expected some time to react to the actual deal. Nenshi himself has changed his tune from arguing no city resources for an arena, to we have a half a billion dollar deal done to be rubber stamped in a week after bogus consultations. Hey, why even bother with a week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 13 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said: I can completely understand not wanting any feedback at this point. Theoretically, we have infinite time to express ourselves as we can virtually contact our council any time, any day. It seems to me that after discussions "broke down" and council formed a committee to generate a deal, Calgarians expected some time to react to the actual deal. Nenshi himself has changed his tune from arguing no city resources for an arena, to we have a half a billion dollar deal done to be rubber stamped in a week after bogus consultations. Hey, why even bother with a week? I am probably the least Nenshi fan on the planet.i place the majority of the blame for the farce it was up until now on him personally...but the fact that he is actually behind this deal should tell the negatives that it's a good deal for the city or for the negatives , the best we are going to see . I agree with Cross, we've had over 5 years to give our opinion..and with that the general consensus was " do it but don't raise my taxes " mission accomplished..the majority has spoken But he's also right..I'd like to see longer discussion in future regarding what does it look like (the project, not just the building) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Tribal Chief Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 Well i hope it looks better then edmonchuck building and i hope they do customize it to the flames like the oilers did to there make it unique to calgary flames hockey Buy george i got it put a Harvey the hound tongue image on the roof to Remember The Mctavish incident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 2 hours ago, The_Snowbear said: I Got another Question here why are they taking 2 years to start construction it doesnt take that long to prepare what they want it to look like... Like you Want this Built Asap and why is this Arena taking three years to build when Rogers arena in EdmonChuck Took 2 years Have you tried to search for new hockey arena on Amazon.com? Does the city of Calgary have Prime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now