The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[jjgallow]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

It may be posturing, but Bean is saying that they have to go through a process to terminate the deal.

Mayor seems to think that she just needs to wait till they come back with the chequebook and pay it.

Whether it's a good or bad deal for either side, it was a deal.

This wasn't a "send the deal with several blank lines to be filled in later".

Nobody other than a fed gov't would agree to something like that.

 

What I wonder is who decided this approach to the costs?

Was it the mayor and does she have the ability to negotiate outside council?

Sounds pretty left field (excuse the left reference) to me.

We have a deal, now lets see what else you should pay for on top of the deal.

 

Climate mitigation lol

 

because a -35 C Christmas isn't cold enough.  

 

If it wasn't for these ice hockey teams destroying the environment we'd be an easy -40 C.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Lol right?   At the end of the day, hockey is profitable here.   It may never be in Phoenix, or Houston.

 

They can build all the arenas they want, most revenues are moving to licensing, broadcasting, ppv, streaming.

 

And we watch hockey.  

 

Even bad hockey.

 

There is only enough here for drama, there's not enough to stop having an NHL team.  Yeah I wouldn't mind in the slightest if they moved to Houston and we got Phoenix's franchise.    It won't happen but it wouldn't bother me.  

 

Eventually, we are all watching the NHL in the Metaverse.  A good set of VR glasses is all we need.

[sak22]

 

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm worried though.  Houston is building an NHL arena as we speak, right?  Quebec City also wants a team back.

 

The Flames might move... And Calgary has no team for years until we build a new arena.

 

And then the Coyotes can move here and we get Chychrun... kidding

 

But ya, there are reasons to be concerned as a Calgarian.  

I wonder if Edwards is so spiteful that he would move the team to Quebec City, maybe he'd even call them the 21's as the ultimate F U to Gondek.

[travel_dude]

32 minutes ago, sak22 said:

 

I wonder if Edwards is so spiteful that he would move the team to Quebec City, maybe he'd even call them the 21's as the ultimate F U to Gondek.

 

Quebec Gondicks?

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Quebec Gondicks?

 

 

[redfire11]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Eventually, we are all watching the NHL in the Metaverse.  A good set of VR glasses is all we need.

Yes if ownership were to wait 10 years they could play at the Olympic park rinks and sell virtual seating with 10g virtual seat hookups with zooming and playback and audio. 

[zima]

So do you guys believe we are going to be no more ?

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, zima said:

So do you guys believe we are going to be no more ?

 

I think most of us feel it is overblown.    There IS a possibility that the event center gets delayed.  

 

But I don't think anyone seriously expects the Flames to leave.   Only a very very small chance of it and another franchise would take its place.

[medatswhoP]

This new mayor I cant believe i'm actually saying this but is worse then Nenshi. 

Does she understand Photovotaic and Solar panels are all part of the carbon footprint in the manufacturing process!  and to add them later for the future, What a wingnut, the Flames can stay and continue play at the "sad"dledome i'm ok with this,  and i'm sure if and when we parade the Stanley Cup our new mayor Gondick! will be in the first car in the parade taking all the credit.

Merry Xmas all, Flames fan forever...  Sorry for the large font too..

 

 

 

Gondicks quote from the news>>

“Absolutely. We are insisting on things like sidewalks ... because you need them for a good public realm experience.”

Those additional costs were expected to be $16.7 million, with the city requesting CSEC to cover around $10 million.

The mayor was asked to break down the climate mitigation components and she explained these costs included $3.8-million for photovoltaic (PV) layering -- which she said is essentially a film that is placed on the roof so there is the option to add solar panels in the future. 

[MP5029]

Well I’m in NS so it’s not my tax dollars…but on the surface, it seems from the flames perspective they are OK with inflation related to construction costs, which seems fair.

 

what they are not ok with is a new Mayer adding new and costly “environmental” requirements to the deal after it was agreed upon…

 

i really don’t see the Flame owner group in the wrong on this one, the mayor making changes and trying to strong arm the company to pay seems to be in the wrong on this…

 

now having said that, if the owner group wanted the city to pay for the construction cost increases in full, well that’s a different story.

 

it’s poor business to change a deal and add the costs on the shoulders of the other side…it’s a unilateral decision by the new mayor, so it’s most definitely should be a a unilateral cost by her.

 

 

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, MP5029 said:

Well I’m in NS so it’s not my tax dollars…but on the surface, it seems from the flames perspective they are OK with inflation related to construction costs, which seems fair.

 

what they are not ok with is a new Mayer adding new and costly “environmental” requirements to the deal after it was agreed upon…

 

i really don’t see the Flame owner group in the wrong on this one, the mayor making changes and trying to strong arm the company to pay seems to be in the wrong on this…

 

now having said that, if the owner group wanted the city to pay for the construction cost increases in full, well that’s a different story.

 

it’s poor business to change a deal and add the costs on the shoulders of the other side…it’s a unilateral decision by the new mayor, so it’s most definitely should be a a unilateral cost by her.

 

 

 

It certainly is tough to try and get a game on TV in NS.  Have to resort to illegal streams to get them it seems.

I'm back in Canada' Ocean Playground for Covid-miss. 

Havn't got a chance to even try to watch a game, between cancellations for Flames games, the Christmas break and the league shutdown.  Have to now try to find a stream for the B2B games.  I hate SN and TSN and their regional broadcasts.  Who the heck wants to be stuck watching either a SENS or Habs game all the time. 

[redfire11]

You don't become a billionaire by NOT understanding markets and controlling investment negotiations.

You CAN become mayor and lack the above. 

 

[The_People1]

IMO, this is ownership making a statement rather than literally not building an arena.  They have to make an extreme stance against even $1 extra and go through with the rest of the circus show.  The end result is, there will be a final number and a final design... No more going back to re-evaluate climate impacts, etc and then create additional costs every few months or weeks.  The Flames will build a new arena in Calgary eventually but things may get delayed up to an entire year because of this.

[sak22]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

IMO, this is ownership making a statement rather than literally not building an arena.  They have to make an extreme stance against even $1 extra and go through with the rest of the circus show.  The end result is, there will be a final number and a final design... No more going back to re-evaluate climate impacts, etc and then create additional costs every few months or weeks.  The Flames will build a new arena in Calgary eventually but things may get delayed up to an entire year because of this.

Its a showdown of two ego's.  Murray Edwards who is cheap to the dollar with this stuff (oddly has paid several players and coaches a fair amount of money to do nothing), and Gondek who seems 2 months in wants to be a champion for the progressives.  The longer this drags out the more it will cost in the end.

[cross16]

On 12/28/2021 at 12:08 PM, The_People1 said:

IMO, this is ownership making a statement rather than literally not building an arena.  They have to make an extreme stance against even $1 extra and go through with the rest of the circus show.  The end result is, there will be a final number and a final design... No more going back to re-evaluate climate impacts, etc and then create additional costs every few months or weeks.  The Flames will build a new arena in Calgary eventually but things may get delayed up to an entire year because of this.

 

I agree, this is nothing more than a PR ego war to try and get the city to budge because the Flames have exceeded their own personal limit. It is a classic Murray Edwards negotiation move and is grandstanding to me. The only risk the Flames have of moving is if Edwards decides he is done and wants to sell the team. As long as he is the owner I don't' think the Flames are going anywhere because they know they don't have a better market to go to. 

 

Personally I'm with the city on this one. I don't think they make an unreasonable request to have the building meet certain environmental criteria, it always should have been that way IMO, and at the end of the day the Flames still stand to profit the most from this and the city gave them most of their demands in the latest renegotiation. Arguing over such a small % of the project is silly to me. 

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree, this is nothing more than a PR ego war to try and get the city to budge because the Flames have exceeded their own personal limit. It is a classic Murray Edwards negotiation move and is grandstanding to me. The only risk the Flames have of moving is if Edwards decides he is done and wants to sell the team. As long as he is the owner I don't' think the Flames are going anywhere because they know they don't have a better market to go to. 

 

Personally I'm with the city on this one. I don't think they make an unreasonable request to have the building meet certain environmental criteria, it always should have been that way IMO, and at the end of the day the Flames still stand to profit the most from this and the city gave them most of their demands in the latest renegotiation. Arguing over such a small % of the project is silly to me. 

I'm behind the city too. Just came to say, holy Satoshi Nakamoto, it's cross.

So great to see you! Pretty sure I speak for everyone in that regard. Hope you're well.:)

[jjgallow]

there's nothing that can't be solved when reducing washrooms down to one urinal is still on the table.

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I'm behind the city too. Just came to say, holy Satoshi Nakamoto, it's cross.

So great to see you! Pretty sure I speak for everyone in that regard. Hope you're well.:)

 

Thank you! Good to see everyone and be back. I'll be back for a while (unless they do another update that I can't figure out how to navigate!)

 

Hope you are well

[conundrumed]

Just now, cross16 said:

 

Thank you! Good to see everyone and be back. I'll be back for a while (unless they do another update that I can't figure out how to navigate!)

 

Hope you are well

Peeps, give this cat your contact info.lol

We all struggled harder with it than a person should have to.

[The_People1]

36 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

there's nothing that can't be solved when reducing washrooms down to one urinal is still on the table.

 

[tmac70]

20 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree, this is nothing more than a PR ego war to try and get the city to budge because the Flames have exceeded their own personal limit. It is a classic Murray Edwards negotiation move and is grandstanding to me. The only risk the Flames have of moving is if Edwards decides he is done and wants to sell the team. As long as he is the owner I don't' think the Flames are going anywhere because they know they don't have a better market to go to. 

 

Personally I'm with the city on this one. I don't think they make an unreasonable request to have the building meet certain environmental criteria, it always should have been that way IMO, and at the end of the day the Flames still stand to profit the most from this and the city gave them most of their demands in the latest renegotiation. Arguing over such a small % of the project is silly to me. 

Good to see you back. The issue is with any of this is city administration in every city are usally the largest problems. I work in Real Estate its rare that the develpment ever runs into issue its from at the municiapal level of goverance. From my understanding the proposed costs are " not a need but a want from the city". From my take on this from what I read, your in the negoation process of designing a new home, everyone agrees to the concept plans and cost. However, shortly after the the buyers says" we want the roof membrane changed so we have the option to maybe put solar panels on in the future, it costs $20,000.00 and you should that cost should be at the expense of the builder. 

 

This green movement is great. However in my province the costs are ridculously high for installation and there is no saving of money the company that has put out billions for plants, lines are not going to give you free use of their grid.   I actually had the privilage of working with a client that does studies for what is the best source of energy for countries to use.  He exact words were "Until such a time when any energy can be stored on site for the sole use of the individual, your always going to require some form of natural gas, coal or nuclear energy as a back up. The cost to get to 85-90% green is outrageous, however to get to 100% would and is presently double that cost and in my opinion unviable. If Mayor wishes to extend costs to a builder as a political stance than it should come at the costs of the tax payers. This is and only is a politically correct directive from the mayor. 

[cross16]

1 hour ago, tmac70 said:

Good to see you back. The issue is with any of this is city administration in every city are usally the largest problems. I work in Real Estate its rare that the develpment ever runs into issue its from at the municiapal level of goverance. From my understanding the proposed costs are " not a need but a want from the city". From my take on this from what I read, your in the negoation process of designing a new home, everyone agrees to the concept plans and cost. However, shortly after the the buyers says" we want the roof membrane changed so we have the option to maybe put solar panels on in the future, it costs $20,000.00 and you should that cost should be at the expense of the builder. 

 

This green movement is great. However in my province the costs are ridculously high for installation and there is no saving of money the company that has put out billions for plants, lines are not going to give you free use of their grid.   I actually had the privilage of working with a client that does studies for what is the best source of energy for countries to use.  He exact words were "Until such a time when any energy can be stored on site for the sole use of the individual, your always going to require some form of natural gas, coal or nuclear energy as a back up. The cost to get to 85-90% green is outrageous, however to get to 100% would and is presently double that cost and in my opinion unviable. If Mayor wishes to extend costs to a builder as a political stance than it should come at the costs of the tax payers. This is and only is a politically correct directive from the mayor. 

 

Thank you, good to be back. 

 

I do agree that neither side looks good in this and they should just figure this out. However, it is not my understanding that this is the city trying to making changes or demands to the Flames. From what I understand the recommendation for solar panels and some of the right of way issues came from the design and planning committee, which it should be noted is a company the Flames hired after they asked the city to remove CMLC. From everyone I've read this isn't the city trying to change the deal on the Flames and telling them to pay more, it's the city upholding previously made agreements/design recommendations and the Flames just getting upset that cost have gone up so much on them so they are asking the city to pay more and trying to blame it on a design that they already agreed to. 

 

so that is why I back the city on this and it seems like the Flames are not really negotiating in good faith here. That being said you've come this far and we are going to get off the rails due cost that amount to about 3% of the total project? Just figure it out and both sides deserve blame for that. 

[tmac70]

49 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Thank you, good to be back. 

 

I do agree that neither side looks good in this and they should just figure this out. However, it is not my understanding that this is the city trying to making changes or demands to the Flames. From what I understand the recommendation for solar panels and some of the right of way issues came from the design and planning committee, which it should be noted is a company the Flames hired after they asked the city to remove CMLC. From everyone I've read this isn't the city trying to change the deal on the Flames and telling them to pay more, it's the city upholding previously made agreements/design recommendations and the Flames just getting upset that cost have gone up so much on them so they are asking the city to pay more and trying to blame it on a design that they already agreed to. 

 

so that is why I back the city on this and it seems like the Flames are not really negotiating in good faith here. That being said you've come this far and we are going to get off the rails due cost that amount to about 3% of the total project? Just figure it out and both sides deserve blame for that. 

Fair enough, from what I read it was added after the fact. Over runs happen all the time but the change to a concept plan has to be agreed to by both side. Which is why I tend to belive that it was a cost brought forth after the fact, which would piss any one off.  I do agree with the bolded issue, In my world just meet in the middle split the costs and move on, however if your NOT putting panels in place at time of construction, I certainly would not agree to incurring cost of a hypothetical situation. 

[cross16]

1 hour ago, tmac70 said:

Fair enough, from what I read it was added after the fact. Over runs happen all the time but the change to a concept plan has to be agreed to by both side. Which is why I tend to belive that it was a cost brought forth after the fact, which would piss any one off.  I do agree with the bolded issue, In my world just meet in the middle split the costs and move on, however if your NOT putting panels in place at time of construction, I certainly would not agree to incurring cost of a hypothetical situation. 

 

It was not in the original deal no that is correct but that deal was renegotiated in July and at that point the Flames agreed to handle all cost overruns for other wins in the project. Then the design concept was approved by all parties in November, where the panels were recommended, and the disagreement seems to stem from the fact that the Flames don't consider these "cost overruns" but rather features being imposed on them that are not necessary so they city should pay more. But meanwhile it was them that agreed to cost overruns and them that also approved the design concept in November so these panels are not a surprise to anyone. 

 

Still agree, split the difference and move on which is basically what the city has already agreed to do (of the 19Mill the City already said they'll pay 9) but it still wasn't good enough for Edwards and the Flames. it seems to me they are just getting PO'd because costs continue to rise, which is fair but also not really the city's fault. 

[jjgallow]

7 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Thank you, good to be back. 

 

I do agree that neither side looks good in this and they should just figure this out. However, it is not my understanding that this is the city trying to making changes or demands to the Flames. From what I understand the recommendation for solar panels and some of the right of way issues came from the design and planning committee, which it should be noted is a company the Flames hired after they asked the city to remove CMLC. From everyone I've read this isn't the city trying to change the deal on the Flames and telling them to pay more, it's the city upholding previously made agreements/design recommendations and the Flames just getting upset that cost have gone up so much on them so they are asking the city to pay more and trying to blame it on a design that they already agreed to. 

 

so that is why I back the city on this and it seems like the Flames are not really negotiating in good faith here. That being said you've come this far and we are going to get off the rails due cost that amount to about 3% of the total project? Just figure it out and both sides deserve blame for that. 

 

Yeah I agree with this, I think it takes ridiculousness on both sides here.

 

Most of the arguement here is about who's fault this is, but I don't see anyone saying the Flames did an outstanding job or the Mayor did an outstanding job.  Cause like, yeah.   This is a big deal over peanuts, announced over twitter.

 

I think it makes everyone look bad. 

 

But.

 

I dunno.

 

I like the Saddledome.     Wondering if the Flames realised revenues are shifting to online, licensing, streaming.   And that it will be years before people pack themselves in the way they used to.  If ever.   Balance that with hyper-inflated construction costs...

 

🍿