News Article: Flames Not-So-New Arena, The Saga Continues

Status
Not open for further replies.

InfinityIggy

Zagidulin's Dad
Jan 30, 2011
36,068
12,852
59.6097709,16.5425901
let people ride transit to the facility for free when the team is playing, according to multiple municipal sources.

0b7d69fcf79ed51df9a7fc1394ab4134.gif
 

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,157
4,253
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
The thing I really don't understand is how they can say the ticket surcharge is a Flames cost. It's paid (mostly) by the citizens, and hence the city. How are they able to say that with a straight face?

Just Using made up numbers to make the point - If a ticket costs $115, with $100 being the ticket and $15 being the CRL, that means the average consumer is willing to pay $115. If there was no CRL you know the Flames would still charge $115.

It's disappointing that this proposal was tabled by adults, it's put to other adults, is being announced to the adults in the public, and they can't discuss the proposals without being completely dishonest in their description of the contributions.

Because neither of these are serious negotiating positions. They're both aimed at the public with the intent of effecting the result on election day. Any serious negotiating will be behind closed doors.
 

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,157
4,253
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
They should pay 100%. Most of the other buildings in the league (at least in Canada) were paid for by the teams themselves.

Air Canada Centre - Toronto
Bell Centre - Montreal
Rogers Arena - Vancouver
Canadian Tire Centre - Ottawa

Screw Ken King. Don't want to pay for your arena? RELOCATE! It's not like this organization has given us anything to cheer for in the last quarter century.

To be fair, the costs of constructing the CTC eventually bankrupted Ottawa's original ownership group.
 

djpatm

Registered User
Feb 2, 2010
2,525
929
Calgary
Still thinking they don't want to sell the team folks?

Group buy?

I'll sell my condo if I can sleep in the arena.
 

Flameshomer

Likeaholic
Aug 26, 2010
3,830
1,039
Edmonton
Just Using made up numbers to make the point - If a ticket costs $115, with $100 being the ticket and $15 being the CRL, that means the average consumer is willing to pay $115. If there was no CRL you know the Flames would still charge $115.


Because neither of these are serious negotiating positions. They're both aimed at the public with the intent of effecting the result on election day. Any serious negotiating will be behind closed doors.

Your argument is invalidated when you consider that the flames are very likely to begin upcharging on onset of a new arena no matter what:

Ticket to the dome= $100

Ticket to the new arena= $125 + 15$ (ticket tax is different than a CRL)= $140 (this is the average uptick of tickets in edmonton post new arena)

There's room for them to make money and for the ticket tax to be labelled correctly as a user base contribution. Arguing regarding opportunity costs is the same as assuming the user base is too stupid to understand what they're paying for. Personally I feel pretty insulted by that assumption and it makes me less inclined to argue on behalf of additional city funding for an arena.

Regarding negotiations... have you ever been part of a negotiation where external actions don't directly affect the mood of the room? These petty public remarks almost ensure that reasonable negotiations are impossible. It's hard to negotiate with someone you don't trust.
 

Ace Rimmer

Stoke me a clipper.
Just Using made up numbers to make the point - If a ticket costs $115, with $100 being the ticket and $15 being the CRL, that means the average consumer is willing to pay $115. If there was no CRL you know the Flames would still charge $115.

That's not how the CRL works.

The CRL works by taking property taxes generated by property development in the area, and basically the City pays itself back over a number of years using the increased tax revenue.
 

djpatm

Registered User
Feb 2, 2010
2,525
929
Calgary
As humourous as that is, showing your event ticket as your transit fare would be a great way to encourage ridership to the games and reduce the traffic disruptions in the area on game day.

Taking the train home from the game is about as bad of a "Calgary" experience as you can find. Right under frolicking in the pee puddles in the 9th Avenue/8th Street underpass.
 

Flameshomer

Likeaholic
Aug 26, 2010
3,830
1,039
Edmonton
As humourous as that is, showing your event ticket as your transit fare would be a great way to encourage ridership to the games and reduce the traffic disruptions in the area on game day.

Agreed, but it's absolutely obtuse for CSEC to imply the city cover all of the associated costs with this AND build a new station to help serve their arena. If they proposed a split of this cost (and subsequently included a bit more in the ticket price to pass their portion onto the consumer) then it would be much more acceptable and actually laudable. With the current deal it really just looks greedy.
 

Flameshomer

Likeaholic
Aug 26, 2010
3,830
1,039
Edmonton
Even if the current ownership group were to sell, there's still not even a sliver of a chance that they would allow a sale to someone intending to move the franchise, not when the market is obviously profitable and the expansion fees are hefty. Better to just make outsiders pad your pockets for a new team!
 

Ace Rimmer

Stoke me a clipper.
Taking the train home from the game is about as bad of a "Calgary" experience as you can find. Right under frolicking in the pee puddles in the 9th Avenue/8th Street underpass.

Nah, it's quite a bit further down the list in my mind. I've been doing it for years and honestly cannot remember any bad experiences - whereas during other hours of the day, yeah the LRT ride can be quite... interesting.

Even if the current ownership group were to sell, there's still not even a sliver of a chance that they would allow a sale to someone intending to move the franchise, not when the market is obviously profitable and the expansion fees are hefty. Better to just make outsiders pad your pockets for a new team!
If there's one thing I'm fairly confident about it's this. If the NHL can prop up the Coyotes for years, can't see why they wouldn't intervene on our behalf as well.


Dear Coyotes fans coming to rip me: I used the term "prop up" as a catch-all for everything that's happened over the last decade and not meant to be derogatory.
 

djpatm

Registered User
Feb 2, 2010
2,525
929
Calgary
Nah, it's quite a bit further down the list in my mind. I've been doing it for years and honestly cannot remember any bad experiences - whereas during other hours of the day, yeah the LRT ride can be quite... interesting.

True. There are other times where taking the train is way worse.

But man, waiting for that train in minus 30 and then jamming it like sardines can be quite awful.

They should build a dedicated Uber lane in front of the arena.

If there's one thing I'm fairly confident about it's this. If the NHL can prop up the Coyotes for years, can't see why they wouldn't intervene on our behalf as well.

Arizona is being propped up because the city was bending over for the NHL. Propping them up sends the exact message the NHL wants to send to municipalities which is "Build for us and we will work with you". Not working with Calgary sends the opposite and still desired message, "Don't build us an arena and you will lose your team". I also think there is probably some ego and pride when it comes to the southern teams.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
LRT is the only method of transportation I ever used to get to and from Flames games with my family growing up. I just assumed everyone did that when I was a kid.
 

Flameshomer

Likeaholic
Aug 26, 2010
3,830
1,039
Edmonton
True. There are other times where taking the train is way worse.

But man, waiting for that train in minus 30 and then jamming it like sardines can be quite awful.

They should build a dedicated Uber lane in front of the arena.



Arizona is being propped up because the city was bending over for the NHL. Propping them up sends the exact message the NHL wants to send to municipalities which is "Build for us and we will work with you". Not working with Calgary sends the opposite and still desired message, "Don't build us an arena and you will lose your team". I also think there is probably some ego and pride when it comes to the southern teams.

:laugh: man that's just canada. You can wait 30 minutes out in the cold for a taxi too. If anything this is more of a station upgrade need than a negative for the LRT.

I can see where you're coming from on the arizona point, but at the end of the day Money talks for the owners. There's no way it makes any financial sense for the league to move a team out of calgary- they lose out on the market, and they cut their potential 500 million earnings from one of these markets shelling out an expansion fee to a much smaller relocation fee. You'd have to get 29 greedy millionaires (and billionaires!) to agree to lose money, which they likely have never willingly agreed to. It's just not happening.
 

djpatm

Registered User
Feb 2, 2010
2,525
929
Calgary
A lot of them (most of them) are losing money already. Some of them are losing money hand over fist. They don't care. It's a toy.

If someone is actually willing to pay the 500 million then yeah, that's a different story. I don't think there is anyone that will though and Seattle already said they wouldn't.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
I like it. Nenshi is being very transparent.

His analogy about buying a car is perfect.

Yes, I'm only offering to pay for 75% of the car. But if you factor in the operating costs of my vehicle, I'm really paying for 200% of it, which is unfair.
 
Last edited:

Johnny Hoxville

The Return of a Legend
Jul 15, 2006
37,549
9,343
Calgary
This is one of the biggest reasons I want to see Calgary Next revived.

Aside from the fact that the CRL makes sense in the west village - not for the Flames arena use, but for creosote cleanup and transportation upgrades.

100% agree. To be frank, I’m pretty outraged as a citizen that the city has known about the pollution for the time it has but has made no attempts to do anything about it regardless if CalgaryNext went forward or not.

My stance on the position is that I think the Flames have been trying to get the ball rolling on talks to build these facilities. But the city is continuously shown its stubbornness on these negotiations while stalling talks completely. This is what is the most frustrating thing to me and why I think they do not value having the Flames and Stampeders in the city. McMahon and a fieldhouse should actually be the priority.
 

DCDM

Da Rink Cats
Mar 24, 2008
38,094
6,426
Calgary
100% agree. To be frank, I’m pretty outraged as a citizen that the city has known about the pollution for the time it has but has made no attempts to do anything about it regardless if CalgaryNext went forward or not.

My stance on the position is that I think the Flames have been trying to get the ball rolling on talks to build these facilities. But the city is continuously shown its stubbornness on these negotiations while stalling talks completely. This is what is the most frustrating thing to me and why I think they do not value having the Flames and Stampeders in the city. McMahon and a fieldhouse should actually be the priority.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by the city being stubborn? Them not wanting to foot a multi-million dollar bill for something it will never gain profit from doesn't sound stubborn to me, in fact it actually sounds pretty reasonable.
 

Johnny Hoxville

The Return of a Legend
Jul 15, 2006
37,549
9,343
Calgary
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the city being stubborn? Them not wanting to foot a multi-million dollar bill for something it will never gain profit from doesn't sound stubborn to me, in fact it actually sounds pretty reasonable.

Sure. They have not shown any willingness to negotiate but yet the Mayor is saying in his campaign he wants a new arena. Negotiating requires a willingness to talk, so far it’s been all one sided.

Now the rebuttal is, the Flames are the ones that walked away. But it should be blantanly obvious to everyone that is a negotiating tactic.
 

Calculon

unholy acting talent
Jan 20, 2006
16,578
4,035
Error 503
The city's at the table willing to negotiate.

CSEC threw a tantrum and are sulking in the corner because their demands aren't being met (Edmonton deal and CalgaryFAIL). They're currently repeatedly stating they're not at the table.

But yeah, the city's at fault here. Seriously don't know how anyone looking at this rationally can actually believe that.
 

DCDM

Da Rink Cats
Mar 24, 2008
38,094
6,426
Calgary
Sure. They have not shown any willingness to negotiate but yet the Mayor is saying in his campaign he wants a new arena. Negotiating requires a willingness to talk, so far it’s been all one sided.

Now the rebuttal is, the Flames are the ones that walked away. But it should be blantanly obvious to everyone that is a negotiating tactic.

So the city is publicly saying they want to negotiate, but they're lying.

And the Flames are the ones who publicly walked away, but they're also lying.


:huh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->