Calgary city council approves arena deal (UPD: new deal upcoming?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

chizzler

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 11, 2006
13,256
6,309
Eh, I get the point, for sure.

However, getting the real estate in a part of the city that makes sense for an arena that benefits the entire city will almost always require some public help. Especially since most of those spots are in downtown areas. Once you start making owners finance their own stuff completely, you'll see a lot more arenas in suburban areas surrounding by parking, and we've seen that this scenario isn't really great for anyone involved.

There's a gray area space in the middle of 100% private and 100% public that most places can find and make work. Places where the facility is centrally located and the downtown businesses and governments can benefit as well as the teams and owners is optimal, and will almost always require public monetary participation.
I agree. Structure needs input from the city, but it’s not the hundreds of millions. To build you need to be zoned. Suburban areas must allow it. Like you said, not optimal.
 

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,616
1,437
Ajax, ON
Somewhat OT but perhaps somewhat not

Calgary among 3 cities on shortlist to host 2026 Olympics - Sportsnet.ca

Stockholm and a joint Milan-Cortina D'Appenzo are the other 2.

Erzurum in eastern Turkey has been dropped. Despite they have the most sure government support. But they don't have enough infrastructure. Talk of using facilities in Sochi on top of economic issues and close to the Syrian border seems to be good enough reasons to skip it

Next stop, the Peblicite on November 13. Before that a cost sharing agreement between the 3 levels of government.

If it passes, a good chance a new arena for the Flames can be 'amended' into the draft plan.
 

DowntownBooster

Registered User
Jun 21, 2011
3,202
2,414
Winnipeg
Calgary among 3 cities on shortlist to host 2026 Olympics - Sportsnet.ca

Next stop, the Peblicite on November 13. Before that a cost sharing agreement between the 3 levels of government.

If it passes, a good chance a new arena for the Flames can be 'amended' into the draft plan.

Some cities are getting smart and dropping out from making a bid as they're realizing the huge cost isn't worth it. Hopefully the citizens of Calgary will also realize it as well and vote 'no" on the plebiscite.

:jets
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeCubs

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,616
1,437
Ajax, ON
Last edited:

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,463
19,502
Sin City
31 Thoughts: Matheson suspension a potential sea-change moment - Sportsnet.ca
Probably the most underreported story of the last week: that Calgary city council voted to re-open arena talks with the Flames. When we last tuned in to this saga, everyone was angrily storming away from the table. It will be interesting to see if there is different representation involved, some fresh faces breathing new life to the conversation. There is some optimism, albeit a long way to go.

I agree with Friedman on the personnel question.
 

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,616
1,437
Ajax, ON
Calgary's Olympics bid is expected to die this week

Report: Calgary council expected to kill 2026 Olympic bid this week - Sportsnet.ca

A shared funding agreement could not be met between the 3 levels of government. Now the mud slinging and using the media to defend their position.

All parties either fall short or have an amount contingent on an amount on another party.

The money falling short is still more than anything being pleged by the Stockholm and North Italy bid combined.

No wonder why a potential new arena for the Flames has been disconnected from this endeavor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,485
2,783
Calgary's Olympics bid is expected to die this week

Report: Calgary council expected to kill 2026 Olympic bid this week - Sportsnet.ca

A shared funding agreement could not be met between the 3 levels of government. Now the mud slinging and using the media to defend their position.

All parties either fall short or have an amount contingent on an amount on another party.

The money falling short is still more than anything being pleged by the Stockholm and North Italy bid combined.

No wonder why a potential new arena for the Flames has been disconnected from this endeavor.

Figured that might happen it always comes down to not being the government that has to pay more in public funding than the other for an event that may not may not make enough for the city to be worth the public costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
The big question now will be:

If Calgary is truly out of the running for the Olympics, what effect does that have on a new arena there? No more chance to somehow meld the two together. Someone's idea of an arena has to stand on its own.

??
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,485
2,783
The big question now will be:

If Calgary is truly out of the running for the Olympics, what effect does that have on a new arena there? No more chance to somehow meld the two together. Someone's idea of an arena has to stand on its own.

??

I don't think Calgary wanted to kill the arena just cause of the whole disagreement for funds for the Olympics games. The Olympics is just a one time economic boost at an extremely high cost. Might be easier to get the arena approved as a separate thing since that would be the only thing that the city would get for economic boost long after that Olympic game.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
^^^ Oh, sorry...To make my thoughts more clear. Some people were suggesting that if Olympic funding actually happened for a Calgary Games, then somehow in the building of the necessary arenas it would dawn on someone that an NHL arena is cheaper if the Olympic committee is already paying for part of it, and thus an NHL rink MIGHT, not WILL, but MIGHT, end up being part of the deal.

And, that some in Calgary, expecting such to happen, might not be too earnest currently about the arena business, because they want to see what happens with the Olympics first.

So, IF all of that was part of the undercurrent, and the Olympic bid is dead, that might force negotiations on an arena to be more serious.

That's where I was going.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,485
2,783
^^^ Oh, sorry...To make my thoughts more clear. Some people were suggesting that if Olympic funding actually happened for a Calgary Games, then somehow in the building of the necessary arenas it would dawn on someone that an NHL arena is cheaper if the Olympic committee is already paying for part of it, and thus an NHL rink MIGHT, not WILL, but MIGHT, end up being part of the deal.

And, that some in Calgary, expecting such to happen, might not be too earnest currently about the arena business, because they want to see what happens with the Olympics first.

So, IF all of that was part of the undercurrent, and the Olympic bid is dead, that might force negotiations on an arena to be more serious.

That's where I was going.

Having ti separate from the olympic games might make it easier to for it to happen. Why would the citizens that live outside of Alberta want to pay for an arena in Calgary?

The more levels of goverment involved the more political red tape to the point where its DOA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19 and Cellee

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,616
1,437
Ajax, ON
Having ti separate from the olympic games might make it easier to for it to happen. Why would the citizens that live outside of Alberta want to pay for an arena in Calgary?

The more levels of goverment involved the more political red tape to the point where its DOA.

That's why I think they were keeping this separate. If the bid is successful, all of the sudden funds are available that an arena can be placed in. At the same time, the door is open for an arena deal separate. After all, the city and the Flames were negotiating last year.

As for what happens next and what priority the arena takes?

In my opinion, the pressure shifts on to the city to get a deal done. The negotiations last year failed, the Olympic bid is about to fail. Does this city want a reputation that they cannot get these type of deals done?
 
Last edited:

Cellee

Registered User
Dec 20, 2014
8,951
6,168
Calgary's Olympics bid is expected to die this week

Report: Calgary council expected to kill 2026 Olympic bid this week - Sportsnet.ca

A shared funding agreement could not be met between the 3 levels of government. Now the mud slinging and using the media to defend their position.

All parties either fall short or have an amount contingent on an amount on another party.

The money falling short is still more than anything being pleged by the Stockholm and North Italy bid combined.

No wonder why a potential new arena for the Flames has been disconnected from this endeavor.
Good.

We don't need the Olympics.
 

Cellee

Registered User
Dec 20, 2014
8,951
6,168
The big question now will be:

If Calgary is truly out of the running for the Olympics, what effect does that have on a new arena there? No more chance to somehow meld the two together. Someone's idea of an arena has to stand on its own.

??
Build a more reasonable arena and not just try to one up everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

Cellee

Registered User
Dec 20, 2014
8,951
6,168
The total money for all three levels of government funding for BMTSP (Winnipeg) was $40M.

The Flames are probably looking for 10X that to build a spaceship.

Pay for your own spaceship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoser

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
In my opinion, the pressure shifts on to the city to get a deal done. The negotiations last year failed, the Olympic bid is about to fail. Does this city want a reputation that they cannot get these type of deals done?

Really? Maybe the stupider councillors will be suckered into this line of thinking. Any accusations of developing "a reputation that they can't get these types of deals done" could be easily spun around, e.g. "We shot these deals down because they were bad, and we're looking out for the financial best interests of Calgarians."
 

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,249
4,329
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
The total money for all three levels of government funding for BMTSP (Winnipeg) was $40M.

The Flames are probably looking for 10X that to build a spaceship.

Pay for your own spaceship.

BMTSP was built 14 years ago - it would cost significantly more today. There were also taxes waived, which is also government funding. And all that for a building, though it's fine for Winnipeg, is the smallest in the league.

Calgary really shouldn't try to compete with the over-the-top Rogers Place in Edmonton, but Calgary will need something bigger and better than BMTSP.
 

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,616
1,437
Ajax, ON
Really? Maybe the stupider councillors will be suckered into this line of thinking. Any accusations of developing "a reputation that they can't get these types of deals done" could be easily spun around, e.g. "We shot these deals down because they were bad, and we're looking out for the financial best interests of Calgarians."

Actually yes.

Reason why I think that they put themselves in the position in the first place.

First the Flames propose CalgaryNext. The city takes a look and says no. Good on the city for doing so.

They propose an alternate plan that fits in their vision for the east. Good on the Flames for being open to it. Deal falls apart, both parties are to blame IMO though this proposal was a city initiative.

Despite the appearing looking for the best interests of the taxpayers, they continue to forge ahead with the Olympics and it will only end becasue there's not enough $$$ coming from the other forms of government.

Now back to the arena, it's the city who reached out to the Flames....some would say crawl back. If they talk and still can't make a deal work, it makes them look much worse. Optics wise, it would have been better off for not re-opening talks at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

Cellee

Registered User
Dec 20, 2014
8,951
6,168
BMTSP was built 14 years ago - it would cost significantly more today. There were also taxes waived, which is also government funding. And all that for a building, though it's fine for Winnipeg, is the smallest in the league.

Calgary really shouldn't try to compete with the over-the-top Rogers Place in Edmonton, but Calgary will need something bigger and better than BMTSP.
The problem is you want a bigger and better one but can't afford it. I agree it should be bigger, but "better" is subjective.

14 years ago doesn't equate to 10X the funding. If it does, you can't afford it, and they probably should leave.
 

Cellee

Registered User
Dec 20, 2014
8,951
6,168
Really? Maybe the stupider councillors will be suckered into this line of thinking. Any accusations of developing "a reputation that they can't get these types of deals done" could be easily spun around, e.g. "We shot these deals down because they were bad, and we're looking out for the financial best interests of Calgarians."

I think the public as a whole has encouraged that thinking from what I have read.
 

Cellee

Registered User
Dec 20, 2014
8,951
6,168
Actually yes.

Reason why I think that they put themselves in the position in the first place.

First the Flames propose CalgaryNext. The city takes a look and says no. Good on the city for doing so.

They propose an alternate plan that fits in their vision for the east. Good on the Flames for being open to it. Deal falls apart, both parties are to blame IMO though this proposal was a city initiative.

Despite the appearing looking for the best interests of the taxpayers, they continue to forge ahead with the Olympics and it will only end becasue there's not enough $$$ coming from the other forms of government.

Now back to the arena, it's the city who reached out to the Flames....some would say crawl back. If they talk and still can't make a deal work, it makes them look much worse. Optics wise, it would have been better off for not re-opening talks at all.
"Crawl back" to a private business making unreasonable demand? I doubt it.
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
Actually yes.

Reason why I think that they put themselves in the position in the first place.

[...]

Eh. Optics-wise I agree it probably would be better to be the party that didn't extend the olive branch tore-open talks. That said it was the actions of one (n00b) councillor, not council as a whole. They exchanged a couple letters; that doesn't mean much of anything has actually happened since. Mayor Nenshi flat-out said "I'm not the head of the committee that was dealing with this, and I'm not going to dictate whether we restart talks or not, but if they come back to the table with the same proposal they had they're wasting their time, and they'd have to do a lot to convince me that Victoria Park isn't the best spot for it."

It was foolish of them to go as far with the proposed Olympic bid as they did, and pretty blatantly hypocritical of everyone involved save the few councillors who kept voting 'no' (Farrell, Chu and... Demong? Magliocca? I know there was three of them, but don't remember the third). The outrage from Nenshi over the weekend, about the levels of federal and provincial government funding for the Olympic bid, seemed manufactured and out of left field. Part of me believes that once they found out they couldn't stiff the province and feds with the bill for the cost overruns the more sensible members of council were happy to have an 'out' and someone to point the finger at when asked why the proposed bid collapsed.

FYI to anyone curious, the City council meeting today had the Olympic bid discussion rescheduled for 9:30 am, rather than 1:00 pm. It's 2:05 pm MDT right now, and they're still talking about it...

EDIT: 2:08 pm, just wrapped up. Today's council meeting was a meeting of the council's Olympic committee, not a regular council meeting. They voted unanimously to put it to a regular council vote tomorrow, the "official" vote to kill the bid process.
 
Last edited:

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,616
1,437
Ajax, ON
The assessment committee just voted unanimously to full council tomorrow where the bid will officially die.


Oct 30
16:05
1m
Madeline Smith @meksmith
Councillors have voted unanimously to refer @EWoolleyWard8's recommendations to Wednesday's strategic meeting of council, and the Olympic assessment committee meeting is adjourned. #yyccc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad