Flames 'New' Arena II - 'No it's yours, I insist'

[Fig]

This article contains the proposal and the city's response to it: Calgary Flames CEO says city's arena proposal would leave team footing full bill

The Flames say that they'd be paying the Flames back through either property tax, rent or lease, but the city's offer involved property tax and neither rent nor lease. And property tax isn't a matter of "paying the city back" in the same way that citizens buying tickets isn't "paying the team back" for construction of the arena.

I looked at that proposal before and I've always laughed at how certain things are buried which may explain why the Flames aren't willing to jump on this deal.

It has everything to do with the green part of that pic.

My understanding is that 555 mil is required to build the arena.

Red = 185 mil Cash from the city (Essentially up front)
Grey = 185 mil Cash from Flames ownership (Up front)
Green = 185 mil cash from ??? Because even if users pay it afterwards, who fronts the 185 mil? Are we writing a cheque? No.

There's a major timing difference there. My guess is that it's obviously Flames ownership taking on that 185 mil up front (City argues they have the "indirect costs" to deal with in excess of 150 mil) and I am wondering if they don't have the ability or unwilling to take on an initial 370 million to get the ball rolling and hope to be closer to 185 mil, or are ok with taking the 185 only if somehow they can lock in a good interest rate long term vs risk interest rates potentially spiking.

That extra 185 mil has always been something I've wondered about. 185 mil a year at 3% is 5.5 mil in interest, so Flames ownership is paying at least double that in interest alone per year. Depending how long it takes to repay that 185 mil (which already isn't factoring the initial 185), that's a lot of interest that eats away at profitability, even if you get 100% of revenues. That's a calculation that's not even considering if interest rates continue to go up.

The city's proposition isn't as generous as they try to say IMO. It rightly places most of the risk and reward in ownership's hands. Ownership trying to negotiate a better deal is what a good management group does.

My issues are thus:
- It annoys me that the city is exaggerating the narrative. I think it's a bit dishonest.
- It annoys me that Flames group is not forthright, cloak and dagger. It also annoys me the stuff they release is pretty low quality as if they sit around stomping their feet and only throw something together at the 11th hour if needed.
- Not knowing where the arena will be. I believe part of the confusion is whether it's Victoria Park or East Villiage (something in Nenshi's elec

I think both sides are idiots and I take neither side. I do think Flames group have legitimate reasons not to take the city's "generous deal". I think the City is dishonest in saying the deal is generous, especially when we don't even know the exact location of the arena will be or who is actually funding the "user" portion of the 185 million up front.

I think it's fine if both sides disagree in the negotiations, but we're at the point essentially where the sides are going, "MOOOOOOOM, he poked meeeeeee!" "HE POKED ME FIRST!"

 

[Lunatik]

Excellent post Figgy

 

[Ace Rimmer]

That extra 185 mil has always been something I've wondered about. 185 mil a year at 3% is 5.5 mil in interest, so Flames ownership is paying at least double that in interest alone per year. Depending how long it takes to repay that 185 mil (which already isn't factoring the initial 185), that's a lot of interest that eats away at profitability, even if you get 100% of revenues. That's a calculation that's not even considering if interest rates continue to go up.

The $185 million was always to be financed.

The original proposal is the City would back the loan to get the most competeitive interest rate. The Flames did concede they would get the loan if the City couldn't.

The intent was (IIRC) to pay it off over 20 years, so that's about $12 million per year at 3%. I think the City can get a sub 2% rate though.

 

[Fig]

The $185 million was always to be financed.

The original proposal is the City would back the loan to get the most competeitive interest rate. The Flames did concede they would get the loan if the City couldn't.

The intent was (IIRC) to pay it off over 20 years, so that's about $12 million per year at 3%. I think the City can get a sub 2% rate though.

Well, it's not quite 12 mil x 20 years, but it's not chump change either.

Sounds good if the city finances, but I wonder if that's what the city is actually offering. Because if the answer is no, I think it's an obvious reason why Flames ownership may want to drag their feet and see if there's money in the Olympics bid to consider before jumping all over this deal. Obviously there are probably other reasons why ownership may not take the deal, reasons we are not privvy to. I think many people do understand this, but are tired of the dog and pony show that's going on. Even those than state that the Flames ownership group is greedy don't exactly scream in confidence that that Flames ownership is making money hand over fist.

It really doesn't help that there are significant details that are unknown and confusing. It's as if the two parties just started negotiating and made it public. That's silly stuff.

If the city finances that 185 mil, the city is sitting on 520 million in cash to borrow (185 mil x 2 + 150 mil in infrastructure above) which doesn't include the green line and utility upgrades "indirect costs". Green line is expected to be in the billions for the entire thing. 4.6B+ last I heard. Infrastructure is unknown as scope of work is unknown. We do know that Crowchild has started at a price tag of 1.5 Billion based on a $800MM-2.2 Billion estimate.

Sure it's not all in the same area as the arena nor all in the same year, but it's still money the city has to borrow which could mean the city is hesitant on borrowing the full 370 million for the arena. Significant ownership cash tied up in the arena could also cause pause as well. But personally, I sure as hell wouldn't bother talking numbers until the most basic of all the damn questions is answered:

"Where does the arena go?"

Because I don't think it's fully confirmed as Victoria Park. The East Village thing during Nenshi's mayoral race was just straight up weird. This on top of Flames ownership group essentially saying they're not giving up on the West Village idea.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Exact payment on a $185 million loan at 3% over 20 years is $1,026,005.56 monthly. ($12,312,060 yearly) and to be honest I don't know if that's supposed to be 20, 30, 50 years, or forever.

The intent was Calgary would back the loan, but the Flames would pay it/be on the hook for it. Basically the City would "co-sign" to get the better rate, but Flames group said it was just one option and they'd finance it alone if they had to. The CRL is basically a deferral of property tax in its simplest definition but that money has to come from up front somewhere; that'd have to be financed too as it wouldn't come out of thin air.

The City's plan for the arena straight up is Victoria Park, and no additional development land for the Flames ownership group. They want it to help promote the need for the Green Line LRT; west village doesn't give them that option. Sounds like the Flames are fine with it if they don't have to pay taxes on it or rent or anything (a not-so-minor detail). I'm not sold on the idea because the Saddledome was supposed to bring "arena supported development" in the 80s / early 90s, despite the recession. It's been 35 years and well the area is still pretty sketchy.

Flames want it on the contaminated West Village land because they can have it free and develop it fully once its cleaned up, which is basically how they'll make their money back.

Personally I like the west village (Calgary Next) idea better for a number of reasons
- cleaning up a problematic pollution problem that will only get worse over time (it's leeching across the river)
- that area of Calgary is basically Calgary's pit stain on what could otherwise be a beautiful area of town
- McMahon sucks
- Olympics, baby! They can get the Feds in on the act, clean up the contamination (feel good story), build a bunch of athletes village towers which can then be converted to office towers/condos later, and have a venue for opening/closing ceremonies.

The catch for me, as a taxpayer is that if the Flames are going to benefit from the full value of a CRL they need to fully invest in improving the infrastructure (utility, transportation, parks) in the area as well, not rely on the City to do so. That's going to add $150-$200 million to the final price tag easy - and that's actually a fairly educated guess on my part. Otherwise, for me, the Flames get to own the arena(s) and that's it - Calgary Municipal Land Corp (City's land development group) should get the benefits, along with taxpayers, of developing the rest of the area.

 

[Anglesmith]

I looked at that proposal before and I've always laughed at how certain things are buried which may explain why the Flames aren't willing to jump on this deal.

It has everything to do with the green part of that pic.

My understanding is that 555 mil is required to build the arena.
Red = 185 mil Cash from the city (Essentially up front)
Grey = 185 mil Cash from Flames ownership (Up front)
Green = 185 mil cash from ??? Because even if users pay it afterwards, who fronts the 185 mil? Are we writing a cheque? No.

There's a major timing difference there. My guess is that it's obviously Flames ownership taking on that 185 mil up front (City argues they have the "indirect costs" to deal with in excess of 150 mil) and I am wondering if they don't have the ability or unwilling to take on an initial 370 million to get the ball rolling and hope to be closer to 185 mil, or are ok with taking the 185 only if somehow they can lock in a good interest rate long term vs risk interest rates potentially spiking.

That extra 185 mil has always been something I've wondered about. 185 mil a year at 3% is 5.5 mil in interest, so Flames ownership is paying at least double that in interest alone per year. Depending how long it takes to repay that 185 mil (which already isn't factoring the initial 185), that's a lot of interest that eats away at profitability, even if you get 100% of revenues. That's a calculation that's not even considering if interest rates continue to go up.

The city's proposition isn't as generous as they try to say IMO. It rightly places most of the risk and reward in ownership's hands. Ownership trying to negotiate a better deal is what a good management group does.

My issues are thus:
- It annoys me that the city is exaggerating the narrative. I think it's a bit dishonest.
- It annoys me that Flames group is not forthright, cloak and dagger. It also annoys me the stuff they release is pretty low quality as if they sit around stomping their feet and only throw something together at the 11th hour if needed.
- Not knowing where the arena will be. I believe part of the confusion is whether it's Victoria Park or East Villiage (something in Nenshi's elec

I think both sides are idiots and I take neither side. I do think Flames group have legitimate reasons not to take the city's "generous deal". I think the City is dishonest in saying the deal is generous, especially when we don't even know the exact location of the arena will be or who is actually funding the "user" portion of the 185 million up front.

I think it's fine if both sides disagree in the negotiations, but we're at the point essentially where the sides are going, "MOOOOOOOM, he poked meeeeeee!" "HE POKED ME FIRST!"

I believe the idea with the ticket tax (and of course, I could be wrong) is that it would have been effective immediately, and that account would therefore start being paid into immediately. Not all costs for an arena are upfront- you don't need to provide $555M before putting a shovel in the ground. So it's perfectly reasonable for that ticket tax money from Saddledome games to reach $185M before it is needed for the new arena.

That said, the one bit of dishonestly I always found with the city's proposal is the statement that that is a citizen cost. It's a minor point, but technically speaking, taxes come from the seller, not the buyer. But I doubt it would make on bit of difference to the team if they can keep the advertised ticket price the same.

 

[Bounces R Way]

So sick of this "debate". Just break ground as soon as possible. Ridiculous that there isn't a viable plan in place at this point. It's in the best interests of both parties to get something done.

So get something done.

 

[Lunatik]

In addition to what Fig has said, I think the Flames are also dragging their feet because of the Olympics. Yes, the IOC says the Dome and such is good enough for them. But are they good enough for the COC and the Feds? You have to think they will want to show off a sparkling new arena if the games are here again. Like it or not, vanity is alive and well.

 

[Fig]

I believe the idea with the ticket tax (and of course, I could be wrong) is that it would have been effective immediately, and that account would therefore start being paid into immediately. Not all costs for an arena are upfront- you don't need to provide $555M before putting a shovel in the ground. So it's perfectly reasonable for that ticket tax money from Saddledome games to reach $185M before it is needed for the new arena.

That said, the one bit of dishonestly I always found with the city's proposal is the statement that that is a citizen cost. It's a minor point, but technically speaking, taxes come from the seller, not the buyer. But I doubt it would make on bit of difference to the team if they can keep the advertised ticket price the same.

I think if we have to subject so many aspects of this project to interpretation, it merely supports the idea that no one (possibly including those from Flames ownership and city hall) seems to have a good, grip of what the scope of the project is and what anyone is trying to achieve. I am reminded of the quote, "A question well posed is a question half answered."

I look at the proposal information so far and I am left asking why it seems like the understanding of this project is so fragmented from one person to the other. I at first thought that I was just me who had difficulty understanding exactly what was going on. There always seemed like there was someone would could prattle off a mini series about the details of the ideas that had been proposed. But the more that this goes on and the more I discuss it with others, I think I am left with the realization that the reality may be closer to a convoluted crap show (or hot mess if you prefer).

For instance, there isn't enough to prove nor disprove either side agrees on the following basics:

Location: Victoria Park seems to have the most smoke, but West Village and East Village have not been completely stricken off by both sides. I can only imagine the costs in Victoria Park vs the other two locations are exceptionally different potential costs. I think I read somewhere Flames ownership is rumored to own swathes of land in the Sunalta area. This is why they wanted West Village as they could capitalize on the land value increase and make extra money developing properties they own in the area.

Funding: I don't think anyone has a clear idea (I don't think City Hall nor Flames ownership are in agreement either) how that user fee is to work. Combinations of ticket taxes, special property taxes etc. has been suggested. I have also not seen nor read anything that supports whether this amount needs to be available up front or over a specific period of time.

Cost: I honestly think the 555 million number is complete drivel, considering I seem to recall it was a chart countering the West Village concept and Victoria Park was a location that was somewhat leaked out after the fact to be loosely correlated to that chart.

Cash: If you re-read the chart, I remembered something else I recall regarding the chart and it has to do with city hall's number. The red number shows that the city is to fund at 25 million in cash. The 130 million contribution isn't cash. The land given by the city for the project is not cash. It's a contribution by not demanding cash via forgiveness of property taxes to the tune of 130 million. Again, not chump change, but where does that 130 million come from? If we add this amount to the earlier discussion and assume the Flames ownership must find the money and have the city "guarantee it" for a good rate, that's 185 + 185 + 130 = 500 million Flames ownership group will have to foot up front which discussed earlier means more taxes. This means the contribution isn't a true contribution, it's a tax break.

Timeline seems to be:

1. Flames front 500 mil cash/loan
2. City fronts 30 mil in land
3. City cuts a cheque for 25 mil for Saddledome demolition. No place for the Flames to play until arena completion. City is now "not collecting property tax". With Dome rubble to start building new arena, I believe there's no user fees going on either, or at least it's a horrible fraction of what is being hinted at.
4. Flames begin paying the construction from the 500 mil. Interest begins accumulating.
5. Construction for... 1-2 years? No ticket revenue and no user taxes being collected. Interest is accumulating.
6. Construction completion. 500 mil + interest is now outstanding.
7A. The only cash that can be used to pay the loan is whatever is leftover from the 100% revenues from the Flames because that 130 mil from the city is something of value, but nothing of value you can use to pay a loan.
7B. City is now collecting higher property taxes
8. The 185 mil user fee is collected over...?

So what I see is this:

1. How long does 130 mil "contribution" last and seriously, what are they collecting now on that specific pocket of land? I don't think they hurt at all in the pocket book for this.
2. How long does it take to collect that 185 mil in user fees?
3. The 185 mil from the owners I presume is then linked to the "revenues". It's left pocket to right pocket. How many years of the revenues will be used to service that 500 mil+ loan?
4. Look at #1 again and wonder when it runs out and whether ownership has broken even yet even with 100% revenues.

In the West Village proposal, if the ownership owns land nearby, development can help speed up the rate of return. If the Victoria Park situation occurs and I assume ownership doesn't own much in that area, they literally have a negative cash flow and ROR for a long time. This might be why they're hesitant. Again, I only see the city truly contributing 25 mil in cash to the project. A lot of what they're offering is being horribly misrepresented. The property tax break and land isn't nothing, but it's not anything that helps Flames ownership pay the bills, especially if part of the plan is to turn the dome into rubble.

Again, I don't support either side, but I do think Flames ownership deserves not being totally painted as the bad guy because the city is IMO purely feigning generosity. They're not really helping much in terms of anything at the beginning of the project. They're only promising to help after the project is done and in a way that's not really involving too much hurt out of their pocket.

 

[Lunatik]

@Fig I think that both sides are aware of the scope of the project, but I think both are intentionally leaving things out of public releases in order to gain public favor.

 

[Fig]

@Fig I think that both sides are aware of the scope of the project, but I think both are intentionally leaving things out of public releases in order to gain public favor.

Fair. That part perhap was a bit hyperbolic. But Nenshi’s mayoral campaign triggering ownership imo was at least some type of indication they are not on the same page.

PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News

I thought the same as you at first but the election stuff made me believe That its a little more than just leaving things out. I have read the major sticking point is cost recovery.

I read somewhere a Flames counter offer was 275 mil owner money and 225 mil free rent (35 years) from city. This confused me at first because i wondered why ownership would counter with more cash. So i started digging.

I still dont have a full picture of what's truly going on, but it at least began to seem obvious after that realization that there is lots of lipstick on pig going on right now from both sides.

 

[Anglesmith]

I think if we have to subject so many aspects of this project to interpretation, it merely supports the idea that no one (possibly including those from Flames ownership and city hall) seems to have a good, grip of what the scope of the project is and what anyone is trying to achieve. I am reminded of the quote, "A question well posed is a question half answered."

I look at the proposal information so far and I am left asking why it seems like the understanding of this project is so fragmented from one person to the other. I at first thought that I was just me who had difficulty understanding exactly what was going on. There always seemed like there was someone would could prattle off a mini series about the details of the ideas that had been proposed. But the more that this goes on and the more I discuss it with others, I think I am left with the realization that the reality may be closer to a convoluted crap show (or hot mess if you prefer).

For instance, there isn't enough to prove nor disprove either side agrees on the following basics:

Location: Victoria Park seems to have the most smoke, but West Village and East Village have not been completely stricken off by both sides. I can only imagine the costs in Victoria Park vs the other two locations are exceptionally different potential costs. I think I read somewhere Flames ownership is rumored to own swathes of land in the Sunalta area. This is why they wanted West Village as they could capitalize on the land value increase and make extra money developing properties they own in the area.

Funding: I don't think anyone has a clear idea (I don't think City Hall nor Flames ownership are in agreement either) how that user fee is to work. Combinations of ticket taxes, special property taxes etc. has been suggested. I have also not seen nor read anything that supports whether this amount needs to be available up front or over a specific period of time.

Cost: I honestly think the 555 million number is complete drivel, considering I seem to recall it was a chart countering the West Village concept and Victoria Park was a location that was somewhat leaked out after the fact to be loosely correlated to that chart.

Cash: If you re-read the chart, I remembered something else I recall regarding the chart and it has to do with city hall's number. The red number shows that the city is to fund at 25 million in cash. The 130 million contribution isn't cash. The land given by the city for the project is not cash. It's a contribution by not demanding cash via forgiveness of property taxes to the tune of 130 million. Again, not chump change, but where does that 130 million come from? If we add this amount to the earlier discussion and assume the Flames ownership must find the money and have the city "guarantee it" for a good rate, that's 185 + 185 + 130 = 500 million Flames ownership group will have to foot up front which discussed earlier means more taxes. This means the contribution isn't a true contribution, it's a tax break.

Timeline seems to be:

1. Flames front 500 mil cash/loan
2. City fronts 30 mil in land
3. City cuts a cheque for 25 mil for Saddledome demolition. No place for the Flames to play until arena completion. City is now "not collecting property tax". With Dome rubble to start building new arena, I believe there's no user fees going on either, or at least it's a horrible fraction of what is being hinted at.
4. Flames begin paying the construction from the 500 mil. Interest begins accumulating.
5. Construction for... 1-2 years? No ticket revenue and no user taxes being collected. Interest is accumulating.
6. Construction completion. 500 mil + interest is now outstanding.
7A. The only cash that can be used to pay the loan is whatever is leftover from the 100% revenues from the Flames because that 130 mil from the city is something of value, but nothing of value you can use to pay a loan.
7B. City is now collecting higher property taxes
8. The 185 mil user fee is collected over...?

So what I see is this:

1. How long does 130 mil "contribution" last and seriously, what are they collecting now on that specific pocket of land? I don't think they hurt at all in the pocket book for this.
2. How long does it take to collect that 185 mil in user fees?
3. The 185 mil from the owners I presume is then linked to the "revenues". It's left pocket to right pocket. How many years of the revenues will be used to service that 500 mil+ loan?
4. Look at #1 again and wonder when it runs out and whether ownership has broken even yet even with 100% revenues.

In the West Village proposal, if the ownership owns land nearby, development can help speed up the rate of return. If the Victoria Park situation occurs and I assume ownership doesn't own much in that area, they literally have a negative cash flow and ROR for a long time. This might be why they're hesitant. Again, I only see the city truly contributing 25 mil in cash to the project. A lot of what they're offering is being horribly misrepresented. The property tax break and land isn't nothing, but it's not anything that helps Flames ownership pay the bills, especially if part of the plan is to turn the dome into rubble.

Again, I don't support either side, but I do think Flames ownership deserves not being totally painted as the bad guy because the city is IMO purely feigning generosity. They're not really helping much in terms of anything at the beginning of the project. They're only promising to help after the project is done and in a way that's not really involving too much hurt out of their pocket.

Not sure what you mean about no ticket revenue or no ticket taxes being collected during construction. As soon as a proposal is decided upon, the Flames will be free to start applying that tax for games played at the Saddledome. And I didn't even ponder the math before, but if that comes straight from ticket taxes, they would have to apply about $25 in tax to each ticket to each game in order to accrue $185M in 10 seasons. I would imagine there are probably some other contributions in that case.

Regardless, I'm not sure it's really all that strange that only the parties involved in the negotiation are completely informed on the details, even if they were more fleshed out in the meetings themselves. The difference I see between the team's statements and the city's statements is that the team has said things that are flat-out false teetering on the edge of flat-out lies (such as the 120% thing) whereas the city has only been guilty of not fleshing out details, really. One is clearly a greater evil than the other, in my opinion.

 

[Fig]

@Anglesmith - totally fair, but why not both? Both parties are privvy to info we dont have, yes. But both sure are perfectly fine dragging the public into this, leaving confusing information at every corner, and not bothering to sort things out.

Sure, the negotiations are on going and certain things arent set in stone so its not wise to clarify in case things change. But this sure as hell feels like two parents dragging a kid into an ugly divorce negotiation with each parent trying to guide the kid to put pressure on the other parent so that they’ll cave. Thats a joined effort in being underhanded, hence why I support neither and i personally dont ascribe to the notions that a lesser of two evils is better.

I dont disagree with your opinion though, and i am aware my opinion is more minority, while yours more majority. but i think this is the city and city councils fight. Info should have mever been revealed to the public until they came up with an agreement.

 

[Lunatik]

Fair. That part perhap was a bit hyperbolic. But Nenshi’s mayoral campaign triggering ownership imo was at least some type of indication they are not on the same page.

PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News

I thought the same as you at first but the election stuff made me believe That its a little more than just leaving things out. I have read the major sticking point is cost recovery.

I read somewhere a Flames counter offer was 275 mil owner money and 225 mil free rent (35 years) from city. This confused me at first because i wondered why ownership would counter with more cash. So i started digging.

I still dont have a full picture of what's truly going on, but it at least began to seem obvious after that realization that there is lots of lipstick on pig going on right now from both sides.

Oh, I'm not suggesting they are on the same page, except the one to deceive the citizens of Calgary and the fans of the Flames.

I am just saying, they both know what they want, they know how difficult it will be to get there but just don't want to give the public all the info so we can understand properly.

 

[Anglesmith]

@Anglesmith - totally fair, but why not both? Both parties are privvy to info we dont have, yes. But both sure are perfectly fine dragging the public into this, leaving confusing information at every corner, and not bothering to sort things out.

Sure, the negotiations are on going and certain things arent set in stone so its not wise to clarify in case things change. But this sure as hell feels like two parents dragging a kid into an ugly divorce negotiation with each parent trying to guide the kid to put pressure on the other parent so that they’ll cave. Thats a joined effort in being underhanded, hence why I support neither and i personally dont ascribe to the notions that a lesser of two evils is better.

I dont disagree with your opinion though, and i am aware my opinion is more minority, while yours more majority. but i think this is the city and city councils fight. Info should have mever been revealed to the public until they came up with an agreement.

I guess. I just don't think that's necessarily a fair indictment of the city in this case in particular given that the Flames were the ones who fired the first shot. I don't think the city could reasonably be expected to just sit there and take it when the Flames owners were shooting their mouths off and making ridiculous claims, especially given the coincidental timing of when those statements started being made right before an election.

The Flames owners decided to take the negotiations into the public and that's proven to be a pretty bad move for them IMO, as they have come off looking far worse with this sort of semi-transparency. Maybe they'd look better with full transparency, but I doubt it. They would've been wise to keep things silent, but decided their best option was to gamble on getting Nenshi out as mayor.

 

[MNNumbers]

Hello. Please excuse me. Business fan here, although 'my team' is the Wild. I'm just looking for information about a new Flames facility.

I see that this thread has a large number of recent posts. What has happened to cause this? Is there some new news?

And, if I could perhaps ask another question:
Am I correct that the Flames objected to the 555 split 3 ways because they said that:
1- the 185M is our portion
2- The fans' portion is really our portion because the ticket tax necessitates lower ticket prices than we could charge otherwise, so it really comes out of our pocket
3- The city's share is really our portion, because we are going to be paying property taxes, so they will get that all back, with extra.

That's my recollection.

And, if so, I expect that the final deal will actually be very close to that, except that the city will end up negotiating the property tax rate down as a way of conceding something.

In any case, please fill me in if I am wrong. I'm just interested in how all these arena deals negotiate.

Thanks.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

In addition to what Fig has said, I think the Flames are also dragging their feet because of the Olympics. Yes, the IOC says the Dome and such is good enough for them. But are they good enough for the COC and the Feds? You have to think they will want to show off a sparkling new arena if the games are here again. Like it or not, vanity is alive and well.

I think this has a lot to do with it too. Not just that, but the IOC has also suggested we use other facilities outside of Calgary and/or Alberta for events to keep costs down in part to encourage us to bid:

IOC open to use of B.C. facilities in potential Calgary Olympic bid

An official with the International Olympic Committee says it would welcome a bid by Calgary to hold another Winter Games using some facilities in Whistler, B.C., or elsewhere.

If the IOC ever suggests using that shiny new stadium up north as another option, there's no way in hell the city is going to let Edmonton showcase events in their arena and they'll cave.

 

[JPeeper]

So sick of this "debate". Just break ground as soon as possible. Ridiculous that there isn't a viable plan in place at this point. It's in the best interests of both parties to get something done.

So get something done.

Yes, but what you're saying makes sense.

The city and Flames organization are both idiots.

 

[Mobiandi]

The fact that they still haven't agreed upon a location is pathetic

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

As bad of a person as Murray Edwards is, at lest we don’t have Dundon as an owner

 

[JPeeper]

The fact that they still haven't agreed upon a location is pathetic

I think it's because the Flames want a ton of land to develop the surrounding area themselves and the city does't want to give them the land. I haven't been up to 100% speed, but from what I remember the Flames want to develop the surrounding area to make more money, which for them it makes sense, but they also don't want to pay property tax (lol). The City wants to develop the surrounding downtown areas, which makes sense and only want the Flames to worry about the arena.

But I mean the first Flames proposal was in an area where $2 billion would have need to be spent to clean the land AND wanted the city to pay for most of it.

Not taking a side because I think both parties are being completely inept, but the Flames organization wants or so ridiculous IMO. Barely pay anything for the arena, pay no property taxes, given lots of land for them to develop for free and then get pissy when the City says no. Like f*** you. I love the Flames, but you'd think they were a necessity with all the wants the Flames are asking for.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

The fact that they still haven't agreed upon a location is pathetic

Actually I think the Flames are fine with the Victoria Park location, as long as they don't have to pay rent or taxes. :/

Calgary Flames CEO says city's arena proposal would leave team footing full bill | CBC News

King said the city's deal would have the team pay the city back for its portion of the cost through either property taxes, rent or lease, as well as the ticket surcharge — money that King said comes straight out of the Flames' revenue.

The ticket surcharge is disingenuous as it's coming out of the pocket of those attending events.

Hello. Please excuse me. Business fan here, although 'my team' is the Wild. I'm just looking for information about a new Flames facility.

I see that this thread has a large number of recent posts. What has happened to cause this? Is there some new news?

Fresh faces on Calgary’s city council try to reignite new Flames’ arena conversation

That's all there is, plus ongoing "maybe Olympics" speculation.

 

[MNNumbers]

Actually I think the Flames are fine with the Victoria Park location, as long as they don't have to pay rent or taxes. :/

Calgary Flames CEO says city's arena proposal would leave team footing full bill | CBC News


The ticket surcharge is disingenuous as it's coming out of the pocket of those attending events.



Fresh faces on Calgary’s city council try to reignite new Flames’ arena conversation

That's all there is, plus ongoing "maybe Olympics" speculation.

Thank you.

 

[flames12]

NHL teams operating income 2017 | Statistic

This link indicates that the flames made 54 million in operating income. If that is the case why would they need public money?

 

[Anglesmith]

NHL teams operating income 2017 | Statistic

This link indicates that the flames made 54 million in operating income. If that is the case why would they need public money?

This has never been about needs. It's a business.