Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 102 67.5%

  • No

    Votes: 39 25.8%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 10 6.6%
  • Total voters
    151
MichaelS said:
Am I the only one that is happy for this turn of events? We as taxpayers aren't out hundreds of millions for a design this very forum has basically unversally panned? This is a good thing guys.
Click to expand...
Watch when they finally do get this resolve, it'll be even more money than it is today. This project would be cheaper if it was started three years ago, lol.

There's just too much to gain for both the city and CSEC for it to not get done eventually. (2050?) But the costs are just gonna go higher and higher for both parties.
 
JonnyCanuck said:
For those that were never in favour of hundreds of millions of tax payer money going into this project, I suppose there is some measure of satisfaction if this deal is off permanently.
However IF it is dead and the Flames do decide to leave town, then we have a big gaping hole in the development of the Rivers District. The Event Centre is just that ... the center piece for all development around it. I don't see a facility getting built just to hold concerts and the like. I also don't see other developers getting excited about building residential without the lure of the entertainment district. If they were that confident, then we would have had more building going on already. If this agreement is blown up then we are probably going to see many more years of barren and empty lots in east Victoria Park until someone comes along with a grander plan.
Click to expand...
This hangs entirely on the assumption the NHL won't be in Calgary. How likely is that? Even if the flames leave, will another ownership group bring a franchise here? Perhaps even without a massive subsidy?

Since we still have the Saddledome, why not now spend the $300 million we were going by to spend on some 6 storey mixed use buildings along Olympic Way. That would do far more in my opinion to activate the entertainment district than the new arena and no Saddledome. Plus, the revenue we get out of those buildings would be far superior to the deal that just fell through. Sure, fewer events at the dome, until another team comes in. Or, we build a new arena on one of the other numerous, gigantic surface lots in the area if/when it comes up.

At least Remington got their parcel paved and upgraded for free out of all of this 🙄
 
The sense of entitlement of Flames' ownership is pathetic. A private sports team trying to come across as hard done by because the City isn't fronting more money to help cover the bottom line of a project that they will take nearly all the benefit from
 
Last edited:
artvandelay said:
Yikes, bad look by our new mayor here, but things will likely resolve themselves after this bit of political posturing.
Click to expand...
How is this a bad look? You'd prefer the City just keep shovelling public funds into the pockets of a profitable corporation and its billionaire owner? I'm quite certain if this project was put up for a plebiscite it would be defeated in a landslide.
 
I was just chatting with a baby boomer woman who has worked in municipal government her whole career (not in Calgary), and she mentioned how her male colleagues (politicians and bureaucrats) would become giddy anytime they got a chance to work with pro-sports franchises. They'd end up bending over backwards just to please the teams and be a part of the whole pro sports world. I wonder how much the breakdown between the Flames and the City has to do with more women in charge as well as a younger generation of bureaucrats who just don't care that much personally for professional sports - especially if the ownership is used to working with men who are die hard sports fans.
 
CSEC is trying to wring the metaphorical towel dry of every public dollar available, and they're making themselves look like fools in the process. The team isn't leaving Calgary over $9M, and the arena isn't being canceled over ~1.5% of the cost, it's a fraction of contingency on a project of this scale.

It's billionaires throwing a tantrum. Unfortunately, they haven't realized that if you want something from Gondek, bullying her into submission isn't an effective way to get it.
 
Silence&Motion said:
I was just chatting with a baby boomer woman who has worked in municipal government her whole career (not in Calgary), and she mentioned how her male colleagues (politicians and bureaucrats) would become giddy anytime they got a chance to work with pro-sports franchises. They'd end up bending over backwards just to please the teams and be a part of the whole pro sports world. I wonder how much the breakdown between the Flames and the City has to do with more women in charge as well as a younger generation of bureaucrats who just don't care that much personally for professional sports - especially if the ownership is used to working with men who are die hard sports fans.
Click to expand...
Wow...Really? I can assure the deal is not at the basis of "bending over backwards to please" or because they are sport fans. It based off money like everything else. You can try and frame it as a socio-demographic issue, but its not.
 
MichaelS said:
This hangs entirely on the assumption the NHL won't be in Calgary. How likely is that? Even if the flames leave, will another ownership group bring a franchise here? Perhaps even without a massive subsidy?
Click to expand...
If the Flames do leave, then yes it is possible another ownership group could be interested in either moving a team here or paying an exorbitant expansion fee. Calgary will always be a strong NHL market. However, the new owners would have to go through the same hoops for a new arena. No one is going to bring a team here to play in the existing arena. Even if that was possible, the entire process could take years.
Let's face it, if things cannot be resolved with CSEC and they do follow through on their threat to pull up stakes, then the entire development for that part of the city is forever changed. I would say it may also impact on future plans the Calgary Stampede has as well.
 
As relevant as the day it was written, way back in 2015 during the CSEC's first foray into finding public subsidy for their industry with Calgary Next:
https://flamesnation.ca/2015/08/24/how-to-think-critically-about-calgarynext/

Everything in that article remains the same in 2015 as 2021 today: the tactics, the approach, the pro-Flames Calgary Herald columnist dramatists. For me the most funny 2015-specific comment one to me is the threats of losing an Olympic bid with a new stadium. The logic reads backwards too - if we don't have an Olympic bid anymore, one less reason to build a new stadium? But I digress.

Back to base principles, the article summarizes well: even now, let's remember we (Calgarians in general, the public taxpayer in specific) "owe" the Flames exactly zero for a new arena. We can choose to support them like any other business - sales of merchandise, tickets, tv streams etc. Just because it's framed as a negotiation between CSEC and the city, it doesn't have to be. We never have and never will owe them anything for a facility. The only reason we might want to get involved at all is to help shape outcomes above and beyond what we would do through the normal development process of any other building (e.g. design, community integration, some guarantee community access).

Because they don't actually have a good business case for any public money at all, the only playbook the CSEC has ever had is the political angle:
  1. Always: "If we don't get a stadium we might move the team! "
  2. More recently: "the real reason you don't get a new stadium is the big, bad city - you know those jerks that tax you - is adding costs like sidewalks unfairly to our poor little project! "
To accept proposition #2 (city is the bad guy after allocating $300M of your money already to us), you have to trust the CSEC is acting in good faith and are truthful. You can't accept they are acting in good faith because of proposition #1 (we are threatening you). It's been laughably transparent on every step throughout this whole arena saga.

JonnyCanuck said:
Let's face it, if things cannot be resolved with CSEC and they do follow through on their threat to pull up stakes, then the entire development for that part of the city is forever changed. I would say it may also impact on future plans the Calgary Stampede has as well.
Click to expand...
Hopefully! What has 40+ years of CSEC and Stampede subsidy and schemes gotten us for development in the area? The development track record in the area is worse than if neither party existed in the first place.
 
Reading the Flames statement and reading Gondek's statement, I think the Flames are walking away because of the inflationary pressures we are seeing from COVID and the fact that the new agreement has them 100% responsible for all cost over-runs now. The disagreement over paying for the extra 1.5% over-run is just a convenient excuse that plays to both the Mayor and the Flames' bases and you can see the genius of that playing out all over the internet... it's polarized people as they fixate on this $4 million climate mitigation expense and created pro-Flames 'everything to do with climate change is silly' and pro-Gondek 'good on the City for standing up for its principles on having people pay attention to climate change' camps.

In the end I think the Flames are just scared that if they start building now material costs and everything else related to construction will back more expensive and they'll be on the hook. I bet if inflationary pressures look like they're easing within the next six months the Flames will be back at the table with some silly face saving move.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top