haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Agreed, escalating costs will be an issue with any partner. It’s going to be a while now.
- Thread starter Meikkhaell
- Start date
Agreed, escalating costs will be an issue with any partner. It’s going to be a while now.
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
One thing is for sure. The estimated cost will be significantly higher than budgeted. Not just current inflation from supply chain issues but also increased demand for materials and labour. There were a lot of projects put on hold because of COVID, particularly infrastructure. Once we are in the clear, we could see unprecedented demand all over North America and the globe. This will ensure prices will not be coming down and in fact continue to go up. By not getting this project seeded and construction started when it was supposed to, there was a missed opportunity of getting prices/costs locked down with suppliers and trades. Now everything will have to be requoted.
darwink
Senior Member
Meh. I don't think there are good odds on continuing and sustaining a run up. Eventually idle capacity will come back on line. USA production is up - last few weeks have been around 80% of capacity, up from around 70% capacity in the 2016 price rut.
High prices will push higher utilization - delay of non-critical maintenance and upgrades, hiring of shifts, and eventually, ending whatever utilization restrictions exist due to COVID, whether by enforcing vaccination, or just not caring.
And China will figure out its logistics problems, and Russia will decide it is better to make money from the Europeans by selling them enough gas (enabling idled European capacity to come back online), than invade and create a few more frozen conflict non-states.
High prices will push higher utilization - delay of non-critical maintenance and upgrades, hiring of shifts, and eventually, ending whatever utilization restrictions exist due to COVID, whether by enforcing vaccination, or just not caring.
And China will figure out its logistics problems, and Russia will decide it is better to make money from the Europeans by selling them enough gas (enabling idled European capacity to come back online), than invade and create a few more frozen conflict non-states.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Calgary's new Green Line boss on the challenges ahead for the $4.9-billion project
Darshpreet Bhatti has taken the helm of a project that has endured multiple political trials over the last two years.
calgaryherald.com
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Further on in the thread, she tried to defend herself by pointing out that journalists don't usually write their own headlines. But then two tweets later, she said "The headline is entirely accurate". I'm confused with what she's thinking here (or more likely, not thinking). I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure you should at least delete a tweet before you contradict it with another tweet lol.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
So after WW3?
adamyyc
Active Member
“According to a source close to the negotiations, Oak View Group, founded by former Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment CEO Tim Leiweke and has ownership stakes in Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle and UBS Arena on Long Island (among other facilities in North America), could be a candidate.”
Salim Valji: Signs of optimism surround Calgary Flames’ arena negotiations - TSN.ca
Nearly a month after the City of Calgary and Flames ownership abruptly cut off negotiations for a new arena, there is optimism an agreement can be reached in the first half of this year. Salim Valji has more.
www.tsn.ca
The Familia
Active Member
If they are somehow able to get a third party on board I hope they redesign the whole arena. Even if they just removed the parkade it would be a massive improvement.
darwink
Senior Member
I still don’t get how a third party investor after getting their cut is supposed to make the Flames happier.
Like did the Flames after 10 years of seriously thinking of an arena just learn about risk transfer?
Like did the Flames after 10 years of seriously thinking of an arena just learn about risk transfer?
Last edited:
doughflow
New Member
If a third party actually does emerge, it's going to be amazingly cathartic to see the City call CSEC's bluff.
Last edited:
lemongrab
Active Member
I posted this on another forum:
I think the Stampede may be one of [if not the main] 3rd party being hinted at here. New Stampede CEO and a VP were at the in-camera session with council.
My "insider" info is long out of date, but there are a number of dots to connect here that could make a lot of sense, even if ultimately it ends up as a leverage play to make CSEC bargain in good faith.
Simple reasons it makes sense...Stampede has:
- an existing relationship with Ticketmaster/Livenation (in multiple capacities - selling their own productions like rodeo/evening show, serving as promoter for concerts (Stampede time and a few other examples), and operating multiple venues for other promoters
- obvious efficiencies in operations and staffing for concessions, security, parking, building ops, custodial, etc.
- existing year-round sales and events team - there is a lot to unpack here, but adding even more inventory of concourses, hosting spaces, and the seating bowl could present some very interesting revenue opportunities
- there's a lot more that's hard to articulate succinctly...down to general calendars and daily event flows
The interesting scenario here is if the city+Stampede could come up with a sensible plan, setting them up to charge CSEC fair market rates as a tenant. CSEC is confronted with losing a lot of peripheral revenue opportunities and general control. The city is delivering a new building, which makes it a lot harder for CSEC to play the relocation card (not to mention the relocation fee)...
If CSEC doesn't like it (spoiler alert: they won't), their main options would be:
1. To sell...which opens up a lot of suitors who may just want into the pro sports club, without necessarily taking on the concert promotion game, nor a lot of the aforementioned operational stuff.
2. Come back to the bargaining table with a more competitive offer...
I think the Stampede may be one of [if not the main] 3rd party being hinted at here. New Stampede CEO and a VP were at the in-camera session with council.
My "insider" info is long out of date, but there are a number of dots to connect here that could make a lot of sense, even if ultimately it ends up as a leverage play to make CSEC bargain in good faith.
Simple reasons it makes sense...Stampede has:
- an existing relationship with Ticketmaster/Livenation (in multiple capacities - selling their own productions like rodeo/evening show, serving as promoter for concerts (Stampede time and a few other examples), and operating multiple venues for other promoters
- obvious efficiencies in operations and staffing for concessions, security, parking, building ops, custodial, etc.
- existing year-round sales and events team - there is a lot to unpack here, but adding even more inventory of concourses, hosting spaces, and the seating bowl could present some very interesting revenue opportunities
- there's a lot more that's hard to articulate succinctly...down to general calendars and daily event flows
The interesting scenario here is if the city+Stampede could come up with a sensible plan, setting them up to charge CSEC fair market rates as a tenant. CSEC is confronted with losing a lot of peripheral revenue opportunities and general control. The city is delivering a new building, which makes it a lot harder for CSEC to play the relocation card (not to mention the relocation fee)...
If CSEC doesn't like it (spoiler alert: they won't), their main options would be:
1. To sell...which opens up a lot of suitors who may just want into the pro sports club, without necessarily taking on the concert promotion game, nor a lot of the aforementioned operational stuff.
2. Come back to the bargaining table with a more competitive offer...
doughflow
New Member
Great summary. I'm excited if that's the case.
For taxpayers, a third party joining this is the ABSOLUTE best option for this city (outside of CSEC paying for the whole damn thing themselves).
For taxpayers, a third party joining this is the ABSOLUTE best option for this city (outside of CSEC paying for the whole damn thing themselves).
darwink
Senior Member
The Flames do not want to be just a 'game day' tenant. That would be taking them back to 1995.
At this point I think their most viable strategy is wait. Wait 3-4 years. Wait and have the City commission reports as to the cost of keeping the Saddledome in operational condition indefinitely. Have that report be public.
Then we can have a discussion of what makes sense for replacement, retrofit, or retention.
Since we never had that in public, the debate of course descended into polarization (pretty close to 50/50, but worse politically, with each group spread out across voter groups instead of being concentrated) . Instead of in Edmonton where it was 30/70.
I think with some innovative thinking we can get something really awesome. But it will take vision to build a activated not on event days arena. And extra money.
What I would add: a public market at ground level. close to the entire ground area. Like the Reading Terminal Market, which was under a train shed and now is under a convention centre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Terminal_Market
It will cost a lot - but not as much as you might think. You can use columns then a huge transfer slab - given the column free nature of arenas it is easier than you might think. You end up with lots of food amenities for conventions. A true neighbourhood and regional draw. A complimentary use to the Stampede.
Compress and move to the south 14th Ave to give more land so don't need to compromise as much, or raise costs to overcome the compromise.
At this point I think their most viable strategy is wait. Wait 3-4 years. Wait and have the City commission reports as to the cost of keeping the Saddledome in operational condition indefinitely. Have that report be public.
Then we can have a discussion of what makes sense for replacement, retrofit, or retention.
Since we never had that in public, the debate of course descended into polarization (pretty close to 50/50, but worse politically, with each group spread out across voter groups instead of being concentrated) . Instead of in Edmonton where it was 30/70.
I think with some innovative thinking we can get something really awesome. But it will take vision to build a activated not on event days arena. And extra money.
What I would add: a public market at ground level. close to the entire ground area. Like the Reading Terminal Market, which was under a train shed and now is under a convention centre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Terminal_Market
It will cost a lot - but not as much as you might think. You can use columns then a huge transfer slab - given the column free nature of arenas it is easier than you might think. You end up with lots of food amenities for conventions. A true neighbourhood and regional draw. A complimentary use to the Stampede.
Compress and move to the south 14th Ave to give more land so don't need to compromise as much, or raise costs to overcome the compromise.
darwink
Senior Member
It ain't going to lower the needed subsidy amount. Unless the third party thinks they can ensure many more arena events than CSEC thought.
But it might stop the Flames from thinking they hold a continual shotgun clause and evaluate the cost of their choices.
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
"I think the Stampede may be one of [if not the main] 3rd party being hinted at here. New Stampede CEO and a VP were at the in-camera session with council"
3rd party as in investor? The Calgary Stampede is a non-profit organization and they have taken a big hit financially over the last 2 years. Other than borrowing a few hundred million, how could they possibly be an investor?
3rd party as in investor? The Calgary Stampede is a non-profit organization and they have taken a big hit financially over the last 2 years. Other than borrowing a few hundred million, how could they possibly be an investor?