Mountain Man
Senior Member
The city has offered 1/3 of the cost, and the Flames have rejected that offer. Flames are making it an election issue to try and get people to vote for a mayor that will give them a better deal.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
That certainly is what it seems like. I'm guessing they believe that if Nenshi is out and some other person (Bill Smith?) comes in, maybe they'll get more money.... Even if Nenshi was voted out, this kind of decision would still be a council vote.
I'm hoping for a new arena, but it has to be a deal that's good for everyone.
darwink
Senior Member
I think 1/3 is a pretty good deal.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
I think 1/3 is more than fair. I'm not against using taxpayer money for this, but from our side 1/4 or less seems more reasonable. I could live with a 1/3rd.
BKha
Active Member
1/3 is definitely more than fair. I'm puzzled as why the Flames are taking issue?
darwink
Senior Member
The City wants the 1/3rd paid back via a lease or property taxes. So really it would be Flames 100%
BKha
Active Member
Thanks for that clarification. So it's not really money being given away by the city then. I'm changing my line of thought from 'more than fair' to plain old 'fair' 
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
All I've seen so far on Twitter and Facebook is talk of the flames getting free money via hand out.
I saw this on Twitter....not sure how reliable the 'municipal source' is but they are saying the Flames proposal was for no payback in lease or taxes.
https://twitter.com/CarrieTait
https://twitter.com/CarrieTait
Attachments
darwink
Senior Member
Yeah, the arena operator goes in for 2/3rds and the city for 1/3rd. Have to think of what it would cost in operations and maintenance and an eventual renewal over the next twenty years of the existing dome without a lead tenant—probably more than $200 million! Then we can tare it down right after the Olympics.
BKha
Active Member
Sorry, I'm confused lol I keep hearing people say the Flames aren't kicking in any money, but they are kicking in 2/3rds?
darwink
Senior Member
^ Yup. 1/3rd directly from the ownership group, 1/3rd from stadium users which in effect is from the ownership group (as tickets prices that flow to the arena can't be as high due to the ticket facility fee/tax).
BKha
Active Member
I think I get it now. There would be 1/3 from the city with no payback from the Flames so to speak.
darwink
Senior Member
^ That is what the Flames want. The city could also pay for 100%, and lease it at a rate which would recover 66% after 30 years, basically giving up the 1/3 in exchange for the Flames maintaining and operating the building.
Not that different, but may feel different enough to enough people.
Not that different, but may feel different enough to enough people.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
I'm sort of on the fence about this. One hand I want to see a new arena get built, as I think the Flames are good for the city, and I'd also like to see more concerts come to town. It's hard to justify spending money with no payback. On the other hand, in the unlikely scenario the Flames left town it would not be good for Calgary.