This day on December 9
Departed: Marty McSorley (1999)

Happy Birthday To: Jeff Petry, OILERBOI, Hancock

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 NHL » Flames will move without a new arena - Ken KingPages (3): [ «  <  1  2  3]
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705374 is a reply to message #705338 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 15:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 3109
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

3 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 10:40

Magnum wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 10:32

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 09:54

I don't have the number but its a MASSIVE amount.


Post of the year!

And with only 17 days to spare!



Well I don't know the number of concerts as an example that have gone to Edmonton but not Calgary but given the amount of double shows being played in Edmonton and non in Calgary, its a significant number.

But thanks for your typical ignorant comment. icon_thumbsup


That's funny, I thought that making statements on financial figures without having a remote clue of what those amounts are, was a show of ignorance.

Turns out I'm right!

ig•no•rant
ˈiɡnərənt/

adjective: ignorant

Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.



2015/2016 - This Kool-Aid tastes like McDavid flavoured Drain-O.
2016/2017 - This Kool-Aid is starting to taste like juice.
2017/2018 - I'm drinking this Kool-Aid, in hopes that it's Drain-O.
2018/2019 - Another round of Drain-O, good sir!

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705353 is a reply to message #705337 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 12:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PlusOne  is currently offline PlusOne
Messages: 2171
Registered: July 2006
Location: Regina, Sask

2 Cups

Magnum wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 11:32

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 09:54

I don't have the number but its a MASSIVE amount.


Post of the year!

And with only 17 days to spare!



3 times MASSIVE
1 times MILLIONS

I am convinced

All seriousness though, to this part;

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 10:54

It is the City's job to build amenities in the City. So like it or not Goose, a rink is an amenity. People seem to focus solely on the hockey team when it comes to a rink. Well how many concerts, MMA fights and other events has Rogers Place hosted that Calgary didn't because their rink sucks? I don't have the number but its a MASSIVE amount.


I don't know the numbers of concerts and other events either but
1. The flames are likely 90% of the tenancy in that building as that is average in most stadiums, not counting those that have two sports teams in them. Considering the permanent space they take up year round, games and practices it isn't even close.
2. The stadium is an amenity sure but it is a massive luxury and if the "city" pays for it that is taxpayers, a high percentage of which cant afford to take in the events at the stadium
3. I cant back this one up but I remember reading that Calgary still had more events than Edmonton since Rodgers opened. I believe it was stated in the election debate but I could be wrong.

All of the BS propaganda and made up numbers about lost revenue, opportunity, etc are just that, BS
I have yet to see a single piece of verifiable proof that a new stadium would bring in enough money to justify its expense. The economic impact of replacing a stadium is often minimal.
To say it would be in the "millions" would means you need to be able to measure the increased revenue the Flames would bring in (to the city, not to themselves) and the events that would come in and again, the benefit to the city that would bring.

I know this is oversimplifying it but the biggest tenant and money maker off a stadium should be paying the majority for it.



Survivor LXI Champion

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 23 October 2019 08:54

Your winner and nnnneeeeeeeewwwwwwwww champion...

PlusOne (Bos)


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705355 is a reply to message #705353 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 12:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 4814
Registered: January 2016

4 Cups

PlusOne wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 12:01

Magnum wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 11:32

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 09:54

I don't have the number but its a MASSIVE amount.


Post of the year!

And with only 17 days to spare!



3 times MASSIVE
1 times MILLIONS

I am convinced

All seriousness though, to this part;

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 10:54

It is the City's job to build amenities in the City. So like it or not Goose, a rink is an amenity. People seem to focus solely on the hockey team when it comes to a rink. Well how many concerts, MMA fights and other events has Rogers Place hosted that Calgary didn't because their rink sucks? I don't have the number but its a MASSIVE amount.


I don't know the numbers of concerts and other events either but
1. The flames are likely 90% of the tenancy in that building as that is average in most stadiums, not counting those that have two sports teams in them. Considering the permanent space they take up year round, games and practices it isn't even close.
2. The stadium is an amenity sure but it is a massive luxury and if the "city" pays for it that is taxpayers, a high percentage of which cant afford to take in the events at the stadium
3. I cant back this one up but I remember reading that Calgary still had more events than Edmonton since Rodgers opened. I believe it was stated in the election debate but I could be wrong.

All of the BS propaganda and made up numbers about lost revenue, opportunity, etc are just that, BS
I have yet to see a single piece of verifiable proof that a new stadium would bring in enough money to justify its expense. The economic impact of replacing a stadium is often minimal.
To say it would be in the "millions" would means you need to be able to measure the increased revenue the Flames would bring in (to the city, not to themselves) and the events that would come in and again, the benefit to the city that would bring.

I know this is oversimplifying it but the biggest tenant and money maker off a stadium should be paying the majority for it.


So if there is zero or next to no benefit to a City both financially and all the other positives that professional spots franchises bring, why do Cities usually bend over backwards to get them especially if they don't have one and if they lose one, they try to get another back? Explain that?

If having a major arena in a major City is a "luxury" like you say it is, why bother to build one at all? Calgary's mayor has come out and said on record that they will have to build a new rink someday but why even say that. It's apparently a luxury, not a necessity based on your opinion. So why not just say we are going to build a new rink ever. We will use the current one and when it becomes unusable, so be it. Since like you said most of the population won't use it, take the money they would spend to eventually build a new rink and go build more free stuff like libraries.

If the the worry is that by building a rink using taxpayers dollars, there will be some people who will never use it, why doesn't that apply to everything? The City of Edmonton built their fancy Art Museum. It costs adults $12.50 + gst to get in. https://www.youraga.ca/visit/hours-and-admissions
I am sure there are people living in the City who would have a hard time shelling out that money to go see it. SO why build it?

The City's build rec centers with tax payers money all the time. If you build a rec center on the south west corner of a City and a person lives in the north east corner of the City, there will be people who NEVER set foot in that facility. Why should even a penny of their tax dollars go to a facility they will never use?

To go further. The City is seriously considering bidding for an Olympics again. Instead of 100's of millions to spend on a new rink, they would spend who know how much for the Olympics. A huge chunk would be with tax payer money. There will be 1000's upon 1000's of people in Calgary who will never be able to afford to go to an event or use the facility once the Olympics are gone assuming these facilities actually get used and are not abandoned like you see in many other City's. So why is it OK to bid on the Olympics and maybe spend BILLIONS of tax payer money for a 3 week event but you think building a rink that will be there for decades and used 100+ nights a year is bad?

[Updated on: Thu, 14 December 2017 12:22]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705357 is a reply to message #705355 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 13:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PlusOne  is currently offline PlusOne
Messages: 2171
Registered: July 2006
Location: Regina, Sask

2 Cups

You seem to have ignored the points I did bring up and assumed some others but I will address the points in your post.
To be clear, I am going to multi quote you, but only for clarity and not to put words in your mouth.

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:17



So if there is zero or next to no benefit to a City both financially and all the other positives that professional spots franchises bring, why do Cities usually bend over backwards to get them especially if they don't have one and if they lose one, they try to get another back? Explain that?




I didn't say there was no benifit. What I did say was
"I have yet to see a single piece of verifiable proof that a new stadium would bring in enough money to justify its expense."

Will they need a new stadium sure. Do I think the taxpayers should foot the majority of it when the main benefactor would be the flames? Not a chance

As far as cities bending over backwards to acquire a pro sports team. That is often paid in large part by the prospective owner of the new team. If you take a look at most expansion or relocated franchises the ratio of what is paid by private investors to tax dollars is the inverse of when an existing franchise is looking for a new building.

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:17



If having a major arena in a major City is a "luxury" like you say it is, why bother to build one at all? Calgary's mayor has come out and said on record that they will have to build a new rink someday but why even say that. It's apparently a luxury, not a necessity based on your opinion. So why not just say we are going to build a new rink ever. We will use the current one and when it becomes unusable, so be it. Since like you said most of the population won't use it, take the money they would spend to eventually build a new rink and go build more free stuff like libraries.


My opinion is that it is a luxury and those that get to benefit from that luxury should pay for it. Yes, tickets do go up for those that go to games or events but taxes go up for all.
As far as not building a new rink ever, I dont think that is the answer, it is just a matter of who should pay for it. If the millionaires (billionaires?) that own these franchises want to pick up and leave when the building is unusable then so be it.
As far as the library comment. I do believe that tax dollars should go to what will benefit the majority of the population. Public services, education, roads, lower taxes etc help the population more than sports and concerts ever could.

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:17



If the the worry is that by building a rink using taxpayers dollars, there will be some people who will never use it, why doesn't that apply to everything? The City of Edmonton built their fancy Art Museum. It costs adults $12.50 + gst to get in. https://www.youraga.ca/visit/hours-and-admissions
I am sure there are people living in the City who would have a hard time shelling out that money to go see it. SO why build it?




I dont live in Edmonton so dont know the details of that museum. How much did it cost? How many people go there? How many children get to experience art that otherwise wouldn't have the chance? (BTW, these are not questions I expect you to know or find the answers, just saying that I dont think it is a fair comparison to a state of the art stadium.)
Admittedly I dont spend a lot of time in art galleries but I know the ones here in Regina, along with the Natural History Museum, Imax, etc are very busy.

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:17



The City's build rec centers with tax payers money all the time. If you build a rec center on the south west corner of a City and a person lives in the north east corner of the City, there will be people who NEVER set foot in that facility. Why should even a penny of their tax dollars go to a facility they will never use?



Again, I dont see the comparison. Is there only one rec center in all of a large city? I highly doubt it.
Assuming of course you are exaggerating to enhance a point and also dont see that as realistic it is a similar answer to the art gallery one. I am willing to bet that those rec centers cost a mere fraction of a stadium and the percent of population that use them is exponentially higher.

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:17



To go further. The City is seriously considering bidding for an Olympics again. Instead of 100's of millions to spend on a new rink, they would spend who know how much for the Olympics. A huge chunk would be with tax payer money. There will be 1000's upon 1000's of people in Calgary who will never be able to afford to go to an event or use the facility once the Olympics are gone assuming these facilities actually get used and are not abandoned like you see in many other City's. So why is it OK to bid on the Olympics and maybe spend BILLIONS of tax payer money for a 3 week event but you think building a rink that will be there for decades and used 100+ nights a year is bad?


I agree 100% with this for the same reasons as me being against tax payers footing the majority of the bill for a stadium.
Just like time has shown that the uptick in benefits from a new stadium dont justify the cost, the exact same has been shown for the Olympics. If in fact your opinion is being against bidding on the Olympics than you should be in agreement with me on a stadium.

To be very clear I always want a solution to be found to keep a pro team in place. I just find it amazing that super wealthy people somehow, with a straight face, can ask taxpayers to pay for it.

On a COMPLETELY unrelated note, have you seen the new Katz house? The 120 million he shelled out to have a place to live in, part time! Good thing he got the city and raised prices to pay for about two thirds of Rogers.
(Ok, I lied, it was totally related)

My point is that the rich get richer off of these deals and people like you and I (sorry if I am wrong in assuming you are not a billionaire), pay for the majority of them between our taxes and fees on admission.

The first point I made, and you completely ignored, was this;

PlusOne wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:01


1. The flames are likely 90% of the tenancy in that building as that is average in most stadiums, not counting those that have two sports teams in them. Considering the permanent space they take up year round, games and practices it isn't even close.




The first half of post, and your previous reply are very long, but this to me is the key to my opinion.
How can the Flames (or Oilers or any other team) justify someone else paying 2/3rds of the cost when the team is the one using it 2/3rds* of the time?

*Total estimate but I an educated one given games, practices, meetings, office space, training facilities, etc




Survivor LXI Champion

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 23 October 2019 08:54

Your winner and nnnneeeeeeeewwwwwwwww champion...

PlusOne (Bos)


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705359 is a reply to message #705355 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 13:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 2283
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 11:17


If the the worry is that by building a rink using taxpayers dollars, there will be some people who will never use it, why doesn't that apply to everything? The City of Edmonton built their fancy Art Museum. It costs adults $12.50 + gst to get in. https://www.youraga.ca/visit/hours-and-admissions
I am sure there are people living in the City who would have a hard time shelling out that money to go see it. SO why build it?


Building a public Art gallery is not the same thing as building an arena for a private business. It just isn't. Right in the link you posted it says that admission is free for youth 17&u, post secondary students and for everyone on tues/wed evenings. You don't have to like art or even think it was a good investment. But you can't say they're not providing a free service to the people of Edmonton. When is the last time the Oilers did anything for free? And I don't even blame them, the purpose of the Oilers is to make money, (well and to be used as leverage in land deals for their owner).

But even if the art gallery wasn't free, it's still not the same as giving money to a private business and getting zero actual return for it.

Imagine this was any other business, and they were asking for 100's of millions of dollars to build a new head office? You would think they were nuts. And other businesses can actually up and move their head office wherever/whenever they want, the Flames don't have that luxury

[Updated on: Thu, 14 December 2017 13:37]


Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 pace: 254 GF / 243 GA (+11) after 30 games

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705371 is a reply to message #705359 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 15:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 4814
Registered: January 2016

4 Cups

Goose wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:34

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 11:17


If the the worry is that by building a rink using taxpayers dollars, there will be some people who will never use it, why doesn't that apply to everything? The City of Edmonton built their fancy Art Museum. It costs adults $12.50 + gst to get in. https://www.youraga.ca/visit/hours-and-admissions
I am sure there are people living in the City who would have a hard time shelling out that money to go see it. SO why build it?


Building a public Art gallery is not the same thing as building an arena for a private business. It just isn't. Right in the link you posted it says that admission is free for youth 17&u, post secondary students and for everyone on tues/wed evenings. You don't have to like art or even think it was a good investment. But you can't say they're not providing a free service to the people of Edmonton. When is the last time the Oilers did anything for free? And I don't even blame them, the purpose of the Oilers is to make money, (well and to be used as leverage in land deals for their owner).

But even if the art gallery wasn't free, it's still not the same as giving money to a private business and getting zero actual return for it.

Imagine this was any other business, and they were asking for 100's of millions of dollars to build a new head office? You would think they were nuts. And other businesses can actually up and move their head office wherever/whenever they want, the Flames don't have that luxury

I don't know if you have kids or not but I sure as hell are not letting my 7 and 4 yr old go to the museum on their own in the downtown of any City. So maybe a few kids in their higher teens can take advantage of the free admission but for most kids, an adult who has to pay to get in, is going to be there. So again, if you are a family struggling to make ends meet, you aren't going to go even though your taxes paid for the museum.

So yes my comparison is valid because lots of things get built in a City using tax payer dollars that MANY of the tax paying citizens can't or won't ever use. So just because not everyone can use a facility, it doesn't mean as a City you shouldn't build it.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705376 is a reply to message #705371 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 15:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PlusOne  is currently offline PlusOne
Messages: 2171
Registered: July 2006
Location: Regina, Sask

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 16:17

Goose wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:34

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 11:17


If the the worry is that by building a rink using taxpayers dollars, there will be some people who will never use it, why doesn't that apply to everything? The City of Edmonton built their fancy Art Museum. It costs adults $12.50 + gst to get in. https://www.youraga.ca/visit/hours-and-admissions
I am sure there are people living in the City who would have a hard time shelling out that money to go see it. SO why build it?


Building a public Art gallery is not the same thing as building an arena for a private business. It just isn't. Right in the link you posted it says that admission is free for youth 17&u, post secondary students and for everyone on tues/wed evenings. You don't have to like art or even think it was a good investment. But you can't say they're not providing a free service to the people of Edmonton. When is the last time the Oilers did anything for free? And I don't even blame them, the purpose of the Oilers is to make money, (well and to be used as leverage in land deals for their owner).

But even if the art gallery wasn't free, it's still not the same as giving money to a private business and getting zero actual return for it.

Imagine this was any other business, and they were asking for 100's of millions of dollars to build a new head office? You would think they were nuts. And other businesses can actually up and move their head office wherever/whenever they want, the Flames don't have that luxury

I don't know if you have kids or not but I sure as hell are not letting my 7 and 4 yr old go to the museum on their own in the downtown of any City. So maybe a few kids in their higher teens can take advantage of the free admission but for most kids, an adult who has to pay to get in, is going to be there. So again, if you are a family struggling to make ends meet, you aren't going to go even though your taxes paid for the museum.

So yes my comparison is valid because lots of things get built in a City using tax payer dollars that MANY of the tax paying citizens can't or won't ever use. So just because not everyone can use a facility, it doesn't mean as a City you shouldn't build it.


You need to know when to quit.....
One adult can take a couple of kids to the museum for less than it costs to park at an Oiler game...

ETA; before you get defensive about name calling or not being aloud to have an opinion. It isn't the opinion that is a problem, it is the illogical way you are defending it. I am all for a discussion on this as it has been a hot topic here in Regina, as it was in Edmonton and will continue to be in Calgary.
I can tell you that not one time on the pro stadium side in Regina did I hear the argument you are presenting about museums and art galleries costing money to go to so they shouldn't get tax money either.

[Updated on: Thu, 14 December 2017 15:27]


Survivor LXI Champion

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 23 October 2019 08:54

Your winner and nnnneeeeeeeewwwwwwwww champion...

PlusOne (Bos)


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705379 is a reply to message #705376 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 15:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 3109
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

3 Cups

PlusOne wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 15:22

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 16:17

Goose wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:34

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 11:17


If the the worry is that by building a rink using taxpayers dollars, there will be some people who will never use it, why doesn't that apply to everything? The City of Edmonton built their fancy Art Museum. It costs adults $12.50 + gst to get in. https://www.youraga.ca/visit/hours-and-admissions
I am sure there are people living in the City who would have a hard time shelling out that money to go see it. SO why build it?


Building a public Art gallery is not the same thing as building an arena for a private business. It just isn't. Right in the link you posted it says that admission is free for youth 17&u, post secondary students and for everyone on tues/wed evenings. You don't have to like art or even think it was a good investment. But you can't say they're not providing a free service to the people of Edmonton. When is the last time the Oilers did anything for free? And I don't even blame them, the purpose of the Oilers is to make money, (well and to be used as leverage in land deals for their owner).

But even if the art gallery wasn't free, it's still not the same as giving money to a private business and getting zero actual return for it.

Imagine this was any other business, and they were asking for 100's of millions of dollars to build a new head office? You would think they were nuts. And other businesses can actually up and move their head office wherever/whenever they want, the Flames don't have that luxury

I don't know if you have kids or not but I sure as hell are not letting my 7 and 4 yr old go to the museum on their own in the downtown of any City. So maybe a few kids in their higher teens can take advantage of the free admission but for most kids, an adult who has to pay to get in, is going to be there. So again, if you are a family struggling to make ends meet, you aren't going to go even though your taxes paid for the museum.

So yes my comparison is valid because lots of things get built in a City using tax payer dollars that MANY of the tax paying citizens can't or won't ever use. So just because not everyone can use a facility, it doesn't mean as a City you shouldn't build it.


You need to know when to quit.....
One adult can take a couple of kids to the museum for less than it costs to park at an Oiler game...




Not to mention, there are subsidized COE services to those under certain income levels, and free admission days as well.



2015/2016 - This Kool-Aid tastes like McDavid flavoured Drain-O.
2016/2017 - This Kool-Aid is starting to taste like juice.
2017/2018 - I'm drinking this Kool-Aid, in hopes that it's Drain-O.
2018/2019 - Another round of Drain-O, good sir!

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705377 is a reply to message #705371 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 15:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 2283
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 14:17


I don't know if you have kids or not but I sure as hell are not letting my 7 and 4 yr old go to the museum on their own in the downtown of any City. So maybe a few kids in their higher teens can take advantage of the free admission but for most kids, an adult who has to pay to get in, is going to be there. So again, if you are a family struggling to make ends meet, you aren't going to go even though your taxes paid for the museum.

So yes my comparison is valid because lots of things get built in a City using tax payer dollars that MANY of the tax paying citizens can't or won't ever use. So just because not everyone can use a facility, it doesn't mean as a City you shouldn't build it.


They can literally go every Tuesday and Wednesday evening for free. The whole family. And their friends. And out of town guests. And random strangers they met on the street. Everyone is free.

But again even if it wasn't free, talking about tax dollars going to a public amenity is not the same as tax dollars going to a private business.

Name one other business the City of Edmonton or Calgary has given 100's of million of dollars to with zero return.

And again, Calgary has offered to pay 1/3 of the costs and for all of the infrastructure upgrades. You said in your original post that he's not even close to doing what is in the best interests of the City with that offer. And Nenshi said the City is still willing to negotiate. It's the Flames that went into a pout, took their ball and ran to Eric Francis to write a garbage threat-piece that the Flames would move if the mayor didn't smarten up. So I'll ask, what do you think the City should do?

[Updated on: Thu, 14 December 2017 15:35]


Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 pace: 254 GF / 243 GA (+11) after 30 games

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705380 is a reply to message #705377 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 15:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 3109
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

3 Cups

Goose wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 15:23

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 14:17


I don't know if you have kids or not but I sure as hell are not letting my 7 and 4 yr old go to the museum on their own in the downtown of any City. So maybe a few kids in their higher teens can take advantage of the free admission but for most kids, an adult who has to pay to get in, is going to be there. So again, if you are a family struggling to make ends meet, you aren't going to go even though your taxes paid for the museum.

So yes my comparison is valid because lots of things get built in a City using tax payer dollars that MANY of the tax paying citizens can't or won't ever use. So just because not everyone can use a facility, it doesn't mean as a City you shouldn't build it.


Name one other business the City of Edmonton or Calgary has given 100's of million of dollars to with zero return.



All the high-rise corps get a lot of unpaid benefits.



2015/2016 - This Kool-Aid tastes like McDavid flavoured Drain-O.
2016/2017 - This Kool-Aid is starting to taste like juice.
2017/2018 - I'm drinking this Kool-Aid, in hopes that it's Drain-O.
2018/2019 - Another round of Drain-O, good sir!

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705382 is a reply to message #705380 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 16:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 9499
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Magnum wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 15:53

Goose wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 15:23

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 14:17


I don't know if you have kids or not but I sure as hell are not letting my 7 and 4 yr old go to the museum on their own in the downtown of any City. So maybe a few kids in their higher teens can take advantage of the free admission but for most kids, an adult who has to pay to get in, is going to be there. So again, if you are a family struggling to make ends meet, you aren't going to go even though your taxes paid for the museum.

So yes my comparison is valid because lots of things get built in a City using tax payer dollars that MANY of the tax paying citizens can't or won't ever use. So just because not everyone can use a facility, it doesn't mean as a City you shouldn't build it.


Name one other business the City of Edmonton or Calgary has given 100's of million of dollars to with zero return.



All the high-rise corps get a lot of unpaid benefits.


Everyone gets a bunch of random benefits now. It's the gift of intersectionality and corporate welfare. Fortunately we have 3 levels of government that'll spend billions upon billions of dollars to level a playing field to no one's satisfaction.

Personally, I don't like the city paying to take risk so a big corporation can make profits, but everyone else gets deals now, so why not the Oilers too? Frankly, the Flames are dumb AF if they can't get the same deal Katz got.

[Updated on: Thu, 14 December 2017 16:42]


This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #721916 is a reply to message #705359 ]
Thu, 08 November 2018 13:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GabbyDugan  is currently offline GabbyDugan
Messages: 1274
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB

1 Cup

....again it is from Eric Francis, for what that's worth, but Calgary is pondering dressing up the Saddledome as the venue for Olympic hockey if their bid for 2026 is successful....

.....the idea must have come from the same think tank that buys used fighter jets from Australia for the Canadian Forces.....

....I actually like the Saddledome as a building, but it is aging and even Gary Bettman has already declared the Flames need a new arena .....Calgary already doesn't get the same concerts and other non-hockey events as Rogers Place...tens of millions to upgrade the place sounds like misuse of good money....

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/fact-fiction-whats-actua lly-calgarys-olympic-hockey-bid/

.....sounds the the IOC is getting desperate, and Calgary doesn't have its heart set on seriously chasing the Olympics....with all the shenanigans the Olympic bigwigs like to pull off, can't blame Calgary if they decide to pull out....




Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #721918 is a reply to message #721916 ]
Thu, 08 November 2018 14:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PlusOne  is currently offline PlusOne
Messages: 2171
Registered: July 2006
Location: Regina, Sask

2 Cups

GabbyDugan wrote on Thu, 08 November 2018 14:43

....again it is from Eric Francis, for what that's worth, but Calgary is pondering dressing up the Saddledome as the venue for Olympic hockey if their bid for 2026 is successful....

.....the idea must have come from the same think tank that buys used fighter jets from Australia for the Canadian Forces.....

....I actually like the Saddledome as a building, but it is aging and even Gary Bettman has already declared the Flames need a new arena .....Calgary already doesn't get the same concerts and other non-hockey events as Rogers Place...tens of millions to upgrade the place sounds like misuse of good money....

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/fact-fiction-whats-actua lly-calgarys-olympic-hockey-bid/

.....sounds the the IOC is getting desperate, and Calgary doesn't have its heart set on seriously chasing the Olympics....with all the shenanigans the Olympic bigwigs like to pull off, can't blame Calgary if they decide to pull out....


I really could't care less about Calgary getting a stadium outside of I dont want them to move, rivalries are an important part of sports history and my enjoyment of current games.

Aside from that the Saddledome is my least favorite of the dozen or so hockey rinks I have watched an NHL game in



Survivor LXI Champion

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 23 October 2019 08:54

Your winner and nnnneeeeeeeewwwwwwwww champion...

PlusOne (Bos)


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #721919 is a reply to message #721918 ]
Thu, 08 November 2018 14:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrudeRemarks  is currently offline CrudeRemarks
Messages: 1230
Registered: November 2010
Location: Edmonton

1 Cup

PlusOne wrote on Thu, 08 November 2018 14:06

GabbyDugan wrote on Thu, 08 November 2018 14:43

....again it is from Eric Francis, for what that's worth, but Calgary is pondering dressing up the Saddledome as the venue for Olympic hockey if their bid for 2026 is successful....

.....the idea must have come from the same think tank that buys used fighter jets from Australia for the Canadian Forces.....

....I actually like the Saddledome as a building, but it is aging and even Gary Bettman has already declared the Flames need a new arena .....Calgary already doesn't get the same concerts and other non-hockey events as Rogers Place...tens of millions to upgrade the place sounds like misuse of good money....

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/fact-fiction-whats-actua lly-calgarys-olympic-hockey-bid/

.....sounds the the IOC is getting desperate, and Calgary doesn't have its heart set on seriously chasing the Olympics....with all the shenanigans the Olympic bigwigs like to pull off, can't blame Calgary if they decide to pull out....


I really could't care less about Calgary getting a stadium outside of I dont want them to move, rivalries are an important part of sports history and my enjoyment of current games.

Aside from that the Saddledome is my least favorite of the dozen or so hockey rinks I have watched an NHL game in


Yeah I wouldn't offer them any support. There was utter silence down the road during our struggle for a new arena. Sink or swim on your own Flamers.



You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you can get a lottery pick.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #721920 is a reply to message #721919 ]
Thu, 08 November 2018 14:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 11769
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrudeRemarks wrote on Thu, 08 November 2018 14:31

PlusOne wrote on Thu, 08 November 2018 14:06

GabbyDugan wrote on Thu, 08 November 2018 14:43

....again it is from Eric Francis, for what that's worth, but Calgary is pondering dressing up the Saddledome as the venue for Olympic hockey if their bid for 2026 is successful....

.....the idea must have come from the same think tank that buys used fighter jets from Australia for the Canadian Forces.....

....I actually like the Saddledome as a building, but it is aging and even Gary Bettman has already declared the Flames need a new arena .....Calgary already doesn't get the same concerts and other non-hockey events as Rogers Place...tens of millions to upgrade the place sounds like misuse of good money....

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/fact-fiction-whats-actua lly-calgarys-olympic-hockey-bid/

.....sounds the the IOC is getting desperate, and Calgary doesn't have its heart set on seriously chasing the Olympics....with all the shenanigans the Olympic bigwigs like to pull off, can't blame Calgary if they decide to pull out....


I really could't care less about Calgary getting a stadium outside of I dont want them to move, rivalries are an important part of sports history and my enjoyment of current games.

Aside from that the Saddledome is my least favorite of the dozen or so hockey rinks I have watched an NHL game in


Yeah I wouldn't offer them any support. There was utter silence down the road during our struggle for a new arena. Sink or swim on your own Flamers.


I'm just glad that their team and city officials are no less of a clown show than ours were.

As for the article, it's hard to trust anything from Francis. He basically just writes whatever the Flames' ownership tells him to write. Completely in their pocket.



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705339 is a reply to message #705330 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 10:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 2283
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 08:54

It is the City's job to build amenities in the City. So like it or not Goose, a rink is an amenity. People seem to focus solely on the hockey team when it comes to a rink. Well how many concerts, MMA fights and other events has Rogers Place hosted that Calgary didn't because their rink sucks? I don't have the number but its a MASSIVE amount. As time goes on, the demands of these types of events that bring MILLIONS to a City are not going to decrease. So as time goes on, less and less of these non hockey event will come to Calgary. So by not building a rink, you are robbing your citizens of the opportunity of experiencing these types of event and you are robbing your City's business community of the revenue these event generate for them in the way of hotels, travel, food and beverage.

Do I think that the owner of the Flames shouldn't chip in to build something he get a a benefit from? Not a chance. The Flames ownership should contribute something but at the same time, so should the City because they benefit from a new rink as well. Having a professional sports team like the Flames is a MASSIVE positive to the City. Not only do they bring prestige and put you on the map in the world, they are a MASSIVE impact on the mood of your citizens as they are a sense of pride. They generate millions upon millions of dollars yearly in charity dollars. So if you are a low income citizen that can't go to the arena, I bet a bunch of them use programs funded by that same professional hockey team and the charity dollars they generate. Would charity dollars still be raised in the City with out the Flames? You bet but no where near as much. They host a golf tournament that has generated millions to charities, who picks that up if they aren't there to do it? Probably no one. Who picks up the 50-50 money that goes to their foundation? Probably no one, plus the other dinners and events they do. What value does the City put into whatever spread sheet they are using to say "It doesn't work" for what the Flames bring in City pride? If you go to a company and ask for a donation, how much more do they give because a couple of Flames players go and flip burgers at a company event or play a round of golf with them? It's tough to quantify that number but I bet it's more. What value do you place to your City on all the times those Flames players go to a children's hospital to sit with a sick kid? There are so many things that a team brings to the City that is next to impossible to quantify but when it's gone, you will see how much of an impact they had.

So again, I am not saying the City should give in and do whatever the Flames want, but there is a deal to be had that is fair to both sides. So if I was a citizen of Calgary, I would be pretty troubled at how childish your mayor has been towards your sports team and his lack of vision and willingness to try and find a deal. The Flames deserve a lot of blame too but as your elected leader of your City, it is his job to put aside whatever petty differences and ego he may have and do what is in the bet interest of the City. He's not doing that, not even close.


I'll say it again, in what world does the NHL let the Flames move? They keep franchises in Arizona and Florida despite abysmal ticket sales, but they're going to walk away from one of their most passionate markets? And make Sportsnet angry in the process? It's not a real threat.

And no one is saying that the Flames don't benefit the City of Calgary. But I'm not convinced the $3 million that the Flames Foundation donates to charities annually just disappears because the Flames go away. As for the other economic benefits, they just don't exist. Study after study has shown that those entertainment dollars that don't get spent at the arena, just end up getting spent elsewhere, they don't just disappear from the economy. Yes, the restaurants and hotels adjacent to the arena would potentially suffer, but in the bigger picture the same amount of money gets spent on entertainment overall.

As for Nenshi, he offered to pay 1/3 of the costs, plus all of the infrastructure upgrades required. And let the Flames keep all the revenues from other events. I'm not sure what more you think the City should be paying. And if it's the case where the City is basically putting all the money up front, like they did in Edmonton, they would be better off just paying for the whole thing, renting to the Flames for $1 and taking all other revenues.




Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 pace: 254 GF / 243 GA (+11) after 30 games

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705345 is a reply to message #705339 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 11:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 4814
Registered: January 2016

4 Cups

Goose wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 10:46

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 08:54

It is the City's job to build amenities in the City. So like it or not Goose, a rink is an amenity. People seem to focus solely on the hockey team when it comes to a rink. Well how many concerts, MMA fights and other events has Rogers Place hosted that Calgary didn't because their rink sucks? I don't have the number but its a MASSIVE amount. As time goes on, the demands of these types of events that bring MILLIONS to a City are not going to decrease. So as time goes on, less and less of these non hockey event will come to Calgary. So by not building a rink, you are robbing your citizens of the opportunity of experiencing these types of event and you are robbing your City's business community of the revenue these event generate for them in the way of hotels, travel, food and beverage.

Do I think that the owner of the Flames shouldn't chip in to build something he get a a benefit from? Not a chance. The Flames ownership should contribute something but at the same time, so should the City because they benefit from a new rink as well. Having a professional sports team like the Flames is a MASSIVE positive to the City. Not only do they bring prestige and put you on the map in the world, they are a MASSIVE impact on the mood of your citizens as they are a sense of pride. They generate millions upon millions of dollars yearly in charity dollars. So if you are a low income citizen that can't go to the arena, I bet a bunch of them use programs funded by that same professional hockey team and the charity dollars they generate. Would charity dollars still be raised in the City with out the Flames? You bet but no where near as much. They host a golf tournament that has generated millions to charities, who picks that up if they aren't there to do it? Probably no one. Who picks up the 50-50 money that goes to their foundation? Probably no one, plus the other dinners and events they do. What value does the City put into whatever spread sheet they are using to say "It doesn't work" for what the Flames bring in City pride? If you go to a company and ask for a donation, how much more do they give because a couple of Flames players go and flip burgers at a company event or play a round of golf with them? It's tough to quantify that number but I bet it's more. What value do you place to your City on all the times those Flames players go to a children's hospital to sit with a sick kid? There are so many things that a team brings to the City that is next to impossible to quantify but when it's gone, you will see how much of an impact they had.

So again, I am not saying the City should give in and do whatever the Flames want, but there is a deal to be had that is fair to both sides. So if I was a citizen of Calgary, I would be pretty troubled at how childish your mayor has been towards your sports team and his lack of vision and willingness to try and find a deal. The Flames deserve a lot of blame too but as your elected leader of your City, it is his job to put aside whatever petty differences and ego he may have and do what is in the bet interest of the City. He's not doing that, not even close.


I'll say it again, in what world does the NHL let the Flames move? They keep franchises in Arizona and Florida despite abysmal ticket sales, but they're going to walk away from one of their most passionate markets? And make Sportsnet angry in the process? It's not a real threat.

And no one is saying that the Flames don't benefit the City of Calgary. But I'm not convinced the $3 million that the Flames Foundation donates to charities annually just disappears because the Flames go away. As for the other economic benefits, they just don't exist. Study after study has shown that those entertainment dollars that don't get spent at the arena, just end up getting spent elsewhere, they don't just disappear from the economy. Yes, the restaurants and hotels adjacent to the arena would potentially suffer, but in the bigger picture the same amount of money gets spent on entertainment overall.

As for Nenshi, he offered to pay 1/3 of the costs, plus all of the infrastructure upgrades required. And let the Flames keep all the revenues from other events. I'm not sure what more you think the City should be paying. And if it's the case where the City is basically putting all the money up front, like they did in Edmonton, they would be better off just paying for the whole thing, renting to the Flames for $1 and taking all other revenues.



Calgary has what, 1.2 mill? Maybe another a few 100K around it. Phoenix is apparently the 5th largest City in the US at close to 1.7 mill I believe. That doesn't count the other surrounding area. The Phoenix area is a major media market in the US. What is Calgary in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the population and media market? Not much outside of Calgary. I think that the Oilers are a better media draw around the NHL than Calgary. If Calgary moves, is it going to make a huge dent to the NHL and it's viewership? Probably not. You will have some fans who stop watching if the Flames leave but a lot of them will still watch NHL hockey. What's the impact if Phoenix gets their act together, gets an arena that isn't in the middle of no where and develops a fan base. HUGE.

I have been saying all along that the NHL needs to stop the experiment in Phoenix, they tried, I don't see it improving. Do I think the Flames are in danger of moving in the next few seasons? No but I could see the Flames going up for sale in the near future if things don't improve. The supposed expansion team value is around 650 mill. You have to think the owners and the league expects that rough amount for the Flames. If the supposed selling value of the Hurricanes was 500 mill, the Flames are worth way more. So if you are a new owner and potentially going to buy the Flames for around 650 mill, are you going to want to do that or keep the team in Calgary if the arena is a pile of crap? Nope. So at some point down the road, if a new rink isn't built, they will move or go away.

[Updated on: Thu, 14 December 2017 11:09]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705362 is a reply to message #705345 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 13:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 2283
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 10:04


Calgary has what, 1.2 mill? Maybe another a few 100K around it. Phoenix is apparently the 5th largest City in the US at close to 1.7 mill I believe. That doesn't count the other surrounding area. The Phoenix area is a major media market in the US. What is Calgary in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the population and media market? Not much outside of Calgary. I think that the Oilers are a better media draw around the NHL than Calgary. If Calgary moves, is it going to make a huge dent to the NHL and it's viewership? Probably not. You will have some fans who stop watching if the Flames leave but a lot of them will still watch NHL hockey. What's the impact if Phoenix gets their act together, gets an arena that isn't in the middle of no where and develops a fan base. HUGE.


Like at this point I feel like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. No one anywhere thinks that Arizona or Florida or Carolina or anywhere in the US, outside of New York, will ever be a better hockey market than Calgary, major media market or not.

[Updated on: Thu, 14 December 2017 15:37]


Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 pace: 254 GF / 243 GA (+11) after 30 games

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740902 is a reply to message #705362 ]
Tue, 23 July 2019 09:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 3109
Registered: June 2009
Location: Rogers' Arena > Banff

3 Cups

Goose wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 13:49

RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 14 December 2017 10:04


Calgary has what, 1.2 mill? Maybe another a few 100K around it. Phoenix is apparently the 5th largest City in the US at close to 1.7 mill I believe. That doesn't count the other surrounding area. The Phoenix area is a major media market in the US. What is Calgary in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the population and media market? Not much outside of Calgary. I think that the Oilers are a better media draw around the NHL than Calgary. If Calgary moves, is it going to make a huge dent to the NHL and it's viewership? Probably not. You will have some fans who stop watching if the Flames leave but a lot of them will still watch NHL hockey. What's the impact if Phoenix gets their act together, gets an arena that isn't in the middle of no where and develops a fan base. HUGE.


Like at this point I feel like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. No one anywhere thinks that Arizona or Florida or Carolina or anywhere in the US, outside of New York, will ever be a better hockey market than Calgary, major media market or not.


All of these 15 American teams have higher revenues than Calgary (three in California):

New York Rangers
Chicago Blackhawks
Boston Bruins
Los Angeles Kings
Philadelphia Flyers
Detroit Red Wings
Washington Capitals
Pittsburgh Penguins
Vegas Golden Knights
Dallas Stars
San Jose Sharks
Minnesota Wild
St Louis Blues
Anaheim Ducks
New Jersey Devils



2015/2016 - This Kool-Aid tastes like McDavid flavoured Drain-O.
2016/2017 - This Kool-Aid is starting to taste like juice.
2017/2018 - I'm drinking this Kool-Aid, in hopes that it's Drain-O.
2018/2019 - Another round of Drain-O, good sir!

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740911 is a reply to message #740902 ]
Tue, 23 July 2019 09:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260  is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 1863
Registered: November 2007

1 Cup

Canadian teams make revenue in Canadian dollars.

I imagine that the exchange rate can explain a large part of the difference.



Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740913 is a reply to message #740911 ]
Tue, 23 July 2019 09:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 9499
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

smyth260 wrote on Tue, 23 July 2019 09:48

Canadian teams make revenue in Canadian dollars.

I imagine that the exchange rate can explain a large part of the difference.

Sometimes. It wasn't too long ago the Leaf Buck was trading above par. Then something happened and yeah, it would have an affect now.



This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705342 is a reply to message #705330 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 10:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pseudoreality  is currently offline Pseudoreality
Messages: 567
Registered: December 2002
Location: Yellowknife

No Cups

I think the City of Calgary's 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 offer was more than fair. The fact the Flames can make more money playing where they are now versus a new building they only have to pay 1/3 the cost of just goes to show the system is broken. Also, the Flames can't cry poor and have one of the largest payrolls in the league. The Flames are making money, they want to make more money with taxpayer subsidies. The NHL will not move a team that is making money to make slightly more money when they have teams losing buckets of money already. Those teams would move first.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #705370 is a reply to message #705342 ]
Thu, 14 December 2017 15:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sloiler  is currently offline sloiler
Messages: 185
Registered: October 2005
Location: Enemy Territory (near Cal...

No Cups

I think that I have said it somewhere before, but there is one piece that is forgotten about in all the discussions about revenue and who pays what, that is city pride. I think it is in the best interest of the Calgary City Counsel to do what ever they need to do to make Calgarians proud to call Calgary home. They spent huge amounts of money on the Blue Ring and the Rocks on a post, but what pride does this give people in the city. Well most people that I know around the city think it is a joke, but I digress. When the Flames are winning there are Red Shirts and Flamers proudly supporting local bars and other venues. The Red Mile is crazy in the playoffs. This is all city pride, this is what drives people to stay in the city.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740886 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Mon, 22 July 2019 22:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14314
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Looks like an arena deal has been reached, to be approved by the city at the end of the month.

City will own the arena and collect ticket fees for all events. Flames get a 35 year lease and need to take care of it. City and Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) will each contribute 275M to the project.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/city-of-calgary-to-own-new-550m-e vent-centre-split-project-cost-with-flames-1.4519091

Quote:

The City of Calgary confirms an agreement has been reached regarding the "fundamental terms and conditions for the development and construction of a new event centre in east Victoria Park".

The agreement involved the City of Calgary, Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC), and the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited.

Representatives of the three organizations including Mayor Nenshi, Ken King and Warren Connell provided an update on the agreement Monday evening.

The deal will see the City and the CSEC each contribute $275M to the project and the City will own the building. The Flames will run operations as part of a lease lasting 35 years and will fund all maintenance and repairs throughout the tenure of the lease.

"This is a good deal for Calgary," said Mayor Nenshi. "For some years now, I've been saying that any investment of public money in this project must come with public benefit. This deal does that."

"The City of Calgary will receive a facility fee on every ticket sold to every event for 35 years. The City will receive a share of naming rights, CSEC will invest even more than they do now in amateur sports and community here in the city."

"We're thrilled to stand in front of you today after not months but years, frankly, of dealing with the notion of a new home for our teams and a new place builder for our city," said Ken King, vice-chairman of CSEC. "This is a submission of a three party agreement and I emphasize it's a submission. There are many more critical steps to take."

If approved, construction on the event centre is slated to begin in 2021 and the main facility will have a seating capacity of 19,000. City council is scheduled to vote on the agreement on July 29.

Citizens are encouraged to share their views on the agreement during the seven-day public review period by contacting their councillor or by providing a written submission to the City Clerk's office.


I think 19000 is actually less than the Sattledome, buy a few hundred.

[Updated on: Mon, 22 July 2019 22:23]


"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740888 is a reply to message #740886 ]
Mon, 22 July 2019 22:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 11769
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 22 July 2019 22:21

Looks like an arena deal has been reached, to be approved by the city at the end of the month.

City will own the arena and collect ticket fees for all events. Flames get a 35 year lease and need to take care of it. City and Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) will each contribute 275M to the project.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/city-of-calgary-to-own-new-550m-e vent-centre-split-project-cost-with-flames-1.4519091

Quote:

The City of Calgary confirms an agreement has been reached regarding the "fundamental terms and conditions for the development and construction of a new event centre in east Victoria Park".

The agreement involved the City of Calgary, Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC), and the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited.

Representatives of the three organizations including Mayor Nenshi, Ken King and Warren Connell provided an update on the agreement Monday evening.

The deal will see the City and the CSEC each contribute $275M to the project and the City will own the building. The Flames will run operations as part of a lease lasting 35 years and will fund all maintenance and repairs throughout the tenure of the lease.

"This is a good deal for Calgary," said Mayor Nenshi. "For some years now, I've been saying that any investment of public money in this project must come with public benefit. This deal does that."

"The City of Calgary will receive a facility fee on every ticket sold to every event for 35 years. The City will receive a share of naming rights, CSEC will invest even more than they do now in amateur sports and community here in the city."

"We're thrilled to stand in front of you today after not months but years, frankly, of dealing with the notion of a new home for our teams and a new place builder for our city," said Ken King, vice-chairman of CSEC. "This is a submission of a three party agreement and I emphasize it's a submission. There are many more critical steps to take."

If approved, construction on the event centre is slated to begin in 2021 and the main facility will have a seating capacity of 19,000. City council is scheduled to vote on the agreement on July 29.

Citizens are encouraged to share their views on the agreement during the seven-day public review period by contacting their councillor or by providing a written submission to the City Clerk's office.


I think 19000 is actually less than the Sattledome, buy a few hundred.



If they're playing from the Katz playbook, they now will work to get the city to get a loan for their contributions, offering to pay the interest on said loan.

(It's not a terrible plan anyhow, since the cost of capital for the city is well below what a private corporation could hope to get.)



"This team needs an enema!"
#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireBuchberger #FireHowsonAgain #FireChiarelli #FireMcLellan #FireBobbyNicks and...SIGH...#FireTheGretzkys

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740892 is a reply to message #740888 ]
Mon, 22 July 2019 23:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14314
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Mon, 22 July 2019 22:25

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 22 July 2019 22:21

Looks like an arena deal has been reached, to be approved by the city at the end of the month.

City will own the arena and collect ticket fees for all events. Flames get a 35 year lease and need to take care of it. City and Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) will each contribute 275M to the project.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/city-of-calgary-to-own-new-550m-e vent-centre-split-project-cost-with-flames-1.4519091

Quote:

The City of Calgary confirms an agreement has been reached regarding the "fundamental terms and conditions for the development and construction of a new event centre in east Victoria Park".

The agreement involved the City of Calgary, Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC), and the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited.

Representatives of the three organizations including Mayor Nenshi, Ken King and Warren Connell provided an update on the agreement Monday evening.

The deal will see the City and the CSEC each contribute $275M to the project and the City will own the building. The Flames will run operations as part of a lease lasting 35 years and will fund all maintenance and repairs throughout the tenure of the lease.

"This is a good deal for Calgary," said Mayor Nenshi. "For some years now, I've been saying that any investment of public money in this project must come with public benefit. This deal does that."

"The City of Calgary will receive a facility fee on every ticket sold to every event for 35 years. The City will receive a share of naming rights, CSEC will invest even more than they do now in amateur sports and community here in the city."

"We're thrilled to stand in front of you today after not months but years, frankly, of dealing with the notion of a new home for our teams and a new place builder for our city," said Ken King, vice-chairman of CSEC. "This is a submission of a three party agreement and I emphasize it's a submission. There are many more critical steps to take."

If approved, construction on the event centre is slated to begin in 2021 and the main facility will have a seating capacity of 19,000. City council is scheduled to vote on the agreement on July 29.

Citizens are encouraged to share their views on the agreement during the seven-day public review period by contacting their councillor or by providing a written submission to the City Clerk's office.


I think 19000 is actually less than the Sattledome, buy a few hundred.



If they're playing from the Katz playbook, they now will work to get the city to get a loan for their contributions, offering to pay the interest on said loan.

(It's not a terrible plan anyhow, since the cost of capital for the city is well below what a private corporation could hope to get.)


hehe, yeah, no doubt it ends up the same.

Saw this about the history of the negotiation:


Jason Markusoff @markusoff
2017: Nenshi and Calgary council rejected an arena plan where City puts up $225M, Flames put up $275M. City wanted to pay only 1/3

2019: Nenshi and Calgary council hail arena plan where City pays $275M, Flames pay $275M.



Maybe Nenshi just really liked that the flames got Lucic.



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740894 is a reply to message #740886 ]
Mon, 22 July 2019 23:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NetBOG  is currently offline NetBOG
Messages: 2583
Registered: January 2006
Location: Parts Unknown

2 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 22 July 2019 22:21

Looks like an arena deal has been reached, to be approved by the city at the end of the month.

City will own the arena and collect ticket fees for all events. Flames get a 35 year lease and need to take care of it. City and Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) will each contribute 275M to the project.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/city-of-calgary-to-own-new-550m-e vent-centre-split-project-cost-with-flames-1.4519091

Quote:

The City of Calgary confirms an agreement has been reached regarding the "fundamental terms and conditions for the development and construction of a new event centre in east Victoria Park".

The agreement involved the City of Calgary, Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC), and the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited.

Representatives of the three organizations including Mayor Nenshi, Ken King and Warren Connell provided an update on the agreement Monday evening.

The deal will see the City and the CSEC each contribute $275M to the project and the City will own the building. The Flames will run operations as part of a lease lasting 35 years and will fund all maintenance and repairs throughout the tenure of the lease.

"This is a good deal for Calgary," said Mayor Nenshi. "For some years now, I've been saying that any investment of public money in this project must come with public benefit. This deal does that."

"The City of Calgary will receive a facility fee on every ticket sold to every event for 35 years. The City will receive a share of naming rights, CSEC will invest even more than they do now in amateur sports and community here in the city."

"We're thrilled to stand in front of you today after not months but years, frankly, of dealing with the notion of a new home for our teams and a new place builder for our city," said Ken King, vice-chairman of CSEC. "This is a submission of a three party agreement and I emphasize it's a submission. There are many more critical steps to take."

If approved, construction on the event centre is slated to begin in 2021 and the main facility will have a seating capacity of 19,000. City council is scheduled to vote on the agreement on July 29.

Citizens are encouraged to share their views on the agreement during the seven-day public review period by contacting their councillor or by providing a written submission to the City Clerk's office.


I think 19000 is actually less than the Sattledome, buy a few hundred.



Far better deal than the City of Edmonton negotiated with Katz, but I'm pretty sure councillors exited a meeting deciding how to cut money for police and fire services right before the entered one to gift a group of billionaires a quarter billion dollars.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #740897 is a reply to message #740894 ]
Tue, 23 July 2019 08:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 9499
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

NetBOG wrote on Mon, 22 July 2019 23:43

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 22 July 2019 22:21

Looks like an arena deal has been reached, to be approved by the city at the end of the month.

City will own the arena and collect ticket fees for all events. Flames get a 35 year lease and need to take care of it. City and Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) will each contribute 275M to the project.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/city-of-calgary-to-own-new-550m-e vent-centre-split-project-cost-with-flames-1.4519091

Quote:

The City of Calgary confirms an agreement has been reached regarding the "fundamental terms and conditions for the development and construction of a new event centre in east Victoria Park".

The agreement involved the City of Calgary, Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC), and the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited.

Representatives of the three organizations including Mayor Nenshi, Ken King and Warren Connell provided an update on the agreement Monday evening.

The deal will see the City and the CSEC each contribute $275M to the project and the City will own the building. The Flames will run operations as part of a lease lasting 35 years and will fund all maintenance and repairs throughout the tenure of the lease.

"This is a good deal for Calgary," said Mayor Nenshi. "For some years now, I've been saying that any investment of public money in this project must come with public benefit. This deal does that."

"The City of Calgary will receive a facility fee on every ticket sold to every event for 35 years. The City will receive a share of naming rights, CSEC will invest even more than they do now in amateur sports and community here in the city."

"We're thrilled to stand in front of you today after not months but years, frankly, of dealing with the notion of a new home for our teams and a new place builder for our city," said Ken King, vice-chairman of CSEC. "This is a submission of a three party agreement and I emphasize it's a submission. There are many more critical steps to take."

If approved, construction on the event centre is slated to begin in 2021 and the main facility will have a seating capacity of 19,000. City council is scheduled to vote on the agreement on July 29.

Citizens are encouraged to share their views on the agreement during the seven-day public review period by contacting their councillor or by providing a written submission to the City Clerk's office.


I think 19000 is actually less than the Sattledome, buy a few hundred.



Far better deal than the City of Edmonton negotiated with Katz, but I'm pretty sure councillors exited a meeting deciding how to cut money for police and fire services right before the entered one to gift a group of billionaires a quarter billion dollars.

It's actually pretty surprising they ignored the same emotional arguments that were used to reject the Olympics last year.



This is fine.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #741206 is a reply to message #689980 ]
Tue, 30 July 2019 18:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mad90  is currently offline mad90
Messages: 82
Registered: July 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

No Cups

11-4 to ram the deal though. We still don’t know the specifics of the deal.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Flames will move without a new arena - Ken King [message #741207 is a reply to message #741206 ]
Tue, 30 July 2019 18:47 Go to previous message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 14314
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

mad90 wrote on Tue, 30 July 2019 18:24

11-4 to ram the deal though. We still don’t know the specifics of the deal.


Flames finally had a good regular season. That's the only detail that matters. Give those guys whatever they want! :)



"The Edmonton Oilers are not where they should be right now and that is unacceptable. We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
-Kevin Lowe, April 2013


"Next year (15/16) I would forecast as another developmental year"
- #2, April 2015

Send a private message to this user  

Pages (3): [ «  <  1  2  3]  
Previous Topic:NYR buy out Shattenkirk
Next Topic:NHL Players filing for Arbitration 2019
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright © OilFans.com 1996-2019.
All content is property of OilFans.com and cannot be used without expressed, written consent from this site.
Questions, comments and suggestions can be directed to oilfans@OilFans.com
Privacy Statement


Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca