Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
DirtyDeeds

The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

Recommended Posts

Why not the west village?  1 billion+ tax payer dollars, that’s why.  Even worse during a recession.  Sure, it was meant as an opening volley, but it was an amateurish move by the flames.  Let’s say you are a car salesman.  You want to sell a vehicle to a customer, and the lowest you will go is $25,000, and you know the most you might be able to negotiate is 30,000.  Is your first offer to say the car costs 35,000, or 100,000? One starts an honest negotiation, the other causes the customer to walk immediately.

 

As far as the Victoria park proposal goes, the flames want the city to pay 2/3 of the cost upfront, with the flames contribution being paid back to them over 30 years of waived rent payments.  In essence, the flames don’t pay anything in this scenario, they just front a 30 year loan to the city.  In exchange, they get a brand new building to play in for free, get to raise ticket prices, get all revenues from concerts and other events, and likely start lobbying for another new building in 20 years or so.  Oh yeah, and the owners are looking to make a killing in real estate by building condos around the new arena wherever it winds up.  Probably one of the reasons they wanted west village in the first place, as the land there is relatively undeveloped and would come at a lower price, thus increasing profit margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ABC923 said:

Why not the west village?  1 billion+ tax payer dollars, that’s why.  Even worse during a recession.  Sure, it was meant as an opening volley, but it was an amateurish move by the flames.  Let’s say you are a car salesman.  You want to sell a vehicle to a customer, and the lowest you will go is $25,000, and you know the most you might be able to negotiate is 30,000.  Is your first offer to say the car costs 35,000, or 100,000? One starts an honest negotiation, the other causes the customer to walk immediately.

 

As far as the Victoria park proposal goes, the flames want the city to pay 2/3 of the cost upfront, with the flames contribution being paid back to them over 30 years of waived rent payments.  In essence, the flames don’t pay anything in this scenario, they just front a 30 year loan to the city.  In exchange, they get a brand new building to play in for free, get to raise ticket prices, get all revenues from concerts and other events, and likely start lobbying for another new building in 20 years or so.  Oh yeah, and the owners are looking to make a killing in real estate by building condos around the new arena wherever it winds up.  Probably one of the reasons they wanted west village in the first place, as the land there is relatively undeveloped and would come at a lower price, thus increasing profit margins.

Naheed?  is that you ?    :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

I find that rather disturbing. Perhaps it is not surprising, but it is concerning. 

 

I understand that such projects are going to generate conflict. Each party has to protect their interests. I will be upset if we host the Olympics and many of the hockey games are played in Edmonton because it will be an opportunity lost. Refusing to externalize the arena costs to the provincial and federal governments will be a slap in the face to the Flames. It is one thing to hold strong in negotiations. It is another thing to intentionally waste such an opportunity.

If the Olympics come and hockey games are played in Edmonton its a slap in the face to all of Calgary, not just the Flames.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-05-29 at 11:42 AM, Cowtownguy said:

I am a little skeptical about it not being a problem. I believe I read somewhere that the creosote has been found on the other side of the river. Apparently, there is another river underneath the river. I would assume that the 2013 flood must have resulted in the chemical moving downstream. Regardless, a big chunk of the inner city is not useable; not a tourist attraction. I agree that they have completed all of those studies suggesting that it was a poor idea. I have never quite understood why the Flames then suggested a multi-complex in the very area that was considered inappropriate. Have they not been talking over the years?

The city has identified the West Downtown area as not appropriate because it doesn't want to build there, and included the creosote and transportation upgrades to weigh it down to "prove their point", even though both issues need to be dealt with come stadium or redevelopment or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 11:42 AM, Cowtownguy said:

I have never quite understood why the Flames then suggested a multi-complex in the very area that was considered inappropriate. Have they not been talking over the years?

 

This is what's got me the most since Day 1.  Haven't the Flames pre-emptively talked with Nenshi behind the scenes before they delivered CalgaryNext?  I mean, why would the Flames bother presenting a project that's dead on arrival?  What shortsightedness.  That's just not how you do business.  

 

This reminds me of Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline where they proposed to run a new pipeline through reserves and provincial parks.  What the hell were you thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

This is what's got me the most since Day 1.  Haven't the Flames pre-emptively talked with Nenshi behind the scenes before they delivered CalgaryNext?  I mean, why would the Flames bother presenting a project that's dead on arrival?  What shortsightedness.  That's just not how you do business.  

 

This reminds me of Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline where they proposed to run a new pipeline through reserves and provincial parks.  What the hell were you thinking?

 

??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cccsberg said:

If the Olympics come and hockey games are played in Edmonton its a slap in the face to all of Calgary, not just the Flames.  

This comment came from the mayor..   

Can you impeach a mayor??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, cross16 said:

City and Flames "talking"..... sort of....

 

 

 

This letter going out on twitter is kind of the opposite of media silence.

 

I don't agree with King on a lot of things he does and says, but I do agree that the talks should stay in private till they are able to come to some sort of conclusion. The media war of public opinion is kind of what doomed the talks in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

This letter going out on twitter is kind of the opposite of media silence.

 

I don't agree with King on a lot of things he does and says, but I do agree that the talks should stay in private till they are able to come to some sort of conclusion. The media war of public opinion is kind of what doomed the talks in the first place.

 

city is not off to a great start here, as apparently they leaked the letter...

 

I do agree, so long as the city takes the deal to the public for consultation. I'm not for a deal that involves no public consultation but I do agree that while they are negotiating it makes sense to leave the public out. Public negotiations do not end well, but just don't let CESC try and cut a back room deal that is bad for the city. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

city is not off to a great start here, as apparently they leaked the letter...

 

I do agree, so long as the city takes the deal to the public for consultation. I'm not for a deal that involves no public consultation but I do agree that while they are negotiating it makes sense to leave the public out. Public negotiations do not end well, but just don't let CESC try and cut a back room deal that is bad for the city. 

 

Davison stated today that CSEC were aware ahead of time that the letter was getting released today , it essentially serves as their Statement . What they refer to is once they start talking , much like last time we wont be kept on board with every offer or suggestion until such time as it all falls apart, or an agreement in principle is brought forward to be voted on .

 

 

But I will say this , Nenshi needs to STFU

http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/nenshi-finds-ken-kings-public-letter-urging-private-arena-negotiations-fascinating/wcm/6360e32d-03bb-4004-99f0-aad27d4a94c3

 

already spewing his personal agenda, which is contradictory to what is trying to be accomplished at this point.. which is to clear the slate, start a fresh talk with all options open to discussion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a tax payer I believe the City has a duty to inform me of negotiations that involve hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars.  I don't need to know all the details, but I would like to know what the terms are before a deal is signed.  

 

Why?  Because this is a piece of infrastructure that tax dollars will help pay for, but unlike other infrastructure projects, I will not be able to use a new arena without shelling out hundreds of my own dollars.  

 

The airport tunnel may not be anywhere near my home, but if I want to drive in the tunnel I can.  The new arena will be off limits to me and my family unless I spend hundreds of dollars on event tickets.  

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe the city needs to put any arena deal to a referendum.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

As a tax payer I believe the City has a duty to inform me of negotiations that involve hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars.  I don't need to know all the details, but I would like to know what the terms are before a deal is signed.  

 

Why?  Because this is a piece of infrastructure that tax dollars will help pay for, but unlike other infrastructure projects, I will not be able to use a new arena without shelling out hundreds of my own dollars.  

 

The airport tunnel may not be anywhere near my home, but if I want to drive in the tunnel I can.  The new arena will be off limits to me and my family unless I spend hundreds of dollars on event tickets.  

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe the city needs to put any arena deal to a referendum.  

 

 

You voted the council in.  

The city hires people experienced in negotiation of major contracts.

The negotiations can't be made public during.

The final results are.

 

Did you vote on the other major projects?

Have your say on the library deal?

 

Not trying to be insulting, but if you want to be heard or have your opinion know, call your council office.  Go to a council meeting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

 

Davison stated today that CSEC were aware ahead of time that the letter was getting released today , it essentially serves as their Statement . What they refer to is once they start talking , much like last time we wont be kept on board with every offer or suggestion until such time as it all falls apart, or an agreement in principle is brought forward to be voted on .

 

 

But I will say this , Nenshi needs to STFU

http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/nenshi-finds-ken-kings-public-letter-urging-private-arena-negotiations-fascinating/wcm/6360e32d-03bb-4004-99f0-aad27d4a94c3

 

already spewing his personal agenda, which is contradictory to what is trying to be accomplished at this point.. which is to clear the slate, start a fresh talk with all options open to discussion 

 

I don't see anything wrong with what Nenshi said today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't see anything wrong with what Nenshi said today

He's purposely trying to manipulate the discussions and dictate terms and he's not even involved ..

 

Let's start with a total Lie ..

"and I do sit on that committee but I’m not going to take a leadership role on it"

 

The Committee consists of 7 people , he is not one of them.  Sutherland, Keating and Davison(Chair) are the only 3 members of council on the committee. He was actually , purposely , left off of it for this very reason.

The committee has been clear from the start , start fresh, All options back on the table for discussion .. and what does he have to come out and say ?

 

“It’s going to take a lot to convince me that there’s a location better than the location in Victoria Park. I’m happy to have the discussion, I’m not happy to re-litigate (the) $1.8-billion project in West Village.

(even though an environmental grant would reduce this to only 7-800 M)

“I’m happy to look at other ideas but, for me, that analysis has been done and Victoria Park is the best.”

( Of course he does, he has a personal vested interest in developing Vic Park)

 

They need to put a gag order on him and let these discussions happen , He has one goal, and that is to sink any negotiations .

Just like he is insisting on the Olympics, he needs to let it happen , then look at the big picture once its developed and make his singular vote know then

 

Even Davison had to address his comments 

“I’m a little disappointed that he seems to have a negative tone on everything right out of the starting gate, when we’re trying to push the reset button and have an optimistic look at what we can do,” Davison said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Flames are totally misguided in their request for media silence. The lost the battle of public opinion, and so instead of trying harder to reach out to everyday Calgarians, they request media silence in the hopes that a deal can be reached with the City because it's in the best interest of the City. This is flawed for so many reasons: politicians never 'go silent' if it's not in their best interest, politicians aren't necessarily interested in the logical 'best interest' of the areas or constituents they serve, and you can not just ignore public opinion. The negotiations don't have to be conducted out in the open, but the Flames are very naive if they think they can conduct them free of media or public opinion. They must try harder to get their message across and the facts out to the public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JA_Boomer said:

I think the Flames are totally misguided in their request for media silence. The lost the battle of public opinion, and so instead of trying harder to reach out to everyday Calgarians, they request media silence in the hopes that a deal can be reached with the City because it's in the best interest of the City. This is flawed for so many reasons: politicians never 'go silent' if it's not in their best interest, politicians aren't necessarily interested in the logical 'best interest' of the areas or constituents they serve, and you can not just ignore public opinion. The negotiations don't have to be conducted out in the open, but the Flames are very naive if they think they can conduct them free of media or public opinion. They must try harder to get their message across and the facts out to the public. 

This is actually very common when discussing land deals , business deals with the city. Standard procedure. The initial phases are more of a think tank , throwing ideas out , seeing what looks good before they finally start to narrow down an agreement. - these are the pieces that need to be held in private .

And remember, a "deal" is not a done deal.. its simply the end result that both sides have agreed to.. it THEN has to come out in the public,  get debated and voted on .

When we see it, it will be a "joint proposal"  ready to be debated and voted on by council 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:

As a tax payer I believe the City has a duty to inform me of negotiations that involve hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars.  I don't need to know all the details, but I would like to know what the terms are before a deal is signed.  

 

Why?  Because this is a piece of infrastructure that tax dollars will help pay for, but unlike other infrastructure projects, I will not be able to use a new arena without shelling out hundreds of my own dollars.  

 

The airport tunnel may not be anywhere near my home, but if I want to drive in the tunnel I can.  The new arena will be off limits to me and my family unless I spend hundreds of dollars on event tickets.  

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe the city needs to put any arena deal to a referendum.  

 

Talk about a misleading and biased comment.  Anyone could have used the Saddledome for free for the many Stampede displays there, and easily attended multiple events for well under $20pp, like the Hitmen, lacrosse, heck even the Flames.  Yes, you could also pay hundreds for the Flames and others but to intimate that you couldn’t enjoy any events without shelling out hundreds is nonsense and dishonest.

 

As as far as notice goes, the earlier comment I believe was referring to negotiations, before being brought to the public/council for a vote.  I believe both sides already know it’s controversial  and there are strong opinions on both sides.  What good is stirring those up again in the midst of negotiations?  And as far as I’m concerned, a referendum is a cop-out.  We have a council and aldermen to make decisions and they should do so.  Did the city have a referendum for the Peace Bridge?  The library?  C-train extensions?  The airport tunnel?  The blue ring?  No, but they do have elections.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

He's purposely trying to manipulate the discussions and dictate terms and he's not even involved ..

 

Let's start with a total Lie ..

"and I do sit on that committee but I’m not going to take a leadership role on it"

 

The Committee consists of 7 people , he is not one of them.  Sutherland, Keating and Davison(Chair) are the only 3 members of council on the committee. He was actually , purposely , left off of it for this very reason.

The committee has been clear from the start , start fresh, All options back on the table for discussion .. and what does he have to come out and say ?

 

 

Maybe you can correct me, but my understand is that the Mayor sits on all committees by default. Their website seems to suggest that too, but i'm by no means an expert on civic politics. http://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/pages/mayor/mayor.aspx?redirect=/mayor/pages/home.aspx

 

To each their own, but I don't have a problem with what Nenshi said and I personally like that he keeps reminding us that a lot of work went into showing that West Village was not viable so why are we going to start from scratch and waste more money to get the same result? My fear in this new committee is that they just cater and give the Flames whatever they want, so if Nenshi stays involved and keeps that from happening I like that.

 

But I do agree he needs to keep his ego out of it, I just don't agree that what he said yesterday was ego driven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Maybe you can correct me, but my understand is that the Mayor sits on all committees by default. Their website seems to suggest that too, but i'm by no means an expert on civic politics. http://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/pages/mayor/mayor.aspx?redirect=/mayor/pages/home.aspx

 

To each their own, but I don't have a problem with what Nenshi said and I personally like that he keeps reminding us that a lot of work went into showing that West Village was not viable so why are we going to start from scratch and waste more money to get the same result? My fear in this new committee is that they just cater and give the Flames whatever they want, so if Nenshi stays involved and keeps that from happening I like that.

 

But I do agree he needs to keep his ego out of it, I just don't agree that what he said yesterday was ego driven. 

In most , but this one had special stipulation that  he be left out if it . I'd like to see the Environmental Levee imposed to get the province and/ or Feds to clean the land regardless.. if this comes up , it makes it a whole different ballgame.

Comments by both Sutherland and Davison have both implied theyd like to see a full service facility -- not just an arena 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

In most , but this one had special stipulation that  he be left out if it . I'd like to see the Environmental Levee imposed to get the province and/ or Feds to clean the land regardless.. if this comes up , it makes it a whole different ballgame.

Comments by both Sutherland and Davison have both implied theyd like to see a full service facility -- not just an arena 

 

I get that is a common idea, it's just not one that resonates with me. If the province or the Feds kick in money it's still the taxpayer and because i think all 3 level of government are not in very good financial shape it's just not how I want to see the money spent. Just transfers the debt IMO but that's a bias I have.

 

I just don't like Calgarynext either so I side with the mayor on that one. I read that report and once I did and actually thought of the idea I think it's horrible. I guess if they want to go back to the drawing board with ideas so be it, but I happen to agree with Nenshi that Vic Park makes the most amount of sense for a new building. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I get that is a common idea, it's just not one that resonates with me. If the province or the Feds kick in money it's still the taxpayer and because i think all 3 level of government are not in very good financial shape it's just not how I want to see the money spent. Just transfers the debt IMO but that's a bias I have.

 

I just don't like Calgarynext either so I side with the mayor on that one. I read that report and once I did and actually thought of the idea I think it's horrible. I guess if they want to go back to the drawing board with ideas so be it, but I happen to agree with Nenshi that Vic Park makes the most amount of sense for a new building. 

What was your problem with the CalgaryNext concept?  Personally I thought it was brilliant in developing a new region plus including multiple & public facilities all together, so would be interested in what part of that you have a problem with?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

What was your problem with the CalgaryNext concept?  Personally I thought it was brilliant in developing a new region plus including multiple & public facilities all together, so would be interested in what part of that you have a problem with?

 

The price tag, specifically the amount of public money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

He's purposely trying to manipulate the discussions and dictate terms and he's not even involved ..

 

Let's start with a total Lie ..

"and I do sit on that committee but I’m not going to take a leadership role on it"

 

The Committee consists of 7 people , he is not one of them.  Sutherland, Keating and Davison(Chair) are the only 3 members of council on the committee. He was actually , purposely , left off of it for this very reason.

The committee has been clear from the start , start fresh, All options back on the table for discussion .. and what does he have to come out and say ?

 

“It’s going to take a lot to convince me that there’s a location better than the location in Victoria Park. I’m happy to have the discussion, I’m not happy to re-litigate (the) $1.8-billion project in West Village.

(even though an environmental grant would reduce this to only 7-800 M)

“I’m happy to look at other ideas but, for me, that analysis has been done and Victoria Park is the best.”

( Of course he does, he has a personal vested interest in developing Vic Park)

 

They need to put a gag order on him and let these discussions happen , He has one goal, and that is to sink any negotiations .

Just like he is insisting on the Olympics, he needs to let it happen , then look at the big picture once its developed and make his singular vote know then

 

Even Davison had to address his comments 

“I’m a little disappointed that he seems to have a negative tone on everything right out of the starting gate, when we’re trying to push the reset button and have an optimistic look at what we can do,” Davison said.

 

Where would the money for the environmental grant come from?  The tax payer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...