Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
DirtyDeeds

The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

Recommended Posts

According to the NDP's platform, they claim to want to demonstrate real leadership towards having a healthy environment...   http://www.albertandp.ca/platform

 

The question is, do they mean it, or is Notley as full of crap on that issue as she is on a lot of other issues...   While Notley seems to think it is just fine to run up a huge deficit, she might as well contribute towards doing something constructive like cleaning up the creosote mess along the bow...   Something that is way overdue, and should be funded by both the Provincial Government and the City of Calgary...

 

Nenshi and the city council have also shirked their responsibility towards getting the environmentally hazardous mess cleaned up...   It's like moving into a house that has a corner of accumulated dog crap in the yard and ignoring it even though it gets tracked into the house on peoples shoes and also affects the neighbors when it washes under the fence, because it was there when they moved so it might as well stay there for the next occupants to clean up..

 

9d7701c986bfba7316f5020f9a819356.png
 

I would post a reference to Nenshi's platform, but his was typically generalized as one of having "Better Ideas"...   Well here's a good idea Nenshi, quit ignoring the dog crap in your yard and clean it up...   It is after all your job to get it done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clean-up is no small task and will take careful planning and execution.  Funding must be established first, as well as an estimate for the cost and how much can be recuperated from what remains of the responsible parties.  It has to be done right; if we start digging around willy-nilly we may make the problem worse.  Containment may in fact be the best option to prevent widespread contamination of the bow.  It isn't as simple as throwing dollars at it, and even if it was we are talking about costs of probably 100-200 dollars per albertan, or 250-500 dollars per Calgarian.  Not cheap stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, no small task.

 

 

ALL funding will have to come from the City & the Province.

 

The creosote plant, which operated by the laws in place at that time, closed in 1962 and Domtar has been out of business in Alberta for many years.

There remains a small chance at recouping some money through a lawsuit, but that would take many years, and is not a good reason to delay the cleanup.

 

Contaminant testing has been ongoing for years and there are currently 30 monitoring wells in Hillhurst.

 

http://aep.alberta.ca/lands-forests/land-industrial/canada-creosote-site-testing.aspx

 

 

So, it's well past time to form a plan, get some estimates, and clean this dump up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the city should clean up the mess and I also support them building a fieldhouse. I would support the City paying the cost to clean it up so the land is ready for use and I would support them contributing the money to the field house (200million or so I believe). After that I think the Flames need to find other means for the rest but I think thats a fair framework to start working around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand the proposal, the City would own the land and any facilities built on it.

The Calgary Flames group would just be a co-tenant in those facilities, especially the Multisport Fieldhouse Stadium.

The Stampeders only play 9 regular season games + practices (not sure how many).

Soccer, Track & Field, Basketball, Volleyball, Badminton, Court Sports, Exercise, Training, and Sports Medicine will be using it the majority of the time.

 

Aside from the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks, the Arena Event Centre will also attract more and larger concerts/events/conventions than the Saddledome currently can.

 

I haven't heard exactly who would be receiving the various revenues from the events (parking, ticket sales, food/drink, souvenirs, etc.).

I also don't know how much the Flames group would be paying to lease the facilities each year.

Those would obviously be large factors in determining who invests how much in the project.

 

The best case funding scenario would be to get another Winter Olympic Games, as the Provincial and Federal governments would kick in for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand the proposal, the City would own the land and any facilities built on it.

The Calgary Flames group would just be a co-tenant in those facilities, especially the Multisport Fieldhouse Stadium.

The Stampeders only play 9 regular season games + practices (not sure how many).

Soccer, Track & Field, Basketball, Volleyball, Badminton, Court Sports, Exercise, Training, and Sports Medicine will be using it the majority of the time.

 

Aside from the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks, the Arena Event Centre will also attract more and larger concerts/events/conventions than the Saddledome currently can.

 

I haven't heard exactly who would be receiving the various revenues from the events (parking, ticket sales, food/drink, souvenirs, etc.).

I also don't know how much the Flames group would be paying to lease the facilities each year.

Those would obviously be large factors in determining who invests how much in the project.

 

The best case funding scenario would be to get another Winter Olympic Games, as the Provincial and Federal governments would kick in for sure.

 

I think Calgary would automatically be in the running for a Major League Soccer team if we get a roofed stadium.  So there's potentially more revenue for the fieldhouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/burke-on-a-mission-to-increase-size-of-nhl-ice-surfaces-1.425938

 

If/when Calgary gets a new stadium, they will have the ability to go to 200x90ft, as opposed to the current 200x85ft, NHL surface. Burke has been trying to get all the teams building new stadiums to build with the idea of increasing the ice surface. I really agree with this, so far Detroit are the only ones to have built to go to 90 feet. 

 

I get that it is an uphill battle with the cost of retro fitting stadiums and the fact that teams would lose a couple of rows of high end seating, but adding 5 feet to the size of the rink would make such a big difference in the quality of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

adding 5 feet to the size of the rink would make such a big difference in the quality of the game.

 

I think that's a pretty subjective thinking.  One can argue the quality of the game would improve if you lessen the size by 5 feet.  Scoring chances and exciting plays are a direct result of turnovers and open ice hits.  By making the ice surface smaller, you increase the chance of these events to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a pretty subjective thinking. One can argue the quality of the game would improve if you lessen the size by 5 feet. Scoring chances and exciting plays are a direct result of turnovers and open ice hits. By making the ice surface smaller, you increase the chance of these events to happen.

If you made the ice smaller, the game would be so scrambly, like watching a peewee game, there would be no flow. There might be more turnovers, but there would be no room to do anything.

Making the ice a little wider would make it harder for teams to trap, teams will still do it, but skilled guys like Gaudreau or Bennett will have an easier time generating speed and gaining the offensive zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a pretty subjective thinking.  One can argue the quality of the game would improve if you lessen the size by 5 feet.  Scoring chances and exciting plays are a direct result of turnovers and open ice hits.  By making the ice surface smaller, you increase the chance of these events to happen.

 

Think bigger Peeps...   Think bigger...

 

55a2bfcba60a065fa49c65280b3f820d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you made the ice smaller, the game would be so scrambly, like watching a peewee game, there would be no flow. There might be more turnovers, but there would be no room to do anything.

Making the ice a little wider would make it harder for teams to trap, teams will still do it, but skilled guys like Gaudreau or Bennett will have an easier time generating speed and gaining the offensive zone.

 

The skilled guys will still persevere on a smaller ice surface and team play would be more important on a smaller ice surface than individual skill.  A larger ice surface would help the lesser skilled players give the illusion of skill because they will have one more stride of time to think.

 

A larger the ice surface would encourage a soccer-like the game that promotes a "pig in the middle" contest. A smaller ice surface would encourage a rugby-like game that feels like the stronger men win.

 

The trap is the most misunderstood system of play in the history of the league.  It creates turnovers in the neutral zone.  Turnovers in the neutral zone result in odd man rushes and odd man rushes result in goals.  The trap was extremely popular in generating goals in the NHL all the way up until 1979 when the NHL merged with the WHA.  It re-gained popularity again in the early 90s and was extremely useful in generating goals.

 

What plagued the goal draught of the 90s was clutching and grabbing.  The trap was wrongly targeted due to its association to the clutch and grab era as a whole and was largely rendered ineffective since by the removal of the red line.  They should have removed the clutch and grab and kept the red line in play.  The game has become a "half court style" game now with scrambly and largely disorganized neutral zone play.

 

You are correct that teams are still trying to trap to a degree and to what purpose?  To bore the game?  No, it's actually a strategy to create turnovers and score goals.  A trap makes it difficult for teams to exit their zone.  In comparison, the opposite strategy would be to line up four guys on your blueline and back up passively into your own zone like most teams do on a PK.  Is that exciting hockey compared to attacking the puck carrier coming out of their own zone and angling them into coverage in the neutral zone?

 

Sure, the speed of the game is faster on a larger ice surface.  It will promote individuality and allow individual skill to be highlighted.  Flow would be predictable due to the amount of room there is to skate. 

 

On a smaller ice surface, team play, strategy, and coordination will be highlighted.  Flow will be unpredictable due to increased turnovers.

 

Subjective I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The skilled guys will still persevere on a smaller ice surface and team play would be more important on a smaller ice surface than individual skill. A larger ice surface would help the lesser skilled players give the illusion of skill because they will have one more stride of time to think.

A larger the ice surface would encourage a soccer-like the game that promotes a "pig in the middle" contest. A smaller ice surface would encourage a rugby-like game that feels like the stronger men win.

The trap is the most misunderstood system of play in the history of the league. It creates turnovers in the neutral zone. Turnovers in the neutral zone result in odd man rushes and odd man rushes result in goals. The trap was extremely popular in generating goals in the NHL all the way up until 1979 when the NHL merged with the WHA. It re-gained popularity again in the early 90s and was extremely useful in generating goals.

What plagued the goal draught of the 90s was clutching and grabbing. The trap was wrongly targeted due to its association to the clutch and grab era as a whole and was largely rendered ineffective since by the removal of the red line. They should have removed the clutch and grab and kept the red line in play. The game has become a "half court style" game now with scrambly and largely disorganized neutral zone play.

You are correct that teams are still trying to trap to a degree and to what purpose? To bore the game? No, it's actually a strategy to create turnovers and score goals. A trap makes it difficult for teams to exit their zone. In comparison, the opposite strategy would be to line up four guys on your blueline and back up passively into your own zone like most teams do on a PK. Is that exciting hockey compared to attacking the puck carrier coming out of their own zone and angling them into coverage in the neutral zone?

Sure, the speed of the game is faster on a larger ice surface. It will promote individuality and allow individual skill to be highlighted. Flow would be predictable due to the amount of room there is to skate.

On a smaller ice surface, team play, strategy, and coordination will be highlighted. Flow will be unpredictable due to increased turnovers.

Subjective I say.

I guess so, it comes down to what you want to see, I want the game to be faster and more individual skill to be shown. I think on a smaller ice surface you will see nothing but dump and chase hockey and I have zero interest in seeing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the issue. I absolutely hate international ice and think that for the most part, games played on international ice are very boring. Case in point the 2014 Olympics, the quality if play there was just awful. I know Burke isn't proposing that so could something in between help, I'm not sure. I see the positives that if you have an extra for or two on a rush it would be easier to split d or go around d at the blueline. A guy like Bennett comes to mind who right now is trying to enter the neutral zone with speed down the boards but often gets rubbed out. That's gong to be tough to do with an extra few feet of space.

However, the downside is how do coaches react. In a league or tournament with so much parity often it comes down to the team that makes the fewest mistakes being the winner. So in return you have coaches who employ a safer game plan to limit their own mistakes and that's why, IMO, you sa the trap become a defensive weapon and why the trap is so popular on international ice. More space means more potential to make a mistake that will hurt you because recovery time is harder. Even with s couple extra feet I could see teams back their teams off st the blueline and actually start giving the blueline because they would rather not be best by outside speed and they'll just take their chances defending their own zone.

I'd wanted to see it tested first to see if there is a positive because I would lean towards it actually being a negative and not a positive. Either way it's not going to happen anytime soon. Not alone would the vast majority of the NHL have to adapt their rinks so would junior hockey, AHL, and probably NCAA. Your taking a massive expense and massive undertaking I can't see happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/calgarynext-city-report-torpedoes-project-1.3545509

So, the city report has come out and the official new estimate for the proposed CalgaryNext project is $1.82-billion, which is twice the origional estimate of $890-million presented by the Flames.

This looks bad for King and the Flames. If the city audit is accurate it's tough to understand how the Flames could put forward a proposal that is that far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks bad for King and the Flames. If the city audit is accurate it's tough to understand how the Flames could put forward a proposal that is that far off.

I think King's dream was doomed from the start. This project was always way to mammoth for a city this size. I see no reason that a new arena and concert facility shouldn't be part of the Stampede grounds for East Calgary. A football and soccer facility could fulfill the West Calgary site and clean up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks bad for King and the Flames. If the city audit is accurate it's tough to understand how the Flames could put forward a proposal that is that far off.

 

KK put forth an idea that would greatly improve this city in many ways.  Unfortunately he is not an expert in the extent of or the $’s required for contamination clean up.

 

 

I think King's dream was doomed from the start. This project was always way to mammoth for a city this size. I see no reason that a new arena and concert facility shouldn't be part of the Stampede grounds for East Calgary. A football and soccer facility could fulfill the West Calgary site and clean up.

 

The proposed structure is not the stumbling block, the contaminated land is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote the article: 

 

"But the city report concludes the actual cost — including financing, related infrastructure and creosote clean-up of the contaminated land on the identified site — would be much higher."

 

 

That's not a cost of the arena though. That'a a cost of building ANYTHING on that land. 

 

If you fill it with apartment blocks are the developers going to pay for that cleanup and infrastructure? Not a chance. If you want to put office tower there are the developers going to pay? Not  a chance. 

 

Why is this rolled into the cost of the arena? 

 

Its a result's based argument. We don't want to fund it so we'll come up with whatever excuse we need to to say we can't. 

 

Of course its cheaper to build the stadium where there's no creosote and no infrastructure adjustments. But it would be cheaper to build anything on other land when you roll in those costs. 

 

Basically the city intends to sit on some white-elephant of that west side of downtown until they can hook some for-profit organization into paying for cleanup? Might as well get used to it looking like it does now for another 100 years before he city realizes that its going to have to pay for the creosote and infrastructure no matter what gets built there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KK put forth an idea that would greatly improve this city in many ways.  Unfortunately he is not an expert in the extent of or the $’s required for contamination clean up.

 

NO he is not but i agree with Kehatch that putting out a proposal without a full understanding of costs was in pretty poor form. Forget the money for a second, the report said that the cleanup on that land will take a minimum of 6 years to complete. So not only did King and co not factor in the $ this grand project for them won't even start for 6 years. I find it very hard to believe that King/Flames and city could not have commissioned this report years ago. Let's remember, King has been saying for a good 5-6 years now we need a new arena.

 

Some highlights from the report:

- Clean up costs are estimated to be between 85-140 million. The different being whether it is an "expedited" or "measured" approach

- The clean up will take a minimum of 6 years before a shovel can go in the ground. 

- the cost to the project is 890 million the extra 800-900 million dollars the Flames/King did not account for are the costs such as utilities, interest, land transfer etc. Basically the requirements to get the land ready for properties. 

- The CRL will generate between 300-400 million over the next 30 years. That is is substantially lower than what King and co sold to the public when they released their proposal.

 

I won't say it is dead, but I think its a major blow to putting an arena in West Village. I've always maintained i didn't think this was a good deal for the taxpayer and this confirms its not just a bad deal, its a horrible one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the document included in the Article that Peeps linked it states that it will take somewhere between 6 to 10 years to do the creosote cleanup...   That alone makes the location a non-starter if the report is accurate...   The City and Province should have cleaned the site up a long time ago, and it would be a good location, but it doesn`t seem like a feasible time frame to work with...

 

The Flames had best be looking at plan B...   Soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO he is not but i agree with Kehatch that putting out a proposal without a full understanding of costs was in pretty poor form. Forget the money for a second, the report said that the cleanup on that land will take a minimum of 6 years to complete. So not only did King and co not factor in the $ this grand project for them won't even start for 6 years. I find it very hard to believe that King/Flames and city could not have commissioned this report years ago. Let's remember, King has been saying for a good 5-6 years now we need a new arena.

 

Some highlights from the report:

- Clean up costs are estimated to be between 85-140 million. The different being whether it is an "expedited" or "measured" approach

- The clean up will take a minimum of 6 years before a shovel can go in the ground. 

- the cost to the project is 890 million the extra 800-900 million dollars the Flames/King did not account for are the costs such as utilities, interest, land transfer etc. Basically the requirements to get the land ready for properties. 

- The CRL will generate between 300-400 million over the next 30 years. That is is substantially lower than what King and co sold to the public when they released their proposal.

 

I won't say it is dead, but I think its a major blow to putting an arena in West Village. I've always maintained i didn't think this was a good deal for the taxpayer and this confirms its not just a bad deal, its a horrible one. 

 

The proposal put forth by the Flames was to get the ball rolling, to open up discussions and determine feasibility.  Let’s not criticize them for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote the article: 

 

"But the city report concludes the actual cost — including financing, related infrastructure and creosote clean-up of the contaminated land on the identified site — would be much higher."

 

 

That's not a cost of the arena though. That'a a cost of building ANYTHING on that land. 

 

If you fill it with apartment blocks are the developers going to pay for that cleanup and infrastructure? Not a chance. If you want to put office tower there are the developers going to pay? Not  a chance. 

 

Why is this rolled into the cost of the arena? 

 

They won't, but they will pay property taxes that an arena will not generate. I think the problem the city is going to have, or say they will have, is what is the overall benefit to us to spend a huge amount of money on something that won't generate much revenue for the city? Most studies will show you that arenas have a very small net benefit, if they have a benefit at all, in terms of money back to a municipality, whereas if the city spent the 400-500 million just to clean up the land and get it ready for developers, it would generate more revenue back to them so overall I think it would be a net benefit to the city. 

 

I wonder if part of the issue for the city is do they want such prime real estate going to a building that they won't see as much benefit from? From a stricly dollars and cents perspective, I don't think there is any debate that it is is far better interest for the city to use that land to sell to developers as opposed to build an arena. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposal put forth by the Flames was to get the ball rolling, to open up discussions and determine feasibility.  Let’s not criticize them for that.

 

I'm not criticizing them for create a proposal. I'm criticizing them for creating a very weak proposal after spending over 5 years telling people we need a new arena but we "just aren't there yet". This feasibility study should have taken place years ago and IMO the Flames never should have put forth a proposal that rested on such flimsy and out to lunch ideas and numbers. This was very poorly planned on King's part.

 

Food for thought, Katz bought in the Oilers in 2008. 2 years later he had a report for Edmonton City council to debate, within 5 years he had the funding approved and in just over 8 will have a new building. Its been 5 or 6 years now and the best King has managed is a feasibility study to show his own idea was crappy and he has said publicly multiple times, there is no plan B. 

 

I'm all for a new arena, but its pretty hard to get around the fact that King and co have done a very poor job going about this new arena and their proposal. I'm not shocked, King doesn't do a good job with many things so just add this to the list. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposal put forth by the Flames was to get the ball rolling, to open up discussions and determine feasibility. Let’s not criticize them for that.

Getting the ball rolling is a good thing. But sending out a half baked proposal that is way way way of the mark in terms of cost, timeline, and feasibility is not. This was a completely impractical proposal and given the dollars involved it makes the team look foolish and it could have derailed the chance to get am arena going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...