Scotia Place | 36.85m | 11s | CSEC | HOK

[Tothewest]

It was well documented that ownership didn't want to retain on salaries.

well thats not true Is your point that you want salary retained whenever asked or proposed? No analysis can be done if its actually a good idea?

And although we seem to have ended up with a decent arena, the amount of money the very well-off ownership, who will benefit greatly from the new arena, put towards the project is pretty laughable. That's show biz though, most markets have owners like that it would just be nice sometimes if we weren't another one of them.

Laughable? Listen, we can all debate what the split should have been...but $700M over the 35 years paid back is hardly a laughable number. As a taxpayer, I expected a significant contribution, given they occupy 120+ nights a year for the sports teams. But when we are talking about briers, family shows, world juniors, stampede concerts, other concerts, ect.... I dont view that as a flames ownership responsibility. They operate the rink, but another company like OVG, AEG, ect... could, so that point is mute

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Is your point that you want salary retained whenever asked or proposed?

My point is that ownership has gotten in their own way sometimes and has struggled to see the bigger picture.

Devils, Flames reignite Markstrom talks, other teams also interested

Three months after a potential deal to send Jacob Markstrom from the Calgary Flames to the New Jersey Devils fell through, talks between two sides are back on.

www.tsn.ca

LeBrun reported in March that one hold up in a trade was the Flames unwillingness to retain salary on Markstrom, who is signed through 2025-26 at a cap hit of $6 million.

“I think everyone in here, every player in here, I really respect them. Everything that’s been going on and not going on…how everyone in this room has handled everything, I think has been really good, you know? The whole situation and everything, am I happy about that? No, I’m not. And I think it could have been handled a lot different from up top,” Markstrom said.

Sure, eventually Markstrom was traded and the Flames did retain. Personally, and this is mostly pre-Conroy as GM, the team and I were not on the same page when it came to how it dealt with its players. Namely Gaurdreau and Tkachuk. Have they been better more recently, yes, but there are still times that I'm not on the same page as ownership or management. A recent example being the insistence on challenging for the playoffs and holding on to players of value and for what? Two playoff home games?

Laughable?

Paying 3.3% ($40M) of the almost $1.2B project is a deal that no one else can get for their project that has some public benefit. I don't have a problem with ticket revenue paying for the CSEC's portion either, as a partial season-ticket holder, it is fair that I pay for something that not everybody can use. CSEC will make back that money they did contribute pretty quickly too, so the ROI for them is quite good. Again, I'm for this deal because it got me what I wanted, a new arena that I do think will be a public benefit. I still think 3.3% is far below CSEC's fair share.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-arena-csec-ticket-tax-1.7496734

The city is using ticket revenue to pay the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) for its obligations, allowing the city to receive $17 million annually for 35 years.

Worst. Deal. Ever.

www.projectcalgary.org

The new arena is expected to generate significant revenue, potentially increasing the Flames' operating income by $48.7 million annually, which could lead to a total increase of $151.8 million in annual operating income.

 

[dazzlingdave88]

well thats not true Is your point that you want salary retained whenever asked or proposed? No analysis can be done if its actually a good idea?

Laughable? Listen, we can all debate what the split should have been...but $700M over the 35 years paid back is hardly a laughable number. As a taxpayer, I expected a significant contribution, given they occupy 120+ nights a year for the sports teams. But when we are talking about briers, family shows, world juniors, stampede concerts, other concerts, ect.... I dont view that as a flames ownership responsibility. They operate the rink, but another company like OVG, AEG, ect... could, so that point is mute

Does the new arena increase the Flames revenue by more than $20 million a year? If it does, the deal costs them nothing and they profit. But here is the kicker, we will never know because they aren't required to open their books. And this doesn't even take into account the immediate increase in value of their franchise with the new arena.

 

[Tothewest]

Personally, and this is mostly pre-Conroy as GM, the team and I were not on the same page when it came to how it dealt with its players.

Paying 3.3% ($40M) of the almost $1.2B project is a deal that no one else can get for their project that has some public benefit. I don't have a problem with ticket revenue paying for the CSEC's portion either, as a partial season-ticket holder, it is fair that I pay for something that not everybody can use. CSEC will make back that money they did contribute pretty quickly too, so the ROI for them is quite good. Again, I'm for this deal because it got me what I wanted, a new arena that I do think will be a public benefit. I still think 3.3% is far below CSEC's fair share.

The city is for sure paying the lions share up front, because they have access to more cash reserves. No debate there...but to just gloss over the $750 in payments over 35 years....misleading and dishonest. The city then gets the downstream upside of annual payments which cover, eventually, 75% of the cost.

Ticket revenue is team revenue, why would you care how its paid to the city? If the team said they were paying $17M out of pocket, and then raised prices...which is literally the same exact send result, does that make you feel better?

....and back to regularly scheduled arena construction talk. Interior renderings please!!!

 

[CalgaryTiger]

My point is, no other ratepayer (house or business) can get this deal from the City.

Imagine I propose a project with private and public components: A development with a publicly accessible park and some subsidized housing.
I pay 3.3% of up front cost.
I pay back, with revenue from project, annual payment of 1.44% of costs for 35 years that equals 26.7% of costs.
Other 70% of costs paid for by government partners for the park and road improvements.
I don't own the building so after that 35 years I walk away from this development but I get to keep all the profits.

Why are CSEC the only ones who can access something like that?

 

[maestro]

$700 million over 35 years is a laughable matter. The naming rights alone are $17 million a year for the next 35 years. Ownership is a scam when the asset has no value without the team.

Making sense of the deal shouldn't be the point. It's about having the Flames in Calgary. Most top class arts and culture have hundreds of millions given to them for "world class" facilities with ticket prices that the majority of taxpayers can't afford. Sure there is a major difference. The Flames have a billionaire owner that could possibly debt finance a smaller, cost effective arena but, why would they when everyone else is getting handouts? We will continue to see more and more multi-billion dollar lavish builds for mainly the rich to enjoy until the whole continent rejects building stadiums to own and a pittance for annual rent.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

On another, kind of similar topic. Damn Rogers, don't make me defend TELUS.

Telus calls out Rogers for alleged unfair ad practices

Telus has accused Rogers of playing dirty an...

www.readthepeak.com

Driving the news: Telus filed a complaint with the CRTC, alleging that Rogers is unfairly denying advertising access on its platforms. Telus also accused Rogers of using its influence in the NHL to kill Telus ads at the stadium where the Calgary Flames play.