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

Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 103 67.3%

  • No

    Votes: 40 26.1%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 10 6.5%
  • Total voters
    153
outoftheice said:
Would the Stampede be able to finance the Flames' share and try to recoup the money via rent and a ticket tax?
Click to expand...
If Gondek and the rest of council is gonna be pushing the other partners narrative, that would make sense. It is on Stampede lands after all, and I imagine they would have exclusive rights during Stampede time, as well may be interested in having some extra nights outside of that. If they are invested enough in the project, it might be something they could help fund, and get piece of the revenue.

AFAIK, they didn't directly contribute any money towards the BMO Expansion correct? That's purely from all level of gov't?
 
Here is my suggestion…

City: $300 million. City owns the arena. Collects no property tax. Receives yearly rent from the Flames and half the naming rights.

Flames: $300 million. Receives all revenues from events (minus stampede events) and half the naming rights. Pays no property tax but pays rent to the city and maintains the building.

Stampede: $25 million. Receives exclusive usage time (Stampede and a few other occasions) to host events and collect all revenue from those events. Collects parking revenue from Stampede lots.

Outside Sources/Investors as per Gondek: $25 million. They get a cut of certain events.

Total: $650 million dollar arena (with parkade removed).
 
Joborule said:
If Gondek and the rest of council is gonna be pushing the other partners narrative, that would make sense. It is on Stampede lands after all, and I imagine they would have exclusive rights during Stampede time, as well may be interested in having some extra nights outside of that. If they are invested enough in the project, it might be something they could help fund, and get piece of the revenue.

AFAIK, they didn't directly contribute any money towards the BMO Expansion correct? That's purely from all level of gov't?
Click to expand...
It is on city land - the Saddledome is on city land and the land was to be swapped with the Stampede.

In the end, the city would need to sign off on a large loan to the Stampede for the Stampede being the partner to work. $160 million came from the ticket tax.

Also, despite the Stampede's weird status, it is in effect a City QUANGO - Quasi Non-Government Organization. The city stops supporting their grant applications, the city revokes its land's tax status, and it reverts to full city control. That this hasn't happened, or won't, doesn't mean the city in effect exercises control over the Stampede.
 
Last edited:
The Familia said:
Here is my suggestion…

City: $300 million. City owns the arena. Collects no property tax. Receives yearly rent from the Flames and half the naming rights.

Flames: $300 million. Receives all revenues from events (minus stampede events) and half the naming rights. Pays no property tax but pays rent to the city and maintains the building.

Stampede: $25 million. Receives exclusive usage time (Stampede and a few other occasions) to host events and collect all revenue from those events. Collects parking revenue from Stampede lots.

Outside Sources/Investors as per Gondek: $25 million. They get a cut of certain events.

Total: $650 million dollar arena (with parkade removed).
Click to expand...
The Flames want all the revenue and don't want to pay rent or property taxes lol. Such a great organization!
 
Mountain Man said:
The Flames want all the revenue and don't want to pay rent or property taxes lol. Such a great organization!
Click to expand...
When they paid rent on the Saddledome, the city lost $9 million+ a year operating it. And the City as the operator, didn't pay property taxes to itself. So when the Flames took over as tenant-operator, the City freed up $9 million a year (1995 dollars), and due to the nature of the lease, they needed to give a tax exemption, or else the deal would have left the city far ahead from where it was. Also there is difficulty in assessing how much a building like that is actually worth.

In the failed deal, in effect they are paying rent, just as an upfront cash payment.

Let me pitch a deal.
  • The City pays 100% for the agreed scope of the Event Centre ($633.9 million + CPC Climate and Pedestrian Costs).
  • The tenant-operator pays 100% for items above the agreed scope of the Event Centre.
  • The tenant-operator pays 100% for construction cost overruns beyond built in contingency for the Event Centre.
  • The tenant-operator pays 100% of the operating, maintenance and repair costs, other than major structural repairs.
  • The tenant-operator pays rent and taxes of $21.85 million per year ($764.8 million).
Now does that sound better or worse than the deal which collapsed?

It may surprise you, but the deal above in the bullets, is the deal which collapsed, just structured differently financially.
 
A shame that he his offer wasn’t seemingly considered, particularly by C-SEC, prior to the plug being pulled on the deal. It might have bought the parties some time to come up with a reasonable solution agreeable to by all parties!
 
Here's a general question regarding the future of an arena in general. Even with this deal falling through, are we likely to see another run at this in a few years, or sooner? It's my understanding that there is concern over the longevity of the Saddledome's structure..... something to do with the roof only being good for another 10-20 years, or something?
 
Surrealplaces said:
Here's a general question regarding the future of an arena in general. Even with this deal falling through, are we likely to see another run at this in a few years, or sooner? It's my understanding that there is concern over the longevity of the Saddledome's structure..... something to do with the roof only being good for another 10-20 years, or something?
Click to expand...
There is the roof (replacing cables - given that some have snapped and not been replaced it seems they were not designed to be replaced very easily). And there is the perimeter ring - where the cables are hung.


I imagine when there is a serious look at doing this work, it comes in much more, like, if we want 20-40 years out of it, the roof has to come off, the ring refurbished, and then the roof placed back on. While that is being done it probably makes sense to have a new building envelope system as well, so the interfaces can be designed. Then the question once get get this "true cost", should we just bite the bullet and build a new roof over the old roof, which can support modern concert gear, and then decommission the old roof? This would look so weird but sure it is possible.

The numbers we have are to just keep it sound in the medium term. If we want to restore it to '20 year old condition', and extend the life indefinitely, there will be major costs.

Like we will need to replace the ice plant, entirely. Including jackhammering up the slab and re-pouring the concrete.

And that isn't even talking about any interior non-structural renovations on CSEC's part.

It doesn't take very many projects to add up to more than the city's net contribution to the new arena.
 
darwink said:
There is the roof (replacing cables - given that some have snapped and not been replaced it seems they were not designed to be replaced very easily). And there is the perimeter ring - where the cables are hung.


I imagine when there is a serious look at doing this work, it comes in much more, like, if we want 20-40 years out of it, the roof has to come off, the ring refurbished, and then the roof placed back on. While that is being done it probably makes sense to have a new building envelope system as well, so the interfaces can be designed. Then the question once get get this "true cost", should we just bite the bullet and build a new roof over the old roof, which can support modern concert gear, and then decommission the old roof? This would look so weird but sure it is possible.

The numbers we have are to just keep it sound in the medium term. If we want to restore it to '20 year old condition', and extend the life indefinitely, there will be major costs.

Like we will need to replace the ice plant, entirely. Including jackhammering up the slab and re-pouring the concrete.

And that isn't even talking about any interior non-structural renovations on CSEC's part.

It doesn't take very many projects to add up to more than the city's net contribution to the new arena.
Click to expand...
Sounds like at the end of the day we will need a new arena.

Anyone have any ideas on what the chances are of the team moving to another city? Outside of Houston or Quebec.... or maybe Portland, what other cities would be candidates for a new team?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top