BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Need a breakdown on which arenas in the league was privately funded.
I got Seattle, Islanders, Vegas, LA (I think), Toronto (I think), Columbus (I think) and who else?
Calgary city council approves arena deal (UPD: new deal upcoming?)
- Thread starter cbcwpg
- Start date
- Status
I got Seattle, Islanders, Vegas, LA (I think), Toronto (I think), Columbus (I think) and who else?
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
There’s more to it than that. Just about every arena project ends up getting some sort of public assistance. From gifting the land to providing tax breaks in various forms.
Only way you can honestly assess it is by determining what kind of return does the public get over the long term for its investment.
I think Arizona is still planning on a privately funded arena in Tempe and I seem to recall that back in the 90's Vancouver's arena was privately funded.
That's the problem with the previous arena deal here in Calgary - there was no way the city was going to recover its investment. I think we would have recovered half by about the 30 year point. The Flames were demanding everything and giving the city only pennies on the dollar in return. It was insane and one would have expected a more competent city council to say no from the beginning.
ForsbergForever
Registered User
- May 19, 2004
- 3,360
- 2,107
Bell (originally Molson) Centre was funded by the Molson family. The City of Montreal thanked them by handing them a $25M per year property tax bill.
Boris Zubov
No relation to Sergei, Joe
They should pay taxes. As should the Calgary Flames when they complete their privately funded arena. If Calgary City Council finally does the right thing and forces them to build and pay for their own arena.
Is it not possible for Calgary city council to negotiate a better deal this time around if they're asked to kick in taxpayer money so that they could make some sort of profit off of it? Also is there a reason why they can't simply renovate the Saddledome since its kind of an iconic landmark for Calgary? At least for me it is.
Is the Saddledome location bad or would it cost too much to renovate? Or do the Flames owners just want a new arena to play in?
Is it not possible for Calgary city council to negotiate a better deal this time around if they're asked to kick in taxpayer money so that they could make some sort of profit off of it? Also is there a reason why they can't simply renovate the Saddledome since its kind of an iconic landmark for Calgary? At least for me it is.
Is the Saddledome location bad or would it cost too much to renovate? Or do the Flames owners just want a new arena to play in?
Our council simply isn't up to the task of negotiating a fair deal. The first thing we would need is a bullet proof ticket tax of about 6%. - which I think is the number Edmonton made with the Oilers. Our last council could only come up with 2% and that was useless. We also need a 50/50 share of all revenues. The Flames are demanding all of the revenues. We also need everyone going to and from arena events to pay their transit fares. The Flames are demanding free rides for transit users going to and from events.
We can renovate the Saddledome but the Flames simply don't want us to because they want the money. They want to make ever more profits from this already lucrative market. I don't think there are any structural problems with the Saddledome and it really isn't an old building. Lots of us live in houses and apartments far older than the Saddledome. The location of the Saddledome is ideal with one huge advantage being that it's right on a train line leading both north and south into the burbs.
Stumbledore
Registered User
Those must be recent developments as I read the arena was going to be built with private money.
Here's a great column I found that confirms your number:
Arizona Coyotes gave Glendale a raw deal. And Tempe wants to repeat it?
A close look at the Arizona Coyotes' proposal shows Tempe has little to gain and lots at risk. Ask Glendale how the team worked out for their city.
www.azcentral.com
Tempe would be insane to give the Coyotes what they are demanding. This has yet another disaster written all over it.
Cities across North America really need to start saying no to organizations demanding public money for sports facilities. The across the board principle is simple - zero tax dollars for arenas. Teams should build, pay for and pay taxes on their own arenas.
Last edited:
Stumbledore
Registered User
Not a recent development, but recently revealed. Some developers think that by calling their subsidy "tax abatements", the public won't realize that it's coming out of their own pockets.
www.azcentral.com/story/sports/2022/10/24/coyotes-prepare-tempe-debut-what-know-new-arena-plans/10536129002/
Boy - what a way to build a new relationship with a city.
This is an obvious no for taxpayers.
Boris Zubov
No relation to Sergei, Joe
As obvious as it is, maybe someday people will start to catch on.
Watching this Calgary situation from close in I no longer have those hopes. City Councils are going to do what they usually do - mess up. Our council here in Calgary is desperate to throw money away on a deal that doesn't need to be and shouldn't be made - full stop.
The Flames are a rich organization in an extremely lucrative market but that doesn't seem to be stopping our so-called leaders from making a legendary mistake.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Madison Square Garden has a property tax exemption. United Center has a property tax break for 20+ years that I believe is now expired.
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
Those must be recent developments as I read the arena was going to be built with private money.
Here's a great column I found that confirms your number:
Arizona Coyotes gave Glendale a raw deal. And Tempe wants to repeat it?
A close look at the Arizona Coyotes' proposal shows Tempe has little to gain and lots at risk. Ask Glendale how the team worked out for their city.
Tempe would be insane to give the Coyotes what they are demanding. This has yet another disaster written all over it.
Cities across North America really need to start saying no to organizations demanding public money for sports facilities. The across the board principle is simple - zero tax dollars for arenas. Teams should build, pay for and pay taxes on their own arenas.
I responded to this in the other thread already but reckon I should do it here as well before it gets twisted even further than it already has.
That article was an op-ed from a state legislator who happens to represent Tempe. She based her assumptions on the details of the original proposal, did a little presumptive math and added some of her own spin into the mix.
The reality is.... the proposal has changed since then. By a lot. Anyone who had read all the info out there from the original proposal and watched the June 2nd Tempe council meeting would know that if they were paying attention.
However..... IMNSHO.... the generalization that a tax abatement is automatically removing money directly out of the pockets of taxpayers is a red herring. Unless you have ALL the facts surrounding how the abatement mechanism is constructed. No two are ever constructed the same way, and in the current case of the Coyotes and Tempe, nobody knows yet what the terms are in that case.
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
I recall Crypto.com Arena (aka Staples) got some help from LA. Article I'm reading on another tab talks about $70 million in municipal securities were used.
Article goes on to explain how the developers worked to appease the opposition from some city council members who were against using any taxpayer funding at all.
Pretty good read actually. I've seen some similarities how they got it done to what Meruelo is currently doing.
Arena Developers Adopt a Strategy of Disclosure
Sports: Acting in response to Wachs' proposed initiative, they reiterate that taxpayer money is not at risk.
www.latimes.com
In Calgary's case the first deal was very similar to the demands published by a national newspaper in two critical stories on the topic. My guess is that the deal made between Tempe and the Coyotes will include many of the same elements and should still be a worry to residents and voters.
Side Note: In this morning's Calgary Herald there was a letter suggesting that the city should sell bonds to help pay their share of the arena. I would twist that to suggest that, because the city should have no share in this project, it's the Flames who need to be selling shares. They could welcome private investors into their circle so that us taxpayers won't have to have our money thrown away. If the arena is such a great deal then there should be no problem lining people up willing to invest in it.
Last edited:
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I would like to see a Seattle-style reno. Keep the roof, replace everything underneath.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 26,072
- 13,472
I would support this if the project was paid for by Flames owners and their investment partners.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
I love the Saddledome against the Calgary skyline, but I understand there are serious issues with the design of the roof. It has lousy acoustics and when you sit in the nosebleeds the dip of the saddle actually blocks the view of the entire scoreboard.
Not to mention the Seattle-style reno/rebuild was crazy expensive. Just building from scratch and then demoing the Saddledome would be cheaper.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Scoreboards were different then. And who goes to a game to watch the scoreboard? Focus on the ice people.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
F Trevor Connelly - Providence College, Hockey East (2024, 19th, VGK)- Latest: Honour Over Glory
-
GDT: Game #16: Carolina vs Utah HC - 7:00pm MST - Utah16, UtahHC+- Latest: Summer Rose
-
Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | The Oilers Biggest Roster Need Is?- Latest: TopShelfGloveSide
-
