Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:14 PM
Stinky Buffalo's Avatar
Stinky Buffalo Stinky Buffalo is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A bit North o' Center...
Posts: 11,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elk396 View Post
Like I said earlier in this thread, move to timbuktu, watch some 'c' hockey at the local barn, no concerns over tax dollars toward a pro hockey team. Sit on the porch and pick your teeth with your three dogs at your feet.
You may laugh, but that concept appeals to me...
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:23 PM
The Elkster The Elkster is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default

If we are talking community benefits Calgary would be way better served by taking the same money and building multiple arena's around Calgary for amateur sport. I have a much easier time accepting tax breaks for amateur sports as well.

The idea Calgary needs a pro team is laughable. Kids will aspire to hockey hero's whether Calgary has a team or not. There is such a thing as TV where 95% of fans without big $'s build their passion for the game. Lots of hockey players and fans in Sask go figure. Even with a pro team Calgary is not a high roller city and never will be. Geographic limitations and weather will always limit its draw to newcomers and how its viewed against seaside cities like San Fran, LA and Vancouver. A pro team does diddly squat to change that.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:27 PM
lmtada's Avatar
lmtada lmtada is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,049
Default

Calgary Saddledome history. Am I for it? Was against Edmonton arena. New arena nice. However the cost > effect. Old arena was good for fifty+ years. Heck Romes old coliseum still brings in money with no power, upkeep, or teams. Been going hard for thousand years. Best investment ever. Calgary citizens should make the choice. However 30+ years is not old.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrS...bf9skL3VNdv7c-
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:30 PM
tacomama's Avatar
tacomama tacomama is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elk396 View Post
Like I said earlier in this thread, move to timbuktu, watch some 'c' hockey at the local barn, no concerns over tax dollars toward a pro hockey team. Sit on the porch and pick your teeth with your three dogs at your feet.
And you forgot to say:
count the extra money in my account due to lower taxes which are not paying to help a multi-million dollar hockey team put a bunch of over-paid guys on ice and make money off the tax payers.


I am all for a new arena as I think Calgary could use it, but no way in hell that the tax payers should be involved in this. The revenue this place would generate and the flames and NHL should pay for this, not us.
If there are people that want their tax money to pay for this, maybe set up a go fund me or something. Just a thought. I would rather the city spend my tax money on crappy roads that need repairs and other more vital services.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:52 PM
JB_AOL JB_AOL is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wags View Post
Read up on Auston Matthews. If you haven't heard of him, last year's No. 1 pick by the Toronto Maple Leafs. Grew up in Arizona. ONLY played hockey because of the Arizona team, and specifically, looking up to his idol, Shane Doan. If not for the hockey team, he would have played baseball.
And what would be wrong with that? Probably would've made more money & played longer. But it doesn't fit your agenda.

Michael Jordan was my idol growing up.. Guess what.. Calgary (even Canada) not having a local NBA team didn't prevent me from loving the sport, or playing. Hell while most people were playing ice hockey on the lake, I was playing basketball outside on the driveway.. Yes, even at -25C. Did I play high ranking bball, no.

But that's not the point. Kid's will have idols from all different walks of life. I bet if you walked Edmonton (prior to last year) and asked kids who their hockey idol was, chances are very good it wasn't an oiler.

But I've said my piece..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-13-2017, 01:00 PM
wags's Avatar
wags wags is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 2,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB_AOL View Post
And what would be wrong with that? Probably would've made more money & played longer. But it doesn't fit your agenda.

Michael Jordan was my idol growing up.. Guess what.. Calgary (even Canada) not having a local NBA team didn't prevent me from loving the sport, or playing. Hell while most people were playing ice hockey on the lake, I was playing basketball outside on the driveway.. Yes, even at -25C. Did I play high ranking bball, no.

But that's not the point. Kid's will have idols from all different walks of life. I bet if you walked Edmonton (prior to last year) and asked kids who their hockey idol was, chances are very good it wasn't an oiler.

But I've said my piece..
You said it would have zero affect on kids. I'm saying I completely disagree with that. I don't disagree with a lot that you're saying, but to say zero affect just isn't right. I also disagree with your statement about kids. Some would certainly have other idols, MANY would have been Oilers. Just like many in Calgary are Flames, just as many in Winnipeg were Jets - many, many more now.

My kids get visits from the Red Deer Rebels in their school. Guess who their sports idols are? Not anyone from the Moose Jaw Warriors.

If the Flames leave, it will hurt the city, it will hurt the fanbase, and it will affect kids to some degree.

As I said earlier - LOTS of jobs are created through this, and LOTS of jobs are lost if they leave.

It's not just about the Flames and their owner.

Cheers
__________________
~Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths.~
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-13-2017, 01:37 PM
JB_AOL JB_AOL is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wags View Post
You said it would have zero affect on kids. I'm saying I completely disagree with that. I don't disagree with a lot that you're saying, but to say zero affect just isn't right. I also disagree with your statement about kids. Some would certainly have other idols, MANY would have been Oilers. Just like many in Calgary are Flames, just as many in Winnipeg were Jets - many, many more now.

My kids get visits from the Red Deer Rebels in their school. Guess who their sports idols are? Not anyone from the Moose Jaw Warriors.
Fair enough, but you missed my point. Kid's are always influenced on who to idolize by parents/teachers/peers/etc, they don't care if there idols are "local".

For example, If I watched oiler's games, cheered for the oilers, and had oiler's paraphernalia everywhere in my house, chances are very good, my kid's will cheer for them and usually become lifelong idols, yes, even if I live in Calgary. Trust me, I've seen it time and time again. Does having a local team help, IMHE kid's don't care. I have relatives that travel 6 hours to watch an oilers game,.. But don't think the kids won't just find another idol if the local team disappears, it's parents that will struggle.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:06 PM
couleefolk couleefolk is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 869
Default

So if the venues all bring so much money in, there is no reason that investors should not be the ones building a new arena, not the taxpayers. All the folks that would benefit financially from the venues would probably love to invest. Everyone transits on roads, so everyone should contribute in cases like that. One would think that if the old arena had made a great return on investment, that they could use that return to move forward at this point and leave the taxes for more important public things.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:19 PM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by couleefolk View Post
So if the venues all bring so much money in, there is no reason that investors should not be the ones building a new arena, not the taxpayers.
To a certain extent yes, but it is kinda difficult for an investor to expect any kind of return on a CRL, increased property taxes, etc. I have no doubt that if an investor could capitalize on 100% of the return a building like this brings, the Calgary Flames would have people lining up at the door.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:30 PM
DocMcgillicuddy DocMcgillicuddy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elk396 View Post
Ya, lets let them sit on the couch and play video games. I love seeing the new generation of 500 lb whales when you walk down the street these days, with two or three dogs in tow. The parents that choose the sideline option. You're completely right, screw hockey, complete waste of time.

Wait why is it hockey or fat and video games? There's definitely no fat hockey fans correct?

I don't really like hockey at all but I'd like it if people could see some sort of plan outlining the benefits (quantitative and qualitative) as well as risks and timelines. I think the public has a right to know what the impacts could be instead of just bickering or making vague unresearched claims.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:37 PM
jcrayford jcrayford is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Usually the office, but the bush when I can
Posts: 1,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoaltender View Post
As a club minor hockey coach I can vouch for this. For those of you who have not been around minor hockey its sickening what some parents put their kids through. Or what some parents are willing to do to get the kid to that next level.
Not isolated to one or two sports; have seen this happen in many different sports

J.
__________________
My $0.02.... Please feel free to take my comments with a grain of salt
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:52 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
Ok.. Step up and buy them... Should be around 500,000,000
That will go over well with the Artsy crowd
You missed the point I think.

If they expect the city (which really means the taxpayers) to fund a new arena, this funding should be exchanged for equity in the Flames organization.

The combined organization (the team and building), upon completion of the arena, would be consolidated.

This, of course, handcuffs the organization to the city (because you can't just pick up and move an arena).

The city can also grant tax abatements on the lease of the land and further the stake into this consolidation.

That forces King to put his money where his mouth is.

You NEED a new arena, and want TAXPAYERS, to buy YOU one ....... cool, then we will execute a fair market valuation of the team, invest the capital to build an arena, grant an tax abatement for the property lease, and the valuation of that capital expenditure plus abatement value will be calculated into an equity position ( % of ownership ) where the city and TAXPAYERS can either share in the benefit, or suffer the same pain as the balance of the ownership group.

Easy solution.

But, of course, like any good crook knows, King isn't looking for a fair deal, he is looking for a deal to benefit himself.

I bet his jaw would hit the floor. lol.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:55 PM
barsik barsik is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: boyle,ab
Posts: 739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacomama View Post
And you forgot to say:
count the extra money in my account due to lower taxes which are not paying to help a multi-million dollar hockey team put a bunch of over-paid guys on ice and make money off the tax payers.


I am all for a new arena as I think Calgary could use it, but no way in hell that the tax payers should be involved in this. The revenue this place would generate and the flames and NHL should pay for this, not us.
If there are people that want their tax money to pay for this, maybe set up a go fund me or something. Just a thought. I would rather the city spend my tax money on crappy roads that need repairs and other more vital services.

this is the issue folks. sports, music, or anything with the keyword "play" in it, like play hockey or play guitar is just simply entertainment. none of the athletes, artists, owners, or anyone in between is going to find the cure for cancer, while those who are most likely to find a cure are underfunded, as are the overwhelming majority of people who really can make society a better place. the owners and the "media?" will be seen on the TV screen making their case for civic pride and other emotional reasons, but the real underlying fact is that sports and other entertainment has evolved from exercise,skill, and "talent" to big business, and must be bright and shiny so that it can attract people like moths to a porch light. just an astute and manipulative car salesman making his pitch to sell his players to the masses for money.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:43 PM
midgetwaiter midgetwaiter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,779
Default

Count me among the people that are at least uncomfortable with the idea of using public money on stadiums. However when I find out that the city not only offered to cover 1/3 but they also offered to setup a ticket levy for a further 1/3 of the cost but the Flames still pull this pouty stunt my opinion moves from uncomfortable to absolutely opposed.

Good riddance
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:52 PM
calgarychef calgarychef is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wags View Post
You said it would have zero affect on kids. I'm saying I completely disagree with that. I don't disagree with a lot that you're saying, but to say zero affect just isn't right. I also disagree with your statement about kids. Some would certainly have other idols, MANY would have been Oilers. Just like many in Calgary are Flames, just as many in Winnipeg were Jets - many, many more now.

My kids get visits from the Red Deer Rebels in their school. Guess who their sports idols are? Not anyone from the Moose Jaw Warriors.

If the Flames leave, it will hurt the city, it will hurt the fanbase, and it will affect kids to some degree.

As I said earlier - LOTS of jobs are created through this, and LOTS of jobs are lost if they leave.

It's not just about the Flames and their owner.

Cheers
Cities who have lost their teams actually report very little job loss.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:55 PM
calgarychef calgarychef is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,667
Default

I'd be all for the city paying 100%mof the building costs. Let the flames play their little games for a nominal fee like um a dollar a game. Keep the ticket sales, beer sales and concessions for the owner (taxpayers) ...the team can have the TV rights.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:03 PM
mlami991 mlami991 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2
Default

I think we all forget these "selfish billionaire owners" contribute tons of money to the city of Calgary. Calgary hospitals have some of the best wards in the WORLD due to funding from current and former Flames philanthropists/owners. I guarantee we all know someone that has benefited from this.

Their golf tournament just raised over 300K for the Calgary flames foundation which helps "support health and wellness, education, and amateur and grassroots sports."

Many of these owners have chosen to live and call Calgary there home and they pay more taxes in a year than most people make in a year.

I do think that some tax payer money should go towards the new arena/complex. There have been so many projects (bike lanes, art work, LRT, downtown library, ETC.) that I have paid through my taxes, which I will never use or benefit from. Why not some of my tax money go towards a new arena where I can watch the flames and concerts a few times a year.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:07 PM
sillyak sillyak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lacombe, AB
Posts: 1,404
Default

Honest question. Why is an area's lifespan only 30 years? Is it structurally unsafe? It has seats and an ice surface, what's wrong with it?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:10 PM
Sundog57 Sundog57 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 651
Default

When the NHL decided to go to Las Friggin Vegas instead of Quebec or Hamilton it told you everything you needed to know about what the NHL and the Owners think about Canadian fans
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:16 PM
hayseed's Avatar
hayseed hayseed is online now
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundog57 View Post
When the NHL decided to go to Las Friggin Vegas instead of Quebec or Hamilton it told you everything you needed to know about what the NHL and the Owners think about Canadian fans
It tells me no one wants to play in Quebec, and that we don't need three teams in Ontario...
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:26 PM
lmtada's Avatar
lmtada lmtada is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sillyak View Post
Honest question. Why is an area's lifespan only 30 years? Is it structurally unsafe? It has seats and an ice surface, what's wrong with it?
Good question. According to stats this rink holds >19,000 fans.
Calgary :

Capacity Ice hockey:
16,605 (1983–1988)
20,240 (1988–1995)
19,289 (1995–present)
Field size 474,000 square feet (44,000 m2)

Edmonton new Arena holds 18,500

Capacity Hockey: 18,347
Basketball: 19,500
Concert: 20,734
Field size

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO...psa5aWkeThdd0-
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:30 PM
normstad normstad is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sillyak View Post
Honest question. Why is an area's lifespan only 30 years? Is it structurally unsafe? It has seats and an ice surface, what's wrong with it?

Good question. The Edmonton Coliseum is now 40 years old (yeah, I was surprised). Rather than using it or renovating it, apparently it is cheaper to tear it down at a cost of $8 million that keeping it. Doesn't make sense to me, but council voted unanimously to close it and tear it down.

The Saddledome is 34 years old now with some well documented problems. What is the best solution? Heck if I know, but I doubt the synergies that existed in Edmonton can be applied to Calgary for a complete redevelopment.

Don't forget, in Edmonton, there are a massive number of new office towers, hotels and condominiums that Katz is developing. This development just is not feasible in Calgary, and may not be for decades.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:40 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default That's why

Quote:
Originally Posted by badger View Post
I still find it hard to stomach that billionaires expect and get subsidies from taxpayers. Civic pride has value but not to the point of enriching the super wealthy.
That's why they are wealthy, they don't lose money, everything is operated to generate a ROI, and just for the record....none of the owners of the Flames are billionaires....not even close. Yes they are wealthy and there is nothing wrong with that they earned it. Why would anyone stay in Calgary when you can get a better deal in Québec, Kansas, Seattle. Calgary either steps up to the plate or we all become Oiler fans, Edmonton is a far better place for NHL, they have less whiners and a beautiful new facility. Calgary has the oldest and poorest NHL facility, and the absolute worst CFL facility McMahon is an absolute embarrassment.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-13-2017, 05:31 PM
Stustage Stustage is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
I am not in favor of the taxpayers paying to subsidize a privately owned franchise, but I would rather see that than wasting $500k on an abomination along the roadway that they call art.
my sentiments exact'y how many piece of sh*t public art installations are we going to have to see in this city??

maybebKen King should put the arena idea forward as it being art?

not to mention would help in a future winter Olympics bid.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-13-2017, 05:37 PM
bobinthesky bobinthesky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between the mountains and the prairies.
Posts: 1,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
That's why they are wealthy, they don't lose money, everything is operated to generate a ROI, and just for the record....none of the owners of the Flames are billionaires....not even close. Yes they are wealthy and there is nothing wrong with that they earned it. Why would anyone stay in Calgary when you can get a better deal in Québec, Kansas, Seattle. Calgary either steps up to the plate or we all become Oiler fans, Edmonton is a far better place for NHL, they have less whiners and a beautiful new facility. Calgary has the oldest and poorest NHL facility, and the absolute worst CFL facility McMahon is an absolute embarrassment.


At last count Murray Edwards is worth 2.8 billion!

Clay Riddle, 3.3 billion plus.
__________________
Life is too short too shoot ugly guns.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-13-2017, 05:58 PM
ORV's Avatar
ORV ORV is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vulcan County
Posts: 1,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
That's why they are wealthy, they don't lose money, everything is operated to generate a ROI, and just for the record....none of the owners of the Flames are billionaires....not even close. Yes they are wealthy and there is nothing wrong with that they earned it. Why would anyone stay in Calgary when you can get a better deal in Québec, Kansas, Seattle. Calgary either steps up to the plate or we all become Oiler fans, Edmonton is a far better place for NHL, they have less whiners and a beautiful new facility. Calgary has the oldest and poorest NHL facility, and the absolute worst CFL facility McMahon is an absolute embarrassment.
x10 regina winterpeg Toronto all have new stadiums
we have a piece of crap stadium that is over 50 years old!!!
are you frigginn kidding me.this is Calgary!!
we cant do better than regina for a stadium
you are correct it is embarrassing & as a stamps
fan for life I am ashamed of it.

Orv
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-13-2017, 06:23 PM
Jadham Jadham is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 854
Default

I agree with EZM's post.

If King wants taxpayers to pay, then he should not be opposed to giving up part of the revenue stream.

Places like Vancouver and Toronto did not require significant investment by the city to build their arenas... the owner/investment group funded it themselves.

As for the "spin-off" economics... why don't we build some head offices instead and give them to a company (heard Google was looking)? That would provide far more jobs and investment than an arena.

But all this sounds extremely "socialist" to me, whether it is a taxpayer funded pro sports arena or an office building.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-13-2017, 06:24 PM
bobinthesky bobinthesky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between the mountains and the prairies.
Posts: 1,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ORV View Post
x10 regina winterpeg Toronto all have new stadiums
we have a piece of crap stadium that is over 50 years old!!!
are you frigginn kidding me.this is Calgary!!
we cant do better than regina for a stadium
you are correct it is embarrassing & as a stamps
fan for life I am ashamed of it.

Orv

Well, it's over 30 years old anyway..... it was built in 1983...
__________________
Life is too short too shoot ugly guns.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-13-2017, 06:27 PM
elk396 elk396 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 511
Default

Does anyone have an idea of the numbers to build a new facility? How much would each tax payer actually incur? That might nip the whining in the bud? From what I'm hearing on this thread, it's sounding like a pile of extra tax money headed to the tax payers? It has to be significant when I see the comments, or many just plain hate the idea of keeping the team.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-13-2017, 06:35 PM
Jadham Jadham is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elk396 View Post
Does anyone have an idea of the numbers to build a new facility? How much would each tax payer actually incur? That might nip the whining in the bud? From what I'm hearing on this thread, it's sounding like a pile of extra tax money headed to the tax payers? It has to be significant when I see the comments, or many just plain hate the idea of keeping the team.
Well they have discussed a few different sites and plans. The Herald stated the more expensive proposal was $1 800 000 000.

Probably most people "don't plain hate", they just don't care/ambivalent.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.