Call Bettman for interference in arena talks between Flames, city

NHL commissioner needs to stick to facts if he’s going to wade in on the discussion

While NHL commissioner Gary Bettman may be willing to play a role in Calgary’s arena negotiations, his comments here last week demonstrate why that’s a rather poor idea.

Bettman was in town following a stop in Edmonton, and naturally questions around the progress toward a new arena were front and centre. It should be remembered, of course, that the NHL commissioner is answerable to the NHL owners, so naturally his default position is to support what the owners support.

As the owners of the Flames have learned, however, what they want is not necessarily what they’ll get. That doesn’t mean, of course, that Calgary won’t ultimately have a new arena. Nor does it mean that there won’t be some public involvement and contribution. What this does mean is that the team does not get the first and final word on the matter.

Perhaps that should be relayed back to Bettman.

When asked last week about his own views on when Calgary ideally would need a new arena, Bettman answered “yesterday.”

This is a rather galling remark. First of all, everyone has known for a long time that the Flames’ lease in the Saddledome was due to end in 2014. We’ve been hearing rumours for at least a decade now about plans for a new arena. The timetable here has been entirely of the Flames’ own design.

Not only did it take until the summer of 2015 to table a proposal, the Flames selected land that would require years of cleanup. In fact, according to the city’s own report on CalgaryNEXT, remediating that creosote-contaminated land in the West Village would take anywhere from six to 10 years.

So city council waited patiently while the Flames considered options. Once a proposal was presented, the city took the time to study it and found it lacking in many ways. That then led to efforts to come up with a plan B, and negotiations on that front are continuing.

Bettman didn’t elaborate on how he thinks that should have otherwise unfolded.

The commissioner also made some curious claims about the economic impact of a new arena. Keep in mind, this is something that has been studied extensively by economists. As noted in a major 2008 study by economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys, “the evidence reveals … that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation.”

Nonetheless, Bettman boldly declared that a new Flames arena could be “the anchor … for revitalization or vitalization of the city.”

Bettman even offered an “if you build it, country star Garth Brooks will come” argument, holding up the nine sold-out shows last month in Edmonton as evidence of the benefits of these newer facilities. On this he is being disingenuous.

On his current tour, Brooks has played multiple shows at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit (built in 1979), U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati (built in 1975) and Royal Farms Arena in Baltimore (built in 1962). There’s no reason to think Brooks wouldn’t have also played in Edmonton’s old arena.

It’s long been known that the Saddledome’s roof poses problems for certain concert setups. That’s a design issue, though, and not an issue of age, egress, amenities or anything else Bettman was throwing out last week.

It should be noted, however, that the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nickelback, Def Leppard, Usher and OneRepublic are all set to play the Saddledome in the next few months.

The mayor’s office had once looked into the roof issue and was told by concert promoter LiveNation that Calgary probably loses out on two to five concerts a year. In a city with an annual GDP of over $100 billion, a few concerts a year seems fairly trivial, especially given that Calgarians have an array of other options when it comes to spending money on leisure and entertainment.

As the mayor said last week, “public money must be spent for public benefit.” These negotiations need to be honest and evidence-based.