Same old song and dance: Edmonton councillor who voted against arena deal says Calgary script a familiar one

It's not his city, or team, but Edmonton Coun. Tony Caterina certainly sees a familiar dance unfolding in the arena negotiations taking place between Calgary city council and the Calgary Flames, which will be an issuein the upcoming mayoral election.

Caterinaspoke Mondayto The Calgary Eyeopener, where he confirmed that when it comes to arena negotiations, the tone and tenor coming out of Calgary sounds an awful lot like what he heard in Edmonton, where the city and Oilers owner Darryl Katz fought for years before agreeing to a deal to finance the $613 million Rogers Centre, which opened to rave reviews in 2016.

Below is a condensed transcript of that conversation.

• FULL COVERAGE FROM CBC CALGARY| Calgary Election 2017
• MORE CALGARY NEWS|'You go in and get to smash stuff': Blow off some steam at rage room
• MORE CALGARY NEWS|Aging McMahon Stadium lost in the arena debate, fans say

Q. Does this sound familiar to you at all?

A.It's starting to sound awfully familiar. Certainly, the positions taken by each side is familiaras well. Each onewill have their opening negotiating issue toput on the table, and now the debate starts.

Q. How did that play out in Edmonton? I remember [Oilers owner] Darryl Katz making threats similar to the ones King made Friday [that the team could make more money elsewhere].

A This one is sort of veiled slightly, but basically [it's] the same sort of idea,the possibility of the Flames leaving Calgary to [play in] some other destination. That is always a tactic that's used to pull on the heartstrings andget that conversationandpublic sentiment on their side. It's a little more complicated than that. The NHL is governed by 30 governors andthey actually have to decide whether a team can actually move or not move, so that's the first thing that I would say to consider and this will be part of the negotiations.

Certainly, whoever gains the trust of the public, and the sentiment of the public, will probably be in a better position to negotiate.

Q. Didn't [Katz] threaten three times to move [the Oilers out of Edmonton]?

A.YesI believe it was three times. [Although he] did it slightly more openly than just a comment like that [from King]visited Quebec City, visited Seattle so there were a number of explicit suggestions that maybe the team might move if we didn't agree to certain terms.

Q. There's an argument going around that Calgarydoesn't need an arena as much as Edmonton did. Do you buy that?

A.I don't know what the condition of the Saddledome is in at this point, so I'll leave that to the experts thereto see why they, first of all,need a new rink in Calgary. And certainlly everyone wants the newest and shiniest andnow that Edmonton has it, it was only a matter of time before the request came in from our sister city in Calgary, and the time has come now. Someone will have to rationalize why a new arena is necessary andthat's going to be part of the selling of this new building to the public, to the city andto the Flames organization.

Q. During the arena debate, the argument was made thatEdmontonhas the oldest arena in the league the same argument that's being made here in Calgary. Was that a compelling argument in Edmonton?

A.For many it was a compelling argument. The old building that we had here still have has been estimated to have an additional50 years of life still in it, but certainly it didn't have the bells andwhistles, andit didn't have the size of the concourse that new NHL facilities have,and that's part of what the rationale is [for building a new arena]. The hockey surface [in a new arena] basically stays the same.

The seating basically stays the same.It might be a little bit bigger or more seating, but it's the concourse area that generates the revenue. That's what everyone [running pro sports franchises] is looking for,that bigger concourse, more restaurants, more bars, more souvenirshops. Think of it almost like another mall where people come andspend additional monies while they're at the game.

Q. You voted against the deal in Edmonton. Are you glad it went ahead? Has it made Edmontona better place?

A.I think it has (made Edmontona better place). The way we went was with that CRL,CommunityRevitalization Levy, which initially, no one knew exactly how that would work, if it would spur other development in an area where we really did want to see development happen. It was derelict for many many years, along an old CN Rail yard. At this point, I'm happy that the arena is built.

I was never opposed to the arena itself; I was actually opposed to the funding formula that was being proposed. At the end of the day, I didn't think that the City of Edmontongot the best deal that it could have when everything was said and done,but now that it is done, it's been a year, development has inccurred around it, and [there's] more to come, so from that aspect, it certainly has been a benefit to the city.

It's kept people working,jobs that were needed. And now there's such an excitement in the city because of this facility, that certainly I think it's working out OK,there's still time to go. CRLs go over a 20 year period. The first year, it's been good. It actually takes 20 years to pay back the moniesthat were used to build this.I hope that Calgarycan negotiate something that everyone both sides can be comfortable with and move on.

Q. Is the deal being pitched by Mayor Nenshi and the city a fair one?

A.On the surface, it sounds like a fair deal when you're splitting it three ways, but remember that onepart of this the three-thirds and I'm sure that's where Mr. King is coming from is the ticket tax, and that was an argument here as well too. That the ticket tax was actually the franchise's money being put in there as well too, so I guess you can look at it the way Mr. King is looking at it, which is that he's paying two-thirds of the split, not just the one-third.

With files from The Calgary Eyeopener

• MORE CALGARY NEWS|