HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

Edmonton rejects Oiler [Arena] bid for more taxpayer dollars

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-20-2012, 02:46 AM
  #101
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
There is no good or justifiable reason whatsoever for someone like Katz to NOT want deal details made public. If that's the case, it's a huge red flag.

This sounds more and more like the situation in Arizona.
It's because city council themselves told Katz to keep this information confidential.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 10:32 AM
  #102
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
It's because city council themselves told Katz to keep this information confidential.
You have any evidence of that? It seems like Katz is the one upset that the information leaked. It makes sense that the negotiations happen off stage but I get the sense that Katz was trying to get every last dime he could out of the city and when that happened city councillors got irate. He can ask for whatever he wants behind closed doors and not worry that his requests may seem unreasonable, when it gets out in the open things change.

I'm pro-arena and I hope something gets done but I think even the original framework the city agreed to is a sweetheart deal for him. By trying to get every penny he can out of the deal he's losing sympathy with many who supported him.

Halibut is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 11:54 AM
  #103
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 500
Ok, here's my plan:

Edmonton pays me to build an arena/office complex/unicorn petting zoo. I'll put up some money of course - btw: can I borrow that money I'm putting up from the City of Edmonton? Cool! Thanks!

The city should also pay me a couple of million a year for advertising "Edmonton" (and hey, just 'cause I like you, I'll include "Edmonton" in the NHL franchise name - Edmonton Oilers...good? Good!). I'm sure the unicorn petting zoo will draw lots of visitors and really clean up downtown, too.

Oh, and I'll also need some extra money to cover operating expenses on my free arena...you know what Zamboni drivers are making these days? How does $6 million/year sound? Coincidentally, that should more than cover my annual loan payment to the city ($5.5 million/year)!

Also, that office complex? Gonna need tenants - wait a minute! How about you move city administration in there and pay me rent?

There are a few other minor details...casino revenues, tax collected on events at Northlands after the new arena's built (and paid to me), etc.

And if you don't like this deal, I'm moving the team to Hamilton. Maybe they'll appreciate the charms of a perennially terrible NHL lottery pick franchise!

Smackdaddy, I assume you're totally down with this plan?

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 01:24 PM
  #104
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,141
vCash: 500
The Oilers aren't going anywhere. Despite Katz's claims, the market is one of the ten best in the NHL right now.

I think the best thing Oilers fans can do is wait this out and hope Katz sells the team to somebody more reasonable. I'm getting the impression that's what he wants to do regardless, but he wants to inflate the team's value by getting the city to build him a stadium first.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 01:25 PM
  #105
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
You have any evidence of that? It seems like Katz is the one upset that the information leaked. It makes sense that the negotiations happen off stage but I get the sense that Katz was trying to get every last dime he could out of the city and when that happened city councillors got irate. He can ask for whatever he wants behind closed doors and not worry that his requests may seem unreasonable, when it gets out in the open things change.

I'm pro-arena and I hope something gets done but I think even the original framework the city agreed to is a sweetheart deal for him. By trying to get every penny he can out of the deal he's losing sympathy with many who supported him.
It was in the interview I posted.

http://oilers.nhl.com/club/podcastpl...d=98&iid=40211

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 01:30 PM
  #106
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
Ok, here's my plan:

Edmonton pays me to build an arena/office complex/unicorn petting zoo. I'll put up some money of course - btw: can I borrow that money I'm putting up from the City of Edmonton? Cool! Thanks!

The city should also pay me a couple of million a year for advertising "Edmonton" (and hey, just 'cause I like you, I'll include "Edmonton" in the NHL franchise name - Edmonton Oilers...good? Good!). I'm sure the unicorn petting zoo will draw lots of visitors and really clean up downtown, too.

Oh, and I'll also need some extra money to cover operating expenses on my free arena...you know what Zamboni drivers are making these days? How does $6 million/year sound? Coincidentally, that should more than cover my annual loan payment to the city ($5.5 million/year)!

Also, that office complex? Gonna need tenants - wait a minute! How about you move city administration in there and pay me rent?

There are a few other minor details...casino revenues, tax collected on events at Northlands after the new arena's built (and paid to me), etc.

And if you don't like this deal, I'm moving the team to Hamilton. Maybe they'll appreciate the charms of a perennially terrible NHL lottery pick franchise!

Smackdaddy, I assume you're totally down with this plan?
It's just more uninformed ignorant rabble. Everything you said, minus asking the city to be a tenant, is either taken out of context or plain false. And you know why Katz asked? Because the city has no more space in the office they are in and they haven't been able to find a new place without breaking up departments. You know how I know this? Because my wife was a city employee.

But please. Continue to rabble. The more people like you refuse to get educated about the project the sooner the hammer falls.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 01:52 PM
  #107
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
It's just more uninformed ignorant rabble. Everything you said, minus asking the city to be a tenant, is either taken out of context or plain false. And you know why Katz asked? Because the city has no more space in the office they are in and they haven't been able to find a new place without breaking up departments. You know how I know this? Because my wife was a city employee.

But please. Continue to rabble. The more people like you refuse to get educated about the project the sooner the hammer falls.
If it's all out of context or mistakes then Katz still needs help with PR and should have simply said that these requests were taken out of context and that they were just negotiations and he hadnt made any demands. That's not what we've seen from city council and it's not what Katz made it sound like in his interviews with local media.

We know he's made requests for more money, we know council has voted against giving him more money. We know the framework the city has approved is a sweetheart deal for him. He doesnt like talking to the media and obviously there's a reason for that cause he's not very good at it he should really look at getting some pr people.

Halibut is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:02 PM
  #108
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
If it's all out of context or mistakes then Katz still needs help with PR and should have simply said that these requests were taken out of context and that they were just negotiations and he hadnt made any demands. That's not what we've seen from city council and it's not what Katz made it sound like in his interviews with local media.

We know he's made requests for more money, we know council has voted against giving him more money. We know the framework the city has approved is a sweetheart deal for him. He doesnt like talking to the media and obviously there's a reason for that cause he's not very good at it he should really look at getting some pr people.
The money he is asking for is an increase in the Community Revitalization Levy to cover the increased costs of construction due to the delays of getting this thing off the ground. The CRL essentially borrows future tax for construction costs today and is fully backed up by the project.

Not only that, but he's going to match the contribution. So that request to council for increased funding not only comes from a for-sure source (CRL), but Katz has also agreed to participate in a 50/50 split of those costs.

His "PR" is continually taken out of context by not only the local media but certain council members and made to make him look like some sort of crook. The meeting regards to the request for additional CRL revenue was supposed to be kept confidential on City Council's request, but someone leaked just the right information out to derail the whole thing and get those uninformed people in Edmonton rabbling again.

I look squarely at those numb nuts at Northlands and the council member who sits in their riding and has a vested monetary interest in the success of that company and would like nothing more than to get the $250M to renovate Rexall. You want to talk about a complete jobbing of the taxpayer? Look no further than Northlands.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:17 PM
  #109
SerbianEagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Serbia
Posts: 3,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
One Edmonton Councillor hints at just how much of a corporate handout the arena deal really is for the Edmonton Taxpayer:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sport...240/story.html
What you need to know about Tony Caterina is that he has a personal agenda in all of this. He has been anti-arena since day one, because he sits on the Northlands board. I cannot believe that nobody has called him out on this...It is such a clear conflict of interest, yet nobody seems to care.

SerbianEagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:53 PM
  #110
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
The money he is asking for is an increase in the Community Revitalization Levy to cover the increased costs of construction due to the delays of getting this thing off the ground. The CRL essentially borrows future tax for construction costs today and is fully backed up by the project.

Not only that, but he's going to match the contribution. So that request to council for increased funding not only comes from a for-sure source (CRL), but Katz has also agreed to participate in a 50/50 split of those costs.
Where are you getting this from cause I havent heard it anywhere else?

I havent seen anywhere that he's stated it and the mayor has said council would be willing to work if it was just small overages but what Katz is asking for is significant and the only thing that both sides have mentioned in public (the casino money) is not something that the city has any control over. They never agreed to subsidize him to a greater degree than his commitment to the cost of the arena.

Halibut is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:07 PM
  #111
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
It's just more uninformed ignorant rabble. Everything you said, minus asking the city to be a tenant, is either taken out of context or plain false. And you know why Katz asked? Because the city has no more space in the office they are in and they haven't been able to find a new place without breaking up departments. You know how I know this? Because my wife was a city employee.

But please. Continue to rabble. The more people like you refuse to get educated about the project the sooner the hammer falls.
I was talking about MY plan...who's Katz?

But seriously, what money is Katz ponying up for this arena that isn't borrowed from Edmonton, to be paid back over 35 years at $5.5 million per? That's about a 2.75% rate, btw. So, Edmonton builds a $450,000,000 arena and Katz is out of pocket about $2.75 million/year in interest. But don't worry - if he gets $6 million/year for 35 years for maintenance he won't lose a dime (in fact since it wasn't his money in the first place, he's way ahead!).

The city promised to pay $2 million per year to the team for 10 years for advertising. Another $20 million subsidy.

My mistake on the office lease - I didn't realize he just wanted to help the city out of a tight spot and was willing to take the risk of securing a long term lease with a sketchy tenant like the City of Edmonton. What a guy!

All this under the threat of moving one of the top revenue teams in the league to Hamilton...

In what context should we take this little extortion racket?

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:11 PM
  #112
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
It's because city council themselves told Katz to keep this information confidential.
Then there is no issue with council members changing their mind and sharing details.

And Katz has no meaningful reason to complain about it.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:11 PM
  #113
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoyleG View Post
You really think that it would all end with the details being made public?
I didn't claim any such thing.

All I said is that it's better if details are known, than if they are kept secret.

How it plays out after that is not for me to say.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:37 PM
  #114
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
That's twice now you've used the term "interview" when you should have used "infomercial".

Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:50 PM
  #115
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
you just described ottawa. They got it done.
No offense but how did that work out for the individual who built the building. What happened in Vanocuver? Even the Bell Centre ended up being essentially sold for nothing by its original owners.

Edmonton is too small of a market for a private investor to put $650-700M into an arena and hockey team. It makes zero sense. And it would not make sense in Ottawa either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
winnipeg did it with private money.

why does katz need public money? You have yet to convincingly answer this.

The MTS Center was built for $133M with $40M in public funding. And the building is owned by the private entity. If they want to sell it they get the money. Katz will be responsible for $100M of the direct costs of the Edmonton arena and will be responsible for the building maintance, but the building will be 100% owned by the City of Edmonton.

There is a ticket tax in both locations. In Edmonton the proceeds are to go to the City to cover $125M of the cost of the building. In Winnipeg this tax money goes to TNSE. Similarly, TSNE receives substantial monies from VLT's and additional tax breaks. All told thses total roughly $11M per year.

I have no doubt that Katz would jump at the Winnipeg funding formula.

I am a big supporter of the new arena. I think it is a sigificant piece of infrastructure for a City like Edmonton. That said these recent developments are both disappointing and disturbing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
I was talking about MY plan...who's Katz?

But seriously, what money is Katz ponying up for this arena that isn't borrowed from Edmonton, to be paid back over 35 years at $5.5 million per? That's about a 2.75% rate, btw. So, Edmonton builds a $450,000,000 arena and Katz is out of pocket about $2.75 million/year in interest. But don't worry - if he gets $6 million/year for 35 years for maintenance he won't lose a dime (in fact since it wasn't his money in the first place, he's way ahead!).

The city promised to pay $2 million per year to the team for 10 years for advertising. Another $20 million subsidy.

My mistake on the office lease - I didn't realize he just wanted to help the city out of a tight spot and was willing to take the risk of securing a long term lease with a sketchy tenant like the City of Edmonton. What a guy!

All this under the threat of moving one of the top revenue teams in the league to Hamilton...

In what context should we take this little extortion racket?
No one would expect that Katz was going to throw $100M cash up front into the building. But ask yourself this. What would you think the reaction would be from his private lender if he was to ask for $100M to put towards an asset that he would have $0 equity in. The City will own the building, and they have access to cheap money through a program with the province. Katz has to pay the full cost of funding this portion of the cost so short of a default, there is no risk to the tax payer.

As to the rest, I am curious what you think of the TNSE deal in comparrison. Certainly if you exclude the $6M the value of the Winnipeg funding formual is much greater than what Katz is asking for. The $6M is a new twist to most of us who have followed this for a while so I do not yet know how to completely resolve this. Though as I said above in this Deal Katz is on the hook for the operating costs and future capital costs for the arena. Based on what we know from other buildings I don't think anyone here would suggest that $6M per year is going to leave a lot left over but rather will leave a shortfall in time.

And as far as the team leaving, Katz has never threatened to move the team. But he is under no obligation to remain an owner in perpetuity. And should he decide he wants to sell, it is at least a real possibilty that no local owner would step up especially if the prospect was a $600M investment.

The current building is a significant piece of the City's core fabric. If this arena does not go through the planned alternative is to hand over $200-300M to Northlands to renovate Rexall. All of this is from the taxpayers. There is no fully private option on the table. But the Katz's groups making a mess of the PR for this project. The shame is that in reality this is actually a relatively small risk for a City with nearly a $2B per year budget, and a city that is still growing at a significant rate.


Last edited by Fourier: 09-20-2012 at 04:24 PM.
Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:16 PM
  #116
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Edmonton is too small of a market for a private investor to put $650-700M into an arena and hockey team. It makes zero sense.
Well, if Edmonton is that small of a market where someone doesn't want to pony up the vast majority of an over half-billion dollar development, scale it back down to what is reasonable and do what you can afford. This makes sense.

Don't expect to have the citizens automatically bend over and take it just because something is out of your pricerange, but you still want it as your legacy project. THAT makes zero sense.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:28 PM
  #117
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Well, if Edmonton is that small of a market where someone doesn't want to pony up the vast majority of an over half-billion dollar development, scale it back down to what is reasonable and do what you can afford. This makes sense.

Don't expect to have the citizens automatically bend over and take it just because something is out of your pricerange, but you still want it as your legacy project. THAT makes zero sense.
To be honest this is a red herring in this debate. Part of the reason why the cost is estimated at $450M is because construction costs in Alberta are extremely high. It is doubtfull that you could build the MTS center in Edmonton for much less than $400M. And if you are going to build something with a 40 year life span you are almost always better to build it the way you want it to begin with.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:32 PM
  #118
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
To be honest this is a red herring in this debate. Part of the reason why the cost is estimated at $450M is because construction costs in Alberta are extremely high. It is doubtfull that you could build the MTS center in Edmonton for much less than $400M. And if you are going to build something with a 40 year life span you are almost always better to build it the way you want it to begin with.
Well, many tax-paying Edmontonians don't see this as a red herring, but as a very real issue that involved their money (myself included), and now city council are starting to understand this perspective as well, thankfully.

Red Herring? Not so much. You can still get a world-class arena for a smaller pricetag. There is absolutely no need for this thing to be a ****ing granduous legacy project like Katz's wants, and not at our expense.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:52 PM
  #119
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Well, many tax-paying Edmontonians don't see this as a red herring, but as a very real issue that involved their money (myself included), and now city council are starting to understand this perspective as well, thankfully.

Red Herring? Not so much. You can still get a world-class arena for a smaller pricetag. There is absolutely no need for this thing to be a ****ing granduous legacy project like Katz's wants, and not at our expense.
As stated many times before, a scaled down version has been researched by the Katz Group and found that in many cities of similar size and economic status that a single arena will not help improve the surrounding areas and in fact can contribute to the detriment of it.

The only way a new arena is viable in all aspects (Revitalization, feasibility, cost) is that if its combined with a revitalization effort that promotes the economic development surrounding it. An arena by itself would essentially work, but what's the point in building a half-assed poorly designed arena when for a more substantial investment you can have a literal world-class facility along with a unified effort for revitalization? Especially in a city like Edmonton where a change in direction is so sorely needed. Because you aren't going to get anything like that with a single-purpose arena. Not to mention it's just not feasible for the small market that Edmonton is in as stated by another poster. It's a literal case of "go big or go home".

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:54 PM
  #120
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post

I am a big supporter of the new arena. I think it is a sigificant piece of infrastructure for a City like Edmonton. That said these recent developments are both disappointing and disturbing.
I am to .

The big difference in this deal compared to the City of Winnipeg is they didnt shell out $350 million to build the building. That's a huge commitment on the part of the city and it's one that isnt matched in either Pittsburgh or Winnipeg.

I think the framework the city agreed to was a pretty good deal for Katz and the city. It should work and if it doesnt then he really needs to open his books and show why it wont.

Halibut is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:59 PM
  #121
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I am to .

The big difference in this deal compared to the City of Winnipeg is they didnt shell out $350 million to build the building. That's a huge commitment on the part of the city and it's one that isnt matched in either Pittsburgh or Winnipeg.

I think the framework the city agreed to was a pretty good deal for Katz and the city. It should work and if it doesnt then he really needs to open his books and show why it wont.
Because the city is now refusing to grant him a casino license, for which that revenue was earmarked into the feasibility of the project going forward. This was all included in the initial commitment with the city that they had agreed to but have now suddenly told Katz he isn't allowed. This, along with the increase in the cost of construction, is the reason why he had to go back to council and say more money was needed out of the CRL, for which he agreed to matching a fair amount as well.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:04 PM
  #122
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Because the city is refusing to grant him a casino license, for which that revenue was earmarked into the feasibility of the project going forward. This was all included in the initial commitment with the city that they had agreed to but have now suddenly told Katz he isn't allowed. This, along with the increase in the cost of construction, is the reason why he had to go back to council and say more money was needed out of the CRL, for which he agreed to matching a fair amount as well.
The city does not grant casino licenses.

Also, the city is unwilling to fund an anti-gravity enclosure stocked with diamond-encrusted unicorns from a parallel universe. They just won't work with Katz, it's true.

Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:06 PM
  #123
castle
HFBoards Sponsor
 
castle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,025
vCash: 297
the TNSE deal and the subsidy article that was published in the Free Press last year rasie a bunch of points that on close consideration, are not a big deal to many Winnipegers and Manitobans.

1) the ticket tax that is collected and then given back

I'm not sure why it's done this way instead of TNSE just having a higher ticket price and no tax. I've never really understood it so it must be some accounting thing. the ticket tax is only for events at MTS centre so it's not like it's being collected elsewhere and not refunded.... and very few events at MTS centre could be held elsewhere in the city, or would even come to Winnipeg at all if it wasn't TNSE and MTS centre bringing them in. that 5.8M of the 11M.

so now we're talking about the other 5M.

2) the buisness tax refund of 250,000 is a big shrug from me. it's not that much money, so who cares.

3) the property tax 'refund' has to do with how the propoerty is designated. as it is, it's cheap. the 800,000 extra is easily made up by the increased value of all the property around the MTS centre. e.g., there is no way the fancy hotel across the street gets made without the MTS centre. is it a net loss for the city... maybe slightly. but the property was an 'abandoned' building not worth much of anything when it was turned into the MTS centre. so... how much are city taxpayers really losing when you think about it. it's money that could come in if things were designated differently, but definitely wouldn't without the MTS centre, and woudl be less if the investment in the arena wasn't made.

4) the VLT money. this is the one that really seems to be the potential subsidy. but again, it's not like it's really coming out of city taxpayers dollars. they're not taking property tazes and diverting it to the Jets here. these are people going to Jets games spending money on VLTs and TNSE keeps more of it than other VLT venders keep. THe biggest issue with this woudl be if VLT revenues across the city did not change and they were simply redirected to TNSE where they keep a larger share. if VLT revenues went up, due to an addition of funds at TNSE controlled VLTS, then it's tough to call this a net loss to the city or province as well.


I try to contrast this to a situation where general funds money in the city or provinces coffers would be redirected to TNSE. like taking property taxes or sales tax money and giving it to TNSE.

Add to this the fact that I lived here for 3 years before the MTS centre and thought i hd moved into the black hole. Almost nothing came through these parts. it was a cultural desert when it came to acts that would play in an arena. Apparently more acts had come through the old arena back in the day. Do Winnipegers think the arena was worth it now? I actually do not know of a single person who has ever had anything negative to say about the way the arean was financed. was it worth the 40 million in public funding? the return on investment (and I'm not talking dollars here, I odn't really know that) has been well worth it.

castle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:08 PM
  #124
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Because the city is now refusing to grant him a casino license, for which that revenue was earmarked into the feasibility of the project going forward. This was all included in the initial commitment with the city that they had agreed to but have now suddenly told Katz he isn't allowed. This, along with the increase in the cost of construction, is the reason why he had to go back to council and say more money was needed out of the CRL, for which he agreed to matching a fair amount as well.
I'm sure it's been pointed out many times the city doesnt grant casino licenses he has to go to the provincial body that handles that the AGLC. The city has said they are willing to support his application but they cant make one for him. The city never agreed to giving him a licence or subsidize him if he was unable to get one. They approved a framework for the deal which makes no mention of a casino licence or a subsidy.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...framework.aspx

Find one mention of a casino licence in there.

Of course someone already has a casino licence in that area and it's unlikely the province will grant a second one. He can negotiate with the current owner of the licence and try to buy it from him but that has nothing to do with the city.

Halibut is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:26 PM
  #125
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
No offense but how did that work out for the individual who built the building. What happened in Vanocuver? Even the Bell Centre ended up being essentially sold for nothing by its original owners.

Edmonton is too small of a market for a private investor to put $650-700M into an arena and hockey team. It makes zero sense. And it would not make sense in Ottawa either.

The MTS Center was built for $133M with $40M in public funding. And the building is owned by the private entity. If they want to sell it they get the money. Katz will be responsible for $100M of the direct costs of the Edmonton arena and will be responsible for the building maintance, but the building will be 100% owned by the City of Edmonton.

There is a ticket tax in both locations. In Edmonton the proceeds are to go to the City to cover $125M of the cost of the building. In Winnipeg this tax money goes to TNSE. Similarly, TSNE receives substantial monies from VLT's and additional tax breaks. All told thses total roughly $11M per year.

I have no doubt that Katz would jump at the Winnipeg funding formula.

I am a big supporter of the new arena. I think it is a sigificant piece of infrastructure for a City like Edmonton. That said these recent developments are both disappointing and disturbing.



No one would expect that Katz was going to throw $100M cash up front into the building. But ask yourself this. What would you think the reaction would be from his private lender if he was to ask for $100M to put towards an asset that he would have $0 equity in. The City will own the building, and they have access to cheap money through a program with the province. Katz has to pay the full cost of funding this portion of the cost so short of a default, there is no risk to the tax payer.

As to the rest, I am curious what you think of the TNSE deal in comparrison. Certainly if you exclude the $6M the value of the Winnipeg funding formual is much greater than what Katz is asking for. The $6M is a new twist to most of us who have followed this for a while so I do not yet know how to completely resolve this. Though as I said above in this Deal Katz is on the hook for the operating costs and future capital costs for the arena. Based on what we know from other buildings I don't think anyone here would suggest that $6M per year is going to leave a lot left over but rather will leave a shortfall in time.

And as far as the team leaving, Katz has never threatened to move the team. But he is under no obligation to remain an owner in perpetuity. And should he decide he wants to sell, it is at least a real possibilty that no local owner would step up especially if the prospect was a $600M investment.

The current building is a significant piece of the City's core fabric. If this arena does not go through the planned alternative is to hand over $200-300M to Northlands to renovate Rexall. All of this is from the taxpayers. There is no fully private option on the table. But the Katz's groups making a mess of the PR for this project. The shame is that in reality this is actually a relatively small risk for a City with nearly a $2B per year budget, and a city that is still growing at a significant rate.
True North in Winnipeg has a very similar deal to what Katz is asking for. TNSE put up $40 million, the various levels of government put up $40 million and the remainder ($53 million?) was borrowed from the province by TNSE. And now TNSE gets enough back from gambling revenues and tax rebates/concessions to make their loan payments. So they got the arena for $40 million. Then they bought an NHL team - but Edmonton already has one of those...

The Edmonton deal is different in that Katz doesn't own the arena, but neither does he put 30% down. There's significantly more money in the Edmonton deal - but then there's an office tower and a unicorn petting zoo as well, right?

Having an arena in downtown Winnipeg has spurred some development in the area. Longboat Development (basically the same owners as True North) are building a hotel, offices, parkade and condos across the street from the MTS Centre (project cost is $75 million est.). There are some bars and restaurants adjacent to the building that are doing quite well, and another city block that's currently a surface parking lot is going to be developed as well (by Longboat).

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.