HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

The Official Arena Thread Part 6

View Poll Results: On what day will city council vote to finalize a new arena for Edmonton's downtown?
Between now and Christmas 2012 8 7.41%
Between New Year's Day and the end of February 2013 30 27.78%
Between March and July, 2013 16 14.81%
Before the October 2013 civic election 14 12.96%
Not until 2014 4 3.70%
Not until 2015 3 2.78%
Not until 2016 1 0.93%
Not until 2017 6 5.56%
Never 26 24.07%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 01:56 PM
  #51
Moose Coleman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
Look into how much support Northlands gets from the city and government. And the deal won't be any better with Northlands running it I can almost guarantee it. Katz probably still won't want to pay rent for the Oilers to be there so Northlands is going to need to subsidize the cost somewhere.
Proof? You have no clue what kind of deal Katz could get in a new arena.

Moose Coleman is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 01:57 PM
  #52
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
Proof? You have no clue what kind of deal Katz could get in Seattle. And that 290M is between several investors which is why I thought Katz was down there in the first place, now I'm not so sure.
Proof of what? The deal Hansen has is a matter of public record. The rest is common sense. Hansen is going to gift Katz half his surrounding development & half the revenues from the new Arena? Yeah sure.
Furthuremore, the Seattle deal is FAR, FAR worse for Hansen than the deal that Katz reneged on in Edmonton, to say nothing of the Edmonton market been far, far better for hockey.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:01 PM
  #53
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500
This entire situation is laughable on multiple levels. Various members of the EIG have gone on record as saying that doubted their ability to gather the funding for a (necessary) new arena... and now the city might be building one without any outside contributions? Hilarious stuff. As more time passes I'm wishing that we still had the EIG. At least we wouldn't have to put up with one guy owning the team and mumbling asinine threats of relocation.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:08 PM
  #54
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,105
vCash: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Proof of what? The deal Hansen has is a matter of public record. The rest is common sense. Hansen is going to gift Katz half his surrounding development & half the revenues from the new Arena? Yeah sure.
Furthuremore, the Seattle deal is FAR, FAR worse for Hansen than the deal that Katz reneged on in Edmonton, to say nothing of the Edmonton market been far, far better for hockey.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Katz wouldn't have to invest in the new Arena in Seattle and could spend the cash on more lucrative investments. I believe he could get a better TV deal(based on the fact he could get an American provider and Canadian) and free rent in Seattle but until something happens it would all be speculation so no since arguing about it. All I'll say is Edmonton isn't the money making mecca everyone is making it out to be. If it was you'd see a lot more investors coming here and our downtown wouldn't look like it hasn't been updated since the 70's.

raab is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:13 PM
  #55
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,105
vCash: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Coleman View Post
Proof? You have no clue what kind of deal Katz could get in a new arena.
Well he pays a dollar now for rent I believe and apparently the Oiler's are barely making a profit. Can't see him paying a lot more without extra revenue coming in.

raab is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:14 PM
  #56
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Im sorry, you dont think the City should now look into building the arena themselves?
Katz's need for the best deal possible isn't going to change if the City builds the arena without him.

Pursuing the project sans Katz is as stupid as it is reckless.

worraps is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:35 PM
  #57
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
We'll have to agree to disagree. Katz wouldn't have to invest in the new Arena in Seattle and could spend the cash on more lucrative investments. I believe he could get a better TV deal(based on the fact he could get an American provider and Canadian) and free rent in Seattle but until something happens it would all be speculation so no since arguing about it. All I'll say is Edmonton isn't the money making mecca everyone is making it out to be. If it was you'd see a lot more investors coming here and our downtown wouldn't look like it hasn't been updated since the 70's.
Why in gods name would he get free rent without putting any money in? And not a chance he gets more in TV revenue, or game day revenue then he would get here. None. The latter 2 statements may be open to opinion. The 1st one there is zero doubt about.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:43 PM
  #58
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,105
vCash: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Why in gods name would he get free rent without putting any money in? And not a chance he gets more in TV revenue, or game day revenue then he would get here. None. The latter 2 statements may be open to opinion. The 1st one there is zero doubt about.
The group running it would still make money off the games through concessions/parking etc, and because they want to bring an NHL team to Seattle and for the most part NHL teams don't pay much for rent if they pay anything at all. The TV revenue thing you really need to rethink. There are roughly 7M people in Washington state alone, add in the lower mainland of BC in another TV deal and I think it could be very profitable. Also a lot more corporate support in Seattle when compared to Edmonton. Ive went over all this before and it seems people couldn't wrap there heads around it so I won't do it again.

raab is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:48 PM
  #59
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhoenixx View Post
Two old time-ish posters who probably don't even know how to load an avatar are going to make a bet?

But...since it isn't...You're on, Masterien one.

However, If I win, I doubt you will have to suffer the avatar fate. if I win it means we all lose. If I win, I doubt I will have the heart to even say anything.

If I lose though, I will happily learn how to insert an avatar.
haha you got me Phoenix. I don't even show any of the posters avatars here at work simply because some of them... are not really work-friendly, let's just say. And the pictures are too noticeable from anyone walking by my monitor. With the avatars turned off, hfboards looks like pure text and hence, less noticeable.

And you're totally correct, I have no idea about avatars, but I guess I can learn.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:50 PM
  #60
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabob View Post
Of course Northlands will contribute nothing to the arena costs, get public subsidies to run operations, run it terribly like they do every event and Rexall Place. Get to reap in the benefits all while having no public scrutiny because they are an organization and work for the public good...the board of directors definately dont benefit from their association with northlands at all


That is all fine but Katz is pure evil

Jamin is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:51 PM
  #61
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
The group running it would still make money off the games through concessions/parking etc, and because they want to bring an NHL team to Seattle and for the most part NHL teams don't pay much for rent if they pay anything at all. The TV revenue thing you really need to rethink. There are roughly 7M people in Washington state alone, add in the lower mainland of BC in another TV deal and I think it could be very profitable. Also a lot more corporate support in Seattle when compared to Edmonton. Ive went over all this before and it seems people couldn't wrap there heads around it so I won't do it again.
Geez, that makes alot of sense to me. Let me see. Katz already gets all gameday revenue on his existing deal. And he *****es & moans about it. The new deal he reneged on is far better. And then hes going to go to Seattle for a deal where he only gets the TICKET revenue nothing else, with some sort of hope & prayer that hes going to a better market, both in terms of seats in the arena with as high a ticket price (not going to happen) & TV revenue (unlikely, but who knows).
Makes zero sense on a number of levels

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:52 PM
  #62
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post
So you're calling the City of Edmonton "Chumps" because they are looking at building an arena on their own.

Considering that the missteps and demands that Katz has taken, what other choice does the City have?

Obviously you can choose who you cheer for, but calling the City "Chumps" for doing what is necessary seems to be ignorant.
At the bolded. They are chumps for that. Looking at building the arena should have been done at least 4 years ago if not even further back like when the EIG owned the oilers. The fact it took them this long to think of the city building it is a joke

Jamin is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:54 PM
  #63
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
This entire situation is laughable on multiple levels. Various members of the EIG have gone on record as saying that doubted their ability to gather the funding for a (necessary) new arena... and now the city might be building one without any outside contributions? Hilarious stuff. As more time passes I'm wishing that we still had the EIG. At least we wouldn't have to put up with one guy owning the team and mumbling asinine threats of relocation.
I really dont get this post. You talk about the EIG not putting in a cent but then go on to say you wish we had the EIG so the city would get a worse deal then it got with Katz?

Jamin is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:55 PM
  #64
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
At the bolded. They are chumps for that. Looking at building the arena should have been done at least 4 years ago if not even further back like when the EIG owned the oilers. The fact it took them this long to think of the city building it is a joke
So by this definition every Original 6 team in the NHL that had far older, far more antiquated arena's is a "joke".

What possesses people to have such polarized views on this issue?

The City is right not to subsidize DK any pay the lease on an office tower on top of building an arena for him. Time to move on as city Hall had duly and correctly decided.

Replacement is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:02 PM
  #65
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
So by this definition every Original 6 team in the NHL that had far older, far more antiquated arena's is a "joke".

What possesses people to have such polarized views on this issue?

The City is right not to subsidize DK any pay the lease on an office tower on top of building an arena for him. Time to move on as city Hall had duly and correctly decided.
Well if you can find any original 6 teams still playing in those arenas I guess your post makes sense but they like me deemed they were too old and moved on into newer arenas.

I dont really see it as a polarized view. You either think rexall is too old or you dont. There really isnt any other stance on the issue to take.

Never mentioned subsidies or office towers in my post so dont know what your addressing

Jamin is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:06 PM
  #66
Dorian2
The bag don't lie.
 
Dorian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,438
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
Ugh. I like everything else that I read, especially the part about how they're not starting from scratch.
I said in....I think the last arena thread, that it would take about a week or so for Northlands to start piping up again with regards to being involved. Knew it was gonna happen as soon as the leak and the **** hit the fan.

There's allot of people politics and behind the scenes persuasion being pumped up Edmonton's ass.

Dorian2 is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:13 PM
  #67
ManByng
Moroz fan
 
ManByng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St. Albert, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,529
vCash: 500
oh no, the thread got moved!!

ManByng is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:34 PM
  #68
oilers2k10
Yak Don't Back Down
 
oilers2k10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,378
vCash: 203
I have already made up my mind several days ago..
I am supporting this team wherever they go..
If edmonton thinks the oilers arent important enough to get an arena deal done after negotiating for over 5 yrs then they dont deserve one..

Im not from edmonton, and maybe a trip down to seattle would be far more entertaining than going up to winnipeg 1.5

sucks, but its the reality of sports..teams move all the time cuz of stupid reasons..edmonton has so much hockey history..
Montreal, toronto would Never let such a thing happen.

oilers2k10 is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:37 PM
  #69
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
The group running it would still make money off the games through concessions/parking etc, and because they want to bring an NHL team to Seattle and for the most part NHL teams don't pay much for rent if they pay anything at all. The TV revenue thing you really need to rethink. There are roughly 7M people in Washington state alone, add in the lower mainland of BC in another TV deal and I think it could be very profitable. Also a lot more corporate support in Seattle when compared to Edmonton. Ive went over all this before and it seems people couldn't wrap there heads around it so I won't do it again.
Didnt make sense then still doesnt now. To get TV revenue you need an audience it's highly unlikely he'll get much of a TV audience compared to what he does here and the estimated $20 million + TV revenue he makes in this market. He might get more corporate support but they probably wont pay half what he gets here. On top of that Katz would be getting those parking and concession numbers that are estimated at $20 million per year which you are giving to the arena operator in Seattle.

He might do well in the short term in Seattle if this is a young team that challenges for the cup soon but over the long haul when they eventually dip and struggle there's no way Seattle will support a non-playoff team the way Oilers fans have here in Edmonton.

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:55 PM
  #70
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
Well if you can find any original 6 teams still playing in those arenas I guess your post makes sense but they like me deemed they were too old and moved on into newer arenas.

I dont really see it as a polarized view. You either think rexall is too old or you dont. There really isnt any other stance on the issue to take.

Never mentioned subsidies or office towers in my post so dont know what your addressing
Most of the original 6 teams were playing in barns TWICE as old and as antiquated as Rexall.

Fact of the matter is Edmonton, without an NHL club at the time build a better rink than the vast majority of NHL teams were playing in. Backwards Edmonton also build the best Stadium in NA at the time that wasn't affiliated with an NFL club. Backwards Edmonton that is..

People make a lot of noise about who has the oldest/newest arenas blah blah blah but the simple fact is this nature of infrastructure has a time life, cycle, and obsolescence wherever its built and with historically most urban areas taking awhile to replace them.

People talk about Edmonton like its a backwater in this regard despite this being per capita one of the most proactive cities on the continent in building such facilities.

You should follow my point now.

Replacement is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:56 PM
  #71
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
Of course Northlands will contribute nothing to the arena costs, get public subsidies to run operations, run it terribly like they do every event and Rexall Place. Get to reap in the benefits all while having no public scrutiny because they are an organization and work for the public good...the board of directors definately dont benefit from their association with northlands at all


That is all fine but Katz is pure evil
Nobody is suggesting that. Northlands makes sense if they are paying the operating costs on the building. How exactly do they run things terribly? They've built an excellent concert business that seems to run without any hitches, they've pulled off many major curling events, the Canadian finals Rodeo and the World Juniors. They have a track record full of successes. They also face tons of public scrutiny with City council members siting on their board and their yearly reports that detail their finances. They do a lot of good work for the city and what they do they seem to do well.

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:22 PM
  #72
Hockey Nightmare
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,081
vCash: 500
Northlands does "excellent business" in the concert business because it has virtually no competition. Its main competitor is an arena hundreds of kms away that can't accomodate the elaborate sets of many of the major touring acts...unlike Rexall Place.


Last edited by Hockey Nightmare: 11-01-2012 at 04:28 PM.
Hockey Nightmare is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:43 PM
  #73
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
I really dont get this post. You talk about the EIG not putting in a cent but then go on to say you wish we had the EIG so the city would get a worse deal then it got with Katz?
My point is that we've got ex-EIG folks chiming in saying that they couldn't afford to build a (necessary) new arena. Now we've got the city footing the entire bill. It's entirely likely that the same scenario would have unfolded had they remained owners.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 05:32 PM
  #74
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Most of the original 6 teams were playing in barns TWICE as old and as antiquated as Rexall.

Fact of the matter is Edmonton, without an NHL club at the time build a better rink than the vast majority of NHL teams were playing in. Backwards Edmonton also build the best Stadium in NA at the time that wasn't affiliated with an NFL club. Backwards Edmonton that is..

People make a lot of noise about who has the oldest/newest arenas blah blah blah but the simple fact is this nature of infrastructure has a time life, cycle, and obsolescence wherever its built and with historically most urban areas taking awhile to replace them.

People talk about Edmonton like its a backwater in this regard despite this being per capita one of the most proactive cities on the continent in building such facilities.

You should follow my point now.
What you're failing to recognize is that everything is relative to it's time. The original six rinks probably didn't need to be upgraded or changed for as long as you say, because things in the world and the game didn't change much for about 50 years. There's been more change in players salaries in the last 5 years, for example, that than there was for about 50 years from 1940-1990. There was never the need for corporate boxes or corporate support like there is today for decades upon decades. Point is, you need to change and improve with the times, or get left behind to die. The old Montreal Forum or MLGs could stay viable for decades during the last century. There is no way they could make it that long now. Maybe Rexall place would have lasted and been viable 60 years if built in the 1930's. Not a chance now. It's the way things are.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 05:33 PM
  #75
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Nobody is suggesting that. Northlands makes sense if they are paying the operating costs on the building. How exactly do they run things terribly? They've built an excellent concert business that seems to run without any hitches, they've pulled off many major curling events, the Canadian finals Rodeo and the World Juniors. They have a track record full of successes. They also face tons of public scrutiny with City council members siting on their board and their yearly reports that detail their finances. They do a lot of good work for the city and what they do they seem to do well.

And for doing all this, they get a boatload of taxpayers cash.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:34 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.