I'm sorry but that is just idiotic. Councillors on a board to watch it and make sure it's held accoutable to the city is a conflict of interest? How is that possible? None of them are tied to Northlands in any way except as representatives from the city. They get nothing from Northlands for being on the board. Northlands exists to spur events in the city, their whole point of existences is to support the city so what is the possible conflict?
Yep.
It is unfortunate that people that want to debate this topic vociferously don't at least first familiarize themselves with the REQUIREMENT of city representation on the Northlands board and why its the case.
It seems always as if people make the odd assumption that its a discovered conflict of interest.
Its really been repeated so many times in these threads you'd think everybody would be properly informed by now.
So the City would run it themselves then? Otherwise those profits would go to Northlands, wouldn't they?
If they're running it, they still have Northlands as a competitor.
If Northlands runs it, while they would likely cover operating costs, the city also loses the revenues. In which case, they're just replacing the Katz Group (who's at least paying, though not up front, a chunk of the arena), with Northlands (who likely wouldn't pay a thing).
If Northlands is running it then they are responsible for the operating expenses, not the city, and in turn they would get the non-hockey revenues similar to what they are already doing.
If the city owns it and Northlands runs it, then we're left with the same situation as now, only with a brand new arena. The problem is that this goes against the NHL business model. There is no guarantee that the the BoG, Katz - or any other owner - would agree to operate under such an agreement.
If the city owns it and Northlands runs it, then we're left with the same situation as now, only with a brand new arena. The problem is that this goes against the NHL business model. There is no guarantee that the the BoG, Katz - or any other owner - would agree to operate under such an agreement.
They said we needed a new building, so they are going to get a new building.
Many other teams would have jumped at the agreement in principle that Katz initially agreed to and then decided wasnt good enough for him.
They said we needed a new building, so they are going to get a new building.
Many other teams would have jumped at the agreement in principle that Katz initially agreed to and then decided wasnt good enough for him.
There is no singular "nhl business model".
Yeah, why do you think they need a new arena? Because the Oilers are unsustainable in Rexall as they would be in any new arena.
The whole point was to increase the revenue required to keep the Oilers here for 35 years, not solely because Rexall is 40 years old.
There would literally be no difference in revenue for the Oilers in a new arena besides the increased seating capacity, which is not enough to keep the Oilers competitive.
Yeah, why do you think they need a new arena? Because the Oilers are unsustainable in Rexall as they would be in any new arena.
The whole point was to increase the revenue required to keep the Oilers here for 35 years, not solely because Rexall is 40 years old.
There would literally be no difference in revenue for the Oilers in a new arena besides the increased seating capacity, which is not enough to keep the Oilers competitive.
The fact they are making money while finishing last and playing in a 40yr old arena is lost on you apparently.
Not when the pay raises come in for all our players that are on ELCs right now. Or when the cap raises to 80M+.
Im sure ticket prices and tv/radio contracts will rise accordingly just like they have for the last 30yrs.
If Katz needs subsidy and can show that he needs it then they can cross that bridge when the time comes if need be. But to ask for it when he clearly doesnt need it and at the same time refusing to show why he needs it makes it a non-starter and a rather ridiculous position to take.
Instead of pleading his case he goes on a junket to Seattle and threatens to move the team.
All of these things hurt his image and bargaining position.
Now to top all that off, he is being investigated for illegal campaign contributions.
He has done pretty much zero to put together a reasonable yet favourable deal for himself, the Oilers and the city. It actually seems like he is willfully trying to scuttle any deal tbh. Maybe he actually doesnt want to keep the Oilers in Edmonton at all?
So my question to you 8 people. If this arena deal doesn't happen, what is your prediction?
The Oilers play in dilapidated Rexall for the next 50 years?
The city builds the arena themselves and charges the Oilers a rental fee?
The Oilers move out of Edmonton and the city becomes a barren wasteland of destitute hockey fans.
They wont be paying the 6mill subsidy for thirty five years. Take that and subtract 100mill that Peter Katzlington was supposed to be injecting and you have roughly 100mill in savings.
And you don't think Katz is going to want a subsidy if he has to pay rent in the new arena with no additional revenue? No matter what happens if the city builds it themselves and northlands operates it the city of edmonton tax payers are going to get bent over.
Yeah, why do you think they need a new arena? Because the Oilers are unsustainable in Rexall as they would be in any new arena.
The whole point was to increase the revenue required to keep the Oilers here for 35 years, not solely because Rexall is 40 years old.
There would literally be no difference in revenue for the Oilers in a new arena besides the increased seating capacity, which is not enough to keep the Oilers competitive.
Literally no difference? How about close to $20 million a season since all the new seats are going to be premium seats that average over $180 a seat at Rexall.
Literally no difference? How about close to $20 million a season since all the new seats are going to be premium seats that average over $180 a seat at Rexall.
Sorry pal you're math is off. At 18000 seats compared to 16500 only brings in an extra 5M per year. Im wondering where you're gonna scrounge up tye other 15 mil just to pay salaries.
And you don't think Katz is going to want a subsidy if he has to pay rent in the new arena with no additional revenue? No matter what happens if the city builds it themselves and northlands operates it the city of edmonton tax payers are going to get bent over.
He should have thought about that before he pulled the shenanigans of the last couple of months. Good luck moving the team with a new building in place. The league wont back that.
The city pulled out of the negotiations with Katz because they werent going to let the taxpayers get bent over by Katz' ridiculous demands.
I like the idea of the city making its own plans without Katz involved. Personally I never understood why he had to be and why we were all okay with wrapping this project up and putting it under his Christmas tree.
The league/Katz/world says we need a state of the art arena. I agree with this. Nowhere does it say Katz has to profit off of it.
Now if we independently build this arena we won't have to succum to any of Katz's antics and demands. I like the independence the city is showing through this endeavor.
This is what I've wanted since day 1.
Katz has literally no leverage here. None with the city and none with the league. We played hardball with him and it looks like he's going to strike out. Edmonton gave him a great deal and he messed it up, now were moving forward without him. Watch, he's going to try and jump on board again.
Like IATL said the NHL won't back him moving the team if we have a more profitable arena in place regardless if he owns it or not. Even if he does move the team, we have a state of the art complex that won't be empty for long.
Last edited by Mr Forever: 11-03-2012 at 02:12 AM.
He should have thought about that before he pulled the shenanigans of the last couple of months. Good luck moving the team with a new building in place. The league wont back that.
The city pulled out of the negotiations with Katz because they werent going to let the taxpayers get bent over by Katz' ridiculous demands.
The league won't back Katz, City Council, or both?
And you don't think Katz is going to want a subsidy if he has to pay rent in the new arena with no additional revenue? No matter what happens if the city builds it themselves and northlands operates it the city of edmonton tax payers are going to get bent over.
So what if Katz is subsidized for 41 days...the city still retains all income earned by the arena for all non-NHL bookings.
I like the idea of the city making its own plans without Katz involved. Personally I never understood why he had to be and why we were all okay with wrapping this project up and putting it under his Christmas tree.
The league/Katz/world says we need a state of the art arena. I agree with this. Nowhere does it say Katz has to profit off of it.
Now if we independently build this arena we won't have to succum to any of Katz's antics and demands. I like the independence the city is showing through this endeavor.
This is what I've wanted since day 1.
Katz has literally no leverage here. None with the city and none with the league. We played hardball with him and it looks like he's going to strike out. Edmonton gave him a great deal and he messed it up, now were moving forward without him. Watch, he's going to try and jump on board again.
Like IATL said the NHL won't back him moving the team if we have a more profitable arena in place regardless if he owns it or not. Even if he does move the team, we have a state of the art complex that won't be empty for long.
The city was the one getting a pretty sweet deal too. With Katz kicking in $100 mill + getting a ticket tax incurred on his ticket prices (basically money out of his pocket), the city was going to get a state of the art, landmark facility for their crap downtown.
So for $250 mill on their end, they were getting a brand new, world class arena complex that would no doubt be the crown jewel of their downtown.
That's the same price they'd have to spend to renovate the current Rexall in the middle of nowhere.
The city can't build a $400+ million arena on their own, certainly not without being able to slap a fat ticket tax on Oiler fans on top of it.
Sorry pal you're math is off. At 18000 seats compared to 16500 only brings in an extra 5M per year. Im wondering where you're gonna scrounge up tye other 15 mil just to pay salaries.
The new building includes more premium price seating, 5000 seats that average $180 in Rexall they undoubtedly will cost more in the new arena. So beyond just the new 2000 seats they will be making more than twice what they were on 3000 of the existing seats.
The city was the one getting a pretty sweet deal too. With Katz kicking in $100 mill + getting a ticket tax incurred on his ticket prices (basically money out of his pocket), the city was going to get a state of the art, landmark facility for their crap downtown.
So for $250 mill on their end, they were getting a brand new, world class arena complex that would no doubt be the crown jewel of their downtown.
That's the same price they'd have to spend to renovate the current Rexall in the middle of nowhere.
The city can't build a $400+ million arena on their own, certainly not without being able to slap a fat ticket tax on Oiler fans on top of it.
Katz wanted another 200mill in subsidies. So ya, in effect they were going to have to build it on their own under the old agreement. At least this way they get to use the non-hockey revenue to pay for either the operational expenses or to help cover the capital costs.
