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.
Ticket tax doesnt come out of his pocket, it's user pay unless you want to count the GST as coming out of his pocket as well. The people buying the tickets are charged extra, it's not unique to Edmonton other cities do it.
The thing is they were willing to do the deal, it's Katz who has pulled out. He doesnt want to actually pay anything on the deal. He's scared his office tower wont be full so he wants the City to subsidize that as well as the arena by becoming the anchor tenant.
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.
Your statements on the new rink revenue being no different reveal limited knowledge of what the new arena configuration will be.
Included in that 18.200 are 5000 luxury seats(Suites, sky paddock, loge, club paddock seating) that are classed and priced as "Luxury" "Premium" seats and all offering to your seat service. Guess what such seats will cost or what they tend to cost in other rinks? I'll also note that in many rinks such seating has additional surcharges and for instance having to buy the seat, or table(in addition to tickets) for a term much like you would for a suite. These 5K premium seats are in addition to the lower bowl seats which will also be premium priced seats.
As I've stated many times this is really a blueblood pricing arena with around 12-13K tickets that will be high priced. Which is in marked contrast to the present arena.
This not even mentioning the revenues brought in from the resto/lounges that are part of the new arena plan. Or any revenues from Wintergarden etc.
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.
Basically NOT money out of this pocket. This is simply higher ticket price in a market that often has no apparent upper limit in what it will pay, or in perceived disposable income.
For you, or anybody in the Katz camp to suggest that the ticket tax is coming out of Katz's pocket please explain how this is the case when gate revenue, and average ticket prices(before surcharge) will be much higher in the new arena (and I guarantee you they would be).
I think to argue that this is Katz' contribution one has to point out how this is actually the case. It isn't.
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.
This. Even though the city will need to grab some money from Edmontonians now, they'll make it up through events held at the new arena. If Katz had built it, the city would be getting dick all except for potential in the market.
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.
Sorry, the average seating price is $70 for Rexall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement
Your statements on the new rink revenue being no different reveal limited knowledge of what the new arena configuration will be.
Included in that 18.200 are 5000 luxury seats(Suites, sky paddock, loge, club paddock seating) that are classed and priced as "Luxury" "Premium" seats and all offering to your seat service. Guess what such seats will cost or what they tend to cost in other rinks? I'll also note that in many rinks such seating has additional surcharges and for instance having to buy the seat, or table(in addition to tickets) for a term much like you would for a suite. These 5K premium seats are in addition to the lower bowl seats which will also be premium priced seats.
As I've stated many times this is really a blueblood pricing arena with around 12-13K tickets that will be high priced. Which is in marked contrast to the present arena.
This not even mentioning the revenues brought in from the resto/lounges that are part of the new arena plan. Or any revenues from Wintergarden etc.
You're assuming these numbers are for the Katz arena. What is being debated here is the plan for the city to build their own arena, which there have been zero details about. The only way you're going to gauge at this point is to take the average ticket price of Rexall and transfer that over to a proposed new arena built by the city, which is $70.
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.
Wont Northlands recieve that money? Letting Northlands run a new arena and building it on their own is one of the biggest mistakes this city can make.
Wont Northlands recieve that money? Letting Northlands run a new arena and building it on their own is one of the biggest mistakes this city can make.
Why is that.? Northlands does an excellent job of running Rexall and in fact pumps their surplus back into facilities for the community.
To suggest they dont is disingenuous.
You're assuming these numbers are for the Katz arena. What is being debated here is the plan for the city to build their own arena, which there have been zero details about. The only way you're going to gauge at this point is to take the average ticket price of Rexall and transfer that over to a proposed new arena built by the city, which is $70.
Nice try. Some of your responses about revenue not increasing appreciably in a new arena were in direct response to posts about the Katz arena.
The $100 mill was already being invested by the province in the form of infrastructure to support the arena.
MSI is NOT the province investing and supporting an arena. It is a fund granted to municipalities that they can use to help fund projects as they see fit. Theres not one more dime coming to the city from the province for the city fronting all the money in a "Katz" arena.
In essence the city has to take MSI money that they can use, or even planned to use, for other projects, and instead defer it to the Katz arena.
Wont Northlands recieve that money? Letting Northlands run a new arena and building it on their own is one of the biggest mistakes this city can make.
If Northlands runs the building and pays for the operating expenses then possibly.
It seems to me letting Katz run the arena would be the biggest mistake the city could make. Northlands has a pretty good track record over the last 40yrs or so.
Nice try. Some of your responses about revenue not increasing appreciably in a new arena were in direct response to posts about the Katz arena.
My stance is this: I believe Katz is correct when he states that his requirement for an arena hinges on the revenue generated from sources other than straight ticket sales, ie the arena district. Real estate, office tower revenue, and public support are required in order for the Oilers to stay healthy moving into the next 35 years. And it's true, considering the growth of the NHL in the last 6 years. It's not unrealistic to suggest that the cap could rise to $100M+ over the next 10 years. And because cap is directly linked to player salary, you can expect the Oilers to have to pay close to that.
The new arena that could be built by the City would alleviate none of those concerns. Mark my words that we will be back in this same situation in the next 10 years and there will be no correcting it. And 3-4000 seats certainly won't change that.
MSI is NOT the province investing and supporting an arena. It is a fund granted to municipalities that they can use to help fund projects as they see fit. Theres not one more dime coming to the city from the province for the city fronting all the money in a "Katz" arena.
In essence the city has to take MSI money that they can use, or even planned to use, for other projects, and instead defer it to the Katz arena.
You mean for the LRT expansion that goes into the arena then to Kingsway and NAIT? Because that's what the infrastructure funding is for.
My stance is this: I believe Katz is correct when he states that his requirement for an arena hinges on the revenue generated from sources other than straight ticket sales, ie the arena district. Real estate, office tower revenue, and public support are required in order for the Oilers to stay healthy moving into the next 35 years. And it's true, considering the growth of the NHL in the last 6 years. It's not unrealistic to suggest that the cap could rise to $100M+ over the next 10 years. And because cap is directly linked to player salary, you can expect the Oilers to have to pay close to that.
The new arena that could be built by the City would alleviate none of those concerns. Mark my words that we will be back in this same situation in the next 10 years and there will be no correcting it. And 3-4000 seats certainly won't change that.
Its realistic provided the intent of the league is to have a dozen clubs.
Ask yourself why the NHL is in a lockout right now with the majority of member teams requiring a reduced, not increased cap and payroll.
I can see where you might think it would increase to 100M assuming a strictly linear progression but I don't think thats the news in store for a post peak oil/economic collapse world.
Basically NOT money out of this pocket. This is simply higher ticket price in a market that often has no apparent upper limit in what it will pay, or in perceived disposable income.
For you, or anybody in the Katz camp to suggest that the ticket tax is coming out of Katz's pocket please explain how this is the case when gate revenue, and average ticket prices(before surcharge) will be much higher in the new arena (and I guarantee you they would be).
I think to argue that this is Katz' contribution one has to point out how this is actually the case. It isn't.
Its the peoples money. Clearly.
It's money that could've been in Katz' pocket.
And I don't buy that in Edmonton you can charge any price. There are limits to anything.
So effectively he'd have an anchor on his ticket revenue.
Its realistic provided the intent of the league is to have a dozen clubs.
Ask yourself why the NHL is in a lockout right now with the majority of member teams requiring a reduced, not increased cap and payroll.
I can see where you might think it would increase to 100M assuming a strictly linear progression but I don't think thats the news in store for a post peak oil/economic collapse world.
Lol, I know you are just keeping it real IYO but please spare us the apocalyptic predictions...this isn't CNN.
Basically NOT money out of this pocket. This is simply higher ticket price in a market that often has no apparent upper limit in what it will pay, or in perceived disposable income.
For you, or anybody in the Katz camp to suggest that the ticket tax is coming out of Katz's pocket please explain how this is the case when gate revenue, and average ticket prices(before surcharge) will be much higher in the new arena (and I guarantee you they would be).
I think to argue that this is Katz' contribution one has to point out how this is actually the case. It isn't.
Its the peoples money. Clearly.
If Joe Fan is willing to pay $100 for a ticket, but not $110, then the ticket has to be priced at $100 to sell. The ticket tax has to come out of what the owner can charge for the ticket.
That would be what the economics based argument would be. It comes out of the owners share of what he could charge for the ticket.
In fact it may be muddier than that, but that is it in a nutshell.
I can see where you might think it would increase to 100M assuming a strictly linear progression but I don't think thats the news in store for a post peak oil/economic collapse world.
Oh my gosh. And here I thought I was being pessimistic on the economy.
Oh my gosh. And here I thought I was being pessimistic on the economy.
If you venture most anywhere out of Alberta over the last several years its not hard to see.
Its not getting better either. I didn't even mention the relative death of the middle class in the US. The death of average hopes and dreams. Of a country where healthcare and education are prohibitively expensive and jobs not widely available and well paying anyway.
I'm not talking about the Alberta economy ftr and we'll be OK for awhile and have one of the best umbrellas for the storm. But its hit pretty much everywhere and with Europe, China, Japan, US suffering greatly. Who exactly are the world economy saviors right now?
The NHL has existed in an apparent vacuum in respect to the US economy these past 10yrs and largely due to Canadian revenue increases, increased Canadian dollar, better Canadian economy etc. Canadian clubs economic performance and US TV contracts have currently fogged the overall decline in the US and specifically gate revenues.
Finally, Increased TV contracts are largely a result of the explosion of satellite/available channels and in concert with hdtv have resulted in a huge transfiguration of American entertainment and another "cocooning" phenomenon. But this also due to the downturn in the economy and TV entertainment being the cheapest means to entertainment available. Theres a perfect storm of factors for the TV industry that won't be repeated. The increased amounts for Hockey TV contracts won't likely be sustained. Ratings will probably indicate that such endorsements are not warranted either. NBC/Fox has made these NHL gambits before. They've never panned out into much of anything for the Networks.
Last edited by Replacement: 11-03-2012 at 10:56 PM.
I do not want to derail the thread, however I would point you to recent jobs figures for the US and Canada.
On the topic of the thread, given present economic uncertainties why in the world do you think an owner would tie himself to a particular market if he did not receive significant concessions?
Edmonton is particularly prone to the booms and busts of global economics, as I am sure you and I have both experienced. Given your views on the economy, would you think Katz is daft for wanting protections in a deal that would see his asset tied to the fortunes of a resource boom town for 35 years?
Given your views on the economy, would you think Katz is daft for wanting protections in a deal that would see his asset tied to the fortunes of a resource boom town for 35 years?
The problem is that in a good economy he would be getting profit directly from tax payer's money. Also concerns like this could be better handled if Katz was more open and willing to discuss the problem. What he was asking of the city was absolutely ridiculous, they were willing to work with him if he would open up his books and prove he could lose a lot of money. The city cannot be reckless and give him whatever he asks for.
