HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
11-04-2012, 10:55 PM
  #176
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbean View Post
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.
He absolutely cannot do that. After everything that city council has leaked to the media he'd be an absolute moron to do that. And theres no proof that Katz wasn't willing to deal, he was just being sticky on some issues. It's part of doing business.

raab is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 11:21 PM
  #177
jbean
Registered User
 
jbean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
He absolutely cannot do that. After everything that city council has leaked to the media he'd be an absolute moron to do that. And theres no proof that Katz wasn't willing to deal, he was just being sticky on some issues. It's part of doing business.
Well the city would be more willing to help him out if he provided proof that he is or will be losing money. What is the city supposed to do? Just give him a blank cheque?

As for the second point, I could be wrong, but I thought that his refusal to speak to council was pretty much the end to negotiations. How can he be seen as trying to negotiate in good faith if he is not willing to speak to council? What else should the city have done? Surely they regret how they also made some things public, but after he made further demands, what should the city have done?

jbean is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 11:42 PM
  #178
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,491
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbean View Post
Well the city would be more willing to help him out if he provided proof that he is or will be losing money. What is the city supposed to do? Just give him a blank cheque?

As for the second point, I could be wrong, but I thought that his refusal to speak to council was pretty much the end to negotiations. How can he be seen as trying to negotiate in good faith if he is not willing to speak to council? What else should the city have done? Surely they regret how they also made some things public, but after he made further demands, what should the city have done?
Just went ahead and gave him what he wanted and just kept it all hush-hush apparently.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 05:19 PM
  #179
oilphan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,665
vCash: 500
I believe strongly that if the city does not cave completely, Daryl will go ahead and aggressively try to move the team. At this point that Daryl is seems like does not care at all about the city of Edmonton. At least, he cares much less about the city than he does about money. Now this is all about him making more $, and if it take moving to Markham to do so, he will move heaven and earth to make it happen.

oilphan is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 07:31 PM
  #180
jbean
Registered User
 
jbean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilphan View Post
I believe strongly that if the city does not cave completely, Daryl will go ahead and aggressively try to move the team. At this point that Daryl is seems like does not care at all about the city of Edmonton. At least, he cares much less about the city than he does about money. Now this is all about him making more $, and if it take moving to Markham to do so, he will move heaven and earth to make it happen.
If he went through with this it would be the cherry on top of his string of mistakes. Does he really want to burn bridges with the city he lives in for part of the year and grew up in? He might feel that way right now, but if he starts an aggresive campaign to move Edmonton out of spite it cannot end well for him. He has a small chance of succeeding and his already tarnished public image will take the worst beating yet.

jbean is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 12:24 AM
  #181
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,071
vCash: 500
"They have a great owner who's willing to spend to win..." - Marty McSorley tonight on Hockeycentral regarding the Oilers.

Orly?

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 12:49 AM
  #182
cpnfantstk
Registered User
 
cpnfantstk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Orlando. Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
"They have a great owner who's willing to spend to win..." - Marty McSorley tonight on Hockeycentral regarding the Oilers.

Orly?
How the heck does he know? I mean really. He sure has proven how big of a spender he is with this arena fiasco.

cpnfantstk is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 01:01 AM
  #183
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
How the heck does he know? I mean really. He sure has proven how big of a spender he is with this arena fiasco.
Marty's probably chummy with Mr. Katz just like the rest of the 80's "Glory Gang." He's been touting the virtues of Katz for four years here and he's criticized Edmonton city council on multiple occasions for dragging their feet on the arena situation.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 01:31 AM
  #184
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
"They have a great owner who's willing to spend to win..." - Marty McSorley tonight on Hockeycentral regarding the Oilers.

Orly?
Most of the usual suspects and village idiots must've been too busy to comment.

Marty McSorley? seriously?

and why should anybody care what he has to say about a complex arena negotiation and owner endgame?

Replacement is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:57 AM
  #185
oilphan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,665
vCash: 500
Hey Daryl. Maybe you should take some lessons from this guy.

http://*******.com/b3envut

oilphan is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 04:36 PM
  #186
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
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.
So lets pretend the most edmontonians are willing to pay for tickets is 100 dollars, a nice easy number. Oiler tickets are currently at 90 dollars. Katz raises them to 100 and gets an extra 10 dollars per ticket.

With a ticker tax of lets say 5 bucks for easy math Katz can now only charge 5 dollars extra per ticket.


How is not coming out of his pocket?

Also your pretty biased if thats what you take out of the office tower, should start reading the journal. They hate Katz like the rest of Edmonton but at least share the facts not like the one sinded rant saying he wants them to subsidize his tower.

Before Katz asked about the office tower council had city administrators looking at renting a building to house all public city employees and it would save millions. This feasibility study was started a long time ago, its not some last minute Katz demand.

Katz aware of such a desire suggests the brand new sky scraper besides the arena close to city hall. What an ******* that guy is

Jamin is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 04:37 PM
  #187
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
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.
So in other words if the city chooses to use MSI funds (which they have said in the past) the province is helping pay for the arena. Whether thats the right choice or not is to be decided but in effect it pretty much is provincial money imo

Jamin is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 04:47 PM
  #188
oiler-dude
Registered User
 
oiler-dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
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.
The City is looking at an office tower regardless of if it's on Katz's land or not. They've put out (or are about to be putting out) an RFP, so they'd be paying someone no matter what. That isn't a Katz-only thing.

oiler-dude is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 07:36 PM
  #189
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler-dude View Post
The City is looking at an office tower regardless of if it's on Katz's land or not. They've put out (or are about to be putting out) an RFP, so they'd be paying someone no matter what. That isn't a Katz-only thing.
No, its not a Katz only thing. What is a Katz only thing was him reneging again on his commitment, & trying to make that another condition of his "funding" (god , is that an overstatement).
The problem now with they guy is its clear hes about as untrustworthy & unreliable as one could possibly have as a "partner".
It seems Michael Largue doesnt have much on Katz, other than Katz doesnt live in his dads basement.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:28 PM
  #190
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
So lets pretend the most edmontonians are willing to pay for tickets is 100 dollars, a nice easy number. Oiler tickets are currently at 90 dollars. Katz raises them to 100 and gets an extra 10 dollars per ticket.

With a ticker tax of lets say 5 bucks for easy math Katz can now only charge 5 dollars extra per ticket.


How is not coming out of his pocket?

Also your pretty biased if thats what you take out of the office tower, should start reading the journal. They hate Katz like the rest of Edmonton but at least share the facts not like the one sinded rant saying he wants them to subsidize his tower.

Before Katz asked about the office tower council had city administrators looking at renting a building to house all public city employees and it would save millions. This feasibility study was started a long time ago, its not some last minute Katz demand.

Katz aware of such a desire suggests the brand new sky scraper besides the arena close to city hall. What an ******* that guy is
Thats a distorted interpretation. Right now at Rexall Katz is seeing 70 buck average. In the new arena with the City fronting all the cash Katz is going to be looking at well over a 100bucks average ticket price with no money down on the new arena. Sweet deal. Thats without the 10buck surcharge. So explain whats coming out of his pocket. Use the proper numbers and its a much different equation than you surmise.

+100 buck average ticket price is a conservative number. With 5K luxury seats +7k lower bowl seats the average is probably much higher. This is about 3,800 more luxury seats and luxury pricing then is currently the case at Rexall.

Replacement is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:32 PM
  #191
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,491
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
So in other words if the city chooses to use MSI funds (which they have said in the past) the province is helping pay for the arena. Whether thats the right choice or not is to be decided but in effect it pretty much is provincial money imo
Money that could have otherwise gone to other infrastructure projects.

The province isnt paying for ****.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:33 PM
  #192
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
So in other words if the city chooses to use MSI funds (which they have said in the past) the province is helping pay for the arena. Whether thats the right choice or not is to be decided but in effect it pretty much is provincial money imo
Again its a distorted view to think that the province is helping to pay for an arena that they resolutely refuse to fund or be associated with in any way. The province is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to funding and being a partner in this public build arena. They've been crystal clear on that all along and spanning two different premiers. None of the opposition parties would be in favor of it either. Nothing is more clear.

Again, the city is using a Municipal initiative that is an ongoing annual amount, monies paid out to the city, that are NOT earmarked specifically by the province. These funds can be used by any municipality or town as they see fit, within reason. This is a kickback to cities based on afairc census numbers, taxbase and an example of monies being proportionally redistributed back to the taxbases from which they come. A fair provincial/civic redistribution. It has nothing to do with the province choosing to fund an arena.

Replacement is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 02:25 AM
  #193
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
I'm wondering how long the Province is diametrically opposed to funding arenas when Calgary hits the agenda.

nye is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:02 AM
  #194
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
I'm wondering how long the Province is diametrically opposed to funding arenas when Calgary hits the agenda.
Yeah,hopefully they dont have the same amount of integrity as Katz and they actually stay true to their word.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:40 AM
  #195
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
I'm wondering how long the Province is diametrically opposed to funding arenas when Calgary hits the agenda.
Theres no need for confusion on this. The province has acted to fund arena/stadia in the past that are built to facilitate international sporting events and that allow the feds to match funding of such interntational endeavor.

To wit Commonwealth Stadium being built in preparation for the Commonwealth games and Saddledome being built in preparation for the Olympics.

If we're invoking regional favoritism as well then lets not forget that Stelmach, who had his timecard punched in Edmonton and Northern Alberta was equally resolutely not in favor of provincial funding attached to a public funded, private arena in Edmonton. Even though his constituency might favor such a build.

You can surmise what ever you like I guess. But its engaging in fiction to no end.

Replacement is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 01:04 PM
  #196
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
So lets pretend the most edmontonians are willing to pay for tickets is 100 dollars, a nice easy number. Oiler tickets are currently at 90 dollars. Katz raises them to 100 and gets an extra 10 dollars per ticket.

With a ticker tax of lets say 5 bucks for easy math Katz can now only charge 5 dollars extra per ticket.


How is not coming out of his pocket?
On that 90 dollar ticket 5% GST is charged it will also be charged on the $100 ticket, is that money coming out of Katz's pocket? No it's the person paying for the ticket same thing with the ticket surcharge. It's an extra tax and it may affect Katz's pricing but it's not his contribution in any way.

As for the office tower, it is one of the fifteen items on Katz's list and one of the three that the city says they cant accept and has ended the negotiations.

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 04:16 PM
  #197
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
On that 90 dollar ticket 5% GST is charged it will also be charged on the $100 ticket, is that money coming out of Katz's pocket? No it's the person paying for the ticket same thing with the ticket surcharge. It's an extra tax and it may affect Katz's pricing but it's not his contribution in any way.

As for the office tower, it is one of the fifteen items on Katz's list and one of the three that the city says they cant accept and has ended the negotiations.
The GST is also coming out of Katz's pocket since it represents an amount that people are willing to pay to go to Oilers games that he can't charge. However, the GST applies equally across the economy (with a few exceptions) so the cost can be more easily passed onto the customer and in its absence the federal government would simply raise taxes through other means, so it isn't nearly as odious to a business owner as a tax targeted specifically to his and only his business.

Imagine you ran a corner store and the government decided to apply a 25% tax on your sales but not your competitors (maybe to compensate taxpayers for having to repave the street in front of your store). The only way you'd be able to stay in business is to drop your prices by 25%. That is a more extreme example than what is happening with the ticket tax but it is a much more apt analogy than your GST one.

Edit: I should add that I have no problem with the Ticket Tax. I just think we have to classify it as a Katz Group contribution if we are going to have an honest debate.


Last edited by worraps: 11-07-2012 at 04:23 PM.
worraps is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 04:51 PM
  #198
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
The GST is also coming out of Katz's pocket since it represents an amount that people are willing to pay to go to Oilers games that he can't charge. However, the GST applies equally across the economy (with a few exceptions) so the cost can be more easily passed onto the customer and in its absence the federal government would simply raise taxes through other means, so it isn't nearly as odious to a business owner as a tax targeted specifically to his and only his business.

Imagine you ran a corner store and the government decided to apply a 25% tax on your sales but not your competitors (maybe to compensate taxpayers for having to repave the street in front of your store). The only way you'd be able to stay in business is to drop your prices by 25%. That is a more extreme example than what is happening with the ticket tax but it is a much more apt analogy than your GST one.

Edit: I should add that I have no problem with the Ticket Tax. I just think we have to classify it as a Katz Group contribution if we are going to have an honest debate.


Here is the problem with your analogy. The government isnt just paving the street in front of your store they are building your store and not charging you any rent (or at least not enough to cover the cost of building) to use it. They are making the money back by charging your customers an entry fee. Your customers are willing to pay to get into your store but you might make a little bit less. As for the GST applying across the economy, the ticket surcharge applies to his competitors as well. Northlands was going to have a ticket surcharge applied to tickets at their facility as well, so no the shop around the corner wasnt going to get a competitive advantage because of the ticket surcharge.


The GST on tickets doesnt come out of Katz's pockets, neither does the ticket surcharge.

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 04:59 PM
  #199
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Here is the problem with your analogy. The government isnt just paving the street in front of your store they are building your store and not charging you any rent (or at least not enough to cover the cost of building) to use it. They are making the money back by charging your customers an entry fee. Your customers are willing to pay to get into your store but you might make a little bit less. As for the GST applying across the economy, the ticket surcharge applies to his competitors as well. Northlands was going to have a ticket surcharge applied to tickets at their facility as well, so no the shop around the corner wasnt going to get a competitive advantage because of the ticket surcharge.


The GST on tickets doesnt come out of Katz's pockets, neither does the ticket surcharge.
You're conflating two entirely separate issues. The ticket tax is a contribution by Katz towards the capital costs of the building regardless of how much rent is charged.

Instead of charging him no rent, the City could be paying him 'eleventy billion' dollars to operate the arena and a ticket tax would still be a Katz Group contribution toward the capital costs of the building.

Also his competitors aren't limited to Northlands. People don't have unlimited budgets for entertainment and if arena event tickets prices (tax included) climb too high they will simply go to movies, non-arena concerts, etc, etc, instead.


Last edited by worraps: 11-07-2012 at 05:07 PM.
worraps is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 06:16 PM
  #200
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
You're conflating two entirely separate issues. The ticket tax is a contribution by Katz towards the capital costs of the building regardless of how much rent is charged.
No it's not. It's a tax on his customers, it's not his contribution. The city has the right to tax tickets in such a way and how they decide to use that tax, that they are using the tax on the building is incidental. He can complain that it's unfair, just like everyone can complain about the gst or income tax but he cant call it his contribution just like he cant call the gst on tickets a part of his contribution to the rink.

Halibut 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 03:28 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.