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
12-13-2012, 12:28 PM
  #601
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Given that Katz will have a signifigant interest in the surrounding development, if it takes off doesnt that also mean he makes lots of $$$?
And on the flip side, if Katz wants that, maybe if the Arena does well City shares in some of that profit.
Thats seems fair,no?
This is just plain stupid - my apologies for being blunt, but when do private business share their profits with the city they reside in (besides taxes)?

The only reason Katz wants all of the profits from the arena is to be on par with every single other NHL team who gets 100% of the profits (Edmonton was the only NHL club NOT getting this). I don't understand why people still don't get this. It's the established norm for NHL teams and their respective arenas they play in.

Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:37 PM
  #602
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Btw, its hardly a windfall. The costts associated with the City services & infrastructure of this area , should it take off, are enormous. People talk as if its without cost for the City, both today & tomorrow. Its not. The costs are enormous.
To say nothing of the argument many make that its just transferring tax revenue from one area of the City to another.
And again, if the area takes off, common sense says that means Katz surrounding businesses will do very well as well. So why would the City further subsidize him? Why is that never factored in?
Always a one way street.
Probably because if it's Katz that's putting businesses around the arena, that it's considered a seperate business entity. Are you saying that any business around the arena district that does well should be funnelling some of their profit to the city on top of the CRL that will be in place - or should that only apply to Katz - because well he's a billionaire?

This whole mentality that he shouldn't make any more money because he already has lots is silly. He's the one promising to put up 100 million towards the development of the surrounding area, if he invests in it then why shouldn't he be able to make a profit...or not depending on how it goes?

Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:48 PM
  #603
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
Probably because if it's Katz that's putting businesses around the arena, that it's considered a seperate business entity. Are you saying that any business around the arena district that does well should be funnelling some of their profit to the city on top of the CRL that will be in place - or should that only apply to Katz - because well he's a billionaire?

This whole mentality that he shouldn't make any money because he already has lots is silly.
Sorry that you have difficulty comprehending this. Its really not that complex (well, for most anyways). Katz is asking for a (further) public subsidy for his private venture. He says that if the surrounding area , of which he is a partner, does well, the City would also do well, so he would like some of that City money into his pocket. Now that City money also comes with all sorts of costs associated with it.
Now, you dont see that as abit one sided. And if the argument is its only going to be used if the Arena is not as profitable as he hopes, then dont you also think that if the new Arena is MORE profitable than his projections, the City should share in that (after all, they are the only ones really paying for it)?
And I have zero issue with him making money. None. But dont go around reneging on sweetheart agreements, asking for a further safety net, without a corresponding request from that who you are asking .
See, if you try hard & think, its really not that complex.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:53 PM
  #604
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
This is just plain stupid - my apologies for being blunt, but when do private business share their profits with the city they reside in (besides taxes)?

The only reason Katz wants all of the profits from the arena is to be on par with every single other NHL team who gets 100% of the profits (Edmonton was the only NHL club NOT getting this). I don't understand why people still don't get this. It's the established norm for NHL teams and their respective arenas they play in.
I dunno. When does the City build private enterprises their place of business?
And btw, do some research before you spout off. Its not the established norm. There is none. Every deal is different. If the City could get anything like that which the City of Winnipeg got, it would b awesome. To say nothing of the fact that the Edmonton market & proposed new arena is twice the market for the Oilers that the Winnipeg market is for the jets

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:58 PM
  #605
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Sorry that you have difficulty comprehending this. Its really not that complex (well, for most anyways). Katz is asking for a (further) public subsidy for his private venture. He says that if the surrounding area , of which he is a partner, does well, the City would also do well, so he would like some of that City money into his pocket. Now that City money also comes with all sorts of costs associated with it.
Now, you dont see that as abit one sided. And if the argument is its only going to be used if the Arena is not as profitable as he hopes, then dont you also think that if the new Arena is MORE profitable than his projections, the City should share in that (after all, they are the only ones really paying for it)?
And I have zero issue with him making money. None. But dont go around reneging on sweetheart agreements, asking for a further safety net, without a corresponding request from that who you are asking .
See, if you try hard & think, its really not that complex.
Well I was trying to be civil, but i see you're unable to do so in kind. I'll be blunt again for you.

If you're talking about the arena profits - 100% to the Katz group exactly the same as all of the other NHL teams. It's straight forward really, and i don't know why you fail to grasp that simple fact. Why should the Oilers get anything different from the rest of the league?

Surrounding businesses. Minus the CRL and other related taxes, all profits go to that business. It's called capitalism.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

To say that the city should be getting part of that profit of the surrounding businesses simply because of who they are owned by, and that they are doing well is asinine.

What city money into his pocket are you talking about? He's asking that part of the CRL be used towards the maintenance and upkeep of the arena. Are you seriously suggesting that he's going to put it into his pocket instead?

Maybe you should stick to watching Adam Sandler movies instead?

Also, here's an article by Staples explaining the use of property tax to help pay for the arena operations:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...sh-arena-deal/


Last edited by Booya42: 12-13-2012 at 01:15 PM.
Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:03 PM
  #606
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
I dunno. When does the City build private enterprises their place of business?
And btw, do some research before you spout off. Its not the established norm. There is none. Every deal is different. If the City could get anything like that which the City of Winnipeg got, it would b awesome. To say nothing of the fact that the Edmonton market & proposed new arena is twice the market for the Oilers that the Winnipeg market is for the jets
Seriously? Did you even read what i typed? Every single NHL team...every single one...gets 100% of the profits from the arenas they play in. Edmonton was the only team which did not. That would be considered "by definition" the norm for NHL teams.

Do some research youself maybe?

Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:22 PM
  #607
Swarez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
Seriously? Did you even read what i typed? Every single NHL team...every single one...gets 100% of the profits from the arenas they play in. Edmonton was the only team which did not. That would be considered "by definition" the norm for NHL teams.

Do some research youself maybe?
Are you saying that every NHL team gets profits from all events in the arena because that is not true at all.

Swarez is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:44 PM
  #608
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarez99 View Post
Are you saying that every NHL team gets profits from all events in the arena because that is not true at all.
True...i will clarify (and thank you):

http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/Edmo...s/newindex.htm

Quote:
"The Oilers have two fundamental competitive disadvantages," the Katz Group tells council. "We play in the league's smallest media market and are the only team/ownership group in the NHL that does not receive non-hockey revenues from the building in which it plays."
So it is the norm for all NHL teams to receive non-hockey related revenues to the tune of millions a year from the buildings in which they play. Edmonton has the only team that does not get a cent.

Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:49 PM
  #609
Moose Coleman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
True...i will clarify (and thank you):

http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/Edmo...s/newindex.htm



So it is the norm for all NHL teams to receive non-hockey related revenues to the tune of millions a year from the buildings in which they play. Edmonton has the only team that does not get a cent.
You said the Oilers are the only team that doesn't get "100% of the profits". That's not the case.

Moose Coleman is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:12 PM
  #610
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Btw, its hardly a windfall. The costts associated with the City services & infrastructure of this area , should it take off, are enormous. People talk as if its without cost for the City, both today & tomorrow. Its not. The costs are enormous.
To say nothing of the argument many make that its just transferring tax revenue from one area of the City to another.
And again, if the area takes off, common sense says that means Katz surrounding businesses will do very well as well. So why would the City further subsidize him? Why is that never factored in?
Always a one way street.
Some of it is in the citys calculations on what the CRL will produce or at least they compare those costs to what the city will gain from the increases in taxes. That is one of the reasons they backed out when the Katz group asked for more. Of course the city is very much in favor of revitalizing downtown because these infrastructure costs are mitigated by the fact that more people downtown means less new subdivsions which means less infrastructure payments in the longterm. There are already hospitals, police, fire anr emergency services downtown so they dont have to build more of those south of ellerslie or further out on the west end or farther north wherever the next big expansion would be.

The idea is a good one but it depends on the implementation. There has to be restrictions based on success of the CRL and on team need, which means regular audits of the teams books by a third party auditor.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:20 PM
  #611
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Some of it is in the citys calculations on what the CRL will produce or at least they compare those costs to what the city will gain from the increases in taxes. That is one of the reasons they backed out when the Katz group asked for more. Of course the city is very much in favor of revitalizing downtown because these infrastructure costs are mitigated by the fact that more people downtown means less new subdivsions which means less infrastructure payments in the longterm. There are already hospitals, police, fire anr emergency services downtown so they dont have to build more of those south of ellerslie or further out on the west end or farther north wherever the next big expansion would be.

The idea is a good one but it depends on the implementation. There has to be restrictions based on success of the CRL and on team need, which means regular audits of the teams books by a third party auditor.


The Oilers are not owned by the City and no funding model will ever be agreed upon where private business must open their books to the public.

smackdaddy is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:21 PM
  #612
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Coleman View Post
You said the Oilers are the only team that doesn't get "100% of the profits". That's not the case.
Yep, thanks.

I was leaving that one for someone else to nail. Plus to tell people to do research and then cite an outdated "ballparks" website that contains randomly submitted, often non substantiated information is rich.

Replacement is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:25 PM
  #613
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post


The Oilers are not owned by the City and no funding model will ever be agreed upon where private business must open their books to the public.
They wont be open to the public it would have to work in just the way they've proposed to handle the difference in projections via a third party mediator/auditor. If Katz group is open to it with regards to projections on the CRL he should be open to the same process in determining if the team qualifies for a subsidy. They've already said they have to work out how the fund would be controlled and this (or some way to determine team need) would have to be a stipulation.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:26 PM
  #614
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Yep, thanks.

I was leaving that one for someone else to nail. Plus to tell people to do research and then cite an outdated "ballparks" website that contains randomly submitted, often non substantiated information is rich.
Great addition to the thread.

You can attack semantics all you want (It's probably the only thing you got). Doesn't change the fact that the Oilers need a modern funding model that includes revenue from both NHL and non-NHL sources. Exponentially more than other markets due to just how small Edmonton is. The fact that Edmonton is a small market will only become more pronounced as the sport grows and we trade 2/3rd's of our core due to money issues.

smackdaddy is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:27 PM
  #615
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
They wont be open to the public it would have to work in just the way they've proposed to handle the difference in projections via a third party mediator/auditor. If Katz group is open to it with regards to projections on the CRL he should be open to the same process in determining if the team qualifies for a subsidy. They've already said they have to work out how the fund would be controlled and this (or some way to determine team need) would have to be a stipulation.
Sorry, you're living in dream land.

smackdaddy is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:33 PM
  #616
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Sorry, you're living in dream land.
If they wont accept some kind of audit to prove financial need then they will be in for a rough ride.

You can already feel a shift in the mood around town. The Katz group really lost a lot of good will with the veiled hints in their trip to Seattle. If they want to get this done there will be serious restrictions on qualifying for any financial support and they need to get this done soon because I think if it's not resolved before the next election Diotte will run on an anti-arena campaign and likely take the mayors seat.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:38 PM
  #617
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Coleman View Post
You said the Oilers are the only team that doesn't get "100% of the profits". That's not the case.
Yep, that's why i clarified if you'd read (and quoted) the entire thing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarez99
Are you saying that every NHL team gets profits from all events in the arena because that is not true at all.

True...i will clarify (and thank you):

http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/Edmo...s/newindex.htm

Quote:
"The Oilers have two fundamental competitive disadvantages," the Katz Group tells council. "We play in the league's smallest media market and are the only team/ownership group in the NHL that does not receive non-hockey revenues from the building in which it plays."

So it is the norm for all NHL teams to receive non-hockey related revenues to the tune of millions a year from the buildings in which they play. Edmonton has the only team that does not get a cent.
I even thanked them for correcting me, which is more than can be said for certain posters around here.

Edit..just realized that it looks like i am disagreeing with Swarez99. This was not meant to be the case - I actually agree with him and hence why i tried to clarify as well as thank him. My comment of "True...i will clarify (and thank you) should have said "What you say is true, so i will clarify (and thank you)". >.<


Last edited by Booya42: 12-13-2012 at 03:52 PM.
Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:42 PM
  #618
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Yep, thanks.

I was leaving that one for someone else to nail. Plus to tell people to do research and then cite an outdated "ballparks" website that contains randomly submitted, often non substantiated information is rich.
Oh i'm sorry Replacement...here - just for your sake:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmo.../16424861.html

Did you even read it?

So is that enough randomly submitted, often non substantiated information for you? Just like that time i cited NHL.com and you said it wasn't legit? Pffff save the bandwagon jumping for something you can substantiate on your own.

Edit - Please read the post above, and i apologize for being snarky. The Quote and it's details stand however, and can be found in the Edmonton Sun link. It is a fact that the Oilers are the only NHL team NOT receiving any non-hockey related revenues from the arenas they play in.


Last edited by Booya42: 12-13-2012 at 03:55 PM.
Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:56 PM
  #619
DJ EarWax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Great addition to the thread.

You can attack semantics all you want (It's probably the only thing you got). Doesn't change the fact that the Oilers need a modern funding model that includes revenue from both NHL and non-NHL sources. Exponentially more than other markets due to just how small Edmonton is. The fact that Edmonton is a small market will only become more pronounced as the sport grows and we trade 2/3rd's of our core due to money issues.
This always gets on my nerves. Let's do some math.

Edmonton Population: 1,159,869 (2011)
Calgary Population: 1,214,839 (2011) a diff of 54,970 (4.5%)
Ottawa Population: 1,236,324 (2011) a diff of 76,455 (6.2%)
Buffalo Population: 1,203,997 (2011) a diff of 44,128 (3.7%)

So if Edmonton is so small, then Calgary, Ottawa and Buffalo are basically just as small, unless you want to argue that at most 6.2% is significant.
You might try and argue city proper vs metro, and if that were the case you could argue that Edmonton is a bigger market than Vancouver, and I don't think anyone is arguing that. So please drop the "so small" crap, it's insulting and inaccurate.

DJ EarWax is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:05 PM
  #620
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
Seriously? Did you even read what i typed? Every single NHL team...every single one...gets 100% of the profits from the arenas they play in. Edmonton was the only team which did not. That would be considered "by definition" the norm for NHL teams.

Do some research youself maybe?
Oh my. I guess this is a complex issue. NOT ALL NHL ARENAS RECEIVED THE SAME FUNDING ARRANGEMENT FROM THEIR MUNICIPALITIES.
And when the greed is never ending (as in Katz) & they want more & more cause they say there is a good chance that they wont make what they "think" they would make if the place was profitable, your damn right that its incumbent upon City Counsel to negotiate a quid pro quo if the revenues/profits do exceed an agreed to amount. Especially when its the taxpayer paying the lions share of the cost.
But I guess for "some" Katz pom pom waivers, its a one way street. Some people I guess just think its appropriate that Katz makes a guaranteed profit, backstopped by the City.
That much is clear.
Btw, in all those other arenas, do the teams receive ALL the non hockey related revenues, or just some. And most of those other arrangements were not near as "rich" as what the City is , even in its present form, prepared to do for Katz.
Now thats not too complicated , is it?


Last edited by Billybaroo*: 12-13-2012 at 05:15 PM.
Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:11 PM
  #621
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 846
vCash: 500
I realize that most people do not have the time to read a whole thread. My initial comment was aimed toward Gibbons and his huge diesel trucks comment.

That being said, I'll take on the role of Mr. not-as-many-trucks-on-the-road guy due to the depressing state of all things hockey

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dayvan Cowboy View Post
And I spent 18 years near Peace River.

It is filled up the *** with trucks. For **** sakes I drove a truck and I'm the least small town person on the planet.

Dad drives a truck. (during winter)
Mom drives a truck.
3/4s of my relatives drive a truck.
Every guy that I graduated with or every guy I knew from neighboring schools drove a truck.
Almost every family friend we have drives a truck.
Really? How many trucks are on the road makes you that angry?

Anyway, I do not make it that far, but seeing as Peace River is in a really deep hole in the ground (literally) and the only way to escape said hole is to drive up a 45 degree icy incline - I can see why most people would drive a truck in Peace River. I'll take your word for it that every single person you have ever known owns a pick-up, DC.

And no, I am not putting down trucks. I used to own a chevy shortbox when I was a teenager. Ratios are a changing though. Gas prices have seen to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempest2i View Post
There's nothing wrong with driving a truck.

On the other hand, there's a lot wrong with driving a truck that has a ridiculous lift kit, massive tires and dual straight exhaust.
As I said, I was commenting on Gibbons remark concerning massive diesels needing a place to park. I could care less if you drive a jet down the road as long as you don't slow down traffic.

ThePhoenixx is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:15 PM
  #622
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashy View Post
You have a degree?

In what?
In one that prevents me from walking into this one.

ThePhoenixx is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:00 PM
  #623
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,680
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Oh my. I guess this is a complex issue. NOT ALL NHL ARENAS RECEIVED THE SAME FUNDING ARRANGEMENT FROM THEIR MUNICIPALITIES.
And when the greed is never ending (as in Katz) & they want more & more cause they say there is a good chance that they wont make what they "think" they would make if the place was profitable, your damn right that its incumbent upon City Counsel to negotiate a quid pro quo if the revenues/profits do exceed an agreed to amount. Especially when its the taxpayer paying the lions share of the cost.
But I guess for "some" Katz pom pom waivers, its a one way street. Some people I guess just think its appropriate that Katz makes a guaranteed profit, backstopped by the City.
That much is clear.
Btw, in all those other arenas, do the teams receive ALL the non hockey related revenues, or just some. And most of those other arrangements were not near as "rich" as what the City is , even in its present form, prepared to do for Katz.
Now thats not too complicated , is it?
Wow...did you read what i posted? Obviously reading comprehension is a weak area for you. No worries. Copy and Paste can work wonders!

Here we go yet again, and please try to keep up.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Coleman
You said the Oilers are the only team that doesn't get "100% of the profits". That's not the case.

Yep, that's why i clarified if you'd read (and quoted) the entire thing:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarez99
Are you saying that every NHL team gets profits from all events in the arena because that is not true at all.

True...i will clarify (and thank you):

http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/Edmo...s/newindex.htm

Quote:
"The Oilers have two fundamental competitive disadvantages," the Katz Group tells council. "We play in the league's smallest media market and are the only team/ownership group in the NHL that does not receive non-hockey revenues from the building in which it plays."

So it is the norm for all NHL teams to receive non-hockey related revenues to the tune of millions a year from the buildings in which they play. Edmonton has the only team that does not get a cent.

I even thanked them for correcting me, which is more than can be said for certain posters around here.
Edit..just realized that it looks like i am disagreeing with Swarez99. This was not meant to be the case - I actually agree with him and hence why i tried to clarify as well as thank him. My comment of "True...i will clarify (and thank you) should have said "What you say is true, so i will clarify (and thank you)". >.<
I really don't think you understand what the Katz group was asking for as far as the CRL helping pay the upkeep of the arena, so here's (once again) a nice article.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...sh-arena-deal/

P.S. It helps reading comprehension when you refrain from foaming at the mouth shouting for Katz's blood.


Last edited by Booya42: 12-13-2012 at 06:10 PM.
Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:02 PM
  #624
jadeddog
Registered User
 
jadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 11,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Btw, its hardly a windfall. The costts associated with the City services & infrastructure of this area , should it take off, are enormous. People talk as if its without cost for the City, both today & tomorrow. Its not. The costs are enormous.
To say nothing of the argument many make that its just transferring tax revenue from one area of the City to another.
And again, if the area takes off, common sense says that means Katz surrounding businesses will do very well as well. So why would the City further subsidize him? Why is that never factored in?
Always a one way street.
yeah its just transferring from one area to the other, that is true... but its to an area that the city council *wants* it transferred to, and pretty much no other project will be able to make the transformation - which gives the arena project more "juice" in this regard

there will be some infrastructure costs for sure, but those will be there regardless of who builds the downtown arena... if the city does it by themselves, the costs don't change any... this is neither a positive or negative for either side

your last point is the only one with any real merit... yes, katz will definitely benefit from the land gaining in value and having more business in the general area... no doubt about that

jadeddog is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:09 PM
  #625
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ EarWax View Post
This always gets on my nerves. Let's do some math.

Edmonton Population: 1,159,869 (2011)
Calgary Population: 1,214,839 (2011) a diff of 54,970 (4.5%)
Ottawa Population: 1,236,324 (2011) a diff of 76,455 (6.2%)
Buffalo Population: 1,203,997 (2011) a diff of 44,128 (3.7%)

So if Edmonton is so small, then Calgary, Ottawa and Buffalo are basically just as small, unless you want to argue that at most 6.2% is significant.
You might try and argue city proper vs metro, and if that were the case you could argue that Edmonton is a bigger market than Vancouver, and I don't think anyone is arguing that. So please drop the "so small" crap, it's insulting and inaccurate.
Calgary, Ottawa, and Buffalo are basically just as small. That doesn't change the fact that Edmonton is tiny.

There are giants in the playground (namely Montreal, Toronto, and New York) and if franchises like the Oilers, Flames, Senators, and Sabres don't receive extra support from their municipalities, they will be crushed.

worraps 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 11:41 PM.

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.