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

New Arena deal agreed to by city and Katz group:mod warning #616

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-08-2013, 07:02 AM
  #751
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanbryoil View Post
Wow, I don't keep up with Alberta's economy/politics much but I must admit that this surprised me. I would've assumed that with all of the Oil revenue that Alberta would at least break even. Are there talks of a recession setting in or talks of massive tax increases/deep cuts to the budget?
Massive cuts to the budget. Some talk of a PST. Mostly accusations from opposition party of over spending.

But a few things, the low benchmark price of oil, bad PR around oilsands, several nations not wanting our product, and the pipeline controversies are all resulting in a massive economic headache.

In the midst of revenues billions of dollars lower than forecast the province is being asked to fund a major arena with an opposition party in waiting yapping at its tails at every turn.

Bad times to be a provincial govt.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 08:18 AM
  #752
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Preston View Post
This is whats best termed creative accounting, stats, bs, or lies.

The numbers are simply false and misleading. I'm left to believe in this that theres been less than an average of 16M/yr spent downtown?

This must ignore yet another fullscale retrofit of the Downtown LRT, Jasper Avenue improvements. Development of Louise Mckinney park, the promenade, and the buildings built on the trail there.
Must ignore the redevelopment of Churchill Square that was 15M alone. Must entirely ignore the massive engineering/undertaking involved in building an underground line spur to Kingsway/Nait.

Must ignore the massive redevelopment of an area that led to the possibility of stationlands.

Entirely ignores costs for downtown programming and events.

Likely doesn't even consider the expenditures prettying up 104st making it a home to farmers market and eclectic home to varied businesses.

Doesn't include massive redevelopment of the downtown library.

Doesn't include what it cost to refit the boardwalk for its current uses as an educational and business facility.

The stats being strictly civic monies doesn't even look at the impetus of the Winspear, New Art Gallery, Don Wheaton YMCA, Downtown U Of A in Enterprise Square, Major downtown GMCC campus, etc.

Doesn't include funding for the several downtown orgs that surface just long enough to say how underfunded, they, and the downtown are.

Doesn't include the massive amount of money already spent by the city on studies of arena revitilizing, of the Quarters, of buying up land left, right, and center. By some estimates in the neighborhood of 100M spent on this alone.

Also, the figure conveniently and speciously is timed to not include the building of a new city hall.

The figure seemingly leaves out ANY impetus of funding of LRT projects (some of which occurred right downtown and will continue to) and thus leaves out any benefit derived from spur lines that all funnel directly to, wait for it, downtown.

Oh the poor downtown, nothing is ever done for downtown.

Cry me a lying river.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 09:26 AM
  #753
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 500
Tarus: So throw away all the money already spent on the design and development of the current facility.

No, the city can just go on as they wish, they have spent the money, also there are a lot of cases of funding being oput out to see if something is viable in the business world. If it is not viable it gets shelved, happens all the time.

Re-enter development hell, and likely drag the process out another 5 - 10 years(if it even happens)

Who says that will happen? Totally baseless comment on your part.

Have exactly the same problems the first time(province won't contribute, no one is ok with raising taxes), this time without any kind of private investment

The problems are mitigated because the city does not give th4 sweetest deal of all time to the hockey team. We build the rink, we own the rink you can lease it.

Dictate lease terms on this new building, which will ultimately end up being similar due to the fact that 28 other NHL teams get all revenues from their buildings, if not state/provincial subsidies on top of it.

In god we trust all others must provide relevant unassailable data. Are you suggesting that public funds have been used to build every arena in the league?

Sounds like a reasonable, well thought out, logical plan!

"You aren't contributing enough to the project, so we're just going to pay for all of it just to spite you!"

lol the city is essentially paying for it all as it is. This thing is not going to be some nice arena that luckily keeps a team in the city it's going to be a monumental cash cow with zero risk for the main tenant. The deal as it is stinks for the city. Don't tell me you are one of the sheep that actually thinks the team will move unless they get this gold plated deal?




I do agree with your laugh smiley though. That's what I did when I read your post.

Beerfish is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 09:34 AM
  #754
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auguste Escoffier View Post
What is it with this city and its citizens that makes them hate billionaires?
If you had a neighbor that lived next door to you that drove a Mercedes, had a huge house and took off during the winter to his 2nd house in the sun.

And if this person suggested you a nice new fence be built between your property along with a new sidewalk and if he asked you to pay for it all because it will be a benefit to you would you look favorably on that person?

People do not as a rule hate rich people because they are rich, they hate them because of the actions they take when they are rich. Actions that are 100% fundamentally in opposition to the principles they usually extoll.

Beerfish is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 09:44 AM
  #755
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auguste Escoffier View Post
What is it with this city and its citizens that makes them hate billionaires?
Not sure if this question is rhetorical but Edmonton and Winnipeg are pretty similar in this regard at least historically speaking and with lineage, hard knocks migration stories, and humble and earnest hard working beginnings that cause us to be the way we are.

Also inhabitated by people that come from regions in the world where people with power and influence are not assumed to always be acting in the public good.

But put a city like this in an economic depression/recession, and the same citizens know what to do.

Questioning is good, blind deference bad.

Places like Edmonton and Winnipeg are working class cities that understand the need to question a lot of things that don't get questioned much on this side of the pond.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 10:18 AM
  #756
Jimmi Jenkins
Just Walk Away
 
Jimmi Jenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,851
vCash: 500
So what's the concensus then, we're hoping for it to fall apart because of expensive or we hope Council signs off and the deal gets done? I'm just not sure anymore, it's getting VERY blurry here.

Jimmi Jenkins is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 10:41 AM
  #757
nabob
Hall for captain
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmi Jenkins View Post
So what's the concensus then, we're hoping for it to fall apart because of expensive or we hope Council signs off and the deal gets done? I'm just not sure anymore, it's getting VERY blurry here.
There isn't one. The only thing that has changed is that more people are apathetic towards it.

nabob is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:03 AM
  #758
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 370
Delay until May 22?

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:05 AM
  #759
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 370
Paula Simons ‏@Paulatics 8m
Simon Farbrother tells Linda Sloan a delay of "a few days or a couple of weeks" won't delay #yegarena construction schedule. #yegcc

In all fairness I don't understand this. I mean the sooner the City makes a decision the sooner work should begin.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:08 AM
  #760
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Also inhabitated by people that come from regions in the world where people with power and influence are not assumed to always be acting in the public good.
To me, this is not accurate.

From what I've seen of this city, it's inhabited by people that come from regions in the world where people with power and influence are assumed to NEVER be acting in the public good.

I'm not saying that sentiment hasn't been earned to some degree, but IMO there's a lot more blind resentment/jealousy towards people like Katz that is driving the anti-arena agenda than thoughtful, conscientious objection.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:09 AM
  #761
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 370
Dave Campbell ‏@Dave_CHED 3m
My Linda Sloan impression: "I don't get it!" "What does this all mean?!" "I want to put forward another motion!!" SMH #yegarena

odd

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:15 AM
  #762
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12 View Post
To me, this is not accurate.

From what I've seen of this city, it's inhabited by people that come from regions in the world where people with power and influence are assumed to NEVER be acting in the public good.

I'm not saying that sentiment hasn't been earned to some degree, but IMO there's a lot more blind resentment/jealousy towards people like Katz that is driving the anti-arena agenda than thoughtful, conscientious objection.
heh

Given the world not hard to imagine where such skepticism might come from.

Its also interesting that any anti-arena missive is dismissed as pothole pandering so readily while any pro-arena stance is immediately assumed to be forward thinking, enlightened, well thought out, etc.

In this dialogue then even comments about backwaters, backward thinking, accusations of naysaying, uninformed hicks etc are considered proper, rather than improper.

Such is the imbalanced dialogue that has gone on.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:18 AM
  #763
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 370
So the anti-agenda alternative is spend 200-300mil on top of the 74mil or 84mil already spent on top of whatever amount will be wasted in planning the renos.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:20 AM
  #764
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12 View Post
To me, this is not accurate.

From what I've seen of this city, it's inhabited by people that come from regions in the world where people with power and influence are assumed to NEVER be acting in the public good.

I'm not saying that sentiment hasn't been earned to some degree, but IMO there's a lot more blind resentment/jealousy towards people like Katz that is driving the anti-arena agenda than thoughtful, conscientious objection.
That's gargage

Any and all of the mistrust of Katz should be completely owned by Daryl

I can't imagine a worse fumbling of the arena ball that was has transpired with the Katz group.

- Public threats
- trips to other cities
- pulled the football away on capital injection promises
- attempted a last minute leveraging for more funds that almost blew up the deal
- allienation of the city supported event running organization
- shifty donations
- absolute absence from the process
- requests for casinos and copper bottom leases from the city
- expansion of the tax increase zone from the arena area to 40 some blocks

I can't imagine a worse run campaign to get an arena built

I'm pro arena but any collapse in this process is on one person only

HotToddy is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:24 AM
  #765
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 370
http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/history-r...plex-1.1271736

I'm sure someone like Replacement probably remembers this. Never realized the city ever looked at a football stadium that was covered.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:26 AM
  #766
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
heh

Given the world not hard to imagine where such skepticism might come from.

Its also interesting that any anti-arena missive is dismissed as pothole pandering so readily while any pro-arena stance is immediately assumed to be forward thinking, enlightened, well thought out, etc.

In this dialogue then even comments about backwaters, backward thinking, accusations of naysaying, uninformed hicks etc are considered proper, rather than improper.

Such is the imbalanced dialogue that has gone on.
Ya I love Tencer's comments last night

"We've heard from all the arena nay sayers, its time for the pro-arena crowd to stand up"

It's mind boggling that an arena deal based on a foundation of complete smoke in that it is essentially funded via a tax increase and user fees, with no upfront capital commitment from the owner will be stalled for 55 million.

If this thing gets punted to a November election or worse a plebicite the pro-arena crowd will be shocked to find out how weak support is

HotToddy is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:29 AM
  #767
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/history-r...plex-1.1271736

I'm sure someone like Replacement probably remembers this. Never realized the city ever looked at a football stadium that was covered.
What I remember is being young, filled with promise at this, disappointed Omniplex wasn't done, then realizing the city had made the right choice in later building the Coliseum and worldclass Commonwealth Stadium instead.

But the folly of my youth at the time that Omniplex was voted down had it that Edmonton had made a mistake, was backwards thinking, old fashioned, etc. Its a dynamic of youth to think such things.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:33 AM
  #768
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
What I remember is being young, filled with promise at this, disappointed Omniplex wasn't done, then realizing the city had made the right choice in building the Coliseum and worldclass Commonwealth Stadium instead.
It sounded like an interesting concept. I would however be curious to know what the cost were for the other three buildings that were built as a result of the ominplex not being built.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:44 AM
  #769
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
Ya I love Tencer's comments last night

"We've heard from all the arena nay sayers, its time for the pro-arena crowd to stand up"

It's mind boggling that an arena deal based on a foundation of complete smoke in that it is essentially funded via a tax increase and user fees, with no upfront capital commitment from the owner will be stalled for 55 million.

If this thing gets punted to a November election or worse a plebicite the pro-arena crowd will be shocked to find out how weak support is
The pro side isn't doing itself any favors either. When the "coalition" is so decidedly made up of vested interests that are actually involved, and/or stand to benefit financially directly from the public funding its harder to take it seriously. Indeed multiple alderman leading up to the vote are saying as much.

It would be enlightening, and would get my attention if anybody ever spoke honestly, and unequivocally on this issue while earnestly expressing pro's, con's, risks, benefits. That dialogue has been rare as a Katz sighting throughout.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:53 AM
  #770
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
It sounded like an interesting concept. I would however be curious to know what the cost were for the other three buildings that were built as a result of the ominplex not being built.
afairc combined cost of the 3 facilities would be around 65M with Coliseum and Commonwealth accounting for around 48M.

Needs to be understood however that the Shaw Conference Center was much more expensive then need be due to location, design, and massive prep work required to build such a facility on a river bank. This was unpopular as well at the time. Built anywhere else its a fraction of the cost.

Keep in mind as well that Omniplex was an unconventional design for its time with only MSG having a similar concept albeit entirely different design. With Omniplex there was always going to be the big owe type risks that roof wouldn't work, would be hazardous, would be cost ineffective, require excessive maintenance etc. Add to this the unfavorable and unstable soil conditions and weather effects of Edmonton and this was a very poor choice location for an entirely untried, untested design. WE could easily have ended up with a football stadium pancaked on top of an alleged ice arena for all time. The ice arena layout was bad to begin with even as designed and was said to not meet NHL standards at the time which is also mentioned in the link.

Finally, the cost estimates for Omniplex were just that, there was really no telling how much that thing was going to cost.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 11:58 AM
  #771
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
afairc combined cost of the 3 facilities would be around 65M with Coliseum and Commonwealth accounting for around 48M.

Needs to be understood however that the Shaw Conference Center was much more expensive then need be due to location, design, and massive prep work required to build such a facility on a river bank. This was unpopular as well at the time. Built anywhere else its a fraction of the cost.

Keep in mind as well that Omniplex was an unconventional design for its time with only MSG having a similar concept albeit entirely different design. With Omniplex there was always going to be the big owe type risks that roof wouldn't work, would be hazardous, would be cost ineffective, require excessive maintenance etc. Add to this the unfavorable and unstable soil conditions and weather effects of Edmonton and this was a very poor choice location for an entirely untried, untested design. WE could easily have ended up with a football stadium pancaked on top of an alleged ice arena for all time. The ice arena layout was bad to begin with even as designed and was said to not meet NHL standards at the time which is also mentioned in the link.

Finally, the cost estimates for Omniplex were just that, there was really no telling how much that thing was going to cost.
Oddly enough the one article I read and a little common sense and I was wondering the same and thinking the same.

The biggest question was if built where would we be today? Would we have had so many events that we have been lucky to have at Commonwealth, would the convention center give the same type of experience I get when I go to the shaw. And most of all how much would it cost to renovate over the years and would it still be a viable option.

On the NHL standards part, as funny as it sounds to have 9k on on side and 3k on the other I do notice that some KHL teams play in similar arenas.

I think the biggest thing that caught my idea was the covered football stadium. I've never heard such a thing ever being an option in Edmonton. Which is good and bad. On one hand I don't have to freeze while watching a football game late in the year, but on the other hand the weather eliminate is sometime fun to be apart of.

Edit: I guess I'll add that I'm glad the Shaw was built the way it was. The extra money was well worth it. The whole taking the stairs down with the view you get is apart of the experience when going there. Can be a complete blue collar event, but yet you leave feeling like you were at a white collar event.


Last edited by joestevens29: 05-08-2013 at 12:03 PM.
joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-08-2013, 12:33 PM
  #772
Gone
Fire KLowe
 
Gone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,647
vCash: 500
Is anybody aware of the management details pertaining to Katz and Telus Field?

I've heard that Katz's management group has an iron clad arrangement over the use of Telus Field by any parties because of the Capitals, and that relationship hasn't quite worked out so well for the city.

Gone is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 01:30 PM
  #773
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500
Delayed again. Delay, delay, delay.

So they've delayed it two weeks so that they can sit around and pray that the Alberta government steps forward amirite? Hows about they put their heads together and come up with a... I dunno... a solution?

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 01:32 PM
  #774
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Regardless of which side you come down on in this debate, this should be an illustrative example of how messed up the system for getting a major project done has become. No reason for these messes, one way or the other. It only hurts Edmonton in the end.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
05-08-2013, 01:33 PM
  #775
Metzen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone View Post
Is anybody aware of the management details pertaining to Katz and Telus Field?

I've heard that Katz's management group has an iron clad arrangement over the use of Telus Field by any parties because of the Capitals, and that relationship hasn't quite worked out so well for the city.
I've heard the opposite.

Heresay is fun!

Metzen 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 01:02 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.