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 Thread: Rogers Place? Yawn...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-14-2013, 07:12 PM
  #51
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,261
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorK View Post
You can't really compare the province/city funding Commonwealth stadium to the new hockey arena. Commonwealth stadium was built to host the commonwealth games and is owned/operated by the city of edmonton.
Whereas the arena will be built for the sole purpose of professional sports and the revenue stream will be held by a private individual.
Big differences.
The present arena was partially funded by the provincial govt. The new football stadium in Saskatchewan as well.

It isnt built for the sole purpose of professional sports. There will be other tenants/users such as the Oil Kings, the Rush (potentially) as well as concerts and events such as Cirque du soleil, etc.

The province should be chipping in for this, but they wont because they couldnt manage their own affairs properly and now have to make big cuts to essential services. There is also the odor left by Katz' boneheaded illegal campaign contributions.

Despite the poor optics, they should contribute anyway.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 07:17 PM
  #52
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,261
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Edmonton taxpayers 219 m + 125 m ticket tax = 344 m
Edmonton Oilers ownership = 143 m

The billionaire pays less than a third of the total cost but gets to manage the assets and get the profits?

The logic of public-private partnerships is corporate welfare run amock.

Water services and waste management services has already dumped millions of taxpayers dollars into private corporate hands. The trend continues.

Hockey would survive in Edmonton without sponsoring a billionaire. It's a profitable market for hockey!!! This deal suggests otherwise? or a money/power grab/abuse!
The billionaire also has to pay operational costs for the building, which if you are familiar with, are pretty much equal to any concessions/parking income/building rental from events throughout the year.

Didnt the BC govt just spend half a billion dollars on a new roof for BC Place?

If communities/taxpayers want nice facilities to enjoy their entertainment, then they have to contribute towards such facilities. It has always been this way, and it always will be.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 08:55 PM
  #53
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500
Councilor Anderson expects at least 8 councilors to vote "yay" tomorrow in favor of the new "plan."

Quote:
David Staples ‏@dstaples 7h
Coun. Anderson expects good news on #yegarena, for at least 8 councillors to vote for new plan, and maybe more to come on board. #Oilers
Staples says that it's hard for him to believe that a funding model has come together so quickly. He seems to think that Katz has stepped up with the final sum.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 09:24 PM
  #54
chrisj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Edmonton taxpayers 219 m + 125 m ticket tax = 344 m
Edmonton Oilers ownership = 143 m
To be fair... the $125m ticket tax can easily be considered Katz. Afterall, as an example, if the max ticket price someone will pay is $100, and there is a $5 ticket tax included, that means the max the team can collect is $95 per ticket.

So directly and indirectly the Oilers are contributing about 55%.

chrisj is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 09:36 PM
  #55
TrevorK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 93
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
The present arena was partially funded by the provincial government
Commitments by previous governments isn't a good enough argument to continue down the same path. Things change: priorities, what the people want, economic climate, etc. it would be irresponsible for the provincial government to assume "if we paid for it once we will pay for it forever".

Quote:
It isnt built for the sole purpose of professional sports. There will be other tenants/users such as the Oil Kings, the Rush (potentially) as well as concerts and events such as Cirque du soleil, etc.
None of those users need the arena or are driving the development. The arena is being built for the oilers and while there may be other tenants (and with no arena deal even signed yet there is no guarentee of any of those). If the oilers didn't demand a new arena we wouldn't even be talking about it because the oil kings, rush, concerts, etc are all fine at rexall. The oilers are the only catalyst behind this and the only reason it is being built.

Quote:
The province should be chipping in for this, but they wont because they couldnt manage their own affairs properly and now have to make big cuts to essential services. There is also the odor left by Katz' boneheaded illegal campaign contributions.

Despite the poor optics, they should contribute anyway.
They do contribute to the cities infrastructure through the MSI funding model, why should edmonton's arena, which does not even let the city keep the revenue, be funded as a special project? Edmonton should use its MSI funding to do this as that is what the funding is meant for and it is not like the arena is a new plan/concept so they could have easily planned for it rather than now being caught flatfooted because they have allocated that money already.

TrevorK is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 09:44 PM
  #56
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
[The billionaire also has to pay operational costs for the building, which if you are familiar with, are pretty much equal to any concessions/parking income/building rental from events throughout the year.

Didnt the BC govt just spend half a billion dollars on a new roof for BC Place?

If communities/taxpayers want nice facilities to enjoy their entertainment, then they have to contribute towards such facilities. It has always been this way, and it always will be.

BC place is a publicly owned & operated building, is it not? Does the public not receive the revenues.
There is no question the public has to pay. Just a question of how much. And imo in our scenario, in this market, with the leverage the City has, they are paying way to much. Its ridiculous frankly.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 09:51 PM
  #57
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Unit View Post
I'm not saying you guys are wrong here but the reason the Provincial Government won't directly kick in money to fund the arena is because the optics of it are bad. Alberta has been running a deficit for a few years and they keep cutting education and healthcare budgets. It doesn't look too good to fund a hockey arena for a billionaire and millionaire athletes when they're shutting down schools. It doesn't matter what the actual truth of the situation is, nor does it matter that taxpayer dollars get spent (sometimes wasted) on a bunch of other entertainment venues and private subsidies that don't generate the same kind of income the arena will (for the province and the city) because the media just blows it out of proportion.
Add the optics of potbelly politics with the Katz group's illegal political donation to the provincial ruling government.

Add too that this sets up the billionaire Flames ownership's Me Too run at Alberta tax payer dollars.

Behind Enemy Lines is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 09:54 PM
  #58
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Unit View Post
I'm not saying you guys are wrong here but the reason the Provincial Government won't directly kick in money to fund the arena is because the optics of it are bad. Alberta has been running a deficit for a few years and they keep cutting education and healthcare budgets. It doesn't look too good to fund a hockey arena for a billionaire and millionaire athletes when they're shutting down schools. It doesn't matter what the actual truth of the situation is, nor does it matter that taxpayer dollars get spent (sometimes wasted) on a bunch of other entertainment venues and private subsidies that don't generate the same kind of income the arena will (for the province and the city) because the media just blows it out of proportion.
Add the optics of potbelly politics with the Katz group's illegal political donation to the provincial ruling government.

Add too that this sets up the billionaire Flames ownership's Me Too run at Alberta tax payer dollars.

The province has a $4 billion deficit and facing issues with teachers, post secondary cuts, pharmacists and others. Not enough oil & gas pie to go around. Hard choices required and priorities on what best supports collective province wide needs.

Behind Enemy Lines is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 10:20 PM
  #59
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
Except he would probably get a free lease agreement and not have to put any money into the arena. He could also work out a deal where he gets all parking and concessions from the games something Northlands currently gets. He would also have a huge population to draw from when you consider a lot of the lower mainland would probably also support the team. Sure he might take a hit in the first 5 years but in the next 30 years Seattle is by far a better market to grow a team then Edmonton. It is a very real possibility IMO if Edmonton will not help fund an arena.
You continue to deal in unsubstantiated speculation. A larger market does not equate a bigger hockey market.

The U of T study I linked previously refutes that myth. In fact uses Edmonton market as the benchmark.
http://mowatcentre.ca/pdfs/mowatResearch/31.pdf

To determine which Canadian markets would be large enough to support an NHL team, we also performed a qualitative comparative analysis. We compared each potential Canadian NHL city to a benchmark NHL city—Edmonton—on a variety of demographic and economic factors.

Why Edmonton? It is the smallest market in the NHL.20 Among Canadian NHL cities, Edmonton has the fewest high-income residents, and the second fewest corporate head offices. The Oilers also play in one of the league’s smallest arenas. Relative to American markets, the Oilers would appear to have nothing but disadvantages. And yet the Oilers are among the NHL’s biggest revenue generators.

Forbes estimates that last season the Oilers ranked 17th in the league in total revenues, 8th in operating income and—the Forbes estimate of financial performance that we consider the most reliable—8th in gate revenues. This, despite having not made the playoffs in four years, and thus having earned no playoff revenues in those years.

Edmonton’s revenue record is also not an anomaly in Canadian NHL terms: the Calgary Flames and Ottawa Senators, playing in markets only slightly larger than Edmonton, generate gate revenues that are in line with those of the Oilers.

As for Seattle market, the guy trying to move Sacramento Kings there wants to build his own rink. NBA rejected this as a cartel to protect their ability to offload arena costs to the public purse. A key negotiating weapon.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...subsidies.html

It is fool's goal to think Vancouver /mainland would support a Seattle team with an 82 game schedule. Especially when the Canucks are entering a downturn in their onice performance. Supply will open up now that the Cup dream is dying. They had seats available to open this year's playoffs.

Add the political environment in which US Home Security is lobbying for a border fee for Canadian visitation to offset their security costs.

A financially successful return to Winnipeg also reinforces a strong, core hockey market is better than a large population US market crowed with sports and entertainment options for finite discretionary income.

Edmonton is a great and lucrative NHL market as is.

Behind Enemy Lines is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 10:29 PM
  #60
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,995
vCash: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneypuck View Post
It's a good thing city council has the spine to speak up as to how Gary Bettman is running the City Of Edmontons budget then. Why doesn't the NHL kick in 50 million towards one of their soon to be new prized brothels?
or the PA for that matter. the biggest (only) reason Katz and other owners need to make all the profits from an arena is to pay the Horcoffs and Fistrics. Katz will take ticket revenue from an Oprah love-in, a Monster truck thing, and from a Muse concert and give it to Jeff Petry. Owners have been inflating salaries with non-hockey related revenue for years. so where is the PA in all of this? crickets

anyways, just happy its getting done. we are capable of doing this. this is not over our head. I wasn't so sure before.

Up the Irons is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 10:37 PM
  #61
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
To be fair... the $125m ticket tax can easily be considered Katz. Afterall, as an example, if the max ticket price someone will pay is $100, and there is a $5 ticket tax included, that means the max the team can collect is $95 per ticket.

So directly and indirectly the Oilers are contributing about 55%.
Yup was going to point out the same thing. Ticket tax is a Katz expense.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 10:45 PM
  #62
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
Yup was going to point out the same thing. Ticket tax is a Katz expense.
Using that logic Northlands is also contributing to the new Arena.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 10:49 PM
  #63
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Using that logic Northlands is also contributing to the new Arena.
Or to their own subsidy they receive.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 11:04 PM
  #64
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
Or to their own subsidy they receive.
That was borne out of the anchor tenant paying no rent yet got all the revenues from game day.
Kinda funny Northlands is paying for the new arena.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 11:09 PM
  #65
chrisj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
Your argument doesn't work at all at the moment. The city has been clear the ticket tax earned goes towards the new arena - but hasn't determined what the ticket tax at Northlands goes towards.

Lets be honest... no matter what anyways says, the current Rexall will not exist in its current form once the new arena is finished. A smaller building perhaps - and if so - the ticket tax will be going to cover those costs.

chrisj is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 11:19 PM
  #66
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Your argument doesn't work at all at the moment. The city has been clear the ticket tax earned goes towards the new arena - but hasn't determined what the ticket tax at Northlands goes towards.

Lets be honest... no matter what anyways says, the current Rexall will not exist in its current form once the new arena is finished. A smaller building perhaps - and if so - the ticket tax will be going to cover those costs.
Well, who knows what its going to be used for. All I know is that it is one of Katz new "asks"/demands along the way (this of course after he had committed to an earlier framework with no such requirement)& given that the City is pouring hundreds of millions into Katz's plaything, its kind clear to me that it , or at least a portion of it will be funding the new arena.
After all, I cant see Daryl, the shrewd businessman that he is, demanding the City have a ticket tax for Northlands, only to have the City turn around & give it back.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 11:23 PM
  #67
chrisj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Well, who knows what its going to be used for. All I know is that it is one of Katz new "asks"/demands along the way (this of course after he had committed to an earlier framework with no such requirement)& given that the City is pouring hundreds of millions into Katz's plaything, its kind clear to me that it , or at least a portion of it will be funding the new arena.
After all, I cant see Daryl, the shrewd businessman that he is, demanding the City have a ticket tax for Northlands, only to have the City turn around & give it back.
But that's why its clear the ticket tax at Northlands isn't for the new arena. The ticket tax rate was agreed to originally, amount calculated, etc and then Katz asked for the ticket tax to be applied to Northlands as well. So if we include the Northlands ticket tax, than the city has more than enough to cover the arena.

Katz simply wants to make sure that Northlands can't undercut him for concerts/other events by offering the promoter more $$ (which they could if they didn't have to pay the ticket tax).

chrisj is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 11:32 PM
  #68
JaredCowenFan
#GenieArmy
 
JaredCowenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,606
vCash: 500
Patience is key? All I can say is... FINALLY!

JaredCowenFan is online now  
Old
05-14-2013, 11:40 PM
  #69
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
But that's why its clear the ticket tax at Northlands isn't for the new arena. The ticket tax rate was agreed to originally, amount calculated, etc and then Katz asked for the ticket tax to be applied to Northlands as well. So if we include the Northlands ticket tax, than the city has more than enough to cover the arena.

Katz simply wants to make sure that Northlands can't undercut him for concerts/other events by offering the promoter more $$ (which they could if they didn't have to pay the ticket tax).
I know how the Northlands ticket tax arose. It actually initially started off with Katz, again after the original framework was agreed to, demanding a non compete from Northlands (that was about #20 of Katz's bait & switch's/reneging). If the City gives it all back its irrelevent to Northlands , but not to Katz.So I doubt that happens. So those pom pom wavers of Katz attribute the ticket tax on the new arena as a Katz contribution. Makes sense to me the ticket tax on Northlands is a contribution by Northlands to the new arena.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 01:59 AM
  #70
TrevorK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 93
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
To be fair... the $125m ticket tax can easily be considered Katz. Afterall, as an example, if the max ticket price someone will pay is $100, and there is a $5 ticket tax included, that means the max the team can collect is $95 per ticket.

So directly and indirectly the Oilers are contributing about 55%.
That is making a HUGE assumption that the Oilers have found the spot where supply and demand meet AND the ticket tax itself does not raise what people are willing to spend (as some may see it as "the stupid city taking my money tax").

Those are huge assumptions to make when you state that the ticket tax is a Katz expense, and would also indicate you agree ticketmaster charges to buyers are a Katz expense (which means he is charged twice in your mind as I assume teams also directly pay ticketmaster a fee).

TrevorK is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 02:45 AM
  #71
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
I know how the Northlands ticket tax arose. It actually initially started off with Katz, again after the original framework was agreed to, demanding a non compete from Northlands (that was about #20 of Katz's bait & switch's/reneging). If the City gives it all back its irrelevent to Northlands , but not to Katz.So I doubt that happens. So those pom pom wavers of Katz attribute the ticket tax on the new arena as a Katz contribution. Makes sense to me the ticket tax on Northlands is a contribution by Northlands to the new arena.
Quote:
The terms of the framework will form the basis for the City and the Katz Group to negotiate a formal Master Agreement. Both parties can now also begin to pursue additional funding sources.

This framework does not constitute a final and binding agreement. Both parties will now begin to work on the Master Agreement to advance the project further, including by working to secure the remaining funds required.
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...ild-arena.aspx

The whole point of the framework was to allow the Katz group and the city to get down to the business of settling all the details of the arena - including things like ticket tax, who pays for the arena, who builds the arena, the exact cost of the arena, design, funding, etc.

The deal itself was never set in stone, and he didn't "renege" on anything despite how contentious things got at times.

Tarus is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 08:52 AM
  #72
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
To be fair... the $125m ticket tax can easily be considered Katz. Afterall, as an example, if the max ticket price someone will pay is $100, and there is a $5 ticket tax included, that means the max the team can collect is $95 per ticket.

So directly and indirectly the Oilers are contributing about 55%.
To be blunt this is a ridiculous conclusion.

Katz obtains an opulent, state of the art, best in the world type facility for 600M. He pays no money upfront for this, no taxes, and gets all the revenue from all events, gets naming rights, gets an advertising kick back from the city, who are fronting virtually the entire cost of the build and you're arguing that the ticket tax is Katz's skin in the game?

I could maybe see your argument exclusively for Oilers games as in that case Katz at least owns the product.

Man, the ONLY advantage the city is retaining through *ownership* in this whole deal is figuring they have a right to the ticket tax revenues in a building they own and which they finance at great expense.

"To be fair" ?!?


Last edited by Replacement: 05-15-2013 at 08:57 AM.
Replacement is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 08:56 AM
  #73
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
I know how the Northlands ticket tax arose. It actually initially started off with Katz, again after the original framework was agreed to, demanding a non compete from Northlands (that was about #20 of Katz's bait & switch's/reneging). If the City gives it all back its irrelevent to Northlands , but not to Katz.So I doubt that happens. So those pom pom wavers of Katz attribute the ticket tax on the new arena as a Katz contribution. Makes sense to me the ticket tax on Northlands is a contribution by Northlands to the new arena.
Of course you will.

Fact is that tax is taking a bite out of Katz's bottom line when it comes to ticket prices.
Same applies to Rexal. You chose to think all the Rexal tax goes to build the New Arena because it suits your argument.

I'll chose to think the Rexal tax can go fund it's own subsidies. The race track, the agricom etc. And I'll wave my lil pom poms while you continue your billionaire sour grapes sentiment.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 08:58 AM
  #74
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
To be blunt this is a ridiculous conclusion.

Katz obtains an opulent, state of the art, best in the world type facility for 600M. He pays no money upfront for this, no taxes, and gets all the revenue from all events, gets naming rights, gets an advertising kick back from the city, who are fronting virtually the entire cost of the build and you're arguing that the ticket tax is Katz's skin in the game?

I could maybe see your argument exclusively for Oilers games as in that case Katz at least owns the product.

Man, the ONLY advantage the city is retaining through *ownership* in this whole deal is figuring they have a right to the ticket tax revenues in a building they own.

"To be fair" lmfao
At one point I am almost sure that Replacement obtained an opulent, state of the art, best in the world type home (relative to the rest of the world) for very little money down.

It's the miracle of financing.

Katz will eventually have paid for a substantial portion of the arena just as Replacement eventually paid down his first mortgage.

worraps is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:02 AM
  #75
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
Yup was going to point out the same thing. Ticket tax is a Katz expense.
Apparently needs stating but people will pay more to enter a much better facility. A facility Katz essentially did not pay for. How does it logically follow that Katz is the one being squeezed here on ticket tax on a rink he doesn't own, and which he contributes little to?

Katz gets all ticket price revenues for every event. Throughout the saga one of the few rights the city has held onto is being able to use a ticket tax as a revenue stream to pay back part of their massive investment. I don't think it unreasonable that the city should have this avenue to partially reimburse their expenditure.

Replacement 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 03:34 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.