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
02-07-2014, 10:29 AM
  #826
Krut
Registered User
 
Krut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Sooooo, as expected the city is moving into Katz towers, when will this generosity end? At least with the massive lease from the city and immediately propping up that development the city has the option of naming the building. The city of Edmonton is going to 'revitalize' down town if it costs us every last cent.
If you looked at the facts you would see that this deal is going to save the city $160 million.

But forget that, down with Katz! Down with taxes! Fix our potholes!

Krut is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 10:38 AM
  #827
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,089
vCash: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Sooooo, as expected the city is moving into Katz towers, when will this generosity end? At least with the massive lease from the city and immediately propping up that development the city has the option of naming the building. The city of Edmonton is going to 'revitalize' down town if it costs us every last cent.

hmmm. were they not moving into a new place regardless? if so, is it really an extra cost to us? Katz needed (or wanted) a major tenant before he built the tower.. he's dealing with the City... so, why not make a deal?

i don't think this is so unusual in business, it's just high profile, so we get to critique it.

Up the Irons is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 10:46 AM
  #828
SeriousBusiness
T.Hall da man
 
SeriousBusiness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Sooooo, as expected the city is moving into Katz towers, when will this generosity end? At least with the massive lease from the city and immediately propping up that development the city has the option of naming the building. The city of Edmonton is going to 'revitalize' down town if it costs us every last cent.
How much more is this moving going to cost us as taxpayers? Do we know?

SeriousBusiness is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 10:48 AM
  #829
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Up the Irons View Post
hmmm. were they not moving into a new place regardless? if so, is it really an extra cost to us? Katz needed (or wanted) a major tenant before he built the tower.. he's dealing with the City... so, why not make a deal?

i don't think this is so unusual in business, it's just high profile, so we get to critique it.
The major tenant is the problem. If the city decided they were going to look elsewhere or not be a major tenant would this thing be built or be occupied? I'd love to see the other proposals and costs for all other bidders and to know who the 'independent over sight' was in making the decision.

Beerfish is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 11:11 AM
  #830
Krut
Registered User
 
Krut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
The major tenant is the problem. If the city decided they were going to look elsewhere or not be a major tenant would this thing be built or be occupied?
Obviously not. Normally when buildings are constructed major tenants have signed on.

Not really sure why this is a problem, other than the fact that all the buzzwords like "Katz," "city," and "development" are involved, which always seems to send people like yourself off the deep end.

Krut is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 11:41 AM
  #831
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
Obviously not. Normally when buildings are constructed major tenants have signed on.

Not really sure why this is a problem, other than the fact that all the buzzwords like "Katz," "city," and "development" are involved, which always seems to send people like yourself off the deep end.
You can't be serious.

Previously, during the Arena negotiations the city had REJECTED the revised requirement of Katz(one of many as you'll recall) that the city move into the new tower and be involved in supporting that build at least through occupancy.
City council, the representatives of the electorate, voted that requirement down.
Now a year later after an undisclosed bid process Katz tower ends up being the home of all those City bureaucrats when city council had previously said no. Somehow Katz beats out 16 other bids. With the electorate knowing none of those details (and likely never will)

This doesn't seem the least bit curious to you?

Or "the facts" of how the city will be "saving" 160M through the move into a more expensive brand new tower. Lets be clear here. The 160M tag is an undisclosed projection of savings. Likely involving Lorna Rosen, who had one time estimated that Edmonton Indy brought in an economic value equivalent to that of major F1 races in Europe. Yeah, that Lorna Rosen. If you believe any figure that comes out of her mouth I don't know why.

Replacement is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 11:44 AM
  #832
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousBusiness View Post
How much more is this moving going to cost us as taxpayers? Do we know?
Of course not, we're *saving* 160M bucks, why worry?

Replacement is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 12:09 PM
  #833
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,089
vCash: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
You can't be serious.

Previously, during the Arena negotiations the city had REJECTED the revised requirement of Katz(one of many as you'll recall) that the city move into the new tower and be involved in supporting that build at least through occupancy.
City council, the representatives of the electorate, voted that requirement down.Now a year later after an undisclosed bid process Katz tower ends up being the home of all those City bureaucrats when city council had previously said no. Somehow Katz beats out 16 other bids. With the electorate knowing none of those details (and likely never will)

This doesn't seem the least bit curious to you?

Or "the facts" of how the city will be "saving" 160M through the move into a more expensive brand new tower. Lets be clear here. The 160M tag is an undisclosed projection of savings. Likely involving Lorna Rosen, who had one time estimated that Edmonton Indy brought in an economic value equivalent to that of major F1 races in Europe. Yeah, that Lorna Rosen. If you believe any figure that comes out of her mouth I don't know why.
because it hadn't been put out to tender. the Katz group, as was their tendancy throughout the negotiation, forgot they were dealing with a public entity, which has to follow steps and go thru channels. They can't just make a deal like a business can. But, they can certainly have (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) favourites when the bids come in, which is probably what just happened.

Up the Irons is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 12:37 PM
  #834
Krut
Registered User
 
Krut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
You can't be serious.

Previously, during the Arena negotiations the city had REJECTED the revised requirement of Katz(one of many as you'll recall) that the city move into the new tower and be involved in supporting that build at least through occupancy.
City council, the representatives of the electorate, voted that requirement down.
Now a year later after an undisclosed bid process Katz tower ends up being the home of all those City bureaucrats when city council had previously said no. Somehow Katz beats out 16 other bids. With the electorate knowing none of those details (and likely never will)

This doesn't seem the least bit curious to you?

Or "the facts" of how the city will be "saving" 160M through the move into a more expensive brand new tower. Lets be clear here. The 160M tag is an undisclosed projection of savings. Likely involving Lorna Rosen, who had one time estimated that Edmonton Indy brought in an economic value equivalent to that of major F1 races in Europe. Yeah, that Lorna Rosen. If you believe any figure that comes out of her mouth I don't know why.
The councillors that voted this down even said that Katz's proposal is the best.

City staff were going to consolidate anyways, and it was determined that this was the best offer.

Considering that this is essentially an entirely new council, I have doubts that any of them are involved in any conspiratorial agreements with the Katz Group.

Krut is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 12:49 PM
  #835
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
The councillors that voted this down even said that Katz's proposal is the best.

City staff were going to consolidate anyways, and it was determined that this was the best offer.

Considering that this is essentially an entirely new council, I have doubts that any of them are involved in any conspiratorial agreements with the Katz Group.
The difference in how we're viewing this is you have blind faith in the administration that made this decision. Its being questioned a lot. It should be questioned.

Again, council voted against this Katz proposal that the city occupy and lease the proposed Katz tower. This being a democratic vote democratically by the representatives of this city that are VOTED on to city council.

This decision later being overturned by an administrative body. That nobody voted in.

As to the bid process criticism of the process was saying Katz was going to win all along. Is it because he had the best bid? How would you know? How would any of us know.

16 bids, just curiously the bid likely to be the most controversial won. Who didn't see that coming?


Last edited by Replacement: 02-07-2014 at 12:59 PM.
Replacement is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 02:06 PM
  #836
chrisj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 482
vCash: 500
Replacement - I could be wrong, but I believe the new city council voted on (in private...) proceeding with this proposal. It wasn't simply an administration decision.

If that's the case, I don't think there is an issue.

edit: yes, city council did vote:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...936/story.html

"Councillors voted 10-3 to approve the office deal following a December closed-door meeting."

chrisj is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 03:11 PM
  #837
Krut
Registered User
 
Krut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
The difference in how we're viewing this is you have blind faith in the administration that made this decision. Its being questioned a lot. It should be questioned.

Again, council voted against this Katz proposal that the city occupy and lease the proposed Katz tower. This being a democratic vote democratically by the representatives of this city that are VOTED on to city council.

This decision later being overturned by an administrative body. That nobody voted in.

As to the bid process criticism of the process was saying Katz was going to win all along. Is it because he had the best bid? How would you know? How would any of us know.

16 bids, just curiously the bid likely to be the most controversial won. Who didn't see that coming?
There's a difference between having blind faith and assessing the factors involved in this and coming to a conclusion.

We have a new mayor (who hasn't been one to give Katz a blank cheque in the past), and an entire new slate of council members that weren't around to vote on the arena deal or work with Katz in any capacity. I have difficulty believing that the new mayor and new councillors are following through on some backroom agreement with Katz when they have only been in office since November.

As mentioned in the post above, this was voted on, and it passed overwhelmingly. Michael Oshry (one of the rookies) voted against only because he felt that the City should build their own building, but reiterated that the Katz proposal was by far the best of the bunch.

Like I said earlier, this has all the buzzwords that are red meat for the anti-downtown development crusaders like you and Beerfish. You combine "Katz," "city," "arena district," and "development" in any article any chance of reasonable discussion gets tossed out the window.

Krut is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 03:19 PM
  #838
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post

Like I said earlier, this has all the buzzwords that are red meat for the anti-downtown development crusaders like you and Beerfish. You combine "Katz," "city," "arena district," and "development" in any article any chance of reasonable discussion gets tossed out the window.
Here is where you are just totally wrong and comments like this just destroy credibility. The old strategy of labeling people as being one thing when they have a differing opinion on something as your own.

Downtown development? All for it. Love it, support efforts by the city to make things easy for developers to operate. Downtown arena as a center piece? Love it, support it, go for it.

Arena and downtown development created in very large part to the city and thus the citizens funding huge capital projects, taking all the risk and being in a position where they have to make decisions and or concessions to force it to be a success? Hate it, can't support, think it's a terrible idea.

Can you see the difference now?

Beerfish is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 03:23 PM
  #839
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
There's a difference between having blind faith and assessing the factors involved in this and coming to a conclusion.

We have a new mayor (who hasn't been one to give Katz a blank cheque in the past), and an entire new slate of council members that weren't around to vote on the arena deal or work with Katz in any capacity. I have difficulty believing that the new mayor and new councillors are following through on some backroom agreement with Katz when they have only been in office since November.

As mentioned in the post above, this was voted on, and it passed overwhelmingly. Michael Oshry (one of the rookies) voted against only because he felt that the City should build their own building, but reiterated that the Katz proposal was by far the best of the bunch.

Like I said earlier, this has all the buzzwords that are red meat for the anti-downtown development crusaders like you and Beerfish. You combine "Katz," "city," "arena district," and "development" in any article any chance of reasonable discussion gets tossed out the window.
Well you've contributed to the unreasonable discussion by inferring theres no way at all anybody should be concerned.

plus your responses in the thread have been dismissive and hardly leading to reasonable discourse. You can look back at them and I'm sure you'll admit it.

What Chris mentioned involves the Administration approving the Katz tender above all other bids and SELECTING the Katz bid.

The only involvement current council had in this was voting yes/no to go ahead. The only information they had was that which was provided by administration who again were the ones that selected the bid. The sense I got was rubber stamping it.

A new council was put in the unenviable position of either voting yes, or risking that this saga gets further delayed or complicated. Its my opinion (perhaps not accurate) that council voted yes to go ahead with this bid at this point to avoid delay in the whole arena venture and to avoid a new council having to be updated endlessly on years of information in this regard. In the act of expediency, and just moving forward, they voted yes. Which some council members have pretty much said. I'm almost thankful they did so that a new council doesn't get dragged whole into the quagmire that this arena development has been. Last thing I want is a second term of council mired in this mess.

So I have a somewhat balanced view. Glad it went through in away, but suspicious of the reported details nonetheless.

hope this is clear.

Replacement is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 03:33 PM
  #840
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Replacement - I could be wrong, but I believe the new city council voted on (in private...) proceeding with this proposal. It wasn't simply an administration decision.

If that's the case, I don't think there is an issue.

edit: yes, city council did vote:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...936/story.html

"Councillors voted 10-3 to approve the office deal following a December closed-door meeting."
But as mentioned with the previous council having turned down the Katz tower proposal.

For good reason.

Again, this being a new council, with a new mayor, and with several new members, this was not going to be an evaluative decision. They rubber stamped this because really what else could they do? Start another council term just where the last one left off? Several council members, and our Mayor voted to expedite this. Rather than prolong this through endless further dithering.

With the Arena development proceeding I think its fair to say nobody wanted to risk that by saying no re the tower proposal at this time.

This would be a time pressured decision by a brand new council susceptible to making it due to the situation and impending arena groundbreaking.

Replacement is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 05:09 PM
  #841
fysloc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 324
vCash: 50
Memory fuzzy, but wasn't the original concern with going into the katz tower as a new building because that it wasn't going through the proper RFP process? Pretty sure they stated that the tenant proposal is seperate from arena deal and must be done through a public tender.

That being said, I don't think they ever said no to using katz's tower, just that it can't be included as a condition to the arena negotiations.


And really, what other building will have a place to consolidate all of city administration? Its spread out across like 10 buildings right now, and any existing building will probably not be big enough with expiring/non-occupied leases to house the entire city administration.

Problem here is that it's associated with Katz and the huge public backlash against him makes any deal with him appear corrupted.

fysloc is offline  
Old
02-07-2014, 08:46 PM
  #842
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Of course not, we're *saving* 160M bucks, why worry?
Wouldn't it make sense that they are saving money, instead of having the employees spread out over 5 buildings like they are now, all 2000 employees will be in one office space. That will save a lot of time for those employees at the very least logistically speaking.

molsonmuscle360 is offline  
Old
02-08-2014, 01:24 AM
  #843
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
Wouldn't it make sense that they are saving money, instead of having the employees spread out over 5 buildings like they are now, all 2000 employees will be in one office space. That will save a lot of time for those employees at the very least logistically speaking.
In what way. Logistically it shouldn't friggen matter.

Some city hall bureaucrat last week was spouting off some nonsense about how much time its going to save them being able to share files...

I'm going WTF, are these paper files? lol

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones..

In this day and age it shouldn't matter where you are located. For a lot of services involving the public virtually anywhere but downtown would be more convenient in anycase.

Replacement is offline  
Old
02-08-2014, 01:27 AM
  #844
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fysloc View Post
Memory fuzzy, but wasn't the original concern with going into the katz tower as a new building because that it wasn't going through the proper RFP process? Pretty sure they stated that the tenant proposal is seperate from arena deal and must be done through a public tender.

That being said, I don't think they ever said no to using katz's tower, just that it can't be included as a condition to the arena negotiations.


And really, what other building will have a place to consolidate all of city administration? Its spread out across like 10 buildings right now, and any existing building will probably not be big enough with expiring/non-occupied leases to house the entire city administration.

Problem here is that it's associated with Katz and the huge public backlash against him makes any deal with him appear corrupted.
and why wouldn't it? He robbed the city blind on the arena deal. Most people in the city were speed dialing city council not to get bent over on Katz tower as well. City Council voted no because they knew damn straight at the time what public opinion was about catering to Katz on yet another development.

Just call downtown Katztown and be ****ing done with it.

Replacement is offline  
Old
02-08-2014, 01:30 AM
  #845
Krut
Registered User
 
Krut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
and why wouldn't it? He robbed the city blind on the arena deal. Most people in the city were speed dialing city council not to get bent over on Katz tower as well. City Council voted no because they knew damn straight at the time what public opinion was about catering to Katz on yet another development.

Just call downtown Katztown and be ****ing done with it.
And the true stripes come out.

Krut is offline  
Old
02-08-2014, 01:31 AM
  #846
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
And the true stripes come out.
What exactly do you mean by that?

In what way am I wrong?

Replacement is offline  
Old
02-08-2014, 01:37 AM
  #847
Krut
Registered User
 
Krut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
What exactly do you mean by that?

In what way am I wrong?
Oh ****, I must have missed all the other private investors willing to invest millions into our downtown.

How dare that Katz son of a ***** want to do something for this city. We should have taken one of he other investor's deal.

Krut is offline  
Old
02-08-2014, 01:41 AM
  #848
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
Oh ****, I must have missed all the other private investors willing to invest millions into our downtown.

How dare that Katz son of a ***** want to do something for this city. We should have taken one of he other investor's deal.
"Do something for the city" lol

He's doing it for himself and will make a killing on all this.

He could give a rats ass about the city which is patently obvious. Remember when he was thinking about moving the club to Seattle. Or that he lives in Vancouver at least 10mths of the year.

As to investing Millions Katz isn't fronting a ****ing dime for the arena build. No money out of pocket.

Katz can GTFO and sell the team for all I care. Not like his ownership is helping the on ice product at all.

Replacement is offline  
Old
02-08-2014, 01:46 AM
  #849
Krut
Registered User
 
Krut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
"Do something for the city" lol

He's doing it for himself and will make a killing on all this.

He could give a rats ass about the city which is patently obvious. Remember when he was thinking about moving the club to Seattle. Or that he lives in Vancouver at least 10mths of the year.

As to investing Millions Katz isn't fronting a ****ing dime for the arena build. No money out of pocket.

Katz can GTFO and sell the team for all I care. Not like his ownership is helping the on ice product at all.
Right, we should have waited for that other investor. Who was that again?

Krut is offline  
Old
02-08-2014, 01:49 AM
  #850
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
Right, we should have waited for that other investor. Who was that again?
Don't think we really would have missed out on anything but another decade of misery with this club.

In retrospect Katz sure didn't do us any favors providing us with the worst team in pro sports.

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 06:26 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.