HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Edmonton rejects Oiler [Arena] bid for more taxpayer dollars

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-22-2012, 02:14 AM
  #651
Tyrolean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Austria
Posts: 7,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
I don't see the NHL letting a cash cow like Edmonton just slip through their fingers while trying like mad to find a home for Phoenix.

Oilers aren't leaving, Katz on the other hand may.
Edmonton has mad cash cow disease. Sorry couldn't resist. Hate to admit it but Katz seems like a spoiled millionaire.

Tyrolean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 03:02 AM
  #652
604
Registered User
 
604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,527
vCash: 50
Love this move by Edmonton!

As long as the Canadian dollar doesn't tank in the next 12 months, this is a brilliant move. There is no way the Oilers leave with the dollar near par (above right now).

604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 03:24 AM
  #653
T-Funk
Registered User
 
T-Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Love this move by Edmonton!

As long as the Canadian dollar doesn't tank in the next 12 months, this is a brilliant move. There is no way the Oilers leave with the dollar near par (above right now).
AWESOME we have no new arena!
YAY edmonton!

T-Funk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 08:50 AM
  #654
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian28 View Post
Who says Seattle is the end destination? Do you really think the league or Katz would lose money if the Oilers became the Nordiques in a couple years when their arena is complete? This team would turn record revenue being dropped in Quebec with it's level of talent and potential...merchandising alone would cover the 100M relocation fee I'd wager though it would be over time.

Then if the city proved they are serious...ie building the arena instead of talking about it more than a year after they signed the initail paperwork...a struggling franchise in the US could be relocated and renamed the Oilers. Wait...that framework sounds familiar
oh ya I bet the nhl is just licking their lips at the idea of moving a team from the oil rich province of alberta to a province that needs a couple billion hand out per year to stay afloat.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 07:45 PM
  #655
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
oh ya I bet the nhl is just licking their lips at the idea of moving a team from the oil rich province of alberta to a province that needs a couple billion hand out per year to stay afloat.
Who cares if they like it or not...simple economics will be the decision maker in regards to AB. There's 2 teams in Alberta and if the cap continues to rise without profits increasing how long until said profits are squeezed out? How much profit is there really given Katz splits the luxury suites with the city and his share with the players? How many more millionaires will be needed to keep the team afloat let alone try and make it competitive if Katz does sell? Do you remember how crappy those years were under the EIG as we were never good enough to compete but never bad enough to rebuild? Now after suffering through 3 years of this rebuild if we even get to keep the team we'll most likely watch the highest paid players go in UFA.

If the cap was 70M this year I doubt both AB teams could spend to the cap and make a profit. With all of the increases in expensive (personal trainers, charter flights, players all want their own hotel rooms on away games, advertising, insurance etc) something has to give as the market for the Oilers is pretty saturated. So yes while it does make money this is pretty well as good as it will get barring some significant population change in Alberta. If 1 team is pulled out of Alberta how many of said teams fans will find new teams(X) and how many will stop watching(Y)? So long as X > Y; fans of other teams(C)+X will be preferable as long as the new potential market Q is greater than the lost fans Y.

Quebec will generate a lot of renewed fans for the Nordiques with massive merchandising sales over the first 5 years alone. While Quebec may not have the most stable economy in Canada it's by their choice (refused frac drilling, shut down the asbestos mine, etc) and while they may rely on billions in handouts...they get them every year like clockwork. AND they're willing to spend it on such frivolous expenditures as a new state of the art hockey arena in Quebec city...something Edmonton started debating before Quebec city and yet they broke ground first.

Brian28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 09:35 PM
  #656
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,514
vCash: 500
I'm pretty sure the Horcoff contract is the reason why Katz is so pissed off. Can't blame' em.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 10:14 PM
  #657
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,077
vCash: 500
Doubtful. His hero Kevin Lowe negotiated that contract.

Speaking of Lowe, I saw him at Rexall Place last Friday at the Oil Kings game. He had this big **** eating grin on his face and I felt like chewing him out for the Oilers' little Seattle excursion. He's just doing his job, but he's obviously got no shame.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 10:52 PM
  #658
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian28 View Post
Who cares if they like it or not...simple economics will be the decision maker in regards to AB. There's 2 teams in Alberta and if the cap continues to rise without profits increasing how long until said profits are squeezed out? How much profit is there really given Katz splits the luxury suites with the city and his share with the players? How many more millionaires will be needed to keep the team afloat let alone try and make it competitive if Katz does sell? Do you remember how crappy those years were under the EIG as we were never good enough to compete but never bad enough to rebuild? Now after suffering through 3 years of this rebuild if we even get to keep the team we'll most likely watch the highest paid players go in UFA.

If the cap was 70M this year I doubt both AB teams could spend to the cap and make a profit. With all of the increases in expensive (personal trainers, charter flights, players all want their own hotel rooms on away games, advertising, insurance etc) something has to give as the market for the Oilers is pretty saturated. So yes while it does make money this is pretty well as good as it will get barring some significant population change in Alberta. If 1 team is pulled out of Alberta how many of said teams fans will find new teams(X) and how many will stop watching(Y)? So long as X > Y; fans of other teams(C)+X will be preferable as long as the new potential market Q is greater than the lost fans Y.

Quebec will generate a lot of renewed fans for the Nordiques with massive merchandising sales over the first 5 years alone. While Quebec may not have the most stable economy in Canada it's by their choice (refused frac drilling, shut down the asbestos mine, etc) and while they may rely on billions in handouts...they get them every year like clockwork. AND they're willing to spend it on such frivolous expenditures as a new state of the art hockey arena in Quebec city...something Edmonton started debating before Quebec city and yet they broke ground first.
So much conjecture I dunno what to say really. The piles of people moving west alone should kinda clue you into the fact maybe it's not so rosy there. You really think asbestos and fracing is going to build the province? You said they spend all their money on frivolous stuff so sustaining a team long term isn't such a great idea. Pulling one the highest producing teams out of a oil rich province to drop it in a province waiting for a handout that lost a team already once doesn't seem like sound business practice to me. I dunno about the "simple economics" of it all though.

No the Oilers aren't going to Quebec, might aswell send them to Halifax for that matter.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 11:19 PM
  #659
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
So much conjecture I dunno what to say really. The piles of people moving west alone should kinda clue you into the fact maybe it's not so rosy there. You really think asbestos and fracing is going to build the province? You said they spend all their money on frivolous stuff so sustaining a team long term isn't such a great idea. Pulling one the highest producing teams out of a oil rich province to drop it in a province waiting for a handout that lost a team already once doesn't seem like sound business practice to me. I dunno about the "simple economics" of it all though.

No the Oilers aren't going to Quebec, might aswell send them to Halifax for that matter.
The piles of people moving West aren't staying West. Most from the East Coast work here for the money and go home as soon as they have the bank so if you're counting on them to be long term supporters for the Oilers it's unlikely.

I didn't say fold up Alberta just that there isn't the available market for 2 teams if cost continue to rise which of course they will. Calgary as a city has plenty of corporate money available and as such has a better long term chance of survival IMO.

Also I didn't say they spend all their money on frivolous things just that they are willing to listen to the people and spend the people's money where the people want it spent. If Quebec city wants the Nordiques back they will succeed...if Edmonton wants a new arena though that's something to be discussed in council for the next decade.

Brian28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 11:39 PM
  #660
Dojji*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumFries View Post
Bettman would never approve the relocation of the Oilers, neither would all the other owners. The Oilers make too much $$$ for the NHL. With all the struggling US franchises, I don't see where the Oilers could possibly relocate. Quebec City is the only destination possible.
You're overestimating the leaguewide significance of the Edmondton market. They're there to be sure, they're in the black and then a bit I suppose, but when it comes to the bigger picture Edmondton just about pulls its weight. Useful, to be sure, but not exactly pivotal. Edmondton revenue is certainly not the primary factor supporting any other part of the league.

No one at NHL corporate is going to be crying into their pillows if Edmondton is underserved for a few years as long as the newly-relocated franchise also pulls its weight. A franchise is not a birthright in the 70th largest metropolitan area in North America. If you guys aren't going to do what it takes to have a hockey team? Then the natural consequences of not doing so will be yours to inherit, whether or not you happen to have a maple leaf on your flag.

I mean really guys, once the Brooklyn Dodgers moved, and ever since they moved, ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE, regardless of league, should be pretty much on perpetual notice.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 11:49 PM
  #661
RTN
Be Kind, Rewind
 
RTN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
You're overestimating the leaguewide significance of the Edmondton market. They're there to be sure, they're in the black and then a bit I suppose, but when it comes to the bigger picture Edmondton just about pulls its weight. Useful, to be sure, but not exactly pivotal. Edmondton revenue is certainly not the primary factor supporting any other part of the league.

No one at NHL corporate is going to be crying into their pillows if Edmondton is underserved for a few years as long as the newly-relocated franchise also pulls its weight. A franchise is not a birthright in the 70th largest metropolitan area in North America. If you guys aren't going to do what it takes to have a hockey team? Then the natural consequences of not doing so will be yours to inherit, whether or not you happen to have a maple leaf on your flag.

I mean really guys, once the Brooklyn Dodgers moved, and ever since they moved, ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE, regardless of league, should be pretty much on perpetual notice.
I think the league is more concerned with a potential backlash from Canadian fans if a profitable Canadian team with a storied history were to move south than they are of a potential loss of corporate support. Are you spelling Edmonton wrong on purpose?

RTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 12:00 AM
  #662
Dojji*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTN View Post
I think the league is more concerned with a potential backlash from Canadian fans if a profitable Canadian team with a storied history were to move south than they are of a potential loss of corporate support. Are you spelling Edmonton wrong on purpose?
No I'm spelling Edmonton wrong becuase I'm from Maine.

And Canadian hockey fans are one of the easiest things in the world to take for granted. You always know that Canadian fans will watch the NHL. Catering to the US fan at the expense of the Canadian fan is, 80% of the time, the smartest possible move for the NHL because the NHL has the Canadian hockey viewers' market in a headlock. That money is a given. You might lose it temporarily if the Canadians are feeling a bit peevish at the moment but from a longterm standpoint, it WILL always be back. American sports recreation dollars, besides being overall ten times more plentiful than the total pile of Canadian cash up for grabs, are also harder to compete for so that's where the ROI and ROE (return on effort) pay off the best. Higher risk, higher reward, backed by the stable, permanent, literally unalterable flow of Canadian dollars to fall back on to balance out those risks.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 12:05 AM
  #663
Puckschmuck*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTN View Post
Are you spelling Edmonton wrong on purpose?
Well, let's set the record straight here.

Edmondton =/= Edmonton

And while we are at it, another mispelt NHL city name that is extremely annoying;

Winnepeg =/= Winnipeg.

Carry on........................

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 12:09 AM
  #664
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Well, let's set the record straight here.

Edmondton =/= Edmonton

And while we are at it, another mispelt NHL city name that is extremely annoying;

Winnepeg =/= Winnipeg.

Carry on........................
Winnepeg is almost like someones attempt to pronounce Yakima, Washington by saying Yakema.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 12:32 AM
  #665
RTN
Be Kind, Rewind
 
RTN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
No I'm spelling Edmonton wrong becuase I'm from Maine.

And Canadian hockey fans are one of the easiest things in the world to take for granted. You always know that Canadian fans will watch the NHL. Catering to the US fan at the expense of the Canadian fan is, 80% of the time, the smartest possible move for the NHL because the NHL has the Canadian hockey viewers' market in a headlock. That money is a given. You might lose it temporarily if the Canadians are feeling a bit peevish at the moment but from a longterm standpoint, it WILL always be back. American sports recreation dollars, besides being overall ten times more plentiful than the total pile of Canadian cash up for grabs, are also harder to compete for so that's where the ROI and ROE (return on effort) pay off the best. Higher risk, higher reward, backed by the stable, permanent, literally unalterable flow of Canadian dollars to fall back on to balance out those risks.
I think you're wrong on this one. The NHL was able to sell the idea of Winnipeg and Quebec moving south because they were losing money, there were no buyers, and the CDN dollar was low. Edmonton is completely different. They're actually probably more profitable now than when Katz bought the team and the CDN dollar is high. The city has also been willing to do an arena deal, which Katz back out of. I really can't see how the NHL is going to sell this one.

RTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 02:58 PM
  #666
Puckschmuck*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Winnepeg is almost like someones attempt to pronounce Yakima, Washington by saying Yakema.
It doesn't matter. There is a right and wrong way of spelling the name of a city. People should learn it and be respectful to the citizens of those cities by spelling it properly.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 03:05 PM
  #667
Flyerfan52
Registered User
 
Flyerfan52's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTN View Post
I think you're wrong on this one. The NHL was able to sell the idea of Winnipeg and Quebec moving south because they were losing money, there were no buyers, and the CDN dollar was low. Edmonton is completely different. They're actually probably more profitable now than when Katz bought the team and the CDN dollar is high. The city has also been willing to do an arena deal, which Katz back out of. I really can't see how the NHL is going to sell this one.
Very true. The situation was much different in the '90s. The Whalers & North Stars moved under similar circumstances (minus the .60 cent $).
The NHL would be more likely to grant Katz approval to sell the Oilers as the City has already spoken of financing a new arena without him. They'd probably give him 1st chance @ any team they were willing to allow to be sold & moved or 1 of the 2 new franchises the talking heads seem to believe will comes shortly after a new CBA.
QC has plans for an arena, have sold naming rights & signed a management deal but no prospective owner has stepped up so Katz could be their hero.
Alternately he could move a team to Seattle or Markham (his latest threat) & have his crack management start that franchise on the ditch to championship road.

Katz is shooting himself in the foot in his dealings with the City of Edmonton. The deal was agreed to but he keeps wanting more. Using empty threats to move the team isn't making him any friends.

Flyerfan52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 03:06 PM
  #668
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
It doesn't matter. There is a right and wrong way of spelling the name of a city. People should learn it and be respectful to the citizens of those cities by spelling it properly.
Definitely agree with you.

gstommylee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 03:11 PM
  #669
Flyerfan52
Registered User
 
Flyerfan52's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
It doesn't matter. There is a right and wrong way of spelling the name of a city. People should learn it and be respectful to the citizens of those cities by spelling it properly.
It's not that much effort to look @ the heading of the thread for the proper spelling.
Living in a place across the continent is merely an excuse.

Flyerfan52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 03:28 PM
  #670
Neatman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
You're overestimating the leaguewide significance of the Edmondton market. They're there to be sure, they're in the black and then a bit I suppose, but when it comes to the bigger picture Edmondton just about pulls its weight. Useful, to be sure, but not exactly pivotal. Edmondton revenue is certainly not the primary factor supporting any other part of the league.

No one at NHL corporate is going to be crying into their pillows if Edmondton is underserved for a few years as long as the newly-relocated franchise also pulls its weight. A franchise is not a birthright in the 70th largest metropolitan area in North America. If you guys aren't going to do what it takes to have a hockey team? Then the natural consequences of not doing so will be yours to inherit, whether or not you happen to have a maple leaf on your flag.

I mean really guys, once the Brooklyn Dodgers moved, and ever since they moved, ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE, regardless of league, should be pretty much on perpetual notice.
I think you're underestimating Edmonton's significance. Theyre a franchise that has managed to stay well into the black despite being a 30th, 30th, and 29th place team, and not making the playoffs since 05-06. Now that's a terrible record, but it's a pretty damn impressive showing of support by Edmonton fans. How many teams in the NHL would stay profitable despite 6 years of no playoffs, and 3 years of essentially last place finishes? Allowing the Oilers to move would be one of the most mickey mouse things the league could possibly do, behind moving the habs, leafs, or rangers...

As far as the arena talk goes, I dont know wtf Katz was thinking. He's like a kid that snuck in the cookie jar to grab a few cookies, then decided to try to grab them all while he was there. Hopefully Katz and the city can still work out a good deal, but he only has himself to blame for not hopping on the gravy train when he had the chance.

Neatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 04:09 PM
  #671
UnrefinedCrude
Registered User
 
UnrefinedCrude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,447
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan52 View Post
The deal was agreed to ...
Although I can't condone the horrible way Katz has handled himself of late, the above quote is a huge misconception.

The City of Edmonton has not signed off on anything, there was no deal agreed to. There was a framework in place, but the city didn't close the deal, they immediately did yet another study on feasibility. During which time projected cost of the project rose significantly from where they could have been locked in.

It wasn't until this that Katz came looking to restructure the deal.

it has been 5 years of negotiations, and five years of "fact finding" city council has dragged their feet the whole way.

There is no good guy in this fiasco, only two parties of bad guys. Each side has harmed this venture by not acting in a professional manner.

UnrefinedCrude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 04:54 PM
  #672
Flyerfan52
Registered User
 
Flyerfan52's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnrefinedCrude View Post
Although I can't condone the horrible way Katz has handled himself of late, the above quote is a huge misconception.

The City of Edmonton has not signed off on anything, there was no deal agreed to. There was a framework in place, but the city didn't close the deal, they immediately did yet another study on feasibility. During which time projected cost of the project rose significantly from where they could have been locked in.

It wasn't until this that Katz came looking to restructure the deal.

it has been 5 years of negotiations, and five years of "fact finding" city council has dragged their feet the whole way.

There is no good guy in this fiasco, only two parties of bad guys. Each side has harmed this venture by not acting in a professional manner.
Hi UC.

I'm only going by the media sources (EJ, THN, TSN, etc.) but that's all I've got as I don't live out there. That they all paint Katz with the same brush seems a bit telling.

The twin threats (Seattle & now Markham according to the Journal) leave me viewing Katz as the bad guy in this story. He seems to be trying to milk the loyalty Oiler fans have shown for so long to the max to get what he wants.

Most of the articles have mentioned that much of the jump from 450 million to 700 has come from him wanting to add extras (apartments, office space) that increase his bottom line but wants the city to foot the bill. He cloaks those as downtown renewal.
From what I've gathered in the reports of the Wed. council meeting he didn't attend the C of E is willing to fully finance the full cost of the new arena but not the spinoff.

I don't live there & don't read the Journal enough to know what side of the political spectrum they are on (although it seems limited in Alberta ) so I have base things on what I read.
_____________________________
If he ever carried through on the threat to move the Oilers Katz would replace Pocklington as the most hated man in Alberta hockey history (you remember the BoA games in the playoffs were the 1s that kept all Canadians tuned in regardless where they were).

Flyerfan52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 06:30 PM
  #673
UnrefinedCrude
Registered User
 
UnrefinedCrude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,447
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan52 View Post
Hi UC.

I'm only going by the media sources (EJ, THN, TSN, etc.) but that's all I've got as I don't live out there. That they all paint Katz with the same brush seems a bit telling.

The twin threats (Seattle & now Markham according to the Journal) leave me viewing Katz as the bad guy in this story. He seems to be trying to milk the loyalty Oiler fans have shown for so long to the max to get what he wants.

Most of the articles have mentioned that much of the jump from 450 million to 700 has come from him wanting to add extras (apartments, office space) that increase his bottom line but wants the city to foot the bill. He cloaks those as downtown renewal.
From what I've gathered in the reports of the Wed. council meeting he didn't attend the C of E is willing to fully finance the full cost of the new arena but not the spinoff.

I don't live there & don't read the Journal enough to know what side of the political spectrum they are on (although it seems limited in Alberta ) so I have base things on what I read.
_____________________________
If he ever carried through on the threat to move the Oilers Katz would replace Pocklington as the most hated man in Alberta hockey history (you remember the BoA games in the playoffs were the 1s that kept all Canadians tuned in regardless where they were).
By no means is there reason to exonerate Katz, but people are completely ignoring the bungling on the part of Edmonton City council.

UnrefinedCrude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 07:45 PM
  #674
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnrefinedCrude View Post
Although I can't condone the horrible way Katz has handled himself of late, the above quote is a huge misconception.

The City of Edmonton has not signed off on anything, there was no deal agreed to. There was a framework in place, but the city didn't close the deal, they immediately did yet another study on feasibility. During which time projected cost of the project rose significantly from where they could have been locked in.

It wasn't until this that Katz came looking to restructure the deal.

it has been 5 years of negotiations, and five years of "fact finding" city council has dragged their feet the whole way.

There is no good guy in this fiasco, only two parties of bad guys. Each side has harmed this venture by not acting in a professional manner.
If my council member didn't look into a every proposal that came across their desk, we'd have bigger problems than the Oilers.

We're talking about an LRT extension, buses, electricity supply, water and sewer supply, extra downtown traffic congestion, etc. Plus, for the longest time nobody, including Katz, knew where 100 million dollars was coming from. Obviously these things don't happen over night.

So guess who writes up their resignation if something goes wrong? We expect perfection from our council members because they're under a magnifying lens and have a lot of people to answer to.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 11:00 PM
  #675
McVespa99
Registered User
 
McVespa99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrolean View Post
Edmonton has mad cash cow disease. Sorry couldn't resist. Hate to admit it but Katz seems like a spoiled millionaire.
I find this to be totally incorrect and disrespectful to Katz.
He is a spoiled BILLIONAIRE.

McVespa99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.