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

Edmonton rejects Oiler [Arena] bid for more taxpayer dollars

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-20-2012, 04:45 PM
  #126
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
It's a literal case of "go big or go home".
That is ego talking, nothing more.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:45 PM
  #127
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Well, many tax-paying Edmontonians don't see this as a red herring, but as a very real issue that involved their money (myself included), and now city council are starting to understand this perspective as well, thankfully.

Red Herring? Not so much. You can still get a world-class arena for a smaller pricetag. There is absolutely no need for this thing to be a ****ing granduous legacy project like Katz's wants, and not at our expense.
It is a red herring in the sense that if the cost had been $375M we would probably still be having the same arguement. Ask yourself this. What is the actual amortized cost to the tax payer of the project as is vs the project priced at $375M. Assuming that the tax payer city is on the hook for all of this additional cost you might at best save the average property tax payer $3-4 per year or so. And this savings will actually shrink in time as the City's tax base grows.

I have no problem if the project is scaled back. But if what you are really lloking for is a world class arena that will not be out of date in a few years in a City where a couple of years ago they were offering $2000 signing bonuses to work at a 7-eleven, you are not going to substantially change the cost of this project to the average person.

Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:52 PM
  #128
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
It is a red herring in the sense that if the cost had been $375M we would probably still be having the same arguement. Ask yourself this. What is the actual amortized cost to the tax payer of the project as is vs the project priced at $375M. Assuming that the tax payer city is on the hook for all of this additional cost you might at best save the average property tax payer $3-4 per year or so. And this savings will actually shrink in time as the City's tax base grows.

I have no problem if the project is scaled back. But if what you are really lloking for is a world class arena that will not be out of date in a few years in a City where a couple of years ago they were offering $2000 signing bonuses to work at a 7-eleven, you are not going to substantially change the cost of this project to the average person.
I get your premis, but the bottom line is that too much tax-payers money is involved in this deal, and as a tax-payer, I am dead set against it the way it's proposed to be funded at the moment. I want to see Katz step up to the plate and take some fiscal responsability. Edmontonians are clamoring how much of a great NHL market this is, and that it will never be relocated. Well, Katz can help to prove this by putting up most of the money involved. After all, this market is a slam-dunk, right?

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 04:57 PM
  #129
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
True North in Winnipeg has a very similar deal to what Katz is asking for. TNSE put up $40 million, the various levels of government put up $40 million and the remainder ($53 million?) was borrowed from the province by TNSE. And now TNSE gets enough back from gambling revenues and tax rebates/concessions to make their loan payments. So they got the arena for $40 million. Then they bought an NHL team - but Edmonton already has one of those...

The Edmonton deal is different in that Katz doesn't own the arena, but neither does he put 30% down. There's significantly more money in the Edmonton deal - but then there's an office tower and a unicorn petting zoo as well, right?

Having an arena in downtown Winnipeg has spurred some development in the area. Longboat Development (basically the same owners as True North) are building a hotel, offices, parkade and condos across the street from the MTS Centre (project cost is $75 million est.). There are some bars and restaurants adjacent to the building that are doing quite well, and another city block that's currently a surface parking lot is going to be developed as well (by Longboat).
I am not sure what you point is. Of Katz funded his $100M privately what difference would it make to the Edmonton tax payers?

Your reference to unicorn petting zoos seems to suggest that you don't see much credibility in the claims that it will stimulate devcelopment. The MTS Center was built on lands that were already basically in use. (I am happy to be corrected here since my memory of Winnipeg from that time frame is not so great.) The lands around the proposed site for the Edmonton arena have been derelict for generations.

Now one can question if there really will be substantial development but it seems that this is not in significant dispute. There are already significant projects that are tied to the arena. One of the City's largest real estate players has plans for two condo developments, one of 40 storeys and one of 50 in the ajacent lands. These would be two of the largest residential projects in Edmonton's history. And if one doubts they might come about all you have to do is look at how the area just west of the proposed land has changed over the last decade.

Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:04 PM
  #130
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
No offense but how did that work out for the individual who built the building. What happened in Vanocuver? Even the Bell Centre ended up being essentially sold for nothing by its original owners.

Which individual are you talking about? If you're talking about terrace investments, they made a killing off the associated real estate deals (the arena project gave them leverage to get re-zoning of a ******** of farmland - they built a development now known as kanata.) If you're talking about rod bryden, he took on the sens and their debt separate from terrace and got crushed by it due to two factors:
1. When this whole plan was hatched, the CAD was at ~85c. That is one of the factors that made everyone think the NHL could work in a city like ottawa in the first place. Turns out that was the high point of the dollar, and for the 11 years bryden owned the team, the dollar sat in the 65c range before 'recovering' to ~73c in 2003. This made it difficult to pay off the debt, though interest was paid, and bryden made it work. Everything was good until
2. Enron imploded. This was in 2001. Kinda big news back then. Anyways, part of the collateral damage was that Covanta Energy Corp, who, under their previous name Ogden Entertainment, held the senators arena debt, became insolvent. They required the senators to pay back their full debt (around $100M) immediately. Because of the value of the canadian dollar, the sens were seen as a terrible investment at the time, so no one would offer to refinance the debt. The only option was that the sens went under.

on to vancouver:
I dont have as much information on the canucks issues, as i didnt grow up immersed in them as i did with ottawa's, but from my understanding, they can simply be looked at as being caused by three major factors:
1. Griffiths overextended himself by building the arena and buying an NBA expansion team at the same time.
2. The NBA royally screwed griffiths on the expansion team, forcing him to pay far more than any previous expansion owner had paid as an expansion fee and hurting the grizzlies on the court through draft restrictions and player salary restrictions.
3. The canadian dollar, which erased the profits from the canucks and the grizzlies that were to pay for the arena.

and Montreal:
The Bell Centre was sold for nothing? Cmon, that's ********. The molson's invested 377M in the habs and bell centre (2011 dollars to normalize). They sold 80% of the habs and the bell centre to gillett for 336M dollars. 50M value growth there, ignoring the increased profits they pocketed from the habs in the new arena.


Edmonton is too small of a market for a private investor to put $650-700M into an arena and hockey team. It makes zero sense. And it would not make sense in Ottawa either.

If a private investor thinks it makes sense, then it makes sense. If a private investor doesnt think it makes sense, then it doesnt. If katz doesnt think it makes sense, he should sell the team to someone who does, not extort the taxpayers.


The MTS Center was built for $133M with $40M in public funding. And the building is owned by the private entity. If they want to sell it they get the money. Katz will be responsible for $100M of the direct costs of the Edmonton arena and will be responsible for the building maintance, but the building will be 100% owned by the City of Edmonton.

Someone covered this above but there's a difference between the private entity taking the risk and getting a loan from the city and the city taking the risk and getting a loan from the private entity. What Katz (and other team owners in the US) is trying to do (or have done) is privatize profits while socializing the risk. It's deplorable, but more importantly for me, illogical in a political atmosphere that is opposed to exactly that.

There is a ticket tax in both locations. In Edmonton the proceeds are to go to the City to cover $125M of the cost of the building. In Winnipeg this tax money goes to TNSE. Similarly, TSNE receives substantial monies from VLT's and additional tax breaks. All told thses total roughly $11M per year.

I have no doubt that Katz would jump at the Winnipeg funding formula.

I am a big supporter of the new arena. I think it is a sigificant piece of infrastructure for a City like Edmonton. That said these recent developments are both disappointing and disturbing.



No one would expect that Katz was going to throw $100M cash up front into the building. But ask yourself this. What would you think the reaction would be from his private lender if he was to ask for $100M to put towards an asset that he would have $0 equity in. The City will own the building, and they have access to cheap money through a program with the province. Katz has to pay the full cost of funding this portion of the cost so short of a default, there is no risk to the tax payer.

As to the rest, I am curious what you think of the TNSE deal in comparrison. Certainly if you exclude the $6M the value of the Winnipeg funding formual is much greater than what Katz is asking for. The $6M is a new twist to most of us who have followed this for a while so I do not yet know how to completely resolve this. Though as I said above in this Deal Katz is on the hook for the operating costs and future capital costs for the arena. Based on what we know from other buildings I don't think anyone here would suggest that $6M per year is going to leave a lot left over but rather will leave a shortfall in time.

And as far as the team leaving, Katz has never threatened to move the team. But he is under no obligation to remain an owner in perpetuity. And should he decide he wants to sell, it is at least a real possibilty that no local owner would step up especially if the prospect was a $600M investment.

The current building is a significant piece of the City's core fabric. If this arena does not go through the planned alternative is to hand over $200-300M to Northlands to renovate Rexall. All of this is from the taxpayers. There is no fully private option on the table. But the Katz's groups making a mess of the PR for this project. The shame is that in reality this is actually a relatively small risk for a City with nearly a $2B per year budget, and a city that is still growing at a significant rate.
I trust that suitably corrects your misconceptions with the canadian bankruptcies in the past. Quite frankly, the citizens of ottawa and vancouver should be very, very happy their leaders did not socialize the risk on those deals, because when the same problems would have occured, both cities would have been stuck in a phoenix coyotes situation - where they would be forced to subsidize a new owner and still be stuck with the massive debt - or risk being stuck with an empty arena and the massive debt.

Ottawa's just gone through this whole thing again with our football stadium, and more or less the same concept is being used, though this time the stadium is already city-owned and they will retain ownership of it and the property. The idea is the team owners get a favorable real-estate deal, apply profits from that to pay for the team and stadium. The risk is privitized, and the profit goes to them too. That is a healthy relationship between cities and private business: you help them out by giving them a route to profitability to build this development, whatever it is, and the private sector takes the risk and reward. What Katz is doing is asking to have his cake and eat it too.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:26 PM
  #131
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
I get your premis, but the bottom line is that too much tax-payers money is involved in this deal, and as a tax-payer, I am dead set against it the way it's proposed to be funded at the moment. I want to see Katz step up to the plate and take some fiscal responsability. Edmontonians are clamoring how much of a great NHL market this is, and that it will never be relocated. Well, Katz can help to prove this by putting up most of the money involved. After all, this market is a slam-dunk, right?
The risk to Katz in the combined $300M investment in the team and his portion of an arena is much greater than the risk to the tax payer if the City has a lease that ties the team to the City.

Part of this is sticker shock when people see a number like $450M. The financing model even if there is no net new tax noney leaves the City on the hook for about $125M and the Province/City of ranother $100M.

The Province gets over $6M in income taxes from the Oiler players alone. But even if you ignore this, what you have is a rather small investment relative to the $34B annual budget for such a significant development.

The City's risk is also relatively small in the big scheme of things. A one time $20 increase in the average property tax bill would cover all of the costs of the project with lots left to spare under the worst case scenario. This is significantly less than the typical annual increase that happens each year in the course of normal business. So while I am all for public accountability the reality is that few Edmontonians would even notice any impact from the project.

I am not going to defend Katz's handling of this affair. On whole it has been a disaster. And I understand that there are valid concerns about how tax dollars are spent. But having spent 29 years living in a residential area (Highlands) just east of Rexall I have seen first hand the impact that that building had on the City.

Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 05:35 PM
  #132
Eriktion
Registered User
 
Eriktion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoyleG View Post
Example of the 100m Donation to the U of A? If what you said was true, we would have known about it already. As for the arena deal. The facts are already out there, you would be just as blind not to pay attention.

He sold a business, yet you have no proof that he personally pocketed his money. You ignore that he still actually has business outside of the Oilers....No one worships an owner. You must be really dumb to buy into that ****.

As for the hatred, the only one that exists is from people like who tend to think with a matter that's located south of the border. Your aren't that much different from the Harper haters in politics: Hate, but without logic.
(MOD edit...)

You're right, I don't know if he pocketed the money, but that's still $920 million which is more than DOUBLE the projected cost of the arena. Now I'm not asking Katz to pay for the whole thing but if that $920 million is just a percentage of his wealth, contributing only $100 million feels like a slap in the face.

You can't sit there and tell me people in the city weren't extactic when Katz bought the team. Now...not so much.

Oh yeah, it's still just you and Smackdaddy endorsing this arena deal in this thread. So it looks like it's up to you two to keep the Katz propaganda rolling because it doesn't look like the cavalry will arrive anytime soon.


Last edited by Killion: 09-20-2012 at 06:18 PM. Reason: go after the post, not the poster...
Eriktion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 07:09 PM
  #133
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I'm sure it's been pointed out many times the city doesnt grant casino licenses he has to go to the provincial body that handles that the AGLC. The city has said they are willing to support his application but they cant make one for him. The city never agreed to giving him a licence or subsidize him if he was unable to get one. They approved a framework for the deal which makes no mention of a casino licence or a subsidy.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...framework.aspx

Find one mention of a casino licence in there.

Of course someone already has a casino licence in that area and it's unlikely the province will grant a second one. He can negotiate with the current owner of the licence and try to buy it from him but that has nothing to do with the city.
You're right. Just checked up on it and it seems that is correct.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 07:24 PM
  #134
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
...if the City has a lease that ties the team to the City.
Like the one they had in Glendale? How long did that last before it got wiped out - all of six years?

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 09:59 PM
  #135
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,842
vCash: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
An arena by itself would essentially work...
That's the point we've been trying to make to you. Congratulations on seeing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
...but what's the point in building a half-assed poorly designed arena when for a more substantial investment you can have a literal world-class facility along with a unified effort for revitalization?
I live in Greater Toronto. Every time I here the phrase "world class", I reach for my wallet to make sure it's still there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Not to mention it's just not feasible for the small market that Edmonton is in as stated by another poster. It's a literal case of "go big or go home".
If you can't afford a Mercedes, maybe you should consider a reasonably priced Ford or Chevy. According to your own statements, Katz wants the city to subsidize a MAJOR real-estate megaproject. Stick to building an arena, as originally promised, and most people will be happy.

knorthern knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:48 AM
  #136
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
That's the point we've been trying to make to you. Congratulations on seeing it.

I live in Greater Toronto. Every time I here the phrase "world class", I reach for my wallet to make sure it's still there.

If you can't afford a Mercedes, maybe you should consider a reasonably priced Ford or Chevy. According to your own statements, Katz wants the city to subsidize a MAJOR real-estate megaproject. Stick to building an arena, as originally promised, and most people will be happy.
or you know, if you really want the mercedes, BUY THE ****ING MERCEDES! Have the city give you favorable tax deals, as you are increasing the value of a piece of crap for them, why should they profit? Have the city expedite favorable zoning so that you can get your mercedes. ****, have the city loan you money to buy your mercedes, as long as you guarantee it's paid back and underwrite those payments with your personal wealth (exactly what seattle is doing right now, btw). If you're so sure this is a great idea, take the risk and the profit. Dont ask the city to buy the ****ing mercedes for you and then rent it from them.

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:03 AM
  #137
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,899
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405733

Oilers reject public "negotiating meeting" with mayor and instead request private interaction to resolve issues before going public.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:08 AM
  #138
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405733

Oilers reject public "negotiating meeting" with mayor and instead request private interaction to resolve issues before going public.
sketchy. If Katz really believed that the majority of edmontonians would support his deal, he'd agree to it. As i said in starting this conversation, how he thinks he can get this type of subsidy out of the continental capital of fiscal conservatives, i dont know.

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:38 AM
  #139
Habaneros
Habs Cup champs 2010
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405733

Oilers reject public "negotiating meeting" with mayor and instead request private interaction to resolve issues before going public.

kept on pushing , then called to the mat, doesn't wanna stand up ?

Habaneros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 06:39 AM
  #140
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Like the one they had in Glendale? How long did that last before it got wiped out - all of six years?
The only way they got out of this was through bankruptcy. While it is always a risk, I'd say that under the deal Katz proposed in Edmonton, the chances that he would let a $300M investment go up in smoke just to stick it to the City are pretty slim don't you agree. A binding lease is pretty significant security if the goal is to keep the team in the City.

This is not some white elepahnt we are talking about here. While there is risk to the City, it is pretty minimal. Even withoit the Oilers the building would be used a great deal.

Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 07:10 AM
  #141
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
I trust that suitably corrects your misconceptions with the canadian bankruptcies in the past. Quite frankly, the citizens of ottawa and vancouver should be very, very happy their leaders did not socialize the risk on those deals, because when the same problems would have occured, both cities would have been stuck in a phoenix coyotes situation - where they would be forced to subsidize a new owner and still be stuck with the massive debt - or risk being stuck with an empty arena and the massive debt.

Ottawa's just gone through this whole thing again with our football stadium, and more or less the same concept is being used, though this time the stadium is already city-owned and they will retain ownership of it and the property. The idea is the team owners get a favorable real-estate deal, apply profits from that to pay for the team and stadium. The risk is privitized, and the profit goes to them too. That is a healthy relationship between cities and private business: you help them out by giving them a route to profitability to build this development, whatever it is, and the private sector takes the risk and reward. What Katz is doing is asking to have his cake and eat it too.
I am fully aware of the issues surrounding both the Ottawa arena and the Vancouver situation. Bottom line, both projects went bankrupt. This was precisely my point. Circumstances change. Large debts tend to rear their ugly heads when the environment turns bad and when you are talking about a 40 year life span for a building there will often be times when things go bad.

I am also not so sure that I buy your numbers on the Montreal deal. In fact 80% the team and the Molson Center were sold for $185M US in 2001. That would place a value on the full package of $231US.

Given that the Oilers in near bankruptcy were sold in 1998 for $70MUS with a $90M offer on the table which would have been accepted had there not been a clause in the teams financing forcing the sale at a cheaper price to local investors, what would be a reasonable estimate for the value of the Canadiens alone in 2001? I think conservatively double the $90M, or in the area of about $180 M. Even if you value the Habs at $150M this means at the time of the sale the arena itself was worth less than $100M US.

The arena cost $270M CDN alone to build, not including financing costs which at that time would have been $20M+ per year. So you are looking at an investment in the arena of probably close to $400M CDN yielding a value at the time of its sale in the range of $50-80M US. And by the way, this is not off set by large profits during the initial period in which Molson's owned the building. In fact, the issue at the time were losses for Molsons from owning the Habs and the arena.

Here is where things are different when public ownership is involved. A company valued at $3B dollars takes on $650M in debt and what you have is significant risk. It does not take much to make this an anchor on the business. And even if the critical issue is relatively short term such things can be near fatal as you point out in the examples of Ottawa and Vancouver.

In the deal that is being proposed Katz has direct exposure of $300M of the $650M combined cost of the team and the arena. The City and the Province would be exposed to potentially $350M in financing this project. Though I think everyone feels that the ticket tax will quickly eliminate $125M of this part of the debt leaving the real exposre being about $225M split as $125M to the City and $100M to the province.

$100M exposure to an entity with a $34B per year opperating budget with the power to borrow at very low rates is much less significant. This is especially true when one take into consideration that 1) the Province recognizes the significance of the project, 2) that they would recoup a fair bit of their investment from taxes during the construction of the whole project, 3) the Oiler pay $6M+ per year in income taxes alone and that number will only go up in time.

That leaves the City of Edmonton with a $125M dollar exposure for a project that involves a multi-use arena that will be one of the most widely used facilities in the netire city. This is where the Coyotes situation is nothing like the Edmonton deal. Glendale is a tiny city with a civic budget of about $168M annually. Compared that with Edmonton's $1.88B dollar budget and a much bigger tax base. It is also the case that if the Oilers left the arena in Edmmonton would still be far more active than the arena in Glendale. So your claim of massive debt is certainly not applicable in Edmonton. History supports this assertion as well. The previous building was entirely paid for by the tax payer and it served the City extremely well over the course of its lifetime.

So it should be clear that both the City and the Province are in a much stronger position to weather any temporary circumstances than a business like Rexall would be. In itself this does not mean that the public should just throw its money at any business wanting to set up in the City. But where I differ from many is that becuase of the significant intangible value I see in a multiuse arena for a city like Edmonton, I see it at least in part as an important component of the City's infrastructure. And as such I think public investment is absolutely justified.

Ironically, in your second paragraph you essentially outlined the funding of the football stadium and seem to be suggesting that this is an appropriate model. You also mention the city owned and will own the stadium. You do realise that the City of Edmonton will be the owner of this arena as well. Katz will have no equity despite a $100M invesment in the building.


Last edited by Fourier: 09-21-2012 at 07:21 AM.
Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 08:27 AM
  #142
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
sketchy. If Katz really believed that the majority of edmontonians would support his deal, he'd agree to it. As i said in starting this conversation, how he thinks he can get this type of subsidy out of the continental capital of fiscal conservatives, i dont know.
Very sketchy indeed. This process is actively being hidden from the public because all involved know that this deal is a scam.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:08 AM
  #143
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
The only way they got out of this was through bankruptcy.
I don't accept that. Before Glendale, it was claimed by many that "even bankruptcy" couldn't break the deal. The most that can be said is "so far, only bankruptcy has helped a team break such a lease". I'm not 100% sure even that much is correct.

Quote:
While there is risk to the City, it is pretty minimal. Even withoit the Oilers the building would be used a great deal.
I don't accept that, either. If this was a slam dunk winning project, there would be no trouble lining up fully private funding.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:39 AM
  #144
DowntownBooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyRiver View Post
Last team moved in the NHL went from Atlanta (eg. big corporate and media presence, 5 million metro population) to frikken Winnipeg.
Ignorant comment.

DowntownBooster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:53 AM
  #145
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,733
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
I am not sure what you point is. Of Katz funded his $100M privately what difference would it make to the Edmonton tax payers?

Your reference to unicorn petting zoos seems to suggest that you don't see much credibility in the claims that it will stimulate devcelopment. The MTS Center was built on lands that were already basically in use. (I am happy to be corrected here since my memory of Winnipeg from that time frame is not so great.) The lands around the proposed site for the Edmonton arena have been derelict for generations.

Now one can question if there really will be substantial development but it seems that this is not in significant dispute. There are already significant projects that are tied to the arena. One of the City's largest real estate players has plans for two condo developments, one of 40 storeys and one of 50 in the ajacent lands. These would be two of the largest residential projects in Edmonton's history. And if one doubts they might come about all you have to do is look at how the area just west of the proposed land has changed over the last decade.
My point re: the loan from the city: If Katz were to borrow the money privately, the risk would be on the private lender. Also, Edmonton would still have $100 million available to borrow if the city needed it for another purpose. If Katz runs into financial trouble he can roll out the "moving the team to San Diego" threats to extort further concessions from Edmonton, whereas he wouldn't have any leverage if he were borrowing the money privately. That's just off the top of my head...

The "unicorn petting zoo" is more in reference to the total cost of the project. For $450 million, you better be getting a unicorn petting zoo!

The MTS Centre is on the site of the old Eaton's building - so while the building was not in use after the financial collapse of Eaton's, the area was/is in use. No question that the MTS Centre has revitalized that part of downtown.

My overall point is that while it's not in dispute that a new downtown arena for the Oilers is a good thing in terms of reclaiming derelict land and spurring development, the threat of losing the franchise is ridiculous. It looked like Katz already extorted a sweetheart deal - and now he comes back to extort more? Call his bluff, Edmonton!

Gm0ney is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:01 PM
  #146
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
So it should be clear that both the City and the Province are in a much stronger position to weather any temporary circumstances than a business like Rexall would be. In itself this does not mean that the public should just throw its money at any business wanting to set up in the City. But where I differ from many is that becuase of the significant intangible value I see in a multiuse arena for a city like Edmonton, I see it at least in part as an important component of the City's infrastructure. And as such I think public investment is absolutely justified.
City council agrees with you, most Edmontonians agree, they've agreed to be the primary investor in this project at $450 million. If we're going to account for his latest requests in the same way that he's counting his $100 million investment into this arena it's now become a $660 million project with the city paying the majority of it.

At what point does the cost become to much? How much does he need to not be at a "competitive disadvantage"? Until he can come forward with some numbers that show how much he needs I hope the city tells the administration to not budge at all in negotiations. He goes a lot about the competitive disadvantages he's at but he doesnt mention the advantages like having the Oil Kings in town also using the arena and getting all the revenue and concessions for those games.

Halibut is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:26 PM
  #147
surge1979
Registered User
 
surge1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 861
vCash: 50
Katz supporters: Just curious as to where he plans to move the Oilers if Project Enrich Thyself falls through?

Leave out Toronto and Hamilton given that the league is into the Coyotes for $200MM for the sole purpose of not relocating an NHL team there (at least not without $100+M in expansion/relo fees).

Got any locations yet? Seattle? Kansas City? Ok. Now ask yourself whether those city's are going to give Katz a free rink. Not a sweetheart lease...a free rink. No, they won't.

So what citys are we left with? Dubai is really the only answer. After that, its Atlantis followed by the moon.

surge1979 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:29 PM
  #148
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Edmonton is in a fantastic place to call his bluff. The team has nowhere to move to that isn't a worse arena/revenue situation than what they have now - the Oilers ain't going anywhere.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:18 PM
  #149
WantEggRoll
Registered User
 
WantEggRoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,763
vCash: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Edmonton is in a fantastic place to call his bluff. The team has nowhere to move to that isn't a worse arena/revenue situation than what they have now - the Oilers ain't going anywhere.
Is that a good thing though? At least if Edmonton does get moved somewhere else then someone else will finally get the first overall pick in the draft even if it is still technically the same team.


(Just kidding Edmonton!)

WantEggRoll is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:04 PM
  #150
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
City council agrees with you, most Edmontonians agree, they've agreed to be the primary investor in this project at $450 million. If we're going to account for his latest requests in the same way that he's counting his $100 million investment into this arena it's now become a $660 million project with the city paying the majority of it.

At what point does the cost become to much? How much does he need to not be at a "competitive disadvantage"? Until he can come forward with some numbers that show how much he needs I hope the city tells the administration to not budge at all in negotiations. He goes a lot about the competitive disadvantages he's at but he doesnt mention the advantages like having the Oil Kings in town also using the arena and getting all the revenue and concessions for those games.
To be clear, I am not of the opinion that the City should simply give Katz what ever he asks for. Nor do I feel Katz has handled this well. I said on the Oiler board that as a supporter of the project I was both disappointed and surprised by this new development. Honestly, I want to wiat until it is a lttle clearer what he is now saying to make a final judgement, but I at the very best he has made a think he has made a big strategic mistake in how he has gone about this latest tirade.

And so you know, while I do not now live in Edmonton, I do plan to return within the decade. I am also actively looking at buying property in town as all my family is from there. So in the end I will be happy to put my money where my mouth is when the time comes.

Fourier is online now   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 02:58 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.