HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

The Official Arena Thread Part 6

View Poll Results: On what day will city council vote to finalize a new arena for Edmonton's downtown?
Between now and Christmas 2012 8 7.41%
Between New Year's Day and the end of February 2013 30 27.78%
Between March and July, 2013 16 14.81%
Before the October 2013 civic election 14 12.96%
Not until 2014 4 3.70%
Not until 2015 3 2.78%
Not until 2016 1 0.93%
Not until 2017 6 5.56%
Never 26 24.07%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2012, 10:58 PM
  #301
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Because what you've pointed out has absolutely zero to do with what I'm talking about.

Katz' had no deal. Katz had a framework for initial financing worked out for his arena. Where do you get this idea that there was a deal in place? Katz had to go back and rework the figures because the initial framework was like an entire year stale. City council sat on their butts and basically did nothing while costs and construction changed, as these things do.

Now you're telling me they're going to just build it themselves and hand all that revenue over to Katz anyway? Then what's the freakin' point??

To spite him? It would make sense. Edmonton likes to run their millionaires/billionaires outta town.
Katz had no deal? Thats news to EVERYONE.
And how exactly was City Counsel sitting on their butts. There were designs being made (at the exspense of the City no less) & the 2 parties were working out the intricacies of the deal.
Then Katz of course reneged again & moved the goal posts (about the 4th time) & voila, we are where we ae at.
The suggestion the City sat on its hands is frankly laughable.


Last edited by Billybaroo*: 11-18-2012 at 11:24 PM.
Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 11:12 PM
  #302
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,839
vCash: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Because what you've pointed out has absolutely zero to do with what I'm talking about.

Katz' had no deal. Katz had a framework for initial financing worked out for his arena. Where do you get this idea that there was a deal in place? Katz had to go back and rework the figures because the initial framework was like an entire year stale. City council sat on their butts and basically did nothing while costs and construction changed, as these things do.

Now you're telling me they're going to just build it themselves and hand all that revenue over to Katz anyway? Then what's the freakin' point??

To spite him? It would make sense. Edmonton likes to run their millionaires/billionaires outta town.
This is complete and utter nonsense.

First off, he wasnt going to be the owner of the arena, so it isnt "his". He was to be a tenant under a long term lease.

Secondly, I never told you they were going to build it themselves and hand him the revenue anyway. You just made that up and attributed it to me.

I am the Liquor is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:28 AM
  #303
Bryanbryoil
Moderator
I Know A Thing Or 6
 
Bryanbryoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: About Winning
Posts: 50,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post


You mean the ~$1-2M per playoff game? We're going to start banking on that now? No business person in their right mind would ever bank on playoff revenue so you can scrap that.

This has nothing to do with the sunbelt teams or their marketability and viability. It does, however, have everything to do with the way their ownership have access to revenue generated from outside sources (Arena events) that has enabled them to operate at their ~$7M loss for so long. Keeping the Panthers in Florida legitimizes the arena as a key destination for many events and without the Panthers that venue would cease to be an attractive option.

Now consider that Katz is planning to keep the Oilers viable using the same system and we come full circle back to my original post. Some people are so far off base from my original point that it's almost embarrassing.

It really doesn't surprise me that much, though. I think this is the same band of rabblers that refuse to fully understand the Katz Arena proposal and instead pick and choose what to believe.
Florida may never be a profitable team, but they don't have anywhere near the fanbase that we do, nor do they get anywhere near the ticket revenue that we do. Every owner will try to get every red cent of revenue that they can, that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that has a clue about business. And if we ice a good team there's no reason that we can't be a playoff team more often than not. Another thing that hasn't been mentioned and I haven't said to this point because the STH's will probably despise me for even mentioning it, our fans pay the 5th highest ticket prices for a piss poor team, if they are better I doubt that ticket prices couldn't be raised even more. Unlike in Florida, the Oilers are king in Edmonton and can get away with hikes while in Florida they probably wash your car and do your laundry when you buy a $20 ticket because the Panthers are far from the king in Florida.

__________________
Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated
Bryanbryoil is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 11:39 AM
  #304
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Now consider that Katz is planning to keep the Oilers viable using the same system and we come full circle back to my original post. Some people are so far off base from my original point that it's almost embarrassing.

It really doesn't surprise me that much, though. I think this is the same band of rabblers that refuse to fully understand the Katz Arena proposal and instead pick and choose what to believe.
So when given a chance to come before council and show his projections that say he wont be sustainable in the future, to back up the assertions that you are putting forward why did he refuse? They never asked him to release his bank statements or any confidential information they asked him to come forward and show these projections that show him losing money going forward, by their projections he should be financially stable with the added revenue from all events. He was unwilling to do so. You have to think his assumptions and his cry for financial support has as much of a solid base to it as the idea that Florida being in financial trouble when they dont sell half as many tickets for half the price as they do in Edmonton is some sign that Edmonton cant be sustainable while selling out and charging top price for tickets.

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 11:47 AM
  #305
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Katz had no deal? Thats news to EVERYONE. And how exactly was City Counsel sitting on their butts. There were designs being made (at the exspense of the City no less) & the 2 parties were working out the intricacies of the deal.
Then Katz of course reneged again & moved the goal posts (about the 4th time) & voila, we are where we ae at.
The suggestion the City sat on its hands is frankly laughable.
Actually, it was my understanding that a framework was agreed upon only. There was no deal made. It's clearly stated as such on the City of Edmonton website in regards to the arena.

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

Plainly viewable for all to see (if you actually do some homework first). No deal there, and only a framework agreed upon.

Booya42 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 12:26 PM
  #306
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
Actually, it was my understanding that a framework was agreed upon only. There was no deal made. It's clearly stated as such on the City of Edmonton website in regards to the arena.

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

Plainly viewable for all to see (if you actually do some homework first). No deal there, and only a framework agreed upon.
You are correct, & I did my homework. It seems like eveyone on City Counsel, including the 2 biggest pom pom waivers (Mandel & Krushell) thought they had a deal.
You dont think any agreed to framework would have included the 6 mil a year? The casinio lisence?
To suggest that Katz didnt renege & move the goalposts again, only a guy with Katz pom poms could make that pitch. Every single member of City Counsel would agree. EVERYONE.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 12:40 PM
  #307
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,839
vCash: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
Actually, it was my understanding that a framework was agreed upon only. There was no deal made. It's clearly stated as such on the City of Edmonton website in regards to the arena.

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

Plainly viewable for all to see (if you actually do some homework first). No deal there, and only a framework agreed upon.
Wouldnt agreeing to a financial framework be considered a deal?

I am the Liquor is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:30 PM
  #308
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Wouldnt agreeing to a financial framework be considered a deal?
Sort of but they hadnt signed anything or fully agreed to the funding at that point. It was enough to get the thing moving forward, I still say it's an incredibly sweetheart deal for Katz and his failure to accept that is the best he was going to get is on him. We've come to a point where things have to be finalized to get construction started. The city has been clear on what they are willing to put into the project, Katz seems to just be asking for more and more. He cant complain about lack of action from the city they've been straight forward in this process. We're at an impasse and it's going to take action from him to move it forward if he wants as sweet a deal as he was originally offered. He stands to lose a lot if the city ends up building the arena on their own.

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 03:26 PM
  #309
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Sort of but they hadnt signed anything or fully agreed to the funding at that point. It was enough to get the thing moving forward, I still say it's an incredibly sweetheart deal for Katz and his failure to accept that is the best he was going to get is on him. We've come to a point where things have to be finalized to get construction started. The city has been clear on what they are willing to put into the project, Katz seems to just be asking for more and more. He cant complain about lack of action from the city they've been straight forward in this process. We're at an impasse and it's going to take action from him to move it forward if he wants as sweet a deal as he was originally offered. He stands to lose a lot if the city ends up building the arena on their own.
You gotta wonder if there is something wonky going on in his Empire. His whole approach has been so odd, to say the least. I have heard rumblings for a while about his Empire,but didnt put a lot of stock in them.
Now, I just dunno.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 03:29 PM
  #310
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500
Gregor and Laraque had a little back and forth about the arena on Twitter this morning.

https://twitter.com/GeorgesLaraque/s...95731864309760

Gregor seems to think that The Katz Group and the city will start negotiating again in January.

Quote:
Jason Gregor ‏@JasonGregor

@GeorgesLaraque They could use a lesson in PR 101 that's for sure. They got sent to corner for a time out. Negotiations start in Jan.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 05:16 PM
  #311
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,917
vCash: 131
Someone on another forum, who "claims" to have inside info, says some sort of update will take place around December 12th. Here is hoping the announcement includes Katz's departure from the deal!

Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 05:46 PM
  #312
fysloc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 279
vCash: 50
I'm in the camp that wants to believe Katz and the City restarted negotiations with a creative new way to make the 6million$ shortfall.

While I do think city is getting screwed over by Katz's demand, the last thing I want is them to build an arena with costs as the primary focus and it ends up as another ugly building. That would defeat the entire purpose of building the arena in downtown.

fysloc is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:52 PM
  #313
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fysloc View Post
I'm in the camp that wants to believe Katz and the City restarted negotiations with a creative new way to make the 6million$ shortfall.

While I do think city is getting screwed over by Katz's demand, the last thing I want is them to build an arena with costs as the primary focus and it ends up as another ugly building. That would defeat the entire purpose of building the arena in downtown.
There is no shortfall. Theres a 6 mil "want" , so he makes 6 mil per year more on top of the millions upon millions he will already make on the deal.
There frankly should be nothing to negotiate.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 01:54 PM
  #314
Gord
failed rebuild
 
Gord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,263
vCash: 587
so Katz and the city have been in discussions for a new rink (which most everyone agrees they need) for how many years now? and still no sign of a deal and the beginning of construction?
That's pretty pathetic for both the city and katz.
I'll check in again for the official arena thread part 7 or 8. see if anything has changed. not much seems to have changed after the first 5000+ posts.

Gord is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 03:42 PM
  #315
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,142
vCash: 500
Oilers rank 7th in operating income

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations...n:desc_search:

While indicating a strong performance ranking 7th in overall revenue, the picture painted by the forbes article suggests just how unhealthy the league really is.

83% of the operating income is generated by 4 teams, leaving the Oilers earning ~50% less than the teams dictating important dynamics such as the cap, average player salary, and cap floor.

Obviously this isn't just an Oiler-only problem, but the Oilers are in a unique position, along with several other teams, that puts them at a large disadvantage.

These numbers are only indicative of NHL-only revenue. Meaning that those teams that do not operate their own arena and enjoy outside revenue from non-NHL events are at an increased risk moving forward. Revenue sharing and per cent of HRR can only go so far.

As an example, Florida is able to subsidize their losses because their ownership also owns and receives the income for all non-NHL revenue which is only made possible by having an NHL team legitimize their venue thus attracting events. It's a symbiotic relationship that is becoming the norm with most US/Southern-based markets with a notable exception being Tampa who has no such deal in place and is completely at the whim of their fan base and willingness of the owner to take yearly losses.

So what does this mean for the Oilers?

It means that if these revenues are as lopsided as they appear and we have 4 teams essentially driving both the cap and growth of the league it will only get worse as the years go by. It is my opinion that struggling markets and small markets can only succeed over the next decade by completely being in control of outside revenue to subsidize the eventual losses. I don't think any of this is up for debate.

Edmonton has been running their franchise with 1980 NHL economics for 30 years and it has to change in order to survive. As of right now, things look peachy but unless proper preventative measures are implemented very soon, the financial tables could turn south very quickly (In around 5 years). This could put the viability of the Oilers in Edmonton at risk.

Whether that involves having the city build the entire arena and handing over all revenue to Katz/future Oiler owner or subsidize the construction of a joint project like the previous Katz proposal is up for debate. What isn't is that something has to be done and we cannot expect the NHL or any CBA to work in our favor once again.

Either way, it is looking grim for many franchises who are not able to subsidize their teams going into the future if revenues keep exploding like they are. It almost appears that delinking the cap and agreeing to a very conservative artificial cap could be the top issue when the next CBA comes around.

Just another preemptive warning to a franchise that is nearing their very own Do or Die scenario.

smackdaddy is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 03:48 PM
  #316
fysloc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 279
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
There is no shortfall. Theres a 6 mil "want" , so he makes 6 mil per year more on top of the millions upon millions he will already make on the deal.
There frankly should be nothing to negotiate.
Sorry not shortfall I meant, the subsidy is what I meant to type.

fysloc is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:54 PM
  #317
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
As an example, Florida is able to subsidize their losses because their ownership also owns and receives the income for all non-NHL revenue which is only made possible by having an NHL team legitimize their venue thus attracting events. It's a symbiotic relationship that is becoming the norm with most US/Southern-based markets with a notable exception being Tampa who has no such deal in place and is completely at the whim of their fan base and willingness of the owner to take yearly losses.

So what does this mean for the Oilers?

It means that if these revenues are as lopsided as they appear and we have 4 teams essentially driving both the cap and growth of the league it will only get worse as the years go by. It is my opinion that struggling markets and small markets can only succeed over the next decade by completely being in control of outside revenue to subsidize the eventual losses. I don't think any of this is up for debate.
Pretty flimsy arguement from where I sit. The NHL is locking it's players out because it cant make money in places like Florida. According to your link the Panthers lost $12 million last season meanwhile the Oilers made $16 million and that number will only be going up in a new and larger rink. There is a long way for teams like Florida to go before they even catch up to where the Oilers are at now, let alone threaten to out pace the Oilers in profits even if they get all the profits from the rink. We know the Panthers arena operation side hasnt made as much money off of the rink as the Oilers have in Rexall with just hockey revenues or else they would be paying the county back

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...uditor-charges

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 06:53 PM
  #318
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,881
vCash: 500
I worry about the Canadian dollar dropping in the next few years though, especially with news that American companies are tapping into shale reserves and being able to get oil/gas through the fracking process, it could mean the American economy rebounds strong in the next few years, leaving America with less need of any foreign oil period and a stronger dollar.

Economic conditions in Alberta can change very quickly, people who think it will always stay stable here need to study the last 30 years and what the Oilers have had to go through.

Soundwave is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:42 PM
  #319
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
I worry about the Canadian dollar dropping in the next few years though, especially with news that American companies are tapping into shale reserves and being able to get oil/gas through the fracking process, it could mean the American economy rebounds strong in the next few years, leaving America with less need of any foreign oil period and a stronger dollar.

Economic conditions in Alberta can change very quickly, people who think it will always stay stable here need to study the last 30 years and what the Oilers have had to go through.
Absolutely. The question is what to do about it? Should we start off subsidizing the business while it's incredibly lucrative, which there is no doubt it would be in the current economic situation.? That doesnt make sense, the time to subsidize is when and if the economy changes and the Oilers are finding it hard to sell tickets at a price where they can make a profit. No matter how much money they make while the team is profitable they will struggle if it changes and they wont have a pile of money stashed away to tide them through a rough stretch or in a worst case scenario a long term shift in the economy.

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 02:50 AM
  #320
rosemount289
Registered User
 
rosemount289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Let Calgary..........?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
I'm curious to see how Calgary proceeds now. I've read a lot of blogs and articles that suggest that the gears are already turning on their new arena and surprise, surprise... it's being accomplished quietly and painlessly. Edmonton city council and administration had better be paying attention to their progress.
I'm all for Calgary taking the lead (for once) on the arena deal.......it seems that Edmonton always has to be the front runner in it's battle with the politicians and Calgary reaps the benefits afterwards.


Last edited by rosemount289: 11-29-2012 at 02:50 AM. Reason: spelling
rosemount289 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:00 AM
  #321
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,990
vCash: 406
Gregor said that the City is suppose to bring the arena up again in mid-January. Sounds like they are bringing to table what the costs would be like if the city outright paid for the arena themselves.

I was all in favour from day one about public funding and still am, but Mr.Katz take a look around City and Province are cutting funds to a lot of programs. If you want to be getting non-gameday revenue you better step up and get back to the deal you guys had before.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:01 AM
  #322
Gord
failed rebuild
 
Gord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,263
vCash: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosemount289 View Post
I'm all for Calgary taking the lead (for once) on the arena deal.......it seems that Edmonton always has to be the front runner in it's battle with the politicians and Calgary reaps the benefits afterwards.
they are not taking the lead, though. they just watched 5 years of Edmonton mistakes and avoid them when starting their process.
pretty easy for them when they watch the idiots in edmonton for both katz group and the city. it's like a george constanza thing. they just do the opposite of what Edmonton's instincts are.

Gord is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 09:08 AM
  #323
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,572
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Absolutely. The question is what to do about it? Should we start off subsidizing the business while it's incredibly lucrative, which there is no doubt it would be in the current economic situation.? That doesnt make sense, the time to subsidize is when and if the economy changes and the Oilers are finding it hard to sell tickets at a price where they can make a profit. No matter how much money they make while the team is profitable they will struggle if it changes and they wont have a pile of money stashed away to tide them through a rough stretch or in a worst case scenario a long term shift in the economy.
That's an easy thing to say when you're not the one being asked to sign a 35 year lease.

Katz has done a lot of things wrong during this negotiation but he is right to be leery of making a large, long term, financial commitment in a boom/bust city like Edmonton.

worraps is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:12 AM
  #324
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
they are not taking the lead, though. they just watched 5 years of Edmonton mistakes and avoid them when starting their process.
pretty easy for them when they watch the idiots in edmonton for both katz group and the city. it's like a george constanza thing. they just do the opposite of what Edmonton's instincts are.
What has the City done to characterize them as "idiots"?

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
11-29-2012, 10:34 AM
  #325
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
What has the City done to characterize them as "idiots"?
They agreed to put together a gigantic subsidy for a guy who won't show them any financials.

Silver 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 08:23 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.