HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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
12-23-2012, 11:03 PM
  #701
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,684
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
Did anybody read this Katz piece int he Journal? It is great. I just seen it by fluke while I was on the website. Tells you all about his history.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...ive/index.html
Great read! Thanks for the link.

Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-26-2012, 11:10 PM
  #702
harpoon
FOB
 
harpoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,634
vCash: 500
"Here are the five dumbest things to happen in hockey this year ...

5. The Oilers are moving, wink-nudge.

Darryl Katz is, in theory, the kind of owner every team should have. He's a self-made billionaire from the city in which his team plays who grew up cheering for them, and he (ostensibly, anyway) doesn't really want to use the team as a money-making venture so much as he just wants to see it succeed. Evidence to the contrary on the latter point, of course, is that Steve Tambellini still runs the team.

Which makes the whole arena saga bizarre and terrible.

Okay, I get it: Rexall Place is going to collapse at any second and everyone hates it. Lots of teams are in that position with their rink. And hey, you can't even fault Katz for going out and trying to get public money to build a new one. Everyone does it! It works all the time! But when the City Council very wisely told him he was a billionaire so it wouldn't just give him more money than he originally asked for, Katz threw an hilarious hissy fit. Most of the Edmonton media, by the way, openly supported Katz throughout, with David Staples as his most embarrassing enabler.

First there was the post on the Oilers' website that was like, "Hey, this team could move and it wouldn't be our fault sorry though everyone." Then there was the breathlessly-reported trip to Seattle, which had just signed a deal to build a multi-purpose stadium in hopes of luring a basketball team. I don't blame Wayne Gretzky, who was seen with Katz at a Seahawks game that night, for running from the situation like it was on fire (even as I don't believe a word he says about just happening to have been there that night).

But none of that stuff worked, and Katz went back to Edmonton hat in hand to beg for any more money at all. He was once again denied, and now has about five weeks to close the deal, between which the city and team have a $100 million gap in what they're each willing to spend."

From Puck Daddy http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl...7858--nhl.html

harpoon is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 12:39 AM
  #703
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by harpoon View Post




Okay, I get it: Rexall Place is going to collapse at any second and everyone hates it. Lots of teams are in that position with their rink. And hey, you can't even fault Katz for going out and trying to get public money to build a new one. Everyone does it! It works all the time! But when the City Council very wisely told him he was a billionaire so it wouldn't just give him more money than he originally asked for, Katz threw an hilarious hissy fit. Most of the Edmonton media, by the way, openly supported Katz throughout, with David Staples as his most embarrassing enabler.
There are only 2 arenas older than Rexall (MSG, Nassau) and 2 slightly younger (Joe Louis, Saddledome). This hardly qualifies as "Lots", especially considering that outside of Nassau, Rexall seats the lowest in the league (Removing the newer MTS center). Not only that, but we have come to a crossroads being in a small market that in order to move forward into the next decade, the choice comes down to

A) Renovating Rexall
B) Building a new arena

There is no in-betweens on this matter.

The bias in the reporting also fails to mention the dynamics of both the public and private funding model, including the matched partnership in infrastructure between the city and Katz, and complete payback of any publicly used funds via the CRL.

I understand it makes for more shocking journalism, but it's telling when a so-called sports reporter resorts to half-truths and spin doctoring in order to pander his obvious demographic.

Quote:
First there was the post on the Oilers' website that was like, "Hey, this team could move and it wouldn't be our fault sorry though everyone." Then there was the breathlessly-reported trip to Seattle, which had just signed a deal to build a multi-purpose stadium in hopes of luring a basketball team. I don't blame Wayne Gretzky, who was seen with Katz at a Seahawks game that night, for running from the situation like it was on fire (even as I don't believe a word he says about just happening to have been there that night).
Sorry, but this team very well could move and Seattle is a very likely destination. pretending it could never happen is laughable, considering how much of a small market Edmonton is and how dependent we are on the recently expired small market-friendly CBA. It might have been wrong to let the reports come out the way they did and essentially go with the flow, but to any business-savvy individual no matter what situation they are in, good or bad, you need an exit strategy and a contingency plan in case Edmonton remains hostile towards the Oilers and their arena.

Quote:
But none of that stuff worked, and Katz went back to Edmonton hat in hand to beg for any more money at all. He was once again denied, and now has about five weeks to close the deal, between which the city and team have a $100 million gap in what they're each willing to spend."
We have yet to see if Katz will be forced to act on his contingency plan. More pandering, half-truths, and outright belittling. What's not mentioned is how stale the framework had become, along with the province's inability to grant Katz a casino license required both sides to go back to the table, where the proposal was to split a $12M/yr shortfall with a $6M/yr split supported by leveraging more from the CRL for the City's side while Katz takes it out of pocket.

I have a nomination for Puckdaddy's 5 dumbest things to happen in hockey:

The Complete Misunderstanding and Misinterpretation of the Edmonton Arena and the Resulting Fallout - Starring: Every Media Personality Brave Enough to Comment Without Doing Their Homework.

smackdaddy is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:55 AM
  #704
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
There are only 2 arenas older than Rexall (MSG, Nassau) and 2 slightly younger (Joe Louis, Saddledome). This hardly qualifies as "Lots", especially considering that outside of Nassau, Rexall seats the lowest in the league (Removing the newer MTS center). Not only that, but we have come to a crossroads being in a small market that in order to move forward into the next decade, the choice comes down to

A) Renovating Rexall
B) Building a new arena

There is no in-betweens on this matter.

The bias in the reporting also fails to mention the dynamics of both the public and private funding model, including the matched partnership in infrastructure between the city and Katz, and complete payback of any publicly used funds via the CRL.

I understand it makes for more shocking journalism, but it's telling when a so-called sports reporter resorts to half-truths and spin doctoring in order to pander his obvious demographic.



Sorry, but this team very well could move and Seattle is a very likely destination. pretending it could never happen is laughable, considering how much of a small market Edmonton is and how dependent we are on the recently expired small market-friendly CBA. It might have been wrong to let the reports come out the way they did and essentially go with the flow, but to any business-savvy individual no matter what situation they are in, good or bad, you need an exit strategy and a contingency plan in case Edmonton remains hostile towards the Oilers and their arena.



We have yet to see if Katz will be forced to act on his contingency plan. More pandering, half-truths, and outright belittling. What's not mentioned is how stale the framework had become, along with the province's inability to grant Katz a casino license required both sides to go back to the table, where the proposal was to split a $12M/yr shortfall with a $6M/yr split supported by leveraging more from the CRL for the City's side while Katz takes it out of pocket.

I have a nomination for Puckdaddy's 5 dumbest things to happen in hockey:

The Complete Misunderstanding and Misinterpretation of the Edmonton Arena and the Resulting Fallout - Starring: Every Media Personality Brave Enough to Comment Without Doing Their Homework.
Exactly why does the province have to grant Katz a casino license? Whats in it for the province, city and average tax payer? The contingency plan myth has been debunked and apologized for, why you still beat this drum is somewhat strange. When the Katz group is willing to work in good faith with all of the stake holders in this then I think we will see progress.

Tedi is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:56 AM
  #705
chrisj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
There are only 2 arenas older than Rexall (MSG, Nassau) and 2 slightly younger (Joe Louis, Saddledome).
Further to that... Nassau is out of the picture in a few years when the Islanders move, and MSG just had a $850 million renovation.

Rumors suggest Calgary is just waiting to see the deal Edmonton gets before moving ahead with a new arena there. In Detriot there are rumors over a new arena, including a recent announcement that Mike Ilitch has preliminary plans for a new "events centre district".

chrisj is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 04:52 AM
  #706
Real_Estate-Agent
Registered User
 
Real_Estate-Agent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post

outside of Nassau, Rexall seats the lowest in the league (Removing the newer MTS center). Not only that, but we have come to a crossroads being in a small market that in order to move forward into the next decade, the choice comes down to

A) Renovating Rexall
B) Building a new arena

There is no in-betweens on this matter.
We are not discussing theories of two options; we are discussing facts - should any taxpayer subsidize a billionaire with millionaire employees?

Whether we renovate Rexall Place or build a new arena is irrelevant. Why should we consider any threat to move the team to be serious?

P.S. The fact that a team recently moved to Winnipeg with much lower seating than Edmonton is relevant information - Canadian teams are the only reason the NHL exists!

Real_Estate-Agent is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 07:06 AM
  #707
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Further to that... Nassau is out of the picture in a few years when the Islanders move, and MSG just had a $850 million renovation.

Rumors suggest Calgary is just waiting to see the deal Edmonton gets before moving ahead with a new arena there. In Detriot there are rumors over a new arena, including a recent announcement that Mike Ilitch has preliminary plans for a new "events centre district".
The Detroit arena is far more than a rumor. Michigan has already passed a law granting financial support for the arena.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=647512

Fourier is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 07:17 AM
  #708
harpoon
FOB
 
harpoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
I have a nomination for Puckdaddy's 5 dumbest things to happen in hockey:

The Complete Misunderstanding and Misinterpretation of the Edmonton Arena and the Resulting Fallout - Starring: Every Media Personality Brave Enough to Comment Without Doing Their Homework.
Sorry that quote from PD sent you into a tailspin. I mostly just posted it because it gives some outside perspective on the arena negotiations and the way Mr Katz has handled the process.

I also think it shows that people around the league are taking notice of how Edmonton is handling their arena problem - and needless to say the city is embarrassing itself.

For the record I'm not a big fan of Mr Katz (I was one of only a handful of posters on this board unhappy that his takeover bid was successful), but I can see why he would be getting frustrated by dealing with the dimwits in Edmonton city council (see my last post in this thread #636)

Actually I think this article was mostly supposed to be funny. I particularly liked the shot at Tamby.

harpoon is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 12:49 PM
  #709
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Exactly why does the province have to grant Katz a casino license? Whats in it for the province, city and average tax payer? The contingency plan myth has been debunked and apologized for, why you still beat this drum is somewhat strange. When the Katz group is willing to work in good faith with all of the stake holders in this then I think we will see progress.
It would be nice if the province took some time away from giving our oil revenue away and covering up environmental disasters in order to give the tiniest support in the form of a casino license. It's literally the least they can do. I'm sure the reasoning behind it would be the amount taken away from their VLT monopoly.

The only party to not deal in good faith has been the Northland shareholder/city councilors (I can't believe that's actually the case) who have done their worst to sabotage the efforts ever since they were cut from the deal like the obsolete archaic relics they are.

smackdaddy is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 12:58 PM
  #710
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real_Estate-Agent View Post
We are not discussing theories of two options; we are discussing facts - should any taxpayer subsidize a billionaire with millionaire employees?

Whether we renovate Rexall Place or build a new arena is irrelevant. Why should we consider any threat to move the team to be serious?

P.S. The fact that a team recently moved to Winnipeg with much lower seating than Edmonton is relevant information - Canadian teams are the only reason the NHL exists!
It's like you speak doublespeak. "Taxpayer" "Subsidize" "billionaire" "millionaire". It's as if you're leading the plutophobic manhunt personally. There is a time and place for raising the pitchforks and crucifying the rich. It's just not here, because there is no fight here to be had. When Katz puts forward a proposal that deprives you of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you'll have more than enough reasons to hate on the guy. As it stands, all he has done is put forward a proposal to not only benefit the Oilers, but the city and it's inhabitants as well and the best part is it will only cost you one trip to Timmies to get it. You can count on one finger how many times that happens. It might come as a shocker for some, but things cost money and very large things have costs that must be shared. It seems you like to attack Katz because he's an easy target. Why don't you focus that hatred on Harper? The one who is actually depriving you of liberty on a daily basis?

PS> Winnipeg is a city that had to sell out season tickets for 5 years in advance before they could call it economically viable. And the ratio of STH to regularly available tickets is high compared to every other franchise in the league. And if the next CBA is not small-market friendly? Well, we'll see how long Winnipeg will be able to compete. They haven't even grazed the cap yet and are still $13M shy of doing so.

smackdaddy is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:27 PM
  #711
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
It would be nice if the province took some time away from giving our oil revenue away and covering up environmental disasters in order to give the tiniest support in the form of a casino license. It's literally the least they can do. I'm sure the reasoning behind it would be the amount taken away from their VLT monopoly.

The only party to not deal in good faith has been the Northland shareholder/city councilors (I can't believe that's actually the case) who have done their worst to sabotage the efforts ever since they were cut from the deal like the obsolete archaic relics they are.


Put away your pom poms man.
Please enlighten the masses what heinous acts Northlands have done.The suggestion that they havnt dealt in good faith is laughable. Its Katz who has reneged/moved the goal posts numerous times.Certainly Northlands havnt reneged numerous times on agreements as your man Katz has done. One thing is clear. That Katz cannot be trusted or relied upon to keep his word is beyond a doubt..


Last edited by Billybaroo*: 12-27-2012 at 01:33 PM.
Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:35 PM
  #712
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Exactly why does the province have to grant Katz a casino license? Whats in it for the province, city and average tax payer

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
It would be nice if the province took some time away from giving our oil revenue away and covering up environmental disasters in order to give the tiniest support in the form of a casino license. It's literally the least they can do. I'm sure the reasoning behind it would be the amount taken away from their VLT monopoly.
I suspect that Tedi's question is relating to the rationale for the granting of the casino license application. From the AGLC website on granting casino licenses: "The purpose of this application is to determine a group's eligibility to hold casino events. Only charitable or religious groups are licensed to conduct gaming events in Alberta.
The proceeds generated from these events must be used for approved charitable or religious activities. To qualify for a casino licence, a group must have delivered a charitable program in Alberta for a minimum of 24 months."

Does the Oilers or Daryl Katz qualify as a charitable of religious group and would they use the proceeds for charitable or religious activities?

Master Lok is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 02:15 PM
  #713
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post
I suspect that Tedi's question is relating to the rationale for the granting of the casino license application. From the AGLC website on granting casino licenses: "The purpose of this application is to determine a group's eligibility to hold casino events. Only charitable or religious groups are licensed to conduct gaming events in Alberta.
The proceeds generated from these events must be used for approved charitable or religious activities. To qualify for a casino licence, a group must have delivered a charitable program in Alberta for a minimum of 24 months."

Does the Oilers or Daryl Katz qualify as a charitable of religious group and would they use the proceeds for charitable or religious activities?
Ya, because it is so much better for the province that they gave the casino licence to a Quebec company.

ThePhoenixx is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 03:14 PM
  #714
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
It would be nice if the province took some time away from giving our oil revenue away and covering up environmental disasters in order to give the tiniest support in the form of a casino license. It's literally the least they can do. I'm sure the reasoning behind it would be the amount taken away from their VLT monopoly.

The only party to not deal in good faith has been the Northland shareholder/city councilors (I can't believe that's actually the case) who have done their worst to sabotage the efforts ever since they were cut from the deal like the obsolete archaic relics they are.
Still ranting away I see.

Honest question:

Do you think the above rhetoric contributes anything to the arena discussion?

Replacement is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 03:28 PM
  #715
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,513
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Exactly why does the province have to grant Katz a casino license? Whats in it for the province, city and average tax payer? The contingency plan myth has been debunked and apologized for, why you still beat this drum is somewhat strange. When the Katz group is willing to work in good faith with all of the stake holders in this then I think we will see progress.
You do realize that casino's in Alberta are charity gaming entities right? Meaning the owner of the Casino gets a share of the profits, with IIRC 15% going to the charity (usually something anywhere from $10,000-50,000 for their two days, they group everything into three month groupings and then divide the money for the charities then) I believe 30% going to the government and then the owner gets to take his share out.

So seeing as I've explained this at least 15 times in the previous discussions about this. It helps the city because it will be a much busier Casino then the Baccarat, therefore bringing in more tax money to the government and more money to local charities. It also opens up an opportunity to have a casino that's basically for minor sports organizations. Some small towns minor hockey systems are in total dissaray because they can only get a date at a casino once every two years or so as it stands right now because of the amount of charities in line at some of the current casinos.

molsonmuscle360 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 03:31 PM
  #716
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,513
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post
I suspect that Tedi's question is relating to the rationale for the granting of the casino license application. From the AGLC website on granting casino licenses: "The purpose of this application is to determine a group's eligibility to hold casino events. Only charitable or religious groups are licensed to conduct gaming events in Alberta.
The proceeds generated from these events must be used for approved charitable or religious activities. To qualify for a casino licence, a group must have delivered a charitable program in Alberta for a minimum of 24 months."

Does the Oilers or Daryl Katz qualify as a charitable of religious group and would they use the proceeds for charitable or religious activities?
No, you totally misunderstand the process. I've been a GM of a casino so I understand how it works. There is an owner, but to open your doors, every night you have to have a charity working for you. They work with the help of advisers from the AGLC and they work the cash cage where you return your chips. If the charity has something happen and they don't show up, the casino can't open that day. They are technically the "operator" of the casino that day. Whoever is in charge of that charity was according to the government my "boss" that day.

molsonmuscle360 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 03:42 PM
  #717
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
You do realize that casino's in Alberta are charity gaming entities right? Meaning the owner of the Casino gets a share of the profits, with IIRC 15% going to the charity (usually something anywhere from $10,000-50,000 for their two days, they group everything into three month groupings and then divide the money for the charities then) I believe 30% going to the government and then the owner gets to take his share out.

So seeing as I've explained this at least 15 times in the previous discussions about this. It helps the city because it will be a much busier Casino then the Baccarat, therefore bringing in more tax money to the government and more money to local charities. It also opens up an opportunity to have a casino that's basically for minor sports organizations. Some small towns minor hockey systems are in total dissaray because they can only get a date at a casino once every two years or so as it stands right now because of the amount of charities in line at some of the current casinos.
Good grief!!! Is it OK if I disagree that Katz isn't doing this for small town hockey. And FTR I don't agree that funding charities from gaming (gambling) is necessarily the best course of action.

Tedi is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 03:51 PM
  #718
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,513
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Good grief!!! Is it OK if I disagree that Katz isn't doing this for small town hockey. And FTR I don't agree that funding charities from gaming (gambling) is necessarily the best course of action.
All I was pointing out was you were saying that noone but Katz benefits from a Casino. I was pointing out that you are wrong in that statement. The city and taxpayers do benefit from casinos. And a casino in that area with an arena district would do much better for the taxpayer then the one that is currently there.

I also understand a lot of people may not see gambling as a good way to fund charities, but ask the charities that come through most casinos and see what they have to say. They will tell you that they can't get things done without the money they receive from the AGLC. Casino, bingo, all that stuff bring in lots of money for local minor hockey, minor soccer, church groups, local playgrounds, small school districts, etc, etc.

molsonmuscle360 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 04:03 PM
  #719
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
All I was pointing out was you were saying that noone but Katz benefits from a Casino. I was pointing out that you are wrong in that statement. The city and taxpayers do benefit from casinos. And a casino in that area with an arena district would do much better for the taxpayer then the one that is currently there.

I also understand a lot of people may not see gambling as a good way to fund charities, but ask the charities that come through most casinos and see what they have to say. They will tell you that they can't get things done without the money they receive from the AGLC. Casino, bingo, all that stuff bring in lots of money for local minor hockey, minor soccer, church groups, local playgrounds, small school districts, etc, etc.
But the intent is that proceeds from a gambling establishment do not benefit or help profit one individual specifically. Why shouldn't all businesses get to subsidize their operations and thus become more profitable. Can you imagine if we had 20 more casinos, charities would never want for anything

Tedi is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 04:12 PM
  #720
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,513
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
But the intent is that proceeds from a gambling establishment do not benefit or help profit one individual specifically. Why shouldn't all businesses get to subsidize their operations and thus become more profitable. Can you imagine if we had 20 more casinos, charities would never want for anything
I just think it only makes sense to have a casino in the new arena district. People in Alberta like to gamble, we are one of the top 5 gambling regions in the entire world. We can either have the Baccarat reopening in the area, with an owner who has no ties to Alberta (he's a Chinese national) and he never seems to be too interested in making his business holdings look decent. He owns the Palace and Baccarat, the two biggest dump casino's in Alberta. There will be a casino in that area one way or the other, whether Katz owns it or not, so wouldn't it be a better idea for Katz to own it so he's not asking the city for more money?

To me sometimes it just seems that the people who are against Katz are basically against anything that will even help him out an iota. It's like they think he should just pay for the whole thing himself, not have the business' he wishes to have in the area and not get any kind of operating income or breaks. If I was Katz in that situation, I'd be looking at other cities to move my team to as well.

Edit: Also, to the part of your statement about the intent of casino's is not for the owner to make a personal profit? Why would someone open a casino then? Just risk your own money (which is constantly at risk, since the owners have to pay for any nights the casino takes a loss) and hand off all your profits to charity? That's not how it works. You still need to make your money off the deal too.

molsonmuscle360 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 04:25 PM
  #721
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
I just think it only makes sense to have a casino in the new arena district. People in Alberta like to gamble, we are one of the top 5 gambling regions in the entire world. We can either have the Baccarat reopening in the area, with an owner who has no ties to Alberta (he's a Chinese national) and he never seems to be too interested in making his business holdings look decent. He owns the Palace and Baccarat, the two biggest dump casino's in Alberta. There will be a casino in that area one way or the other, whether Katz owns it or not, so wouldn't it be a better idea for Katz to own it so he's not asking the city for more money?

To me sometimes it just seems that the people who are against Katz are basically against anything that will even help him out an iota. It's like they think he should just pay for the whole thing himself, not have the business' he wishes to have in the area and not get any kind of operating income or breaks. If I was Katz in that situation, I'd be looking at other cities to move my team to as well.
Is this last part a serious statement? Who are they?

Tedi is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 04:31 PM
  #722
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
I just think it only makes sense to have a casino in the new arena district. People in Alberta like to gamble, we are one of the top 5 gambling regions in the entire world. We can either have the Baccarat reopening in the area, with an owner who has no ties to Alberta (he's a Chinese national) and he never seems to be too interested in making his business holdings look decent. He owns the Palace and Baccarat, the two biggest dump casino's in Alberta. There will be a casino in that area one way or the other, whether Katz owns it or not, so wouldn't it be a better idea for Katz to own it so he's not asking the city for more money?

To me sometimes it just seems that the people who are against Katz are basically against anything that will even help him out an iota. It's like they think he should just pay for the whole thing himself, not have the business' he wishes to have in the area and not get any kind of operating income or breaks. If I was Katz in that situation, I'd be looking at other cities to move my team to as well.

Edit: Also, to the part of your statement about the intent of casino's is not for the owner to make a personal profit? Why would someone open a casino then? Just risk your own money (which is constantly at risk, since the owners have to pay for any nights the casino takes a loss) and hand off all your profits to charity? That's not how it works. You still need to make your money off the deal too.
There is way more to it than that and you know it. And when exactly does the house lose

Tedi is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 04:34 PM
  #723
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Is this last part a serious statement? Who are they?
If you watched the city council meetings on the issue and look through this thread it's very obvious. Some tax payers IMO are against anyone getting ahead with tax payer money even though thats what many of the big companies in this country have done including Rexall. It keeps people employed and paying taxes so it a win-win on both sides of the coin. It's one of the main reasons our economy is so strong right now along with our natural resources.

raab is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 04:42 PM
  #724
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,513
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
There is way more to it than that and you know it. And when exactly does the house lose
About once a month the house has a losing night. Sometimes it's minor, some times it's bad. I've seen nights where the casino also only profits a few hundred dollars. It's the nature of gambling. Slots are basically a guaranteed form of income over time, VLT's even more so however. Slots/VLT's can have losing nights, but over their life they will always fall into the formula where they pay out a certain percentage of what they take in. Slots that are in casino's are legally required to pay out a minimum of 85% of what they take in, so the casino over time makes 15 cents on the dollar for every slot. VLT's have a much bigger margin though, it's closer to a 60/40 split. Table Games can be a total crapshoot. But they are also very rarely big money makers, except of course for high limit rooms.

The ONLY income that a casino is sure to make on any given night is from poker. It's the best thing for a casino because it's purely no risk/all reward as long as you have a half decent dealer working for you. If they can pump out hands, you are making money on the rake.

And sorry, it kinda seemed like you might have taken what I said earlier about the people against Katz. I didn't mean that you were one of those guys that are basically against everything he has been trying to get done, but some guys around here have been. And honestly, if people knew who owned the other casino's and how little they gave a damn about Alberta (with a few exceptions), having someone like Katz as an operator would be pretty awesome. There has been a buzz running through the industry for nearly 8 years about Katz owning a casino, and many people were happy with the idea of him getting the Baccarats old stomping ground because a lot of casino workers are really not fan of that particular ownership group.

molsonmuscle360 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 06:14 PM
  #725
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
If you watched the city council meetings on the issue and look through this thread it's very obvious. Some tax payers IMO are against anyone getting ahead with tax payer money even though thats what many of the big companies in this country have done including Rexall. It keeps people employed and paying taxes so it a win-win on both sides of the coin. It's one of the main reasons our economy is so strong right now along with our natural resources.
What a flawed and naive statement. But sure keep on telling me how I'm missing the obvious.

Tedi 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 10:15 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.