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

Latest on New YEG Arena?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2011, 04:43 PM
  #251
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,279
vCash: 7000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
I know what you're saying. I think we're on the same page but you just understand the facts a bit more and articulate your feelings a bit better.

most people here probably disagree on how any of our tax dollars should be spent, rink or no rink.

I should look at it like you do i.e. HBO. If I went out to the bar and had one of two less beer a month, it would probably be the equivelant of my tax dollars going to the arena.
If any of you have gone to the winspear for a show, you'll know how sad it is that you can't step out of the hall and then go for a bite to eat or a drink. nor even go for a safe walk. perhaps a new arena, and the development of "The Quarters" would actually give us an entertainment district worth going to.

I guess I get my back up because it feels like Katz and Mandel are bullying everyone.

and hey, snow removal and better roads are important too. lol I know more people that look down on Edmonton more for not being able to properly maintain the roads, than look down on the city because of the arena.
My immediate reaction is to tell Katz to **** off, but I do believe that this is the choice we have.

New arena = Oilers hockey at least for the foreseeable future.

No new arena = Oilers hockey will be moving on within five years.

Nothing is guaranteed and even with a new arena we are always one financial catastrophe from losing our team or needing a new owner. It will always be that way in Edmonton, but if we can survive Pocklington, I think we should be ok.

I guess people need to decide for themselves if having the Oilers be a part of our city/culture is worth supporting a new arena with taxpayer dollars. I just dont know why it is taking so long to decide. They may have the issue decided for them if they dont hurry up.

Just as an aside, it is not very comfortable going to games anymore. While I still enjoy the rare opportunity, it can be physically uncomfortable. The seats are junk and they are too small, no leg room and the concourse/bathroom/concession facilities are too small/over-crowded.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 04:43 PM
  #252
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Oh I'm sure the city would have been happy to own the arena when they thought northlands would be running it and the city would be getting a piece of the revenue pie. Hat in hand may be pure conjecture but it's an observation from past experiences with the oilers and other pro sports teams. Agreements are always being amended, rents reduced, revenue given up. Heck look at glendale, they are paying $25,000,000 into the pot.
No. As I am referring to the agreement made with the Katz group. This had nothing to do with Northlands. They also own Northlands arena and the land.

It is wonderful to go with conjecture but I would prefer to go with the agreement in hand then referring to what might happen years down the line when the building needs maintenance.

Especially when Northland arenas (the present Rexall Place) has quite an extensive budget for renovation/upkeep and Northlands is publicly funded, in other words we are already paying for maintenance on Northlands directly or indirectly.

Secondly what monies does the city get from the present arena? Do they get any benefits from it? Any revenue? From my understanding Northlands gets certain revenue (concerts etc), the Oilers some.

This agreement has been present since the Pockington era when he threatened to move the team.

So the revenue agreement would be similar to what is in place already. The difference is that Northlands is not getting revenue, and Katz is responsible for maintenance instead of Northlands and the City.

hockeyaddict101 is online now  
Old
09-21-2011, 04:50 PM
  #253
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,279
vCash: 7000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Sorry I have to take issue with your post. How often do I have to see people say 'I am philosophically against dolling out money to a private concern but in this case we have to do it.'

Also, are you actually buying into the 'we will lose the oilers tomorrow' if we don't build a new arena today bunk?

One of the most successful franchises in the league, big waiting list for season tix.
Canuck buck above par.
US cities bleeding cash and in trouble.

Where is the team going to go?

As hockey fans we all would love a new arena but the fear mongering about losing the team is hogwash as is the 'I am not a believer in handing out public cash' (as long as it doesn't benefit me then in that case I'm all for it.)
Maybe you should read my post again?

You seemed to miss the part where 100% capacity at Rexall still puts us well into the bottom half of the league in total attendance figures. Add to that the Oilers dont get parking/concession revenue nor any revenue from other events while other teams do and you see how it may be problematic from a revenue standpoint.

Especially when our expenses are the same or perhaps even more than some of the teams with the greater revenue streams. Katz is quite the philanthropist but he isnt going to put the financial well being of himself and his family at risk for the Oilers. Nor should he.

So if you have any alternatives Im all ears.

Here is the link to the attendance figures if anyone is interested. We were 19th in total attendance despite being at 100% capacity.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2011


Last edited by I am the Liquor: 09-21-2011 at 04:57 PM.
I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 04:53 PM
  #254
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Here is the thing, it is an equation not just a 'look at the benefits'.

...

Something as nebulous as 'We want to develop and revitalize downtown' is just not good enough for me.
Here is the rub, this is about the 10th (?) thread on the subject and the equation has never been katz vs a generic 'We want to develop and revitalize downtown' .

It has certainly included it but there have also been many details hashed and re-hashed but I guess you have to be willing to look for them.

I guess the starting point has to be whether the individual is happy with Rexall and sees no need for changes, be it the new arena or the extensive renovations that were discussed.

If you fall into that category then there is probably no point delving any further into the subject.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:15 PM
  #255
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
So the revenue agreement would be similar to what is in place already. The difference is that Northlands is not getting revenue, and Katz is responsible for maintenance instead of Northlands and the City.
How do we guarantee that in 10 years Katz doesn't want to renegotiate that because he's losing money/not making enough/tired of spending on upkeep and he'll move the team if we don't give him what he wants?

I don't think you can. He's already hinted that he's willing to go to the nuclear option. Once that genie is out of the lamp...

Silver is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:17 PM
  #256
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver View Post
How do we guarantee that in 10 years Katz doesn't want to renegotiate that because he's losing money/not making enough/tired of spending on upkeep and he'll move the team if we don't give him what he wants?

I don't think you can. He's already hinted that he's willing to go to the nuclear option. Once that genie is out of the lamp...
He already conceded a location agreement would be part of it.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:19 PM
  #257
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
I thought we were talking about an arena district not just an arena? Though I disagree with the city not getting direct benefit from the arena. That is a blanket statement and you are only looking at one aspect (the Edmonton Oilers)

Again I refer you to look at the arena agreement you will find that the city wanted to own the arena and surrounding district so they could control the architecture and surrounding development.

It was not just Katz's idea for city ownership! The City wanted it that way.
Just to be clear here, the city also wants to own everything else around the arena? (i.e. the restaurants and whatnot)

I must be misunderstanding this.

alanschu is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:20 PM
  #258
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Just to be clear here, the city also wants to own everything else around the arena? (i.e. the restaurants and whatnot)

I must be misunderstanding this.
I am pretty sure HA101 is mistaken on that one. The city would own the arena and the land the arena sits on.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:23 PM
  #259
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver View Post
How do we guarantee that in 10 years Katz doesn't want to renegotiate that because he's losing money/not making enough/tired of spending on upkeep and he'll move the team if we don't give him what he wants?

I don't think you can. He's already hinted that he's willing to go to the nuclear option. Once that genie is out of the lamp...
What stopped Pocklington from moving the team? It was called a no movement clause. He could only move it if there was no local buyer.

Katz is willing to sign a no movement clause for 35 years.

Sorry but this is not an issue based on the no movement clause.

hockeyaddict101 is online now  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:24 PM
  #260
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
I am pretty sure HA101 is mistaken on that one. The city would own the arena and the land the arena sits on.
I thought that is what I said but if not yes the City would own it all and it was by their request!

Yep that is what I said. I quote.

--------------------

Again I refer you to look at the arena agreement you will find that the city wanted to own the arena and surrounding district so they could control the architecture and surrounding development.

hockeyaddict101 is online now  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:24 PM
  #261
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
I am pretty sure HA101 is mistaken on that one. The city would own the arena and the land the arena sits on.
Will there be a rental fee greater than $1 that the Oilers currently pay? Or is that sort of included along the lines of "All revenue goes to the Oilers" (i.e. Oilers effectively stay for free. Other shows pay a fee which goes to the Oilers).

alanschu is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:28 PM
  #262
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
I thought that is what I said but if not yes the City would own it all and it was by their request!
Must be your wording because I think everyone has been reading your comments as the city would own the arena and all of the 'entertainment district' that would follow.

That's not what's been made public from what I recall. The city's interest is the arena only and with that the portion of land that the arena sits on (not the entertainment district land).

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:30 PM
  #263
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
Must be your wording because I think everyone has been reading your comments as the city would own the arena and all of the 'entertainment district' that would follow.

That's not what's been made public from what I recall. The city's interest is the arena only and with that the portion of land that the arena sits on (not the entertainment district land).
Actually they also do own some of the land around the arena as well. Again so they could control the development, that was part of the deal.

Not all of it of course. A certain portion.

hockeyaddict101 is online now  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:30 PM
  #264
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Will there be a rental fee greater than $1 that the Oilers currently pay? Or is that sort of included along the lines of "All revenue goes to the Oilers" (i.e. Oilers effectively stay for free. Other shows pay a fee which goes to the Oilers).
I'm not sure that has been declared one way or another but my guess would be that any rent would be nominal ie. $1.

But who knows until they say for sure.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:37 PM
  #265
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
Actually they also do own some of the land around the arena as well.
Can you point to it? I ask because I haven't seen it but am interested in the details.

All I can find is a referal to the 'arena land' at 20 mil. I can't find mention of additional property.

I am not even sure how it would work for the city to own additional land but let someone else develop it. Would it be a lease to Katz?

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:48 PM
  #266
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Copper I will post the link when I get home. Basically Katz sold the land back to the city as they wanted to make sure the development fit with what they are envisioning for the "quarters".

This was the city's request. If no develpment happens the city can then sell the land but Katz has first option at market prices.

Here is the link.
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...framework.aspx

and here is the portion I was talking about

The City will purchase the land ($20 million) where the arena will be built (approximately 7 acres). The costs of the land is not included in the $450 million costs of the building.

The City will also buy the remaining 5 acres on the north 12 acre parcel above 104 Avenue, which may be used for a community rink or parking. If not required, the land will be sold back to the Katz Group at the purchase price plus interest. If the Katz Group does not buy it back, the City will sell the land at market rates.
The Katz Group will immediately purchase 2 of the 4 acres on the south parcel. The remaining 2 acres will be held by the City to ensure that the district is developed appropriately. The Katz Group will sell the City the option on these lands and will buy them back at market value plus interest within five years of the completion of the arena. If the Katz Group does not buy back the land within the time frame the City will sell this parcel at market rates.
The land is being acquired by the City to facilitate the time and type of development to be consistent with the City's goals.
Development of all parcels of land to be designed consistent with the Capital City Downtown Plan.


Last edited by hockeyaddict101: 09-21-2011 at 06:21 PM.
hockeyaddict101 is online now  
Old
09-21-2011, 05:59 PM
  #267
Dorian2
The bag don't lie.
 
Dorian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,636
vCash: 50
I've gone through most of this thread since its inception, and I have a pretty simple philosophy. Wanna hear it? Too bad if you don't becuase I'm going to state it nonetheless.

I totally understand some peoples stance on not wanting to use public money to help support this endevour, but I'm 100% willing to give some of my tax dollars to this idea. Why? Just for the simple reason that I love the Oilers and hockey in this city. That's enough of an excuse for me to put forward 1/6th of what I make an hour (assuming it's a small yerly tax), jsut to make our city a better place to live and to have a bonofide hockey and concert venue. I don't go to hockey games typically because it's too much, I do go 2x a year at most....doesn't matter to me, I love hockey, the Oilers and this city. I know..... I'm crazy.

Dorian2 is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 06:04 PM
  #268
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
He already conceded a location agreement would be part of it.
Yeah, but that was also part of the deal that assumed $100M would materialize out of the ether. Call me skeptical, but I'd like to keep an eye on that location agreement and exactly what it says.

Silver is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 06:05 PM
  #269
OilChuck
Clutch and Crutch
 
OilChuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moneybags
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 500
Take a few minutes and read the Edmonton city council minutes. This will save a lot of questions and answers!

OilChuck is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 06:47 PM
  #270
jbean
Registered User
 
jbean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,716
vCash: 500
I really dislike Katz and the game he plays. He's doing this because he's confident he can get away with it. If public money does end up going into the project I would be outraged if all of the profit from the arena area went into Katz pockets.

jbean is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 06:51 PM
  #271
awesomo
HARD!
 
awesomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: location, location
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,642
vCash: 500
Losing oiler hockey would be huge in this city. Imagine sitting through a winter without it! Like several years ago

awesomo is online now  
Old
09-21-2011, 06:53 PM
  #272
raab
Where's the Hart?
 
raab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,195
vCash: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian2 View Post
I've gone through most of this thread since its inception, and I have a pretty simple philosophy. Wanna hear it? Too bad if you don't becuase I'm going to state it nonetheless.

I totally understand some peoples stance on not wanting to use public money to help support this endevour, but I'm 100% willing to give some of my tax dollars to this idea. Why? Just for the simple reason that I love the Oilers and hockey in this city. That's enough of an excuse for me to put forward 1/6th of what I make an hour (assuming it's a small yerly tax), jsut to make our city a better place to live and to have a bonofide hockey and concert venue. I don't go to hockey games typically because it's too much, I do go 2x a year at most....doesn't matter to me, I love hockey, the Oilers and this city. I know..... I'm crazy.
Well said! This is how I look at it, they should just get the damn thing built already to ensure the Oilers are in Edmonton for a long, long time.

raab is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 07:01 PM
  #273
TheGudge
Registered User
 
TheGudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Definitely not sober
Country: Canada
Posts: 702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian2 View Post
I've gone through most of this thread since its inception, and I have a pretty simple philosophy. Wanna hear it? Too bad if you don't becuase I'm going to state it nonetheless.

I totally understand some peoples stance on not wanting to use public money to help support this endevour, but I'm 100% willing to give some of my tax dollars to this idea. Why? Just for the simple reason that I love the Oilers and hockey in this city. That's enough of an excuse for me to put forward 1/6th of what I make an hour (assuming it's a small yerly tax), jsut to make our city a better place to live and to have a bonofide hockey and concert venue. I don't go to hockey games typically because it's too much, I do go 2x a year at most....doesn't matter to me, I love hockey, the Oilers and this city. I know..... I'm crazy.
This whole arena debate makes me an irrational fan as well but at least we're honest, I dgaf about how bad the city might get screwed by some billionaire, it won't be that bad at the end of the day, because at least the Oilers are still in Edmonton. They hold a cultural relevance, a value to many in the city and surrounding area that may not always translate into profit for the city, but a "value" nontheless.

Maybe we should go all Green Bay if Katz tries to sell and the city buys the team, we just gotta convince Bettman first


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers


Quote:
The Packers are the only community-owned franchise in American professional sports major leagues.[21] Typically, a team is owned by one person, partnership, or corporate entity, i.e., a "team owner." The lack of a dominant owner has been stated as one of the reasons the Green Bay Packers have never been moved from the city of Green Bay, a city of only 102,313 people as of the 2000 census
Quote:
Based on the original "Articles of Incorporation for the (then) Green Bay Football Corporation" put into place in 1923, if the Packers franchise were to have been sold, after the payment of all expenses, any remaining money would go to the Sullivan Post of the American Legion in order to build "a proper soldier's memorial." This stipulation was enacted to ensure the club remained in Green Bay and that there could never be any financial enhancement for the shareholders. At the November 1997 annual meeting, shareholders voted to change the beneficiary from the Sullivan-Wallen Post to the Green Bay Packers Foundation, which makes donations to many charities and institutions throughout Wisconsin.
Quote:
In 1950, the Packers held a stock sale to again raise money to support the team. In 1956, area voters approved the construction of a new city owned stadium.

Another stock sale occurred late in 1997 and early in 1998. It added 105,989 new shareholders and raised over $24 million, money used for the Lambeau Field redevelopment project. Priced at $200 per share, fans bought 120,010 shares during the 17-week sale, which ended March 16, 1998. As of June 8, 2005, 112,015 people (representing 4,750,934 shares) can lay claim to a franchise ownership interest. Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value (though private sales often exceed the face value of the stock), and stock ownership brings no season ticket privileges. No shareholder may own over 200,000 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no individual can assume control of the club. To run the corporation, a board of directors is elected by the stockholders.
Quote:
Green Bay is the only team with this form of ownership structure in the NFL; such ownership is in direct violation of current league rules, which stipulate a limit of 32 owners of one team and one of those owners having a minimum 30% stake. However, the Packers corporation was grandfathered when the NFL's current ownership policy was established in the 1980s,[23] and are thus exempt. The Packers are also the only American major-league sports franchise to release its financial balance sheet every year.

TheGudge is offline  
Old
09-21-2011, 07:06 PM
  #274
Auguste Escoffier
Registered User
 
Auguste Escoffier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 5,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbean View Post
I really dislike Katz and the game he plays. He's doing this because he's confident he can get away with it. If public money does end up going into the project I would be outraged if all of the profit from the arena area went into Katz pockets.
If the arena gets built, Katz total investment will exceed 300,000,000 dollars. IF he pockets 100% of the profit, it will be years before he sees a return on his investment.

Auguste Escoffier is online now  
Old
09-22-2011, 09:35 AM
  #275
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Looks like the answer will come tomorrow. As much as the press has tried to say it is "Katz's timeline". Not all the land around the arena was purchased outright, options were purchased and those options expire soon.

As I have shown (see link above) the city owns and has control of some of that land around the arena. The options on those lands expire so the October 31st deadline bandied about by some as a gun to the head to the city by Katz is not really accurate.

Obviously there are other timelines, trying to get the arena built before the Oilers lease on Rexall Place.

The impending deadline is not just Katz's idea and design.

In fact, the October 31 deadline mentioned by the media recently was first mentioned by Mandel in an interview on 630 Ched awhile back because of land options etc. (not sure if he mentinoned the exact date but he did say it had to be decided by the fall or it probably would not be built)

hockeyaddict101 is online now  
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 12:21 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.