Daryl Katz Thinks You Won't Bother Checking What He Says

Jonathan Willis
February 25 2010 04:02PM

Daryl Katz has been kicking his public relations campaign on behalf of a new arena into high gear. Not long after arranging for a radio interview with employee Bob Stauffer, Katz has launched a new website and has produced the YouTube video above (The Oilers new motto: “We love new media!”).

There are, however some glitches. I don’t have a lot to say about the video posted at the top of the article, except that I find the entire Katz PR campaign to be heavy on grandiloquence and awfully light on detail. With that in mind, I thought I might help by flushing out at least one part of the picture.

In the video, Katz refers to Los Angeles, San Diego, Columbus and Indianapolis as cities that have seen their downtown revitalized by a new arena. He does not, however, go into details as to how those arenas were financed.

The Staples Centre in Los Angeles is owned by AEG – the same company Katz has hired as advisors - and the really interesting thing about that arena is that it was mostly paid for by private investors. According to ballparks.com, just a hair under 85% of the money for the arena came from the tenants of the arena, with the city chipping in less than $60 million. That’s because investors saw it as “a risk worth taking.”

It’s a similar story in Columbus, where Nationwide Arena was built entirely by private funding after citizens rejected a 0.5% increase in sales taxes to pay for it. Describing the arena, one Blue Jackets’ season ticket holder called it “a lesson for those who insist sports stadiums must be built entirely at taxpayer expense.”

That still leaves Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis and Petco Park in San Diego as examples of arenas built largely using public funds. We might assume, based on Katz’s tone and without the benefit of five minutes and Google that these two projects have been great successes and that the cities which built them have reaped nothing but benefits.

Not so.

Take, for instance, this charming story out of Indianapolis. I’ll quote just two passages: 

Taxpayers in Indiana may already be on the hook for a financial bailout of Lucas Oil Stadium, the new home of the Indianapolis Colts of the National Football League and reputedly the most heavily subsidized professional sports stadium in the nation.

The funny thing about that paragraph? The stadium opened in August of 2008, meaning that less than two years after coughing up the vast majority of the $720 million required to build it, the city is already looking at bailing out the arena. 

The financial picture grew even bleaker in September, when CIB officials announced the cost of running the stadium would be $20 million a year…. CIB (the management group) is tapping into a $25 million reserve fund while working to find a solution before the fund dries up in 2010.
CIB Chairman Bob Grand told the Indianapolis Star in September, “We’re bleeding cash right now, absolutely.”

While Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay was basically able to pay for his entire contribution to the project by selling the naming rights, the public money was raised by hiking taxes and taking on loans – and those tax increases haven’t been enough. The good news for sports fans is that the Colts make low rent payments and keep the vast majority of arena revenue, so while the city bleeds red ink they’re doing just fine.

Petco Park hasn’t been a disaster, but things haven’t gone smoothly either. The city is on the hook not just for loan repayments, but also for a portion of the operating costs, which drain millions every year; estimate place the city’s losses at between $9.0 and $19.0 million annually. Litigation against the arena (see this Berkeley article) caused a long and difficult battle which the city finally won after the arena had been delayed for two years. The city of San Diego itself has faced a massive financial crisis and saw it’s credit rating suspended by S&P; the expenditure on the arena was a contributing factor. City officials misled the public on the true cost of the stadium as well as other matters (five would eventually be charged with fraud). Meanwhile, the investment in the area surrounding the arena paid off handsomely for owner Padres’ owner John Moores. Vladimir Kogan, who is currently writing a book on San Diego politics, explained the situation well in an interview last month:

True, there was a lot of investment downtown, but all that investment provided benefits that were all private benefits. John Moores of JMI spent a billion dollars, but it also came with the ability to shape what happened downtown. They got essentially free reign to shape land-use policy downtown any way they wanted in order for them to maximize profits.

The risk was public risk. The rewards were private rewards. While the city did benefit in the end, there’s no question that Padres’ ownership benefited even more, all while risking more (one-third the cost of the arena, plus investment in the area around it) than Katz has proposed to.

This is why I’m skeptical about the arena proposal. We have yet to see details, only vague generalities and when we take a closer look at those, as we have here, things look much less favourable. I think it’s remarkable that of the four examples Katz provides to support his case, two were built with a much higher percentage of private investment, and of the two built along the lines Katz proposes one was a financial catastrophe and the other has been at best a debatable success. They aren’t the sort of examples I’d use, unless I strongly suspected that nobody was going to bother looking into them.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#51 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
February 25 2010, 08:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jonathan Willis

insults the intelligence of the general public

~c'mon now willis. have you seen the average edmonton hockey fan? i am half surprised Katz didnt try and explain himself using a blow up doll and a case of Canadian as props~

Avatar
#52 David S
February 25 2010, 08:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Its no secret I'm pro arena, but I'm not not sure if I'd bring Abu Dhabi into a discussion that involves debt financing and the downsides of such.

Avatar
#53 Harlie
February 25 2010, 08:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Soup

when you move back you can bitch about your taxes too.

Avatar
#54 Deep Oil
February 25 2010, 08:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
VMR wrote:

The Nationwide arena in Columbus has more problems as well. The team and owners are losing money left and right and while it's revitalized the downtown area they cant make money on the building through sporting events and concerts. They've been fighting with the city for a few years now to get bailed out, so even success stories have problems.

Their doesnt seem to be a winning solution. They cant keep playing at Rexall forever. A new building is going to end up costing the city and taxpayers one way or the other. Some form of tax on tickets might help out but increasing the cost of Oilers tickets when they're playing this well might just drive down the audience more than it builds revenue.

City has been quoted in the Edmonton Journal, that 1 billion dollars brings in 14 million in incremental tax revenue.

$400 million dollars @ 4% interest is 16 million dollars in interest - so the arena NEVER gets paid off. THE PRINCIPAL WILL ALWAYS REMAIN UNDER THIS ARRANGEMENT.

This is a conservative rate based on a 15 year mortgage, renewable.

EDMONTON ALL RISK, KATZ ALL REWARD.

Why not have KATZ take all the risk, and charge the season ticket holders a PERSONAL SEAT LICENSE, raising $300 million like they did for the ACC.

Katz is referencing AMERICAN cities because it suits his argument, note as mentioned in past posts, that NOT ONE CANADIAN arena (GM PLACE, ACC, Scotia, Bell) was built with public funds.

Note to YOUTUBE Daryl, the man that does not have his own twitter, just a corporate wizard of oz account..... YOU ARE IN CANADA, play by the rules of this government, not the tax forgiving americans.

People do not want to send an email to your PR REPRESENTATIVE - JANET RIOPEL, as noted on the site, they want to interact and communicate with you.... Daryl. Marketing 101.

SOURCE: ballparks.com

Note - Scotia received government backed loans, and some $10 million in highway money.

Why in Canada does Katz want or need corporate welfare..... Why does Edmonton need a handout when all the other cities in Canada did it on their own....

Question: Does Edmonton want to fund an arena and allow a private entity to use it tax free?

What ROI does the development have, it seems Katz realizes putting $100 million into the arena is a white elephant investment, so a quick flip on the development side, means he can possibly get out / break even or make a few pennies....

If the public knowledge that Katz has a mortgage on the team, mortgage on his home, and had PUBLIC DOCUMENTED legal issues with his inlaws over his father inlaws inheritance / North American Road.... what lies with Rexall.... is this a 2.1 billion dollar entity with 2.05 billion of debt?

Where did he get the money to pay for the down payment on the team, since he is mortgaged to the hilt - possibly a corporate loan from the another corp, or a shareholders loan from the Rexall bank fairy.

I feel that the tide is turning against this wannabe billionaire that has not liquidity and has to borrow from Peter to pay Paul.

It seems that every media launch is a failure rejected by Edmontonians, PUSHBACK, as Katz may consider himself an Edmontonian, but he will not mingle with the unwashed, only to show up at the Mayfair Golf Course and enjoy the privacy of this PRIVATE GOLF on CITY LAND that the taxpayers pay for EVERY YEAR.

NOTE TO PATRICK LAFORGE WITH THE MISINFORMATION PRESENTED ON THE TEAM 1260, THE LIGHTHOUSE PROJECT IS NOT PROCEEDING AND IS STILL UNDER REVIEW, TELLING EDMONTONIANS ON LOCAL RADIO IS BAD FAITH, NOTING THAT A QUICK SEARCH CAN PROVE THIS PROPAGANDA WRONG.

Avatar
#55 Deep Oil
February 25 2010, 09:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jonathan Willis wrote:

Fun side point:

The cities of Fort St. John and Dawson Creek both recently built new arenas that had massive cost overruns. These were smaller projects ($30 MM range, IIRC) and while I can't speak for the D.C. arena except to say it went way over budget, I do know the political fallout in Fort St. John claimed the jobs of a popular mayor and the city planner.

Please note that the Alberta Art Gallery was an idea with corporate funding, donation by the Poole family, but went into cost over runs when built by Ledcor.... the net price tag was almost impossible to nail down, past the 88 million mark..... not much public input here, just showed up for the elite of edmonton and our mayor to look at their navels..... and the famous argument that many nation have used... our 23 avenue overpass was underestimated by a JUNIOR ENGINEER, creating EDMONTON JOURNAL headlines when the cost ballooned over 250 million....

Avatar
#56 Deep Oil
February 25 2010, 09:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Travis Dakin wrote:

Well first of all, Progress costs money. Edmonton is a dump. I love it dearly but a 30 minute drive through Calgary's core a couple of days ago really puts that into perspective. I agree with Katz that people need to start thinking big. Some more perspective, Calgary and Vancouver have now both hosted the world for the Olymipics. I know that has nothing to do with a new arena but Those are "World Class Cities." Can anyone ever really imagine Edmonton/Jasper hosting? Never in the state it is in.

Katz is a business man and will obviously be trying to get the best deal for him first. It's called BUSINESS and it's a negotiation. But everyone seems to be crapping all over a man that actually wants to get something done to make Edmonton (his home town) as great as it can be. IT WILL COST YOU MONEY!!! So what? If you (Edmontonians) can not see that it's about long term growth and prosperity then you are just short cited and quite frankly, a cheap ass.

Think big Edmonton. You deserve to not have a third rate city behind Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary.

Dakin, Toronto used PSL and Vancouver had the griffith family build GM Place, while Calgary's Saddledome is an outdated beer can, with cement walls and floors, overcrowded, built on federal money for the boring olympics of 88, with one place to party - City Plaza, in comparison to the new media, and multiple venues to drink and beer merry (Canada Hockey Place and so on...) in VAN.

Dakin, are we a third rate city because there is no one in Edmonton that wishes to invest or risk an arena, and have the season ticket holders buck up with a PERSONAL SEAT LICENSE.

REALLY.....you are campaigning for corporate welfare, when the other provinces did it on their own.

Avatar
#57 Oilchange64
February 25 2010, 09:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Deep Oil wrote:

City has been quoted in the Edmonton Journal, that 1 billion dollars brings in 14 million in incremental tax revenue.

$400 million dollars @ 4% interest is 16 million dollars in interest - so the arena NEVER gets paid off. THE PRINCIPAL WILL ALWAYS REMAIN UNDER THIS ARRANGEMENT.

This is a conservative rate based on a 15 year mortgage, renewable.

EDMONTON ALL RISK, KATZ ALL REWARD.

Why not have KATZ take all the risk, and charge the season ticket holders a PERSONAL SEAT LICENSE, raising $300 million like they did for the ACC.

Katz is referencing AMERICAN cities because it suits his argument, note as mentioned in past posts, that NOT ONE CANADIAN arena (GM PLACE, ACC, Scotia, Bell) was built with public funds.

Note to YOUTUBE Daryl, the man that does not have his own twitter, just a corporate wizard of oz account..... YOU ARE IN CANADA, play by the rules of this government, not the tax forgiving americans.

People do not want to send an email to your PR REPRESENTATIVE - JANET RIOPEL, as noted on the site, they want to interact and communicate with you.... Daryl. Marketing 101.

SOURCE: ballparks.com

Note - Scotia received government backed loans, and some $10 million in highway money.

Why in Canada does Katz want or need corporate welfare..... Why does Edmonton need a handout when all the other cities in Canada did it on their own....

Question: Does Edmonton want to fund an arena and allow a private entity to use it tax free?

What ROI does the development have, it seems Katz realizes putting $100 million into the arena is a white elephant investment, so a quick flip on the development side, means he can possibly get out / break even or make a few pennies....

If the public knowledge that Katz has a mortgage on the team, mortgage on his home, and had PUBLIC DOCUMENTED legal issues with his inlaws over his father inlaws inheritance / North American Road.... what lies with Rexall.... is this a 2.1 billion dollar entity with 2.05 billion of debt?

Where did he get the money to pay for the down payment on the team, since he is mortgaged to the hilt - possibly a corporate loan from the another corp, or a shareholders loan from the Rexall bank fairy.

I feel that the tide is turning against this wannabe billionaire that has not liquidity and has to borrow from Peter to pay Paul.

It seems that every media launch is a failure rejected by Edmontonians, PUSHBACK, as Katz may consider himself an Edmontonian, but he will not mingle with the unwashed, only to show up at the Mayfair Golf Course and enjoy the privacy of this PRIVATE GOLF on CITY LAND that the taxpayers pay for EVERY YEAR.

NOTE TO PATRICK LAFORGE WITH THE MISINFORMATION PRESENTED ON THE TEAM 1260, THE LIGHTHOUSE PROJECT IS NOT PROCEEDING AND IS STILL UNDER REVIEW, TELLING EDMONTONIANS ON LOCAL RADIO IS BAD FAITH, NOTING THAT A QUICK SEARCH CAN PROVE THIS PROPAGANDA WRONG.

OK, it is pretty obvious tht I have some concerns regarding the deal, but really, this is taking it a little too far. Reality is that he is a private citizen and how he funded it is his business. I don't want to "give away the farm" but the reality is that Katz is a local product with deeper pockets than most, and he has shown a commitment to the city. Others have posted that a partnership is the best solution and while that looks good in theory, they tend not to work so well in practice. I still feel that Katz should control the arena, but to do so, he needs to put more of his $'s in. I am more of the mind to say go really big - spend $500mil on something special - find a reasonable cost sharing scheme and/or ongoing concessions - but not totally at city expense. For those who are ready to jump at the current proposal for fear of offending Katz, get over that too, you are in the minority and it won't happen. A compromise is going to be necessary and he knows that. I really don't like the way it has been handled so far and can't believe he blew the good will that had been built - which concerns me as that alone will cloud a lot of taxpayer's minds. It is not necessarily thinking small (maybe it is for some), it is more about feeling you have been taken advantage of.

Avatar
#58 MR P
February 25 2010, 09:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I own a condo downtown, so i have a vested interest in this new arena project going through.

but the fishy thing to me is that if there is a such a clear return on investment why are there not investors lining up to throw their own money at this billion dollar project?

If Katz truly has a 'vision' for his project, why not make the details public to investors and rake in the dough?

I doubt he wants the city to own the rink out of the goodness of his heart. methinks he cant get get others to back him and he sees tax dollars as his only chance at this thing.

Avatar
#59 Deep Oil
February 25 2010, 09:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Oilchange64 wrote:

OK, it is pretty obvious tht I have some concerns regarding the deal, but really, this is taking it a little too far. Reality is that he is a private citizen and how he funded it is his business. I don't want to "give away the farm" but the reality is that Katz is a local product with deeper pockets than most, and he has shown a commitment to the city. Others have posted that a partnership is the best solution and while that looks good in theory, they tend not to work so well in practice. I still feel that Katz should control the arena, but to do so, he needs to put more of his $'s in. I am more of the mind to say go really big - spend $500mil on something special - find a reasonable cost sharing scheme and/or ongoing concessions - but not totally at city expense. For those who are ready to jump at the current proposal for fear of offending Katz, get over that too, you are in the minority and it won't happen. A compromise is going to be necessary and he knows that. I really don't like the way it has been handled so far and can't believe he blew the good will that had been built - which concerns me as that alone will cloud a lot of taxpayer's minds. It is not necessarily thinking small (maybe it is for some), it is more about feeling you have been taken advantage of.

Why should Katz be the first nhl owner in Canada to receive a subsidized arena, excluding the saddledome which is out of date and a federal gift to Calgary via the Olympics.

The comparisons to all these american cities are irrevelant due to the fact WE ARE IN CANADA under a different tax and government system.

Not one NHL arena received funding, why should Katz be the first via the city, his lobbyists (FORGE and RIOPEL) are Edmonton level based, noting that the provincial government and feds are not interested.

Avatar
#60 mclea
February 25 2010, 09:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Soup

Ya, let's model ourselves on an Emirate that just defaulted on its sovereign debt. Good idea.

Avatar
#61 Oilchange64
February 25 2010, 09:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Deep Oil wrote:

Why should Katz be the first nhl owner in Canada to receive a subsidized arena, excluding the saddledome which is out of date and a federal gift to Calgary via the Olympics.

The comparisons to all these american cities are irrevelant due to the fact WE ARE IN CANADA under a different tax and government system.

Not one NHL arena received funding, why should Katz be the first via the city, his lobbyists (FORGE and RIOPEL) are Edmonton level based, noting that the provincial government and feds are not interested.

In theory I totally agree with you. But reality is that this IS Edmonton, we are "underdeveloped" IMO, and I don't have a problem with SOME tax dollars going to something that will improve the city. We do need to see a bigger picture. Your reasoning (and again, I get it) would never see anything built to improve the city. And if that is what the majority end up wanting, so be it. I just don't think it will happen here without some support, though I would certainly prefer it to be entirely privately financed.

Avatar
#62 Oilchange64
February 25 2010, 09:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
mclea wrote:

Ya, let's model ourselves on an Emirate that just defaulted on its sovereign debt. Good idea.

You beat me to that one. Thought the same thing.

Avatar
#63 Soup
February 25 2010, 09:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@mclea

You realize I said Abu Dhabi and not Dubai? They aren't the same. Abu Dhabi bailed out Dubai to the tune of $10B

Avatar
#66 Oilchange64
February 25 2010, 09:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Soup wrote:

You realize I said Abu Dhabi and not Dubai? They aren't the same. Abu Dhabi bailed out Dubai to the tune of $10B

My bad. You are of course correct. Still, the differences between Abu Dhabi and Alberta politically, socially & geographically are huge and I am not certain your comparison applies. But I should get countries straight before I mouth off.

Avatar
#67 speeds
February 25 2010, 10:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jonathan Willis wrote:

Has anyone here argued that the arena shouldn't be downtown?

Or that the city shouldn't foot a portion of the bill?

Because I haven't seen it.

What I have seen - a lot of - is the notion that when a billionaire asks you to build an arena for his hockey team you think about it before you hop to it.

Daryl Katz doesn't deserve public funding just by virtue of being rich. He's in this to make money. That's no crime, but the city needs to protect itself.

I don't understand how any reasonable argument can be made against that line of thinking.

I haven't argued for either position, but I'm haven't read anything that suggests either argument is untenable.

Maybe there is a good argument for building the new rink at Northlands, or that the city shouldn't pay one cent for the rink?

JW, further to your "King" post earlier, I wonder if at some point the City might decide that if they are in for a penny, they may as well be in for a pound?

If you're going to take out a $400 million loan to build an arena while Katz keeps the revenue streams, what's the argument against taking out a $650 million loan to buy the Oilers from Katz and build yourself an arena while keeping the arena revenue streams?

Avatar
#69 nye
February 26 2010, 12:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

There is no formally proposed financing plan.

Avatar
#70 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
February 26 2010, 07:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jonathan Willis wrote:

Has anyone here argued that the arena shouldn't be downtown?

Or that the city shouldn't foot a portion of the bill?

Because I haven't seen it.

What I have seen - a lot of - is the notion that when a billionaire asks you to build an arena for his hockey team you think about it before you hop to it.

Daryl Katz doesn't deserve public funding just by virtue of being rich. He's in this to make money. That's no crime, but the city needs to protect itself.

I don't understand how any reasonable argument can be made against that line of thinking.

has there been a study done that shows the economic impact of having the oilers in town?

also, why, oh why, would you come right out and build the rink yourself? He didnt become a billionaire by being stupid, if you can get someone else to pony up the few hundred mil, why the **** wouldnt you?

we are on like step 4 of a 286 step process anyways.

Avatar
#71 BUCK75
February 26 2010, 08:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jonathan Willis wrote:

Has anyone here argued that the arena shouldn't be downtown?

Or that the city shouldn't foot a portion of the bill?

Because I haven't seen it.

What I have seen - a lot of - is the notion that when a billionaire asks you to build an arena for his hockey team you think about it before you hop to it.

Daryl Katz doesn't deserve public funding just by virtue of being rich. He's in this to make money. That's no crime, but the city needs to protect itself.

I don't understand how any reasonable argument can be made against that line of thinking.

I agree - you don't become a billionaire by spending money.

I vote we build it accross the road from Flamans. Between HWY 2 & Range Road 252. That land is for sale, & we can have a nice building in Nisku to look at while driving to Edmonton. Plus it would cut down MY travel time from an hour to just 1/2 hour. Plus it would be right next to the ececutive flight terminal for quick escapes after brutal home games.

I think it is a case of Katz giving gifts to the U of A for many different facuties. He has contributed a lot of money there when the Province & Feds didn't want to. A bargaining chip. He has already purchased the land & paying for architecture & design & he is going to contribute another 100 million, or is that part of the 100 million?

We need a new rink, ultimately the people who use the rink will pay. Like DeepOil said by personal seat licenses. It wasn't an invest ment in Columbus, but in Toronto a PSL is worth big bucks.

I don't know why everyone wants Northlands to run the place. If they are involved they are funded with our tax money. What the hell is the difference?

Avatar
#73 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
February 26 2010, 08:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I quit listening to the media. They don't understand that Katz really has no reason to give all his details yet. He hasn't went to the City and formally asked for any money so qutie frankly no one needs to know jack shat right now.

I'm for the arena, but there are many things I'd like to know. But I work in a industry that builds things and I realize that not all the details of projects are allowed to be released when the media wants it. The fact that they don't plan to break ground til 2012 at the earliest leaves Katz plenty of time to "sell" his plan to the public.

Avatar
#74 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 26 2010, 08:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Deep Oil wrote:

City has been quoted in the Edmonton Journal, that 1 billion dollars brings in 14 million in incremental tax revenue.

$400 million dollars @ 4% interest is 16 million dollars in interest - so the arena NEVER gets paid off. THE PRINCIPAL WILL ALWAYS REMAIN UNDER THIS ARRANGEMENT.

This is a conservative rate based on a 15 year mortgage, renewable.

EDMONTON ALL RISK, KATZ ALL REWARD.

Why not have KATZ take all the risk, and charge the season ticket holders a PERSONAL SEAT LICENSE, raising $300 million like they did for the ACC.

Katz is referencing AMERICAN cities because it suits his argument, note as mentioned in past posts, that NOT ONE CANADIAN arena (GM PLACE, ACC, Scotia, Bell) was built with public funds.

Note to YOUTUBE Daryl, the man that does not have his own twitter, just a corporate wizard of oz account..... YOU ARE IN CANADA, play by the rules of this government, not the tax forgiving americans.

People do not want to send an email to your PR REPRESENTATIVE - JANET RIOPEL, as noted on the site, they want to interact and communicate with you.... Daryl. Marketing 101.

SOURCE: ballparks.com

Note - Scotia received government backed loans, and some $10 million in highway money.

Why in Canada does Katz want or need corporate welfare..... Why does Edmonton need a handout when all the other cities in Canada did it on their own....

Question: Does Edmonton want to fund an arena and allow a private entity to use it tax free?

What ROI does the development have, it seems Katz realizes putting $100 million into the arena is a white elephant investment, so a quick flip on the development side, means he can possibly get out / break even or make a few pennies....

If the public knowledge that Katz has a mortgage on the team, mortgage on his home, and had PUBLIC DOCUMENTED legal issues with his inlaws over his father inlaws inheritance / North American Road.... what lies with Rexall.... is this a 2.1 billion dollar entity with 2.05 billion of debt?

Where did he get the money to pay for the down payment on the team, since he is mortgaged to the hilt - possibly a corporate loan from the another corp, or a shareholders loan from the Rexall bank fairy.

I feel that the tide is turning against this wannabe billionaire that has not liquidity and has to borrow from Peter to pay Paul.

It seems that every media launch is a failure rejected by Edmontonians, PUSHBACK, as Katz may consider himself an Edmontonian, but he will not mingle with the unwashed, only to show up at the Mayfair Golf Course and enjoy the privacy of this PRIVATE GOLF on CITY LAND that the taxpayers pay for EVERY YEAR.

NOTE TO PATRICK LAFORGE WITH THE MISINFORMATION PRESENTED ON THE TEAM 1260, THE LIGHTHOUSE PROJECT IS NOT PROCEEDING AND IS STILL UNDER REVIEW, TELLING EDMONTONIANS ON LOCAL RADIO IS BAD FAITH, NOTING THAT A QUICK SEARCH CAN PROVE THIS PROPAGANDA WRONG.

Man I'm tired of your personal agenda against Katz.

Quit making assumptions as the keys to your point. Just because the guy has a mortgage doesn't mean he is far worse off then we're lead to believe. Ultra high net worth have different tax and leverage stratigies then everyday people.

Avatar
#75 Mrs. Katz
February 26 2010, 08:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I hope Katz cuts the city of Edmonton off at the knees by going out and building the project himself. What does this guy have to do for Edmonton? He has certainly done more than all the left wing goofballs who are the source of all the negativity. I'm not suggesting you go into this without doing your due diligence as a city council protecting taxpayers interests. Edmonton is full of haters and is a backwards thinking community.

Katz record of public spiritedness and generosity should make all of the troglodytes in E-town ashamed. U of A and many others certainly haven't turned his money down have they? He has certainly put his money where his mouth is. Apparently gratitude doesn't exist in your fair town.

There is a prevaling notion in Edmonton that everything has to be handed to them for free. More than just the Oilers hockey team are world class losers in my view.

Avatar
#76 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 26 2010, 09:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Mrs. Katz wrote:

I hope Katz cuts the city of Edmonton off at the knees by going out and building the project himself. What does this guy have to do for Edmonton? He has certainly done more than all the left wing goofballs who are the source of all the negativity. I'm not suggesting you go into this without doing your due diligence as a city council protecting taxpayers interests. Edmonton is full of haters and is a backwards thinking community.

Katz record of public spiritedness and generosity should make all of the troglodytes in E-town ashamed. U of A and many others certainly haven't turned his money down have they? He has certainly put his money where his mouth is. Apparently gratitude doesn't exist in your fair town.

There is a prevaling notion in Edmonton that everything has to be handed to them for free. More than just the Oilers hockey team are world class losers in my view.

Kind of ironic actually that the flip side (and as of now well supported) is that Katz is the one looking for something for free.

Avatar
#77 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
February 26 2010, 09:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

Kind of ironic actually that the flip side (and as of now well supported) is that Katz is the one looking for something for free.

He isn't exactly looking for something for free he is looking for an investor.

Avatar
#78 Ender
February 26 2010, 09:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

At the risk of oversimplifying a complex issue, I'm going to refer to an old idiom:

"It takes two thieves to strike an honest bargain."

On the record, if you asked Katz I'm sure he would agree that any deal put together has to benefit both parties. I'm not sure he would agree quite as emphatically that it needs to benefit both sides equally, but I think that way. Thus, my simple solution is as follows:

Katz writes up a new finacing proposal for the arena and the development of the surrounding areas, except that this time he doesn't use his company's name or the City's. He simply refers to "Party A" and "Party B". Party A invests this much here, Party B assumes ownership of those assets there, Party A controls these revenues, Party B pays these costs, etc. Whene the proposal is completed, it is submitted to the city who will then decide whether they want to be Party A or Party B. With that uncertainty on the line, I'm willing to bet the deal presented for review would be a lot more fair for both sides, wouldn't you agree?

Avatar
#79 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 26 2010, 09:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach wrote:

He isn't exactly looking for something for free he is looking for an investor.

On a project that must be deemend to risky for the reward for private investors.

Avatar
#80 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
February 26 2010, 09:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

On a project that must be deemend to risky for the reward for private investors.

Not really sure it can be deemed anything yet.

From the start the standpoint against the arena was if the city gives money they want to be owners or involved in ownership. So Katz has from what we seen gave them that option. When Katz actually asks for the money, council can reject and counter.

I still think that Mandel is staying so neutral because he wants to keep a good relationship with someone that is trying to help this city. I'm wondering if Mandel has some sort of plan for the airport in his mind and wants to keep Katz around as another potential partner.

Avatar
#81 BUCK75
February 26 2010, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

I might be wrong, but a member of the old EIG Bill Butler is involved in Commercial Development. He was also hard lined against the sale of the team to Katz. One of the reasons that was speculated was because of the potential reward with a new rink. I can't find the old 'Cult of Hockey' stories, but if Bill Butler thought there was some money to be made I'm sure if thrown out there it would be no problem to find investors from the private sector.

*edit* Found the article...

http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjournal/blogs/hockey/archive/2008/01/20/canadian-nhl-teams-are-hot-commodities.aspx

Avatar
#82 Kentuckycowboy
February 26 2010, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Bruce Eisenbarth

Wow you giving a billionaire business advice, I would love to see what your net worth is (rolls eyes)

Avatar
#85 Wilson Schaumberg
February 26 2010, 02:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jonathan Willis wrote:

Mrs. Katz wrote:

He has certainly done more than all the left wing goofballs who are the source of all the negativity.

Damn left wing goofballs, opposing massive public sector involvement on a business... what's that - you say big government is a left wing idea and that conservatives prefer small government... umm... what about 'protecting the taxpayer' - that's a left wing idea isn't... oh... umm...

Casting opposition to massive public sector investment of tax dollars in a private sector enterprise as a left wing agenda seems obviously stupid, but maybe that's just me.

:) Indeed. It's massive corporate welfare for a billionaire, paid for entirely by city taxpayers in a city that can't even manage to keep the streets cleared of snow in a timely manner.

Hard to imagine why anyone in their right mind would think that was a bad idea!

Forcing team owners to pay for and own the arena they desperately want I think is a fine idea. It forces them to be arena *owners*, and not renters. It's a lot easier for a renter to leave. Look what at what happened with the Trappers.

But I think you're right, Jonathan. The likelihood of the Oilers leaving isn't that great. The Coyotes are in one of the worst hockey markets in the NHL, and look at the tough time they've had trying to leave.

The Oilers are fond of claiming they are in the smallest market in the NHL, and they just can't survive unless we buy them an arena!

The reality is somewhat different. Revenue-wise the Oilers are actually a mid-market team, according to Forbes. Edmonton, after all, is hardly a small hockey market, so screaming that it's the tiniest media market *overall* doesn't really make much sense. Add to that the fact that they pay $1 a year on their on their current lease.

Avatar
#86 Rich
February 26 2010, 02:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Oilchange64 wrote:

You beat me to that one. Thought the same thing.

You're thinking of Dubai genius.

Avatar
#87 Wilson Schaumberg
February 26 2010, 02:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention earlier that the Oilers currently rank 10th in the league in operating income. In other words, they're currently more or less the 10th most profitable team in the league, and that's *with* Kevin Lowe spending money like a drunken sailor!

Avatar
#88 speeds
February 26 2010, 02:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

What is the need here for a CRE?

If the city is going to borrow the money and own the arena, why not just have the Katz group pay $30,000,000 per year on a 15 year lease of the arena?

And maybe give Katz some option to buy the arena for some amount after that time?

Avatar
#89 Mrs. Katz
February 26 2010, 03:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Perish the thought that the city of Edmonton and the two levels of govt should have to put up some money to begin re-furbishing your rather ratty downtown area. You make my point. I don't hear anything about the potential owners of a Quebec city team (and they don't even have on yet) proposing a $100 million investment. They want the Feds to pay for all of it! Your mentality makes me believe that you think Leduc is the edge of the earth. It's a huge leap forward to renew the heart of the city, your city. What a mentality. Nuf said.

Avatar
#90 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 26 2010, 03:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
Mrs. Katz wrote:

Perish the thought that the city of Edmonton and the two levels of govt should have to put up some money to begin re-furbishing your rather ratty downtown area. You make my point. I don't hear anything about the potential owners of a Quebec city team (and they don't even have on yet) proposing a $100 million investment. They want the Feds to pay for all of it! Your mentality makes me believe that you think Leduc is the edge of the earth. It's a huge leap forward to renew the heart of the city, your city. What a mentality. Nuf said.

Are you purposely misrepresenting what people are saying?

Avatar
#91 Wilson Schaumberg
February 26 2010, 03:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Mrs. Katz wrote:

Perish the thought that the city of Edmonton and the two levels of govt should have to put up some money to begin re-furbishing your rather ratty downtown area. You make my point. I don't hear anything about the potential owners of a Quebec city team (and they don't even have on yet) proposing a $100 million investment. They want the Feds to pay for all of it! Your mentality makes me believe that you think Leduc is the edge of the earth. It's a huge leap forward to renew the heart of the city, your city. What a mentality. Nuf said.

The federal and provincial governments have already made it clear they aren't going to be giving Edmonton any money to build a new arena, or "downtown revitalization project" or whatever people are calling it.

The point Jonathan has been making is that it doesn't make economic sense for taxpayers to subsidize sports team to build new arenas, stadiums, etc. and he even offered case studies that illustrate this point. There are many more such case studies *throughout* the NFL and MLB.

Avatar
#93 Oilchange64
February 26 2010, 07:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Rich wrote:

You're thinking of Dubai genius.

With due respect, refer post #66, I already acknowledged my error. Glad to note I am not the only one who makes one.

Avatar
#94 Kellan
February 28 2010, 11:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

While Katz's approach is vague and very underdeveloped, I like his push and his approach. Regardless of who is going to pay for this arena, Katz knows that if he does not push this issue, the city will take their sweetass time doling out permits and approving the project. Like any smart business man, he's going to push for the city to pay for it all. We should all know that's not going to happen. What is going to happen? 1. Katz pitches his 100 million 2. The city matches it. 3. Financing 4. Finally, this is where it gets complicated. The Oilers need to take a page from the New Jersey Devils and Dallas Cowboys book. There are so many people/businesses I know who would jump if they could get their hand on some season tickets (me included), not to mention box seats. Sell them the rights to those boxes/seats and finance them over 30 years. Suddenly, you have Oilers tickets as a writeoff within your company but now its a transferable asset as well. Dallas cowboys were charging anywhere from 16000 to 150000 just to buy the rights to club seats. Im not going to kid myself and say we could get that much but its a template.

Also we have no problem selling out almost 17000 seats(when we have a team on the ice) why not closer to 24000 in the new arena.

Avatar
#95 Kellan
February 28 2010, 11:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Also to all the Katz haters, this isnt just about Katz...this isnt just about the Oilers...the City of Edmonton needs this. For too long this city grew and grew and developed the west end, southside, even Namao...while the downtown core deteriorated. Edmonton has a great economy and a new downtown sector, LRT system, and associated infrastructure is what this city needs to boost its image. This arena is going to happen...

Comments are closed for this article.