ARENA DEAL IN LIMBO

Jason Gregor
October 17 2012 06:57PM

Yesterday Daryl Katz informed Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel that he wouldn't accept the mayor's invitation to come talk to city council. Today city council voted unanimously to cease negotiations with the Katz group and empowered city administration to look at other options.

This doesn't mean the deal is dead. The city is still very much open to negotiating with the Katz Group, but they will cease spending any more money on the design at this point.

Call it part of the negotiations, but for Edmontonians it was just another bad day in a four year negotiation.

This doesn't put the city any closer to a new arena, and make no mistake Edmonton needs a new arena, mostly because we need to start upgrading our downtown. The arena will be the catalyst, and now we to wait until January 13th to find out what the next step is.

There was also a motion tabled that would see the city agree to the original deal from last October. The reality is the longer this deal takes to make the more it will cost. For all those who are celebrating today as a defeat of Katz, keep in mind the city is no closer to a new arena, and you might be on the hook for the entire thing.

The most sobering and disappointing comment came from Mandel, "I don’t believe we are much further ahead today than we were four years ago except for a greater ask of money.”

Four years and no progress. Ouch.

Simon Farbrother, who has been negotiating on behalf of city administration, told council he didn't get the sense the Katz Group wanted to back off of their new demands of another $6 million/year in operating subsidy and so city council voted to cease negoitations.

WHAT NOW

  • I honestly don't believe that negotiating publicly would have helped Katz, but by not showing up he lost the trust of many Edmontonians. Why couldn't he have shown up and stated he was willing to continue to negotiate, but didn't feel doing it publicly would help. At least he would have shown he was willing to talk, and maybe answer a few simple questions.
     
  • Many have suggested the Katz Group should have to show his financials to city council. This could turn out to be a legal nightmare for the city. Can anyone guarantee some of the info wouldn't be leaked publicly? Rather than worry about that, city councillors should at least get to see the Master agreement. To date they've never seen that, and that is a tad perplexing. I'm not in favour of the Katz Group needing to show their finances. I think we can all see the Oilers have made a profit in the past.
     
  • The city can look at funding the arena on their own, but there will be some hurdles. They'd have to negotiate rent with Katz and they'd have to give him some non-game night revenue. Also then they'd be in the business of operating the arena, and that is something the city should be a part of. Maybe Katz operates it, who knows, but I don't think Katz will completely walk away.
     

I applaud the city for taking a stand. I feel this was a tough decision that needed to be done. I still believe both sides will meet again though. 

Today was not a win for anyone. We aren't any closer to a new arena, and in fact we are farther away than we were last October.

I hope that before January 13th the Katz Group contacts city administration and continues to negotiate. If they don't then city administration has to do some serious research and find out the major hurdles of building on their own and ensure they come to city council with plan that ensures we reach an arena deal sometime in 2013.

Unfortunately there is no resolution in sight. You know it is bad when the NHL and NHLPA might reach an agreement before the Katz Group and the city does.

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#101 Archaeologuy
October 18 2012, 10:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
DSF wrote:

Why is that Rick?

Be specific.

My guess would be because nobody wants to go to Enoch. Like, ever.

Avatar
#102 Rick
October 18 2012, 10:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@DSF

For starters you've been banging away on where the risks lie in the deal, why would Katz willingly partner up with an entity that has an extensive track record of mismanaging it's business ventures?

Let me stress - PARTNER UP.

In addition, people have cited the Henday as reasonable access when infact it does not actually get you to Enoch. Who is gonan pay for any needed infrastructure extension?

LRT? No chance.

Spin off development? Good luck with that.

Servicing the complex, as in water, sewer, power and so on...the City of Edmonton holds teh hammer on that one and Enoch isn't exactly in the City's good graces when it comes to that type of agreement.

You have a 2 year old phantom threat by Katz backing the suggetsion and the notion that the Feds would be eager to pony up the cash...care to wager they actually would?

Avatar
#103 DSF
October 18 2012, 10:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

My guess would be because nobody wants to go to Enoch. Like, ever.

Except all those folks who go to River Cree on a daily basis?

Avatar
#104 Gazmort
October 18 2012, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Rick

Rick, only because this was identified as one of the major issues in the negotiations.

@DSF

I tend to agree, actually, that the City does stand to benefit through the bump in property tax revenue. Again, it isn't about eliminating all risk, but that seems to be what Katz is doing. He wants upside but insulation from risks. The City seems to be willing ot accept risk (i.e. that property taxes don't rise as fast as projected), but why should they accept an undue portion?

Sure, Government is a tool of the people but all profits made benefit the citizenry (in theory). Case in point: The City is the sole shareholder of Epcor, which is involved in ventures ranging from Vancouver to New Mexico.

Avatar
#105 book¡e
October 18 2012, 10:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

My guess would be because nobody wants to go to Enoch. Like, ever.

Enoch would be fine if Katz wants to build and pay for a Rink. He could build a great rink at Enoch for about $250 million.

The feds would never put money into a rink at Enoch. What would make you think that they would? They have no history of such investments and would have no reason to get involved at all. I would think that it is more likely that the government of China would invest in a rink at Enoch than the Canadian federal government.

Why would Katz build a rink at Enoch when he could have a much better rink for far less in downtown Edmonton?

Enoch was an option when Katz was actually discussing building an arena, now that he sees the 'team as subsidizing public infrastructure', that is not going to happen.

Avatar
#106 Gazmort
October 18 2012, 10:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Enoch is an interesting alternative. I personally hate it, but would prefer it to, say, Kansas City!

The problem, as identified by Rick, is that the Enoch Band doesn't have a fantastic track record. I've heard rumblings that the Marriot is very unhappy with the hotel operations and have considered pulling their flag. Combo of lack of activity on the access/utility developments, as well as generally poor management of the facility.

If the Marriot is having trouble, I imagine the smaller Katz Group would too.

Avatar
#107 Guest
October 18 2012, 10:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Archaeologuy wrote:

Why isnt it comparable? Because the motivation behind building it?

If Edmonton said "We plan on bidding for the Olympics too" would those empty words make it suddenly comparable?

(Successful) Olympic bids get all kinds of government funding from province and federal government for new infrastructure. Saying that it was strictly municipal taxpayer dollars building the Saddledome is really a fallacy. Therefore, it's not comparable because at this time Edmonton has absolutely no provincial or federal funding.

Avatar
#108 Rick
October 18 2012, 10:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Gazmort

Fair enough but similar to the Casino license the City has no authority to commit to the lease as part of the negotiations.

They clarified in the council meeting yesterday that they can not sole source out the lease agreement by provincial law.

Katz can keep asking but it sounds like he has to compete with everyone else that may be interested in getting the City's business.

Avatar
#109 Craigero
October 18 2012, 10:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Why don't they just build the arena without Katz's money and get this Arena built. Look at the money we are spending on the new museum, art gallery etc. If Edmonton wants to be a world class city then build the Arena. Katz is spending money to sign players like Hall, Eberly and soon Hopkins. If Edmonton wants to compete with the New York's and Chicago's its time to step up and spend some money. In the big scheme of things the province and city waste hundreds of millions of dollars on less important things. I like our mayor but I don't believe some of the councellors have the capacity to make a decision on this issue. Some are in it for publicity. Ask Winnipeg how they felt when they lost the Jets? Our downtown is brutal spend some money on fixing it up!

Avatar
#110 Archaeologuy
October 18 2012, 10:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
DSF wrote:

Except all those folks who go to River Cree on a daily basis?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/04/20/edmonton-river-cree-bankruptcy-verge.html

Same casino we're talking about that almost went bankrupt?

Avatar
#111 mayorpoop
October 18 2012, 10:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

do not build it by Enoch. that would totally ruin my drive home.

this is needs to be all about me.*

*says everyone.

Avatar
#112 Harlie
October 18 2012, 10:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@DSF

River Cree is in trouble with their funding set-up and is basically surviving on government handouts.

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=23544

Avatar
#113 VMR
October 18 2012, 10:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@michael

He's stated that when he looked into the finances it turns out he isnt going to make enough money on the deal for it to be worthwhile. Council asked him to come forward and show those numbers because by their estimates he's going to be doing very well. They havent asked to see all his books or for him to come in person, he can send one of those highly paid smart people to come and show their estimates. Katz is the one looking like a baby here, threatening to take his team and go to Seattle if he doesnt get what he wants.

Look how much he stands to gain by managing the arena the rest of the year and getting all the revenue for it. Just think how much more he's going to make by adding all those luxury seats.

You're telling council to shut up but really what needs to happen is Katz needs to start talking. Why does he need more than a deal where he gets the whole arena and pays next to nothing out of his own pockets? If he can explain it I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

Avatar
#114 Gazmort
October 18 2012, 10:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Rick

Agreed, and even if the City had the ability to bypass a competitive bid process, they'd have to have their heads examined if they agreed to do it.

Avatar
#115 DSF
October 18 2012, 10:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Harlie wrote:

Vancouver lost their NBA team. So did Seattle. Nice try that Vancouverites actually can help Seattle support any type of sporting franchise.

You got any numbers to support how many people from BC go to support Seattle sports teams? What kind of actual impact they directly have on each team you mention? If you do, and can support your argument to convince me otherwise I will conceed.

But I am betting that you can't.

And the disposable income for people in Northern Alberta is way higher than for Victoria or Vancouver people. It is a proven fact. This number factors into who can and will go to things like sporting events.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Canada&city1=Edmonton&country2=Canada&city2=Vancouver

ALSO,

" What makes matters worse is that while real-estate prices in Vancouver look a lot like those in Hong Kong, Sydney and New York City, the incomes that people earn look more like those in Windsor, Ont. or Saint John, N.B. According to Statistics Canada, the median household income (that is, the mid-point at which half the population earns more and half earns less) in Vancouver in 2009 was $67,550. (In Edmonton, by way of comparison, the median household income for that year was $86,250.) As a result, it takes 94 per cent of the average pre-tax household income in Vancouver to cover the standard ownership costs of a two-storey home and nearly 91 per cent for a detached bungalow, assuming a 25-per-cent down payment on the mortgage, something that’s almost as rare in Vancouver as a sunny day in February.

That’s right — if the average Vancouver family tried to buy the average Vancouver home and maintain some semblance of financial discipline, they’d be left with just over $4,000 each year to spend on utilities, groceries, transportation and entertainment. And they’d still have to pay their taxes, too. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that in addition to carrying the largest mortgages in the country, they’re among the provincial residents that also have the highest level of non-mortgage household debt in Canada"

SOURCE: http://www.avenueedmonton.com/articles/paradise-found-0

Your response has some interesting points but it is way too shallow to project an accurate picture.

I'll give you real life example to show you where your reasoning falls flat.

My oldest son is 35.

When he graduated from college, he hightailed it out of Edmonton for Vancouver to find a job.

By the time he was 27, he had purchased a 1 bedroom condo for $85,000.

As he became more successful and more well paid, he purchased a larger 2 bedroom condo for about $250,000. He rented out the first condo and still owns it.

He lived in that condo for three years when he met his wife to be who also owned her own 2 bedroom condo.

By the time they decided to get married, about two years later, those two condos were worth about $400,000 each.

At this point they pooled their resources and committed to buying a $589,000 condo that was under construction.

They moved into the new condo when it was built but, by this time, the hot Vancouver real estate market had pushed the value of their new condo above $600,000.

A year later they decided to have a family and made a decision to buy a single family dwelling and put their joint condo on the market for $649,000.

It sold in two days for list price.

They then purchased a two bedroom home with fully developed basement in an established central Vancouver neighbourhood for $825,000.

The appraised value of that home is now $1.1 million.

The appraised value of my son's 1 bedroom condo that he purchased more than 10 years earlier is now close to $400,000, the mortgage is paid off and it generates $1200.00/month in positive cash flow for him.

So, a 35 year old is now sitting on well over a million dollars in home equity and is doing well enough he can take his 4 person family on a one month trip to Europe over the summer.

I tell you this tale to show you that it's only people trying to enter the Vancouver real estate market for the first time that face the kind of adversity you are suggesting.

Most of the home owning population has tremendous real estate wealth.

Avatar
#116 DSF
October 18 2012, 11:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
book¡e wrote:

Enoch would be fine if Katz wants to build and pay for a Rink. He could build a great rink at Enoch for about $250 million.

The feds would never put money into a rink at Enoch. What would make you think that they would? They have no history of such investments and would have no reason to get involved at all. I would think that it is more likely that the government of China would invest in a rink at Enoch than the Canadian federal government.

Why would Katz build a rink at Enoch when he could have a much better rink for far less in downtown Edmonton?

Enoch was an option when Katz was actually discussing building an arena, now that he sees the 'team as subsidizing public infrastructure', that is not going to happen.

The Feds would never put money into a development on reserve land?

What are you smoking?

Avatar
#117 DieHard
October 18 2012, 11:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
DSF wrote:

I agree this all about mitigating risk but it works both ways.

While bigger companies than Katz' have failed, let's also look at history.

It is just as conceivable at some point in the next 35 years the Canadian dollar will nosedive and the Alberta economy will tank.

I lived through two previous booms and busts in Alberta so it is not impossible for it to happen again, especially with a government running a massive deficit during boom times.

That presents a huge risk to Katz and is exacerbated by the fact that Katz will be competing with Northlands for non-hockey events.

Since you seem to be adamant in your demand that the city be protected from all risk, I would be curious to see the basics of a deal that you think would satisfy risk aversion for taxpayers while, at the same time, providing Katz with the ability to compete with other teams on a financial basis.

I don't usually agree with your comments on Oiler stuff but agree with your Arena comments. Correct me if I'm wrong. As the deal currently stands the city will own the Arena and Katz group has the responsibility for maintenance and future renovation costs for the next 35 years. Hence the requested subsidy due to loss of the non-compete with Northlands and RX1.

Avatar
#118 OilClog
October 18 2012, 11:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Having gone around the world, and now living on the west coast.

This is embarrasing as a former Edmontonian.. I really thought reason would previal and this thing would get done.

Edmonton needs the rink and the Oilers.. Traveling with my Oilers backpack through my journeys in other countries.. Edmonton is known for two things.. One The Oilers, not that everyone knows what they are, but it's recognizable. The other is the mall.. and that's barely a whimper..

If the Oilers leave town, it will really be known as Deadmonton.

But hey if they move to Seattle excellent! I'll wear my vintage jerseys, and cheer em on.

Katz is a putz, but the municipal and provincial governments need to recognize the importance of what they could be losing. Or you know.. build more homeless shelters instead, cause supporting the unmotivated and pathetic is clearly more important, creating healthy economic situations.(Sorry that was part of my hate of Victoria) but still.. the shoe fits.

Avatar
#119 Next up, is Connor McJesus.
October 18 2012, 11:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Lowered Expectations?

Maybe the Coliseum isn't so bad now.

Avatar
#120 Hammers
October 18 2012, 11:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Sorry Mr.Katz but I think you screwed up again . The way I see it is you convinced our mayor to go to NY to meet Bettman . He did and you came to a working agreement but then you thought your risks where to high and wanted more . To me that means you screwed up in the begining so the onus is on you to open up new lines of conversation . Maybe the 35 years should be 20? Maybe you shouldn't commit to investing in the new surrounding area being developed ?? and on and on but if you don't explore new ideas this will just keep dragging and if you loose an NHL season there will be more backlash from the citizens .

Avatar
#121 DSF
October 18 2012, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Rick

1) No need for a partnership. Enoch builds the arena. The Oilers play in it.

2) Enoch is about a 60 second drive off Henday. I would imagine the arena would be built near the casino.

3) The West LRT is being built to Lewis Estates. The route will be along Whitemud Drive which is about a stones throw from River Cree Casino.

4) Spin off development? Who cares.

5) Water, sewer and power already run to Enoch. Ridiculous argument.

6) Enoch already owns the land.

7) The Federal Government has a long history of funding projects to increase employment on reserves.

Avatar
#122 DSF
October 18 2012, 11:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
DieHard wrote:

I don't usually agree with your comments on Oiler stuff but agree with your Arena comments. Correct me if I'm wrong. As the deal currently stands the city will own the Arena and Katz group has the responsibility for maintenance and future renovation costs for the next 35 years. Hence the requested subsidy due to loss of the non-compete with Northlands and RX1.

Not quite.

As compensation for not having a non-compete clause with Northlands, the City agreed to pay Katz $2 million a year for advertising.

The maintenance subsidy and the request that the city become an anchor tenant in Katz's new office tower are now the sticking points.

Avatar
#123 Gazmort
October 18 2012, 11:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@DSF

1) Fine

2) Ok, but an assumption, and as the old saying goes...

3) Define a stone's throw and a cold January night. It isn't coming onto Enoch lands, I know that much.

4) Who cares? Anyone interested in business development does. Everyone should.

5)Sufficient water/power to serve an arena? I dunno, and neither do you. More importantly, road access to/from the site where the City ends and Enoch begins. Major, major issue.

6)Ok

7)Ok

Avatar
#124 Rick
October 18 2012, 11:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
DSF wrote:

1) No need for a partnership. Enoch builds the arena. The Oilers play in it.

2) Enoch is about a 60 second drive off Henday. I would imagine the arena would be built near the casino.

3) The West LRT is being built to Lewis Estates. The route will be along Whitemud Drive which is about a stones throw from River Cree Casino.

4) Spin off development? Who cares.

5) Water, sewer and power already run to Enoch. Ridiculous argument.

6) Enoch already owns the land.

7) The Federal Government has a long history of funding projects to increase employment on reserves.

1) They can't afford it. The best they can offer is a place to build it.

2) Put 10,000 cars on the two lane access road that starts at the property line of the reserve the 60 seconds stretches out alot longer.

And that's completely ignoring that the White Mud is only 2 lanes from the Henday to the reserve.

3) And from there it will only be a 45 minute walk from the arena...in the winter...assuming it's adjacent to the casino.

4) Katz does, he clearly based his previous business plan around it.

5) Not a ridiculous argument, it's an issue that has real history, a lot of bad feelings and an outstanding debt to the CoE behind it.

6) Repeat of #1

7) As I said, care to wager? Out of curiosity, what was the Federal involvement with the Casino?

Look I get you have a contrarian schtick going on around here, I even find it amusing sometimes but you are out of touch on this one.

Avatar
#125 tileguy
October 18 2012, 12:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I always thought building the arena out at Enoch made a lot of sence. Much cheaper to begin with, room to have plenty of parking, so lets drive there, get in and out thanks to the excellent access of the whitemud and henday. I,ll have my dinner and drink in my community, don't need to be downtown when its 20 below. The amount of empty grey concrete surrounding the downtown arena on non event days will not revitalise downtown, just create some wind tunnels.

Avatar
#126 DSF
October 18 2012, 12:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Gazmort wrote:

1) Fine

2) Ok, but an assumption, and as the old saying goes...

3) Define a stone's throw and a cold January night. It isn't coming onto Enoch lands, I know that much.

4) Who cares? Anyone interested in business development does. Everyone should.

5)Sufficient water/power to serve an arena? I dunno, and neither do you. More importantly, road access to/from the site where the City ends and Enoch begins. Major, major issue.

6)Ok

7)Ok

3) Oh good grief...take a look at a map. Enoch is literally across the street from Lewis Estates. It's no farther than the far end of the parking lot is from Rexall Place.

4) If it makes business sense to build more, it will happen. But it doesn't require any Katz investment unless he chooses to do so.

5) The city ends to the west of Henday. Building an access road off Henday would be simple and relatively inexpensive compared to downtown construction.

Avatar
#127 madjam
October 18 2012, 12:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Harper gets invovled and transfer Oilers to Marois in Quebec City to appease the separatists(tongue in cheek ).Then they set up for Quebec City to be World Capital of one World Gov't. - tongue in cheek . Would you believe that is no Red Bull Crashed Ice ? City then gets failing U.S. franchise to fill their new, or old arena ,owning the team and building . Reasoning , less costly than dealing with Katz ?

Avatar
#128 EHH Team
October 18 2012, 12:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
DSF wrote:

1) No need for a partnership. Enoch builds the arena. The Oilers play in it.

2) Enoch is about a 60 second drive off Henday. I would imagine the arena would be built near the casino.

3) The West LRT is being built to Lewis Estates. The route will be along Whitemud Drive which is about a stones throw from River Cree Casino.

4) Spin off development? Who cares.

5) Water, sewer and power already run to Enoch. Ridiculous argument.

6) Enoch already owns the land.

7) The Federal Government has a long history of funding projects to increase employment on reserves.

The types of employment projects funded by Aboriginal and Northern Development Canada on reserve are much more modest in scope. I cannot imagine AANDC getting involved in a project of this nature as it would appear to fall outside their program authorities and decimate their capital budget. Approval would likely require Cabinet approval, which would create all kinds of problems across the country.

Given that Enoch has problems with the casino, it would also appear problematic for them to raise private capital to fund construction. If Katz is willing to cover the construction cost on Reserve, then he may as well do it in Edmonton.

All in all, I think Enoch is as bad a bluff as Seattle.

Avatar
#129 DSF
October 18 2012, 12:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

From the Oilers website:

Daryl Katz statement following the City Council meeting Thursday, 18.10.2012 / 2:30 PM / We are concerned about the implications of the motion passed yesterday by City Council. We do not yet have a view on what comes next, but we remain hopeful that there is a solution that achieves the mutual goal of securing the Oilers’ long-term sustainability in Edmonton.

xhttp://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=643759&navid=DL|EDM|home

Avatar
#130 Dave
October 18 2012, 01:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Craigero wrote:

Why don't they just build the arena without Katz's money and get this Arena built. Look at the money we are spending on the new museum, art gallery etc. If Edmonton wants to be a world class city then build the Arena. Katz is spending money to sign players like Hall, Eberly and soon Hopkins. If Edmonton wants to compete with the New York's and Chicago's its time to step up and spend some money. In the big scheme of things the province and city waste hundreds of millions of dollars on less important things. I like our mayor but I don't believe some of the councellors have the capacity to make a decision on this issue. Some are in it for publicity. Ask Winnipeg how they felt when they lost the Jets? Our downtown is brutal spend some money on fixing it up!

Katz should just move the team to Fort Mac., *&^%$ Nortlands and there sheep in city council. I bet they could get a building and crazy support in about 3 years. Ask Chris Philips of the Ottawa Senators how much support hockey gets in his home town. Move Oilers Now! Move Oilers NOW! Edmonton can just go back to being known for......What is Edmonton known for?

Avatar
#131 madjam
October 18 2012, 01:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ominous reply . If arena is such an economic boon to city and Katz , then Katz should build it and ask for lease(on land i believe) like as given to Dell when they were here . Something like $1.00 a year . That way he retains all the profits as well . Seems to me both would profit . Current deal seems like only Katz profits while most everyone else subsidizes his bills to a tune where city stands unmaintainable losses over 35 years or so .

Avatar
#132 EHH Team
October 18 2012, 01:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dave wrote:

Katz should just move the team to Fort Mac., *&^%$ Nortlands and there sheep in city council. I bet they could get a building and crazy support in about 3 years. Ask Chris Philips of the Ottawa Senators how much support hockey gets in his home town. Move Oilers Now! Move Oilers NOW! Edmonton can just go back to being known for......What is Edmonton known for?

this is as idiotic as Da Stoopid Fella puts out

Avatar
#133 Gazmort
October 18 2012, 01:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@DSF

I know you're exasperated with how simple we all are, but I am simply raising points that I'm confident would come up. "Good grief" them all that you want, but you can't ignore the objections that inevitably arise.

Plus, you are assuming the the arena is built near to the River Cree or closer to the Edmonton/Enoch division, the same way you are assuming that building an access road of the Henday is simple and relatively inexpensive (relative to what, exactly?) - again, you are making these assumptions without knowing about potential 3rd party development in the areas, municpal lines/rights of way, etc.

By the way, it never hurts to acknowledge someone else's points wherein they have either a) proven you wrong or b) raised a point you hadn't previously considered. Try it sometime. You might like it!

Avatar
#134 TigerUnderGlass
October 18 2012, 02:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Gazmort wrote:

I know you're exasperated with how simple we all are, but I am simply raising points that I'm confident would come up. "Good grief" them all that you want, but you can't ignore the objections that inevitably arise.

Plus, you are assuming the the arena is built near to the River Cree or closer to the Edmonton/Enoch division, the same way you are assuming that building an access road of the Henday is simple and relatively inexpensive (relative to what, exactly?) - again, you are making these assumptions without knowing about potential 3rd party development in the areas, municpal lines/rights of way, etc.

By the way, it never hurts to acknowledge someone else's points wherein they have either a) proven you wrong or b) raised a point you hadn't previously considered. Try it sometime. You might like it!

I'm confused. Are you seriously chiding him for assuming they would build it in the most logical location?

Avatar
#135 Ryan2
October 18 2012, 02:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
DSF wrote:

It's a private company.

The information is not available.

I have been told by people much more knowledgeable than me that there are still details out there if people are willing to dig for them that paint a picture as to how the empire was built from the financial side of things........

Avatar
#136 Gazmort
October 18 2012, 02:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

Are you seriously secure in assuming that the most logical choice (at least by your perception) is always what ultimately ends up happening? Surely you know that isn't necessarily the case.

Plus, as I explained in the post, there's a number of unknowns that might make it impossible to build there. I'll give you a good example - suppose that one of the conditions for the Costco moving into the building nearby included agreements with the City and/or Enoch that no venues that would require parking (that may overflow into their customer parking lot) be built within, say 2.5 km of their site. Enoch and the City, wanting Costco as an anchor tenant in the area, agree...uh oh, now we've got a problem!

Unlikely example, of course. My point, again, is that what presents itself as the logical solution is often not as simple as we would like to think.

"Good grief" right?

Avatar
#137 English Bob
October 18 2012, 02:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

The way I see it, Katz has no leverage.

1) NHL wouldn't let Oilers move (#7 in revenue with sold out building?) 2) Owner either takes the deal as is, renegotiates with the city in good faith or sell the team. 3) If team sold, start at step 1 with new owner

Avatar
#138 TigerUnderGlass
October 18 2012, 05:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Gazmort

Are you seriously secure in assuming that the most logical choice (at least by your perception) is always what ultimately ends up happening? Surely you know that isn't necessarily the case.

I am when there are no other plausible locations. Perception has nothing to do with it.

Plus, as I explained in the post, there's a number of unknowns that might make it impossible to build there. I'll give you a good example - suppose that one of the conditions for the Costco moving into the building nearby included agreements with the City and/or Enoch that no venues that would require parking (that may overflow into their customer parking lot) be built within, say 2.5 km of their site. Enoch and the City, wanting Costco as an anchor tenant in the area, agree...uh oh, now we've got a problem!

All any of this tells me is that you have no idea how the development process works. It also indicates that you are probably a bit lost as to how the Edmonton/Enoch dynamic functions.

I agree that an arena happening out there is somewhat unlikely but the reasoning you present is broken.

Avatar
#139 Gazmort
October 18 2012, 09:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@TigerUnderGlass

It is a simplistic hypothetical that I used, but your comments indicate that you've never been involved in negotiating real estate deals. I have. Such restrictive covenants exist.

Please, educate me how I'm so clueless then.

Or ignore it. You seem to be better at being aggressive moreso than actual presenting a fact-based argument. You were plenty good at telling me I'm clueless, but at no point did you explain why or how I'm wrong. Try harder!

Avatar
#140 TigerUnderGlass
October 19 2012, 10:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Gazmort

your comments indicate that you've never been involved in negotiating real estate deals. I have.

FFS. I'm going to give you a pass on this and assume you just don't know, even though a few people on here do.

Please, educate me how I'm so clueless then.

Here then, prove your vast commercial real estate knowledge:

How would a Restrictive Covenant limiting parking in a 2.5 KM radius be imposed or even registered? You're using terms you don't even understand.

Comments are closed for this article.