PROS AND CONS OF TWO DEALS

Jason Gregor
October 17 2012 09:53AM

On Tuesday the NHL came up with an actual proposal in the hopes of ending this asinine lockout. The NHLPA will make an official comment today or tomorrow and should have some sort of rebuttal later this week. The NHL's offer won't be accepted as is, but at least on the surface it looks like a good starting point.

Meanwhile the Katz Group sent a letter to Mayor Mandel, and then to numerous media outlets, advising Edmonton's mayor that they won't be addressing city council today. This wasn't a surprise. The Katz Group has stated from the beginning they didn't want to negotiate publicly. This doesn't look a good starting point, but I don't think it's an end point either.

Here are the guts of the actual deal. The NHL sent this out today.

1. Term:

• Six-year Agreement with mutual option for a seventh year.

2. HRR Accounting:

• Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

3. Applicable Players' Share:

• For each of the six (6) years of the CBA (and any additional one-year option) the Players' Share shall be Fifty (50) percent of Actual HRR.

4. Payroll Range:

• Payroll Range will be computed using existing methodology. For the 2012/13 season, the Payroll Range will be computed assuming HRR will remain flat year-over-year (2011/12 to 2012/13) at $3.303 Billion (assuming Preliminary Benefits of $95 Million).

• 2012/13 Payroll Range
Lower Limit = $43.9 Million
Midpoint = $51.9 Million
Upper Limit = $59.9 Million

• Appropriate "Transition Rules" to allow Clubs to exceed Upper Limit for the 2012/13 season only (but in no event will Club's Averaged Club Salary be permitted to exceed the pre-CBA Upper Limit of $70.2 Million).

5. Cap Accounting:

• Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

• All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

• Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league.

• In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.

6. System Changes:

• Entry Level System commitment will be limited to two (2) years (covering two full seasons) for all Players who sign their first SPC between the ages of 18 and 24 (i.e., where the first year of the SPC only covers a partial season, SPC must be for three (3) years).

• Maintenance of existing Salary Arbitration System subject to: (i) total mutuality of rights with regard to election as between Player and Club, and (ii) eligibility for election moved to five years of professional experience (from the current four years).

• Group 3 UFA eligibility for Players who are 28 or who have eight (8) Accrued Seasons (continues to allow for early UFA eligibility -- age 26).

• Maximum contract length of five (5) years.

• Limit on year-to-year salary variability on multi-year SPCs -- i.e., maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5% of the value of the first year of the contract. (For example, if a Player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his SPC, his compensation (salary and bonuses) cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC.)

• Re-Entry waivers will be eliminated, consistent with the Cap Accounting proposal relating to the treatment of Players on NHL SPCs playing in another professional league.

• NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.

7. Revenue Sharing:

• NHL commits to Revenue Sharing Pool of $200 million for 2012/13 season (based on assumption of $3.303 Billion in actual HRR). Amount will be adjusted upward or downward in proportion to Actual HRR results for 2012/13. Revenue Sharing Pools in future years will be calculated proportionately.

• At least one-half of the total Revenue Sharing Pool (50%) will be raised from the Top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs in a manner to be determined by the NHL.

• The distribution of the Revenue Sharing Pool will be determined on an annual basis by a Revenue Sharing Committee on which the NHLPA will have representation and input.

• For each of the first two years of the CBA, no Club will receive less in total Revenue Sharing than it received in 2011/12.

• Current "Disqualification" criteria in CBA (for Clubs in Top Half of League revenues and Clubs in large media markets) will be removed.

• Existing performance and "reduction" standards and provisions relating to "non-performers" (i.e., CBA 49.3(d)(i) and 49.3(d)(ii)) will be eliminated and will be adjusted as per the NHL's 7/31 Proposal.

8. Supplemental and Commissioner Discipline:

• Introduction of additional procedural safeguards, including ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

9. No "Rollback":

• The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.

10. Players' Share "Make Whole" Provision:

• The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.) Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits. The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.

Here are my thoughts regarding this offer.

  • They are actually negotiating. Finally.
     
  • The fact the HRR is subject to mutual clarification is a bit unsettling.
     
  • Teams who make bad signings can't just hide those players in the minors. About time. However, this hurts the journeyman minor-leaguer who makes $200,000. Teams might shy away from paying him to help mentor the kids. This will likely lead to more young players in the AHL, or veterans making only $105,000.
     
  • I don't see the NHLPA agreeing to a five-year maximum, but as I wrote earlier, I think a seven-year max is reasonable and one the NHLPA will accept because it impacts such a small group of players. I'd actually prefer a six-year max, with the option for teams to sign their draft picks to seven years. This could entice some players to stay with their team for a longer period of time.
     
  • I'm not sure entry level deals being shorter will really save much money. It should in reality, because players would only have two years to make a big impact, but considering many teams were already signing young players to extensions before their third year started, Jordan Eberle, Taylor Hall, I'm not sure it will save much money.
     
  • Arbitration is another window dressing aspect. Last year not one player went to arbitration. I'm not sure either side would choose this as their hill to die on.
     
  • If they agree on limiting the length of contracts, will free agency be as big of a deal? Will it matter that much if it is seven or eight years of service. Teams won't be able to front load contracts so Zach Parise and Ryan Suter would either take less money to play together or sacrifice having less cap space available for the team to build around them.
     
  • Allowing money to be part of trades could lead to more trades. Teams will still need to be smart with their money, but this could make deadline day more exciting.
     
  • I'm curious to know what % those top-ten teams paid last year into revenue sharing. $200 million seems like a big number, but if you have teams losing $20 million that revenue sharing pot will evaporate quickly.
     
  • Playing 82 games over a shorter time frame will lead to more injuries. I don't see anyway the players will agree to an 82-game sched starting November 2nd.
     
  • If you want a more indepth explanation of the proposal, the NHL has one on their website.

My biggest beef is why did it take until October 16th to get a real proposal on the table? If the NHL had proposed this in the summer, would the NHLPA just scoffed at it? I don't think so, but I guess we will find out today or Thursday.

Either way this is a good first step. Hopefully the remaining steps come in quick succession.

I don't expect the NHLPA to love this proposal. I'm sure they aren't fans of a $59.9 million salary cap. Even though 16 teams are currently over that threshold, according to NHLnumbers.com, I'll bet Donald Fehr will want that number to be higher. It is all part of a negotiation, but I think this is a decent starting point.

THE ARENA

Yesterday the Katz Group sent a letter to Mayor Mandel stating they won't be speaking to city council today. I respect their decision; however, I'm very interested to see what council will do. I could see them passing a motion to continue negotiating with Katz, but also start looking at other options, which will include building the arena themselves.

You can read the Katz letter here. They've stated from the beginning they didn't want to negotiate in public, and going in front of city council today would have been just that. The main issue is that the city felt the New York deal was a done deal, while the Katz Group doesn't. 

I've spoken to both sides, and on or off the record they both feel they are correct. It is hard to tell which side is telling the truth. Maybe both of them are, and if that is the case, then clearly there has been some horrible miscommunication.

Here's how I see it.

  • The city needs a new arena, regardless of whether they partner with Katz. Obviously a private/public partnership is the best option, but if they can't come to a deal the city needs to take the initiative and build the rink themselves. Once the city has a new arena, there is little chance the NHL leaves town.
     
  • The biggest reason why Bettman is fighting so hard to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix is because Glendale built them a rink. He does not want to leave a market that funded a new facility. If he does that, then the league has set an awful precedent which would likely scare off future cities from doing the same. Get a rink built in Edmonton and the NHL will stay.
     
  • I think Katz has a valid argument regarding the 35-year agreement. No one can predict how stable the economy will be or how strong the Canadian dollar will be over that time frame. If they include that he will get some of the CRL on the backend if the dollar drops significantly I think that is fair.
     
  • The main question I have is who is negotiating for the Katz Group, and do they have the ability to actually negotiate. If Mr. Katz has the final say, then he should be in the negotiating room. And if he isn't then he needs to allow his guys the flexibility to make some decisions.
     
  • If the city builds the arena themselves they have to ensure there is an open competition to see who builds it, who manages it and they will need to recognize that the Oilers will want some non-game-night revenue. The Oilers are the only team in the NHL that doesn't receive this funding. If you want your city to have an NHL team, you need to understand this and give them some nights. I'd look at the other 29 teams and find out what the average amount of evenings are and negotiate that number of non-game-nights with the Oilers.
     
  • The biggest problem with this deal from the start was that it focused too much on the Oilers and not enough on the City. Our city needs to improve our downtown core. We need to attract more corporate growth downtown, and if that happens then residential growth will follow. Thirty years ago we were leading the nation, but we've fallen every year since.
     
  • Every other Canadian city has invested in its business sector core, except Edmonton. If you look at any worthy economic study  it will show that neglect (in the business sector) has cost the city hundreds of millions, if not a billion, dollars in growth.
     
  • The arena will be the starting point, but it isn't the end point. Lots more will need to be done, and that's why ensuring the development around the arena is just as important, if not more, than the arena itself. Studies show that the Columbus arena project has increased taxes up to $30 million a year for the surrounding land. Our city needs to get moving and build the arena.
     
  • If they can't come to an agreement with the Katz Group now, then look at building the arena on our own. I'm certain the two parties can still come to an agreement, but the longer we wait the bigger the cost. 
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
#51 Matt Henderson
October 17 2012, 01:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan wrote:

so you are saying there might be a doggie bag?

Not if the reservation is under the name "Feaster"

Avatar
#52 Yardbird
October 17 2012, 01:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Don't forget about the casino license,this is a most important component part of the agreement.

Avatar
#53 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
October 17 2012, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Matt Henderson wrote:

Not if the reservation is under the name "Feaster"

the judges also would have accepted hitchcock, stauffer circa 2009, and DSFs mom as acceptable responses.

Avatar
#54 Karth
October 17 2012, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Captain Obvious wrote:

First, regarding the money from the ticket surcharge, while it is revenue that the Oilers give up, comes from the people who attend games. If there were no games that money would still be spent, the vast majority of it, within the city, producing revenues for those businesses, etc. Thus, while from the perspective of Katz, this may look like his money, from the perspective of the city as a whole, it is not. It certainly can't be counted as an injection of $100 million into the project because this injection costs the citizens of the city elsewhere.

Second, you make it seem like the "$100 million plus interest) is more than $100 million dollars. However, when you consider the time value of money, this ends up being considerably less value than $100 million dollars.

Third, the economic model of the NHL is irrelevant to the economics of the deal from the perspective of the city. The economic model of the NHL is also irrelevant to the Oilers. The only question that matters is whether they can generate revenues that ensure profitability. Moving an NHL franchise imposes significant costs on that franchise. So long as the Oilers are making money the threat that they move isn't a sufficient reason to make a bad economic deal.

specifically addressing your first statement. I currently live in Calgary and friends and I come up to Edmonton between 8-10 times a year to watch the OIlers play. We stay at a hotel, eat out for all of our meals, and take the LRT in to see the game. Usually we go out for drinks in downtown. If there were no games I would not come to the city. It just would not happen.

Avatar
#55 ubermiguel
October 17 2012, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

"If the city builds the arena themselves they have to ensure there is an open competition to see who builds it, who manages it and they will need to recognize that the Oilers will want some non-game-night revenue. The Oilers are the only team in the NHL that doesn't receive this funding. If you want your city to have an NHL team, you need to understand this and give them some nights. I'd look at the other 29 teams and find out what the average amount of evenings are and negotiate that number of non-game-nights with the Oilers."

Maybe the easiest way to divide it is the Oilers get all revenue during the season, the City gets it during the off-season. The Oilers get the majority of the year but the City gets the prime summer months for concerts.

Avatar
#56 Captain Obvious
October 17 2012, 02:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

“The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Katz’ recent actions are ploys to get City to build it alone, then force a sweetheart lease ”

A retweet that just came across my twitter from someone who describes themselves as an economist. It goes to show what the economic thinking. Building an arena is a bad idea. It gives the Oilers more leverage not less.

The only way to ensure that the Oilers stay in Edmonton long-term is if they invest heavily in the arena. Building an arena without a tenant decreases the leverage the city has in all future negotiations. It's a bad idea.

As to what to do instead. The answer really is nothing. The city doesn't need an arena. If someone wants to build an arena under a partnership that makes sense, they should. Until then, they should wait. Sometimes doing nothing is the best form of public policy.

Holding firm has no risk here. If Edmonton doesn't build an arena it makes it easier for Calgary not to build an arena. The age of the publicly funded arena is over. Governments are cash strapped from here to eternity and there is no economic justification for this kind of infrastructure. The last city to build one is going to look like fools for years to come.

You'll notice that the proposed Seattle and Markham deals involve much less public spending than the current Edmonton deal that isn't good enough for Katz. I'd swallow the Seattle deal. Unfortunately, the Seattle deal isn't on the table.

Avatar
#57 Matt Henderson
October 17 2012, 02:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Captain Obvious

1) Doing nothing is not great public policy. Doing nothing meant waiting until the millenium to have a ring road, not having LRT access to the whole city, and having a Downtown that is a blight on the community.

2) Not building an Arena does NOT make economic sense. The old Arena is falling apart and outdated and millions will be spent renovating it on behalf of Northlands. Spending millions that will never be returned and merely delay the inevitable is a waste.

3) The Seattle deal is ONLY contingent on them acquiring an NBA team back. No team, No deal.

By your unwillingness to acknowledge the current cost of renovating RX1 I'm beginning to think you sit on the Board for Northlands.

Avatar
#58 Captain Obvious
October 17 2012, 02:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Matt Henderson

You do realize that all public funding involves opportunity costs. Doing nothing on the arena does not mean doing nothing at all. Indeed, building the arena means that there is less money for things like "ring roads," "LRTs," and other forms of downtown development.

You can't have everything and a massively expensive publicly funded arena is a net drain on everything else the city has to do. It is because I think the city should be building roads and light rail systems that I don't think they should be building arenas just to make you happy (which is the only argument you've given why the arena should be built). The arena would make me happy too. I like hockey and work right beside it. Unfortunately those aren't reasons, they are preferences. City policy can't be based on preferences at the expense of economics.

Avatar
#59 rubbertrout
October 17 2012, 03:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Captain Obvious

/yawns.

Avatar
#60 Matt Henderson
October 17 2012, 03:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Captain Obvious

Government Policy cant ignore all benefits based solely on Economics. If that were the case we wouldnt have publicly funded healthcare insurance or many other social programs that return very little of the money governments invest. We wouldnt have those dainty parks for the kiddies, or the museums, or the Art Galleries.

And still you refuse to acknowledge that a large portion of the proposed Downtown Arena money will be spent renovating the current arena anyway. P*ssed away for nothing.

Obviously we have different ideas about the role of Government, but, that aside, you still havent even addressed the fact that the money you are so fervently against being spent on fixing the downtown is going to be wasted on renovating a 40 year old Arena that needs to be replaced anyway.

Avatar
#61 Beemer
October 17 2012, 03:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

It seems that most are demonizing Katz but it's starting to look like the city is the bully. Katz has nearly zero chance moving the team whether he makes money or not. Edmonton has NOT been a good hockey market historically. It was only 6 years ago that they were in real trouble. We may only be 6 years away from a weak dollar and slowing oil economy. Katz is the ONLY one with real risk. If he starts losing 30 million a year, no one is going to care.

If the city contemplates building their own building then renting to Katz, they are really saying is they will build the building and then ram a bad deal down his throat. The NHL is unlikely to let him leave, he's got a quarter billion invested in a team that historically loses money and there won't be locals lining up to buy the team. He'd have pretty much no leverage.

Get this bloody deal done. It's the best thing for the city.

Avatar
#62 TigerUnderGlass
October 17 2012, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Captain Obvious

Whether an arena is a public good or not is a technical definition. It simply isn't.

False. Reasserting your position does nothing for your argument.

For example: I assert that an arena is a public good. It simply is.

See how pathetic that is?

Avatar
#63 HallforCaptain
October 17 2012, 03:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Captain Obvious

...or, more correctly, Captain Oblivious...

Avatar
#64 Reg Dunlop
October 17 2012, 03:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Captain Obvious

'The last city to build one is going to look like fools for years to come'. I guess that means Quebec will be the laughing stock. With the city and province splitting costs, hopefully the NHL team that will be playing there eases some of the shame locals will feel. And, of course, the fact that equalization payments from Alberta oil will actually be picking up the tab.

You're right. Spending tax dollars on infrastructure such as a new arena is ridiculous. In fact, spending on roads and transit is also a waste. Everyone has a SUV, let them drive on gravel. Bridges? People can wait for the river to freeze over. Think of all the money we can save! Enough for an expansion on the Art Gallery! If only there was more chunks of metal welded together and more smears of paint...it would be well worth it to get a seasons pass.

Avatar
#65 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
October 17 2012, 05:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Captain Obvious wrote:

You do realize that all public funding involves opportunity costs. Doing nothing on the arena does not mean doing nothing at all. Indeed, building the arena means that there is less money for things like "ring roads," "LRTs," and other forms of downtown development.

You can't have everything and a massively expensive publicly funded arena is a net drain on everything else the city has to do. It is because I think the city should be building roads and light rail systems that I don't think they should be building arenas just to make you happy (which is the only argument you've given why the arena should be built). The arena would make me happy too. I like hockey and work right beside it. Unfortunately those aren't reasons, they are preferences. City policy can't be based on preferences at the expense of economics.

i trust you were voicing the same concerns for the art gallery and every other city project that involved tax dollars but didnt have a benefit to every citizen in the city?

Avatar
#66 Captain Obvious
October 17 2012, 07:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

You don't get to decide for yourselves what words mean. A public good isn't a thing that is good for the public. Rather a public good is a thing in which the enjoyment of it by one person does not diminish the ability of another to enjoy it, and in which no member of the public can be excluded from enjoying it.

Admission to any arena is determined by market price and hence neither of these conditions apply. So while I agree that governments have the responsibility to act in ways that go beyond sheer calculation of economic interest those activities must b e restricted to public goods. Otherwise government ceases to be government of the people and becomes a party of special interest.

Given the particular interest being served here the only justification for an arena is economic and that justification does not pass external analysis

You don't have to believe me. Spend a few minutes on google. You won't find anyone outside of this thread who thinks the arena is a good deal.

The reason is simple: arenas do not generate sufficient revenue to justify their costs. The answer is also simple. Build a less expensive arena.

Avatar
#67 Morgie99
October 17 2012, 08:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Every other Canadian city has invested in its business sector core, except Edmonton. If you look at any worthy economic study it will show that neglect (in the business sector) has cost the city hundreds of millions, if not a billion, dollars in growth. - Gregor

Gregor, you may not like it or value it but the city hall, art Gallery, Churchill square and now a museum is investment in the downtown core, you are ignoring that flat out

and development is already occurring downtown already

I'm glad the city is taking the initiative, as for non game nights that is a percentage at best since Katz is putting nothing, to give him the NHL average is too rich

Avatar
#68 Morgie99
October 17 2012, 08:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Beemer wrote:

It seems that most are demonizing Katz but it's starting to look like the city is the bully. Katz has nearly zero chance moving the team whether he makes money or not. Edmonton has NOT been a good hockey market historically. It was only 6 years ago that they were in real trouble. We may only be 6 years away from a weak dollar and slowing oil economy. Katz is the ONLY one with real risk. If he starts losing 30 million a year, no one is going to care.

If the city contemplates building their own building then renting to Katz, they are really saying is they will build the building and then ram a bad deal down his throat. The NHL is unlikely to let him leave, he's got a quarter billion invested in a team that historically loses money and there won't be locals lining up to buy the team. He'd have pretty much no leverage.

Get this bloody deal done. It's the best thing for the city.

oh poor katz tssk tssk BARF

Beemer have you not realized every action by Katz recently, has been met equally in reciprocation by the city?

He goes to Seattle, council responds

He goes public PR, city does

wake up

He's been the bully all along, trying to exploit the maximum to almost kill the deal

Avatar
#69 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
October 17 2012, 10:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Captain Obvious wrote:

You don't get to decide for yourselves what words mean. A public good isn't a thing that is good for the public. Rather a public good is a thing in which the enjoyment of it by one person does not diminish the ability of another to enjoy it, and in which no member of the public can be excluded from enjoying it.

Admission to any arena is determined by market price and hence neither of these conditions apply. So while I agree that governments have the responsibility to act in ways that go beyond sheer calculation of economic interest those activities must b e restricted to public goods. Otherwise government ceases to be government of the people and becomes a party of special interest.

Given the particular interest being served here the only justification for an arena is economic and that justification does not pass external analysis

You don't have to believe me. Spend a few minutes on google. You won't find anyone outside of this thread who thinks the arena is a good deal.

The reason is simple: arenas do not generate sufficient revenue to justify their costs. The answer is also simple. Build a less expensive arena.

didnt stauffer just have a economics professor from a University in Columbus who said essentially the opposite?

The coles notes version of the interview was that he was basically the same as you in regards to his stance on the whole arena district actually being worth it. He took the time and examined the numbers, and was shocked at what he found...(hint: he changed his mind)

i can try and find the link to the audio if you want.

Avatar
#70 wiseguy
October 17 2012, 10:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I want a new arena for the city, and like most others, do not like the way the Katz Group has gone about holding the city and fans hostage with the constant veiled threats of the team leaving. I agree that the NHL have many other fires to put out before they would even entertain Katz's request to move the team, especially if construction of a new city funded building had started.

To call Katz's bluff, the city should build the arena, eliminate the winter garden that would join to Katz's land south of the area, replacing it with a 50 foot high wall with a giant mural of a middle finger*. All entrances to the arena, pedways, parking etc. should be built to the north or west. The city should then vote on a CRL tax of 1000% on any business or property within the boundaries defined by land that Katz owns. That should force him to sell it cheaply.

*absurd idea but sure makes me happy to imagine it happening

Avatar
#71 Dave
October 17 2012, 10:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Morgie99 wrote:

oh poor katz tssk tssk BARF

Beemer have you not realized every action by Katz recently, has been met equally in reciprocation by the city?

He goes to Seattle, council responds

He goes public PR, city does

wake up

He's been the bully all along, trying to exploit the maximum to almost kill the deal

I sorta of agree with Beemer, the city is being a little passive aggressive, If I am negotiating with a group of people in confidence, and they decide to blindside me by taking our negotiations public when we had likely agreed to make a joint public annoucment at the conclusion of the negotiations. I have to consider that's somebody I don't want to do business with.

Comments are closed for this article.