New Edmonton Arena Construction will begin in March 2014

[Phanuthier]

It would be pretty funny if Katz moves the Oilers to Seattle, then PHX or NAS move into Edmonton. If its PHX, Shane Doan finally returns home to where he should have been drafted and he can hear his voice being chanted in Edmonton again. If its NAS... I guess Champion was right, Shea Weber is going to Edmonton!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

You are grossly overestimating the common sense of Oiler rubes.

In all seriousness there is a point where you stop being able to pull value out of any market due to a poor quality stadium. People may still go, but they're not going to be up for paying top dollar prices, particularly at the higher end of the price spectrum, which is where the real money is made.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by valo403

In all seriousness there is a point where you stop being able to pull value out of any market due to a poor quality stadium. People may still go, but they're not going to be up for paying top dollar prices, particularly at the higher end of the price spectrum, which is where the real money is made.

Really? Yankee stadium was a hundred years old when they finally moved and it wasn't the pillar of modernity or amenities that many expect.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Really? Yankee stadium was a hundred years old when they finally moved and it wasn't the pillar of modernity or amenities that many expect.

Or look at Fenway Park. By all accounts it is a dump. But it is over a century old, there are no plans to replace it and there are claims that it has over 40 to 50 years of life left in it.

[Tinordi]

The Montreal Forum was God knows how old until they moved to the Molson Centre in 1996? Guess how much the public paid for the Molson Centre?

Zero

The Canadiens seem to be doing just fine with no public investment in their arena.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Reanimate

Were the North Stars a turd financially though? Did they sell out the last two straight seasons?

Could be wrong but there had been fights with the city about improving the arena for years and years with different ownership groups. When they couldn't get it done ownership stopped putting money into the team and the product dwindled. So to did the crowds. They had tried to move into the new facility where the Timberwolves played but that was blocked. When that happened they were sold to Green. Green did put money into the team and facility and in June 1991 they were in the Stanley cup finals and attendance was on a steady rise (about 14k according to hockeydb.com the final couple of seasons...compared to under 8k the year they went to the cup. Facility was about 15k for seating so they were near capacity the final two seasons and climbing). September 1993 they were in Dallas after another round of not being able to secure a new facility I believe (the decision was made in December 1992 a mere 18 months after a Stanly Cup appearance and 8 months after yet another playoff berth).

Something like that I think.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Really? Yankee stadium was a hundred years old when they finally moved and it wasn't the pillar of modernity or amenities that many expect.

And why did the Yankees leave it? Because people were balking at paying the massive prices they wanted to charge for premium seats. I used to sit in the lower infield sections of old Yankee Stadium fairly often, it wasn't cheap but I could afford it. The price for those same seats at the new stadium is multiple times more. I've only sat in those areas at the new stadium due to corporate hook-ups or getting comps directly through a friend with the club. I should add that there are also many times more suites and varying levels of premium seats than there ever were before, and guess what? The Yankees are raking in cash like never before despite not being at their peak on the field and being in a market that was hammered by the recession.

Edit: I should also add that Yankee Stadium was really only 40 or so years old when it was demolished, it was pretty much entirely redone.

As for Fenway, the Red Sox have done a fabulous job of marketing tradition and history, let's see that work with a concrete bowl in the middle of a parking lot.

[albertGQ]

Not sure if this was mentioned in any of the 21 pages or not but apparently Gretzky was spotted with Katz last night in Seattle. Said he was only there to watch the game though

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Ok if we're gonna suddenly just claim that all rich people are pieces of #### I'm gonna need some evidence.

I said "ruthless". You don't just open up a business and it unfolds before your eyes into a corporation. Obviously you have to have a lot of business savy and intelligence but you also have to have the mindset that you will climb any wall to get there and step on some people on the way up. I've met some really wealthy people that were extremely nice people outside of business but if you worked for the competition and were an obstacle in their path they would run you right over. It's the big business mentality.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Well I apologize for not being fully educated on this particular subject but I thought there was basically a deal in place to build the new downtown arena but Katz has decided that he now needs more money from the city? I am not suggesting that a new owner will play in Rexall just that the new owner would worh within the framwork of the deal that Katz and the city had apparently agreed upon already. I just don't see how there wouldn't be interest in a market like Edmonton where there is a rabid fanbase and building blocks for an elite team in place

Katz appears to be trying to squeeze every last penny out of the city which I don't blame him for but it is really souring the relationship between him and the city council.

If the league won't let Phoneix move without fighting it to the death I would be surprised they would allow a team in a market like Edmonton to move. It is all just a ploy by Katz to get what he wants and he will get what he wants eventually.

Yes and no. There was a 'deal' that the city approved, but there was also a big $100M hole in it.

The issue now is that the $100M deficit still hasnt been solved yet and Katz has already gone back to the city to ask them to put up more money.

[killer_carlson]

And it is something of a moving target how much actual cash Katz puts into the calculation.

I really have to wonder about the strategy in this Seattle play. It is not being well received in Edmonton. I wonder of the damage to the recall brand through this ploy as well.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by -TC-

yeah, no. there's no way Edmonton would get an NHL franchise anytime soon...too many other markets on the table.

if council blows this, they are done.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Why does everyone think that a bleeding heart billionare will swoop in and pay hundreds of millions of dollars for a team to play in one of the oldest buildings in the league without assurances of a new building in it's future? Quebec City has passionate fans and would fill the old Quebec Coliseum but they still would never get a team unless they build a new arena. It's the economics of professional sports in this day and age that facilities are as imporant as the the product.

Edmonton has the 5th highest operating income in the NHL.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

And it is something of a moving target how much actual cash Katz puts into the calculation.

I really have to wonder about the strategy in this Seattle play. It is not being well received in Edmonton. I wonder of the damage to the recall brand through this ploy as well.

Actually, I disagree and thats the problem. Katz has committed to putting in a fixed amount and thats his limit and he expects the city to cover the difference.

Katz has committed to $100M on a $400M+ arena and he isnt budging. Thats the issue. There's $100M missing from the start and now they're anticipating cost overruns before the project has even started and Katz is glued to his $100M, hence asking ECC to pony up more.

Damned hard-up billionaires. Spending money on your own investments totally sucks.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by SebC

Edmonton has the 5th highest operating income in the NHL.

How does Edmonton have the 5th highest operating income if they have the 16th highest revenue? How do they make $17 million and Calgary makes $1.1 million even though the Flames make $10 million more per year in revenue?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Just curious.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

How does Edmonton have the 5th highest operating income if they have the 16th highest revenue? How do they make $17 million and Calgary makes $1.1 million even though the Flames make $10 million more per year in revenue?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Just curious.

I don't really know either. Perhaps you need to ask for a raise?

[Locke]

Now make one with Katz's face.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't really know either. Perhaps you need to ask for a raise?

He's right, Sidney needs to ask for a raise.

It's revenue minus operating expensing. Looks like Katz runs a tight ship.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by ernie

While it is clearly a power play to pressure and leverage the lawmakers (see Pengins and Kansas City, The Patriots and Hartford) the Oilers do need a new facility or they will start to sink financially. Now obviously having a team capable of making the playoffs would help in that regard but they are leaving a lot of potential money on the table that they wouldn't with a new facility.

We can argue night and day over if that is the correct thing to do. If it's slimey or not. But the end result for a city like Edmonton (and Calgary), losing the NHL team would be a tremendous blow financially to many many businesses. Due to that these visits to other cities with facilities or soon to be facilities can create significant leverage....but only if you are ready to follow through on it. If he's simply bluffing and won't move the team then it is all for not and pointless. Thing is, I don't tend to think rich business men tend to bluff. Seattle may be a very distant plan B or even C or D but it is likely a plan he is ready to execute if need be.

Ahem...

http://deadspin.com/5946564/no-the-c...on-is-canceled

These stadium economic impact projections always contain the same fallacy. They assume that if people aren't spending their money on sporting events, they're not going to spend it at all. That's not true. People tend to spend whatever disposable income they have, and if they're not going to hockey games, they're going to do something else with it. More trips to bars, restaurants, concerts, etc. So a lockout could actually funnel more money back to the city—if Ilitch didn't also own concert venues, movie theaters, food distribution companies, restaurants, the Tigers, and a casino.

A lockout hurts the players, the fans, and the owners who aren't losing money on their teams. The Red Wings are one of those few teams in a good hockey market, turning a big profit—Ilitch doesn't want a lockout. (As we explained, this is about big market owners vs. small market owners, rather than owners vs. players.) Nobody wants there to be hockey more than Mike Ilitch. Hell, he's publicly spoken out against the salary cap. Because he's the one who stands to lose tens of millions, not the city of Detroit. Detroit would take a very minor hit, nothing it can't handle. To imply otherwise is baseless scaremongering.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

How does Edmonton have the 5th highest operating income if they have the 16th highest revenue? How do they make $17 million and Calgary makes $1.1 million even though the Flames make $10 million more per year in revenue?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Just curious.

look at the Oilers Payroll from last season...lots of entry levels, low contracts

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ahem...

http://deadspin.com/5946564/no-the-c...on-is-canceled

These stadium economic impact projections always contain the same fallacy. They assume that if people aren't spending their money on sporting events, they're not going to spend it at all. That's not true. People tend to spend whatever disposable income they have, and if they're not going to hockey games, they're going to do something else with it. More trips to bars, restaurants, concerts, etc. So a lockout could actually funnel more money back to the city—if Ilitch didn't also own concert venues, movie theaters, food distribution companies, restaurants, the Tigers, and a casino.

A lockout hurts the players, the fans, and the owners who aren't losing money on their teams. The Red Wings are one of those few teams in a good hockey market, turning a big profit—Ilitch doesn't want a lockout. (As we explained, this is about big market owners vs. small market owners, rather than owners vs. players.) Nobody wants there to be hockey more than Mike Ilitch. Hell, he's publicly spoken out against the salary cap. Because he's the one who stands to lose tens of millions, not the city of Detroit. Detroit would take a very minor hit, nothing it can't handle. To imply otherwise is baseless scaremongering.

Funny that they use Detroit there seeing as it's one of the cities that stands to lose big time due to the lockout. Going to a Wings game is pretty much the only reason a lot of people ever venture to downtown Detroit during the winter. People will still be spending sure, but they'll be doing it in Royal Oak, Livonia and Windsor.