New Edmonton Arena Construction will begin in March 2014

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

The difference in Downtown Detroit between a game day and a non-game day in safety, street life, and restaurant/bar/pub activity is absolutely staggering. This point cannot be overstated.

When you factor in the Canadian sports tourism, and the fact that most Wings fans come from outside Wayne County and otherwise wouldn't put in cash/tax, Detroit is one of the only places that its nearly impossible to say the lockout will have no effect. Might be a fair argument in Calgary or New York or Toronto, but Detroit? No way. A small boon for Auburn Hills/Royal Oak etc., maybe? But Detroit will feel it. No two ways about it.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Not a chance. They are making a ton of money in an NHL ready arena. They would be moved to the top of the list for relocation. You don't think the guys trying to buy PHX would love a shot at the Edmonton market?

NHL has already stated that they do not support NHL hockey ongoing in that building.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by 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.

except that the group that built that building is no longer in the hockey business...they couldn't afford it

solid business model

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by -TC-

NHL has already stated that they do not support NHL hockey ongoing in that building.

What else are they going to say when they're trying to extort money from the city of Edmonton to build a new rink?

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Locke

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.

that's not entirely correct. There was a framework for a deal built when Mandel and Katz met with Bettman in NY a few years ago.

There was other pieces of funding the City was to provide, they haven't. That funding was to cover off the operating expenses. All Katz has done is ask the City to honour that agreement.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

What else are they going to say when they're trying to extort money from the city of Edmonton to build a new rink?

Rexall doesn't meet current NHL standards.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by -TC-

except that the group that built that building is no longer in the hockey business...they couldn't afford it

solid business model

What are you talking about? The Molsons built the building and they currently own it and the Habs.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by -TC-

except that the group that built that building is no longer in the hockey business...they couldn't afford it

solid business model

Seems pretty solid to me if that arena and team are solvent.

[Tinordi]

I wonder how many people in this thread who are for hundreds of millions of subsidies to NHL teams oppose other types of government assistance and funding.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by -TC-

NHL has already stated that they do not support NHL hockey ongoing in that building.

Right, and that was Bettman and the league giving Katz whatever help they could in terms of getting a new arena, something that would be good for Katz, the Oilers and the NHL.

Now Bettman is sitting in his office watching Katz parade around Markham, Quebec City and Seattle posturing about 'potentially moving the team' knowing full well that it would never, ever be approved. All Katz is doing is making himself look like a moron.

They even interviewed the Mayor of Edmonton who stated something along the lines of; "if he thinks hes scaring us by threatening to move the team it isnt working because the NHL wont let him."

I think Bob Mackenzie said last night that in response to Katz's threats of moving the team the NHL would make him sell it to a local owner dedicated to keeping the team in Edmonton before they would ever approve relocation.

Which is funny because isnt that what Katz was supposed to be all along?

Its also interesting to hear a few things out of Edmonton, things along the lines of:

"Being worth a billion dollars and actually having a billion dollars are not the same thing."

In reference to Katz maybe not being as wealthy as his billing.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

What are you talking about? The Molsons built the building and they currently own it and the Habs.

The Molsons built the building in 1996, sold to George Gillette in 2001 and subsequently bought back in 2009 from Gillette.

They were not, in fact, able to make a privately funded building work.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Locke

Right, and that was Bettman and the league giving Katz whatever help they could in terms of getting a new arena, something that would be good for Katz, the Oilers and the NHL.

Now Bettman is sitting in his office watching Katz parade around Markham, Quebec City and Seattle posturing about 'potentially moving the team' knowing full well that it would never, ever be approved. All Katz is doing is making himself look like a moron.

They even interviewed the Mayor of Edmonton who stated something along the lines of; "if he thinks hes scaring us by threatening to move the team it isnt working because the NHL wont let him."

I think Bob Mackenzie said last night that in response to Katz's threats of moving the team the NHL would make him sell it to a local owner dedicated to keeping the team in Edmonton before they would ever approve relocation.

Which is funny because isnt that what Katz was supposed to be all along?

Its also interesting to hear a few things out of Edmonton, things along the lines of:

"Being worth a billion dollars and actually having a billion dollars are not the same thing."

In reference to Katz maybe not being as wealthy as his billing.

great, and no group interested would make an offer without the contingency of a new building attached.

chicken and the egg...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Seems pretty solid to me if that arena and team are solvent.

Quite the leap there. If the company that financed the arena was unable to operate it for a profit and had to sell at a loss then no, it's not solvent. I have no idea if that's the case, but mere existence does not equal solvency, particularly if you just ignore intervening events.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I wonder how many people in this thread who are for hundreds of millions of subsidies to NHL teams oppose other types of government assistance and funding.

Obviously, but for me it's a little different.

As a hockey fan, a Flames fan, I will enjoy a new arena greatly. I'm willing, myself, to pay a little extra to add what I believe is entertainment value to my city.

Other social programs that don't impact me.... of course I don't care for them. What you're saying isn't mind bending in the least.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I wonder how many people in this thread who are for hundreds of millions of subsidies to NHL teams oppose other types of government assistance and funding.

You seem to take this issue oddly personally. I don't mean that as an insult, it just seems like you get extra worked up about the issue.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by -TC-

The Molsons built the building in 1996, sold to George Gillette in 2001 and subsequently bought back in 2009 from Gillette.

They were not, in fact, able to make a privately funded building work.

There is no reasonable way you can draw that conclusion from those facts.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

There is no reasonable way you can draw that conclusion from those facts.

I'm paraphrasing because I can't be bothered to do all the work of writing out the timeline and financials...

look it up. my facts are irrefutable.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by -TC-

great, and no group interested would make an offer without the contingency of a new building attached.

chicken and the egg...

True enough, but another interested party may be willing to offer more than only a quarter of the cost and be able to bridge the gap. Again, referring to the rumours that Katz simply doesnt have the money.

Thats really irrelevant though, I'm simply pointing out that Katz's tactics in these little trips to other potential destinations are pointless and childish and no one is falling for them.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by -TC-

I'm paraphrasing because I can't be bothered to do all the work of writing out the timeline and financials...

look it up. my facts are irrefutable.

With all due respect that claim is a pretty big one to be making if you're going to follow it up with "I can't be bothered".

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Locke

True enough, but another interested party may be willing to offer more than only a quarter of the cost and be able to bridge the gap. Again, referring to the rumours that Katz simply doesnt have the money.

Thats really irrelevant though, I'm simply pointing out that Katz's tactics in these little trips to other potential destinations are pointless and childish and no one is falling for them.

Personally, I think all the posturing is stupid and both sides have handled this situation really badly.

This deal should have closed two years ago with an appropriate distribution of profits and liabilites for all....