Pathetic people, pathetic.
Look at all the NHL waste in the deep southern U.S. But let me guess, those are “bigger markets” than the relatively small market of Edmonton. Do we have that right?
In Tampa Bay, you can get nosebleed season tickets for a whopping $5.43 per game (yes that’s right people in Toronto, that decimal is two places from the right – – you got it!). Toonie movie Tuesdays may have some competition after all!
Phoenix Glendale, excuse me, you can get that same Tampa experience for $10.73 per game. Still not bad.
How about Edmonton? You know, the small market team that will have to build a new arena to stay sustainable? That will be $31.53, or almost 6 times the Tampa deal, and almost 3 times more expensive than for the Coyotes.
It’s called market demand, and what someone is willing to pay. It also means that hockey in Phoenix is a little more popular (perhaps) than hockey in Tampa, but by no means is it as popular as in Edmonton.
So, the Edmonton fans are willing to part with more money as an entertainment choice than the two other markets mentioned above.
And that brings us to this point: How can Gary Bettman and Daryl Katz tell us that to sustain the hockey franchise you will have to build a new arena?
Put another way, why is Gary Bettman not saying to Glendale that hockey is not sustainable with these revenue streams in Glendale?
The only factor that makes it okay to live with NHL welfare in Glendale is the fact that the team was put there with the development of the Westgate Arena District.
What, therefore makes Glendale worth preserving is the “deal” that was put in place to build the arena and the development with a city-owned arena similar to that planned for Edmonton.
Revenue streams are a complex issue I am sure Gary Bettman would tell us. He continually mentions these words to explain why these new complexes and infrastructures must be built. In other words, Katz who made his money in pharmacies, and Bettman who is a lawyer and sports league commissioner are suddenly experts in urban planning.
Like they have looked at the demographic of Edmonton? They studied the flow of immigration and how residents are attracted to the city? They have looked at the social costs and issues that are competing with the all important “revenue dollars” of Edmonton, and can immediately, with conviction say this is how taxpayer funds should be spent? Really?!?
I like to call a con a con.
The truth is they have something to sell and the issue of answering the objections to their “sell” is how this will truly be money well spent. How will it benefit the city compared to other investments? Taking hockey away from Edmonton is the emotional sell that is supposed to cloud better judgement. The threat is often mentioned strategically to let its audience say, “Well, if it means we don’t lose hockey, then I guess we had better go with it, something, anything, as long as we keep our Oilers!”
There’s a term for this type of persuasion – – it’s called Coercion! Here’s the state of your city Edmonton, and if you don’t do this, then you will be worse off, you will likely lose a lot – – the hockey team, the “world-class status”. In short, you will become losers! You don’t want to be losers do you? We don’t mean this year’s record of the Oilers either. We mean real losers. Nobody will want to come here from other parts of the world for education. You won’t be able to get businesses to locate here, and yada, de, dada, dada day!
Daryl Bonar who ran for mayor in 2010 said he was not a big fan of PPP (Public-Private Partnerships).
We have a lot more digging to do, but we will leave you with this for the moment, Gary Bettman has said that the Goldwater Group are not elected officials, and if they want to make an impact they are not part of Glendale’s City Council.
So, Goldwater should not be suggesting what belongs in another department so to speak?
So why are you and Katz telling Edmonton how to spend its tax dollars, and how did you guys become experts in urban planning, development, and tax planning?
I think there are other people whose noses are now out of joint.
It’s all about tapping that taxpayer with publicly-owned arenas and more important providing revenue streams of taxpayer debt payments to a bunch of guys nobody will ever truly see.
When Katz was questioned why he didn’t just build the arena with his own money, he had all kinds of reasons, the least of which was just how complex and mind-blowing the financing would be. Yes, paying into perpetuity is the goal Mr. Katz, isn’t it? Getting at the taxpayer bucks.
If Katz owns the team, why doesn’t he own the arena and leave the taxpayers alone? Why do they delve into other areas of urban development as well. It’s hockey he is the owner of right? Don’t do this mega complex and the Oilers disappear? Hello, anybody out there?!?
Yeah, just how complex those “revenue streams” must be as Gary Bettman explains it as an excuse to why arenas need to be built. Impossible to figure out for the average shmo. And that’s the whole point, isn’t it?