Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[blueandgoldguy]

Woooheeee, I guess it's official. Edmonton's new arena is now Air Canada Centre West judging by those prices in the season ticket pricing chart.

Have to hand it to Katz with the pricing structure - offer a measly few hundred seats at a "reasonable price" to sucker the media and public (even a few posters here on Skyscraper) into believing that he is offering an affordable product to the masses when in reality those cheap seats are so scant that only a few middle income earners will be able to enjoy them.

Old Gallery at Rexall Place
approx. 1200 - 1500 seats
season ticket price per game = approx. $40

Cheap seating at new arena
approx. 500 seats
season ticket pricing = $43 per game

Collonnade seating at Rexall
approx. 3000 seats
season ticket price = $50 - $60 per game

next cheapest seating at new arena
approx. 700 -1000 seats
season ticket price = $58 per game

Katz has drastically reduced the number of cheap seats in the new arena resulting in even less accessibility for the middle class fan.

Also, the additional 2000+ seats which didn't exist in the old arena are insanely expensive loges and nosebleed club seats.

nosebleed club seats
approx. 1000 seats
season ticket price per game = $236 - $246

loges
approx. 1500 seats
season ticket price per game = 350 per game

Very ironic that a heavily taxpayer funded arena is even more inaccessible to the public.

I also love how Katz has turned what would have been the least desirable suites at the one end of the arena into theater boxes, the most expensive tickets in house at a cool $511 per game if you buy a season ticket. Theater style armchair seating with a private bar and restaurant - basically a home away from home.

Even centre ice nosebleeds are ridiculously expensive at $100 per game with a season ticket purchase. Imagine how much premium single game tickets will sell for up there.

Overall, I would have to say Katz has socked it to the good folks in Edmonton twice. First, with the horrible arena deal and second, with the most expensive average ticket price west of Toronto.

[MoXXon]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Seems to back my point. If they went with bottom 7 I'm sure Calgary would be on the list. Toronto is on there partly because of perception (it's cold in winter but not nearly as cold as the western Canadian cities) and partly because of the last decade of poor management and teams. The Toronto media certainly would not help either.

The article shows that Canada, in general, is not a very desirable market. Factors like comparatively high taxes to the US, a cold climate and the state of the teams, are the big reasons why Canada did not fare well. Your point, or rather conjecture, that players don't want to play in these markets because they are boring, is ridiculous. Players are not going to analysis the nuances of each city to see which is more exciting to live when they only spend half a year there, and then half of that on the road. And if they did, Montreal would be the only one worth mentioning as Canadian cities tend to feel horribly similar to each other after traveling outside of Canada for any length of time.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Overall, I would have to say Katz has socked it to the good folks in Edmonton twice. First, with the horrible arena deal and second, with the most expensive average ticket price west of Toronto.

With the Canadian dollar the way it is and more the likely to drop further and stay that way for years - expect more Canadian teams to increase ticket prices at a bigger/faster rate. Revenue is in CAD$ and payroll is in US$ - no other way to make up the difference than dinging the fans.

It'll be interesting to see what MLSE does. The team has sucked for the longest time and this year the fans FINALLY let them know with attendance/revenue actually being affected. Now the organization has admitted the team is going to be bad for a while longer because of the rebuild, and even though the payroll SHOULD be lower - it still may not be enough to make up for the low (and dropping) CAD$. The Leafs are the last team that can justify raising prices as it will severely piss off fans - so I wonder now MLSE will handle this situation.

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Overall, I would have to say Katz has socked it to the good folks in Edmonton twice. First, with the horrible arena deal and second, with the most expensive average ticket price west of Toronto.

Agree to disagree. The deal was and is a good deal for all involved. The city...Tax payers and Katz.

Its a free market. If the tickets don't sell at these prices. They will be adjusted. But this will not happen.



Quoting from Hillman on SSP, who clears up some misconceptions regarding taxpayers paying for the Edmonton area. What he says is all part of public record:

Cost of the arena is $480 million, $130 million paid by the Katz Group, $125 million paid for by a ticket tax on all tickets sold at the venue and $200 million from the City and $25 million from other levels of government for the second ice surface/community rink to be used for the public and nearby university. The City's portion will be paid via a Community Revitalization Zone Levy (CRL) and other extra revenue like parking. Note that there was no tax rate increase in order to pay for any part of the arena.

The philosophy behind the CRL program is:

Major revitalization projects attract and increase local activity, investment and development. Economic growth creates additional tax revenue for all orders of government. Additional municipal and provincial property taxes from the economic growth will help fund the original project.

The amount of new tax revenue that the lands in and around the arena will make for the City on an annual basis, FAR exceeds the $200 million that the City has seeded into this project. There is currently over $2.5 billion in construction going on in the Arena district itself including a 50+ floor hotel (might be as high as 60), 62 floor office/condo (might be as high as 70), a 29 floor office and other retail businesses including a grocer, movie theater complex, restaurants, bars, etc. This district has fast forwarded many new condo high rises that have been announced since the arena was started and would not have existed without the new arena.

The CRL funding forecasts are based on only 40% of the growth predicted in Rollo’s conservative model, and still the CRL was calculated to generate, in net present value, $473 million in new taxes over 20 years.

So how investing $200 million in this multi billion district, getting almost $500 million in new taxation revenue (maybe more) AND revitalizing the city's downtown at the same time is a bad deal?

[MacLac]

Whew!!! Blueandblondguy seems he is an expert in ALL things NHL in Canada, including breaking down our ticket prices - into a doom and gloom scenario. Just keep cheering for your Leafs and pretend NOT to know everything about the Oilers and what's right for the fans......"sunshine?"

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by Black Star

Agree to disagree. The deal was and is a good deal for all involved. The city...Tax payers and Katz.

Its a free market. If the tickets don't sell at these prices. They will be adjusted. But this will not happen.



Quoting from Hillman on SSP, who clears up some misconceptions regarding taxpayers paying for the Edmonton area. What he says is all part of public record:

Cost of the arena is $480 million, $130 million paid by the Katz Group, $125 million paid for by a ticket tax on all tickets sold at the venue and $200 million from the City and $25 million from other levels of government for the second ice surface/community rink to be used for the public and nearby university. The City's portion will be paid via a Community Revitalization Zone Levy (CRL) and other extra revenue like parking. Note that there was no tax rate increase in order to pay for any part of the arena.

The philosophy behind the CRL program is:

Major revitalization projects attract and increase local activity, investment and development. Economic growth creates additional tax revenue for all orders of government. Additional municipal and provincial property taxes from the economic growth will help fund the original project.

The amount of new tax revenue that the lands in and around the arena will make for the City on an annual basis, FAR exceeds the $200 million that the City has seeded into this project. There is currently over $2.5 billion in construction going on in the Arena district itself including a 50+ floor hotel (might be as high as 60), 62 floor office/condo (might be as high as 70), a 29 floor office and other retail businesses including a grocer, movie theater complex, restaurants, bars, etc. This district has fast forwarded many new condo high rises that have been announced since the arena was started and would not have existed without the new arena.

The CRL funding forecasts are based on only 40% of the growth predicted in Rollo’s conservative model, and still the CRL was calculated to generate, in net present value, $473 million in new taxes over 20 years.

So how investing $200 million in this multi billion district, getting almost $500 million in new taxation revenue (maybe more) AND revitalizing the city's downtown at the same time is a bad deal?

Agree, this is a great deal for Edmonton, which has been explained on this blog countless times. Can't understand why people keep saying Edmonton is getting screwed - can they not read the information being presented here? Also, Quebec City is building a new arena 100% tax funded, to be the home of a team owned by the leader of the Quebec separatist party. This is FU'd but nobody makes a big deal out of of it. Why is a heavily indebted province like Quebec, which gets over 9 billion a year in equalization payments, using tax money to pay for an arena for a team owned by a the leader of a political group that wishes to separate from Canada? Unbelievable.

[Black Star]

^When you sum it up that way about the Quebec situation....Crazy Unbelievable!

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by bkd

May, June, July, August, September and October are not cold and dry in Edmonton. Neither is the latter half of April or the beginning of November, generally. This 7 months of winter crap that people think Edmonton gets always gives me a laugh. 5 months at the most, and the past couple years our January's have been Spring-ish. Go global warming.

Okay I've only lived here for 28 years but I'll take your word for it though

[MacLac]

Originally Posted by Spliff

Agree, this is a great deal for Edmonton, which has been explained on this blog countless times. Can't understand why people keep saying Edmonton is getting screwed - can they not read the information being presented here? Also, Quebec City is building a new arena 100% tax funded, to be the home of a team owned by the leader of the Quebec separatist party. This is FU'd but nobody makes a big deal out of of it. Why is a heavily indebted province like Quebec, which gets over 9 billion a year in equalization payments, using tax money to pay for an arena for a team owned by a the leader of a political group that wishes to separate from Canada? Unbelievable.

Most sane people know QC's situation is FU'd up...but please don't say that it is tax funded by western taxpayers...it gets the locals out there mighty testy when the truth is told......

[osmo]

"Its a free market"

Then why didn't Katz build the Arena in his own and then nobody could moan over his prices. He forced handouts from the public and then shut the doors on them. Edmonton, this isn't anything new. People need to stop like this Arena deal is "different", this is typical 'bend em' over' type stuff owners have pulled after pillaging the public coffers for funds.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by MacLac

Most sane people know QC's situation is FU'd up...but please don't say that it is tax funded by western taxpayers...it gets the locals out there mighty testy when the truth is told......

Wow People need to figure out the difference in levels of government. Not one dime of federal money went into Quebec's arena which means no western TAX PAYER money funded it.

Further more westerners also need to realise that their is a big difference between taxes and oil royalties. Yes Alberta/sask/BC share money with the less well off provinces in Canada. However it's not from taxes it's from oil royalties. When companies take oil from canada a certain amount is given to the province so that they can sell it at market value and that's how royalties work in Alberta (Alberta gets x amount of barrels per x amount of barrels pulled out of the ground). That money gets shared to poorer provinces. Income taxes are split between federal and provincial. So unless the federal government directly funds a project in the east no western taxes get used for that and visa versa. Now people in Montreal can be pissed off about funding the arena because it was split 50/50 between city and province of Quebec. But unless the government of Alberta decided for some reason to make a donation to an arena in Quebec we have absolutely nothing to be pissed off about...from an albertan

I'm not sticking up for the Quebec arena situation its crazy and I would be choked. However I cannot stand when (and it's happened a few times) when some westerner comes on here griping about paying for an arena. You have no idea what your talking about so please just shut up

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Did you see the reference from the poster MoXXon with a survey from the players? There's your proof sunshine. Also see Chris Pronger, Danny Heatley, Michael Nylander.

It's no secret Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa are low on the free agent wish list. But Toronto and Montreal are also very low. Actually the bottom 5 were all Canadian teams either than buffalo. Vancouver is the only desirable market in Canada. Period. And as a player I understand why. It's either cold,remote,boring,expensive (taxes), has a losing mentality or the spotlight is too much. sometimes all of the above

I would much rather live in a southern state and pay less taxes in a winning environment. I don't really care if I'm offending anyone. like posted above "it's the reality of the situation"

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by MoXXon

The article shows that Canada, in general, is not a very desirable market. Factors like comparatively high taxes to the US, a cold climate and the state of the teams, are the big reasons why Canada did not fare well. Your point, or rather conjecture, that players don't want to play in these markets because they are boring, is ridiculous. Players are not going to analysis the nuances of each city to see which is more exciting to live when they only spend half a year there, and then half of that on the road. And if they did, Montreal would be the only one worth mentioning as Canadian cities tend to feel horribly similar to each other after traveling outside of Canada for any length of time.

I think lifestyle does play an important role. Not for all players but not an insignificant amount either. I did state that climate played a role. You are correct about the taxes although it needs to be pointed out that Alberta has some of the lowest taxes in North America and is advantageous for a player finances than certain US States say New York for example.

All other things being equal (team management, media, recent team history, taxes), I feel a player not from the prairies or Ottawa or in the future, Quebec, and the inherent home town biasness that comes with that, would choose to play for a larger American city whether it is a sunbelt team or a "cold weather" team. There would, of course, be exceptions.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Berklon

With the Canadian dollar the way it is and more the likely to drop further and stay that way for years - expect more Canadian teams to increase ticket prices at a bigger/faster rate. Revenue is in CAD$ and payroll is in US$ - no other way to make up the difference than dinging the fans.

It'll be interesting to see what MLSE does. The team has sucked for the longest time and this year the fans FINALLY let them know with attendance/revenue actually being affected. Now the organization has admitted the team is going to be bad for a while longer because of the rebuild, and even though the payroll SHOULD be lower - it still may not be enough to make up for the low (and dropping) CAD$. The Leafs are the last team that can justify raising prices as it will severely piss off fans - so I wonder now MLSE will handle this situation.

I will disagree with this. Regardless of whether the Canadian dollar is at par, .90 US or .80 US, Katz would still charge the same outrageous prices. It's a shame because the high priced arena, the arena district and Katz's $25 - $30 outdoor parking will surely suck up a lot of the disposable income in Edmonton leading to the inevitable decline of other entertainment venues and restaurants (some will probably close) elsewhere in the city. Yes, even in a city as wealthy as Edmonton this will be noticeable. The gouging will have far-reaching consequences unfortunately.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Black Star

Agree to disagree. The deal was and is a good deal for all involved. The city...Tax payers and Katz.

Its a free market. If the tickets don't sell at these prices. They will be adjusted. But this will not happen.



Quoting from Hillman on SSP, who clears up some misconceptions regarding taxpayers paying for the Edmonton area. What he says is all part of public record:

Cost of the arena is $480 million, $130 million paid by the Katz Group, $125 million paid for by a ticket tax on all tickets sold at the venue and $200 million from the City and $25 million from other levels of government for the second ice surface/community rink to be used for the public and nearby university. The City's portion will be paid via a Community Revitalization Zone Levy (CRL) and other extra revenue like parking. Note that there was no tax rate increase in order to pay for any part of the arena.

The philosophy behind the CRL program is:

Major revitalization projects attract and increase local activity, investment and development. Economic growth creates additional tax revenue for all orders of government. Additional municipal and provincial property taxes from the economic growth will help fund the original project.

The amount of new tax revenue that the lands in and around the arena will make for the City on an annual basis, FAR exceeds the $200 million that the City has seeded into this project. There is currently over $2.5 billion in construction going on in the Arena district itself including a 50+ floor hotel (might be as high as 60), 62 floor office/condo (might be as high as 70), a 29 floor office and other retail businesses including a grocer, movie theater complex, restaurants, bars, etc. This district has fast forwarded many new condo high rises that have been announced since the arena was started and would not have existed without the new arena.

The CRL funding forecasts are based on only 40% of the growth predicted in Rollo’s conservative model, and still the CRL was calculated to generate, in net present value, $473 million in new taxes over 20 years.

So how investing $200 million in this multi billion district, getting almost $500 million in new taxation revenue (maybe more) AND revitalizing the city's downtown at the same time is a bad deal?

There has already been some skepticism about the CRL in this thread. It is far from a sure thing. I will not rehash it for you as you can find it a few pages back in this thread. It is far from a sure thing.

I am highly suspicious of the claim that many of these new condo high rises would not have happened without the new arena. There have been a few condos built prior to the arena build. And if the arena wasn't built, what then? Would all those people clamoring for a condo collectively say, "What! The city won't come to terms on the funding for a downtown arena. Well that settles it! I will continue to live in my crappy apartment/mom's basement until the city council comes to their senses. Once they do, then and only then, will I buy a condo downtown near the arena and nowhere else. Not for one second!"

No sir, somehow I doubt that. The new arena would have very little bearing on the demand for condos be it downtown or otherwise. Condos were being built prior to the arena build and these projects would continue to be rise in or around the downtown area if the arena was nothing more than a hypothetical.
A rapidly growing city such as Edmonton with a preponderance of young professionals looking for affordable starter housing will not be dictated into a lifestyle choice by an arena, at least the vast majority will not. Rather, it will be by necessity and an instrument into which one can sink their equity.

The sycophant Oilers' media in Edmonton will do their best to convince Edmontonians otherwise. How this is a great deal for the city with a revitalized downtown (it's not that easy or simple), new tax revenue, with the ancillary benefits of the entertainment district, new office space and condos. I feel these are vastly overstated or non-existent. We shall see..or maybe not, as previous beneficial claims of the arena district may be attributed to the rise of downtown when the matter is more likely complex than that.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Spliff

Agree, this is a great deal for Edmonton, which has been explained on this blog countless times. Can't understand why people keep saying Edmonton is getting screwed - can they not read the information being presented here? Also, Quebec City is building a new arena 100% tax funded, to be the home of a team owned by the leader of the Quebec separatist party. This is FU'd but nobody makes a big deal out of of it. Why is a heavily indebted province like Quebec, which gets over 9 billion a year in equalization payments, using tax money to pay for an arena for a team owned by a the leader of a political group that wishes to separate from Canada? Unbelievable.

People have already explained here why the Edmonton arena deal is a bad one. They have also stated that the subsidized Quebec arena is a terrible deal for taxpayers as well.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

Wow People need to figure out the difference in levels of government. Not one dime of federal money went into Quebec's arena which means no western TAX PAYER money funded it.

Further more westerners also need to realise that their is a big difference between taxes and oil royalties. Yes Alberta/sask/BC share money with the less well off provinces in Canada. However it's not from taxes it's from oil royalties. When companies take oil from canada a certain amount is given to the province so that they can sell it at market value and that's how royalties work in Alberta (Alberta gets x amount of barrels per x amount of barrels pulled out of the ground). That money gets shared to poorer provinces. Income taxes are split between federal and provincial. So unless the federal government directly funds a project in the east no western taxes get used for that and visa versa. Now people in Montreal can be pissed off about funding the arena because it was split 50/50 between city and province of Quebec. But unless the government of Alberta decided for some reason to make a donation to an arena in Quebec we have absolutely nothing to be pissed off about...from an albertan

I'm not sticking up for the Quebec arena situation its crazy and I would be choked. However I cannot stand when (and it's happened a few times) when some westerner comes on here griping about paying for an arena. You have no idea what your talking about so please just shut up

First of all, I never said equalization payments are paying for Quebec's arena - I said that it seems odd that a heavily indebted province that relies on equalization payments (to the incredible tune of 9 billion a year) is funding a arena. I never said western provinces are paying for this arena, and I never said federal monies are paying for the arena.

Also, your assertion that equalization payments through transfer from oil producing provinces solely comes from oil royalities is nonsense.

[The Fisher Account]

Toronto will be bidding for the 2024 Olympics.

Hello 80,000 national stadium. Hello NFL franchise. Hello possible World Cup bid.

[christopherj]

Originally Posted by JHikka

A lot of players, particularly players 27+ who have wives and families, will take living situations into perspective. It's why players have little issue playing for Tampa/Florida/Nashville (no taxes) or Arizona/Dallas/LA/Anaheim (great, year-round warm weather). This doesn't mention housing markets or any other little ticks that individuals like. At the end of the day hockey players are people, too, and we often forget this.

I see people saying that all the time... but what free agents are beating down the door to play for teams like Flordia, Arizona and Nashville? LA and Anaheim are a different story given they are been winners in recent history.

[christopherj]

Originally Posted by Berklon

That's not the reason. There are plenty of teams who've been horrible for a long stretch of time - but players are willing to play there because of the lifestyle factor. Unless they're veterans who are free agents and are looking to close out their careers with a Stanley Cup ring - players don't usually have the team's performance as a high priority when choosing where to play.

What key free agent has signed for a losing team for life style factors?

Only one I could think of was Roberto Luongo and he was traded to Flordia. And I think after Vancouver he just wanted to be out of the spotlight.

I won't say it can play a role when all other factors are equal. But at the end of the day winning cures much. No one wants to play for a losing team.