LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Two things:

1) maybe the "deal" isn't so secret at all, which is why the "random" people on Twitter, including many hockey insiders, say they know or have heard stuff.

2) I said real estate, not just land. Usually stuff is built on land, which also has value.

1) Yes, that is possible, although nobody that would have to justify a source to an editor has said a peep. It has all been chatter on radio, people on twitter that said they heard stuff that may or not be true, etc. That's unusual.

2) In a city where buildings are built one at a time and usually take the better part of a decade, how many generations would it take for the real estate to reach 4 billion? An owner can't book aspirational hopes of maybe future development someday.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by acottawa

1) Yes, that is possible, although nobody that would have to justify a source to an editor has said a peep. It has all been chatter on radio, people on twitter that said they heard stuff that may or not be true, etc. That's unusual.

2) In a city where buildings are built one at a time and usually take the better part of a decade, how many generations would it take for the real estate to reach 4 billion? An owner can't book aspirational hopes of maybe future development someday.

To your second point, and as someone who's in the real estate business, and as someone who's family is in the real estate business, I don't agree. This is not a business someone enters to make a quick buck. This is also not a business where demand is linear.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

To your second point, and as someone who's in the real estate business, and as someone who's family is in the real estate business, I don't agree. This is not a business someone enters to make a quick buck. This is also not a business where demand is linear.

So you would spend $1 million for the privilege of buying contaminated land worth $300,000 at market value, even though it would take the better part of the current century to develop it?

[YOWflier]

Downtown land in one of the most stable real estate markets anywhere? In a heartbeat.

I'd hold the land and develop progressively, reap leasing incomes for as long as I live, and then pass it down to my children who would rinse and repeat.

You seem like an intelligent guy so I can't help wonder if that was a serious question.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Downtown land in one of the most stable real estate markets anywhere? In a heartbeat.

I'd hold the land and develop progressively, reap leasing incomes for as long as I live, and then pass it down to my children who would rinse and repeat.

You seem like an intelligent guy so I can't help wonder if that was a serious question.

And what would be the opportunity cost of tying up all that capital for all those decades? Land speculation is a perfectly common business but land speculators don't normally pay a 300% finders fee on top of the cost of the land.

[YOWflier]

What opportunities are you referring to? It's impossible to answer that question.

Calling downtown Ottawa 2.0 "land speculation" is about as funny as a post can get.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

What opportunities are you referring to? It's impossible to answer that question.

Calling downtown Ottawa 2.0 "land speculation" is about as funny as a post can get.

Opportunity cost is the loss of potential gain from alternatives. So in this case what would Mr. Desmarais gain on his billion dollars by leaving it in Power Corporation shares over the next 30 years in comparison to spending the money to acquire land he has to sit on.

What else would you call it? Very little of the land is likely to be usable over the coming decades. A wildly successful development in Ottawa is a building every few years. It is unlikely the NCC would allow interim uses that could generate revenue while demand catches up (parking lots, big box stores, etc). Any potential buyer has to hope the land massively appreciates to cover the loss on the initial investment. That's how land speculation works.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Opportunity cost is the loss of potential gain from alternatives. So in this case what would Mr. Desmarais gain on his billion dollars by leaving it in Power Corporation shares over the next 30 years in comparison to spending the money to acquire land he has to sit on.

What else would you call it? Very little of the land is likely to be usable over the coming decades. A wildly successful development in Ottawa is a building every few years. It is unlikely the NCC would allow interim uses that could generate revenue while demand catches up (parking lots, big box stores, etc). Any potential buyer has to hope the land massively appreciates to cover the loss on the initial investment. That's how land speculation works.

The question was rhetorical. As I said, impossible to answer. Incidentally if you can predict future stock values please post for all our benefit.

Lebreton isn't some swamp in a dubious location. It's about as certain a real estate play as can be found.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

The question was rhetorical. As I said, impossible to answer. Incidentally if you can predict future stock values please post for all our benefit.

Lebreton isn't some swamp in a dubious location. It's about as certain a real estate play as can be found.

There's 40 million in a dividend yield even if the stock goes down, which is a lot more than you get out of a break-even hockey team and vacant land.

A certain real estate play is something that already exists or something that can be developed in a reasonably certain amount of time. A multi-decade investment is hardly certain.

[YOWflier]

My T1s General disagree with you.

[daud]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There's 40 million in a dividend yield even if the stock goes down, which is a lot more than you get out of a break-even hockey team and vacant land.

A certain real estate play is something that already exists or something that can be developed in a reasonably certain amount of time. A multi-decade investment is hardly certain.

You do realize that Campeau and Minto and just about every other land developer in this city made their money off of multi-decade land purchases right? And just about every suburban house in this city is on land that was bought up in the 50s and 60s.

I agree with you that there are opportunity costs to anything and that dividend yields on blue chip stocks can bring excellent returns in a much shorter time frame. But real estate empires were built on multi-decade investments and are actually quite certain to provide solid returns over the long run especially in a stable market like Ottawa.

I'm not really sure what your end game is in this discussion. It just seems you are dismissing and arguing anything that pops up here. Devils advocate is great but instead of shutting down every comment...what is your vision for a) lebreton and b) the senators franchise?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by daud

You do realize that Campeau and Minto and just about every other land developer in this city made their money off of multi-decade land purchases right? And just about every suburban house in this city is on land that was bought up in the 50s and 60s.

I agree with you that there are opportunity costs to anything and that dividend yields on blue chip stocks can bring excellent returns in a much shorter time frame. But real estate empires were built on multi-decade investments and are actually quite certain to provide solid returns over the long run especially in a stable market like Ottawa.

I'm not really sure what your end game is in this discussion. It just seems you are dismissing and arguing anything that pops up here. Devils advocate is great but instead of shutting down every comment...what is your vision for a) lebreton and b) the senators franchise?

Yes, but Campeau and the Greenbergs didn't have to spend a billion dollars for the privilege of buying land at market value. They bought dirt cheap farmland. To have the opportunity to buy the land he has to buy a hockey team of questionable profitability, write off a 20 year old arena, build a new arena and build a whole bunch of amenities and infrastructure.

[daud]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, but Campeau and the Greenbergs didn't have to spend a billion dollars for the privilege of buying land at market value. They bought dirt cheap farmland. To have the opportunity to buy the land he has to buy a hockey team of questionable profitability, write off a 20 year old arena, build a new arena and build a whole bunch of amenities and infrastructure.

I would simply counter that the opportunity is relative. Cheap farmland yields low density suburban housing, land near downtown can generate far more revenue, more density and much less municipal servicing costs per household.

And I’d much rather hear your thoughts on lebreton and the senators respectively as opposed to simply countering everyone else’s comments. You might actually have a good idea about both topics.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by daud

And I’d much rather hear your thoughts on lebreton and the senators respectively as opposed to simply countering everyone else’s comments. You might actually have a good idea about both topics.

My thoughts on the senators are that if the fans want a professional hockey team in Ottawa they should buy tickets. Not buying tickets and hoping another billionaire rides in on a white horse to make it rain in the front office is a risky strategy.

My thoughts on Lebreton is that the (public) positions of the city and NCC are not conducive to getting the kind of development being proposed by RVL (under Melnyk or another owner). If they want that type of development they have to treat like other projects in other cities (and also in Ottawa). If they don't want that type of development they should quit pissing.around and turn it over to Canada Lands.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by daud

I would simply counter that the opportunity is relative. Cheap farmland yields low density suburban housing, land near downtown can generate far more revenue, more density and much less municipal servicing costs per household.

Those are the reasons you want the development to happen. Those are not reasons why any investor would want to put money into the project.

[YOWflier]

The customer never owes the business anything. If the business wants patronage it must demonstrate excellence in product, excellence in customer service, and excellence in management. Fear mongering your clients into spending is a risky strategy. Thinking that you can pick up your ball and go elsewhere to automatically achieve success is also a risky strategy. Being ignorant to local dynamics that are likely affecting people's discretionary spending and unsympathetic with that is simple douchebaggery.

[daud]

Originally Posted by acottawa

My thoughts on the senators are that if the fans want a professional hockey team in Ottawa they should buy tickets. Not buying tickets and hoping another billionaire rides in on a white horse to make it rain in the front office is a risky strategy.

My thoughts on Lebreton is that the (public) positions of the city and NCC are not conducive to getting the kind of development being proposed by RVL (under Melnyk or another owner). If they want that type of development they have to treat like other projects in other cities (and also in Ottawa). If they don't want that type of development they should quit pissing.around and turn it over to Canada Lands.

Agree with you on the second point, As for the first, its too one sided a view and fails to address the management/ownership responsibilities for the situation. AC888yow kind of nailed that side of it. Frankly, I think Melnyk has completely mismanaged this organization and his investment. I also think he very questionable of character as evidenced when someone tried to dig into his finances:

https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/8/25/4...d-eugene-melnyk-ottawa-senators-finances

I would really love to look at the senators books in greater detail. One item of interest is non-player operating costs have gone up 10% year over year and noticeably increased after he took over the team. Yet, he's cut the organization to the bone? Just what are these operating costs?

This twitter string really looks at the sens finances in detail:

https://twitter.com/petbugs13/status/942041837052628993

Anyone can take money out of a company as expense and call the operation a loss. Bottom line is, Fans believe this team is mismanaged, misoperated and these consumers are right to expect better. I'd call those consumers educated. Ownership's response is "buy more tickets" which only serves to draw more negative attention and perception to the brand.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by daud

Agree with you on the second point, As for the first, its too one sided a view and fails to address the management/ownership responsibilities for the situation. AC888yow kind of nailed that side of it. Frankly, I think Melnyk has completely mismanaged this organization and his investment. I also think he very questionable of character as evidenced when someone tried to dig into his finances:

https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/8/25/4...d-eugene-melnyk-ottawa-senators-finances

I would really love to look at the senators books in greater detail. One item of interest is non-player operating costs have gone up 10% year over year and noticeably increased after he took over the team. Yet, he's cut the organization to the bone? Just what are these operating costs?

This twitter string really looks at the sens finances in detail:

https://twitter.com/petbugs13/status/942041837052628993

Anyone can take money out of a company as expense and call the operation a loss. Bottom line is, Fans believe this team is mismanaged, misoperated and these consumers are right to expect better. I'd call those consumers educated. Ownership's response is "buy more tickets" which only serves to draw more negative attention and perception to the brand.

Ok, but the NHL has access to the Senators books and has not taken any actions to oust Melnyk. Either there is no wrongdoing or they don't care.

The problem I have with all of this (like the rumours of the sale of the team) is that the media has been silent and law enforcement has been silent. Hiring Ukrainian hackers to remove all of the Melnyk stories from SB Nation is a pretty significant offence, yet neither Vox media nor law enforcement have taken any action. Uncovering such a story would be gold for a newspaper or other media outlet. If in fact Melnyk is some supervillian who controls the media, FBI, RCMP, etc. is the Board of Governors going to give him a hard time?

I agree with you it would be nice to see the books. In addition to potential shenanigans, other possible explanations for increasing operating costs could be that the Canadian dollar has fallen significantly (from parity to about 75 cents) and coaches, GMs, scouts, most travel costs, etc. are paid in US dollars. Also in that time electricity costs have almost doubled.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

The customer never owes the business anything. If the business wants patronage it must demonstrate excellence in product, excellence in customer service, and excellence in management. Fear mongering your clients into spending is a risky strategy. Thinking that you can pick up your ball and go elsewhere to automatically achieve success is also a risky strategy. Being ignorant to local dynamics that are likely affecting people's discretionary spending and unsympathetic with that is simple douchebaggery.

I agree. People go to hockey games to be entertained not to subsidize a team. Winning can be entertaining, but a close, well played game can also be entertaining. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of being entertained, people are less likely to risk purchasing a ticket.

One interesting idea would be to have a "good game guarantee" in which if Sens loose by more than 1 (or maybe 2) goals (ignoring empty net goals) during the regular season, all in attendance get some sort of credit (maybe 50% of the original ticket cost) towards the purchase of a ticket for another game. They might want to exclude games against Toronto and Montreal though because of the number of visiting fans.

As for the Playoff attendance thing, don't forget it was Melnyk who applied to have the capacity increased from 18,500 to 19,153 seated (20,500 including standing room) in 2004. If you use the original 18,500 capacity, only two of the post season home games would not have been sellouts.

18,500 is a much more reasonable capacity for Ottawa. 19,153 seated makes it the 8th largest arena in the NHL (larger than both Vancouver's Rogers Arena and the ACC).

[YOWflier]

Reevely: Second-place bidder still keen on LeBreton Flats if Sens' bid falters, but patience is waning

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...-sens-bid-falters-but-patience-is-waning