Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

CBA Push Comes From Pittsburgh

from Rob Rossi of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

The Penguins are a moderate in the labor war, but they will not break ranks at the Governors’ meeting, sources said. Rather, their contingent will try to establish what owners need to reach an agreement, the sources said.

Crosby also will not break ranks with the players’ union, but his objective over the past week has been to establish common ground among players who have lost trust in NHL ownership and management as a whole, the sources said.

Over the past few weeks, Crosby, Burkle and Lemieux have privately discussed plans to bridge the gap between players and owners. The sources said all three had grown frustrated with the lack of progress.

Crosby and Burkle flew to New York together Monday. Burkle lives in suburban Los Angeles. Crosby’s Los Angeles-based agent, Pat Brisson, also was on the flight, the sources said.

more

Filed in: NHL Teams, Pittsburgh Penguins, NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

bezukov's avatar

Well…

If the Penguins aren’t as duplicitous about getting a deal done as they were in the debate over excessive violence in hockey, we might be on to something.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 12/04/12 at 11:04 PM ET

sick66's avatar

matt cooke is a lock for the lady byng in a shortened season,

Posted by sick66 on 12/04/12 at 11:21 PM ET

NHLJeff's avatar

I don’t want to get my hopes up, but if it happens, I can’t wait to see how you guys try to bad mouth Sid after he potentially saves the season…

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 12/05/12 at 12:39 AM ET

Avatar

I don’t want to get my hopes up, but if it happens, I can’t wait to see how you guys try to bad mouth Sid after he potentially saves the season…

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 12/05/12 at 12:39 AM ET

Expecting the same thing.

Gotta love how Lemieux is some sort of selfish parasite for accepting a whopping $15 million in taxpayer money for his $400ish million arena, yet when Ilitch seeks to get 50 % of the pricetag on his new pet project picked up by public funds in an agreement that’s grandfathered in by a lame-duck government just before the next one, necessarily, declares bankruptcy, it’s described as “expertly-timed” and “not subsidization.”

Posted by larry on 12/05/12 at 01:29 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 12/05/12 at 12:39 AM ET

My thoughts exactly, though, I’m sure the conspiracy talk will just gain larger traction.

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 12/05/12 at 06:22 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I can’t wait to see how you guys try to bad mouth Sid after he potentially saves the season…

It will probably be to the exact same degree as you idiots try to credit Sid with “saving the season”.

when Ilitch seeks to get 50 % of the pricetag on his new pet project picked up by public funds

I must have missed the part that says Ilitch is asking for 50% subsidization.

....or the part where Lemieux invested $1.9B into the City of Pittsburgh.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 08:06 AM ET

Vladimir16's avatar

....or the part where Lemieux invested $1.9B into the City of Pittsburgh.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 08:06 AM ET

ZING!

Posted by Vladimir16 from Grand River Valley on 12/05/12 at 08:46 AM ET

Mandingo's avatar

I don’t want to get my hopes up, but if it happens, I can’t wait to see how you guys try to bad mouth Sid after he potentially saves the season…

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 12/05/12 at 12:39 AM ET


Gotta love how Lemieux is some sort of selfish parasite for accepting a whopping $15 million in taxpayer money for his $400ish million arena, yet when Ilitch seeks to get 50 % of the pricetag on his new pet project picked up by public funds in an agreement that’s grandfathered in by a lame-duck government just before the next one, necessarily, declares bankruptcy, it’s described as “expertly-timed” and “not subsidization.”

Posted by larry on 12/05/12 at 01:29 AM ET


My thoughts exactly, though, I’m sure the conspiracy talk will just gain larger traction.

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 12/05/12 at 06:22 AM ET


Oh, Pens fans…*sigh*

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 12/05/12 at 09:11 AM ET

dougie's avatar

I am anxiously looking forward to the creation of “Sidentology”, after Crosby not only saves the season, the league,the country, feeds the starving masses, brings about world peace, resurrects Elvis from the dead , and ushers in an era of renewed prosperity with Red Wings season tickets and universal healthcare for all.

Posted by dougie on 12/05/12 at 09:48 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

It would be great if Crosby stepped up and was a large voice in the NHLPA. I think that would be a very positive development for the sport, for relations and for his legacy as a “superstar” player. IMO, he’s been in Ryan Miller’s shadow so far in this lockout.

Personally, I don’t dislike Crosby nearly as much as I dislike the cult-like obsession with the guy. He has a disproportionately large profile for a player. He SHOULD be using that in this labor strife. It remains to be seen how effectively he can use his status.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/05/12 at 10:25 AM ET

Avatar

Castle Mario wasn’t going to just build itself you know. He was such an underpaid player that he had to become an owner just to make it rich and now his primary income has been stopped.

The lockout has distracted us long enough from the hourly reports on Sidney Crosby’s medical condition and the Pens needed to get everyone’s priorities straight. The league exists soley to justify Sidney’s exisitence and we were losing sight of that fact.

Since Mario personally vouched for John Spano he was sent in to vet which owners could financially support whatever CBA agreement was reached?

Mario, Sidney and Burkle have already circumvented the CBA process and 2 of the 3 should be subject to $1 million fines by the NHL. Isn’t it a conflict of interest to negotiate your lease and babysitting rates at the same time as the CBA?

The Penguins haven’t seen Malkin in over a month and are afraid he has already defected to the KHL.

There was a rumor that Balsillie was going to purchase every team that was going to go bankrupt after the CBA was ratified and create an all Canadian Hockey League by relocating all six teams to the Greater Toronto Area. They would all play out of a grand casino complex in the Don Valley.

Is that a good enough first stab at spinning this against the Pens?

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 12/05/12 at 11:40 AM ET

Avatar

I can’t wait to see how you guys try to bad mouth Sid after he potentially saves the season…

I’l start.  If he’s such a magical, lockout ending saint, why th f%#k did he waint until December to wave his magic wand?

Posted by Garth on 12/05/12 at 11:49 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

If he’s such a magical, lockout ending saint, why th f%#k did he waint until December to wave his magic wand?

Yep.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 12:21 PM ET

Avatar

I must have missed the part that says Ilitch is asking for 50% subsidization.

In the article on this website.

....or the part where Lemieux invested $1.9B into the City of Pittsburgh.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 08:06 AM ET

To be clear, I don’t really care how much Ilitch does or doesn’t milk the Michigan taxpayer for. It has nothing to do with me.

But the implication that corporate welfare becomes appropriate only when the corporation in question demonstrates that it does not need it is seriously twisted thinking.

Posted by larry on 12/05/12 at 01:02 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

In the article on this website.

Which article says that?  Give me the link and the quote, please.

I’m looking for “50%” or “Half” or anything else that gives credence to your made-up number and I’m not finding anything.

But the implication that corporate welfare becomes appropriate only when the corporation in question demonstrates that it does not need it is seriously twisted thinking.

The implication that it’s corporate welfare is what’s twisted, especially since none of us actually know what Ilitch has asked for.  ESPECIALLY especially when the public funds that he has asked for are to come out of a pot of money that he’s specifically paid into as an investment into his city.

Meanwhile, Mario Lemieux also just finished a HUGE Investment into his home stomping grounds… in Quebec.

I’m at least assuming that in getting this place built, Lemieux didn’t have to threaten to move his mansion elsewhere to get his way… or charge for autographs.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 02:36 PM ET

Avatar

The implication that it’s corporate welfare is what’s twisted, especially since none of us actually know what Ilitch has asked for.  ESPECIALLY especially when the public funds that he has asked for are to come out of a pot of money that he’s specifically paid into as an investment into his city.

Okay, hold on a second.  Are you suggesting that since Illtch has contributed x% to that public fund he should be entitled to receive >x% of said public fund?

Look, if we’re just talking about Illtch getting effectively a tax ‘rebate’ on what he’s already paid into the city… sure.  It’s still a little shady, but I’m not going to whine too much about it.

I think we both know that’s not what we’re really talking about here though.  I mean, it’s got to be just about a certainty that Illtch is going to be looking for public funds up to and past the 9 figure mark on this deal from a variety of sources, right?  Do you really think Illtch is going to throw half a billion dollars of his own money into a stadium?

I don’t.

I think we’re going to start seeing this whole thing sold to residents as a ‘partnership between the city of Detroit and the Red Wings’.  And we’ll eventually start to hear about how the city is going to be on the hook for at least 30% of the price of the stadium.

Remember when Comerica was built?  Well, public financing accounted for almost 40% of the cost of that stadium.  Ford Field?  51%.

Detroit is getting set up for a 300+ million dollar bill.  And it’s already 50 mil in the red and on the verge of bankruptcy.  Good times!

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/05/12 at 03:21 PM ET

Avatar

Which article says that?  Give me the link and the quote, please.

I’m looking for “50%” or “Half” or anything else that gives credence to your made-up number and I’m not finding anything.

Thus far, the public-private partnership’s parameters seem to mirror those of Comerica Park and Ford Field, where costs and benefits are split pretty evenly. It’s not subsidization without financial return.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 12/04/12 at 11:53 PM ET


So if this was “made-up,” it was “made-up” by the author of the article, not myself.


On one final note, you’ve got no business at all accusing anyone of using “made-up” anything after the ill-formed nonsense you polluted the comment section in the article about Lemieux’s house with.

Posted by larry on 12/05/12 at 03:22 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Just so I have some context:
How often do stadiums of this magnitude get built with 100% private funds?

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 12/05/12 at 03:38 PM ET

Avatar

How often do stadiums of this magnitude get built with 100% private funds?

I doubt any. Then again, like I alluded to in my previous post, the much maligned Charles Wang offered to do so for the Islanders if he were granted the ability to construct what he believed would be a profitable development on the surrounding land of which he already had the development rights. The Town of Hempstead didn’t like the “density” of the project and decided to scale it back. They then admitted that they did not even bother to consider if it could be profitable at the small size and Wang walked away from totally financing it. so there are many reasons why these things become joint ventures.

Barclays in Brooklyn is financed through one part Russian billionare, private developer investment and tax-exempt bonds with the city paying for infrastructure improvements.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 12/05/12 at 03:57 PM ET

Avatar

Just so I have some context:
How often do stadiums of this magnitude get built with 100% private funds?

Pretty much never.  Which is the point.

Sports ownership has become a racket.  I don’t mind owners screwing over fans by putting out awful teams, or just moderately competitive teams while they line their wallets, because fans aren’t beholden to buy tickets and have the option to not give owners anything.

I get a lot more ornery when they do that in stadiums where the municipality gave the owner hundreds of millions of dollars, yet allows the owner to maintain full autonomy from the public in every real way when it comes to operating the franchise.

That’s bullbleep.

And not for nothing, but I wouldn’t count on the next owner of the Wings being half the owner Mike Illtch was for the franchise.  Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see the Wings get this new palace and then fill it with a new regime that’s profiteering instead of competing.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/05/12 at 03:59 PM ET

Avatar

Just so I have some context:
How often do stadiums of this magnitude get built with 100% private funds?

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 12/05/12 at 03:38 PM ET

Don’t know. Don’t care. I don’t fault Ilitch for asking a city to pick up around half the tab on a new toy (for the second time, I might add) if they’re happy to do it.

But just so I have some context:

How often are those deals described by Red Wings fans as “expertly-timed” when the city being asked for charity is about to go into bankruptcy or “not subsidization” when Ilitch isn’t the one asking for this charity?


Or how about this one:

How often do I see the same Red Wings fans who chide Lemieux for bad “optics” due to beginning construction on a house 4 years before a lockout he opposed while praising Ilitch as a philanthropist for trying to get a gigantic public subsidy just prior to the subsidizing entity declaring bankruptcy? At least once, thus far.

Posted by larry on 12/05/12 at 04:03 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

So if this was “made-up,” it was “made-up” by the author of the article, not myself.

Show me the quote where it says 50%

Without that quote, you absolutely made up that figure.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 04:10 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Also, if you want to pull out the Ilitch vs. Lemieux philanthrophy-dicks so we can have a measuring contest, I’m happy to oblige.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 04:11 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Okay, hold on a second.  Are you suggesting that since Illtch has contributed x% to that public fund he should be entitled to receive >x% of said public fund?

I’m pretty sure I clearly used that point to illustrate that calling it “corporate welfare” is a twisted definition.

I also don’t know where you’re getting that I’ve said I think Ilitch should be entitled to any more of that public fund than he’s put in.

beginning construction on a house 4 years before a lockout

2009 was 3 years ago.  This is pretty simple math and you were wrong by 33%.  That’s pretty awful.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 04:16 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

So…let me get this straight. 

Public funding of large-scale arenas (often more expensive than the one in question) is the status quo.  The municipalities subsidizing said arenas rarely (if ever) get any sort of “control” over the franchises.  This has happened hundreds of times in dozens of markets and multiple sports/leagues.  Municipalities still jump at the opportunity to subsidize these facilities/developments.  Wouldn’t that lead one to conclude that these opportunities are BENEFICIAL investment opportunities simply by the fact that professional sports venues are continuing to be built every year (and for teams that are FAR worse than the Tigers or Red Wings)? 

Yeah, geez.  That Mike Illitch must be a terrible person…giving a downtrodden city the opportunity to make an investment that might help itself. He shouldn’t do anything that might help them get out of bankruptcy.  And to have the nerve to do all of this while developing multiple top-of-the-class sports teams for the local citizens to take pride in.

Where’s my torch?  Let’s get him!

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 12/05/12 at 04:23 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

And not for nothing, but I wouldn’t count on the next owner of the Wings being half the owner Mike Illtch was for the franchise.  Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see the Wings get this new palace and then fill it with a new regime that’s profiteering instead of competing.


holy shit, we agree on something.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 12/05/12 at 04:34 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Also great points about the fact Mario, Sid and Burkle have been talking.  The implication was that it was for more than just yesterday, the implication seems to suggest they’ve been working on this brainstorm for at least a little while.  Do appreciate the motives though.

And for the record, when Wings fans post shit about Crosby, it’s Crosby the hockey-player.  DO NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY.  We might give him shit with his pubecent mustache and tantrums on the ice or his priest/alter-boy relationship with Mario or Pierre’s need to smoke his pole in the utility closet between periods.

However, that doesn’t translate to the same guy committs all the time and money he does to/for charities, especially for kids.

The two are seperate.  I know you can understand the difference.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 12/05/12 at 04:43 PM ET

Avatar

I’m pretty sure I clearly used that point to illustrate that calling it “corporate welfare” is a twisted definition.

Well, it’s a transfer of public money to a private entity with no strings attached.  Seems fairly cut and dried, right?  What is the difference between that and ‘corporate welfare’, since you seem to think one exists?

I also don’t know where you’re getting that I’ve said I think Ilitch should be entitled to any more of that public fund than he’s put in.

“ESPECIALLY especially when the public funds that he has asked for are to come out of a pot of money that he’s specifically paid into as an investment into his city.”

Wouldn’t that lead one to conclude that these opportunities are BENEFICIAL investment opportunities simply by the fact that professional sports venues are continuing to be built every year (and for teams that are FAR worse than the Tigers or Red Wings)?

No.

Why?

Because municipalities don’t ever consider real profit and loss scenarios.  It’s not like any of these cities actually has to balance their books against finite resources like people do in the real world.  They just raise taxes.  Or sell millions in bonds and kick the financial can down the road 10 years and let the back end debt catastrophe pile up.

Now, if there was a lot of private investment going on when it came to these stadiums, in situations where the people involved actually have to get something back for their investment, I’d agree with you.

I mean, seriously.  Glendale just shucked out 320 million bucks over 20 years to pay for having the Coyotes around, after spending 180 million in 2003 for the damn arena they play in.

Half a billion dollars in public money for that freaking team.  Three times what the team itself is worth, at least.  Do you have any comprehension of how much freaking money that is?  The city would have to be making almost half a million dollars in tax revenue from every home game just to have that kind of investment make financial sense.

Let’s just use the break even point, which is 420k a night,

In order to get 420k’s worth of tax revenue on their 2.9% city tax rate each home game would have to generate… wait for it…

Fourteen million four hundred and 82 thousand seven hundred and fifty eight dollars in financial activity.

And that’s just to break EVEN on their investment.  Not to make a single dime in real money.

But hey, crack wise some more.  It’s really working for you.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/05/12 at 05:01 PM ET

Avatar

And oh by the way, Glendale just jacked up that city tax rate from 2.2% to 2.9%.

Because, hey, it’s just other people’s money right?  How about we make all of the people who live in Glendale or buy anything in Glendale pay for a hockey team 14k fans go to 41 games a year.  What a great idea.

Anyway, that’s why I think public money for private arena’s is a joke.  The ‘public’, meaning you if you pay those taxes, never gets their money back on those deals.

But boy oh boy do those owners dress night, am I right?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/05/12 at 05:05 PM ET

Avatar

Wouldn’t that lead one to conclude that these opportunities are BENEFICIAL investment opportunities simply by the fact that professional sports venues are continuing to be built every year (and for teams that are FAR worse than the Tigers or Red Wings)?

Not all,  it may just mean that politicians are willing to flush your money down the drain if the optics make it look like they aren’t supporting the “home” team and that it may be used against them in the next election. Glendale seems to be a perfect example, where they need to keep doubling down to preserve what they’ve already lost.

I love hockey, but if hockey isn’t being played, I still spend my money. I think sports help to attract more dollars to a very specific part of the community, but it doesn’t generate too much more wealth since a league like the NHL is a locally driven at the gate anyway. Having a sports team be an anchor tenant just means the venue itself is more profitable since it guarantees the stadium is in use 40 plus times a year. That helps the local bars and restuarants maybe attract income that would normally be spend on the fringes of the city instead at the stadium core. So the suburbs have one less Applebee’s and you may get an extra bar or two concentrated downtown.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 12/05/12 at 05:16 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/05/12 at 05:01 PM ET

I’m sure Glendale and the Coyotes are a perfect example of the other teams out there.  You certainly didn’t select that example as a way to paint the picture you want to present.  And since you’re such an honest and forthright fellow I’m sure that you’re presenting the whole picture in a completely honest and unbiased manner to have a genuine conversation.  Not at all as a way to defend a d!ckhead statement.  You never make d!ckhead statements and often admit when you are mistaaken…right? 

I mean, the only way a city could generate revenue from something like this is by game-night sales.  There won’t be any real estate sales, new construction, revitalization of failing neighborhoods, parking fees, or other events held at the venue.  So ignoring all of those other revenue generators, let’s just look at the last one:

$300M / 20years / 250 events per year (not 41) = $60,000 per event.  Suddenly your ridiculous and warped numbers seem a bit disingenuous.  But, that wouldn’t possibly be the case. You wouldn’t do something like that.  It must have been an honest mistake.

But hey, keep being a total a$$hat. It’s really working for you.

 

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 12/05/12 at 05:21 PM ET

Avatar

Show me the quote where it says 50%

Without that quote, you absolutely made up that figure.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 04:10 PM ET

Thus far, the public-private partnership’s parameters seem to mirror those of Comerica Park and Ford Field, where costs and benefits are split pretty evenly. It’s not subsidization without financial return.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 12/04/12 at 11:53 PM ET

Ford Field’s the most recent of these “mirrors” so it would stand to reason that it’s going to be the most similar model. If the finances aren’t being “split pretty evenly” (note the quote marks) or “mirroring (the) Ford Field” (note the quote marks) 50% paid for by taxpayer model, then take it up with him, not me. Personally, I think George is a fine blogger and I’ll take his information at face value until I see something that says otherwise.

Also, if you want to pull out the Ilitch vs. Lemieux philanthrophy-dicks so we can have a measuring contest, I’m happy to oblige.

Who compared Lemieux’s philanthropy to Ilitch’s philanthropy? Twas not I. I said nothing about anyone’s actual philanthropy.

I merely noted that when Ilitch asks for the same charity other owners have done, Wings fans such as yourself excuse it as if it were philanthropy, while happily chiding other markets for similar or lesser perceived grievances.

Of course, you’re free to find evidence of yourself making similar excuses for, say, Darryl Katz in order to prove me wrong.

  beginning construction on a house 4 years before a lockout

2009 was 3 years ago.  This is pretty simple math and you were wrong by 33%.  That’s pretty awful.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 04:16 PM ET

Well, if you’re going to be that pedantic about it, construction started in early spring of 2009. 3 years from then would be roughly March or April of 2012. It is now December of 2012, which is a difference of roughly 8 or 9 months, or 3/4 of a year. 3 3/4 of a year is 1/4 of a year off from my number and 3/4 of a year off from yours. And that’s only if we use ground being broke. If we use property purchase and architectural planning, it would be even further back.

If you’re going to be that petty about something, you need to be less wrong than the other guy, not 3 times as wrong.


But getting back to the point:

How do these two ideas
“Lemieux is responsible for bad optics because he broke ground on a house paid for by his own money 3 3/4 years before a news report criticized him during a lockout that hadn’t started when construction had”

“Ilitch is an awesome philanthropist because he’s getting a huge public handout just before a city declares bankruptcy”

Coexist in the same person’s head?

Posted by larry on 12/05/12 at 05:41 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I also don’t know where you’re getting that I’ve said I think Ilitch should be entitled to any more of that public fund than he’s put in.

“ESPECIALLY especially when the public funds that he has asked for are to come out of a pot of money that he’s specifically paid into as an investment into his city.”

Oh, so you read more than I said.  Gotcha.

I merely noted that when Ilitch asks for the same charity other owners have done, Wings fans such as yourself excuse it as if it were philanthropy, while happily chiding other markets for similar or lesser perceived grievances.

So you’re conflating what you’ve read to every Wings fan and whining about something. 

“Ilitch is an awesome philanthropist because he’s getting a huge public handout just before a city declares bankruptcy”

Great addition of the word “because”, but it has no place here.

You’ve got two points that are extremely jumbled to the situation. The Wings aren’t one of the teams anybody has any question about their profitability. Their owner is talking about creating a new arena funded largely out of private funds and largely out of a return on money invested into his own city.

Meanwhile, Mario Lemieux is part owner of a one of those “barely breaking even” teams who breaks ground on a $20M personal-use mansion during a recession.

How are those two things the same in the same person’s head?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 06:08 PM ET

Avatar
I’m sure Glendale and the Coyotes are a perfect example of the other teams out there.  

Or the Pirates, or the Marlins, or the Tigers for their first 7 years in Comerica, or the Lions their first 6 years in Ford Field, or, or, or, or.

So, which teams have had stadiums financed for them by public money and actually gotten some kind of ROI on those funds?

And since you’re such an honest and forthright fellow I’m sure that you’re presenting the whole picture in a completely honest and unbiased manner to have a genuine conversation.

Look, I get it.  You shot your mouth off and tried to be snarky, and it ended up that you didn’t know bleep about what you were trying to say.  I also get that in the face of looking like a clueless bleep there’s going to be some discomfort. 

It’s okay.  I’m here for you.  We can get through this together.  Let’s just take it one step at a time.

I mean, the only way a city could generate revenue from something like this is by game-night sales.

I mean, the only way they could generate something besides game-night sales was to build a 250 million dollar arena.  Everyone knows you can’t have a concert anywhere but in a multi-sport arena, right?

And that all of those events would just not want to happen in an arena that didn;t have a hockey team the city just shelled out 320 million to, would they?

I mean, can you even imagine Taylor Swift showing up to an arena that didn;t have a crappy NHL team in residence?

-shudder-

Oh, the horror.

But hey, keep being a total a$$hat. It’s really working for you.

Eyeroll.

Read a book, get some weight behind your opinions, and take another run at this, CO.  You’re throwing up all over yourself.

Oh, so you read more than I said.  Gotcha.

“The question mark (?; also known as an interrogation point, interrogation mark, question point, query or eroteme),[1] is a punctuation mark that replaces the full stop (period) at the end of an interrogative sentence in English and many other languages. The question mark is not used for indirect questions. The question mark character is also often used in place of missing or unknown data.”

That will be important information when you read…

“Are you suggesting that since Illtch has contributed x% to that public fund he should be entitled to receive >x% of said public fund?

Note the use of the aforementioned interrogative device at the end of the above sentence.

Then ponder it’s use.  Why, exactly, would such a device be employed?  To make a
declarative statement?  Delve deeply into the mystery and emerge enlightened!

 

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/05/12 at 08:53 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Note the use of the aforementioned interrogative device at the end of the above sentence.

You’ve never answered a question with a question? I knew you were pretty bad at how English works, but that’s a fairly comment rhetorical device.

Again, I’ve given you too much credit in assuming you would understand something. I’m not going to change though. You should catch up with me.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/05/12 at 09:36 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Everyone knows you can’t have a concert anywhere but in a multi-sport arena, right?[/e]

or rodeos, or cicuses.. you think J Biebs is gonna play the Newport?  Where’s the money in it for the event organizers for large scale events, an arena with 19k seats or the Newport that holds what, 2k?

You said you lived in Columbus, I assume you remember the old penitentiary which was just an abandoned old building.  Now most downtown money/out of towners, go through the arena district.  I remember opening up (as an employee) with a business down there and there was a slew of others opening as well.  Once open we made our entire business plans based on arena events.

So there’s absolutely a case to be made for economic growth of a particular area of a city.  That’s not to say C-bus is hurting without hockey because we have other draws in other areas, but Park St. over to Nationwide Ave I’m sure is hurting financially because of the lockout.  Means fewer tax dollars as well in a high value market area of town with above average prices on EVERYTHING.. because of the movin’ and shakin’ of the arena and it’s surrounding business.

So if it breaks down to 60k in tax dollars per event and Nationwide (just an example) has 18k seats, say they use 13 for a conecrt (even though I’ve worked and attended multiple types of events there) at 30$ a seat on average for a non-hockey night you’re looking at 1.8m in ticket rev.  If they pay even, say 5% back to the city in taxes on those sales, that’s 90k right there.  Not including all the revenues being generated by the surrounding business.  It’s not necessarily a bad investment everytime or indeed majority of arenas would not be publicly funded.  There has to be money coming in SOMEWHERE.

Unless you’re more like me and think that a politician probably bought stock in nationwide or real-estate or SOMETHING before making it official and “insider trade” their own personal wealth growth.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 12/05/12 at 09:40 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/05/12 at 08:53 PM ET

Another canned reponse from HD. 

Your attempt to cook the books was terrible and someone called you out on it.  You intentionally ignored a large portion of the picture to paint a different one that suits your narrative and got called out on that too.  So, in an attempt to change the topic of discussion, you cut and past some terribly uncreative insults instead of actually addressing the comments at hand.

There aren’t hundreds of major sports arenas around the country/world because they are bad investments and rich people and cities want to flush their money.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 12/06/12 at 10:37 AM ET

Avatar

if it breaks down to 60k in tax dollars per event and Nationwide (just an example) has 18k seats, say they use 13 for a concert .... at 30$ a seat on average for a non-hockey night you’re looking at 1.8m in ticket rev

What I am not sure of is if this is not just discretionary income that would have spent anyway without the civic capital investment.  That’s why I’m never 100% sure that these are good investments for the community. IF you spend the same money on fixing your infrastructure or tax breaks for restaurants and bars you may see a better tax return on investment. 

I keep recalling, sorry I can’t site references, that many economists say that the addition of sports arenas really don’t do that much in a cost-benefit trade for the community. It may just be because they include the Olympics in those numbers and Salt Lake may have been one of the few profitable venues in the history of that event.  I think sports arenas and teams are more of a civic pride thing and more of an emotional investment than a sound rational economic investments. It will certainly boost the micro-local economy and can serve to re-vitalize a neighborhood, but may just be at the expense of another part of the local economy.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 12/06/12 at 12:00 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 12/06/12 at 12:00 PM ET

Fair enough.  It may not be the BEST investment.  I still don’t see why some commenters here seem to think that Illitch should be drawn and quartered for having the audacity to make such a proposal.  Some of the same commenters that frequently espouse the philosophy that the NHL owners should do all they can to line their own pockets in any way possible.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 12/06/12 at 01:05 PM ET

Avatar

Their owner is talking about creating a new arena funded largely out of private funds and largely out of a return on money invested into his own city.

You got a quote on any of that? Only thing I’ve seen says “split pretty evenly” and “mirrors ford field and comerica park.” And even citing the source, I’m somehow “making it up.” Yet you think saying “largely” and attributing it to yourself based on what you would like to think is valid.

And again with this twisted idea that the money Ilitch is asking for from the city is something he’s entitled to because he owns a lot of things in the area, which I’m sure you’re quick to bring up any time SSEA wants money from Sunrise for something.

But anyways, this basically answers my question. The two thoughts in question coexist in the same person because said person mentally alters the facts in his own brain so that, instead of asking for corporate welfare just before a city declares bankruptcy, the guy the “thinker” has a man-crush on is really just doing the city a favor by asking for a tiny bit of his own money back (why taxpayer money is Ilitch’s “own” money is anybody’s guess).

Posted by larry on 12/06/12 at 02:32 PM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com