Markham GTA Centre | ?m | ?s | GTA S. and E. | BBB

[RPM]

That may be true, but why the questions now from one of the "partners" in this whole deal?

I don't think that is something they would be in the know on... i'm sure if there is something cooking, roustan and the mayor (maybe a select few others) are the only ones with knowledge. they are under a confidentiality order...

 

[canarob]

Yeah, despite the fact that I think concerts could keep this afloat, I will admit that I do think there is a secret NHL deal -- there are too many rumours of Graeme Roustan having the go ahead for an eventual team for there not to be at least some truth to it. But who knows, we could be into the 2020s before the stars align for that.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't think there is a secret deal with the NHL. If the NHL (read Gary Betteman) were so afraid of the Leafs veto wrt to teams in Waterloo or Hamilton just what do you think the Leafs will say about a team in Markham???

Unless you want to believe that the Leafs veto power is non existent and that Gary's failure to allow a team to move to Hamilton/Waterloo had more to do with his dislike for Jim Balsillie and his antics trying to acquire a franchise.

 

[canarob]

I don't think there is a secret deal with the NHL. If the NHL (read Gary Betteman) were so afraid of the Leafs veto wrt to teams in Waterloo or Hamilton just what do you think the Leafs will say about a team in Markham???

Unless you want to believe that the Leafs veto power is non existent and that Gary's failure to allow a team to move to Hamilton/Waterloo had more to do with his dislike for Jim Balsillie and his antics trying to acquire a franchise.

There's a lot of talk that the NHL believes that Canadian competition law would not allow a veto. As well, Hamilton and Waterloo would have been closer to Buffalo's territory. Markham might still have some influence on Buffalo (e.g., it's just as easy to take the 407 from Hamilton and not worry about crossing the border), but not nearly as much.

 

[TrickyRicky]

^But don't Rogers and Bell now own the Leafs? If so end of speculation. There is a 0% chance of another team in the GTA

 

[alklay]

And if you think there is some "secret deal", I have some swamp land in Florida for you.

 

[TOareaFan]

Yeah, despite the fact that I think concerts could keep this afloat,

Why do you think that when:

"The head of Canada’s biggest concert promotion company and a key player in the proposed $325-million arena in Markham has cast doubts on the project’s viability without a major sports tenant. Riley O’Connor, chair of Live Nation Canada, told the Star on Monday that the arena will need an NHL franchise, other pro hockey or basketball team, because concerts won’t be able to generate enough revenue for a successful business."

I will admit that I do think there is a secret NHL deal -- there are too many rumours of Graeme Roustan having the go ahead for an eventual team for there not to be at least some truth to it. But who knows, we could be into the 2020s before the stars align for that.

Things do change all the time so there is nothing to say there will not be a second NHL team in the GTA ever....but did you just say that if a team lands in Markham sometime in the 2020s (ie. 8 -18 years from now) it is evidence that there was a secret deal today?

 

[TOareaFan]

There's a lot of talk that the NHL believes that Canadian competition law would not allow a veto. As well, Hamilton and Waterloo would have been closer to Buffalo's territory. Markham might still have some influence on Buffalo (e.g., it's just as easy to take the 407 from Hamilton and not worry about crossing the border), but not nearly as much.

There does not need to be a "veto" for the league to not locate here.....just owners agreeing on how they are going to treat each other. If there is agreement within the league that each team has a "territory" that will not be infringed upon without adequate compensation then there need not be a veto...just an agreement.

 

[canarob]

Why do you think that when:

"The head of Canada’s biggest concert promotion company and a key player in the proposed $325-million arena in Markham has cast doubts on the project’s viability without a major sports tenant. Riley O’Connor, chair of Live Nation Canada, told the Star on Monday that the arena will need an NHL franchise, other pro hockey or basketball team, because concerts won’t be able to generate enough revenue for a successful business."

Things do change all the time so there is nothing to say there will not be a second NHL team in the GTA ever....but did you just say that if a team lands in Markham sometime in the 2020s (ie. 8 -18 years from now) it is evidence that there was a secret deal today?

Well, "secret deal" isn't the best way to describe it, I guess. I think Roustan has been told if he has an arena ready he will be in line for a relocation or an expansion team. Obviously nothing has been signed, etc., and I accept that it may never happen or might only happen in 10 years.

Even though he's the chair of Live Nation, Riley O’Connor is just one person with one opinion. As I said before, perhaps MLSE is pressuring him into trying to kill this project. Why else would he care, since his company could only stand to benefit by having another facility to use in the area? His company was the one that said it could bring 130 concerts a year, and the rest of the "partners" agreed that would be enough to break even.

If the MTS Centre could do it in Manitoba, why couldn't Markham do it in the 905? 130 events at the 2008 MTS ticket sales numbers would only be an average of 3,000 an event.

In 2008, the MTS Centre sold 385,427 tickets. These ticket sales included only non-sporting events and did not include hockey games. With the tickets sales the MTS Centre placed as the 19th busiest arena in the world. The arena sat as 11th busiest among facilities in North America, its highest ranking ever, and it remained in the 3rd spot in Canada, after the Bell Centre in Montreal (sixth worldwide) and the Air Canada Centre in Toronto (fifth worldwide).[16] For the year of 2009 it ranked as the 39th busiest arena in the world, and 26th busiest in North America.[17]

I might be dead wrong and this project could be a failure, but all these comments along the lines of "it'll never happen, trust me," etc.. aren't very helpful. I would like to think that Markham's external consultants agreed with the project of 130ish events and that leading to at least breaking even.

 

[TOareaFan]

Even though he's the chair of Live Nation, Riley O’Connor is just one person with one opinion. As I said before, perhaps MLSE is pressuring him into trying to kill this project. Why else would he care, since his company could only stand to benefit by having another facility to use in the area? His company was the one that said it could bring 130 concerts a year, and the rest of the "partners" agreed that would be enough to break even.

Yes, one man but as far as whether or not concerts can generate revenue to support an over $300 million investment he has a more educated opinion than any of us. Or, he could just be acting as a mole for MLSE

If the MTS Centre could do it in Manitoba, why couldn't Markham do it in the 905? 130 events at the 2008 MTS ticket sales numbers would only be an average of 3,000 an event.

I have seen the reports/links showing that the MTS centre is the 19th busiest arena in the world. What is missing from all of those is any comment/estimate of whether the arena is profitable being the 19th busiest arena and, further, whether the operating profit from being the 19th busiest arena in the world (if any) generate any significant return against the investment to build it (keep in mind the investment in Winnipeg is half of what is being talked about in Markham). Also, you have to keep in mind that for indoor shows MTS is the only game in town.....when Bon Jovi (and others) come to Toronto, the new arena in Makham will not be the only game in town...the ACC will still exist as will the SkyDome and other venues.

As I have pointed out, very little of the profit from touring bands and shows finds its way into the hands of arena operators.....they get a venue rental and some food and bev sales (perhaps some parking revenue if they own/control parking).......but the bulk of the ticket revenue and all of the merchandise sales go to the promoter who pays the band and keeps the rest.

I might be dead wrong and this project could be a failure, but all these comments along the lines of "it'll never happen, trust me," etc.. aren't very helpful. I would like to think that Markham's external consultants agreed with the project of 130ish events and that leading to at least breaking even.

To be clear, I have never said it will never happen. As a GTA resident who will not pay any of the cost of this, I am hoping that it does happen. I just think that the people of Makham are being sold a bill of goods based on a "business plan" that is flawed.

 

[canarob]

To be clear, I have never said it will never happen. As a GTA resident who will not pay any of the cost of this, I am hoping that it does happen. I just think that the people of Makham are being sold a bill of goods based on a "business plan" that is flawed.

That wasn't really directed at you, sorry.

You make some good points, but can the venues really make so little off concerts that the 19th busiest arena in the world can't turn a profit? I think a lot of the justification for the investment by the city will be in the spin-off economic activity in Markham Centre. For GTASE, I would agree that if they don't land a hockey team it probably wouldn't have been worth their investment and I don't think they would be here if they didn't think it was a solid possibility.

Also, obviously the Live Nation chairman isn't a "mole," but he may be concerned about his relationship with MLSE given how many venues they control in the GTA. That's not a huge stretch of the imagination.

I do agree that a report containing the projections should be released for public scrutiny.

 

[canarob]

The fact that Live Nation and MLSE are revenue sharing doesn't make Riley O’Connor anything close to a disinterested party.

http://www.venuestoday.com/news/detail/mlse_and_live_nation_launch_comprehensive_joint_venture

The joint venture, which commenced Jan. 1, is multi-year and includes sharing revenues on all Live Nation events at both the 20,000-seat Air Canada Centre owned by MLSE and the nearby 16,000-seat Molson Amphitheatre owned by Live Nation. Maple Leaf Sports has co-promoted events with Live Nation at the arena in the past, but now it’s co-promotion of all events. “Now it’s risk top to bottom,” Hunter said.

Riley O’Connor, Live Nation chairman for Canada, is day-to-day liaison for this joint venture from the promoter side. Mike Evans, Live Nation president-arenas, is working on similar deals with other venues. Evans noted that every negotiation is unique.

Evans agreed with Hunter that a leading scenario for opportunity would be the existence of competitive venues in the marketplace, such as is the case in Toronto, Dallas with American Airlines Center and superpages.com amphitheater and Anaheim, Calif., with Honda Center and Verizon Wireless Amphitheater. But “it’s different in every market,” Hunter said. “Where there are close-in-proximity buildings competing against each other Live Nation would rather partner. Mike Rapino (Live Nation president & CEO) has said they would like to partner with venues top to bottom.”

 

[Jonny5]

You make some good points, but can the venues really make so little off concerts that the 19th busiest arena in the world can't turn a profit?

I don't think there is any basis to speculate. What does 19th busiest "arena" in the world even mean? Does that exclude stadiums and concert halls, etc...?

 

[TOareaFan]

That wasn't really directed at you, sorry.

You make some good points, but can the venues really make so little off concerts that the 19th busiest arena in the world can't turn a profit?

There is, simply, not enough information in the statement "19th busiest" to draw any conclusion (in either direction) about profitibility. Only when you know revenues and expenses can that be done.

Also, obviously the Live Nation chairman isn't a "mole," but he may be concerned about his relationship with MLSE given how many venues they control in the GTA. That's not a huge stretch of the imagination.

I think the time (if any) to be concerned about their relationship with MLSE was before they got involved in the new arena. I would imagine that they would have had conversations with MLSE prior to that.

 

[JMSRead]

^But don't Rogers and Bell now own the Leafs? If so end of speculation. There is a 0% chance of another team in the GTA

Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Bell and Rogers bought MLSE for access to content, as much as anything.

Even though a 2nd NHL team in the region would be competition in a sense, in all likelihood its games would air on TSN or Sportsnet (TV and Radio). They would welcome more highly rated live sports content. Plus, the Leafs are pretty iron clad. Not like they're going to stop selling tickets if a 2nd team shows up.