Edmonton & Ottawa profitability

[danishh]

There's only one Canadian territory that could easily accommodate a second NHL team-- and thus there is one NHL franchise that doesn't wish to have its turf divvied up.


Guess who?

Um... Rupert's Land and the flames?

 

[Fugu]

Um... Rupert's Land and the flames?

I've wondered why Quebec produces a million tons of maple syrup per second, but the other guys get named after the sacred tree of Canada.

 

[danishh]

I've wondered why Quebec produces a million tons of maple syrup per second, but the other guys get named after the sacred tree of Canada.

once the british got everything, they decided that anything good would be credited to upper canada.



hmm... this thread is going a bit OT, so i'll add something of value:
Senators Sports and Entertainment (not The Ottawa Senators) has also made a good amount of money off real-estate development since melnyk took over. Other than the auto mall, i'm pretty sure everything around SBP was once owned by the senators.

 

[peter sullivan]

Everyone keeps going on and on about how the 6 Canadian franchises make up 31% of the leagues profits.

the actual story is that canadian teams make up 31% of ticket revenue.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/05/30/nhl-revenues-canada.html

even if we go with your argument regarding profit, im not sure how you cant understand that moving a team that loses $20m a year to a market that will break even or make a profit of any kind does not improve the profit for the league.

it is the same with revenues....if you take a team with $65m in revenues and move them somewhere that they will have $80m in revenues the league overall will have greater revenue....its a pretty simple concept.

this argument that more canadian teams will hurt the tv revenues for the existing teams is off base in my opinion as well....if you take the 24 games per year that the three western canadian teams play phoenix and change that to winnipeg, you will not only have the 200k original viewers from the alberta or BC market, but you now have added 100-150k manitoba viewers....not only will there be increased viewership which translates into increased revenues because there are now two markets being served, but the geographic rivalries that will develop with 4 western canadian teams will increase interest in the existing markets.

as well, the largest national tv contract the NHL has is in canada...adding more product improves the bargaining position for the league when they negotiate the terms....having a team in atlanta with average ratings of 10k viewers per thrashers game will not be a significant bargaining chip for an american tv contract......adding 120k viewers in manitoba will be for the NHL in canada.

any national tv contract in the US will be based on viewers in the northern markets.....atlanta and phoenix are inconsequential....

 

[peter sullivan]

What people say and how people vote behind closed doors are two different things. Canadian NHL owners have a history of blocking new Canadian franchises.

Canadian owners don't want more Canadian franchises despite what they say publicly.

BOG approval for quebecor and TNSE will not be an issue.

 

[Mathradio]

Oh I know!

The Province of Quebec and the Montreal Canadiens!

The CH would rather welcome a new rivalry; Habs-Nords games would boost ratings on whoever would then carry these games. They think that what they could lose from a TV standpoint, they can earn it back on merchandise and increased ticket prices for Habs-Nords games. (And maybe raise the prices of Bruins games at the Bell as well) I don't think the Molsons are as protective as either Buffalo or MLSE would be.

However, Detroit would be more inclined to accept a move to Winnipeg if it meant relocating one of NY Islanders, Panthers or Thrashers.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Both of these markets are the WORST for Canada. Which is funny....if you put the Oiler's numbers in Atlanta.......people would be calling for a parade.
Hamilton would be a similar market to Ottawa as well...but without the downturn.
These cool markets like Ottawa, Edmonton, Hamilton, etc.....screw them! They will never be able to handle pro-sports. Ever. If you don't have 4 million plus in the area....yer screwed....but that means the NHL will want to stay with you for the next three decades.

 

[KevFu]

In all seriousness, what does total profits of the teams in the league ("NHL revenues to top $1.2 billion!") actually mean that's of any importance?

If Winnipeg and Quebec are cranking out $10 mil in profits a year, each; replacing ATL and FLA (let's not touch PHX for now), there's only TWO people that actually helps financially: The owners of Winnipeg and Quebec's teams.

It doesn't help a single other individual within the league (with the possible exception of if WIN/QUE spend more on payroll than ATL/FLA, the 50 players on their roster would make more money, plus anyone in a bidding war in free agency might profit).

But the LEAGUE doesn't get any more money out of this. TOR, NYR, MON, etc aren't going to see lower revenue sharing payments. It just bumps #14 and #15 in revenue to #16 and #17 and everyone from #16 down gets a check.

And in actuality, it might be worse for the league because the CBA is based on midpoint. If WIN/QUE generate more revenue, the midpoint for the league goes up. So you'd have more teams currently in the middle that would be further from it. Instead of having 18 teams within $4.5 mil of the midpoint, you might end up with only 12.


That sounds like I'm bagging on WIN and QUE, when I'm not. There IS a tradeoff with WIN/QUE taking over for ATL/FLA (I use Florida because PHX situation with the NHL running the team is abnormal and complicates the discussion).

But the small market size of WIN/QUE in my opinion is actually good for the league. CAL and EDM are quite small markets compared to 25 of the other teams in the league. Their fan base's passion makes the teams profitable. Their owners are getting more dollars per person in those cities than is happening in a city like Dallas. For that reason, WIN and QUE wouldn't be like a TOR, MON, PHI, NYR, etc. The lack of corporate sponsorship, suite buyers, TV rights revenues, etc. would keep WIN and QUE in the middle in terms of revenue, like EDM and CAL are

Which is actually what we need. The ideal situation is for the NHL's teams to be as close as possible in revenue.

We have 11 teams above the midpoint, 16 above or within $7 mil of the midpoint in revenue; and 8 teams $20 mil+ from the midpoint

IF we put PHX in Hamilton that was "Top 5" like the Phoenix bankruptcy case stipulated, the midpoint goes up:
10 teams above the midpoint, 15 within $7 mil, 8 teams $20+ mil from it.

IF we put PHX in Winnipeg or Quebec, with revenues slightly less than EDM's $85m...
11 teams above the midpoint, 15 within $7 mil, 8 teams $20 mil+ from it.

IF we put PHX in Win, ATL in QUE...
9 teams above the midpoint, 14 teams within $7 mil, 7 teams $20 mil+ from it. (The middle class just became the poor middle class)

Ideally, what would happen would be if we put PHX in Houston (Dallas revenue of $95m), FLA/ATL in WIN and QUE ($85m each), and the Islanders get a new arena (slightly less than the Devils revenue of $100m), the midpoint goes up just as much as Hamilton scenario, but you have four teams in the middle:

10 teams above the midpoint, 16 within $7 mil of the midpoint, and only FIVE $20+ from it.


It's not really about "These kinds of markets should have teams and these shouldn't." It's about the right balance of big hockey markets (TOR, NYR, CHI, MON, DET, PHI), small gate-driven great hockey markets (EDM, CAL, WIN, QUE, BUF, CAR), middle-size good hockey markets (PIT, SJ, STL, TB), and big cities that are "growth" markets for hockey (ATL, PHX, Miami).

Moving PHX or ATL to WIN or QUE is a good idea. But not moving both.

 

[wjhl2009fan]

Both of these markets are the WORST for Canada. Which is funny....if you put the Oiler's numbers in Atlanta.......people would be calling for a parade.
Hamilton would be a similar market to Ottawa as well...but without the downturn.
These cool markets like Ottawa, Edmonton, Hamilton, etc.....screw them! They will never be able to handle pro-sports. Ever. If you don't have 4 million plus in the area....yer screwed....but that means the NHL will want to stay with you for the next three decades.

I don't see how in any way there bad for canada both do well attendance and both are on solid footing in terms of revue they bring in for the most part.To say ottawa and edmonton can't handle pro sports is false both as many have said have been top teams in attendance for years and likely will be tops in attendance for years to come.You don't move teams that do we attendance wise with so many teams with attendnace issue big attendance issues you don't move a couple of the more stable teams.As for hamilton would be similar maybe but again as other have said ottawa makes a fair amount of money off other events such as the bluesfest the 67s the list goes on.As for if you don't have 4 million plus you can't handle pro sports thats really not true some smaller citys do a very good job supporting pro sports while some larger citys have trouble.Look at toronto just as a exzample they have 2 teams the leafs and toronto fc with no attendance issues every other teams has attendance issues to some degree.

 

[danishh]

Both of these markets are the WORST for Canada. Which is funny....if you put the Oiler's numbers in Atlanta.......people would be calling for a parade.
Hamilton would be a similar market to Ottawa as well...but without the downturn.
These cool markets like Ottawa, Edmonton, Hamilton, etc.....screw them! They will never be able to handle pro-sports. Ever. If you don't have 4 million plus in the area....yer screwed....but that means the NHL will want to stay with you for the next three decades.

jeff, i know you're a hamilton fan, but:

1. Hamilton is 3rd on the list of likely new/relocated canadian franchises
2. I'd be very surprised if Hamilton did any better than Ottawa. They would have the same market penetration issues, would have a smaller arena (even after renovations), and wouldnt get non-hockey revenue out of copps like ottawa does. Hamilton would be edmonton, or worse. If you added winnipeg, quebec, and hamilton, hamilton would likely be the weakest financially of the 9 canadian franchises.

 

[RedWingsRule]

jeff, i know you're a hamilton fan, but:

1. Hamilton is 3rd on the list of likely new/relocated canadian franchises
2. I'd be very surprised if Hamilton did any better than Ottawa. They would have the same market penetration issues, would have a smaller arena (even after renovations), and wouldnt get non-hockey revenue out of copps like ottawa does. Hamilton would be edmonton, or worse. If you added winnipeg, quebec, and hamilton, hamilton would likely be the weakest financially of the 9 canadian franchises.

Gonna have to disagree with all of this. Sure there may be alot of Leafs/Sabres fans in the area but I don't see that affecting them at all. There is just too much big time money in the area and tickets are just so hard to come by for Leafs games that people would buy tickets to Hamilton games instead.

 

[golfortennis]

To reiterate what an early post said, moving a team to Canada will be good for the particular owner, but I can't see it being necessarily a huge plus for the league overall, because as mentioned, Canadian revenues are likely pretty closed to maxed out.

From a league perspective, you have to take into account the revenue that comes in from the franchise you move(yes, Southern US markets do have *some* revenue), then you have to figure out how much of the revenue for the relocated team is actually new revenue, as opposed to money that people spent on other teams. (ie. is money spent on a new Hamilton team money that wasn't spent, or just money that was spent on Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa, Detroit, etc.).

The TV revenue dynamics would also change. The last number I heard(and it's dated so please update me) was the Leafs getting $500,000 a game. If a team shows up in Hamilton, the Leafs' rights fee will be adjusted the next time its up for negotitation. A team in Hamilton will take some eyeballs away from Leafs' broadcasts. How much is unknown, but it won't be a simple case of we have x currently, and you just simply add Hamilton's y. Quebec would likely see the same dynamic, possibly to an even greater degree. There will be some kind of adjustment to x. It's a matter of figuring out how big the net impact of the move is.

The individual owner by comparison will rolling in cash, but will it need to enough net new revenue?

 

[wjhl2009fan]

Gonna have to disagree with all of this. Sure there may be alot of Leafs/Sabres fans in the area but I don't see that affecting them at all. There is just too much big time money in the area and tickets are just so hard to come by for Leafs games that people would buy tickets to Hamilton games instead.

I am not sure how true that is sure some may but your not going to have a ton of hard core leaf fans buy tickets in hamilton.Its like saying hard core yankee fans would buy mets tickets because its cheaper and easier to get tickets to.

 

[berklon]

To reiterate what an early post said, moving a team to Canada will be good for the particular owner, but I can't see it being necessarily a huge plus for the league overall, because as mentioned, Canadian revenues are likely pretty closed to maxed out.

I heard the same thing 10 and 20 years ago... hockey is maxed out in Canada.. yet revenue in Canada grew. The idea that everyone in Canada watches hockey is wrong. There's still a lot of room to grow the game here... there are a lot of people who still don't watch hockey... especially when you take into consideration the number of people immigrating to Canada.

 

[berklon]

I am not sure how true that is sure some may but your not going to have a ton of hard core leaf fans buy tickets in hamilton.Its like saying hard core yankee fans would buy mets tickets because its cheaper and easier to get tickets to.

I know a ton of hardcore Leaf fans who go to Buffalo to watch games - even when the Leafs aren't playing. The same with fans of other teams. They prefer to watch their team play in Buffalo, but still go down to see the Sabres play anyone. People here just like watching NHL hockey.

 

[HamiltonFan]

In all seriousness, what does total profits of the teams in the league ("NHL revenues to top $1.2 billion!") actually mean that's of any importance?

If Winnipeg and Quebec are cranking out $10 mil in profits a year, each; replacing ATL and FLA (let's not touch PHX for now), there's only TWO people that actually helps financially: The owners of Winnipeg and Quebec's teams.

It doesn't help a single other individual within the league (with the possible exception of if WIN/QUE spend more on payroll than ATL/FLA, the 50 players on their roster would make more money, plus anyone in a bidding war in free agency might profit).

But the LEAGUE doesn't get any more money out of this. TOR, NYR, MON, etc aren't going to see lower revenue sharing payments. It just bumps #14 and #15 in revenue to #16 and #17 and everyone from #16 down gets a check.

And in actuality, it might be worse for the league because the CBA is based on midpoint. If WIN/QUE generate more revenue, the midpoint for the league goes up. So you'd have more teams currently in the middle that would be further from it. Instead of having 18 teams within $4.5 mil of the midpoint, you might end up with only 12.


That sounds like I'm bagging on WIN and QUE, when I'm not. There IS a tradeoff with WIN/QUE taking over for ATL/FLA (I use Florida because PHX situation with the NHL running the team is abnormal and complicates the discussion).

But the small market size of WIN/QUE in my opinion is actually good for the league. CAL and EDM are quite small markets compared to 25 of the other teams in the league. Their fan base's passion makes the teams profitable. Their owners are getting more dollars per person in those cities than is happening in a city like Dallas. For that reason, WIN and QUE wouldn't be like a TOR, MON, PHI, NYR, etc. The lack of corporate sponsorship, suite buyers, TV rights revenues, etc. would keep WIN and QUE in the middle in terms of revenue, like EDM and CAL are

Which is actually what we need. The ideal situation is for the NHL's teams to be as close as possible in revenue.

We have 11 teams above the midpoint, 16 above or within $7 mil of the midpoint in revenue; and 8 teams $20 mil+ from the midpoint

IF we put PHX in Hamilton that was "Top 5" like the Phoenix bankruptcy case stipulated, the midpoint goes up:
10 teams above the midpoint, 15 within $7 mil, 8 teams $20+ mil from it.

IF we put PHX in Winnipeg or Quebec, with revenues slightly less than EDM's $85m...
11 teams above the midpoint, 15 within $7 mil, 8 teams $20 mil+ from it.

IF we put PHX in Win, ATL in QUE...
9 teams above the midpoint, 14 teams within $7 mil, 7 teams $20 mil+ from it. (The middle class just became the poor middle class)

Ideally, what would happen would be if we put PHX in Houston (Dallas revenue of $95m), FLA/ATL in WIN and QUE ($85m each), and the Islanders get a new arena (slightly less than the Devils revenue of $100m), the midpoint goes up just as much as Hamilton scenario, but you have four teams in the middle:

10 teams above the midpoint, 16 within $7 mil of the midpoint, and only FIVE $20+ from it.


It's not really about "These kinds of markets should have teams and these shouldn't." It's about the right balance of big hockey markets (TOR, NYR, CHI, MON, DET, PHI), small gate-driven great hockey markets (EDM, CAL, WIN, QUE, BUF, CAR), middle-size good hockey markets (PIT, SJ, STL, TB), and big cities that are "growth" markets for hockey (ATL, PHX, Miami).

Moving PHX or ATL to WIN or QUE is a good idea. But not moving both.

You're assuming that the present revenue sharing agreement would remain in effect. If 3 of the southern money bleeders were to move to Canada, then it's a reasonable assumption that the revenue sharing agreement would be altered to reflect the new reality, thus reducing the revenue sharing burden of the rich teams. Less money losing teams equals less overall need for revenue sharing. The present revenue sharing agreement isn't some generic plan that was superimposed on the NHL. It's a custom made plan designed to reflect the NHL's specific economics.

 

[Valic]

The Oilers when they get their new Arena will likely have a huge spike in proftibility.

 

[mouser]

I
If Winnipeg and Quebec are cranking out $10 mil in profits a year, each; replacing ATL and FLA (let's not touch PHX for now), there's only TWO people that actually helps financially: The owners of Winnipeg and Quebec's teams.

It doesn't help a single other individual within the league (with the possible exception of if WIN/QUE spend more on payroll than ATL/FLA, the 50 players on their roster would make more money, plus anyone in a bidding war in free agency might profit).

But the LEAGUE doesn't get any more money out of this. TOR, NYR, MON, etc aren't going to see lower revenue sharing payments. It just bumps #14 and #15 in revenue to #16 and #17 and everyone from #16 down gets a check.

Their revenue sharing payment could actually go up since revenue sharing is defined as a % of overall league revenue.

 

[wjhl2009fan]

I know a ton of hardcore Leaf fans who go to Buffalo to watch games - even when the Leafs aren't playing. The same with fans of other teams. They prefer to watch their team play in Buffalo, but still go down to see the Sabres play anyone. People here just like watching NHL hockey.

Sure there are some but there are aslo some that won't watch anything but the leafs.

 

[therealkoho]

$25M


but it was still ridiculous.

MLSE gets free land in DT toronto. Sens have to pay for an interchange.


**** you bob rae.

the province as well as the city was willing to give them LeBreton Flats to put the arena on and thereby sparking an urban renaissance of sorts. The truth is that Bryden(who was also the Senators owner) and his development company already owned the land that SBP now sits on.

Bryden sold the land to Ottawa Senators Hockey and made a very healthy profit and then gave the project management contract back to his company and double ended the deal. He then pushed to have the land re-zoned so he could build the arena and petitioned the province to build the ramp.

The province had no obligation whatsoever to provide a private company with a 30m dollar favour, not to mention there is already a very good offramp at Terry Fox that serves the purpose. His initial failure to play ball with them on LeBreton is what cost him the ramp, basically it was his own avarice that cost him.

you do know that the train yards where the ACC sits, was free only in one sense, the cost of a dollar for title transfer was inconsequential, the cost of the environmental clean-up was shouldered by MLS&E and went into the millions. so hardly free

 

[Killion]

What people say and how people vote behind closed doors are two different things. Canadian NHL owners have a history of blocking new Canadian franchises.Canadian owners don't want more Canadian franchises despite what they say publicly.

Bingo. Any public comment that's not favorable to the heartfelt wishes of paying customers in Winnipeg, Southern Ontario & QC is heresy, while behind closed doors many hold completely opposite views. MLSE wont even comment on the matter one way or the other; the Oilers & Flames probably wouldnt object for regional & logistical reasons; Ottawa may not like it, the Habs' ambivalent. As for the Canucks, I really cant say one way or the other as they like MLSE have said little on the subject, strange seeing as how they are looking at losing a prime market & partner (TNSE) for their farm team in Winnipeg. Additionally, they opted out of a regional PPV & web based broadcasting agreement with the Flames & Oilers to do their own thing. The franchise is not noted for playing well with others in the league.

Note; Important to also remember that pre-expansion 67, Punch Imlach had designs on ownership in Vancouver himself & had acquired a stake in the WHL Canucks. He was stocking the team with a few ringers and as Coach/GM of the Leafs as early as 63-64 when expansion was likely coming, deliberately assigned talent to the Leafs farm teams with peculiar contracts that permitted buyouts & all other manner of malfeasance in order to stock his hopefully winning bid for an NHL franchise. Ballard caught wind of it, so, in addition to the broadcasting splits their were other factors involved.

There's only one Canadian territory that could easily accommodate a second NHL team-- and thus there is one NHL franchise that doesn't wish to have its turf divvied up.Guess who?

Oh Father, I'm so ashamed...

BOG approval for quebecor and TNSE will not be an issue.

I think its doable. TNSE is a proven commodity backed by one of the wealthiest men in North America with his own media empire amongst other interests; and Im 2quite certain Quebecor's almost but not quite winning bid for the Habs' combined with its media plans for the Nordiques' has turned many an approving eye towards QC & the french language market it promises to deliver, Un-tapped to a large degree once you go north of the Laurentians. Never mind the arena, Id guess the League & some of the more astute Canadian owners are drooling over that one.

Gonna have to disagree with all of this. Sure there may be alot of Leafs/Sabres fans in the area but I don't see that affecting them at all. There is just too much big time money in the area and tickets are just so hard to come by for Leafs games that people would buy tickets to Hamilton games instead.

Totally agree. Hamiltons' a jackpot. If we could just get Igor down the QEW to pull the switch & give life to the entire region Id be happy-slappy. People claim it would destroy the Sabres, that there isnt enough corporate heft in Hamilton proper etc. Rubbish.

The Oilers when they get their new Arena will likely have a huge spike in proftibility.

And if they dont, a huge spike in portability.

]

 

[wjhl2009fan]

the province as well as the city was willing to give them LeBreton Flats to put the arena on and thereby sparking an urban renaissance of sorts. The truth is that Bryden(who was also the Senators owner) and his development company already owned the land that SBP now sits on.

Bryden sold the land to Ottawa Senators Hockey and made a very healthy profit and then gave the project management contract back to his company and double ended the deal. He then pushed to have the land re-zoned so he could build the arena and petitioned the province to build the ramp.

The province had no obligation whatsoever to provide a private company with a 30m dollar favour, not to mention there is already a very good offramp at Terry Fox that serves the purpose. His initial failure to play ball with them on LeBreton is what cost him the ramp, basically it was his own avarice that cost him.

you do know that the train yards where the ACC sits, was free only in one sense, the cost of a dollar for title transfer was inconsequential, the cost of the environmental clean-up was shouldered by MLS&E and went into the millions. so hardly free

With the LeBreton flats thats really not true the city and prov did not do alot tohelp them at the time when they were buiulding the rink.It was not a matter of them playing hard ball with the city it had alot mroe to do with some were aginst the arena beeing built and fighting it.Toronto has had its fair share of breaks on stadiums from the land for the acc to the rogers centre to bmo field the list goes on and on.

 

[wjhl2009fan]

I heard the same thing 10 and 20 years ago... hockey is maxed out in Canada.. yet revenue in Canada grew. The idea that everyone in Canada watches hockey is wrong. There's still a lot of room to grow the game here... there are a lot of people who still don't watch hockey... especially when you take into consideration the number of people immigrating to Canada.

There is alot of room to grow the nhl hockey over all is getting maxed out.

 

[danishh]

the province as well as the city was willing to give them LeBreton Flats to put the arena on and thereby sparking an urban renaissance of sorts. The truth is that Bryden(who was also the Senators owner) and his development company already owned the land that SBP now sits on.

Bryden sold the land to Ottawa Senators Hockey and made a very healthy profit and then gave the project management contract back to his company and double ended the deal. He then pushed to have the land re-zoned so he could build the arena and petitioned the province to build the ramp.

The province had no obligation whatsoever to provide a private company with a 30m dollar favour, not to mention there is already a very good offramp at Terry Fox that serves the purpose. His initial failure to play ball with them on LeBreton is what cost him the ramp, basically it was his own avarice that cost him.

you've got quite a lot wrong there.

- NCC always owned the land at lebreton. Nothing Ottawa or Ontario could do.
- NCC wasnt interested in developing around an arena. They always wanted the area to center around a museum.
- Bruce Firestone was the developer (through his company Terrace), not Bryden. Firestone only chose the ottawa-west/kanata site and bought up additional land once it was clear that lebreton and landsdowne had no chance in hell of working.

you should read some of firestone's explanations of the situation in the OBJ. I believe he was talking about the subject a few times in the early 00's.

 

[therealkoho]

you've got quite a lot wrong there.

- NCC always owned the land at lebreton. Nothing Ottawa or Ontario could do.
- NCC wasnt interested in developing around an arena. They always wanted the area to center around a museum.
- Bruce Firestone was the developer (through his company Terrace), not Bryden. Firestone only chose the ottawa-west/kanata site and bought up additional land once it was clear that lebreton and landsdowne had no chance in hell of working.

you should read some of firestone's explanations of the situation in the OBJ. I believe he was talking about the subject a few times in the early 00's.

The relationships between the major players in the the whole Ottawa Senators saga is best described as incestuous. Bryden was in it from the start my friend. Truth be told Firestone, looked good on the surface but didn't have the kind of money necessary to go it alone with Terrace and so they needed investors of which Bryden was one. Jimmy Durrell put them all together along with some of the so called Bank St Mafia guys and between them they were able to come up with about half of the 5m dollar initial fee to the NHL and a promise to build a new arena. It is no coincidence that both Mike Cowpland and Terry Matthews turned them down flat as far as getting involved with the deal. Those two both had real money and knew Firestone and the rest of that crew were merely poseurs.

I know what the "official" story says, but what really went on behind the scenes is a whole lot different. LeBreton was sitting vacant and barren at the time and the "War Museum" wasn't on the radar in the least as it was an unprofitable derelict sitting opposite "City Centre." LeBreton had been talked about off and on for about 15 years as a great place for development as the NCC wanted it off their hands, it wasn't making them a dime and the arena meant lots of income and why it was inititally offered to them through the city/province.

I was still very active in the Ottawa business community at the time and had a very close up view of what really went on and oh my it was high comedy. Those guys left so many people holding the bag it was shameful.