Confirmed with Link: Melnyk talks about new coach, new arena, etc

[Sun God Nika]

I doubt very much that the NCC would sign an agreement that would permit a delay of 20 years before construction begins. There will be timeframes specified in any agreement that must be met, and penalties that would apply if they are not met.

In any event I suspect it will take a few years to work out the details and complete construction.

Thanks Cosmix for your educated posts as always.

 

[Micklebot]

I doubt very much that the NCC would sign an agreement that would permit a delay of 20 years before construction begins. There will be timeframes specified in any agreement that must be met, and penalties that would apply if they are not met.

In any event I suspect it will take a few years to work out the details and complete construction.

20 years is likely a bit of hyperbole, but there is some validity to the fact that it will be years before shovels break the ground on whatever is built, and if it's an arena, it will likely take 1.5 to 2 years to build.

The initial proposal for the Palladium was made in 89, Ottawa was awarded a franchise in 90, and the arena wasn't opened until 96 (it took 18 months to build, so they didn't even start construction until 94).

NCC could slow things a bit, so 10 years isn't a bad guess from whenever this gets settled.

 

[BonkTastic]

To say "there is a lot going on here but cant write about it" is ridiculous and to be honest sounds like someone who is back peddling because they've painted themself into a corner.

I honestly couldn't care less. Someone on the internet doesn't believe me! Heavens to betsy!

It's entirely within your right to believe whatever you want - don't let my opinions change that. I'm not trying to win an argument here, I'm trying to give a bit of background on how I form MY opinion. I'm giving insight on why I have a particular view of things.

How the hell have I painted myself into a corner? I'd love to know the context behind this point of view.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I doubt very much that the NCC would sign an agreement that would permit a delay of 20 years before construction begins. There will be timeframes specified in any agreement that must be met, and penalties that would apply if they are not met.

In any event I suspect it will take a few years to work out the details and complete construction.

It happens quite a bit. Many companies buy land, or strike agreements that only take into effect years down the line.

We also have to remember, there's still a few years left of decontamination work to be done, years of financing, just making up blueprints for a new arena, consultations with the NHL (who knows, there might be some quiet mandate soon to make all new arenas capable of eventually switching to international ice dimensions), Ottawa red tape (you know, incase there's a 2-inch deep puddle somewhere on the land that might support a frog or something), and having to sell the land in Kanata.

It's going to be a long process, no matter where the new arena ends up.

 

[coladin]

That is unequivocally horse ****.

When I worked for the team, we'd always hear Cy (Leeder) talking about future upgrades to the arena, because "we're so lucky to have a building that was built right", and "we feel comfortable investing in the building because we can reap the benefits for the next 25+ years". I can't even begin to get into all the arena upgrades the team had in line until money issues sidelined them.

Now that a new arena site may be available, Melnyk's tune CONVENIENTLY changes? Eff that. I want a new arena as much as he next guy, but be honest about the process. Lying about this stuff is the kind of thing that will sour NCC & the city on working with you on a new arena deal, you frigging pathalogical liar.

Maybe you shouldn't take what Lucky Luke says for gospel. Melnyk said "30 to 40 years", not, nor never 30 years. That places the building near halfway in its cycle. Could be a lot more if you look after it, but a 40 year old building would have us with a Nassau Coliseum-like building at the end of the lifespan.

You are way off base. Accusing him of lying when all you had to do was watch the clip...

 

[BonkTastic]

Maybe you shouldn't take what Lucky Luke says for gospel. Melnyk said "30 to 40 years", not, nor never 30 years. That places the building near halfway in its cycle. Could be a lot more if you look after it, but a 40 year old building would have us with a Nassau Coliseum-like building at the end of the lifespan.

You are way off base. Accusing him of lying when all you had to do was watch the clip...

I watched the clip. I'M THE ONE WHO MADE THE SUMMARY ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE THREAD.

I don't even know what you're arguing here. Are you saying my personal experiences were wrong?

 

[coladin]

I watched the clip. I don't even know what you're arguing here.

You responded to "Lucky Luke" who said:

"Melnyk says that the current building wasn't built to last 30 years...

Unreal..."

... and your response to him was flying off the handle, saying "That is unequivocally horse ****."

You call him a pathological liar and whatnot, it has been thoroughly argued up to this point. What is precisely wrong with the building lasting 40 years? How old is Nassau Colisuem?

He said thanks to what they invest in the building it looks the way it does. I suppose if you ran it to the ground, yes, in 30 - 40 years, the place would be rundown and in need of major renovation. The building is 18 years old and another 22 or so years, why so outlandish?

I just don't see how you think he is a "friggin pathological liar". It was a clear, concise interview and still people out there rip the owner for no reason.

 

[Ice-Tray]

My point was that there is no such thing as tone, as understood in a litterary sense, on an internet forum

The high variance in the types of people who interact on a internet forum means the notion of a "universally understood use of tone in written communication" is false

You are of course still wrong, and your added second paragraph just serves to illustrate how far off the mark you have ventured. I did get a chuckle out of it though, so thanks for that.

I have already shown you to be wrong, going to far as to provide you with the definition of the word and several examples explaining clearly that you are wrong. The fact that you continue thinking the way you do says a lot about you, and how you deal with being wrong. To each their own I suppose.

I will not discuss this issue further with you, as you are clearly a lost cause.

 

[coladin]

I finally got around to listening to the interview. It really did not change my perception in terms of the proposal for a new arena. In my opinion, as a taxpayer I do not want to see my tax dollars poured into a new building if the current one is still fine.

The location in Kanata is less than ideal unless you live that area, so I can see why the team would want to relocate, and why a lot of fans would want an arena that is more central. IMO, the land should be made available to the team if they pay for building a new arena without taxpayer dollars.

If the current arena is fine then a new one is a luxury item and, quite frankly, I can come up with 100 places where I would rather see the three levels of government spending my tax dollars.

I agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with CTC, and it still has over 20 years left in it. Personally, I don't think they would put a shovel in the ground for another 15 years or so anyways. It has taken this long to put in those godawful, uninspiring condos at LF, so what's another decade.

Furthermore, I was able to get to the arena nd out in record time. It didn't even clog once when I went and on the way out there was no traffic at all. Cut a good 10 minutes each way for me.

As I said earlier, there are a lot more important issue in Ottawa than another stadium.

 

[BonkTastic]

You responded to "Lucky Luke" who said:

"Melnyk says that the current building wasn't built to last 30 years...

Unreal..."

... and your response to him was flying off the handle, saying "That is unequivocally horse ****."

You call him a pathological liar and whatnot, it has been thoroughly argued up to this point. What is precisely wrong with the building lasting 40 years? How old is Nassau Colisuem?

a) OK, wait. Let's be clear on one thing: I'm not calling Luke ANYTHING. Luke seems like a nice guy. I was using Luke's post about Melnyk's quote as a jumping off point to discuss Melnyk's quote. I didn't feel the need to correct Luke's "30 year" claim to the accurate "35-40" that Melnyk mentioned, because I didn't think it was really relevant to the argument, but if anyone is miffed that I omitted that step, I apologize. Didn't seem to matter at the time. I'm calling Melnyk a liar, not Luke. You're cool, Luke. We good.

b) Nassau is 45 years old.

c) I personally think that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with a 40-year lifecycle for an arena. One of the major reason the older arenas like Nassau and Northlands are so out of date is because they were built before the necessity to include press boxes and cater to potential corporate income sources. What's wrong with the building lasting 40 years? Well, from a structural standpoint, nothing! Are you saying a 40 year old arena is bad, or good? I'm not sure. I'm saying it's absolutely reasonable to get 40 years out of a building of this sort. Now, whether or not it's profitable to stay where they are because of LOCATION is another argument completely. I'm all for the Sens moving to Lebreton because it makes sense financially, and makes sense for the city. Sure.

He said thanks to what they invest in the building it looks the way it does. I suppose if you ran it to the ground, yes, in 30 - 40 years, the place would be rundown and in need of major renovation. The building is 18 years old and another 22 or so years, why so outlandish?

OK, wait. I think we're on the same page here.

First of all - I agree, 40 years is fine from a structural & upkeep standpoint! I'm arguing exactly the same things here.

Secondly - this is the first time, right now, in this post (both here, and in the above paragraph), that I've talked about my personal opinions on the potential for a 40-year lifespan. Literally every single post I've made up to now has been made in the context of "I was told two different stories about the lifespan which cannot both be true, because they contradict eachother". If we want to talk about my limited opinion on the ongoing feasibility of the structural integrity of the building and it's expected rate of degradation, that's fine... but I'm probably the wrong guy to do anything more than give my best uneducated guess. Of course, why you're using it as a point against me in previous posts I've made today, when I haven't mentioned it at all, seems curious. I haven't been arguing Melnyk's claim from the point of view of an engineer. I am not an engineer. I am just a guy that got told one thing, then got told the opposite thing.

I just don't see how you think he is a "friggin pathological liar". It was a clear, concise interview and still people out there rip the owner for no reason.

I am saying that he's a liar because I have heard two contradictory arguments, and they both can't be right. Either the building was built for a 35-40 year lifespan, or it wasn't. I have heard both arguments in the span of 4 years: first it was, now it's not.

This was a clear, concise interview, that completely contradicts the information I was given before. I'm not ripping the owner for what he said, I'm ripping the owner because he's presented two versions of a fact that both can't be true. If you are at a red light, you can't turn left AND right. A building can't be "built for at least a 35-40 year lifespan" but also "not built for a 35-40 lifecycle".

I'm having a really, really, really, really hard time understanding how my argument is not clear as day. I can't break this down any easier than this: "Team said one thing 4 years ago. Team says the opposite now. Only one can be true, which by definition means the other thing is untrue."

 

[coladin]

a) OK, wait. Let's be clear on one thing: I'm not calling Luke ANYTHING. Luke seems like a nice guy. I was using Luke's post about Melnyk's quote as a jumping off point to discuss Melnyk's quote. I didn't feel the need to correct Luke's "30 year" claim to the accurate "35-40" that Melnyk mentioned, because I didn't think it was really relevant to the argument, but if anyone is miffed that I omitted that step, I apologize. Didn't seem to matter at the time. I'm calling Melnyk a liar, not Luke. You're cool, Luke. We good.

b) Nassau is 45 years old.

c) I personally think that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with a 40-year lifecycle for an arena. One of the major reason the older arenas like Nassau and Northlands are so out of date is because they were built before the necessity to include press boxes and cater to potential corporate income sources. What's wrong with the building lasting 40 years? Well, from a structural standpoint, nothing! Are you saying a 40 year old arena is bad, or good? I'm not sure. I'm saying it's absolutely reasonable to get 40 years out of a building of this sort. Now, whether or not it's profitable to stay where they are because of LOCATION is another argument completely. I'm all for the Sens moving to Lebreton because it makes sense financially, and makes sense for the city. Sure.



OK, wait. I think we're on the same page here.

First of all - I agree, 40 years is fine from a structural & upkeep standpoint! I'm arguing exactly the same things here.

Secondly - this is the first time, right now, in this post (both here, and in the above paragraph), that I've talked about my personal opinions on the potential for a 40-year lifespan. Literally every single post I've made up to now has been made in the context of "I was told two different stories about the lifespan which cannot both be true, because they contradict eachother". If we want to talk about my limited opinion on the ongoing feasibility of the structural integrity of the building and it's expected rate of degradation, that's fine... but I'm probably the wrong guy to do anything more than give my best uneducated guess. Of course, why you're using it as a point against me in previous posts I've made today, when I haven't mentioned it at all, seems curious. I haven't been arguing Melnyk's claim from the point of view of an engineer. I am not an engineer. I am just a guy that got told one thing, then got told the opposite thing.



I am saying that he's a liar because I have heard two contradictory arguments, and they both can't be right. Either the building was built for a 35-40 year lifespan, or it wasn't. I have heard both arguments in the span of 4 years: first it was, now it's not.

This was a clear, concise interview, that completely contradicts the information I was given before. I'm not ripping the owner for what he said, I'm ripping the owner because he's presented two versions of a fact that both can't be true. If you are at a red light, you can't turn left AND right. A building can't be "built for at least a 35-40 year lifespan" but also "not built for a 35-40 lifecycle".

I'm having a really, really, really, really hard time understanding how my argument is not clear as day. I can't break this down any easier than this: "Team said one thing 4 years ago. Team says the opposite now. Only one can be true, which by definition means the other thing is untrue."

It just seems that what Melnyk said coincided with the timeline you were given. You stated you worked for the Sens 5 years ago, that would be in 2009. The building was 13 years old. You state you were told at that time that the building should last another 25+ years, which falls in line with what Melnyk says as 27 years would seem to mean"25+" you were told .

Unless I am missing something, what else were you told???

 

[BonkTastic]

It just seems that what Melnyk said coincided with the timeline you were given. You stated you worked for the Sens 5 years ago, that would be in 2009. The building was 13 years old. You state you were told at that time that the building should last another 25+ years, which falls in line with what Melnyk says as 27 years would seem to mean"25+" you were told .

Unless I am missing something, what else were you told???

"was not built to last 30 to 40 years".
vs.
"Definitely will last at least another 25, at minimum" 14 + 25 (at minimum) = "39 at least".

The updated number shaved 9-10 years off of the low end of the building's expected lifespan, at minimum. 39>30. We're talking about shifting the numbers almost 25% on the low end. That's not insignificant.


Again, let me recap: The team has gone from saying "at minimum 39 and possibly longer" to "maybe not even 30".
39-30=9
9 years = 23% of the arena's expected "minimum lifespan" just gone. Just like that.


Anyways, I'm done talking about this. I can't possibly, possibly make this any clearer than I already have, and it's not fair to the other posters who are trying to discuss other issues for me to continue trying to clarify the minutiae of this one very basic idea. If you really want to continue this discussion, I'd be welcome to do it over PM, though to be honest, I'm not sure what more I can really add at this point.

 

[operasen]

Like a dog with a new bone! But, at this rate, it will take another few years to bury.

I got it, but have appreciated your tenacity.

And Melnyk will never recoup any $$ from the sale of the CTC (mall??) that would impact his 600M+ need to invest at Lebreton.

 

[SilverSeven]

"was not built to last 30 to 40 years".
vs.
"Definitely will last at least another 25, at minimum" 14 + 25 (at minimum) = "39 at least".

The updated number shaved 9-10 years off of the low end of the building's expected lifespan, at minimum. 39>30. We're talking about shifting the numbers almost 25% on the low end. That's not insignificant.


Again, let me recap: The team has gone from saying "at minimum 39 and possibly longer" to "maybe not even 30".
39-30=9
9 years = 23% of the arena's expected "minimum lifespan" just gone. Just like that.


Anyways, I'm done talking about this. I can't possibly, possibly make this any clearer than I already have, and it's not fair to the other posters who are trying to discuss other issues for me to continue trying to clarify the minutiae of this one very basic idea. If you really want to continue this discussion, I'd be welcome to do it over PM, though to be honest, I'm not sure what more I can really add at this point.

Why do you believe Leeder over Melnyk exactly?

 

[Upgrayedd]

Like a dog with a new bone! But, at this rate, it will take another few years to bury.

I got it, but have appreciated your tenacity.

And Melnyk will never recoup any $$ from the sale of the CTC (mall??) that would impact his 600M+ need to invest at Lebreton.

I was under the impression the 200 acres alone were worth minimum upwards of 100 mil by itself besides what the building could be sold for if not just torn down.

Add that to the costs of renovation and i believe it will start to make a little more sense finance wise.

 

[operasen]

I think if you take them out of the area, you revert to an empty space again, with an auto-mall next door.

 

[BonkTastic]

Why do you believe Leeder over Melnyk exactly?

Why do you think this is a "Leeder vs Melnyk" issue, exactly?

I can't imagine Leeder was making plans as the president of the Ottawa Senators for multi-million dollar renovation plans without first consulting Melnyk. It's not like Leeder was talking in hushed tones, hoping Euge wouldn't be listening in because they had different opinions on the subject. It's the same voice... and if it's not, then thats a deeper problem, and another conversation entirely.

 

[SilverSeven]

Why do you think this is a "Leeder vs Melnyk" issue, exactly?

I can't imagine Leeder was making plans as the president of the Ottawa Senators for multi-million dollar renovation plans without first consulting Melnyk. It's not like Leeder was talking in hushed tones, hoping Euge wouldn't be listening in because they had different opinions on the subject. It's the same voice... and if it's not, then thats a deeper problem, and another conversation entirely.

They've already done multimillion dollar renovations. They added a scoreboard, TVs, and lighting. All of which are portable. They could shut the building down tomorrow and that would still be money well spent.

 

[BonkTastic]

They've already done multimillion dollar renovations. They added a scoreboard, TVs, and lighting. All of which are portable. They could shut the building down tomorrow and that would still be money well spent.

I agree.

What does this have to do with your question about leeder vs melnyk, or my response to that question about leeder vs melnyk?

 

[SilverSeven]

What does this have to do with your question about leeder vs melnyk?

Talking about renovations (which have taken place) doesnt make Melnyk a liar for saying the lifespan of the building is 30-40 years. Especially when those renovations are the type which can easily be taken out of that building.

The crux of your argument seems to be that the Sens wouldnt spend that money on a building that they are moving out of. Would you not buy a TV because you plan on selling your house in 5 years?

 

[tony d]

We should spend a little more now though with money still left over for our young guys in the future.

 

[BonkTastic]

The crux of your argument seems to be that the Sens wouldnt spend that money on a building that they are moving out of.

Well, it clearly isn't. I have no idea how you could even infer that.

The crux of my argument IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POST ABOUT ME "BELIEVING LEEDER OVER MELNYK" is that Leeder and Melnyk had better be on the same page about things, seeing as how Leeder is responsible for carrying out multi-million dollar projects for the team, such as, for example, building renovations. That is one example of things they should probably see eye to eye about. There are probably many, many other things that they should agree on in order for that professional relationship to work.

I only brought it up in response to the post you made about me "believing Leeder over Melnyk", as though Leeder was somehow telling tales out of turn. Like Leeder was going around saying "25+ years" without running it through Melnyk first.


As an aside, I am actually amazed that I am still explaining this, 24 hours later.

 

[BonkTastic]

Also: in retrospect, I regret even having brought it up in the first place. Next time, I'll keep any insight I have out of it, you can be sure of that. This will be the last time I ever do something like this. I honestly don't have the patience for it.

 

[coladin]

"was not built to last 30 to 40 years".
vs.
"Definitely will last at least another 25, at minimum" 14 + 25 (at minimum) = "39 at least".

The updated number shaved 9-10 years off of the low end of the building's expected lifespan, at minimum. 39>30. We're talking about shifting the numbers almost 25% on the low end. That's not insignificant.


Again, let me recap: The team has gone from saying "at minimum 39 and possibly longer" to "maybe not even 30".
39-30=9
9 years = 23% of the arena's expected "minimum lifespan" just gone. Just like that.


Anyways, I'm done talking about this. I can't possibly, possibly make this any clearer than I already have, and it's not fair to the other posters who are trying to discuss other issues for me to continue trying to clarify the minutiae of this one very basic idea. If you really want to continue this discussion, I'd be welcome to do it over PM, though to be honest, I'm not sure what more I can really add at this point.

Oh I get it now, thanks. You were focussing on the "30" while many others are looking at the "40".

Got it.

 

[Micklebot]

Also: in retrospect, I regret even having brought it up in the first place. Next time, I'll keep any insight I have out of it, you can be sure of that. This will be the last time I ever do something like this. I honestly don't have the patience for it.

Look at the bright side bonk, now we have yet another great example of why we can't have nice things.

There's always someone out there to give a hard time to someone just trying to give some additional insight.