From: bart@splunge.uucp (Barton Oleksy)
Subject: Re: Fight over the Oilers
Organization: Ashley, Howland & Wood
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:45:22 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <allan.726724600@st-lina> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>>
>Pocklington is absolutely right about this...this is why most
>NBA owners are or have built their own buildings, because the
>entire revenue stream from the building is necessary to generate
>the revenue to be competitive...the Palace at Auburn Hills and
>the Target Center are the buildings of the future.

Since (so far) Northlands (who control the Coliseum and reap the
rewards of parking, concessions, etc. at Oiler games) management
is unwilling to renegotiate the lease with Pocklington, I agree that
Puck should build a new arena.  In fact, even IF Northlands does
renegotiate, it would probably be far better in the long run for
Pocklington to have his own arena anyway.  The "skyboxes" at the
Coliseum are exactly that - sky-high.  The players look like little
ants, which is why there's a TV in each room and in the upper reaches
of the rafters...so that the nose-bleed seats and the skybox seats
can actually tell what's happening.  Puck's new arena would have
them at mid-ice level, more of an ideal location if you're spending
$50K (or whatever) for a corporate box.

>Vancouver is building a new building...Winnipeg is being subsidized by

Pocklington's proposed arena was designed by the same company that
designed the Vancouver facility, with some slight changes.  Which is
a little ironic given that Vancouver's Pacific Coliseum and Edmonton's
Northlands Coliseum were designed by the same firm...

Puck's arena will apparently have an ice surface (or "floor", or
what-have-you) that can be raised for rock concerts and such...6 feet,
I believe.

>>In the meantime, a sports columnist for the Edmonton Journal
>>(I don't know who it was; I rarely read the journal)  has encouraged
>>fans to write letters encouraging Puck to sell the team. So far,
>>80% of the people writing in have agreed.
>>
I "heard" that an alderman (Brian Mason) said it would be fine if
Pocklington moved the team...Edmonton would just go ahead and get
ANOTHER team and be better off.  That's blatantly stupid - there's
practically no chance of Edmonton getting another NHL team if the
Oilers leave.

>>Although people acknowledge the problems involved in running a
>>small-market team, they are fed up with Puck selling the best
>>players in order to earn money for his own pocket. Trading vetran
>>players isn't bad; just make sure you get good players for them.
>>(or at least put the money earned back into the Oiler's organization.)
>>
>Gretzky hasn't won any Cups in LA and Messier hasn't won any in NY...
>neither has gotten their team even out of their divisions in the
>playoffs...the Oilers have a Stanley Cup, and come out of their division
>3 times in 4 years...spoilt fans...Edmonton fans deserve Harold Ballard.
>Both Gretzky and Messier seem to have chronic back problems now...
>and Gretzky's production has never come close to being what it was
>in Edmonton...they were on the decline...it was and is naive to
>think that Camelot would have hung around in Edmonton for much longer
>even if Messier and Gretzky had not been traded.  Coffey was expendable
>in both Edmonton and Pittsburgh...although he is the best offensive
>defenseman since Orr.  

>I am sentimental too, but the Gretzky trade was unequivocally a good
>thing, the Oilers could not afford to pay a declining Messier $2.5
>million...it would be a waste of money..., I would have paid Lowe.
>And with Ranford, Fuhr becomes expendable...Ranford is the second
>best goaltender in the world and a few years younger, so it is
>justified to trade away the best goaltender in the world.

I agree with both of you on this.  Sentimentally, I wish the whole
team could have stayed together forever.  However, after seeing what
the NY Islanders went through after keeping their players too long,
I think the Gretz and Messier deals were probably the best in the
long-term.  And if the Oilers somehow miss the playoffs this year,
I think it's still too early to write the whole team off for the rest
of time.  It takes a while to rebuild a team, and the Oilers have done
damn well considering the talent they've lost the last couple of
years.  I agree they should have kept Lowe - I think it's his heart
and grit ("Oiler pride"?) that's missing from the team, plus it shows
a lack of class on the organization's part which makes it tougher to
dig deep for the players.  No excuses, though.

However, there is at least the *appearance* of a poor job rebuilding
the team, especially this year.  Just about everything has gone wrong,
with key players not playing up to potential (Tikkanen, Manson, Gelinas,
well, the list could go on forever it seems), other key players sitting
out (Murphy, Lowe, and others being "benched"), and a general lack of
enthusiasm by the team.  I think if the Oilers had some exciting players
and played an exciting brand of hockey but lost a lot (gee, like the
early Oilers?) the fans wouldn't mind so much.  It's a lot harder to
see a lacklustre effort from many players in a dull, grinding style.
But you're right, Gerald, Oiler fans have been spoiled, and remember
all too well the glory days.  These days pale in comparison, even if
it's not fair to compare.  Plus with general resentment towards Puck,
it's a recipe for disaster.

>The hockey fans in Edmonton are being spoilt and stupid if they let
>their personal feelings cost them the city's hockey team.  Pocklington
>may have failed to produce with his trust company and with Gainers,
>and taken the taxpayer for a ride in those enterprises, but with
>the Oilers, he has put a winning product on the ice...

If people can recognize that by "punishing" Puck by not going to games,
they're actually punishing Edmonton by risking the loss of NHL hockey
in the city, we might pull it out of the fire.

>The simple fact is that whoever the owner is going to be in Edmonton,
>a new facility is going to have to be built, and a whole lot of
>expensive private boxes are going to have to be presold to get it
>built...and the new collective bargaining agreement is going to have
>to be at least somewhat small-market-friendly.

The speculation is that Puck will put up a big sign at the location
of his proposed arena, and ask for corporations to sign up for private
boxes and others to sign up for season tickets at the new facility.
If he doesn't get enough "pre-support" from Edmonton, then he'll scrap
those plans and either move or find a buyer.

>If the city and the fans don't stop whining, all they will have left
>to do on Saturday nights is to go down to the obscelescent Coliseum
>and worship at the foot of Gretzky's statue.

I agree, sadly enough.

Bart, Edmonton AB Canada
bart@splunge.uucp    OR   barto@nait.ab.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey