Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | U/C

[Richard Eade]

Yes, I agree that EVERYBODY has an opinion, and therefore a bias. An example is phil235 implying that what is best for a professional sport team is best for the city as a whole.

People seem to be saying that the City could have spent $400M on the sport facilities and gotten nothing back; or the City could take the deal offered and spend $400M and get money to offset that cost. What makes the two so mutually exclusive?

My point is that there was nothing preventing the City from doing the renovations, based on what was best for the residents of the city AND getting income from other associated sources to offset the cost.

Having OSEG describe what is best for OSEG should be only ONE part of the equation, not the only part. I understand that, since the 67s draw about 3,000 to each game, OSEG doesn’t want a 10,000-seat arena – 5,500 seats would allow for peak 67s games. However, that doesn’t account for other users.

The PWHL, for example says that it offered OSEG input right from the get-go – yet the PWHL feels that its needs were ignored. Maybe their input was ignored; maybe it was not. It is possible that OSEG has the experience of watching team attendance drop after a big bulge; thus OSEG ‘knows’ that the PWHL’s attendance will settle down to only, say 4,000 per game. Did OSEG also consider the Volleyball Nations League? The Canada vs. USA game in June 2024 had 7,042 fans watching Canada beat the USA.

The fact that the OSEG-controlled Ottawa 67s only draw in about 3,000 fans a game should not be the criteria for an arena that is City-owned and provides entertainment for a wide variety of offerings to the public.

The 67s play 34 home games with about 3,000 fans at each game. So, about 102,000 seat sales.
The Charge average about 7,000 for 15 games. So, about 105,000 seat sales.

I am not saying that the facilities should stay as they are. They should be replaced with appropriate new ones. I am asking if the City is really getting what is best for ALL of the city residents – not just a relative handful who attend the games provided by OSEG. Having OSEG determine what is best does not necessarily coincide with an unbiased view of what is best for the City, as a whole.

And, yes, the City could still have done the analysis and rebuilt the facilities based on what the City needs and still gotten revenue from the various OSEG teams and others. The City could still have sold air-rights. In short, everything could have happened pretty much the same – except, the facilities could have been more of what the City needs and less OSEG-specific.