I love when politicians speak out of both sides of their mouths.

"What? What? Don't look at me. I never said that."

Good stuff Andy.
 

"We're not going to burden our taxpayers with a $400-million or $300-million debt to have a new facility. That just won't happen."

That one's pretty damning considering it's exactly what's been recommended.
 

Whether fans who think they understand business and politics like it or not, the constant complaining on here isn't going to change the fact that this project will go through and be successful - accept it for what it is.
 

Andy..Silly ol' Andy, don't you realize that if Edmonton doesn't get a new downtown arena AND if it isn't paid for by publicly supported debt, so that a private business can then rake in extra millions, then the terrorists will have won? Why do you hate freedom?
 

Thanks for your input rich. Us "fans" don't understand anything about politics or business, and are all buffoons.

By the way, I don't think the point is whether it will be successful.
 

That's right Andy...shut up about the theft of your tax dollars "cuz it's gonna happen anyways".

Just close your mouth and hand it over...
 

"Just close your mouth and bend over..."

fixed
 

"But I don't want it digging into taxpayers' pockets all the time," Mandel said.

"That's why I intend to only dig in their pockets one time, and take everything including pocket lint. No need to go back for seconds if you get enough the first pass through the buffet line!"
 

accept it for what it is.

Ah yes, the old "it's happening whether you like it or not" chestnut.

I've seen that one about 53 times on web boards.
 

Make that 54 now: Accept it for what it is and we'll see you all at the new arena ;-)

That is, if everyone has enough money left to even go to a game after being robbed, gouged, bent over, etc. by the city.
 

The Mayor also says that we shouldn't built a high speed train between Edmonton and Calgary because we need the money for social housing.

So, to summarize:

Social Housing > High Speed Train, but...

Downtown Arena > Social Housing
 

Setting aside rich41's dripping condascension for a moment, here's the response I got from city councillor Tony Caterina:

Mr. "Vandelay":

I completely agree that a new stadium should not be built downtown. Not only because I believe there will be many hidden costs to this arena; that at some point the tax payer will be called upon to help fund this; and revitalization of the Northeast area of the City should be a priority as it has been promised by the last two Mayor's. Infrastructure is currently in place to revamp Northlands where it stands now at less that half the cost of a new arena. The public must stand strong in it's opposition to a downtown arena. To that end I recommend you send a similar email or make a phone call, to the Mayor's office to offer your concerns.

Best regards,
Councillor Tony Caterina
 

Another reason why public funding is unavoidable?

From today's "Five Things You Need to Know to stay ahead of the pack on Wall Street:" at Minyanville.com:
"5. No!!!!!! Not the Sports Stadiums!

The auction-rate bond crisis is raising borrowing costs on more than sewers and hospitals, according to Bloomberg. It's also forcing some states to pay three times higher interest rates on funding for sports stadiums and arenas.

Debt payments for Louisiana's Superdome, home to the National Football League's New Orleans Saints, ran the state about $1.8 million last month -- up from roughly $500,000 in January -- after interest rates tripled to 12%, Bloomberg reported, and rates on bonds sold by owners of Super Bowl Champions, the New York Giants, are reaching 22% this week, the article said.

Forget Bear Stearns (BSC). Forget homeowners facing foreclosure. Now, sports stadiums are in trouble. This is serious!"
 

Caterina for Mayor!!!

Goofing aside, there was an interesting article in the Sun today. Linda Sloan isn't too pleased about being told she can't look at documents that her own government paid to have developed.
 

So Caterina wants to deliver half the cost of a new stadium (I guess thats 200 million) for his OWN legacy projects in the NE? How come no one on council says lets not spend any money, and by the way we want the 3 million we splurged on the Oiler dressing room BACK with interest!
 

Classic quote from Sloan's article:

"It was a political exercise that the mayor's office facilitated," she said.

File that between 'water is wet' and 'winter is cold'.
 

Andy..Silly ol' Andy, don't you realize that if Edmonton doesn't get a new downtown arena AND if it isn't paid for by publicly supported debt, so that a private business can then rake in extra millions, then the terrorists will have won?

Of course, in this version of things, the people who don't want Rexall to be blown up are the terrorists.
 

Caterina is opposed to something he hasn't seen yet? Odd. We are having you over for dinner tonight Tony, "I dont like what we are having" , but I didn't tell you what we are having, "doesn't matter I don't like it: Andy , really, Caterina for mayor? You want a guy who makes brilliant thought out rational decisions like this for Mayor. He is opposed to something he hasn't seen and end of discussion. He wants something rebuilt in his riding at 100% tax payers expense for a dollar amount he has no idea what it may be. You sure know how to pick em Andy.
 

Caterina is opposed to something he hasn't seen yet? Odd.

Are you suggesting that he wait to see a completed arena before he passes judgment on whether it should be built, or are you referring to the supporting evidence from the report that he hasn't been allowed to see?


You sure know how to pick em Andy.

You sure got me. I guess that part where I said "goofing aside" wasn't clear enough for you. Thanks for coming by and not reading, though.
 

I love the hypocrisy of some people. First we bash Mayor Mandel for being a two sided politician and then we want to anoint Caterina to mayor. Do you think for one moment, regardless of his ACTUAL view, that he had any other choice to say what he did(Caterina)? He is the councillor of ward 3, which if I am not mistaken has a rather large building situated in riding that brings in tons of revenue streams to his communities. How would it look if the councillor with the U of A in his riding suggested that it be moved to the NE. Political suicide comes to mind?

Regardless of his views however, I would at least expect him to tell the truth. A downtown arena is slated to cost 450 million, 100 of which is already garunteed. Leaving 350 million to be decided, and I stress to be decided. How does he figure that 250 million to renovate rexall is half of 350 million - dear god I hope he isn't over seeing our finances.

And the comment comparing us to the US current financial woes I will try and stay away from, but lets remember here that our financial platform is built on ENTIRELY different structure. Not saying that we invinsible economically, not recessions come and go, but the US one will not affact Alberta as must as the doom speakers would have you believe.

Lets be grateful that we are in a position to have a new arena for our beloved Oilers. Of course, if we would like the 350 million outstanding on the new arena to go to public roads I suppose we could all drive around 1 and a half over passes like the one on 23rd ave (cost of 230 million) for 2.5 hours, 41 times a year. Whos in?
 

A downtown arena is slated to cost 450 million.

No.

A downtown arena is estimated to cost $450 million, not including the cost of the land. And estimated in today's dollars, at today's construction costs, in today's market, with no overruns.

If this thing ends up with a $450 million price tag, it'll be opened with a flyover by the 1st Swine Fighter Squadron.

Lets be grateful that we are in a position to have a new arena for our beloved Oilers.

By what measure is the city of Edmonton in a position to spend $350 million to turn a profitable local business into an even more profitable local business? I wasn't aware we had a crisis of too much infrastructure money in this city. I wish someone had told me; I too have a profitable business that could stand to become obscenely profitable with some help from the local government.
 

I wish someone had told me; I too have a profitable business that could stand to become obscenely profitable with some help from the local government.

The secret is, you have to threaten to pack up and leave. And keep playing that blackmail card every time you want more money, and eventually, you too can get a nine-figure facility at virtually no risk to yourself.
 

ah Par . . .

I agree completely with you that the project is ESTIMATED to cost 450 million dollars, but then, in the same token, so is the 250 million dollars to revamp rexall. So by the same point of your sarcasim, I will get the swine's ready to fly if rexall is revamped for its expected cost. So for arguements sake, we will stick with the numbers at hand, because you can't use a point (in this case your estimated argument) to rebut mine when the same situation arises with your own. Infact, with renovations, there are more unexpected costs that arise.

My point of being grateful about the oilers being in a new position for a new rink was a comparrision to 10 yeras ago when we almost lost the team and it is hilarious how short sighted some fans are. In my post I "stressed" that the additional funds were undecied. By no means do they or will they all come from the governement, as other sucessful private business will see the great opportunity this is and get on board. I too am a sucessful business owner in this city, although I didn't see the point of touting my own horn, as if to make my point more valid. I was lucky enough to work with the City of Edmonton on there Transportation master plan and realize the importance of their involvement on a project of this magnitude. With no stake in the project, they have no say in where the rink will go (you could agrue permits, but we can discuss that later if you need me too). It will be completely left to the decision of Katz, with no ability of the City to factor in there long term growth plans. Also, as a sucessful business owner, you should realize the term of sunk costs and that is exactly what Rexall will be. If you factor in 250 million to renovate it, which will only make it viable for approximately 15 years, you will be looking to build a new rink around 2025 anyway. However, a new rink would last the city approx. 25 years (less then current rexall place, it could very well be much longer). At that point, if the city had donated the land, they would have an incredible asset that would be worth a significant amount of money to a downtown developer IF a new rink was built at that point (although renovations could be performed). Rexall place is far from what any would consider a solid investment. Why would you complain if the city is putting money into a profitable business? I would be MUCH more worried if they were sinking money into a lossing one such as Rexall. Just because the amount if smaller now, does NOT mean it will be smaller tomorrow.
 

It's nice to be back to normal. With Flames fans wanting a Minnesota loss and Oilers fans wanting a Vancouver loss, The Group Hug of Alberta is out, The Battle of Alberta is back in. Plus we've got Andy focusing on his true calling, writing about the arena, and we've got the Vichy Oilers coming out in support of the downtown arena.

As much I might like Vancouver to win tonight, they clearly aren't, so I'll take the opportunity to make fun of them. Not only is "The Best Goaltender in the League" phoning it in tonight (and getting pulled, apparently), which will result in Vancouver getting dropped to 9th, and not only did he have sex with his wife 9 months before the most crucial time in the hockey season, but we learn that his wife isn't even in Vancouver, or in BC, or in Canada, even.
 

I can't believe that the city is considering adding to the labour shortage with a cathedral when we need fewer projects and less inflation, not more.

This is a typical macroeconomic result of too much resource income, for what it's worth: investment in ever-more-marginal projects by shortsighted politicians. Let me translate that into English: only a fucking retard could think that any public interest is involved here.

that this project will go through and be successful - accept it for what it is.

Ha ha! It will go through and fail (over budget and underutilized and not meet cost or revenue projections), or not go through. Those are the only options.

If you actually had a job, paid taxes, and bore the cost of this gong show, I bet your opinion would be a little different, rich41. I suggest you spend a little time paying taxes in Pittsburgh, New Orleans, or Montreal to get a flavour for how "nice" it is to pay and pay and pay some more and keep paying to line politicos' friends' pockets, pet projects, and value destruction opposed to the public interest.
 

I agree with Hyperion. We shouldn't spend half a billion for a new rink OR $250 million to put lipstick on a pig. Let's keep making basic maintenance upgrades to the arena we have for the low cost presented in the feasibility report.

I decree arbitrarily that this is what will happen whether you like it or not!
 

macndub, how can your points be taken as credible when you feel the need to use insults such as "only a fucking retard could think that any public interest is involved here." and then insinuate that my opinion would be different if I actually had a job (I do) and paid taxes (I do as well). Is a point of view stronger in your regard if you accent it with baseless insults?

I sure hope none of you actually voted for this "gong show" we call our current city council. Just remember macndub, whether the city spends more, less, accurately, or foolishly - there's always a crowd that sees these actions as being done by "short-sighted politicians". You're the one claiming it in this case, someone else will be claiming it in a different circumstance.
 

Colby, how can the feasibility report be such a joke to many (including you, I read your blog) yet be used in the next breath as a reference to how much improvements to our current venue would cost?

If we're assuming this new building would cost 450 million, it would make sense to also assume the revamp of Rexall would cost 250 million considering the numbers were collaborated by the same source - HOK.

Either way, whether many on here like it or not, building the new building is the only scenario where Darryl Katz' money will be involved in the project.
 

I love the hypocrisy of some people. First we bash Mayor Mandel for being a two sided politician and then we want to anoint Caterina to mayor.

Apparently it needs to be repeated. Again. "Goofing" means "not serious."


Either way, whether many on here like it or not, building the new building is the only scenario where Darryl Katz' money will be involved in the project.

We have a few new people on here speaking on behalf of the Committee and ownership. If you are actual members, or even Mr. Katz, please feel free to sign in under that name or send me an email. Otherwise, I'm not too interested in being told, as if from the person who will actually utter the words, that a billionaire is going to take his ball and go home because citizens aren't willing to subsidize his enterprise. Or with veiled threats that the team will leave town if the Mayor and Lyle Best don't get their way. If you are any of these people, say so. If not, speak and speculate for yourself.


Whether you like it or not, iconic, world class, etc., etc.
 

I'm not part of the committee or of ownership. I'm a hardcore fan just like yourself Andy although I have a drastically different view on our arena situation than you and others here do (except for Hyperion, to me, he makes a lot of sense). I'm well aware that there isn't a thing I can say to change some of these ingrained opinions on here and I could care less if any of you do change your mind. Why am I here? I love debating this topic and if my opposing view is welcome (which you've pretty much stated it is, Andy) then I'll continue to be the voice that sounds like that of the committee or ownership. I like my side of the coin, unlike a quarter, the odds of my side succeeding are much better than 1 out of 2. Hopefully I can meet some of you at the new arena one day....
 

If we're assuming this new building would cost 450 million, it would make sense to also assume the revamp of Rexall would cost 250 million considering the numbers were collaborated by the same source - HOK.

The assumption I'm questioning is that the "revamp" is necessary at all. The report makes a clear distinction between the maintenance necessary to keep the building usable in its current shape and configuration (nugatory cost) and the second-best modernization you're talking about ($250m). And what will this modernization bring us? All you have are unsubstantiated guesses because that part of the report is secret. Maybe it includes free blowjobs for season-ticket holders: you and I don't know that it doesn't.

This $250m "alternative" plan just seems designed to confuse everybody and leave the impression that our only choice is between spending $250m and $450m (plus the real estate costs). That's certainly how you guys are using it. I'm actually open to the alternative plan, but there's no sense discussing it until we're shown the plan, is there?
 

I find it interesting that the issue of the team moving is once again coming up when the truth is that the ONLY person who could lay any authoritative claim to that statement (Katz) has said just the opposite in the recent past. I feel bad for him as he has gone out of his way to get everybody past the Pocklington perceptions that the EIG (and sympathetic media) were planting before they (EIG) eventually capitulated.

The arena document was a chance to explain why and how this project should proceed - IN DETAIL. The fact that it doesn't care to do so might indicate that several private enterprise parties besides the Oilers are involved (the "inside track" group). This group would at the very least be privvy to land concessions and tax breaks, so a full-disclosure report would lead to everybody not included in the club going to the city and saying "what about me?'. End result is the project gets bogged in a political feeding frenzy.

If it were the case that several interests were involved already, then maybe the claim that the arena being viable only as a catalyst for a major redevelopment project is pretty much on the money. The report itself says that an arena alone is not recommended.

The city considering public funding (of some sort at some level) as part of the total costs was a recommendation made (I believe) by Dan Mason. He stated that cities would want want some say in the development, and that the best way to do so would be to partner with the developer. (Apologies if I got the quote wrong, but I do think it was in one of Mason's papers linked by PJO)

Finally - I believe that Katz bought the team with the proviso that a new arena be part of the long term deal. He would not have committed $100 million otherwise.

And no - I am not affiliated with the Oilers/Katz or that arena damned committee (spits).
 

Thank you David S, it is nice to have another voice of reason on here.

At this point what I find funny that a lot of the Edmonton Oilers fan base feels that there is no need for a new facility.

How many of you have been to an NHL game in another rink and if so which ones?

My list includes:

Excel Energy Centre
Saddledome
GM Place

Not NHL, but NHL caliber:
Rose Garden - Portland

Rexall compared to these doesn't even hold a candle, in almost every aspect.
 

Rich41,

You are certainly welcome to debate things here. I just want to make sure that when we make statements, we are speaking for ourselves. As David S. has noted, the only people at this point who should be making definitive statements about the team's future are Mr. Katz and members of the EIG. We can speculate, obviously, but let's call it that.

I should also note that I'm not a big fan of the "whether we like it or not" argument. It's defeatist, for one, and has no place in a democracy. Secondly, once Mayor Mandel set up his committee to "explore options" at the taxpayers expense, it became an issue belong to the public. Whether I like it, and whether you like it, is now the entire point.
 

Rexall compared to these doesn't even hold a candle, in almost every aspect.

If you are going to a sports game for comfy seats, you might want to consider the opera.

Thank you David S, it is nice to have another voice of reason on here.

Reeson? Wats this reeson ewe speek off?
 

Rexall compared to these doesn't even hold a candle, in almost every aspect.

I disagree.

Rexall was renovated as a "state of the art" building just ten years ago. Having seen other buildings, like the ACC and HSBC in Buffalo, Rexall stands up just fine.

The fact that it doesn't care to do so might indicate that several private enterprise parties besides the Oilers are involved

The "there's more to this report than the public knows" argument seems to be cropping up an awful lot, with the benefit of the doubt being given to the vested interests that are pushing the new arena.

Considering that Councillors have already expressed disappointment with the lack of concrete details or real information in the private report, I wouldn't put too much weight on it.
 

Andy, if comfy seats were all that I wanted, I would be all for the basic reno's of Rexall and wouldn't be argueing with you here. What I am against, is waiting in line for 20 minutes between periods to take a piss, or not even being able to move in the corridors of rexall place, to name a few, I won't bore you with them all. Sadly, this building has become dated and is no longer a quality facility. Have you been to any others?

Another point of view: If you were offered two jobs, one in a beautiful state of the art office building, built last year or one in a building that was 30 years old, which would you choose all other things equal? We can both agree to being Edmonton fans and wanting the oilers to win, and I THINK we can both agree that Edmonton has a difficult time recruiting big name free agents. Right now, a new arena will be a positive step towards attracting and retaining free agents. By no means was this the only factor, I do not agrue that, however a new arena would only have a positive effect on the situation. Another reason for the facility along with the many other's I have stated.

As for the David voice of reason comment, it is nice to hear someone post their opinion followed by a solid agruement and fact (as well as my opinion I will admit - it feels as though I am greatly outnumbered in an issue that should be positive for the Oilers), besides just basic complainents about how tax payer money shouldn't be used. It is easy to bitch and complain, but follow it up with the solution. All too many times to people complain just for the sake of it. If we stuck with the status quo, I would be grabbing by bow and arrow to go get dinner right now.

Mike, since you have been to HSBC and ACC, I respect your opinion that you think Rexall is up to the same quality, although I will strongly disagree. If anyone else has been to a facility, please speak up and give your opinion, because I do find it hard to believe that Rexall is equal to the ACC.
 

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=0d805c77-53fa-4972-9d43-9ff6c95d23ea&k=26536

This article has to be pointed out
 

"I should also note that I'm not a big fan of the "whether we like it or not" argument."

I'm also not a fan of the "only a fucking retard could think that any public interest is involved here." But however undemocratic my approach was on that one, I've provided content to my side of the debate without resorting to insults like macdub did/does.

"Whether we like it or not", from my side of the fence (clearly in a different yard than you on this topic) says everything about this situation. To me, that defines this initiative as unpopular among the majority of the group here. Now considering tax money is already being spent (on exploring options) and the "feasibility study" already gave the thumgs up, it certainly seems like they're moving in this direction already.

So while I could term it differently, moving forward when a group still strongly opposes, typically implies that things are being done whether that group likes it or not. That's all I meant.
 

Just as an aside, why is the Edmonton arena going to cost 450 million? The proposed Pittsburgh Arena is 290 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Pittsburgh_Arena)

The brand new Sprint Center in Kansas City only cost 276 million

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Center)

Is somebody padding the quote?
 

It is easy to bitch and complain, but follow it up with the solution.

Okay: spend tax money on a legacy project that includes an LRT to St. Albert and Sherwood Park. That would be a genuine way to promote growth downtown.


What I am against, is waiting in line for 20 minutes between periods to take a piss

That will always be a problem at any sports stadium (as it is at the Rogers Centre or HSBC, for example) unless they build 1-for-1 urinals for all of 18,000 people that generally decide to go bathrooma t the same time.
 

Sorry about the typos in the last post.

It's the "lights out" Earth Hour at my office, donchaknow.
 

What I am against, is waiting in line for 20 minutes between periods to take a piss

It's worth every penny of a half-billion dollars for me not to have to use the can during a TV timeout!

Right now, a new arena will be a positive step towards attracting and retaining free agents.

As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed". I don't think any living hockey player would give you a hundred-buck discount for playing in some new cookie-cutter building. On the other hand, it does seem entirely possible that one might do so for the privilege of playing in the world's most historically significant hockey arena.
 

Colby, I already said it in the other thread. Look around the league at "what everyone else is doing". No, that's not a good enough reason among our personal life circumstances to do anything. In professional sports, however, it's as good a reason as any.

I get the sentimental value our building holds for everyone, I even appreciate it. But that isn't enough to halt the organization and our city from doing what the overwhelming majority of other professional sports cities are doing.

http://hockey.ballparks.com/
A site I've spent a lot of time on. We share a minority with 3 other teams on the list of buildings around the league. It doesn't take a prophet to see what direction the rest of the league has already gone, and what direction we'll likely go as well.
 

http://www.arenadigest.com/

Here's another site where many here can read about the lengths other professional teams and cities are going to, in order to stay current and "stay competitive" (their words, not mine).
 

You're confusing two different kinds of "competition", and the one you're talking about isn't especially relevant to Edmonton: nobody here is giving up NHL season tickets so they can go watch basketball. And nobody in Columbus/Indianapolis/the Land of Chocolate was ever talking about destroying a unique heritage asset so that a new arena could be built. Marketing is a crazy reason to do this thing.

I agree that signing free agents would be one possible good reason for it, so let's hear one example, ever, of an NHL player saying "I could have gotten more money in Smallville, but Suckertown has that sweet new arena with the awesome retail stores so I said 'Fuck the extra $300,000'." You guys claim to be the ones who understand business, and you buy that this happens all the time? Seriously?
 

If I'm the one confusing the competition and it isn't relevant to Edmonton like you say, then why is HOK Sport making trips to Edmonton and why does an "arena feasibility committee" exist?

We have a group of fans who feel that Rexall Place is just fine the way it is. I'm sure some felt the same way about Yankee Stadium, Izod Center, Amway Arena and hey, maybe even the Igloo (brings back memories of Mario, right?). But, when all was said and done, cities and professional teams do what other cities and professional teams do. Since "whether we like it or not" doesn't lend itself to democracy, how about - whether it's popular with all of the fans or not. But when history repeats itself, these fans will find their way to forgiveness when new memories watching their favorite team are made in a different venue.
 

Wow, you know I am about at my wits end with this agruement because this is the garbage I get for a response:

Okay: spend tax money on a legacy project that includes an LRT to St. Albert and Sherwood Park. That would be a genuine way to promote growth downtown

I am all for a solid arguement back and forth, however the BIGGEST arguement that I am getting against a new building is the cost to tax payers (what it should be, from where etc.). So like everyone else, you are entitled to your opinion. Yet, someone who is protective of their tax dollars, brings out the beautiful quote above. I hope you live in St. Albert or Sherwood Park to make that one, because while I do agree that it should be done, not one penny of my tax money will be going towards making those cities better, who use all of Edmonton's services on a regular basis without paying ANY of our city property tax. Until there is a joint revenue system in that regard, NEVER should an Edmonton dollar go towards there. If you are so concerned about your tax dollars spend them more wisely then this.

And to Colby, regarding the comments of having a new rink to atttract NHL players, I never said ANYTHING about pay cuts in either direction. I said all other things equal. Please if you are going to rebut one of my points, take the time to read the entire post. I stated that it is not the entire issue, it is a minor point, but it would be a positive step. Where do you think a player would rather play for 1 Million dollars? I would look at things such as climate, coaching, mentality, building/facilities, etc. Numerous times this has been stated as reasons by players in all pro sports leagues.
 

Wow, you know I am about at my wits end with this agruement because this is the garbage I get for a response:

What's an agruement?
 

"A arena without a history of accomplishment is not a shrine. It's a mall with seats."

It's actually "An arena", not "A arena", the latter being incorrect. Pretty low of me to dig that one out but hey, I'm just seeing what it's like at your level.

I get it, you pick on the posters against your argument, but say nothing when those on your side call someone a fuckin' idiot...
 

If I'm the one confusing the competition and it isn't relevant to Edmonton like you say, then why is HOK Sport making trips to Edmonton and why does an "arena feasibility committee" exist?

Yeah, those are deep and impressive mysteries. Why would an arena-building company help a city with the push to build an arena? And I'll admit it's possible the feasibility committee sprang from the forehead of Zeus, but my understanding is that it was convened by the mayor.

In other news, I burned down my neighbour's house last night. I tried explaining to him that he and his family could make new memories in a different venue but he just looked at me like I was nuts.
 

"In other news, I burned down my neighbour's house last night. I tried explaining to him that he and his family could make new memories in a different venue but he just looked at me like I was nuts."

If this is how you draw up analogies, I wouldn't expect you to understand what I was trying to explain anyway.
 

It's actually "An arena", not "A arena", the latter being incorrect.

All fixed now. Thanks!