Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
One thing that would really help this debate is a good hard look at what costs the Glendale taxpayers more:
Covering the outstanding debt on an empty arena with no tenant and few dates in use
vs.
The cost of the bond offering, but having a team there generating revenue
Figure out which number is lower, and you have an idea of what Glendale really should be doing. I doubt very much the answer to that question is something Bouw and Arrow would want to hear.
|
Not necessarily.
If you take all aspects of the Glendale/Hulsizer/NHL deal, money in, money out and look at it through the prism of the entire term, including the "put" option for the Arena . . . . . it basically comes down to whether or not you think certain revenue streams from parking will be adequate enough.
I guess you could add in calculations for the present value of money put up front by Glendale versus the final end "put" of the arena at the end of term plus end of term for the bonds and see how that might impact things.
Glendale has one consultant opinion saying those parking revenues would be adequate enough and a second opinion saying they wouldn't be. Fair enough.
Goldwater is trying to argue this agreement violates the gift tax by saying they KNOW that 30 years from now taxpayers would be underwater which, of course, is far from known and a fairly ridiculous assertion of certainty given the length of time we're talking about.
In fact, Glendale could actually come out ahead, since it can move many revenue streams higher through time . . . . or we know there's as much chance of that as there is they might lose given the long time frame.
Goldwater can no more "prove" the deal violates the gift tax than Glendale could "prove" it wouldn't.
There's a pretty big certainty taxpayers are going to get pretty hosed if the team leaves, however.
The uncertainty of ownership creates operating losses all by themselves. Sponsors are reluctant to align themselves with a team that might move and season ticket holders would be wisely reluctant to commit emotionally and financially to such a situation.
Common sense but also tells you losses for the last few years may not reflect any reality if a more permanent solution were to be found in that market with a competent owner.
If the $25 million subsidy is indeed a 10 year committment then it almost looks like an attempt to smoke Goldwater out and force them to commit to a course of litigation, so the argument can be settled and the threat removed.
You should be pretty curious as to why Goldwater is up in arms about the lease but doesn't say a lot about the $25 million per year.
One other thing is sure here . . . . . the NHL does not want to return to Winnipeg.
Certain fans might hope that happens but if it ever does - and its pretty unlikely - it would be pretty much the last option the NHL had left.
Cowperson