Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Does concert revenue play into things as well?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I assume that is part of non-hockey revenue.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
30% was honestly a plug to get the investment back to zero using the Flames offer, and a starting point, and the biggest variable in the model as I had Edmonton to set ticket prices and the ticket surcharge
The franchise value comes down to what I'd do. If I owed the Flames (or a portion) I'd see it as a legacy item for my family that would never be sold and therefore not a true investment figure.
And as I said it's a pretty small year over year change to ponder vs the losses of the investment to build an arena. Even if it went up by 5% a year over the next five years you'd only see the value at an uptick of roughly $85M vs the $285M investment hit to build the thing on their own.
|
I think the non-hockey revenue assumptions need some work because that is one of the big revenues stream that the new building is supposed to unlock.
If the Scotiabank Saddledome calendar is to be believed, the building sat dark for virtually all the period May-September) with just 15 events on the calendar.
Seems low but if the 'dome is only used 100 - 120 days/year think how much potential revenue exists in those dark nights.
April, May and June are problematic because dates have to be held for a potential Stanley Cup run, but nonetheless.
Utilization of the building is the key to profitability and ROI. Somehow, I think it the model should reflect that. It impacts the Flames bottom line and the ability to generate ticket tax revenue.
I think it would interesting to play with the proceeds of a ticket tax based on building utilization. Ideally utilization assumptions could be risked (P100, P90, P50, etc.) and incorporated into the model.
And big thanks Bingo for doing this and generating this discussion.