Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by New Era

Are you sure on this? Doesn't this break down to gross revenues versus net revenues? The Flames sell a ticket, and that becomes revenue to them, every single dollar. They are expected to collect every dollar, but then deduct associated taxes, which along with business costs, leads to net revenues. This is also why HRR are clearly defined in the CBA, and taxes on tickets are not defined as HRR. Yes, this is one of those semantics arguments, trying to define what "sex" is, but it is the reality of the claim. The collection of the revenue would not exist without the ticket there in the first place, nor the transaction of selling the ticket and collecting the revenue. Just like gas taxes, the retailer has to collect and submit them. They are submitted based on revenues collected, so are part of the gross revenues of the business. Please correct this if any of it is inaccurate.

If it is anything like when I was collecting GST for services, then the tax is a completely separate section of the balance sheet. Basically I was just collecting and holding onto the taxes received until it was time to declare the amount and send it onto the CRA...at no time was it considered revenue or expense.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by New Era

Are you sure on this? Doesn't this break down to gross revenues versus net revenues? The Flames sell a ticket, and that becomes revenue to them, every single dollar. They are expected to collect every dollar, but then deduct associated taxes, which along with business costs, leads to net revenues. This is also why HRR are clearly defined in the CBA, and taxes on tickets are not defined as HRR. Yes, this is one of those semantics arguments, trying to define what "sex" is, but it is the reality of the claim. The collection of the revenue would not exist without the ticket there in the first place, nor the transaction of selling the ticket and collecting the revenue. Just like gas taxes, the retailer has to collect and submit them. They are submitted based on revenues collected, so are part of the gross revenues of the business. Please correct this if any of it is inaccurate.

I'm sure.

Businesses do not pay PST and GST on a percentage of their sales. They account for GST/PST at a transactional level, recording what they collected in sales taxes and, if eligible, deducting sales taxes they have paid.

Money that you collect on behalf of a government is not revenue.

Debit Cash $105
Credit Sales ($100)
Credit GST/PST Payable ($5)

The collection of sales taxes would not occur without a purchase of any goods or services, so the Flames situation is not an exceptional case.

And I understand that a ticket tax is not HRR but that is because it is a TAX, not simply a way for the Flames to divert a revenue stream.

Again, just like the airport taxes it is collected, on behalf on the taxing authority, from the users. Airlines do not record these fees as revenue, or as their own contribution towards airport improvements.

I hope that helps clear things up.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Lanny_McDonald]

It does indeed. Thanks!

[EldrickOnIce]

The Flames consider the ticket tax coming from them based on consumer willingness to pay, not on actual revenue generated. In longsuffering's example, it costs $115 to get in the door and the Flames see $100 of that. They suggest that since they could sell the tickets for $115 (but get $100) that the $15 comes from what could otherwise be their revenue.
In theory, the Flames are correct - consumer willingness to pay sets the market price. In reality, there are always externalities that affect market price. Like a ticket tax

[getbak]

For anyone who has gone up to Edmonton for a concert in the last year, when you bought your tickets, was the Ticket Tax a separate line item on the price, or was it rolled into the total?

Especially those who went to the Garth Brooks shows in both Edmonton and Calgary, were the tickets in Edmonton more expensive than the ones here?

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by stamps

I'm just parroting what I have heard Ken King alude to in his press conference .... he also mentioned the Flames would end up paying for 120% of the new arena ..... that is where I have gotten my facts .... I guess we will see who is being honest here in the next week or so when the finer details emerge ...

You're just being a mouthpiece for Ken King then. Better to look at the real facts before you and make up your own mind instead of parroting what Ken King says.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

People saying that the majority of Calgarians would not want to give any money to the Flames is correct.

In fact I would go further and say that the majority of Calgarians would say NO to the airport tunnel, the downtown library and the ugly mandatory art and that's just three off the top of my head.

And if you told people to make only one choice out of the four items then I suspect that the new arena would be a first choice . If people had a chance to vote democratically on every major project in this city, nothing would ever get done.

We voted in the clowns at city hall hoping that they will do right by our money but for me I can think of a lot worse ways the city has misused our money than a new arena

Seriously, I think you are not understanding basic civic society or how they work.
All the things you outlined are built by the taxpayer for the taxpayer. All taxpayers can use the tunnel or library. Yes, I also find it stupid to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollar on a giant blue ring. But how on earth does any of that justify giving hundred of millions to a private enterprise for an arena. You're seriously comparing civil infrastructure, paid for and used by everyday citizens to an arena built for a private company using money from taxpayers who then have to pay the private company to use?

Either you do not understand what you are saying or not building an arena will severely impact your livelihood. In either case you are completely wrong.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

You're just being a mouthpiece for Ken King then. Better to look at the real facts before you and make up your own mind instead of parroting what Ken King says.

I guess you are privy to the finer details .... we will see if King can back up his comments next week.... btw , don't be so bitter , life is good .....

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by stamps

I guess you are privy to the finer details .... we will see if King can back up his comments next week.... btw , don't be so bitter , life is good .....

Not sure how I'm bitter. It would be nice if people actually thought things through and were honest with themselves when deciding on things like this.

Life is good. Definitely would be better if the Flames weren't so embarrassing.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

Not sure how I'm bitter. It would be nice if people actually thought things through and were honest with themselves when deciding on things like this.

Life is good. Definitely would be better if the Flames weren't so embarrassing.

I think the Flames are just frustrated ... maybe at the end of their rope with the whole processs ... trying to have a rational discussion about this here is impossible it seems .... hopefully both sides can work something out ...

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by stamps

I think the Flames are just frustrated ... maybe at the end of their rope with the whole processs ... trying to have a rational discussion about this here is impossible it seems .... hopefully both sides can work something out ...

Rational discussion? Asking the citizens of the city to fund their arena so they can make the money?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by stamps

I think the Flames are just frustrated ... maybe at the end of their rope with the whole processs ... trying to have a rational discussion about this here is impossible it seems .... hopefully both sides can work something out ...

It should probably concern you that you can't have a "rational discussion" about the Flames' position on this issue on a forum populated almost exclusively by the biggest Flames fans in the world. You may need to recalibrate your definition of "rational discussion".

I love the Flames. I want them to win fifty Stanley Cups in Calgary before I die. I want them to always be right. But I think they are wrong on this issue so far. Very, very wrong.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Now there's an idea!

Council meetings would go 16hrs.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

Rational discussion? Asking the citizens of the city to fund their arena so they can make the money?

It is suppose to be a partnership ... the Flames and the city benefit ... that is all ... hopefully they can come to an agreement ....

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stamps

It is suppose to be a partnership ... the Flames and the city benefit ... that is all ... hopefully they can come to an agreement ....

I don't think the Flames view it as a partnership.

They don't want to open up the books and show the economics of the Arena project or the team. A partner would do that

A partner wouldn't threaten to leave when things aren't going their way trying to impact an election.

The Flames behaviour thus far is one of a predator. They want to maximize their earnings using whatever levers they have. This is what they should be doing and I don't begrudge them for it at all. However it certainly isn't a partnership.

[EldrickOnIce]

We shouldn't forget ownership wants to maximize their earnings to compete. When we call them greedy, the context should be that the end result is supposed to insure the viability of the team in this market. Ownership has never drawn a dime from the club.

Why they have taken this adversarial approach is beyond me though. And I expect the ire directed at ownership comes much more from the approach than the ask.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't think the Flames view it as a partnership.

They don't want to open up the books and show the economics of the Arena project or the team. A partner would do that

A partner wouldn't threaten to leave when things aren't going their way trying to impact an election.

The Flames behaviour thus far is one of a predator. They want to maximize their earnings using whatever levers they have. This is what they should be doing and I don't begrudge them for it at all. However it certainly isn't a partnership.

Public private arena partnerships are supposed to be a win win ... I get the feeling both sides are guilty ... will have to get more details ... I'm willing to bet the Flames regret their knee jerk reaction unless they really feel they have done everything they believe they can with the city ... I get the feeling it's a take it or leave it position from the city and it may already be over ... if the Flames do end up leaving I hope the city has the decency to put the Olympic bid to
rest , as a tax payer I would not have the stomach to host an Olympics and spend my tax dollars there for 16 days for maybe 4 or times the price it would cost for a new arena ...

[GGG]

Most Arena deals the city have lost. Meaning they have not realized the economic benefits promised in the deals. There just isn't evidence of cities winning. Unless by winning you mean keeping their team though St Louis is still paying for theirs to sit empty

So what do you mean when you say win win.

I have to agree with you on the Olympics. Essentially you over pay for infrastructure you have a marginal need for.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by stamps

Public private arena partnerships are supposed to be a win win ... I get the feeling both sides are guilty ... will have to get more details ... I'm willing to bet the Flames regret their knee jerk reaction unless they really feel they have done everything they believe they can with the city ... I get the feeling it's a take it or leave it position from the city and it may already be over ... if the Flames do end up leaving I hope the city has the decency to put the Olympic bid to
rest , as a tax payer I would not have the stomach to host an Olympics and spend my tax dollars there for 16 days for maybe 4 or times the price it would cost for a new arena ...

When do those start?

[stamps]

Originally Posted by GGG

Most Arena deals the city have lost. Meaning they have not realized the economic benefits promised in the deals. There just isn't evidence of cities winning. Unless by winning you mean keeping their team though St Louis is still paying for theirs to sit empty

So what do you mean when you say win win.

I have to agree with you on the Olympics. Essentially you over pay for infrastructure you have a marginal need for.

It's about quality of life ... More than hockey fans use an arena ... having NHL hockey in Calgary does add to the quality of life in this city through our long winters IMO ... there is a lot of infrastructure I do not use but do not resent it... it boils down to what kind of a city you want to live in .... again I hope they can come to terms and we can move past all this ...