[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

People are obliged to pay taxes, there is no "willingness" about it.

Taking those forced taxes and then handling them to players and owners is beyond immoral. That players them export about 90% of those dollars out of Calgary by spending it elsewhere.

This is out of context I was responding to his saying buying tickets is subsidizing

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by dino7c

This is out of context I was responding to his saying buying tickets is subsidizing

Apologies

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

So since the business can clearly exist without the subsidy then all we are doing is subsidizing player salaries.

True to an extent, but I'd say we are even moreso subsidizing billionaire owners since arena schemes do even more to help franchise valuations and other revenue opportunities outside of HRR.

It also isn't really the players doing the extortion here.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

True to an extent, but I'd say we are even moreso subsidizing billionaire owners since arena schemes do even more to help franchise valuations and other revenue opportunities outside of HRR.

It also isn't really the players doing the extortion here.

You’re both right kinda. The players are a business expense and it’s the owners exploiting the public. However, the owners have agreed to a business model with artificially higher expenses (player salaries) that are affordable because they receive an external capital injection from the public. So if the artificial capital injection from the public did not exist there would sure as hell be a come to Jesus discussion with the players so that the NHL could have a functional business model.

So in a circular way the public subsidies for new arenas artificially props up the players salaries (business expenses). Without this public funding it’d be tough for the players to argue they’re worth the contracts they’re signing and quite frankly given the way the escrow has gone the last couple years we may already be at that point with the public paying the NHL for its capital projects.

What other businesses use public funds for their capital projects? Genuine question actually I have no idea.

Fuzz nailed it too. Does Gaudreau need $10MM/year? Maybe the actual NHL market and NHL business economics without leeching off society suggests he’s only worth $6MM so that the Flames can save money over 40 years and build their arena? Sounds to me like this is the case.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Maybe it should be something like 40% owners, 40% players, 20% facility replacement fund.

Exactly. This is what I’m getting at. Fix your business model so you don’t leech off society.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It tells me that no public works project would pass a public plebiscite because none of them serve a majority of voters.

The plebiscite approach is a poor argument IMO.

No, wrong and it’s been already discussed in this thread.

Public plebiscite for PRIVATE businesses with HIGH BARRIERS to entry for the public, like an NHL arena where you have to pay exorbitant prices to enter will be denied. Or like the Olympics, with high costs and high prices to attend will not work in public votes. That should tell you all you need to know if you believe in things like democratic rule.

Public plebiscites for things with LOW BARRIERS to entry probably will get green lights. It’s also hugely disingenuous and you know it to state that everything that goes to public plebiscite will get rejected. Things like bridges and libraries, roads, schools, hospitals- I’m willing to bet still get green lights because a huge portion of society needs access to them and uses them frequently.

You’re trying ti take one of the most niche high cost elite rich private business models asking the public to pay for its business and then framing that like well the public won’t support anything just like this. Like no, not even close nice try. If you want to support Murray Edwards and increasing his personal net worth so much email him your money and tell him to put it to the arena but don’t drag the rest of the world into something you want and can access, and the niche and mainly higher net worth middle class. It’s not the same thing and public plebiscites for things like this make sense to truly get a gauge as to public sentiment. If it’s a good idea it’ll pass.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Who said that? I said they pay more taxes than you...and they do. To the city, province, and federal

That would be a good argument for more provincial and federal money towards arenas and stadiums.

Unfortunately, other than increased property taxes paid by players because they tend to live in bigger, more-expensive homes, the taxes paid by the players mostly don't make their way down to the municipal level, even though it's the municipal governments that are being asked to pay.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

No, wrong and it’s been already discussed in this thread.

Public plebiscite for PRIVATE businesses with HIGH BARRIERS to entry for the public, like an NHL arena where you have to pay exorbitant prices to enter will be denied. Or like the Olympics, with high costs and high prices to attend will not work in public votes. That should tell you all you need to know if you believe in things like democratic rule.

Public plebiscites for things with LOW BARRIERS to entry probably will get green lights. It’s also hugely disingenuous and you know it to state that everything that goes to public plebiscite will get rejected. Things like bridges and libraries, roads, schools, hospitals- I’m willing to bet still get green lights because a huge portion of society needs access to them and uses them frequently.

You’re trying ti take one of the most niche high cost elite rich private business models asking the public to pay for its business and then framing that like well the public won’t support anything just like this. Like no, not even close nice try. If you want to support Murray Edwards and increasing his personal net worth so much email him your money and tell him to put it to the arena but don’t drag the rest of the world into something you want and can access, and the niche and mainly higher net worth middle class. It’s not the same thing and public plebiscites for things like this make sense to truly get a gauge as to public sentiment. If it’s a good idea it’ll pass.

You are conflating your arguments. I don’t disagree with the point about subsidizing private business.

But I don’t agree that plebiscites for public works projects would get passed. Largely they would not and that’s why municipalities aren’t governed that way.

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if a pro sports arena does better than a library in a plebiscite. Which is sad.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by getbak

That would be a good argument for more provincial and federal money towards arenas and stadiums.

Unfortunately, other than increased property taxes paid by players because they tend to live in bigger, more-expensive homes, the taxes paid by the players mostly don't make their way down to the municipal level, even though it's the municipal governments that are being asked to pay.

Furthermore, the players arent local really. They certainly don't spend their tens of millions of dollars in the Calgary economy. At most it's a small fraction.

They are taking our entertainment dollars and exporting them to LA or San Diego or the South of France.

The player salaries are am 80 million drag on the economy.

[Mr.Coffee]

I disagree I bet there are tons of public plebiscites that would pass. I mean we could argue for days since neither of us no for sure but imagine an expansion of Deerfoot trail at the bottlenecks for example. I bet things like that pass. What about hospital capacity enlargements? Pass. School issues. Public parks issues.

I suspect there’s lots of stuff that would pass, and lots of stupid useless stuff that wouldn’t. In some respects it may even be a better way to govern just far less efficient. So to strike a good middle ground we hire and elect people to make decisions for us but when it comes to spending huge sums on private businesses or events like the Olympics, I think public plebiscites make sense.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I disagree I bet there are tons of public plebiscites that would pass. I mean we could argue for days since neither of us no for sure but imagine an expansion of Deerfoot trail at the bottlenecks for example. I bet things like that pass. What about hospital capacity enlargements? Pass. School issues. Public parks issues.

I suspect there’s lots of stuff that would pass, and lots of stupid useless stuff that wouldn’t. In some respects it may even be a better way to govern just far less efficient. So to strike a good middle ground we hire and elect people to make decisions for us but when it comes to spending huge sums on private businesses or events like the Olympics, I think public plebiscites make sense.

You would have no arts, no culture. And truly the things that you think might pass I feel would be tough since the majority of taxpayers don’t use a great many services. Having citizens vote on the budget every year would be a disaster IMO.

And how would you vote on an arena anyway. Real life isn’t binary. Surely everyone agrees there is at least some public benefit to an events center so what do you vote yes or no on exactly?

It’s a silly argument and people get so worked up on this topic. The billionaires!! The politicians!!

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You would have no arts, no culture. And truly the things that you think might pass I feel would be tough since the majority of taxpayers don’t use a great many services. Having citizens vote on the budget every year would be a disaster IMO.

And how would you vote on an arena anyway. Real life isn’t binary. Surely everyone agrees there is at least some public benefit to an events center so what do you vote yes or no on exactly?

It’s a silly argument and people get so worked up on this topic. The billionaires!! The politicians!!

But it’s not about whether there is or isn’t an arena, it’s just if the City contribute to the costs and what does the City receive if we aren’t sharing in any revenues and without vague promises of increased business around the new events centre.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Furthermore, the players arent local really. They certainly don't spend their tens of millions of dollars in the Calgary economy. At most it's a small fraction.

They are taking our entertainment dollars and exporting them to LA or San Diego or the South of France.

The player salaries are am 80 million drag on the economy.

Anecdotally, in the mid 2000's it seemed like the Flames stars were spending a ton of capital in Calgary in the bars, restaurants and almost every concert that came through town.

I'd say they're very local for hockey season and then not so much for the off season.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Wormius

But it’s not about whether there is or isn’t an arena, it’s just if the City contribute to the costs and what does the City receive if we aren’t sharing in any revenues and without vague promises of increased business around the new events centre.

Well exactly. The issue is how much, if any, should the city put in, and if they do, what should they get out of it. Don’t we agree there is some economic benefit to the City of Calgary to having a new well located, well designed arena? It’s very hard to quantify, that’s for sure.

I get the argument about subsidizing private business. I have made the argument myself. But most people that aren’t hard core ideologists would acknowledge that government can play a role in stimulating economic activity.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Public plebiscites for things with LOW BARRIERS to entry probably will get green lights. It’s also hugely disingenuous and you know it to state that everything that goes to public plebiscite will get rejected. Things like bridges and libraries, roads, schools, hospitals- I’m willing to bet still get green lights because a huge portion of society needs access to them and uses them frequently.

A school in Saddletown would get rejected. A school in every community might pass, but probably gets rejected as the number of parents with school-aged kids as a percentage of the population likely doesn't get it done. A school, fire station, police department and library in every community might pass. Basically, the more things you bundle together, the easier it becomes to get things approved. (This, incidentally, is how the US Federal Government works, as I understand it.) But then, deciding what gets included and excluded from the bundle becomes the key decision anyways, so what's the point of the plebiscite?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Anecdotally, in the mid 2000's it seemed like the Flames stars were spending a ton of capital in Calgary in the bars, restaurants and almost every concert that came through town.

I'd say they're very local for hockey season and then not so much for the off season.

How much did Iginla make in his flames career? The second his Flames career was over he sold his house and spends all of his money in Boston and Kelowna.

[Kipper_3434]

Problem is that this is like subsidizing a private school, private hospital or any other private business. It doesnt matter if there are community benefits, subsidizing projects like this with tax payer money is theft.

There never should have been any public money involved in the construction of a private sports stadium. Sidewalks and roads, sure.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Problem is that this is like subsidizing a private school, private hospital or any other private business. It doesnt matter if there are community benefits, subsidizing projects like this with tax payer money is theft.

There never should have been any public money involved in the construction of a private sports stadium. Sidewalks and roads, sure.

It's not a private sports stadium, it's a city owned events center

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You’re both right kinda. The players are a business expense and it’s the owners exploiting the public. However, the owners have agreed to a business model with artificially higher expenses (player salaries) that are affordable because they receive an external capital injection from the public. So if the artificial capital injection from the public did not exist there would sure as hell be a come to Jesus discussion with the players so that the NHL could have a functional business model.

So in a circular way the public subsidies for new arenas artificially props up the players salaries (business expenses). Without this public funding it’d be tough for the players to argue they’re worth the contracts they’re signing and quite frankly given the way the escrow has gone the last couple years we may already be at that point with the public paying the NHL for its capital projects.

What other businesses use public funds for their capital projects? Genuine question actually I have no idea.

Fuzz nailed it too. Does Gaudreau need $10MM/year? Maybe the actual NHL market and NHL business economics without leeching off society suggests he’s only worth $6MM so that the Flames can save money over 40 years and build their arena? Sounds to me like this is the case.

I'm just not sure there is that much connection between the players vs. owners and owners vs. cities relationships. The owners are going to extract the maximum possible from each separate negotiation. If the players folded at 45% instead of 50%, the owners wouldn't suddenly become more generous in their municipal extortions. And vice-versa.

Originally Posted by dino7c

It's not a private sports stadium, it's a city owned events center

Owning it is not a good thing. No property taxes, but on the hook for major maintenance and eventual demolition. The lease terms could/should theoretically cover all that, but most analysis show to the contrary.

FYI the Saddledome does about 90 CSEC sports events and 20-30 "other" events each year. It's a sports arena.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Owning it is not a good thing. No property taxes, but on the hook for major maintenance and eventual demolition. The lease terms could/should theoretically cover all that, but most analysis show to the contrary.

FYI the Saddledome does about 90 CSEC sports events and 20-30 "other" events each year. It's a sports arena.

buT tHInK OF ALL thE CONcErtS ThAt CuRreNtLY Pass uS up to PLAy in EdmoNton