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

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by carmenshoes

Than players need to take a pay cut.

Without them, there's no league. They're fairly paid (if not slightly underpaid), given the amount of revenue the league takes in.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Underpaid?

[Freeway]

A 50/50 split of HRR is quite fair, I would say.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Freeway

A 50/50 split of HRR is quite fair, I would say.

Yeah you need both.

Talent and capital.

Neither work without the other.

[Strange Brew]

IMO the 50/50 split works out quite well for the owners primarily by virtue of what is excluded from HRR. It’s the singly biggest reason we have seen such a spike in franchise value IMO.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Without them, there's no league. They're fairly paid (if not slightly underpaid), given the amount of revenue the league takes in.

You missed the point. It’s a philosophical argument. Are the players business expenses or are they business partners?

If they’re business partners then put your wages to work building the capital projects the business allegedly (and I use this word purposefully) requires.

If they’re business expenses (they are) then wages need to go down if the theory is you need massive capital infusions to build new arenas every 40 years. Because obviously the revenues don’t support good returns unless massive public subsidies appear, apparently. So yes the business model is broken because no other business requires the public to come along and subsidize massive capital projects. Imagine CNRL coming in and asking Fort McMurray to pay $200MM for CNRL’s new oil sands project because Fort McMurray will benefit with jobs. Same thing here but without the emotional component the NHL leverages with fans.

I like the NFL model where every team contributes to basically a stadium “pool” of collective funds annually and then when teams need a new building the NFL pool pays out.

Agree the NHL needs a certain level of talent but not at all cost. Pretty obvious that player salaries either need to go down or owners need to step up if the NHL business can’t get it done. The problem is you have 32 different municipalities that will all do their own thing and maybe give public subsidies which opens the door to this public abuse. And the emotional component of a team leaving gives billionaire owners all the leverage in the world. BUT- at some point enough just be enough.

Also find it amusing when people say “well you can’t go to public plebiscite because people won’t want it”- yeah no ####, what does that tell you then?

Skipping on the Olympics was one of Calgary’s best decisions of all time given everything we know about the Olympics today. Go to plebiscite on the Green line and maybe you get different outcomes. If something isn’t popular maybe there’s, oh I dunno, a reason?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Without them, there's no league. They're fairly paid (if not slightly underpaid), given the amount of revenue the league takes in.

Your tax dollars are not going to "funding a building".

They are going to fund the excess capital that allows players to make $10mm year, and owners to see dramatic increases in their equity.

There is plenty of revenue to support pro teams building their own facilities.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Your tax dollars are not going to "funding a building".

They are going to fund the excess capital that allows players to make $10mm year, and owners to see dramatic increases in their equity.

There is plenty of revenue to support pro teams building their own facilities.

You realize the guy making 10M a year pays a lot more taxes than you do right?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You realize the guy making 10M a year pays a lot more taxes than you do right?

so?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

so?

Flames have an 81M pay roll, they are paying more taxes than anything they are getting back

Joe six pack isn't subsidizing millionaires, and if not in Calgary they will make that money and pay those taxes elsewhere

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also find it amusing when people say “well you can’t go to public plebiscite because people won’t want it”- yeah no ####, what does that tell you then?

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.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Flames have an 81M pay roll, they are paying more taxes than anything they are getting back

Joe six pack isn't subsidizing millionaires, and if not in Calgary they will make that money and pay those taxes elsewhere

That’s how progressive taxation work. The dollars which pay those salaries would be put into other entertainment options and contribute to taxation elsewhere. You might have a case in the NFL where television dwarfs gate but the NHL is still a local business. All businesses and employees pay more in on taxation than they get in subsidies. Otherwise governments couldn’t operate other services.

If all municipalities said no the NHL still exists and the cap is about 20-30million per year lower and each team builds an arena every 30 years. This isn’t a marginal business.

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

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GGG

That’s how progressive taxation work. The dollars which pay those salaries would be put into other entertainment options and contribute to taxation elsewhere. You might have a case in the NFL where television dwarfs gate but the NHL is still a local business. All businesses and employees pay more in on taxation than they get in subsidies. Otherwise governments couldn’t operate other services.

If all municipalities said no the NHL still exists and the cap is about 20-30million per year lower and each team builds an arena every 30 years. This isn’t a marginal business.

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

No they wouldn't, not mine anyway...if I didn't spend money on the Flames I would be spending most of that money in another city and not on the hitmen ect. I already have. My Flames budget from last season was all spent in the US.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Flames have an 81M pay roll, they are paying more taxes than anything they are getting back

Joe six pack isn't subsidizing millionaires, and if not in Calgary they will make that money and pay those taxes elsewhere

Where do you think they get their money from? Joe six pack pays tax dollars towards arena funding, but more importantly pays their salaries through their tickets, that then also come back as taxes. So Joe Six pack is paying for everything, in a way.

Reducing ticket prices, reducing salaries, and thus reducing the owner take are all within the realm of reality, and they'd still have vastly more money than Joe. It's weird we just accept that some guy who has talent playing hockey is worth more to society than say a doctor saving lives, or even a bus driver. And not just a little more, orders of magnitude more. And then those making far far less are so eager to jump up and defend this vast inequality. Just seems odd to me.

Like, wouldn't you want to pay less to take you and your family to see a hockey game, or have fewer annoying adds, or sponsor names plastered all over? The only consequence being the guy on the ice gets a few million less over their hockey career? And the owners who are vastly more wealthy than you accumulate franchise value at a slightly lower pace? There's nothing to say the model we have now is the only one that would work.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Freeway

A 50/50 split of HRR is quite fair, I would say.

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

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Where do you think they get their money from? Joe six pack pays tax dollars towards arena funding, but more importantly pays their salaries through their tickets, that then also come back as taxes. So Joe Six pack is paying for everything, in a way.

Reducing ticket prices, reducing salaries, and thus reducing the owner take are all within the realm of reality, and they'd still have vastly more money than Joe. It's weird we just accept that some guy who has talent playing hockey is worth more to society than say a doctor saving lives, or even a bus driver. And not just a little more, orders of magnitude more. And then those making far far less are so eager to jump up and defend this vast inequality. Just seems odd to me.

Like, wouldn't you want to pay less to take you and your family to see a hockey game, or have fewer annoying adds, or sponsor names plastered all over? The only consequence being the guy on the ice gets a few million less over their hockey career? And the owners who are vastly more wealthy than you accumulate franchise value at a slightly lower pace? There's nothing to say the model we have now is the only one that would work.

Willingly paying for something that is a want and receivimg something in return is not subsidizing.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You realize the guy making 10M a year pays a lot more taxes than you do right?

Show me where the city of Calgary taxes players on their incomes.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Show me where the city of Calgary taxes players on their incomes.

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

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Willingly paying for something that is a want and receivimg something in return is not subsidizing.

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.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by dino7c

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

The feds and the province aren't subsidizing hockey players and owners