09-13-2017, 03:36 PM
|
#181
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
No, its 1/3 on the owners. 1/3 on the fans and 1/3 on the City. With debate about who floats the financing costs of the fan's percentage.
What seems unfair about that? I want to know who would actually own the building itself.
|
Sorry - just looking for clarification on where we are now (things change so quickly)
You said it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, and 1/3 City (debating who floats the financing of the fan's percentage)...
I thought it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, 1/3 City, but the debate was the City wanted to be repaid their 1/3... the fan component was what the ticket tax was repaying, no?
Like I said, maybe I missed something.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:37 PM
|
#182
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Carnage
Sorry - just looking for clarification on where we are now (things change so quickly)
You said it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, and 1/3 City (debating who floats the financing of the fan's percentage)...
I thought it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, 1/3 City, but the debate was the City wanted to be repaid their 1/3... the fan component was what the ticket tax was repaying, no?
Like I said, maybe I missed something.
|
If you want to get technical it is going to be paid 100% by the fans (users).
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:39 PM
|
#183
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
What other comparables from the City do you suggest?
If the answer is they do not recover ANY costs, which I suspect it is, then clearly the City presently expecting to recover nearly 100% of costs for the Arena project, which provides some of the same benefits as these other major projects, seems to be out of line.
|
No its not. Have you seen a local library l lately? Once these things are operational they are expected to run as is for decades and are certainly not expected to generate revenue on behalf of a private businessman.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:42 PM
|
#184
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 161 St. - Yankee Stadium
|
Am I mistaken or did the original CalgaryNext agreement result in the City owning the building?
Assuming the condition was the same with Victoria Park, how is the City coming away with nothing for their investment?
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:42 PM
|
#185
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
The city wants to the owners to pay 1/3 and they will pay 2/3. They want to recoup their money from revenue. The Flames want to recoup their money through revenue. It's operating a business.
The difference is once the 400Mil the city has paid has been recouped they get no more, once the Flames recoup their 200Mil investment they continue to reap the rewards and once it's time to pay for the demolition of the building they get to walk away and put that cost onto the taxpayers.
|
No, that is not correct.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:43 PM
|
#186
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJones
So the City wants the owners to pay for it all.
Can't say that surprises me why the Flames aren't happy. Can't see anything being done unless the city actually pays for something rather than acting as a bank.
|
I can understand why the Flames don't like this deal at all but I don't see the city (at least with Nenshi around) changing their mind on this.
Sounds like the city will have to develop infrastructure around the facility as well, who knows how much that will cost. Does the counter proposal from the city include these costs? That could account for the extra $100m the Flames aren't accounting for.
I don't mind the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model at all. That is a better split for us Calgarians. Getting some sort of profit back from the new arena to the city will likely need to happen. Maybe it is 30% of arena profits annually until the loan is replayed? No matter the revenue. The $200m could be paid off in 20 years and not 30 based on how smart the CSEC is at filling the building and managing their business. Should the property tax be included as part of repayment, I think it should be. That could be the little lee-way the city can give the CSEC and is a small piece of the pie IMO.
__________________
"You're worried about the team not having enough heart. I'm worried about the team not having enough brains." HFOil fan, August 12th, 2020. E=NG
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:45 PM
|
#187
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBR
Am I mistaken or did the original CalgaryNext agreement result in the City owning the building?
Assuming the condition was the same with Victoria Park, how is the City coming away with nothing for their investment?
|
Considering the costs and liability that you are left with during, and especially at the end of, it's life cycle, owning the building itself is probably the last thing either party wants.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:47 PM
|
#188
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Carnage
Sorry - just looking for clarification on where we are now (things change so quickly)
You said it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, and 1/3 City (debating who floats the financing of the fan's percentage)...
I thought it was 1/3 owners, 1/3 fans, 1/3 City, but the debate was the City wanted to be repaid their 1/3... the fan component was what the ticket tax was repaying, no?
Like I said, maybe I missed something.
|
This is my understanding.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:49 PM
|
#189
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
No, that is not correct.
|
Then who is fronting the money that will come in from the surcharge?
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:49 PM
|
#190
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by foshizzle11
I don't mind the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model at all. That is a better split for us Calgarians. Getting some sort of profit back from the new arena to the city will likely need to happen. Maybe it is 30% of arena profits annually until the loan is replayed? No matter the revenue. The $200m could be paid off in 20 years and not 30 based on how smart the CSEC is at filling the building and managing their business. Should the property tax be included as part of repayment, I think it should be. That could be the little lee-way the city can give the CSEC and is a small piece of the pie IMO.
|
I can see how a simple profit or revenue sharing can mess with the CBA, since it potentially reduces the amount to be shared with players. But perhaps something could be worked out along non-NHL revenue: concerts, other sports, wrestling, etc.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:53 PM
|
#191
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
Then who is fronting the money that will come in from the surcharge?
|
It gets borrowed in public markets. The city doesn't cut a cheque out of its personal coffers (the city doesn't have that kind of money)
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:55 PM
|
#192
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
Then who is fronting the money that will come in from the surcharge?
|
Think of it this way:
If you co-sign a loan for your child, you don't actually hand out money from your own pocket. You simply guarantee that the loan will get paid back.
Now, if your child doesn't pay, you will then be on the hook. But unless it comes to that, co-signing the loan costs you nothing.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:55 PM
|
#193
|
Franchise Player
|
Would it be possible to just have one thread again?
Last edited by Ashasx; 09-13-2017 at 03:57 PM.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:56 PM
|
#194
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Would it be possible to just get have thread again?
|
Do you currently smell burnt toast?
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:57 PM
|
#195
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
If you want to get technical it is going to be paid 100% by the fans (users).
|
While I really like technical, no, that's not what I'm looking for, because that isn't helpful.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:59 PM
|
#196
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
It gets borrowed in public markets. The city doesn't cut a cheque out of its personal coffers (the city doesn't have that kind of money)
|
Yeah, but it's the City that gets the borrowed money and is obligated to repay. Sure it is designed to be repaid through ticket surcharges but if the Flames fold in 5 years the City is on the hook for this amount regardless if the building sits empty or not. Risk of borrowing is on the City so that's why I count it on them. At least that's the way the Edmonton deal worked, surcharges went to the City to repay the loans.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 04:01 PM
|
#197
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Carnage
While I really like technical, no, that's not what I'm looking for, because that isn't helpful.
|
1/3 Flames
1/3 Flames through ticket tax (ultimately paid by buyers)
1/3 Flames via repayment of a loan which is either made by the City or (more likely) made by a normal source of money and guaranteed by the City.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 04:02 PM
|
#198
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
Yeah, but it's the City that gets the borrowed money and is obligated to repay. Sure it is designed to be repaid through ticket surcharges but if the Flames fold in 5 years the City is on the hook for this amount regardless if the building sits empty or not. Risk of borrowing is on the City so that's why I count it on them. At least that's the way the Edmonton deal worked, surcharges went to the City to repay the loans.
|
Correct, which is why I compared it to co-signing a loan. If the team folded and the arena didn't generate sufficient revenue, then yes, the city would be on the hook.
But that is very, very different than saying the city is fronting the money. Because they are not.
And in Canada, the idea of the arena not generating money is pretty difficult to imagine.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 04:03 PM
|
#199
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
Yeah, but it's the City that gets the borrowed money and is obligated to repay. Sure it is designed to be repaid through ticket surcharges but if the Flames fold in 5 years the City is on the hook for this amount regardless if the building sits empty or not. Risk of borrowing is on the City so that's why I count it on them. At least that's the way the Edmonton deal worked, surcharges went to the City to repay the loans.
|
There's two components - the ticket tax and the City "contribution". I think the City actually doesn't gets the borrowed money in either case. They use their credit to enable the Flames to borrow it. The risk of borrowing is on both the Flames and the City.
Unless the City actually borrows on its own and then lends to the Flames. But I don't think that's what's proposed.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 04:04 PM
|
#200
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
Yeah, but it's the City that gets the borrowed money and is obligated to repay. Sure it is designed to be repaid through ticket surcharges but if the Flames fold in 5 years the City is on the hook for this amount regardless if the building sits empty or not. Risk of borrowing is on the City so that's why I count it on them. At least that's the way the Edmonton deal worked, surcharges went to the City to repay the loans.
|
I don't think that's fair... assuming there is a new building, I have to honestly believe we can agree the Flames aren't folding.
As I thought I understood it, the Flames are taking the loan, with the city co-signing to get a better rate (maybe from the province?).
So the Flames are taking the loan (guaranteed by the city), but it is being repaid by the ticket holders.
I also don't think that's where the city and the Flames are stuck.
I'm my assumptions above are correct, the Flames want the city's 1/3 to be a contribution being repaid by Victoria Park's higher property taxes. The City wants the Flames to repay them the 1/3, and I guess they assume the increased property taxes will go towards offsetting the interest on the loan they take out for their 1/3.
If I'm wrong, can someone please clarify?
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:45 PM.
|
|