10-20-2017, 06:35 PM
|
#3681
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
At the next CBA negotiations, the NHL really needs to link its infrastructure costs to the salary cap. A $70 million cap is not realistic if your revenues can't support the very building you do business out of.
I'm no business surgeon, but if you can't afford rent, you can't afford to pay your employees an exorbitant salary.
|
I suspect the players would do that if they got their percentage of all non-hockey related revenue out of the arena's.
|
|
|
10-20-2017, 08:21 PM
|
#3682
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stone hands
if thats the model the flames take, 100% yes
From this thread, i really dont think you grasp that some people genuinely do not care about hockey or the flames. this is a luxury entertainment item people like you and me voluntarily pay for to consume
|
Why do so many people have to make posts personal in order to try and make a point?
Of course some people don't care about the Flames. Hot take!
But it is ridiculous to suggest that only the people who are at the games care about the Flames or enjoy watching them. There are more than 100,000 people watching each game on TV. During the playoffs, that swells to more like 500,000 - a very significant fraction of the population.
I never one said anything to suggest that I can't 'grasp' that some people don't care about hockey. So stick to posting your own opinions and don't put words in my mouth.
And maybe if you do that, you'll realize that your post was hyperbolic and completely missing the point. Sure, not everyone cares about the Flames. However, a pretty significant percentage of the population does. And most of them obtain the benefit / enjoy the entertainment at little to no cost - and in fact, almost entirely on the backs of those who are fortunate enough to be able pay the crazy ticket prices.
The other thing that your post missed is that an arena hosts more types of entertainment than just the Flames. And those other things bring a lot more people into the equation. The argument that not everyone cares about it is silly anyway, as there isn't a single public structure of any kind that everyone does care about (other than the basic necessities like hospitals, police and fire stations).
Suggesting that everyone chip in a little (very little) is not an unreasonable view, nor does it mean I don't have a grasp on reality.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-25-2017, 12:45 AM
|
#3683
|
Draft Pick
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
The other thing that your post missed is that an arena hosts more types of entertainment than just the Flames. And those other things bring a lot more people into the equation.
|
Would not all of those other events also be covered by taxes on tickets at a new arena?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Suggesting that everyone chip in a little (very little) is not an unreasonable view, nor does it mean I don't have a grasp on reality.
|
The problem is that it is not "very little." Subsidizing a sculpture you don't care about costs you a fraction of a penny. Even if you accept the Flames' ludicrous accounting, their proposal would cost the average household of Calgary $759.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 01:44 AM
|
#3684
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre
Would not all of those other events also be covered by taxes on tickets at a new arena?
The problem is that it is not "very little." Subsidizing a sculpture you don't care about costs you a fraction of a penny. Even if you accept the Flames' ludicrous accounting, their proposal would cost the average household of Calgary $759.
|
Source please (not because I disbelieve you, but because I've been asking for this number for quite some time).
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 02:23 AM
|
#3685
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir
As is Calgary's economic outlook. We're under multiple levels of government hellbent on turning us into the new Rust Belt and the private sector is responding by simply packing up and leaving for places that are easier to deal with. The NHL is only going to get more and more expensive to participate in and Calgary's corporate support is trending in the opposite direction with the only 'plan' being put on offer is hoping and praying that Amazon is going to make a decision that makes little logistical sense for them and park HQ2 here. Where are the deep pockets going to come from in the long term that will compete with a bid from a US market?
|
Calgary is forecast to have the fastest growing economy int he country next year. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...2017-1.4358400
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 02:27 AM
|
#3686
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre
The problem is that it is not "very little." Subsidizing a sculpture you don't care about costs you a fraction of a penny. Even if you accept the Flames' ludicrous accounting, their proposal would cost the average household of Calgary $759.
|
Well if that's the case then a definite no to the Flames proposal.
Let's say that a fraction of a penny is in fact one penny. I would much rather have 75,900 sculptures I don't care about. I wonder how many fractions of a penny giant blue rings cost when bought in bulk.
Last edited by Mister Yamoto; 10-25-2017 at 02:30 AM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Mister Yamoto For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-25-2017, 09:29 AM
|
#3687
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Feb 2007
Exp:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre
The problem is that it is not "very little." Subsidizing a sculpture you don't care about costs you a fraction of a penny. Even if you accept the Flames' ludicrous accounting, their proposal would cost the average household of Calgary $759.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Source please (not because I disbelieve you, but because I've been asking for this number for quite some time).
|
The math isn't tough to figure out the number. Let's say the city contribution is $300m and it's funded solely through municipal taxation. If you want to work out how much it costs per home on average:
300m x 48% / 499222 = $288.45
48% is the percentage of total residential property tax revenue (business taxes contribute the other major chunk of taxation, so they'll be contributing).
499,222 is the # of dwellings subject to property tax in 2016.
Of course that's not going to be a 1 time payment, as it's a capital project, serviced by debt over 30 years, so roughly $9.62 a year over the life of the arena plus financing costs. Also as # of dwellings increase, that number goes down. Assuming the same growth rate as our last 10 years, dwellings will increase to 910,881 by the 30 year mark, in which your household payment would drop to $5.27 per year per dwelling plus financing costs.
Last edited by rage2; 10-25-2017 at 09:32 AM.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 09:37 AM
|
#3688
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad
|
Yeah, well...I could write a completely made up story that is full of bull%#^* too.
The CBC, and plenty of other media outlets are writing about the “surging” Alberta economy while ignoring the massive layoffs that are quietly still happening in the energy sector, which will continue to have a significant trickle down impact on supporting businesses.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 09:40 AM
|
#3689
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rage2
Assuming the same growth rate as our last 10 years,
|
That's one poor assumption, I would think.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 09:48 AM
|
#3690
|
Draft Pick
|
The flames arena proposal seems to be quite pricey. Has anyone delved into the cost and the bells and whistles that are included? Could the cost come down significantly? Perhaps if the flames and the city started by figuring out how much money they can make available for the project and then design based on a budget it would be more prudent. The current price tag doesn't seem to make sense for either side and leaves the flames expecting the public to take on an unreasonable cost.
I'm sure the building could be designed to allow for future renovations, expansion and the addition of items that can not be afforded at the moment.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 10:12 AM
|
#3691
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad
|
The article itself lowkey admits that the growth is unsustainable long-term with oil prices being what they are. There isn't enough profitability in it to warrant businesses wanting to return and deal with the multiple layers of hostile bureaucracy now heaped onto them, and even if prices rebound the endless cockblocking of pipeline infrastructure from all directions makes it increasingly difficult and unreliable to get the product to market. No company is going to want to deal with the potential PR disaster that ever-aging delivery methods offer.
Bouncing off rock-bottom is going to make for a nice-looking percentage in the immediate aftermath but nothing about it should be used as evidence of a positive long-term outlook.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 10:13 AM
|
#3692
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biyaaaah
I'm sure the building could be designed to allow for future renovations, expansion and the addition of items that can not be afforded at the moment.
|
That sounds like a terrible idea. Build a crappy new arena and pay a ton to renovate later. That will just increase the total cost in the long run.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 10:21 AM
|
#3693
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
That sounds like a terrible idea. Build a crappy new arena and pay a ton to renovate later. That will just increase the total cost in the long run.
|
Yep. I believe Ottawa's arena was designed that way, now 20 years on they're removing seats to cope with dwindling attendance and evaluating the option to just start over with a whole new facility.
Renos are never, ever the cost-saving option clients insistently believe they are.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 10:39 AM
|
#3694
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rage2
The math isn't tough to figure out the number. Let's say the city contribution is $300m and it's funded solely through municipal taxation. If you want to work out how much it costs per home on average:
300m x 48% / 499222 = $288.45
48% is the percentage of total residential property tax revenue (business taxes contribute the other major chunk of taxation, so they'll be contributing).
499,222 is the # of dwellings subject to property tax in 2016.
Of course that's not going to be a 1 time payment, as it's a capital project, serviced by debt over 30 years, so roughly $9.62 a year over the life of the arena plus financing costs. Also as # of dwellings increase, that number goes down. Assuming the same growth rate as our last 10 years, dwellings will increase to 910,881 by the 30 year mark, in which your household payment would drop to $5.27 per year per dwelling plus financing costs.
|
I think you are making a fundamental mistake in counting dwellings only. Corporate and industrial properties pay property tax as well, and often at a higher rate (but corporations can then use those payments to lower their income taxes). So to the extent they pay, that greatly reduces the amount per dwelling.
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 10:55 AM
|
#3695
|
Franchise Player
|
So around 80 cents a month. Can I put 4 milk jugs a month in my blue bin to call it even?
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 12:22 PM
|
#3696
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
dp
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 12:24 PM
|
#3697
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Suggesting that everyone chip in a little (very little) is not an unreasonable view, nor does it mean I don't have a grasp on reality.
|
Sure, but as everyone chips in just a little as you say, reality and basic common sense would then dictate that everyone should share in some degree of the revenue generated instead of sending it all up the ivory tower.
We can all imagine if the roles were reversed, Edwards would be completely unperceptive to a city proposal for CSEC to fund more than half of a new library, fire station or park and would laugh everyone out of the room....unless of course they were able to charge user fees to make a profit. CSEC can buzz off until they're willing to act reasonably and grasp this notion that a partnership should be working both ways. If it means the Flames try to move elsewhere, so be it. Most hockey fans won't have trouble cheering for another team or spending their money on other forms of entertainment, which would likely make Calgary more robust in the long run anyway.
KK talks about leaving a legacy with his train wreck Calgary NEXT proposal - my idea of a legacy is being the city that took a stand against fatcat owners for the greater good of all North American sports.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Last edited by Hot_Flatus; 10-25-2017 at 12:36 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-25-2017, 12:28 PM
|
#3698
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Feb 2007
Exp:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
I think you are making a fundamental mistake in counting dwellings only. Corporate and industrial properties pay property tax as well, and often at a higher rate (but corporations can then use those payments to lower their income taxes). So to the extent they pay, that greatly reduces the amount per dwelling.
|
The question was how much it would cost per home owner. I segregated out the residential property tax portion already with the 48% contribution, so $144m of the $300m example would be from residential property taxes, which is why you could use the # of dwellings to determine per household cost. Business taxes (property + business) accounts for 45% of revenues, so $135m of that $300m example would be contributed by businesses and commercial building owners and not counted.
The data is from the 2016 annual report in case anyone is wondering. The growth numbers are from annual reports dating back to 2005.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rage2 For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-25-2017, 12:39 PM
|
#3699
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Feb 2007
Exp:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
That's one poor assumption, I would think.
|
It's be impossible to know exactly what the growth rate of # of dwellings would be, so it's definitely a best guess. Looking at the last 10 years, there were 2 major recessions that took a while to recover from, which meant 2009-2014 were below historic average growth, as was 2016. Only 2015 and pre-2009 beat the historical dwelling growth averages.
2016 - 1.34%
2015 - 3.01%
2014 - 2.11%
2013 - 1.96%
2012 - 1.86%
2011 - 1.23%
2010 - 1.55%
2009 - 1.31%
2008 - 3.02%
2007 - 2.88%
|
|
|
10-25-2017, 03:40 PM
|
#3700
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
I think everyone in CP should just chip in a little bit for a new laptop.so that I can continue to enjoy ACs highlight videos.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
|
|
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 03:10 PM.
|
|