09-22-2017, 11:15 AM
|
#2221
|
Referee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Just read the Eric Francis piece, and it's horrible. Wow. Not surprised, but still.
Travis Yost on Twitter: "Holy Moly"
https://twitter.com/travisyost/statu...87722034454528
__________________
You’re just old hate balls.
--Funniest mod complaint in CP history.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MRCboicgy For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:16 AM
|
#2222
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
There's already an arena there, and this is right on top of the Stampede Grounds. The need for larger station capacity already exists and is already undoubtedly being planned for. The proposed new arena does not change this in any way.
|
That's a fair point. However, a new arena will draw more people to the green line station whereas the Saddledome would draw more riders to the two existing red line stations (which are closer to the Saddledome).
Quote:
That's easy, actually. The Flames are looking at the end costs being that they ultimately pay for everything + extra on the property tax/lease/rent. As a consequence, their view is that the city's proposal is it ultimately pays $0. And relative to the Rogers Place deal where Edmonton is going to end up paying about $300 million that won't ever need to be repaid, you can see the gulf from the team's POV.
|
I agree that this is what the team is arguing. But it is based on a crazy, untenable premise: that the Flames are or should be exempt from property taxes.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:18 AM
|
#2223
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
They're separating it away because it wasn't included as either the owner's $100M or the ticket tax's $150M as a part of the overall $275M in the Flames proposal. There was $25M without a funding source in the Flames proposal.
|
Again, semantics. Both sides agree that the Flames would be covering that somehow.
Quote:
Except it isn't the same. The city's proposal has the team owning the building paying property taxes (but therefore no rent/lease, because why would they?).
The Flames proposal has the city owning the building (therefore no property taxes) but the Flames also paying no rent.
One side has a way for the city to recoup their investment. The other doesn't.
|
Well, yes, that's the heart of the dispute: The end goal from the city is that the team repays the entire cost through various means while the team's goal is that some percentage (just over 40% based on their pie chart) is never repaid. That doesn't change the fact that in the City's proposal it would still be a cost to the Flames. That tax/lease/rent dispute is the heart of the issue. It's disingenuous on the part of both sides to try and mask it for PR purposes.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:23 AM
|
#2224
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Again, semantics. Both sides agree that the Flames would be covering that somehow.
Well, yes, that's the heart of the dispute: The end goal from the city is that the team repays the entire cost through various means while the team's goal is that some percentage (just over 40% based on their pie chart) is never repaid. That doesn't change the fact that in the City's proposal it would still be a cost to the Flames. That tax/lease/rent dispute is the heart of the issue. It's disingenuous to try and mask it.
|
No, the goal of the City is not that the Flames repay the City's contribution. The City's expectation is that the Flames pay property tax or rent (that would at least equal the property tax which ought to be paid). Those are obligations entirely independent of financial contribution from the City. The Flames could build the arena entirely on their own, with zero contribution from the City, and they would still have to pay property tax.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:25 AM
|
#2225
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Again, semantics. Both sides agree that the Flames would be covering that somehow.
|
Well that's just it. They don't. City sees $150M of that as a user charge, and $100M as the Flames portion. So to the city, what side of that $25M does it fall into?
The Flames see it as all theirs so I guess it doesn't matter to them that they can't add and follow their own financial proposal, but the expectation is that the city will still finance part of their contribution. So is the city financing $150M of that or $175M of it?
But more than that, they're highlighting that the Flames can't add.
Quote:
That tax/lease/rent dispute is the heart of the issue. It's disingenuous on the part of both sides to try and mask it for PR purposes.
|
Both sides masking it?
The city's proposal explicitly states the team would be paying property taxes.
The Flames proposal is trying to mask paying their proposed portion of construction debt as 'rent' and nothing on top of it.
One side is masking it.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:26 AM
|
#2226
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
That's a fair point. However, a new arena will draw more people to the green line station whereas the Saddledome would draw more riders to the two existing red line stations (which are closer to the Saddledome).
|
Perhaps, but not likely to the extent I think you are implying. Most people will chose their LRT lines based on proximity to where they originate from. But yeah, people who don't live relatively close to either line would be more likely to choose the line closer to the destination.
Quote:
I agree that this is what the team is arguing. But it is based on a crazy, untenable premise: that the Flames are or should be exempt from property taxes.
|
Given that is the exact situation now - the city owns the building, the Flames get the revenue and don't pay property tax - It's easy to see why they feel this premise is not exactly crazy. I wish I knew what the Flames currently pay (if any) as a management fee . It used to be $1 million per year, but I haven't heard anything about whether that has changed. Any which way you slice it, it is a sweetheart deal. But they definitely see the city's current proposals to be a major step backward.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:26 AM
|
#2227
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
Not possible at the municipal level in Canada. These could work if the cities are able to negotiate a new deal with the province that could allow new taxing powers.
|
So how does Banff charge the 2% TIF tax?
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:28 AM
|
#2228
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunkstyle
So how does Banff charge the 2% TIF tax?
|
I presume that Banff is a creature of federal, rather than provincial, statute.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:29 AM
|
#2229
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
Live look-in at Eric Francis:
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheScorpion For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:30 AM
|
#2230
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Perhaps, but not likely to the extent I think you are implying. Most people will chose their LRT lines based on proximity to where they originate from. But yeah, people who don't live relatively close to either line would be more likely to choose the line closer to the destination.
Given that is the exact situation now - the city owns the building, the Flames get the revenue and don't pay property tax - It's easy to see why they feel this premise is not exactly crazy. I wish I knew what the Flames currently pay (if any) as a management fee . It used to be $1 million per year, but I haven't heard anything about whether that has changed. Any which way you slice it, it is a sweetheart deal. But they definitely see the city's current proposals to be a major step backward.
|
Nenshi referred to it as the best or one of the best arena deals in the whole league.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:39 AM
|
#2231
|
Draft Pick
|
Long time lurker and a big fan of this site.
Interesting that two 'small' market teams managed to make it to the finals last year. One did it with a privately funded arena and the other plays in one that was finished in 1995.
Asking for public funding without providing quantifying the public benefit and opening your books is a non-starter for me.
Logically I also find it impossible to reconcile the value of franchises, interest level in new ones, with the earnings numbers being presented.
Fun with numbers is my guess and the burden of proof lies with ownership for my vote.
CSE owns many franchises and in its own way seems to be trying to create MLSE. I suspect moving isn't a credible threat no matter how volatile ownership may be.
There are many models (and small market teams) around the NHL, as well as creative solutions. No need to get in a pissing match with Shelbeyville over a shiny new arena in my opinion.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SweepToTheCup For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 11:42 AM
|
#2232
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRCboicgy
|
Francis cites the 100% taxpayer funded Videotron Centre (Which does not host an NHL team) as a reason for the Flames to build a facility.
An arena is not an 'infrastructure improvement'. The C-train is not going to run through the attacking zone.
Quebec City, Winnipeg and Minneapolis lost their teams because their capacities were all under 16,000 and unfit for the demands of modern NHL hockey. The Flames made $18M in Forbes' most recent evaluation. Tough to argue you can't make it work when you're coming out $18M ahead. Oh, but you'd like to be $40M ahead? #### you.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:06 PM
|
#2233
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
Francis cites the 100% taxpayer funded Videotron Centre (Which does not host an NHL team) as a reason for the Flames to build a facility.
An arena is not an 'infrastructure improvement'. The C-train is not going to run through the attacking zone.
Quebec City, Winnipeg and Minneapolis lost their teams because their capacities were all under 16,000 and unfit for the demands of modern NHL hockey. The Flames made $18M in Forbes' most recent evaluation. Tough to argue you can't make it work when you're coming out $18M ahead. Oh, but you'd like to be $40M ahead? #### you.
|
It's also entirely pointless to make comparables to two teams that moved before player salaries were tied to league revenue.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NiklasSundblad For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:10 PM
|
#2234
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Given that is the exact situation now - the city owns the building, the Flames get the revenue and don't pay property tax - It's easy to see why they feel this premise is not exactly crazy. I wish I knew what the Flames currently pay (if any) as a management fee . It used to be $1 million per year, but I haven't heard anything about whether that has changed. Any which way you slice it, it is a sweetheart deal. But they definitely see the city's current proposals to be a major step backward.
|
Good point. However, to me, the Flames should recognize that the Aaddledome lease is the product of a once-in-a-lifetime (probably) gift of federal and provincial contributions to this City. The federal-provincial arena fairy is not proposing to leave another arena under the City's pillow.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:16 PM
|
#2235
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Nenshi referred to it as the best or one of the best arena deals in the whole league.
|
In fairness to the Flames presuming the deal is still 1 million dollars that represents a 6 million dollar subsidy if you link rent to property tax or more if you believe that if you did and RFP for the maintenance / entertainment portion of the manage agreement.
So over a 35 year period the city will subsidize the Flames roughly 200 million dollars. The city proposal is giving the flames that subsidy up front but eliminating the yearly subsidy (though they are open to negotiation on the amount).
So essentially the city is not offering any new subsidies to the Flames in their Arena offer. But they shouldn't they are already giving 6 million or so a year in value to the team. That should be sufficient.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:20 PM
|
#2236
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
In fairness to the Flames presuming the deal is still 1 million dollars that represents a 6 million dollar subsidy if you link rent to property tax or more if you believe that if you did and RFP for the maintenance / entertainment portion of the manage agreement.
So over a 35 year period the city will subsidize the Flames roughly 200 million dollars. The city proposal is giving the flames that subsidy up front but eliminating the yearly subsidy (though they are open to negotiation on the amount).
So essentially the city is not offering any new subsidies to the Flames in their Arena offer. But they shouldn't they are already giving 6 million or so a year in value to the team. That should be sufficient.
|
Good way of looking at it. And again, there is no federal and provincial money this time. So I think, by offering to pick up all of that slack itself and continue the current subsidy, is more than reasonable on the part of the City. It entirely leaves the ball in the Flames' court: they enjoy the "Saddledome legacy" no matter what. It's just a question of whether they prefer to do it in the Saddledome or in a new building.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:20 PM
|
#2237
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
|
I honestly thought I'd seen the worst with Eric Francis but wow does that article ever take the cake. Just horrible.
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:27 PM
|
#2238
|
Franchise Player
|
Just out of curiosity, does the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede pay property taxes?
|
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:30 PM
|
#2239
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Good point. However, to me, the Flames should recognize that the Aaddledome lease is the product of a once-in-a-lifetime (probably) gift of federal and provincial contributions to this City. The federal-provincial arena fairy is not proposing to leave another arena under the City's pillow.
|
Totally agree. At the same time, they aren't going to support a deal where they pay greater than the cost of it when its all said and done, which is how they view the city's current proposal. That is a position that I hope the city comes slightly down from, personally. I don't expect them to give into the Flames' current demand, which has taxpayers funding about 40% of the ultimate cost of the arena, but I do personally support a number greater than 0%.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-22-2017, 12:32 PM
|
#2240
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Just out of curiosity, does the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede pay property taxes?
|
They are non-profits so I believe they are exempt. So if the Flames wishes to become a non profit they are welcome to do so.
Here is the relavent statute
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?pa...9&display=html
Quote:
Exemption under section 362(1)(n)(ii) of the Act
9(1) The following property is not exempt from taxation under section 362(1)(n)(ii) of the Act:
(a) property to the extent that it is used in the operation of a professional sports franchise;
|
Which is why city ownership is so important to the flames
Last edited by GGG; 09-22-2017 at 12:37 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
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 07:12 AM.
|
|