View Single Post
Old
11-20-2012, 11:15 PM
  #975
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
The slides aren't numbered http://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/agen...ment112012.pdf

On the slide with the 10 year forecast, in FY22, with the JIG lease, the city will have a negative General Fund balance of -$17.9MM. Without the JIG lease, the forecast is for a negative General Fund balance of -$17.1MM.

Or put simply, at the 10-year point of the agreement, Skeete forecasts that Glendale is $800k better off without the Coyotes.
In looking at the Team / No Team scenarios, there are two key considerations. First, the AMF and Capital Fund for the arena (tied to the Jamison lease) is expected to be considerably more expensive than the arena management costs without the team.

So why does the deal "save" money in the long term. According to the figures presented, they are projecting that without the team they will have much higher General Fund expenditures. I can't recall any rationale for that assumption.

Can someone clarify why Skeete projects that General Fund expenditures will be substantially higher with No Team, even after the arena management costs are considered?

Whileee is online now