View Single Post
Old
11-21-2012, 06:03 AM
  #985
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Is he perhaps working off of projected tax revenue losses should the Coyotes leave with absolutely no dates factored in & projected to offset those losses? I see the app $6M for AM, absolutely nothing, zero, with respect to potential event, trade show, concert dates... only explanation I can think of Whileee.
No - revenues are presented separately. I think I've figured out the discrepancy:

Using FY22 (though that applies for every year: link) --

Team stays:
Beginning GF balance (1.1)
Revenues 191.9
GF expenses (154.3)
MPC-PFC & Transfers out (35.3)
AMF & capital expenditures on arena (19.0)
equals
Ending fund balance (17.9)

No team:
Beginning GF balance 1.7
Revenues 189.4
GF expenses (163.9)
MPC-PFC & Transfers out (35.3)
AMF & capital expenditures on arena (8.8)
equals
Ending fund balance (17.1)

The 2.5M drop in revenues makes sense in the context of assuming no arena events if the team goes. The reduced AMF too. But the GF expenses make no sense -- why would they be 9.6M higher without the team?

Here's why: there's an "expenditure reduction" line item in FY13-FY16, i.e. the effect of service cuts is presented separately. It has much larger amounts if the team stays than if it goes. In other words it's not "Coyotes stay" vs. "Coyotes leave", it's "Coyotes stay + big cuts" vs. "Coyotes leave + smaller cuts". The only reason the first scenario looks better in the long run is because of those bigger service cuts.

barneyg is offline