View Single Post
Old
11-21-2012, 06:29 AM
  #986
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
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.
Fascinating. I have generally given up looking at COG financial projections, although they do seem to have improved significantly under Skeete.

It would appear that they more or less backed into the GF expenditures that would result in nearly equivalent ending fund balances, and obviously there must be significant cuts to fund the AMF. Was this not discussed during the meeting? (who am I kidding... They might as well have discussed cookies and milk)

OthmarAmmann is offline