View Single Post
Old
11-21-2012, 07:13 AM
  #988
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,550
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.
I was thinking that might be the case, but thought it was too preposterous. Could they have really asked the council to review projections comparing apples and oranges so blatantly?

So what they have pointed out is the blindingly obvious. If we cut more in expenditures than the difference between the Coyotes deal and another AMF, we'll have a higher general fund balance in the end. No wonder Skeete said that he personally can't support the Jamison deal (beyond the likelihood that he hasn't had much positive response from the wide circulation of his resume, and likes the COG gig).

Whileee is offline