View Single Post
Old
12-10-2012, 12:29 PM
  #26
PerformanceOil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
There was no "accounting trickery". There was no profit-sharing because the agreement says SSE can keep the first 14 million (/year) in profits before they have to share anything (they would share 20% of the excess). That happened only once, see link below.
Oh yeah, missed that thanks. Just remember the report noting that they had sent too much to the Panthers, and I was wondering what difference it makes to the county?

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Obviously, the ownership would prefer that the Panthers were in the black as well, but they'll gladly accept a team that's in the red if in return it helps them have a lot more black ink elsewhere. They're a loss leader.
Except they don't have a lot of black ink elsewhere. They paid more than 100% of the arena profits back into the Panthers. The only question, was how profitable (or not) were the Panthers after this subsidy.

The only thing left, is maybe they made some money on real-estate development around the arena.

But, again, even if this is true, I don't think the county is making out very well on the arena deal.

I guess the only real question is what would the net gain/loss be for everyone (SSE and the County) if the arena was built without the Panthers - assuming that the arena is a net positive in 'community value' (but maybe a smaller cheaper arena could be built for the other events that the city has demand for).

PerformanceOil is offline   Reply With Quote