View Single Post
Old
12-10-2012, 01:56 PM
  #28
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Without tye panthers, that arena losses money. Can the same be said for the failing restaurant?
You cannot say that. What you can say is that SSE can only pocket arena profits IF it also provides the Panthers as an anchor tenant. There is no "what if" analysis that suggests the arena would be losing money without the Panthers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerformanceOil View Post
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?
From the audit report:

"Unallowable distributions reduce AOCís cash reserves which are required to meet their County obligations and create additional risk to the County."

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerformanceOil View Post
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.
This is due to big payments in FY 2005 (October 2004-September 2005 i.e. the lockout year), a year during which arena net income was much lower. AOC retains a bunch of revenues during hockey events according to the report: food/merchandise, suites, club seats... so long story short, there's really not much of a way to answer that question.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote