View Single Post
05-08-2013, 01:39 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,308
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
They both deal with the facts. They only offer a different viewpoint of those facts.
That's too convenient and simplistic an explanation.

Clark and some of her acolytes refuse to acknowledge the difference between "net" and "gross" operating costs. That's not just a different "viewpoint", that's the difference between using sound and unsound financial logic. They point to the $12 million operating costs to justify that level of AMF, without acknowledging that the arena manager also reaps $6 million in revenues from the events that offset those costs. Why should the COG pay the full $12 million in gross operating costs if the arena manager also gets to keep all of the revenue?

Using that absurd logic, it would be to the COG's distinct financial disadvantage for the to have more events and more tenants, because they would end up having to pay the increased operating costs for the additional events without any offset from the increased revenue.

It still boils down to the fact that the NHL and various ownership candidates have consistently insisted that the COG not only pay for the arena management costs, but also pay a subsidy to offset the hockey-related operating losses of the Coyotes. The only question now is how much of a subsidy will be demanded by the NHL, and how much of a subsidy is the COG willing and able to pay. If they can agree, a local sale is imminent. If not, other options will be pursued.

Whileee is offline