HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Phoenix LXVI: Get Your Kicks On Thread LXVI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 12:12 AM
  #826
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,072
vCash: 500
... no worries. Discussing tax rates comparatively is edifying & on topic.

Killion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 07:49 AM
  #827
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
So then by your own argument, Edmonton and Quebec city are about to waste millions on building new arenas.

Or does it compute differently up north???
There is one major difference, but I'll get to that in a minute. Yes, Edmonton and Quebec City are about to waste millions on building new arenas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
But if I understood the point of the article CGG linked, there are no benefits from a city or municipality building any sports facilities period. Doesn't matter if it's replacing one. By his argument those old arenas weren't beneficial either when they were built..

I'm not against Edmonton or QC building arenas. But there have been way too many times general themed arguments being used against Glendale end up being somewhat hypocritical.
Not hypocritical at all. You're trying to paint this too much in broad strokes, equating any arena project in Canada to the bloody disaster in Glendale. They are not the same. There are a few prevailing issues here that you are trying to ignore.

I don't for one second think all government layers throwing money into the Edmonton and Quebec City rinks will turn a profit on those endeavors. Not by a long shot. But consider the following:

- As always, we're looking at Glendale throwing additional money to subsidize a private business, above and beyond the initial arena construction subsidy and sweetheart lease agreement. It's one thing for a city to waste money on an arena, but there are certain reasons to do so, even if they know they won't make money off it. They won't make money off building a city hall or a fire station either, but if a city deems it desirable to build an arena, so be it. It's another thing entirely to flush $15 million a year down the toilet to subsidize an arena manager's money-losing operation with no hope at all in ever recovering even half that money.

- As far as I know, subsidizing a hockey team owner is not illegal in Quebec City. If the public wants to do that with their money they are not violating a state law.

- Although they likely won't turn a profit on an area, Quebec City will actually charge rent to the tenant, meaning the city gets paid by someone for the right to use the arena. In Glendale it seems to work the other way - here's an arena, you rent it from us and we give you $15 million for your troubles.

- Compare the two situations if you will, but it should be beyond obvious that hockey is far more popular in Edmonton and Quebec than Glendale. Hockey will work up north in those two cities, and there will always be people who want to play there - with or without an NHL team. Hockey has been and will continue to be a disaster in Glendale.

- I would compare Glendale's building and ongonig subsidy of an NHL arena to Edmonton deciding one day they were going to spend $180 million on a bullfighting arena, then pay some unknown guys $15 million a year to run the bullfighting arena, which, if all goes well, would generate $2.5 million a year to the city of Edmonton in sales taxes and ticket charges. A state-of-the-art bullfighting facility in Edmonton attracting the top bullfighters in the world for 41 nights a year is pretty much a certain money loser. Same with hockey in Glendale. Not only that, but Glendale is kicking in another $300 million knowing that hockey in the city is a proven loser, with a long 16 year disastrous history, whereas someone could try to convince me that bullfighting in Edmonton might work, i.e. it's not a proven failure yet.

CGG is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:02 AM
  #828
calmdown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Hamilton? A little since we get looked at as the armpit of Canada, our city council is demented, and our citizens are stuck in the past.

My point was that your english, while good enough to understand, is slightly "off". It took me a second to figure out why.
So I apologize, at it was not specified, I tough I was beeing BS again because I was not from the right place to write about Glendale

calmdown is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:34 AM
  #829
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 204
Sorry Kimosabe errr Killion

My last posts first comment was a little over the top.

Look, Coyotes Fans, no one is blaming you for the franchise failing, we are blaming the rest of the community for not supporting them. The problem therein lies with the lack of support, unfortunately there just isn't enough fans within this market.

But, bringing an AHL team to not only fill 41 nights of the year at a much lesser cost will definitely help rebuild the market allowing for families to become interested in hockey in the sweltering heat.

It is unfortunate but those from Winnipeg and Quebec know what it is like to lose a team, is isn't fun, it hurts, but life goes on.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:02 AM
  #830
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
You can't blame someone for not supporting something they don't like. You should blame the NHL.

WingedWheel1987 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:20 AM
  #831
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
You can't blame someone for not supporting something they don't like. You should blame the NHL.
Blame the NHL for the market not supporting their team? WOT?


ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:25 AM
  #832
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,727
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
Blame the NHL for the market not supporting their team? WOT?

If you relocate a cricket team to Winnipeg and no one goes to the games, is it the fault of the people of Winnipeg or the fault of the league for putting a cricket team in Winnipeg where no one cares about it.

cheswick is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:14 AM
  #833
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
Blame the NHL for the market not supporting their team? WOT?

It is the fault of the NHL as they approved a location where maybe they did not do enough market research just so that they could get fees. It is also their fault for keeping the franchise there even with 15 years of history of declining/no fan support

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:26 AM
  #834
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
But the general point is that the province will get tax receipts from the sales of tickets, merchandise, etc (yes some of it will come at the expense of something else but some will be new spending) and taxes on the team payroll. so its not a bad deal. Before Killion drops the hammer for us getting off topic, part of the problem with the way this was done in Glendale was that all the financing burden was on Glendale.
At the provincial level, almost all of the sales tax effect will be at the expense of something else -- only the added income from out-of-province visitors will add to the total. My entertainment budget is fixed so the province gets the same amount whether I spend my budget on Nords tickets or movies or whatever else.

It's mostly the same idea with income taxes although the impact is a lot harder to estimate.

scenario 1: no Nords
I spent all my budget at the corner bar and Best Buy -> those guys pay their employees -> those employees pay taxes

scenario 2: with Nords
I spent all my budget on hockey -> the Nords pay their employees and players -> those guys pay taxes.

Players will have a higher marginal tax rate than the guy at the corner bar. That's it. The NPV of that difference is not $200 million.

Those are still indirect revenues and nobody will ever be able to show that the 50% investment in the new arena is a positive NPV project for the provincial government. Just like we all laughed at Beasley/staff's numbers when they tried to argue that Glendale recouped their AMF payment through increased indirect sales taxes at Westgate. Any estimate will be unreliable and no matter how outlandish the assumptions are, the net cost may be reduced but would never go down to zero. The reason it went through at the provincial level is that this is a positive "political NPV" project, not because of the financials.

To hopefully get back to Glendale, the problem isn't necessarily with the initial decision to build the arena -- you can't ever really find a good financial rationale for those infrastructure projects other than "we need to do this". You can be for it (most people here it seems) or against it (Fugu, Dado and a few others.. and Patrick Hruby) -- it's a question of ideology. The difference is when the COG decided to double-down on its losses by agreeing to the AMF to pay for more than the operational expenses, in a legal framework that includes Arizona's gift clause. Even when the ONLY focus of those guys has been the city's financial situation (basically ever since Beasley left), they still can't get it right.

(edit -- sorry OA)

barneyg is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:31 AM
  #835
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
- I would compare Glendale's building and ongonig subsidy of an NHL arena to Edmonton deciding one day they were going to spend $180 million on a bullfighting arena, then pay some unknown guys $15 million a year to run the bullfighting arena, which, if all goes well, would generate $2.5 million a year to the city of Edmonton in sales taxes and ticket charges. A state-of-the-art bullfighting facility in Edmonton attracting the top bullfighters in the world for 41 nights a year is pretty much a certain money loser. Same with hockey in Glendale. Not only that, but Glendale is kicking in another $300 million knowing that hockey in the city is a proven loser, with a long 16 year disastrous history, whereas someone could try to convince me that bullfighting in Edmonton might work, i.e. it's not a proven failure yet.
To make the comparison more valid, you would need to also shrink Edmonton's population size and tax base by more than 70%, so that its financial capacity would be severely strained by the addition of this amount of debt and long-term commitment to subsidize the NHL team. After all, these actions by Glendale were seen to materially affect Glendale's financial stability enough to earn substantial hits to their credit rating.

Then again, perhaps Moody's is being influenced by Canadian relocationists and they don't understand how bad an owner Moyes was, and how Gretzky was a lousy overpaid coach.

Whileee is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:51 AM
  #836
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
At the provincial level, almost all of the sales tax effect will be at the expense of something else -- only the added income from out-of-province visitors will add to the total. My entertainment budget is fixed so the province gets the same amount whether I spend my budget on Nords tickets or movies or whatever else.

It's mostly the same idea with income taxes although the impact is a lot harder to estimate.

scenario 1: no Nords
I spent all my budget at the corner bar and Best Buy -> those guys pay their employees -> those employees pay taxes

scenario 2: with Nords
I spent all my budget on hockey -> the Nords pay their employees and players -> those guys pay taxes.

Players will have a higher marginal tax rate than the guy at the corner bar. That's it. The NPV of that difference is not $200 million.

Those are still indirect revenues and nobody will ever be able to show that the 50% investment in the new arena is a positive NPV project for the provincial government. Just like we all laughed at Beasley/staff's numbers when they tried to argue that Glendale recouped their AMF payment through increased indirect sales taxes at Westgate. Any estimate will be unreliable and no matter how outlandish the assumptions are, the net cost may be reduced but would never go down to zero. The reason it went through at the provincial level is that this is a positive "political NPV" project, not because of the financials.

To hopefully get back to Glendale, the problem isn't necessarily with the initial decision to build the arena -- you can't ever really find a good financial rationale for those infrastructure projects other than "we need to do this". You can be for it (most people here it seems) or against it (Fugu, Dado and a few others.. and Patrick Hruby) -- it's a question of ideology. The difference is when the COG decided to double-down on its losses by agreeing to the AMF to pay for more than the operational expenses, in a legal framework that includes Arizona's gift clause. Even when the ONLY focus of those guys has been the city's financial situation (basically ever since Beasley left), they still can't get it right.

(edit -- sorry OA)
All valid points, but you also have some of the following:

1) People who divert spending that would be outside the province to Nords. There will be people who swap out roadtrips and vacations to for Nords season tickets.

2) Tourism. I have no reason/plans to visit QC. If the Nords come back I am doing a trip. There will be others like me. If you make the playoffs there will be all kinds of out-of-towners coming to town

3) Other events. This arena will be able to attract events that Colisee Pepsi won't

Plus as we mentioned the taxes on Nords players and staff.

maybe its not going to be $200 million but its not a horrible deal considering how much Quebecers like hockey

aqib is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:56 AM
  #837
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
All valid points, but you also have some of the following:

1) People who divert spending that would be outside the province to Nords. There will be people who swap out roadtrips and vacations to for Nords season tickets.

2) Tourism. I have no reason/plans to visit QC. If the Nords come back I am doing a trip. There will be others like me. If you make the playoffs there will be all kinds of out-of-towners coming to town

3) Other events. This arena will be able to attract events that Colisee Pepsi won't

Plus as we mentioned the taxes on Nords players and staff.

maybe its not going to be $200 million but its not a horrible deal considering how much Quebecers like hockey
All valid points. I'm glad that we are now out of the financial realm and that the justification is now purely political

barneyg is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:23 PM
  #838
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
If you relocate a cricket team to Winnipeg and no one goes to the games, is it the fault of the people of Winnipeg or the fault of the league for putting a cricket team in Winnipeg where no one cares about it.
Valid point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
It is the fault of the NHL as they approved a location where maybe they did not do enough market research just so that they could get fees. It is also their fault for keeping the franchise there even with 15 years of history of declining/no fan support
Hey, let's also not forget that Glendale ponied up $50M to keep the team the last two years out of the three the team has been owned by the NHL.

You are half right. When the team was moved to Arizona there was an owner in place, an arena (albeit it was old), and a fanbase (at least in Phoenix there was). This all changed when the team relocated to Glendale.

The NHL was ready (and willing) to move the team to Winnipeg should a vote to approve spending $25M to buy more time be unsuccessful. Money talks, ******** walks, Bettman only kept the team in Glendale because the money is flowing, if it stops, bye bye Coyotes.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:51 PM
  #839
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 40,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
Well it looks like poor ol Ken just wasted the first 2 weeks.

Quote:
After a review of the above-referenced application, it appears that the Application for Referendum Petition Serial Number filed by BTS (Back to Sanity) on November 29, 2012 is not complete. A complete application is required before signatures may be collected on a referendum petition.

Letter from the City Clerk: http://glendalefirst.org/wp-content/...Sanity-ltr.pdf
Interesting. Looks like Jones is starting back at zero signatures as soon as he can get this corrected?

__________________
This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:05 PM
  #840
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Interesting. Looks like Jones is starting back at zero signatures as soon as he can get this corrected?
Was he materially above zero anyway?

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:19 PM
  #841
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,580
vCash: 500
so ... any new word on jamison buying the team?

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:40 PM
  #842
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,399
vCash: 500
That's a good one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
so ... any new word on jamison buying the team?

goyotes is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:58 PM
  #843
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,072
vCash: 500
Just his statements of a couple of days ago
on the radio; "hopes to close by mid-January".

Killion is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:01 PM
  #844
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,427
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Interesting. Looks like Jones is starting back at zero signatures as soon as he can get this corrected?
Jones did his part the last time. He got people talking about it and thinking about what the CoG is doing re: the Coyotes. Nothing wrong with that. And if it doesn't look like he will be even close to getting the names he needs ( and if he has to start all over it sure looks like he won't ) he should stop trying and go talk to the GWI.

Other than Jamison having something go wrong and not come up with the money, the GWI is Jones' last chance. Then again maybe the GWI has been approached, they just can't do anything until Jamison signs the lease.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:07 PM
  #845
JimAnchower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Just his statements of a couple of days ago
on the radio; "hopes to close by mid-January".
Since he doesn't specify a year, I have to ask. Which one? There is novel that takes place during the American Civil War titled Across Five Aprils. It will be five Mays in 2013.

JimAnchower is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:41 PM
  #846
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
Blame the NHL for the market not supporting their team? WOT?


I blame the NHL for putting a franchise in a new unconventional market before it had the proper facilities and with a shakey ownership group to run it.

It's painfully obvious that the NHL felt that the "build it and they will come" approach that worked in traditional markets would also work as easily in the non-traditional ones.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:47 PM
  #847
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,917
vCash: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
so ... any new word on jamison buying the team?
The word........is "no".

Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:05 PM
  #848
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
There is one major difference, but I'll get to that in a minute. Yes, Edmonton and Quebec City are about to waste millions on building new arenas.



Not hypocritical at all. You're trying to paint this too much in broad strokes, equating any arena project in Canada to the bloody disaster in Glendale. They are not the same. There are a few prevailing issues here that you are trying to ignore.

I don't for one second think all government layers throwing money into the Edmonton and Quebec City rinks will turn a profit on those endeavors. Not by a long shot. But consider the following:

- As always, we're looking at Glendale throwing additional money to subsidize a private business, above and beyond the initial arena construction subsidy and sweetheart lease agreement. It's one thing for a city to waste money on an arena, but there are certain reasons to do so, even if they know they won't make money off it. They won't make money off building a city hall or a fire station either, but if a city deems it desirable to build an arena, so be it. It's another thing entirely to flush $15 million a year down the toilet to subsidize an arena manager's money-losing operation with no hope at all in ever recovering even half that money.

- As far as I know, subsidizing a hockey team owner is not illegal in Quebec City. If the public wants to do that with their money they are not violating a state law.

- Although they likely won't turn a profit on an area, Quebec City will actually charge rent to the tenant, meaning the city gets paid by someone for the right to use the arena. In Glendale it seems to work the other way - here's an arena, you rent it from us and we give you $15 million for your troubles.

- Compare the two situations if you will, but it should be beyond obvious that hockey is far more popular in Edmonton and Quebec than Glendale. Hockey will work up north in those two cities, and there will always be people who want to play there - with or without an NHL team. Hockey has been and will continue to be a disaster in Glendale.

- I would compare Glendale's building and ongonig subsidy of an NHL arena to Edmonton deciding one day they were going to spend $180 million on a bullfighting arena, then pay some unknown guys $15 million a year to run the bullfighting arena, which, if all goes well, would generate $2.5 million a year to the city of Edmonton in sales taxes and ticket charges. A state-of-the-art bullfighting facility in Edmonton attracting the top bullfighters in the world for 41 nights a year is pretty much a certain money loser. Same with hockey in Glendale. Not only that, but Glendale is kicking in another $300 million knowing that hockey in the city is a proven loser, with a long 16 year disastrous history, whereas someone could try to convince me that bullfighting in Edmonton might work, i.e. it's not a proven failure yet.
Sorry CGG.... but your original post I responded to was more or less using the same broad brush and apply it to one situation. Sure we can take each city on a case by case basis and justify one over the other.... but that wasn't what you originally posted and not the point I was making.

I also pointed in a subsequent post that the original lease Glendale entered into is not all that different than the tentative one QC will be operating. Up until Jerry Moyes put the franchise into BK court, Glendale was getting money from rent, sales taxes, and surcharges to ticket sales at all arena events. The one big difference is I don't think Glendale was receiving a fee for the rights to manage the arena. But I do know they were not paying out for an arena manager. The BK changed all that.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:12 PM
  #849
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
What happens if this falls apart?(That scenario sounds very likely to me) Finish the season out in AZ and go to Canada after that? The NHL will have to foot the bill since i assume they wont be getting another 25 million dollar check from Glendale.

WingedWheel1987 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:42 PM
  #850
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAnchower View Post
Since he doesn't specify a year, I have to ask. Which one? There is novel that takes place during the American Civil War titled Across Five Aprils. It will be five Mays in 2013.
Interesting. Dont think Ive ever read that... theres a song by Blue Rodeo called 5 Days in May from the album 5 Days in July. I guess they couldnt make their minds up huh? Confusing... anyhoo, catchy number called Hasnt Hit Me Yet on it. Worth a listen Jim.

Killion is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.