HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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 LXXII: Send in the Clowns

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-13-2013, 12:05 PM
  #926
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Honestly where have these 3 bidders he mentioned been for the past 3 years.
I just don't buy it that we have 3 "new" bidders that have all of the sudden come out of nowhere and are now interested. Really, what would entice someone new to throw their hat in the ring at this point? A feeling that after 4 years the CoG is ripe for the picking?

IMO you will never see a deal better than what Jamison came up with, unless the CoG gives the new owner a free walk if they decide to leave. That might be worth it, if you could get that. Phone the CoG up one day and say I'm done I'm out of here, with no cost to doing so....

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 12:35 PM
  #927
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
Im curious if Dado would consider Penn Station and Union Station as subsidies to the NYR and TML.... Not their entire costs, of course, but if public money being spent on a venue used to play hockey games sometimes is a subsidy then isn't money spent on the public transportation system that gets fans to those games (and literally inside the venue) also a subsidy? or, at the very least, the hallways constructed solely to access the venues from the stations?.. I just want to be clear where subsidies begin and end.
Interesting question, debatable. Classic example would be the 2010 Olympics' out here in Vancouver/Whistler. Massive expenditures made to improve Hwy 99 between Vancouver & Whistler as the IOC had "concerns" about it, as in without improvements you likely wont win the games when the city was bidding, promising upgrades (numerous other examples as well (Athletes Village, Richmond's Oval & land reclamations, roads built etc)...

The costs to upgrade 99 well into the hundreds of millions but not included in the budget for Olympic Facility Construction & Infrastructure. Buried elsewhere. The highway absolutely needed improvements & up-grades & had for years, but under normal circumstances would have been completed gradually rather than hurriedly.

When the sitting government was questioned about it post games, as in "why werent the Hwy 99 upgrades included in the costs associated with securing & executing the games", they of course obfuscated, claiming hilariously at various times that the improvements had nothing to do with the games & access to Whistler, the 100's of millions spent irrelevant to the cost benefits in hosting the games and therefore excluded from the Olympic Games Budget.

When Terrace Investments in Ottawa set their sites on vacant farmland out in Kanata to build Scotiabank Arena & the development surrounding it, no highway interchange or exit, they promised to pay for its construction. Unfortunately they werent able to raise the app $6M required, the taxpayer ultimately picking up the tab so ya, that'd be a subsidy, because obviously without the cloverleaf & ease of access, big problem. Theoretically therefore, you could probably look at just about anywhere, any arena or stadium development, suburban or urban, whereby municipal, state or provincial authorities were indeed required to make upgrades or build transportation infrastructure that one could then point to as being a subsidy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
No offense Dado, but you're clearly better at providing qualitative analysis than quantitative analysis. It seems to me that you don't need the numbers at all to make your general point, and we both agree 100% on the conclusion that Quebecor will be getting a subsidy...
... Well there ya go. Some people just take the road less travelled, winding up at the same place as those who follow more prescribed routes marked on maps. I see no harm in someone wishing to take a more circuitous route, though clearly there are dangers along the way, traps & pitfalls best avoided.


Last edited by Killion: 03-13-2013 at 01:23 PM.
Killion is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 12:53 PM
  #928
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
IMO you will never see a deal better than what Jamison came up with, unless the CoG gives the new owner a free walk if they decide to leave...
I agree. The only way theyve' got 3 or 4 prospective buyers hovering around is if; A) Weiers is lying, and he plans to table Jamison like offers or; B) Tables offers that provides for portability short-term, say within 5yrs. Cant see them doing either, nor could I see the NHL selling the franchise to whomever based on portability as even if the buyer is a "chosen one" the league'd lose control. You could argue that I guess, wildly speculating that if Jamison or Reinsdorf, whomever buys the team, side deals in-place to move the franchise to God only Knows in 2016/17 or whatever, like Seattle, Vegas, Houston or wherever. Frankly, it wouldnt surprise me at this point in time to see the league parking it in Glendale for yet another season. It just doesnt get any stranger than this story.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 01:47 PM
  #929
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
So, you repeatedly post this comparison and call it approximately equal without doing any actual diligence on what you're saying? .
That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.

 
Old
03-13-2013, 01:48 PM
  #930
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Cup View Post
-Only 180M out of the number will be financed as 200M comes from the provincial infrastructures budget and 20M is from the J'ai ma place program
Quebec runs a deficit budget, so that 200M is also being financed. And $80M "safety belt" is historically woefully inadequate for large construction projects in Quebec.

The $20M I will concede.


Last edited by Dado: 03-13-2013 at 01:55 PM.
 
Old
03-13-2013, 01:54 PM
  #931
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Quebecor will get a subsidy that will be roughly half of what Glendale would have paid.
Again, as we discussed earlier, Barney, I'm totally fine with your number, as the Glendale subsidy is HUGE and half of a damn big number is still a damn big number.

The central point remains: if requiring a substantial subsidy means a market is non-viable, then both Glendale and QC are non-viable markets <insert George Bernard Shaw story>.

Cheers!


Last edited by Dado: 03-13-2013 at 02:05 PM.
 
Old
03-13-2013, 01:58 PM
  #932
Stanley Cup
Bettman's ice bucket
 
Stanley Cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Quebec City
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Quebec runs a deficit budget, so that 200M is also being financed. And $80M "safety belt" is historically woefully inadequate for large construction projects in Quebec.

The $20M I will concede.
Deficit until 2014, the project will not be fully paid in the first year "".

All I'm saying is don't pull a 1.2B figure out of your hat.

Stanley Cup is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 02:04 PM
  #933
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Cup View Post
Deficit until 2014, the project will not be fully paid in the first year "".
Accounting smoke and mirrors. In real world terms, the Province of Quebec will continue to run deficits for years to come.

 
Old
03-13-2013, 02:15 PM
  #934
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Again, as we discussed earlier, Barney, I'm totally fine with your number, as the Glendale subsidy is HUGE and half of a damn big number is still a damn big number.

The central point remains: if requiring a substantial subsidy means a market is non-viable, then both Glendale and QC are non-viable markets <insert George Bernard Shaw story>.

Cheers!
Well by your logic, the NHL as a whole is non-viable. I remember the Habs asked a tax credit to the city of Montreal a few years back. I don't know how this story ended. But if all subsidy were to be cut to every NHL team, my guess is we would be back to the original 6...

I don't really know what your whole point "really" is, but I enjoy seeing you trying to make one.

One final thought, I do feel there's a difference between a city building an arena and renting it to a tenant (at lower than actual cost) and a city building an arena and actually paying someone (large amounts of money) to use it.

GF is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 02:19 PM
  #935
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GF View Post
Well by your logic, the NHL as a whole is non-viable.
It's not my logic, mate. It is the logic of a whole lot of posters who point to subsidies as a litmus test. But - mind you - only selectively.

As I have said repeatedly - if the voters of a town or region or province/state all want to chip in and make a team "viable" with tax dollars, it's totally fine with me!

 
Old
03-13-2013, 02:19 PM
  #936
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.
Not really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Again, as we discussed earlier, I'm totally fine with that number, as the Glendale subsidy is HUGE and half of a damn big number is still a damn big number.

The central point remains: if requiring a substantial subsidy means a market is non-viable, then both Glendale and QC are non-viable markets <insert George Bernard Shaw story>.

Cheers!
Actually, the point that you posted was that the subsidies were comparable. Clearly, they aren't. You were wrong.

A substantial subsidy for constructing a sports facility is standard. A separate, additional subsidy for operation of the franchise is not standard. It is a definitive sign that the market is not viable.

If a Quebec NHL franchise requires a $15MM per year operational subsidy in addition to the substantial subsidy they enjoy for arena construction, then you'll have a point. Until then, your point is fatally flawed.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 02:22 PM
  #937
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Until then, your point is fatally flawed.
You are welcome to that opinion, and we are free to agree to disagree.

Cheers.

 
Old
03-13-2013, 02:29 PM
  #938
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,827
vCash: 500
Dado, can you please answer my earlier questions about train stations? im still not sure what parameters you are using to define subsidy. thnx in advance.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 02:36 PM
  #939
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Cup View Post
Deficit until 2014, the project will not be fully paid in the first year ""
Arizona's running a deficit of app $2.1B with a population of about 6.5M, while the PQ is running an app $1.5B deficit with a population of about 8M. And yes, quite correct, hoping to have it eliminated by the end of 2014.... and how does one do that in Quebec? Simple. Heap yet more taxes on beer, wine & cigarettes. Damn them all to Hell. Cant even enjoy yourself anymore without paying for it through the nose, and to add insult to injury forced outside into the rain, snow & cold if you wanna light up. Egregious, uncivilized...

Killion is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 02:37 PM
  #940
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
I just want to be clear where subsidies begin and end.
That would end up being a rat hole of a philosophical discussion that inevitably either ends up at either "Why are we here?" or fulfilling Godwin's Rule.

Regarding your specific question, there are folks that would consider it a subsidy, there are folks that wouldn't. My personal opinion is that the proportion of people who use that service to get to games is exceedingly small, so even if we count it as a subsidy, it has no meaningful impact on the final number.

It can be an interesting exercise to follow the turtles all the way down, though!

 
Old
03-13-2013, 02:57 PM
  #941
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
That would end up being a rat hole of a philosophical discussion that inevitably either ends up at either "Why are we here?" or fulfilling Godwin's Rule.

Regarding your specific question, there are folks that would consider it a subsidy, there are folks that wouldn't. My personal opinion is that the proportion of people who use that service to get to games is exceedingly small, so even if we count it as a subsidy, it has no meaningful impact on the final number.

It can be an interesting exercise to follow the turtles all the way down, though!
rat hole or turtles, i dont really care about, i was hoping instead that you would better define the specific parameters you use to determine whether a public expenditure is or is not a subsidy. im certainly not the only one confused by your various evaluations. cheers.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 03:04 PM
  #942
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,571
vCash: 500
Phoenix LXXIII: Surprise! This is the Quebec thread!

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 03:04 PM
  #943
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GF View Post
Well by your logic, the NHL as a whole is non-viable.
It's not such a crazy thing to say that the entire North American sports industry at the moment is non-viable. The whole thing basically exists on a bubble of public funding, which could disappear at any time. If that happened, the contraction of the sports industry would be comparable to the crashes of software, real estate, banks, etc. in the past decade.

Hell, if you define "viable" as "existing without public subsidy", most of the larger economy is non-viable as well. An awful lot of industry is built on public investment, particularly in infrastructure.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
03-13-2013, 03:12 PM
  #944
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas L View Post
Phoenix LXXIII: Surprise! This is the Quebec thread!
Well played Sir.

goyotes is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 03:45 PM
  #945
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
It's not such a crazy thing to say that the entire North American sports industry at the moment is non-viable. The whole thing basically exists on a bubble of public funding, which could disappear at any time. If that happened, the contraction of the sports industry would be comparable to the crashes of software, real estate, banks, etc. in the past decade.

Hell, if you define "viable" as "existing without public subsidy", most of the larger economy is non-viable as well. An awful lot of industry is built on public investment, particularly in infrastructure.
I agree. It's how things work in many industries.

However, I was wondering, and I know and drifting far off topic here, but, does the NFL also lives on different types of subsidy from their host cities? I really have no clue.

GF is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 03:52 PM
  #946
metalfoot
Karlsson!
 
metalfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,552
vCash: 500
Genuine question: if the major professional sports leagues seem only able to survive in parasitic relationships with their host cities, does that mean the model of pro sports in North America is utterly broken?

metalfoot is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 04:16 PM
  #947
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GF View Post
I agree. It's how things work in many industries.

However, I was wondering, and I know and drifting far off topic here, but, does the NFL also lives on different types of subsidy from their host cities? I really have no clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Genuine question: if the major professional sports leagues seem only able to survive in parasitic relationships with their host cities, does that mean the model of pro sports in North America is utterly broken?
Well fellows, as one piece of information:

Minnesota Vikings are going to have a new stadium in downtown Minneapolis. Approx imate cost: 950M. Team portion: 50% +/- 5%. That's a 475M outlay by the City of Mpls/Hennepin Cty/State of Minn. All 3 are involved. Hard to say really what the governments get out of it. Use by Vikings: 10 - 12 times a year, depending on playoffs. Subsidy? Yes. Reason: Threat to leave.

Pro sports model broken: In my opinion, yes. Especially when you take into consideration that NFL, which is by far the biggest $$, plays the fewest games and is the most violent. My guess is that in 30 years, because of the head injuries and their effect on the brain, that the NFL as we know it now won't be around in 30 years. There may be some sort of football, but not like that.

Likewise, like it or not, hockey will have to tone down the hitting. This is a commentary on the general move in the culture and our awareness of concussions. It's not a commentary on 'how hockey should be played.' It's just my idea. And, I think it is also fair to say that if you tone down the game of hockey, it will lose a good deal of its appeal, especially in traditional markets, where more revenue is located.

Just my input....

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-13-2013, 04:22 PM
  #948
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Genuine question: if the major professional sports leagues seem only able to survive in parasitic relationships with their host cities, does that mean the model of pro sports in North America is utterly broken?
Personal opinion: in general, yes. Many players end up being overpaid because the teams bidding for their services do not have to pay market value for the infrastructure they use. (market value is the wrong word to use here but you get the point)

Nuanced (and/or cynical) answer: sports fans vote, and many of them would rather see public money spent on stadiums than public schools, tax cuts, social programs, etc.

barneyg is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 04:25 PM
  #949
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Likewise, like it or not, hockey will have to tone down the hitting. This is a commentary on the general move in the culture and our awareness of concussions.
Then it will be replaced by an alternate, but more violent, sport. While everyone has been expressing outrage at NFL concussions, UFC has exploded in popularity.

Humans like blood sport - always have and always will.

 
Old
03-13-2013, 04:25 PM
  #950
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Genuine question: if the major professional sports leagues seem only able to survive in parasitic relationships with their host cities, does that mean the model of pro sports in North America is utterly broken?
Good question.

I see the relationship between league and city and more specifically, the city that either gives in or has big dreams more or less enables the leagues 'behavior'

As long as one city offers the moon and the stars to thier respective team it will just raise the bar and the next owner is going to look at their venue, go to their city/county and say 'I want what X has' threatens to leave and the cycle contines.

It doesn't just happen in the majors, when the new arean cycle in the OHL began in the 90s, cities we're treatents and ponied up to keep their team in town. I was listening to Prime Time sports last week and this even happens among Florida cities/counties for spring training facilities.

So in short, yes it's broken and it's a vicious circle that's tough to break

Mightygoose 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 04:29 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.