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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Phoenix XCVII: Forget it, Jake. It's Glendale.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-11-2013, 09:39 PM
  #576
Killion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Westcoast
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
What are the mechanics of Glendale not coming up with the $15M or will they find new things to sell (like fire trucks and manhole lids) to always fill the gap?
Ya, dont worry about it Glacial. RSE's got it all dialled in. Manhole covers sponsored by Bud Light.
Fire Hydrants sold to Nintendo's SuperMario Bro's Wii Division. New Revenue Streams Baby...

Locked & Loaded...


Killion is offline  
Old
07-11-2013, 09:58 PM
  #577
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,880
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, dont worry about it Glacial. RSE's got it all dialled in. Manhole covers sponsored by Bud Light.
Fire Hydrants sold to Nintendo's SuperMario Bro's Wii Division. New Revenue Streams Baby...

Locked & Loaded...

Killion, Glendale's already been there, done that...

Source: http://www.glendaleaz.com/glendalece...e/Hydrants.cfm

Llama19 is offline  
Old
07-11-2013, 10:07 PM
  #578
wunderpanda
cooly cough
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
They aren't really interested in attendance so long as it isn't terrible. I've seen multiple people from the RSE camp spin this as owning 1/30th of the NHL business model and not necessarily the Coyotes. If you think that's a good investment, there's no better way than to get a massive handout from a city and join that club for $45m down.
Makes sense kinda but its also similar to the Bain plane

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=avxlNsF8EvTk

While it may not be exactly what is happening league wide there are a few similarities to how this is unfolding. Then consider how many other teams are getting help from the NHL, investment companies, tax subsidies... 1/30th of NHL is a cleaner way to think about this.

wunderpanda is offline  
Old
07-11-2013, 11:21 PM
  #579
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I keep forgetting they got rid of the benchmarking as well. It did seem to defeat the purpose of the revenue transfer program for teams who ran into "real" problems.
Since they eliminated benchmark where the line? And who decide what teams will be on the bad side of that line? The point of having a standards set of rules for that sort of things is to prevent petty dispute from becoming full on legal quagmire. Good luck with that now Gary! Forget the Coyotes wait until a third to half the league realize they can pressure and lobby the NHL for full RS no questions ask.

madhi19 is offline  
Old
07-11-2013, 11:47 PM
  #580
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 35,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
Since they eliminated benchmark where the line? And who decide what teams will be on the bad side of that line? The point of having a standards set of rules for that sort of things is to prevent petty dispute from becoming full on legal quagmire. Good luck with that now Gary! Forget the Coyotes wait until a third to half the league realize they can pressure and lobby the NHL for full RS no questions ask.

It's a pretty detailed outline/process in the CBA, madhi. In very general terms, teams that fall in the bottom half of HRR rankings would qualify for revenue transfer. The total amount that can be distributed is $200 MM for a full season (6.055% of audited HRR), but this will increase as revenue increases. There are several sources for the funding, the aim being to bring low revenue teams up to the cap midpoint in what they can spend. Additionally there is a new Industry Growth Fund which will be worth about $60 MM total ($20 MM per year funding, and replenished as needed). It's not clear exactly how this fund will be used, but it's at the commissioner's discretion for the most part to address 'hot spots' iirc. Teams which have <75% of the NHL avg attendance would qualify, from my brief look at the CBA.

Fugu is online now  
Old
07-12-2013, 12:43 AM
  #581
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I don't know what "Industry Growth Fund" is intended for, but the name is certainly consistent with the notion of supporting growing the game in non-traditional places like Arizona.

$60M is a substantial slush fund....

 
Old
07-12-2013, 12:45 AM
  #582
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
teams that fall in the bottom half
The mess is gonna start right in the middle of the HHR rankings. A third of the league will start gaming the system to fall under the bar or to stay under it either by literally cooking their books or by messing with their own revenue.

madhi19 is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 01:45 AM
  #583
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
1) I know what GAAP means, thank you. If you find an accounting standard that defines "operating income/loss", let me know.

2) the lease does NOT say that NHL revenue sharing (or 'Yotes share of broadcasting revenues, or other) does not count towards the team's revenue, please read my post #452. The lease defines the Arena Manager's Operating Revenue, which rightfully excludes Team Revenues such as NHL revenue sharing. The lease does NOT define the Team Owner's operating income/loss (it does specify that such a calculation should be made "with accordance to GAAP", but any accountant will tell you that such a term is subject to interpretation).
Operating income/loss is the income or loss from operations. Take revenues from operations, subtract expenses from operation and there ya go. Things NOT included - financing expenses (unless that is your business like a bank), depreciation expense, taxes, interest income (unless that is your business), etc.


Last edited by Tommy Hawk: 07-12-2013 at 07:04 AM.
Tommy Hawk is online now  
Old
07-12-2013, 06:29 AM
  #584
Mungman
It's you not me.
 
Mungman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
The City of Winnipeg doesn't cut a $15 million check and they don't get $20 million in revenue sharing?
You'd be surprised how much govt support the jets get. Off the top of my head:
- no property taxes
- refund of all amusement taxes collected on events at MTSC
- provincial/city money for original construction
- new casino with share of take going to TNSE
- moratorium on govt support for competing facilities to MTSC

There are more, but those are some hi lights. It's in the millions per year that flows to TNSE.

Mungman is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 07:29 AM
  #585
IceAce
Strait Trippin'
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 13477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Honestly, I think this is a done deal if the boys can show up with the money on closing day.
ya think?

I've been telling people since the deal closed and the terms were made public, that GWI would have no case against it. All you had to do, was ya know, actually read them. Yet few listened. Now GWI makes a public statement saying the deal isn't unconstitutional and they wont go after it, now everyone is putting their "hopes" (if you can morbidly call them that) with this Maupin guy, who's in effect a public rabble-rouser with zero political clout or credibility. Does the desire to be "right" on the internet really outweigh common sense by that much?

Again, this Coyotes situation may fall apart spectacularly in the next 5 years and Glendale may be left a smoldering hole in the ground. But come hell to high water at this point, the Yotes are there until at least 2018.


Last edited by IceAce: 07-12-2013 at 07:35 AM.
IceAce is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 07:39 AM
  #586
JMT21
I Give A Dam!
 
JMT21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My House
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mungman View Post
You'd be surprised how much govt support the jets get. Off the top of my head:
- no property taxes
- refund of all amusement taxes collected on events at MTSC
- provincial/city money for original construction
- new casino with share of take going to TNSE
- moratorium on govt support for competing facilities to MTSC

There are more, but those are some hi lights. It's in the millions per year that flows to TNSE.
The first 2 points you made apply to the Bombers as well. While the city does refund the amusement taxes... it's money that they would never have received anyway if the MTSC was never built. The city benefits from other taxes collected by having 600K + visit downtown during the season and spending their cash and various restaurants etc. that may never have existed without the MTSC.

Provincial/City money only accounted for approx. 1/3 of the construction costs of MTSC. We'd never have the NHL back in Winnipeg without that investment. Let's not forget how much $$$ the taxpayers shelled out for the new football stadium..... you don't really think the Bombers will repay that 85M loan... do you??

The new casino will also benefit the province as they get the majority share of the casino revenue. No MTSC = No Jets = no new casino revenue for the province.

There are no real indoor competing facilities with MTSC in Winnipeg. The new football stadium can host all the outdoor concerts it wishes.

Yes the Jets do receive support from the city and province but not to the point where the team's mere survival depends on it. Quite different than the situation in Glendale.

Back on topic. The NHL guaranteeing Phoenix maximum revenue sharing "no matter what" is complete garbage and I'm surprised the BOG will stand for it. What makes Phoenix so special that they need to be the league's charity case reliant on support from the other 29 owners.

JMT21 is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 08:14 AM
  #587
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mungman View Post
You'd be surprised how much govt support the jets get. Off the top of my head:
- no property taxes
- refund of all amusement taxes collected on events at MTSC
- provincial/city money for original construction
- new casino with share of take going to TNSE
- moratorium on govt support for competing facilities to MTSC

There are more, but those are some hi lights. It's in the millions per year that flows to TNSE.
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to compare Winnipeg/Manitoba with Glendale in terms of government assistance to a professional sports franchise!?!

Wow... I'm sure if the City of Glendale only gave RSE tax breaks and 1/3 of the money to build the arena (FYI they bankrolled the entire project) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

For the record, Winnipeg or Manitoba haven't ponied up $15M in guaranteed funding for a minimum of 5 years plus an additional 2 payments of $25M = $50. Along with basically cutting any revenue sources that they already received and gifting them to the team owner.

FWIW They are building a new hotel/office space high rise, the lounge will have some VLT's it isn't a brand new all inclusive casino. Further TNSE isn't getting all the return from the VLT's they are getting a portion of it.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 08:34 AM
  #588
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,880
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
ya think?

I've been telling people since the deal closed and the terms were made public, that GWI would have no case against it. All you had to do, was ya know, actually read them. Yet few listened. Now GWI makes a public statement saying the deal isn't unconstitutional and they wont go after it, now everyone is putting their "hopes" (if you can morbidly call them that) with this Maupin guy, who's in effect a public rabble-rouser with zero political clout or credibility. Does the desire to be "right" on the internet really outweigh common sense by that much?

Again, this Coyotes situation may fall apart spectacularly in the next 5 years and Glendale may be left a smoldering hole in the ground. But come hell to high water at this point, the Yotes are there until at least 2018.
True, the GWI did state they do not believe that the 'arena management' deal would be held unconstitutional, but the last line of their statement is more telling:

"Glendale’s long and painful experience illustrates why local governments should focus on providing basic and essential public services and avoid the temptation to subsidize private enterprises such as sports teams."

Source: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/bl...anagement-deal

I believe Glendale's 'temptation' and 'pain' is just beginning...

Llama19 is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 08:40 AM
  #589
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,880
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to compare Winnipeg/Manitoba with Glendale in terms of government assistance to a professional sports franchise!?!

Wow... I'm sure if the City of Glendale only gave RSE tax breaks and 1/3 of the money to build the arena (FYI they bankrolled the entire project) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

For the record, Winnipeg or Manitoba haven't ponied up $15M in guaranteed funding for a minimum of 5 years plus an additional 2 payments of $25M = $50. Along with basically cutting any revenue sources that they already received and gifting them to the team owner.

FWIW They are building a new hotel/office space high rise, the lounge will have some VLT's it isn't a brand new all inclusive casino. Further TNSE isn't getting all the return from the VLT's they are getting a portion of it.
So, I guess that Attorney Nick Wood got the contract 'structured' well for RSE/IceArizona?

To quote:

"“We have a great deal of respect for the Goldwater Institute. When structuring this deal with the City of Glendale, we were always mindful of the gift clause concerns expressed by the Goldwater Institute in previous Coyote related proposals,” said Wood, a prominent Phoenix attorney with the Snell & Wilmer LLP law firm. “We felt that Goldwater’s prior concerns were legitimate and that we should address those concerns within the framework on this deal.”"

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/m...dale-over.html

Llama19 is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 09:04 AM
  #590
Mungman
It's you not me.
 
Mungman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to compare Winnipeg/Manitoba with Glendale in terms of government assistance to a professional sports franchise!?!

Wow... I'm sure if the City of Glendale only gave RSE tax breaks and 1/3 of the money to build the arena (FYI they bankrolled the entire project) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

For the record, Winnipeg or Manitoba haven't ponied up $15M in guaranteed funding for a minimum of 5 years plus an additional 2 payments of $25M = $50. Along with basically cutting any revenue sources that they already received and gifting them to the team owner.

FWIW They are building a new hotel/office space high rise, the lounge will have some VLT's it isn't a brand new all inclusive casino. Further TNSE isn't getting all the return from the VLT's they are getting a portion of it.
No, I'm not comparing the scale of the subsidies, but pointing out the fact that there are subsidies in most NHL cities. So, as for the Amusement Tax rebate why doesn't the city just stop collecting and refunding this money (at a cost of civic manpower) and let the team collect the cash directly (Hey, haven't I heard that arguement made regarding the ticket surcharges?), this would get the cash in the hands of the team more efficiently. (Sorry, I'm all for getting the govt. out of as many things as possible that are not part of their core mandate)

For the record, while the CoW does not fund the Jets 2.0 to the tune of $15MM in AMF a year it is a fact the the CoW in the past DID fund the Jets 1.1 (NHL version) losses prior to their pulling up stakes for Phoenix (it was to the tune of millions a year too).

It's not just VLT's that they're getting money from (I never said all the money either, but they do have a sweetheat deal with Manitoba Lotteries compared to the average deal), a portion from all the gaming in the Shark Club go to TNSE.

Mungman is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 09:09 AM
  #591
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
"“We have a great deal of respect for the Goldwater Institute. When structuring this deal with the City of Glendale, we were always mindful of the gift clause concerns expressed by the Goldwater Institute in previous Coyote related proposals,” said Wood, a prominent Phoenix attorney with the Snell & Wilmer LLP law firm. “We felt that Goldwater’s prior concerns were legitimate and that we should address those concerns within the framework on this deal.”"
IMO, they did a good job. As I've previously asserted here, the RSE deal looked impervious to challenge. Team Gosbee certainly understood the importance of the revenue stream estimates in the deal.

Of course, most members of our BOH forum have long understood why consideration for revenues was vital for Gift Clause purposes. [mod]

The brick wall strikes again...


Last edited by mouser: 07-12-2013 at 10:08 AM. Reason: don't call out other posters
CasualFan is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 09:56 AM
  #592
Killion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Westcoast
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
I believe Glendale's 'temptation' and 'pain' is just beginning...
Well, as things sit right now and based on their statement, doesnt look like they have any intention of Challenging the agreement. That leaves Jones/Maupin with a possible Referendum, the AG's Offices pursuant to complaints over the cities procedural faux pas' & triangulations. I doubt the latter is enough to derail the deal, at worst maybe a slap on the wrist, small fine; with the former I guess we'll just have to wait & see. Then theres the BOG's. I cant believe Bettman would just "float" so preposterous a deal on his own without first running it bye some of the clubs, powerbrokers, seeming to have a lot of latitude, so thats likely to get rubber stamped as absurd as it is. Who knows Llama. Maybe from the Bedlam of this insanity enough of a resurrection is accomplished, 2 or 4 of the minority investors buying out the rest, paying off the NHL & Fortress. One can always hope.

Killion is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 09:58 AM
  #593
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Basically its you earnings before interest taxes, depreciation, and amortization from your normal operations. So like if they sold off Wayne Gretzky's desk, that wouldn't count as operating income since they aren't in the business of selling furniture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
Operating income/loss is the income or loss from operations. Take revenues from operations, subtract expenses from operation and there ya go. Things NOT included - financing expenses (unless that is your business like a bank), depreciation expense, taxes, interest income (unless that is your business), etc.
Correct, but they're non-GAAP measures. He asked for an accounting standard that defines the term. None exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
1) I know what GAAP means, thank you. If you find an accounting standard that defines "operating income/loss", let me know.

2) the lease does NOT say that NHL revenue sharing (or 'Yotes share of broadcasting revenues, or other) does not count towards the team's revenue, please read my post #452. The lease defines the Arena Manager's Operating Revenue, which rightfully excludes Team Revenues such as NHL revenue sharing. The lease does NOT define the Team Owner's operating income/loss (it does specify that such a calculation should be made "with accordance to GAAP", but any accountant will tell you that such a term is subject to interpretation).

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 10:07 AM
  #594
Maupin Fan
Hot Air
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
IMO, they did a good job. As I've previously asserted here, the RSE deal looked impervious to challenge. Team Gosbee certainly understood the importance of the revenue stream estimates in the deal.

Of course, most members of our BOH forum have long understood why consideration for revenues was vital for Gift Clause purposes. Others... well, not so much.

The brick wall strikes again...
Of course revenues don't matter, that's because there are no such things as fixed expenses. Every expense is variable and the more events you put on, the more money you lose. Why would revenues matter in that scenario?

It's brain dead simple, really

Maupin Fan is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 10:22 AM
  #595
Killion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Westcoast
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I don't know what "Industry Growth Fund" is intended for, but the name is certainly consistent with the notion of supporting growing the game in non-traditional places like Arizona. $60M is a substantial slush fund....
It is that, and in fact the NHLPA asked that it be established while negotiating the CBA last year and initially requested the amount be $180M if Im not mistaken. Though the name does indeed suggest/imply that it would or should be used for the "growth of the game" in places like Arizona, Texas & Tennessee etc, it strikes me that it could be interpreted & used as backup to RS whereby the funds are merely used to increase welfare payments to club X, Y or Z, rather than being used for contributions to say P3's in the building of arenas, assistance in the establishment of amateur leagues, for clinics & camps in cooperation with the franchisee's, the NHLPA & sponsors and so on. "Industry Growth Fund" a rather vague & generic term. What exactly does that mean? Like the government; Ministry of Redundancy or some such absurdity that only civil servants, politicians & comedy writers could possibly dream up.

Killion is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 10:40 AM
  #596
kihekah19
Registered User
 
kihekah19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Of course. And so how are people supposed to react when considering Gary Bettmans own words, that "the NHL has a multitude of options"? Well, when he opts for this option as option number one either the guys just a natural born liar who assumes his audience is stupid or he hasnt got the good sense God gave him yes? Somehow abandoned him as he's not a stupid person, yet look at what he's co-authored here? Its madness. If reports are true, he did indeed have at least 3-4-5 options, possibly even more. Quebec, Seattle, apparently Portland and of those 3, QC & Portland no-brainers; Seattle problematical. He could have extended the AMUL in Glendale instead of watching that Deadline whizz by & done nothing. Fact is, for someone who claimed to have so many options he instead appears to be someone acting out of complete & utter desperation. And why is that? Whats wrong with him & this league that they cant get their **** together & do the right thing by everybody? Its not that difficult.


Perhaps it's the very integrity that you question? The BOG may just feel that when THEIR commissioner stands before a crowd at a groundbreaking ceremony in a cotton field and assures said crowd that on that historic day the city and state are assured of thirty years of hockey in the desert, that such an assurance should be taken seriously?

just one of many possible answers.

__________________
Parents / Coaches / Players: Educate yourself about synovial and ewings sarcomas (often misdiagnosed as sports injuries), you could save an athletes life!
kihekah19 is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 10:46 AM
  #597
kihekah19
Registered User
 
kihekah19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Far be it from me to defend Bettman, but he can say he has options (which may be true to a certain extent), but how viable/realistic/preferable are any of these to keeping a team in Phoenix? It's hard to analyze the alleged options against the Phoenix situation when we don't have the details.

Why isn't QC a slam dunk? Beats me, but it doesn't seem like the league seriously considered it at all for this team. Too bad someone in the media doesn't do some digging to find that out.

You've pointed out yourself why Seattle isn't a good option right now, and I would agree that Seattle has to get certainty with a new arena before the NHL can truly commit to that market.

How/when Portland came onto the scene is anyone's guess, but it seems relatively recent, perhaps after the stories of about Seattle and other points started leaking out. (I'm guessing.) It's the only location that would have an arena and ownership group ready TODAY. Even if they agreed on a decent price, whether or not that market could support an NHL team might actually depend on what the sale price turned out to be.

Everything looks to have a 3-5 yr horizon, outside of Portland.




If the NHL knew that Glendale could no longer foot a bill of $25 MM, but something far, far less, then (and not knowing what that lesser amount would be), does it not make sense to not sign the AMUL and see what the new government wanted to do? In the end, the only way the Coyotes could stay is if the city REALLY wanted the team to stay. Now we've all debated how it didn't make sense for them, but they keep doing it! Something's not adding up.

The NHL not having an ideal option yet x Glendale being too scared to let their anchor leave = 5 more years with subcontracted management?



Is there a 'right thing by everybody' option? What does it look like? Telling Glendale that no, even if this is what you want, we won't work with you. We'll find something that [indeed] may be premature for them to do.

At the end of the day, both Glendale and the NHL are taking it on the chin.


NICE!

Believe me, I'm NOT sucking up here (mod & all), but this could be the best, most realistic viewpoint on this debacle EVER posted here.... not that I've seen them all.

kihekah19 is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 10:53 AM
  #598
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maupin Fan View Post
Of course revenues don't matter, that's because there are no such things as fixed expenses. Every expense is variable and the more events you put on, the more money you lose. Why would revenues matter in that scenario?

It's brain dead simple, really
Brain dead simple for sure. Revenues? I don't see how consideration for revenue would ever factor in. And yes, every expense is variable. I have an equation that proves it. Can I even call it an equation? It's so beautiful that it's more like a piece of art:
If we extend FY 2013 to 74 games (bringing it into parity with the SMG baseline year, FY 2012), that $1,592,308 in non-hockey event losses becomes $10,711,890.
That is going to be taught in MBA programs around the world. It is a true mastery of the elements. It eliminates the silly notion that some expenses are fixed. The concept of per-unit profit vs overhead expenses is just hand-waving.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 10:57 AM
  #599
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas L View Post
Correct, but they're non-GAAP measures. He asked for an accounting standard that defines the term. None exists.
This, thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Basically its you earnings before interest taxes, depreciation, and amortization from your normal operations. So like if they sold off Wayne Gretzky's desk, that wouldn't count as operating income since they aren't in the business of selling furniture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
Operating income/loss is the income or loss from operations. Take revenues from operations, subtract expenses from operation and there ya go. Things NOT included - financing expenses (unless that is your business like a bank), depreciation expense, taxes, interest income (unless that is your business), etc.
IMO, you guys are too general when you systematically exclude depreciation. Depreciation of productive assets would definitely be an operating expense for a manufacturing company...

Similarly for financing expenses. Interest expense is colloquially excluded from operating income but the 2 GAAP terms that are closest (i.e. not identical) to operating income, "income from continued operations" (P/L) and "cash flow from operations" (cash flow statement), do include interest expense. I do not know what would happen in a court of law if the matter was litigated.

...which brings us back to the Coyotes... depreciation of the part of purchase price that relates to player contracts... included or not? Interest expense.. included or not? Since neither GAAP nor the lease define the term "operating income", one can justify the inclusion (or exclusion) of such expenses.

My speculation is that the reason why Birnbaum did not push to include a clear definition of operating income is that he felt the city had no incentive to make it harder for RSE to exercise its out clause, because the city is financially better off if RSE does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Not trying to be condescending here but in general terms it's not that complicated however once you get into audit's that's when it gets complicated.
Of course. Nothing's complicated until it has to be audited. The purpose of definitions in legal documents is to clarify the application of clauses such as the team's early termination clause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
2 - I just don't understand what you're trying to say. You mention that things like revenue sharing isn't subject to being calculated under revenues relating to the lease agreement without showing where it says that. And even in post 452 you fail to do so. The define in the "terms" section what they mean by "expenses" and "revenues". In the section for revenues they say that money received from the CBA is not considered revenue. Then in the early out clause they say operating losses of 50 million, which is calculated using GAAP standards, which is roughly as described above. So I fail to see how there is no connection here.
Let me lay it out for you. It's not unclear unless you aren't used to working with legal documents. I'm not a lawyer but I'm used to working with legal documents.

1) The Arena Manager and the Team Owner are two separate parties to the agreement.

2) All terms defined in the lease (in section 1.2) are capitalized. Whenever these terms are used elsewhere in the agreement, they are capitalized.

3) As you pointed out many times, section 1.2 defines Operating Revenues and Operating Expenses. Both definitions clearly imply that those are the Arena Manager's:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreement p.16-17
"Operating Expenses" means all expenses or obligations paid directly or incurred by or on behalf of the Arena Facility or the Arena Manager (...) provided, however, that amounts on account of (...) Exclusive Team Revenues (...) shall not be included as Operating Expenses; further provided that expenses or obligations, to the extent incurred or paid on behalf of Team Owner or to the extent reasonably allocable to the operation of the Team Owner's business, shall not be included as Operating Expenses. Operating Expenses do not include expenses allocable to the Team Owner under [GAAP]...
Translation: Operating Expenses includes everything the Arena Manager pays for management of the Arena. It excludes everything that can be reasonably connected to the team. For example, player salaries are clearly excluded from this definition. The definition of Operating Revenues follows the same guidelines and excludes revenues allocable to the Team Owner, such as ST sales or NHL revenue sharing.

4) The early termination clause (3.3, p.23) says Team Owner and Arena Manager can jointly terminate the agreement if

Quote:
(iv) Team Owner has incurred a cumulative operating loss of (...) $50,000,000 or more, calculated in accordance with GAAP as the sum of Team Owner's operating income/loss for each of the Fiscal Year periods then ended.
Notice how:

- We're talking about the Team Owner's operating loss. Since the definitions of Operating Expenses and Operating Revenues provided in section 1.2 pertain to the Arena Manager only, they cannot be used as reference to calculate the Team Owner's operating loss.

- neither "operating loss" nor "operating income/loss" are capitalized. That means they are not defined in the agreement. Therefore, your claim that the lease specifically excludes NHL revenue sharing from the team's operating revenues for purposes of calculating the $50M threshold is false. (It does, however, specifically exclude the $15M AMF, revenues from non-hockey events, and arena operating costs, as those are covered by the definitions in section 1.2).

5) GAAP provide (mostly) clear guidelines regarding how and when revenues and expenses are to be recognized in a firm's income statement. However, GAAP do NOT clearly distinguish between "operating income" and "non-operating income".

Implication: season ticket sales, NHL revenue sharing, the Coyotes share of broadcasting revenues, player salaries, Fortress interest expense... would all clearly be required to be included in IceArizona Hockey LLC's net income/loss. What is unclear, however, is what would or would not be included in IAH's operating income/loss.

Wow, that was long-winded.

barneyg is offline  
Old
07-12-2013, 11:09 AM
  #600
objectiveposter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 551
vCash: 50
For those who are bashing Goldwater...they have already won. This deal is significantly better for Glendale compared to the Hulsizer deal. The arena management fees are similar... both were looking for around 15 mill a year... but RSE appears to be sharing more of the revenue streams with Glendale. The biggest factor is the financing of the team.. Goldwater didnt want Glendale to finance the 100 mill bond.. said it was the owners/nhl responsibility to buy the team..and not the taxpayers.

What ends up happening? The NHL and Fortress are now financing the deal. Goldwater saved Glendale taxpayers 100 million dollars.. not a bad victory for a tax payer watchdog group.

objectiveposter 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 03:19 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.