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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2013, 03:08 PM
  #126
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kihekah19 View Post
Good God that was AWFUL!
Yepp. I feel for you guys.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fju9o8BVJ8

Killion is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 03:09 PM
  #127
enarwpg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kihekah19 View Post
I think when someone makes it a point to "not mention a name" that "should never be mentioned" it is a direct link to said name.

MOD
The notoriety of the guy results in many people knowing who said that.

Yes, it does suggest a direct link to who said it by the mere fact that I said it, but how does that imply that I was making a comparison between the GCC and JG, rather than referring to a quote which claims that if one were to repeat a lie, or in this ace the "Westgate will Die" lie, over and over, those not so inclined to research whether the Coyotes solely control the fate of Westgate, just might fall for said lie.

btw, I'm guessing that had I not not mentioned a name that should not be mentioned you still would have implied i was making a comparison.

enarwpg is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 03:20 PM
  #128
enarwpg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kihekah19 View Post
Good to see that Fugu could help you with your response re: JG!

You have no evidence that would substantiate your claim of telling a lie often enough....

Based on my visits the Westgate area is very, very quiet in the off season.

Perhaps it is the essence of hockey that draws the few who do visit.... I know that's what does it for me!
Then how does Westgate stay alive? Do they make such a profit in 41 plus nights that it's worthwhile staying open in the off season?

...and as to the evidence of telling a lie over and over..... Why then is the statement, that Westgate will die, made when the Coyotes only bring in fans on 41 plus nights out of 365 nights?

Whoops I forgot, it's as I said and you agreed, it's the mere essence of hockey that brings out shoppers to Westgate, even if said shoppers are not hockey fans and there is no game on the day they go there.

enarwpg is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 03:40 PM
  #129
Glacial
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawa View Post
Haven't been following this for the past year and a half or so, can anyone give me a detailed month-to-month summary of what has happened in the last 18 months?
The Earth coalesced and cooled, was impacted with another planet (believed to be the original 4th planet in an unstable orbit or Earth's trojan in one of Earth's Lagrangian points, only not stable due to the small mass differential between the two worlds), which obliterated the original Earth, creating a newer, larger Earth and the Moon, which then cooled. In time, the continent of Laurentia forms and eventually becomes North America. What was to become Arizona sat there contently until a violent collision with the Farallon Plate deformed its basement rocks, the plate subducting under that portion of the continent in the Jurassic Period. This set the stage for the corruption and delusion in Glendale.

Epochs later, certain members on the city council scheme. Some try to put in protections for Glendale with this new deal (an out-clause for the city). It passes 7-0, but some of the yes votes were apparently setting up the no votes, wanting to get the deal on the agenda because without the out clause, the deal may have never made it on the agenda. And lo, during the city council meeting, the out-clause is removed by a 4-3 vote and the deal passes 4-3. Sherwood masterminds it, Knaack has visions, Weiers tries to absolve himself of blame, Hugh asks good questions, Alvarez is angry and pissed, only stopped from naming names and telling stories by a legal threat, and Chavira comes off as a weirdo, branding LeBlanc a hero in the shadow of the deaths of 19 firefighters a mere 1/7th fortnight earlier and under 100 miles away. It passes but the would-be owners have a month to close and hope legal threats or referendums don't emerge, however, in the shadows lurks an audit of Glendale's books which some who have seen it said is very big and very shocking. That's this saga's next episode. Airdate: to be determined (but is "soon").



This is your culprit.

Glacial is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 04:33 PM
  #130
PSGJ
Registered User
 
PSGJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 490
vCash: 50
So, how come the RSE haven't closed the deal yet? Shouldn't everything have been lined up and ready, only waiting for the subsidy from Glendale?

PSGJ is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 04:50 PM
  #131
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,003
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSGJ View Post
So, how come the RSE haven't closed the deal yet? Shouldn't everything have been lined up and ready, only waiting for the subsidy from Glendale?
I am just catching up myself-but there seems to be an audit coming through that, if what I am reading on the thread is correct, might just put a little snag in things. I think GWI is also looking over the agreement, and maybe waiting for the results of the audit-at least what I'm reading thus far.

Also sounds like things are coming out (again from the thread, not any particular "source") that maybe things aren't as all lined up as thought to be? Can anyone clarify?

BTW-to anyone: about this audit: is this one of those "we have to get the deal signed before it comes up" scenarios, or a "there's not going to be a signing UNTIL the audit has been released for all to see"?


And if this audit is really rather messy, how many on council maybe "knew" it would be messy, and voted for the agreement feeling that the audit might a kibosh on it anyway-or are there people on council who might be seeing some serious legal issues themselves in the audit?

Tinalera is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 05:01 PM
  #132
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Fishbert,

I appreciate the information. Question:

Was it you that put together that nice Excel spreadsheet of the ancillary revenue available to Glendale in this deal?

Because that spreadsheet assumes 15,000 in average attendance, and lots of cars parking, and comes out with Glendale about 1M/yr in the hole.
What average attendance would you prefer I use? 14,500?
Perhaps having proper ownership and a min 5-year reprieve on relocation questions will cause attendance to go down from last year?

My assumption on attendance levels is that they would roughly return to their average under an owner in Glendale (15,146). Sure, we can assume the ticket prices will be higher... but we can also assume the on-ice product will be much better than it was from 2003-2009. I believe it's reasonable to expect average attendance to reach the 15,000 mark within the first 2 seasons under RSE, but even if we go with 14,500, that's only a difference of about $200k in ticket surcharges and $50k in parking.

Something my spreadsheet does not take into account—but that the Glendale and RSE projections do—is hockey-related sales tax revenues ($400k-600k/year in their estimates based on 12,630 average attendance and $3/person concessions [that's not even a soda]). And none of the projections address indirect revenues (sales taxes from non-hockey events and 3rd party businesses, hotel taxes, etc.), which, while definitely fuzzy and hard to predict, would certainly amount to more than the $500k difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
EDIT: I see that you indicate that surcharges were not included in the 2014 budget. Please show this to be true.
Slide 4 of the budget presentation dated 6/25 (presented to the public on 6/28). You've seen this before, yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Also, is that true IYO for 2015-2018 as well?
I haven't seen a budget for FYs 2015-2018, so I couldn't say.

-------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
As I understand it, their plan to free up funds to repay the NHL was based on the plan to lease-lease back city hall. As far as I can tell, they haven't yet passed that plan. Perhaps you can clarify.
This was never a "plan". As discussed in the 7/2 voting meeting, the idea was brought up once in a workshop, never seriously considered, and then grossly inflated in the media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
They still need to come up with $5 million annually to pay back the NHL, and that will need to come from somewhere. Do you see options within the current budget beyond the lease-lease back plan to finance that?
Are you talking about this FY, or future FYs? You seem a bit undecided.

I can't speak to future FY budgets, as I haven't seen any... but for FY 2014, they already had the $5M they were short in escrow budgeted, and as I said previously, $20M of the $25M frees up for FY 2014 when the deal closes. Yes, they'll have to still pay this back over the following 4 years, but without FY 2015-2018 budgets available to look at, it's wild conjecture (at best) to say how they might account for it. As each year's $5M payment is about 0.8% of the FY 2014 city budget, though, I doubt it will be a difficult task.

-------

Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Notwithstanding your clear disapproval for how the AZ Republic reported this event, perhaps the paper simply used the only data set published by the city. I'm pretty sure that Page 4 of the slide deck is the item in question.

Seems like it might not be an agenda fueled bias reporting scheme by the paper; might just be that the PPT was the only document published, no?
The author of the article was present at the 6/28 meeting where the lack of the supplemental surcharge was clearly pointed out at the start of the presentation. If I can remember it (without taking notes), why couldn't he (while presumably taking notes)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
The presentation is clearly missing the supplemental surcharge revenue. It's also using highly questionable methodology of comparing against budget instead of comparing against competitive bid. That would seem to be the more glaring omission, right? The known details of the SMG bid are completely missing.

Anyway, I'm not sure how anyone could assert that the AZ Republic knowingly omitted RSE supplemental surcharge revenues without, at the same time, asserting that the AZ Republic knowingly omitted the SMG management structure and noting the entire presentation used an invalid comparison method.
What projection figures in the SMG bid would you suggest they compare against? I don't actually see any in there, myself. They do some hand-waving and assign a dollar figure to "best practices" and the like, but there are no clearly stated assumptions the figure is based on (unlike RSE's projections). There is absolutely no way to know how reasonable or unreasonable SMG's assigned dollar figures are, as they are (as far as we know) plucked blindly from a hat.

So, no, I heartily disagree with you... comparing the RSE projections with SMG's sales brochure of a bid would've been entirely inappropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Page 3 of the presentation is a complete mess.
The entire presentation is a mess. CoG is not very good at powerpoint (among other things).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
That's the other interesting part of the economic comparison: much of the RSE bid is built on the non-hockey events. FWIW, it seems fair and reasonable to estimate that RSE/Global Spec can deliver that total attendance number (their attendance-per-event projection is very screwy, but the total attendance number looks on par).
I completely agree that 23 events at 15k per is entirely bonkers, but that the overall attendance figure is reasonable. If the parking fee structure was similar to the hockey events ($20k off the top to RSE), that would've been an important detail. Fortunately, it's not.

-------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I am just catching up myself-but there seems to be an audit coming through that, if what I am reading on the thread is correct, might just put a little snag in things.
What you are reading on the thread is almost certainly not correct.


Last edited by fishbert: 07-07-2013 at 05:38 PM.
fishbert is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 05:07 PM
  #133
wpgallday1960
Registered User
 
wpgallday1960's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunny St. James
Country: Canada
Posts: 914
vCash: 500
To K19,
I don't give a damn about Glendale residents but I'm fascinated by thegross incompetence at Glendale City Hall.

wpgallday1960 is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 05:12 PM
  #134
wpgallday1960
Registered User
 
wpgallday1960's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunny St. James
Country: Canada
Posts: 914
vCash: 500
The pro coyotes crew have never posted solid numbers on the "Westgate implosion". Only thing I've seen is anecdotal evidence.

wpgallday1960 is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 05:30 PM
  #135
wunderpanda
Sabretage
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,315
vCash: 500
Phoenix XCIII Swimming with the Fischers

http://www.brendafischer.com/

sorry, couldn't resist

wunderpanda is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 05:47 PM
  #136
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
CF - Thanks. This is the comparison that needs to be made:
With hockey vs without hockey.

I agree that it's much better that JIG.

However, what it does not factor is the FEAR-MONGERING about how Westgate dies without the hockey team.

I saw somewhere a description that said, roughly, 500K people come the games, 2M to Westgate. Now, we know that not all the hockey patrons go to Westgate, but even with that assumption, you have a huge number of people at Westgate with no hockey team, and the assumption the Arena is totally idle all those dates.

So, the real deal is:

Sherwood went rogue, because he can't stand the idea of the team leaving. He therefore arranged the serial meetings, in which Knaack, Chavira, and Martinez were convinced that "hockey must be saved, or Westgate dies."


After that, all presentations are skewed to show "Arena with hockeyteam" vs "Arena with no events but we still pay 6M/yr anyway."

Sherwood also ramrodded the Beacon search for an arena operator without the Coyotes. And that led to a deal that a few are saying is better than either of the Jamison deal.

So I fail to see why you are piling on Sherwood. Because for better or worse he was the only council member who took a pro-active position on getting this saga settled once and for all.

Sherwood also has one vote.... just like all the other council members. In the end it was up to each one of them to vote in a way they felt was best for the city regardless of what the members of a hockey board think.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 05:53 PM
  #137
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
Sherwood also ramrodded the Beacon search for an arena operator without the Coyotes. And that led to a deal that a few are saying is better than either of the Jamison deal.
Who is saying this RSE deal isn't better than either of the Jamison deals?!

Total out of pocket cost to the city is just $6M/year if the team exercises their opt-out in 5 years... and certainly somewhere within $6M-$10M/year if they stay. That seems remarkably better than the Jamison deals.

fishbert is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 06:19 PM
  #138
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbert View Post
What projection figures in the SMG bid would you suggest they compare against? I don't actually see any in there, myself. They do some hand-waving and assign a dollar figure to "best practices" and the like, but there are no clearly stated assumptions the figure is based on (unlike RSE's projections). There is absolutely no way to know how reasonable or unreasonable SMG's assigned dollar figures are, as they are (as far as we know) plucked blindly from a hat.

So, no, I heartily disagree with you... comparing the RSE projections with SMG's sales brochure of a bid would've been entirely inappropriate.
I'm trying to figure out whether you reject SMG's financial summary because you are biased, or whether you just don't realize that RSE's projections are a sales pitch too. For that matter, the unrealistically conservative budget figures also came out of a hat.

Or is it your assertion that SMG's projection that arena operations will break even (+/- $1.8M) is unrealistic?

FWIW

- SMG projects additional net revenues from events in the $300k-$1.6M range. The higher end of that range is less than the non-hockey surcharge projected by RSE. Is that unrealistic?
- SMG projects $500k-1M in naming rights. RSE projects $3.3M. Is that unrealistic?
- SMG projects $1.1M-3M for 'premium seating'. That's $12k-35k per luxury suite. Is that unrealistic?
- Expense reductions of $1.6-1.9M can be attributed to the elimination of the 'overhead allocation' line item that had Jobing.com bear some of the load of NHL HQ expenses. Is that unrealistic?

If you want to assert that the Glendale City Council ultimately disregarded the bids because they were OK with a net AMF of $6-9M/year, fine. But to argue that the RSE option was chosen over the SMG option because its financial parameters were built on more solid grounds is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

barneyg is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 06:56 PM
  #139
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbert View Post
What projection figures in the SMG bid would you suggest they compare against? I don't actually see any in there, myself. They do some hand-waving and assign a dollar figure to "best practices" and the like, but there are no clearly stated assumptions the figure is based on (unlike RSE's projections). There is absolutely no way to know how reasonable or unreasonable SMG's assigned dollar figures are, as they are (as far as we know) plucked blindly from a hat.
Hand Waving? Plucked blindly from a hat? Maybe you just don't know how to read the SMG bid?
The data to calculate the financial impact of the SMG bid is not terribly difficult. Here's a quick guide.

Quote:
So, no, I heartily disagree with you... comparing the RSE projections with SMG's sales brochure of a bid would've been entirely inappropriate.
Sales brochure? You seem to have no problem using historical non-hockey data to validate RSE projections... but you don't seem to have the same ability to use historical non-hockey data in the SMG structure. All of a sudden it's hand-waving, blind pluck, inappropriateness...

CasualFan is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 06:58 PM
  #140
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
I'm trying to figure out whether you reject SMG's financial summary because you are biased, or whether you just don't realize that RSE's projections are a sales pitch too.

For that matter, the unrealistically conservative budget figures also came out of a hat.

Or is it your assertion that SMG's projection that arena operations will break even (+/- $1.8M) is unrealistic?

FWIW

- SMG projects additional net revenues from events in the $300k-$1.6M range. The higher end of that range is less than the non-hockey surcharge projected by RSE. Is that unrealistic?
- SMG projects $500k-1M in naming rights. RSE projects $3.3M. Is that unrealistic?
- SMG projects $1.1M-3M for 'premium seating'. That's $12k-35k per luxury suite. Is that unrealistic?
- Expense reductions of $1.6-1.9M can be attributed to the elimination of the 'overhead allocation' line item that had Jobing.com bear some of the load of NHL HQ expenses. Is that unrealistic?
RSE's projections are based on an expense/revenue structure that's written in to a legally-binding contract (when signed) and on specifically-itemized past performance figures and assumptions.
...This 3" x 4" diagram is the sum total of SMG's "projections" ... there is nothing else in the bid that says what specific assumptions led to these figures or that gives any indication of how realistic or unrealistic they may be.

With the RSE projections, we can at least argue over how realistic their base assumptions are, and we can adjust them to arrive at revised final figures if we disagree with those base assumptions to arrive at our own revised final figures. RSE's projection shows how they turn traffic into dollars; SMG's "projection" does not.

Also, a correction... RSE does not predict $3.3M in naming rights revenue to Glendale; they predict about $670k.
And illustrating my point above, we can determine for ourselves if this is a reasonable projection because they specifically state how they arrived at it... it's 20% of the average yearly naming rights revenue for other NHL arenas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
If you want to assert that the Glendale City Council ultimately disregarded the bids because they were OK with a net AMF of $6-9M/year, fine. But to argue that the RSE option was chosen over the SMG option because its financial parameters were built on more solid grounds is an insult to everyone's intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I have made no such argument. I have claimed that it's inappropriate for Glendale's budget office to compare (a City of Glendale adjustment to) RSE's projections with SMG's 3" x 4" diagram when considering the question of hockey vs non-hockey impact to the budget. It's not even clear that SMG would've been the non-hockey choice!


Last edited by fishbert: 07-07-2013 at 07:11 PM.
fishbert is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 07:06 PM
  #141
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GF View Post
"While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

YMMV. I don't think the initial argument had anything to do with the Nazis or Hitler. Anyone's free to disagree of course. I just thought the initial quote was appropriate in this particular situation.
Had it been used glibly, fallaciously, then ya, definitely inappropriate. In this case however, a quote used analogously with respect to the creation & perpetuation of a fallacy by a governmental entity is entirely appropriate. Godwins Law is merely a reminder that such references should not be used nor taken lightly.

Killion is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 07:22 PM
  #142
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbert View Post
Also, a correction... RSE does not predict $3.3M in naming rights revenue to Glendale; they predict about $670k.
And illustrating my point above, we can determine for ourselves if this is a reasonable projection because they specifically state how they arrived at it... it's 20% of the average yearly naming rights revenue for other NHL arenas.
RSE projects $3.3M in total naming rights revenue, SMG predicts $500k-1M. That's the apples-to-apples comparison.

Still, you avoided my question. Is it your assertion that SMG's projection of an arena that breaks even is unrealistic? You're right -- SMG's assumptions would need to be more fully explained to serve as a starting point for discussion. But to be fair, it's a very simple exercise to show that an arena's operations can break even and I don't see how arbitrarily plugging in numbers to yield "Extra event revenue: $300k-1.6M" enhances the bid. Seems like you were impressed by RSE's projections; you obviously need to sugarcoat things a bit more when you're asking for a $15M base fee, as opposed to $300k fee that declines over 3 years and strictly becomes a profit-sharing arrangement afterwards.

The fact is that you CAN compare the SMG and RSE bids. Suppose you discount every improvement in SMG's financial summary, disregarding the fact that SMG would benefit from those improvements too. Suppose you assume that RSE's projections will all materialize (the fun part is we'll see about that; I'm not holding my breath for parking and for them to reach a self-reported league average for naming rights). The SMG bid is still a better financial deal for the city.


Last edited by barneyg: 07-07-2013 at 07:30 PM. Reason: expanded in 2nd paragraph
barneyg is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 07:37 PM
  #143
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
RSE projects $3.3M in total naming rights revenue, SMG predicts $500k-1M. That's the apples-to-apples comparison.

Still, you avoided my question. Is it your assertion that SMG's projection of an arena that breaks even is unrealistic? You're right -- SMG's assumptions would need to be more fully explained to serve as a starting point for discussion. But to be fair, it's a very simple exercise to show that an arena's operations can break even and I don't see how arbitrarily plugging in numbers to yield "Extra event revenue: $300k-1.6M" enhances the bid. Seems like you were impressed by RSE's projections; you obviously need to sugarcoat things a bit more when you're asking for a $15M base fee, as opposed to $300k fee that declines over 3 years and strictly becomes a profit-sharing arrangement afterwards.

The fact is that you CAN compare the SMG and RSE bids. Suppose you discount every improvement in SMG's financial summary, disregarding the fact that SMG would benefit from those improvements too. Suppose you assume that RSE's projections will all materialize (the fun part is we'll see about that; I'm not holding my breath for parking and for them to reach a self-reported league average for naming rights). The SMG bid is still a better financial deal for the city.
Barney,
Do with this what you want, but shuttering the place and letting it fall apart while they wait for someone to lease the land under it for another use doesn't cost much at all.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 07:41 PM
  #144
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Hand Waving? Plucked blindly from a hat? Maybe you just don't know how to read the SMG bid?
The data to calculate the financial impact of the SMG bid is not terribly difficult. Here's a quick guide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
The arena did $2.5MM in revenue off of these non-hockey events. If SMG were to duplicate what the NHL accomplished, which seems like a reasonable expectation, it would generate $5MM for the year.

Here's how I read the tables on Pg.34 of the response on how they split up the $5MM:
- First $1MM to Glendale.
- The next two million split $1.6MM to Glendale; $400k to SMG
- The final two million split $1.4MM to Glendale; $600k to SMG

Roll that up and it's $4MM of the first $5MM in revenue to Glendale. And all SMG had to do to generate that is roughly match what those management wizards from the NHL did from July 1, 2012 to Dec 31, 2012 in non-hockey events.
...

Sales brochure? You seem to have no problem using historical non-hockey data to validate RSE projections... but you don't seem to have the same ability to use historical non-hockey data in the SMG structure. All of a sudden it's hand-waving, blind pluck, inappropriateness...
You appear to have quite a bit of difficulty at it yourself.
The only thing I see in your "quick guide" is a big, fat, un-supported assumption that SMG can run a revenue-neutral arena. That 7 month period you point to as the sole justification of SMG being able to run a revenue-neutral arena actually saw an operating loss of more than $2.1M ($190k per event).

Oh yes, the numbers work out quite nicely if you ignore $3.3M in operational expenses.


Last edited by fishbert: 07-07-2013 at 07:47 PM.
fishbert is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 07:44 PM
  #145
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Still, you avoided my question. Is it your assertion that SMG's projection of an arena that breaks even is unrealistic?
I have no way of knowing (and neither do you) because SMG hasn't shown any information on how they arrived at the figures they list.

fishbert is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 07:51 PM
  #146
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbert View Post
You appear to have quite a bit of difficulty at it yourself.
That 7 month period you point to as the sole justification of SMG being able to run a revenue-neutral arena saw an operating loss of more than $2.1M ($190k per event).

Oh yes, the numbers work out quite nicely if you ignore $3.3M in operational expenses.
Well, you don't know how to read the bid; that's the primary difficulty in our conversation.

The expenses are not ignored. Glendale allocates $6MM up front to cover the expenses. (SMG actually introduces "best practices" to reduce the expenses). Essentially, Glendale covers the expenses which allows SMG to divide the revenues as indicated in the table.

Also, it's not the sole justification for SMG running the arena net neutral, it's just the most recent and the most obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbert View Post
I have no way of knowing (and neither do you) because SMG hasn't shown any information on how they arrived at the figures they list.
All you have to do is look at the historical performance of the arena to determine the number of non-hockey events and the amount of revenue they generate. This isn't hand-waving and it sure isn't rocket science. I'm not sure why it eludes you.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 08:14 PM
  #147
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Well, you don't know how to read the bid; that's the primary difficulty in our conversation.
I know perfectly well how to read the bid. The primary difficulty as I see it is your inability to hold figures listed in a sales pitch and supported with little more than jargon ("best practices", "synergies", and the like) up to the same level of scrutiny as you give to RSE's projections (which are actually based on specific usage numbers).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
The expenses are not ignored. Glendale allocates $6MM up front to cover the expenses. (SMG actually introduces "best practices" to reduce the expenses). Essentially, Glendale covers the expenses which allows SMG to divide the revenues as indicated in the table.

Also, it's not the sole justification for SMG running the arena net neutral, it's just the most recent and the most obvious.
The benchmark year that SMG uses (FY 2012) saw $9.5M in operating expenses... not $6M. And that $9.5M in operating expenses is the lowest of the last few years; how will expenses get below $6M? "Best practices" and "synergies", yeah? Not very compelling.

All SMG is claiming is that they can reduce the overall operating loss ($5.6M) relative to FY 2012. To arrive at this figure, you have to account for operating expenses (all of them... even those above the made-up $6M figure in the budget [i.e., the ones that eat into your event revenues]).

"If SMG were to duplicate what the NHL accomplished, which seems like a reasonable expectation" (as you said in your "quick guide"), they would make nothing but their management fee. There is absolutely nothing here to show that SMG can operate the arena in a revenue-neutral fashion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
All you have to do is look at the historical performance of the arena to determine the number of non-hockey events and the amount of revenue they generate. This isn't hand-waving and it sure isn't rocket science. I'm not sure why it eludes you.
I'm not sure why operating expenses being above $6M eludes you. Care to explain?

The historical performance of the arena is an operating loss of $190,000 per event (first 7 months of FY 2013; cleanest period we have that excludes hockey events). How many events losing $190k each does it take to make a revenue-neutral arena? I run that math and it seems SMG's best profit comes with shuttering the arena and pocketing $6.5M over the 5 year period. Great for SMG; not so great for economic growth at Westgate (the entire reason to do any of this).


Last edited by fishbert: 07-07-2013 at 08:39 PM.
fishbert is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 08:17 PM
  #148
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbert View Post
I have no way of knowing (and neither do you) because SMG hasn't shown any information on how they arrived at the figures they list.
Fair enough. We can't evaluate their claim that the arena would break even, because they won't do that job for us. Let's just ignore the option that assuredly* makes the most financial sense, because they haven't disclosed the exact formula that results in the shocking prediction that event revenues will be $300k-$1.6M higher than under the NHL's stewardship. Gotcha.

* assuredly, since the worst case scenario with SMG ($5.6M deficit) beats RSE's best case scenario.

barneyg is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 08:25 PM
  #149
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Fair enough. We can't evaluate their claim that the arena would break even, because they won't do that job for us. Let's just ignore the option that assuredly* makes the most financial sense, because they haven't disclosed the exact formula that results in the shocking prediction that event revenues will be $300k-$1.6M higher than under the NHL's stewardship. Gotcha.

* assuredly, since the worst case scenario with SMG ($5.6M deficit) beats RSE's best case scenario.
Again, Barney,

Better yet is to demolish it and spread the cost of demolition over a few years. Then lease the land to someone else. No operating costs at all, then.

Which shows how crazy the whole thing is anyway, right everybody?

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
07-07-2013, 08:29 PM
  #150
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Again, Barney,

Better yet is to demolish it and spread the cost of demolition over a few years. Then lease the land to someone else. No operating costs at all, then.

Which shows how crazy the whole thing is anyway, right everybody?
I refuse to evaluate that option because you haven't exhaustively laid out your calculations to arrive at "no operating costs at all"

barneyg 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 06:57 AM.

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.