dead poets society

Any losses incurred by True North, so long the NHL were to put a blanket over the feasability of a successful NOT mediocre wpg_market?

The answer(s) are simply in the magical_recipe provided to True North by you the citizen of Winnipeg.




Quote:
According to the Term Sheet and other information prepared by government authorities at the time the deal was done, the private owners of the True North arena were to receive direct subsidies of at least $1.5 million annually from VLT revenues, of which at least $1.125 million represents the foregone share that ordinarily would go to the provincial government.
The $1.5 million, remember, is a projected minimum. True North, or its assignee, gets 75 per cent, or $3 million, of the first $4 million of the revenue generated by its 50 VLTs. After $4 million they get the usual 20 per cent.
In addition, it was estimated at the time that another $2.2 million would go to the owners of the arena annually out of business and entertainment taxes that otherwise would be collected and kept by the city.

So, before the first dollar of rent is collected for any event, a minimum of $3.7 million in income every year for 25 years, comes from the province and city.


This^ is the total cost of the mts centre for True North, or in other words, a hand is kept in your pocket while the potential for an NHL franchise were it to be hatched.

This is important information, if you THINK about it, only because a plot to exercise any $capital interest$ in a future NHL team does not rest on the the city. . . the NHL would have to be convinced it can squeeze the life out of it's investors.

If True North were to run the NHL in mts centre, the projected 5-10 year period of %100_capacity might break even through expenses (i.e.player salaries) depending on profits its allocated. The point being, if True North were to place half the costs from %50_capacity in mts centre, Mark Chipman may not benefit from the deal given to him by the government, nor would the NHL be willing to participate.

In a successful mts centre, Mark Chipman's NHL team would have to break even by covering all the costs, at %100 capacity, but would not be able to turn a profit at 60-75% capacity. The state of that happening would entail cutting loss.


Quote:
Remember that $60 million mortgage? It is, not coincidentally, amortized over 25 years. A garden variety mortgage with blended payments including interest at six per cent per annum over that period of time would need about $4.6 million per year to fully service.

Still, in 2008, the total property tax saving will come to more than $1.1 million. There's the other 20 per cent of the mortgage payment, and then some.

= = = = ===== = = = =

PIGSEYE
Post subject: Posted: Jul 16, 2008 - 09:13 PM




Joined: Apr 06, 2005
Posts: 4436


bigcanadiano wrote:
My point was this: where else in this country is there a landmark such as eaton's?? I would tell you that there are probably no chance of finding it. By historical (cnd.) standards, it is not a far fetched argument to make that eaton's (again. . . by cnd. standards) is equivilant to the Taj-Mahal. It is inexcusable to me, that a country so short in existence completely absent minded of what this building represented exactly? Into this short millenium, you would think the government even in it's short period compared to other nations, would have thought something. They didn't. . . it's unbelievable to me.


Quebec City is what, 400 years old this year ?

Somehow, a dilapidated department store in Winnipeg, is hard to imagine as a Taj-Mahal. Except maybe if your a rat or a roach.

= = = ==== = = = =

(my response)

Quote:
What this means is that the actual cash invested in the arena was $58.5 million, of which $40.5 million, or 69.2 per cent came from the taxpayers and $18 million, or 30.8 per cent came from the private owners. So, really, the people who get all of the profit and have all of the control of the arena put up less than a third of the capital invested, and, as already noted, only 15 per cent of the total cost.

Put another way, for every $1 invested by the private owners, they got an immediate gift from the taxpayers of $2.25 of equity. That's right. On Day 1 they tripled their money with more to come.


^This (in italics.) =


Quote:
If it had been built on a vacant site already owned by the government, you could subtract from that the $3 million or so that it cost to tear down the Eaton's building.

For those of you doing the math, the actual share of the cost of the arena funded by the people who are reaping 100 per cent of the profits is less than 15 per cent (19 per cent if you accept that the Eaton's site, with the empty building still on it, was worth $5 million and not the nominal amount declared for land transfer tax purposes).


It should make you wonder how True North, Glenn Murray, or Gary Doer totally steamrolled the issue. In retrospect anything we were allowed to have knowledge of THEN in clear hindsite, factuality would have certainly played an important role, pigseye.

If you think this information wasn't present at the time True North formed it's anti-coup against the government forces behind this project, NOW our participation of any future stadium being built will have equal amount of support. The difference being that this time, the truth will be had rather than purged upon by True North, the government which completely underminded the process of it's citizens as a part of our better understanding.


== = = = = = = = = = ==
spidey99
Post subject: Posted: Jul 16, 2008 - 02:09 AM




Joined: Aug 26, 2007
Posts: 60

Status: Offline
As much as cartel economics sickens me, the Eaton's saga makes me want to blow chunks. In Eaton's dying days, the billionaire Eaton family had the audacity to send these heartstring-tugging letters to seniors who had long retired from Eaton's which begged them to help the dying retail giant by sending in as much of their pensions as they could spare. This level of greed and depravity is subhuman.

When I hear the name Eaton, I want to go to an Eaton family gathering, take the head of this brood and gut him like a salmon in front of his family while they curiously watch their patriarch flop around the floor.

As for the Eaton's building, if it wasn't for the asbestos embedded throughout the building, I would have led the campaign to 9/11 Eaton's straight to hell.

= = = = = == == = =

(my response)
I feel that.^

What baffles me is how True North thinks they can afford an NHL team. With a 150mil dollar arena, the purchase of a team is app. 175mil. Couple that with a 50mil cap budget just to compete.

quick math:

15000 x 90$avg. per seat= 1,125 000mil

1,125 000 x 40game season= 45, 000 000mil
= = == = = = =

If the c.e.o. mark chipman leads an ad hoc attempt to the table (as the ever so insightful WFP randy turner suggests have 'secret council meetings with the NHL.'. . .) the mts centre 15,000 sold out seats at 90$_!! a seat.

I'm accounting luxury boxes in the 90$ avg per seat, ergo, even if each seat were a bottom feeding 50$_per game, per seat, hypothetically the 90$ range is a good average. (i.e. educated guess)

Without concessions/parking, revenue sharing (a must), or profits from sales, chipman is telling us he'll clear 45mil in ticket sales alone.

This follows. . .
============
linear pattern of logic, that cheap skates will bow to chimpans idealized godzilla wearing suit made of crackerjack sized boxes. Do you see the oxymoron yet??

(this follows. . .)

= = = == = = = =

If pessimism isn't your skeptical domain, let's consider chipman's investment were to become reality, he has generated a fan base that brings a total of $45mil per year in ticket sales alone - which covers the cost of putting a competing team on the ice. Any profit that True North makes is based on concerts as well as the NHL teams proxy. This means tv revenues which make up the lions share of Canadian markets, double Chipman's chances of turning the NHL into a profitable_wpg_based_market. That is the question?
Yes, yes it is.

(this follows. . .)
= = = = == = =
with or without a 45mil 'exit strategy' of 15,000 seats per game to cover the cost certainty of player salaries. Chimpman thinks True North can assure any losses based on the fact the arena is being paid for by the tax-payer which acts as collateral. This also means anything Chipman believes True North corp. can afford to purchase (as buy into an NHL_wpg sized market), is covered by the %100 profit margin True North achieves per annuum, without any compensation toward the monetary public (taxpayer).

(this follows. . . )
= = = = = == = =

True North seriously believing the NHL has any interest in moving to wpg, because the capital$_$formula is here. . .

A fan base brand of former jet loyalists that will unquivocally sell out the building for at least a 5-10 year minuimum at 60-100$ per game.