|
Post by Tim on Mar 27, 2012 5:57:48 GMT -6
I have little doubt Asper would have been successful if the deal was done prior to the economy tanking. It was just too difficult to pull off. As for the idea that spending $200 million on a stadium that wont fill a lot of dates is dumb, there is a price to the project that has to be undertaken. The cost of a stadium is the cost of a stadium. If we are to say "gee, its so expensive and because it's an uncovered football stadium, we arent getting value so lets not do it", you have to believe the city should scrap its CFL team. And I know you dont believe that. We were not going to get a covered stadium (which also would have pushed the price tag a lot further north). There are various reasons including the cost versus use, the deal between True North and the government etc. For 50 year life span, its not too much too spend. I have no issue with it whatsoever. "As for the idea that spending $200 million on a stadium that wont fill a lot of dates is dumb"Dumb??? I guess you are entitled to your opinion. So I would guess you’re a strong believer that businesses don't need to stand on their own, you support the CBC, Air Canada and all the other business that need corporate welfare to survive. Sorry to stand up and tell the public the football club will pay for this arena is a flat out lie. They need to be strait with the public that this facility was built for the Bombers with your tax dollars and will be gifted to the club, that would be easier to except then to be lied to because any intelligent person know they will default on the loan and we the public will pay for this. I will say it again, I love when we spend millions in construction, I get paid, I just hate when Government stands before you and lie to you about something that everyone intelligent person knows is a lie. This Club has a hard time turning a profit every year, and we are supposed to believe they will pay down this loan, this deal was built on lies, and right down to the tendering process (won’t go into that).
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Mar 27, 2012 8:39:35 GMT -6
{snip} This Club has a hard time turning a profit every year, and we are supposed to believe they will pay down this loan, this deal was built on lies, and right down to the tendering process (won’t go into that). Please do go into that. By PM if needed. m.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Mar 27, 2012 10:39:15 GMT -6
I have little doubt Asper would have been successful if the deal was done prior to the economy tanking. It was just too difficult to pull off. As for the idea that spending $200 million on a stadium that wont fill a lot of dates is dumb, there is a price to the project that has to be undertaken. The cost of a stadium is the cost of a stadium. If we are to say "gee, its so expensive and because it's an uncovered football stadium, we arent getting value so lets not do it", you have to believe the city should scrap its CFL team. And I know you dont believe that. We were not going to get a covered stadium (which also would have pushed the price tag a lot further north). There are various reasons including the cost versus use, the deal between True North and the government etc. For 50 year life span, its not too much too spend. I have no issue with it whatsoever. "As for the idea that spending $200 million on a stadium that wont fill a lot of dates is dumb"Dumb??? I guess you are entitled to your opinion. So I would guess you’re a strong believer that businesses don't need to stand on their own, you support the CBC, Air Canada and all the other business that need corporate welfare to survive. Sorry to stand up and tell the public the football club will pay for this arena is a flat out lie. They need to be strait with the public that this facility was built for the Bombers with your tax dollars and will be gifted to the club, that would be easier to except then to be lied to because any intelligent person know they will default on the loan and we the public will pay for this. I will say it again, I love when we spend millions in construction, I get paid, I just hate when Government stands before you and lie to you about something that everyone intelligent person knows is a lie. This Club has a hard time turning a profit every year, and we are supposed to believe they will pay down this loan, this deal was built on lies, and right down to the tendering process (won’t go into that). You're talking apples and oranges. There are several reasons not to support the CBC including the ridiculous amount of money given to them by the taxpayers (and the fact they use that money to be shamelessly pro-Liberal). I cant remember the numbers off hand but I believe the Bombers needed to generate an additional $4 million or so per year to cover the loan payment. Is that difficult for them? Historically yes. They also have far more revenue stream in IG Field than Canada Inns Stadium. One would presume they would promote far more concerts with their relationship with True North for further revenue. The bottom line is this. The Bombers are not a *private business*. They are a public business. If the government crunched the numbers and said "gee, they cant afford to pay back this loan. They can afford, maybe, $80 million". Do we build an $80 million Stadium? No because you can't do that. And you can't keep them in CIS. So what do you do? You either take the stance that 'if the team cant support themselves and their new building, then let's fold the team' or the public has to accept that they own the team and have the responsibility to ensure that the team exists and part of that existence is having a state of the art building. Furthermore, in the absence of the Bombers, the community still has a need for a large Stadium. If there is no Blue Bombers, Winnipeg still needs a stadium. As a large city, we need it. Maybe not as large or luxurious as IF\G Field but needed nonetheless. Additionally, factor in that this building is also the home of the UofM Bison. In the end, you're talking a community stadium, a college stadium and a building that also happens to house the pro team which will be paying back some or all of the cost of building it. Without the Bombers, how much would the taxpayer have to spend anyway? At least the team is, at this point, paying back the loan. And $200 million for a 50 year lifespan? $4 million a year. Were you hoping to get your streets repaired with that $4 million a year? Come on....
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 27, 2012 10:45:33 GMT -6
"As for the idea that spending $200 million on a stadium that wont fill a lot of dates is dumb"Dumb??? I guess you are entitled to your opinion. So I would guess you’re a strong believer that businesses don't need to stand on their own, you support the CBC, Air Canada and all the other business that need corporate welfare to survive. Sorry to stand up and tell the public the football club will pay for this arena is a flat out lie. They need to be strait with the public that this facility was built for the Bombers with your tax dollars and will be gifted to the club, that would be easier to except then to be lied to because any intelligent person know they will default on the loan and we the public will pay for this. I will say it again, I love when we spend millions in construction, I get paid, I just hate when Government stands before you and lie to you about something that everyone intelligent person knows is a lie. This Club has a hard time turning a profit every year, and we are supposed to believe they will pay down this loan, this deal was built on lies, and right down to the tendering process (won’t go into that). You're talking apples and oranges. There are several reasons not to support the CBC including the ridiculous amount of money given to them by the taxpayers (and the fact they use that money to be shamelessly pro-Liberal). I cant remember the numbers off hand but I believe the Bombers needed to generate an additional $4 million or so per year to cover the loan payment. Is that difficult for them? Historically yes. They also have far more revenue stream in IG Field than Canada Inns Stadium. One would presume they would promote far more concerts with their relationship with True North for further revenue. The bottom line is this. The Bombers are not a *private business*. They are a public business. If the government crunched the numbers and said "gee, they cant afford to pay back this loan. They can afford, maybe, $80 million". Do we build an $80 million Stadium? No because you can't do that. And you can't keep them in CIS. So what do you do? You either take the stance that 'if the team cant support themselves and their new building, then let's fold the team' or the public has to accept that they own the team and have the responsibility to ensure that the team exists and part of that existence is having a state of the art building. Furthermore, in the absence of the Bombers, the community still has a need for a large Stadium. If there is no Blue Bombers, Winnipeg still needs a stadium. As a large city, we need it. Maybe not as large or luxurious as IF\G Field but needed nonetheless. Additionally, factor in that this building is also the home of the UofM Bison. In the end, you're talking a community stadium, a college stadium and a building that also happens to house the pro team which will be paying back some or all of the cost of building it. Without the Bombers, how much would the taxpayer have to spend anyway? At least the team is, at this point, paying back the loan. And $200 million for a 50 year lifespan? $4 million a year. Were you hoping to get your streets repaired with that $4 million a year? Come on.... Will agree to disagree but I give it 5 years then they will default on the loan, and my street is still in great shape and will last longer they this loan payment plan. True North and the Goldeyes could only hope to have got such a great deal!
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Mar 27, 2012 14:49:34 GMT -6
True North got a much better deal than it seems but I agree they were willing to put in a lot of money themselves. The difference being, TN is a private company, MTSC is privately owned and Chipman et al make a TON of cash off that building.
Bombers are publicly owned and dont have the revenue streams to make tens of millions per year out of the stadium.
I dont have a problem with the loan being forgiven either.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Mar 27, 2012 15:26:43 GMT -6
As a fiscal conservative I should take umbrage with every public dollar spent but I'm pragmatic enough to know that there is a role for governments to play in situations like these. One of the jobs (imho) of a government is to help us do collectively that which we cannot do individually. We can't build our own roads, own our own police forces, or maintain our own armies. Similarly, most of us cannot build our own stadiums. But the stadium will ultimately be a public asset, used by 30,000 citizens 10-12 times per year at a minimum. There I see a real benefit to a large segment of the citizenry, so my objections to the public funding of the new stadium are minimal.
Even the Roman Colosseum was publicly built. I don't hear any Italians complaining about the cost... ;D
m.
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Mar 27, 2012 18:35:08 GMT -6
The only reason the Gov put up money was because the stadium was built on the U of M property and is going to be used by the Bisons as well.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 28, 2012 5:58:14 GMT -6
True North got a much better deal than it seems but I agree they were willing to put in a lot of money themselves. The difference being, TN is a private company, MTSC is privately owned and Chipman et al make a TON of cash off that building. Bombers are publicly owned and dont have the revenue streams to make tens of millions per year out of the stadium. I dont have a problem with the loan being forgiven either. I don't have a problem with the money, I have a problem with how everybody has lied about this. They should have atleast made it a four season building then at least the U of M could benifit from the building for all there sports programs and events. U of M site was used only because that's the only way they could get money from the feds not because that's where they wanted it.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Mar 28, 2012 10:44:25 GMT -6
Tim, if you want it to be a four season building, you're actually asking the government to in vest even more money, significantly more money, to construct an in door facility. And that cost would have been wholly borne by the government because the Bombers would not have wanted nor considered investing in such an expense.
I also dont recall anyone lying about a covered stadium. I recall quite clearly reading about the deal with True North that disallowed any public investment in a covered stadium that could be competition to the MTSC. The irony ofcourse is that TN works with the Bombers to promote concert events at the Stadium and I hope (and expect) that to increase in coming years.
Quite honestly, I am not even sure how many more dates a covered Stadium would generate. Could the U of M use it? Maybe. But does the U of M have a need for a 40,000 seat covered Stadium all winter long or can they get great use out of the facility with the bubble over it? And if the U of M could use a covered facility, would it generate revenue that would off set the cost of making it a covered facility? I dont think so.
If you're considering convention type events, then you're creating a situation where the Stadium competes with the Convention Centre (and the MTSC). For Winnipeg, I dont think that is a good situation.
We can all wish there was a major concert every week through the Winter, but I dont think thats a reality.
The U of M site was used because it created a partnership, unlocked federal funding, was feel-good and helped the University. I have no problem with that.
And according to the Bombers on CJOB today, their loan is $85 million and their plan is "spectacular" insofar as their financial outlook and business plan. So what do they have to pay back, $2 million or $3 million per year? I think they can do that.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Mar 28, 2012 10:45:23 GMT -6
PS: They also confirmed today they will have a video ribbon and the two largest video screens in the country, the same kids they have in the Meadowlands. And the cost of those additions have inflated the price a couple million which the team is paying.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 28, 2012 11:02:58 GMT -6
Tim, if you want it to be a four season building, you're actually asking the government to in vest even more money, significantly more money, to construct an in door facility. And that cost would have been wholly borne by the government because the Bombers would not have wanted nor considered investing in such an expense. I also dont recall anyone lying about a covered stadium. I recall quite clearly reading about the deal with True North that disallowed any public investment in a covered stadium that could be competition to the MTSC. The irony ofcourse is that TN works with the Bombers to promote concert events at the Stadium and I hope (and expect) that to increase in coming years. Quite honestly, I am not even sure how many more dates a covered Stadium would generate. Could the U of M use it? Maybe. But does the U of M have a need for a 40,000 seat covered Stadium all winter long or can they get great use out of the facility with the bubble over it? And if the U of M could use a covered facility, would it generate revenue that would off set the cost of making it a covered facility? I dont think so. If you're considering convention type events, then you're creating a situation where the Stadium competes with the Convention Centre (and the MTSC). For Winnipeg, I dont think that is a good situation. We can all wish there was a major concert every week through the Winter, but I dont think thats a reality. The U of M site was used because it created a partnership, unlocked federal funding, was feel-good and helped the University. I have no problem with that. And according to the Bombers on CJOB today, their loan is $85 million and their plan is "spectacular" insofar as their financial outlook and business plan. So what do they have to pay back, $2 million or $3 million per year? I think they can do that. I hope they can too, for a oragnisation that does high fives when they turn a 100 thousand dollar profit.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Mar 28, 2012 13:56:10 GMT -6
Tim, if you want it to be a four season building, you're actually asking the government to in vest even more money, significantly more money, to construct an in door facility. And that cost would have been wholly borne by the government because the Bombers would not have wanted nor considered investing in such an expense. I also dont recall anyone lying about a covered stadium. I recall quite clearly reading about the deal with True North that disallowed any public investment in a covered stadium that could be competition to the MTSC. The irony ofcourse is that TN works with the Bombers to promote concert events at the Stadium and I hope (and expect) that to increase in coming years. Quite honestly, I am not even sure how many more dates a covered Stadium would generate. Could the U of M use it? Maybe. But does the U of M have a need for a 40,000 seat covered Stadium all winter long or can they get great use out of the facility with the bubble over it? And if the U of M could use a covered facility, would it generate revenue that would off set the cost of making it a covered facility? I dont think so. If you're considering convention type events, then you're creating a situation where the Stadium competes with the Convention Centre (and the MTSC). For Winnipeg, I dont think that is a good situation. We can all wish there was a major concert every week through the Winter, but I dont think thats a reality. The U of M site was used because it created a partnership, unlocked federal funding, was feel-good and helped the University. I have no problem with that. And according to the Bombers on CJOB today, their loan is $85 million and their plan is "spectacular" insofar as their financial outlook and business plan. So what do they have to pay back, $2 million or $3 million per year? I think they can do that. I hope they can too, for a oragnisation that does high fives when they turn a 100 thousand dollar profit. To be fair, they do those high-fives when they made those kinds of surpluses at the old stadium. (Surplus, not profit. Bombers are a non-profit organization. And all profit is evil, just ask around at the U of W). The new stadium's revenue generating ability is to CIS's revenue generating ability as the MTS Centre's revenue generating ability is to the Winnipeg Arena's revenue generating ability. I like saying revenue generating ability. If the Blue Bombers are still celebrating smallish surpluses with the new stadium with it's revenue generating ability then I'll be even more concerned than I already am about the operation of that organization. m.
|
|
|
Post by Lions67 on Mar 28, 2012 14:01:56 GMT -6
bring in a soccer team. bring in a lacrosse team. fill the dates.
|
|
|
Post by bigcanadiano on Mar 28, 2012 14:08:56 GMT -6
bhahahha nice.
|
|
|
Post by bigcanadiano on Mar 28, 2012 14:11:25 GMT -6
Exactly this.^ They have no proven track record, let alone the commodity a new stadium will bring.
|
|