canucklax Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20131213glendale-fiscal-forecast-grim.html?nclick_check=1 To the surprise of only the council members that approved the deal, the coyotes are not a profitable endeavor in Glendale. The city projects a 8.6 million dollar deficit this year, with the overwhelming majority of it coming from the coyotes at 8.1 million in losses after all revenues associated with it. The council either knew what they voted for when they passed the vote, or were too incompetent and naive to think it could work. Now the rest of the city has to pay the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 KES!! Wrong thread..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 while I agree the coyotoes are a deadbeat franchise that should have relocated long ago.... the coyotes moving would cost Glendale more..... from hundreds of millions of lost economic activity. To an expensive arena that would sit empty and decay.... People should learn some economics ABCs before opening their mouths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 while I agree the coyotoes are a deadbeat franchise that should have relocated long ago.... the coyotes moving would cost Glendale more..... from hundreds of millions of lost economic activity. To an expensive arena that would sit empty and decay.... People should learn some economics ABCs before opening their mouths At some point they have to cut their losses. Yes the yotes are the primary tennant, but the cost to retain the team is heavily outweighing any positives associated with it. The city is choosing to bankrupt itself by keeping them around. The 8.1 million loss is after revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrChill Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 At some point they have to cut their losses. Yes the yotes are the primary tennant, but the cost to retain the team is heavily outweighing any positives associated with it. The city is choosing to bankrupt itself by keeping them around. The 8.1 million loss is after revenue. What would the city lose without the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 What would the city lose without the team? they had plenty of opportunity to come up with a contingency plan to find other revenues (or things that aren't pure loss). Instead they decided to gamble with a proven loser and have to try to correct the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 They have a lease that would cost the city way more to walk away from the to simply swallow an $8 Million/year loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 They have a lease that would cost the city way more to walk away from the to simply swallow an $8 Million/year loss. They could have walked away this summer, the vote was to renew the lease and instead they paid the NHL and RSE to manage the arena and are going to bankrupt themselves. Having the coyotes in town is not what is keeping glendale alive as a city, but it is the thing that may kill it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 At some point they have to cut their losses. Yes the yotes are the primary tennant, but the cost to retain the team is heavily outweighing any positives associated with it. The city is choosing to bankrupt itself by keeping them around. The 8.1 million loss is after revenue. its the NHL that should have cut their losses with this deadbeat franchise. for Glendale to have the coyotes around creates a lot of economic activity, Adds to the TAX base + the arena/lease its not the best situation obviously. But their losses would be faaar more then 8mil/year without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chauncey Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Go Canucks go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 its the NHL that should have cut their losses with this deadbeat franchise. for Glendale to have the coyotes around creates a lot of economic activity, Adds to the TAX base + the arena/lease its not the best situation obviously. But their losses would be faaar more then 8mil/year without them. It bring no value added to the arena or lease if they are losing money, and the arena is not even booked on off nights. so please tell me how that arena is benefiting the city if they have to pay the bills why bringing in no money. RSE said they would bring in more events to help increase revenue but right now have only 2 non-hockey events scheduled all month. jobing arena schedule: http://jobingarena.com/events.aspx?CalDate=2014-Jan-01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 It bring no value added to the arena or lease if they are losing money, and the arena is not even booked on off nights. so please tell me how that arena is benefiting the city if they have to pay the bills why bringing in no money. RSE said they would bring in more events to help increase revenue but right now have only 2 non-hockey events scheduled all month. jobing arena schedule: http://jobingarena.c...ate=2014-Jan-01 Without the coyote there, Either the city pays for the arena upkeep, Or an investment worth hundreds of millions simply decays. Without the coyotes, hundreds of jobs around the team/ support would be lost... Hundreds of millions of economic activity around the team would be lost. there would be a reduction of tax base for the city exposure for the city of having a professional sports team would be gone... Heck the high tax rates the coyote players + visting players pay alone probably take a large chunk of the 8 mil/year away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_tax 8 million/year Is peanuts compared to their losses without the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 Without the coyote there, Either the city pays for the arena upkeep, Or an investment worth hundreds of millions simply decays. Without the coyotes, hundreds of jobs around the team/ support would be lost... Hundreds of millions of economic activity around the team would be lost. there would be a reduction of tax base for the city exposure for the city of having a professional sports team would be gone... Heck the high tax rates the coyote players + visting players pay alone probably take a large chunk of the 8 mil/year away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_tax 8 million/year Is peanuts compared to their losses without the team No the tax does not take away from that 8 million, because as I've said before it is AFTER all associated revenues. There is not hundreds of millions in economic activities around the team when no one goes to the games or buys concessions. In fact, one of the problems is that of those few who go, most don't pay for parking at the arena, lessening the revenue to the city. Yes some arena workers would lose their jobs, but right now the city is going to lose their emergency services. Which is the greater evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 No the tax does not take away from that 8 million, because as I've said before it is AFTER all associated revenues. There is not hundreds of millions in economic activities around the team when no one goes to the games or buys concessions. In fact, one of the problems is that of those few who go, most don't pay for parking at the arena, lessening the revenue to the city. Yes some arena workers would lose their jobs, but right now the city is going to lose their emergency services. Which is the greater evil? there is a lot of indirect activity around the team that is not notced... like the jock tax/ Having millionaires paying a massive tax rates... I have named many examples of how the team benefits the city. it is without question the losses would be far more (direct and indirect) without the team.. There is a reason most cities kill themselves/ bend over backwards and actually build arena's,and get on their knees and beg for professional sports teams to come to their cities.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklax Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 there is a lot of indirect activity around the team that is not notced... like the jock tax/ Having millionaires paying a massive tax rates... I have named many examples of how the team benefits the city. it is without question the losses would be far more (direct and indirect) without the team.. There is a reason most cities kill themselves/ bend over backwards and actually build arena's,and get on their knees and beg for professional sports teams to come to their cities.. Those arenas bring in more people though. With a low draw for game nights, and next to no non-hockey events scheduled, that "hidden benefit" is microscopic compared to other arenas. Also, the football stadium is right across the street, which will prevent any of the nearby business from completely losing customers due to "no activity". As well, there is a neighborhood on another side of the arena, so the foot traffic around the arena has a lot fewer options of places to spend money before a game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.