SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   The Great Canadian Sports Attendance, Marketing and TV Ratings Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=228928)

Acajack Mar 26, 2019 1:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8518671)
[*]What's the point of putting $200M into Olympic Stadium's roof if there's going to be no permanent tenant? Would it not make more sense for that funding to partly be funneled to a potential MLB stadium?[/LIST]

I can see that point but it does inconveniently bump into plans for the FIFA World Cup. For which there is likely no going back.

Acajack Mar 26, 2019 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8518671)

I think the NBA is a more enticing fit for Montreal and it doesn't require a new multi-million dollar facility to operate. Basketball's potential seems higher than baseball's on the whole.

In some ways it's lower hanging fruit because the facility's already there with a sufficient number of open dates every year. (Or at least, room can certainly be made for an NBA schedule in the Bell Centre's calendar.)

Baseball has way deeper roots and more demonstrated interest as a spectator sport in Montreal and Quebec (in spite of the Expos debacle), but basketball is growing here as it is pretty much everywhere. An NBA team in Montreal would definitely be an "in" thing, at least for a while. (Though the rebooted Expos would be "in" as well, in much the same way.)

esquire Mar 26, 2019 1:43 PM

On some level the NBA offers much of the upside potential of baseball but without any of the overhead of requiring a new venue. I mean, Montreal likes baseball, but does it like it enough to justify the half billion+ dollar publicly funded stadium that would be required?

Also, if the province (and possibly feds too? I forget) are dumping a bunch of money into the Big O to fix it up, will there an appetite to spend money on another new stadium on top of that? All this not long after spending a fortune to build the world's most opulent junior hockey arena? Even in Quebec, I would think the appetite for taking on those types of expenses must have its limits.

JHikka Apr 3, 2019 6:52 PM

85% of the tickets for the Memorial Cup in Halifax are sold according to Mikael Lalancette of TVA Sports.

JHikka Apr 3, 2019 8:17 PM

City and province to provide Winnipeg pro sports with $16.6M this year

Bartley Kives · CBC News · Posted: Mar 06, 2019 5:00 AM CT | Last Updated: March 6

Winnipeg's professional sports clubs are in line for about $16.6 million of government assistance this year in the form of gaming revenue, tax breaks, tax refunds and tax exemptions.​

City budget documents reveal a modest rise in combined municipal and provincial support for the Winnipeg Jets, Manitoba Moose, Winnipeg Blue Bombers and Winnipeg Goldeyes, mainly because of improved ticket sales at Bell MTS Place.

​True North Sports & Entertainment, the company that owns the National Hockey League's Jets, American Hockey League's Moose and the teams' downtown hockey arena, is slated to receive an estimated $14.8 million in operating subsidies and other forms of public assistance in 2019. That's up from an estimated $14.1 million in 2018.

The public assistance this year is roughly equal to the combined salaries of Jets centre Mark Scheifele and his wingers Blake Wheeler and Patrik Laine, as well as goalie Connor Hellebuyck, accordingly to salary-tracking website capfriendly.com.

...

Economic Development Winnipeg president and CEO Dayna Spiring said the public expenditure on those parties more than paid for itself in terms of marketing Winnipeg to the rest of the continent through NBC and Hockey Night broadcasts.

The economic impact of the Jets, Moose, Bombers and Goldeyes more than justifies the municipal and provincial assistance for professional sports in Winnipeg, she added.

...

The Winnipeg Blue Bombers are in line to receive a $1.45-million entertainment tax rebate from the city this year. That's down from $1.85 million in 2018.

The drop is due to a reduction in ticket sales by the non-profit Winnipeg Football Club from 2016 to 2017, the most recent year documented in the club's financial statements.

The football club will publish its 2018 financial statements in April and will report a small decrease in ticket revenue due to poor weather last year, Bombers public relations director Darren Cameron said in a statement.

The Bombers also don't pay city business taxes or any property taxes on Investors Group Field, which sits on land owned by the University of Manitoba.

The club has been meeting its commitments to pay back a stadium-building loan of $75 million, plus interest, but the province no longer expects to recoup a separate $85-million component of the loan that was supposed to be financed by new developments at the old Canad Inns Stadium site.

...

The Winnipeg Goldeyes, who play at Shaw Park in downtown Winnipeg, are set to receive $368,000 in public assistance this year, up from $342,000 last year.

The Fish are in line to receive a $325,000 entertainment tax rebate and a $43,000 city property tax grant.

Winnipeg Goldeyes chief financial officer Jason McRae-King declined to comment on government assistance for the baseball club, which is owned by former Winnipeg mayor Sam Katz.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...dies-1.5041908

esquire Apr 3, 2019 8:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8528927)
Economic Development Winnipeg president and CEO Dayna Spiring said the public expenditure on those parties more than paid for itself in terms of marketing Winnipeg to the rest of the continent through NBC and Hockey Night broadcasts.

LOL, here we go with fucking NBC again. What she doesn't say is that it's NBC Sports Network that pulls in infomercial-level ratings for NHL games in the US which televised the Jets this season.

I'm sure the 5,000 American shut ins who couldn't get up to change the channel after golf ended are well aware of Winnipeg now.

JHikka Apr 5, 2019 6:49 PM

Lapointe group will not be buying the Alouettes according to Herb Zurkowsky of the Montreal Gazette:

https://montrealgazette.com/pmn/spor...9-bcbcd34e62da

On his Twitter he's saying that the CFL will be assuming control of the team as the Wettenhall family has walked away from owning the team.

"I will reiterate, according to my information, the Wetenhall family is out. Whether it’s now or an hour from now. And the league knows it won’t look good to say it’s running the team. As for Eric Lapointe, indeed, he’s out, regrettably. He and his group would have been good."
https://twitter.com/HerbZurkowsky1/s...23293186363393

esquire Apr 5, 2019 6:53 PM

Sound the alarm, football crisis in Montreal.

I'm not sure what the Wetenhalls' end game in all of this is, but it is bizarre. They could have sold the team a few years ago for what would have probably been a healthy price. Or they could have done the fixer-upper thing and gotten the team back into decent shape, and then put it on the market.

Waiting until the team hits rock bottom on and off the field and then just walking away from it seems like the worst possible thing to do, but then, what do I know about owning a sports team?

le calmar Apr 5, 2019 7:05 PM

Their reluctance to sell to Eric Lapointe's group is just bizarre. They were apparently not willing to have discussions with him.

esquire Apr 5, 2019 7:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by le calmar (Post 8531265)
Their reluctance to sell to Eric Lapointe's group is just bizarre. They were apparently not willing to have discussions with him.

Surely it must be a price issue, what else could it be? The team's current value must be fairly straightforward... maybe the losses from the past few years are the sticking point? I'm sure the rough last few years have done a number on Wetenhall's overall profits from the team.

Wetenhall: "Now that we've agreed on a price, add X dollars to cover my losses since 2012"

Lapointe: "F U" (walks away)

I'm exaggerating but you get my point.

le calmar Apr 5, 2019 7:11 PM

On another note, I just learned that the AAF died this week. I was expecting it, but not so soon, perhaps after 2 or 3 seasons.

JHikka Apr 5, 2019 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8531270)
Surely it must be a price issue, what else could it be? The team's current value must be fairly straightforward... maybe the losses from the past few years are the sticking point? I'm sure the rough last few years have done a number on Wetenhall's overall profits from the team.

Wetenhall: "Now that we've agreed on a price, add X dollars to cover my losses since 2012"

Lapointe: "F U" (walks away)

I'm exaggerating but you get my point.

I'm assuming ownership of the debt is the sticking point on the team and its valuation. It's possible the Wetenhalls are asking prospective owners to take on the debt plus the fee for the team. In such a scenario it makes sense that the CFL comes in as middleman....CFL takes on team, absorbs its losses, and then sells team to new ownership without the debt attached to it.

elly63 Apr 5, 2019 8:26 PM

There must be another owner in the works or they wouldn't have shot Lapointe down or they didn't want to sell directly to Lapointe as he has done a lot of talking basically disparaging the Wetenhalls.

khabibulin Apr 5, 2019 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8531279)
I'm assuming ownership of the debt is the sticking point on the team and its valuation. It's possible the Wetenhalls are asking prospective owners to take on the debt plus the fee for the team. In such a scenario it makes sense that the CFL comes in as middleman....CFL takes on team, absorbs its losses, and then sells team to new ownership without the debt attached to it.

How much would it cost the CFL to take on the team and who would pay? I can't see other team owners (or publicly owned teams board of directors)agreeing to pay to run an opposing team.

JHikka Apr 5, 2019 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khabibulin (Post 8531386)
How much would it cost the CFL to take on the team and who would pay?

That's a good question. It depends on how much debt the Alouettes/Wetenhalls are carrying and how much that is compared to the team's overall value [it's a good assumption at this point, the Alouettes lost money on a yearly basis according to Wetenhall]. If the Wetenhalls are stepping away from the team then they're effectively handing the team over to the CFL for free, which would imply that debt is effectively valued at more than the value of the team, or thereabouts. CFL expansion franchises fetch ~$7M so I imagine the Alouettes are somewhere around there in value sans debt.

Theoretically, if the Als are valued at $7M but have $7M of debt, then no prospective owner is going to take on the debt and pay anything for the team itself. It's possible that potential owners do not want to buy the team prior to this season without a guarantee that they won't lose money. I assume this is a sticking point.

In a scenario where the Alouettes move from Wetenhall -> CFL -> new owner, the debt travels with the team from the Wetenhalls to the CFL, and then the CFL eats the debt and sells the team to new owners with a fresh balance sheet. Value would presumably take a hit if potential owners are able to see books.

This sort of sticking point is similar to what the Senators will eventually go through when somebody takes the team over from Melnyk, the difference being that the Senators debtload isn't nearly as high as the team's overall value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khabibulin (Post 8531386)
I can't see other team owners (or publicly owned teams board of directors)agreeing to pay to run an opposing team.

Indeed, but if the CFL taking the team on prevents the team from going bankrupt then that's a pill they'll have to swallow. Better the league take on the debt than the team (very publicly) collapsing.

blueandgoldguy Apr 5, 2019 11:20 PM

Sigh. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Als were a financial basket case for much of their existence, most notably in the 80s.

Much was made of the Als resurgence in the late 90s, both on the field and off. That turned out to be a 10 - 15 year reprieve. Right around 2012 - 2014, their attendance and corporate support starting to nosedive. I suspect this is when the losses starting to mount and it continues to this day. The average crowds were announced as 17,000 for the season, but you could tell watching on tv that the actual numbers were 10 - 12,000. Lots of freebies and discounted tickets given to corporate sponsors, football and charitable organizations.

I imagine the cumulative losses the past half-decade are well over $10 million given the charming, yet antiquated stadium, minimal merchandise revenue, and no Grey Cups hosting duties for over a decade. Offhand, I have heard that Wettenhall was carrying a debt on the team close to or at 8 figures. I can see him not covering the annual losses once he came close to exhausting the profits from the "golden years" of the 2000s, so the reported cumulative debt would make sense.

As stated above, I wouldn't be surprised if Wettenhall has demanded that any prospective owners carry his outstanding debt in addition to a fee to acquire the team. Not an enticing prospect for an organization that plays in a fickle market with no real assets and with no prospect of hosting a Grey Cup any time soon.

Unfortunately, I too believe the league will take over the team and incur the outstanding debt. Hopefully, they will find someone who will buy the Als for approx. the going rate of an expansion team - $7 million. Then, it will be a question as to how this will be split between the CFL and the Wettenhalls. I would suspect the Wettenhalls would receive nearly all, if not the entirety of the proceeds, as a thank you from the league for investing in the team and Percival - Molson Stadium for all these years.

I suspect one of the conditions of the sale by the prospective ownership group will be a couple of Grey Cups within a specified time period. The Olympic Stadium roof will be ready replaced in either 2023 or 2024, and the city and province will be eager to make full use of it. A 2024 Grey Cup followed by another in 2027 - 2029 might do the trick.

JHikka Apr 8, 2019 3:40 PM

The Toronto Arrows lost to New Orleans in the first ever professional rugby union match in Canada this past weekend. Sold out the York Alumni Stadium with a crowd of 3,081 and ran out of beer for a short while :haha:. Arrows will play three more games at York Alumni before playing their final four at Lamport.

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/sports-...r-to-nola-gold

elly63 Apr 8, 2019 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8533285)
ran out of beer for a short while

Speaking of which...

Ontario to legalize tailgate parties; amendment to be introduced in budget
The Canadian Press April 8, 2019

TORONTO — Sports fans in Ontario will soon be able to have a drink and tailgate before a game.

The government will announce in its budget this week that it will legalize the practice often seen in parking lots at sporting events in the United States.

Premier Doug Ford’s executive director of strategic communications tweeted that the change means the government is treating adults like adults.

Tailgating parties will be made possible by amending a regulation that sets out the terms for special occasion liquor permits.

Any parking lot or venue within a reasonable distance from a major sports complex, such as Toronto’s Rogers Centre or Scotiabank Arena, would be able to apply for the permit.

esquire Apr 8, 2019 4:19 PM

^ Haha, count on a Doug Ford government to bring in that piece of legislation :haha:

But kidding aside, it's about damned time that we moved out of the prohibition era and loosened up the shackles a bit when it comes to alcohol. The rest of the world seems to manage without having to regulate every facet of how people drink and imposing stiff fines on trivial contraventions.

isaidso Apr 8, 2019 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8533332)
^ Haha, count on a Doug Ford government to bring in that piece of legislation :haha:

But kidding aside, it's about damned time that we moved out of the prohibition era and loosened up the shackles a bit when it comes to alcohol. The rest of the world seems to manage without having to regulate every facet of how people drink and imposing stiff fines on trivial contraventions.

Agree. I have zero interest in living in a nanny state. When one has absurd laws on the books people start viewing the law as archaic and invalid. Not being able to drink liquor in public? If I want to do a few shots of tequila while going for an outdoor skate I'm bloody well going to have some.

Society is going to have problems when people, en masse, start ignoring laws. After awhile people will pretty much only respect laws they agree with.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.