Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by elly63

Your serve, Calgary.

Yeah right....

[Oilkountry]

tons of room for a 10,000 seat soccer stadium behind rogers place....just sayin

[Coldrsx]

Please no, resi.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Funny how people have completely ignored that John Oliver sketch. It's a good reminder of just how massive a scam new sports stadia typically are.

Anyway...back to the thread.

[Coldrsx]

It's a fantastic piece, thankfully (hopefully) will not apply here.

[Oilkountry]

Not sure how much you guys care but some progress on mtsc





Goal line to blue line upper ring

[Oilkountry]

Crunched some numbers for a while for fun and came up with this tell me what you think. The MTS Centre has always been looked at as too small because it's missing on average about 2700 seats. So let's say they hung a row of loge seating from the available space of the rafters similar to what they did with the press box expansion and ended up with 200 additional seats (give or take 10). If they priced those seats similar to the p4 section seating (furthest seats back on corners of lower bowl) the additional revenue gained from the existing loge seats and the new seating would look like this.

existing loge seats $6,548.00 X 278 = 1,820,344 (includes $500 surcharge)
+
new loge seating $3,930.75 x 200 = 786,000 (no surcharge)

=2,606,344

Now the 300 level of the MTS centre is divided into 3 sections p5,p6 and p7 so if we take p6 as an average price( 2,682.00) and divide it into 2,606,344 you get 971

So MTS Centre would at those numbers bring in the same revenue as a 15,975 seat building.
Keep in mind I didn't add a $500 premium seat fee to the "400 level" loge seating like the lower bowl loge seating. And the fact that their is a very good chance they could add 2-3 rows of loge seating up there with the amount of room they have (im thinking the press box expansion is at least 15 feet high floor to ceiling) And they could price them at whatever they want I was just being realistic. If the press box expansion cost them a million. Adding 2 rows of loge seating is what 3-4 million max? RIO in 2 seasons or so...not too shabby

The MTS centre Could bring in the same revenue as a 19,000 seat arena at 15,600 seats

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

It's a fantastic piece, thankfully (hopefully) will not apply here.

How doesn't it apply?

[Coldrsx]

There is 5.1 billion worth of projects ^in downtown and area, A good portion due ^in part or accelerated because of the arena moving forward.

This is not a 400,000,000 football stadium 30mins out ^in a sea of parking that is used < 20 times a year.

This is an arena ^in the core connected by multiple LRT stations, next to the CBD, walkable by many of the crowd and anchoring many new projects ^in a building that will see 180-220 events a year or more.

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Funny how people have completely ignored that John Oliver sketch. It's a good reminder of just how massive a scam new sports stadia typically are.

Anyway...back to the thread.

You have to be naive to think it's the whole story. I highly doubt owners keep 100% of the income. The city probably gets a small percentage.

And how exactly a stadium doesn't create jobs? Who is going to offer you food during the game? Who is going to clean afterwards? Who is going to maintain that stadium? Who will get the stadium ready for the game?

There is some truth to the John Oliver sketch but it is exaggerated to the extreme.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Berklon

How doesn't it apply?

it applies in Canada as well. just on a lesser scale were not garnishing millions and billions from our government to sports teams. I'm actually quite impressed with our federal governments stance on directly funding sports franchises. I would say aside from the Big O Canada has done a very fine and responsible job and building/maintaining Venues over the course of the past 60 years or so. You won't see any fish tanks here but you will modest stadiums that do the intended jobs perfectly.

But katz did threaten to move the team to back Edmonton in a corner and got his way. But that is Edmonton not Canada I would say we are the polar opposite of Atlanta. Nothing in Canada gets replaced before 125% of it's shelf life.

[esquire]

^ Edmonton got snookered badly on the arena deal, but it is mitigated somewhat by the sheer scale of development taking place (most unlikely that something like that is only happening because of an arena though). It is generally the smaller cities that get hosed the worst on these kinds of deals so it's not a huge surprise in Edmonton's case. Fortunately this tends to be the exception rather than the rule... the US is out of control where local governments that can barely afford to keep the lights on build new stadiums for private owners who aren't making enough money on their 20 year old publicly financed venues.

I do find the architecture and design of sports stadiums interesting, but the way in which they are paid for is, for the most part, abhorrent.

[Coldrsx]

The deal was not perfect, but reasonable, important and will have a decent 'return' over the term.

[Welkin]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

You have to be naive to think it's the whole story. I highly doubt owners keep 100% of the income. The city probably gets a small percentage.

And how exactly a stadium doesn't create jobs? Who is going to offer you food during the game? Who is going to clean afterwards? Who is going to maintain that stadium? Who will get the stadium ready for the game?There is some truth to the John Oliver sketch but it is exaggerated to the extreme.

Are you serious? Cities spend hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on new stadia, and you think a couple hundred, part-time, minimum wage workers justify the costs? I don't live in a city with a massive publicly funded stadium, so it is no dime out of my pocket. Hey, if the people of Edmonton want to spend their tax dollars just to make a billionaire richer, that is their problem. Just don't say that it is of any real economic benefit to anyone other than the sports team owner.

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by Welkin

Are you serious? Cities spend hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on new stadia, and you think a couple hundred, part-time, minimum wage workers justify the costs? I don't live in a city with a massive publicly funded stadium, so it is no dime out of my pocket. Hey, if the people of Edmonton want to spend their tax dollars just to make a billionaire richer, that is their problem. Just don't say that it is of any real economic benefit to anyone other than the sports team owner.

As long as the stadium/arena is frequently used, they are good investments. The Bell Center was the fifth busiest arena in the World in 2012 based on non-sports tickets sale. Because the BC was 100% privately funded by the Molson brothers (and currently own the arena), they probably keep 100% of the revenues. The city however, receives a lot of tax money generated and let's not forget property taxes that are in the millions every year.

Like I said, you have to be naive to think stadiums are ONLY beneficial to the sports team owner. I do think no stadiums should be financed through 100% public funding though.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

As long as the stadium/arena is frequently used, they are good investments. The Bell Center was the fifth busiest arena in the World in 2012 based on non-sports tickets sale. Because the BC was 100% privately funded by the Molson brothers (and currently own the arena), they probably keep 100% of the revenues. The city however, receives a lot of tax money generated and let's not forget property taxes that are in the millions every year.

Like I said, you have to be naive to think stadiums are ONLY beneficial to the sports team owner. I do think no stadiums should be financed through 100% public funding though.

I agree with that too. Public money should be spent on transportation, social services and health care, etc.

I am happy that Canada is not like the states dishing out a billion dollars every 25 years to replace a perfectly good arena/ stadium that could extend its life with a $100 mill reno instead of a $1 billion new build.

I think whats fair is if the new arena/ stadiums are at LEAST 50% privately funded. The more private financing the better obviously.

The feds have taken a pretty tough stance on arena/stadium financing. Usually only giving money if it is tied to a major international sporting event ie. BMO (u20 wc), THF (Pan Am)

[esquire]

Originally Posted by king10

The feds have taken a pretty tough stance on arena/stadium financing. Usually only giving money if it is tied to a major international sporting event ie. BMO (u20 wc), THF (Pan Am)

How did it become acceptable to spend public money on projects backed by international grifters like FIFA and the IOC while domestic pro leagues get the shaft? Shouldn't we be saying no to all of them?

[king10]

Originally Posted by esquire

How did it become acceptable to spend public money on projects backed by international grifters like FIFA and the IOC while domestic pro leagues get the shaft? Shouldn't we be saying no to all of them?

the government looks at the social benefits that the games bring. like how vancouver united the country and strengethed our culture and pride. Probably falls under heritage canada

Its not like the IOC and FIFA keep the stadiums after the games or they become white elephants. The stadiums are more often than not built with a pro team as a legacy tennant. So it kills two birds with one stone.

You can argue there was a need for THF because the Ticats were playing in an 80 year old stadium crumbling apart. BMO field has kick started the soccer revolution in Canada and has actually made pretty decent profits for the City of Toronto under MLSE management. And MLSE has kicked in another $100 million to improve the cities asset.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

I do think no stadiums should be financed through 100% public funding though.

That is not reasonable when you are talking about community rinks in small towns. They don't have the corporate base to pitch into the cost of the facility.

There is also the problem of second tier cities with major junior hockey league teams. The feds consider these "professional" teams, and won't cough up any monies for new arenas housing these teams. Yes, major junior hockey is a "business" in the routine use of the term, but it is a small business by most measures and in no way should be confused with the conflated excesses of major pro sports. There are a number of mid sized cities stuck with aging arenas which can't get funding to help with replacement facilities. This is just plain wrong.

In 10-20 years time there will be a huge backlog of aging rinks in cities of 10-200,000 people that will all require urgent replacement. You're just punting the problem down the road........

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by esquire

How did it become acceptable to spend public money on projects backed by international grifters like FIFA and the IOC while domestic pro leagues get the shaft? Shouldn't we be saying no to all of them?

To be fair Canada gained something like 340M in economic benefits For a tournament that virtually cost us nothing. Again back to how responsible we are.