Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Supply and demand. How else would you allocate tickets other than by pricing?

That's fine, but when your hockey team takes in over two million bucks a game just from the box office (that's probably a very conservative estimate based on $115 * 18,000), you have to wonder why they can't pay for their own new arena.

Over $80 million a season in ticket revenue for most Canadian teams before getting into all the other revenue streams, and they still need government help to build arenas?

They can charge a thousand bucks a ticket if they feel they can get away with it, that isn't the issue. The issue is why governments should help a business that has no trouble raking in the money.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Berklon

There have been actual studies that have proven there is very little impact a new arena/stadium or team brings to the local economy.

As was mentioned, if people aren't spending their disposable income at a new stadium - they'll spend it elsewhere anyway. The difference with a new stadium is the public actually has LESS disposable income because their footing the bill for the stadium in the first place (ie. higher taxes, etc.).

Yes, when the Jets left Winnipeg ... nothing happened. There is a minor benefit in seeming like a big-league city (which no other comparably sized city in North America is) but there are so many pro sports teams now that in reality the added prominence is relatively small.

[king10]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Supply and demand. How else would you allocate tickets other than by pricing?

They can price tickets any way they want if arenas were 100% privately financed, but they aren't. You can't ask for $250M is government handouts then play the supply and demand card on ticket pricing. If there is that much demand and prices are so high then a business model with 100% private financing should be able to be worked out.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Yes, when the Jets left Winnipeg ... nothing happened. There is a minor benefit in seeming like a big-league city (which no other comparably sized city in North America is) but there are so many pro sports teams now that in reality the added prominence is relatively small.

No question it hurt morale when the Jets left, but that was mainly because the city was being bombarded with bad news around that era. The loss of the Jets happened to be a particularly poignant symbolic blow. I personally did not care, I just stopped paying attention to the NHL.

But to a city like Calgary, it wouldn't really make much difference at all. It is in no danger of losing its status as 'major Canadian city', and let's face it, in all likelihood another NHL team would probably end up moving there before long.

I would love to know how CSEG snookered Calgary's council into this deal.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by esquire

No question it hurt morale when the Jets left, but that was mainly because the city was being bombarded with bad news around that era. The loss of the Jets happened to be a particularly poignant symbolic blow. I personally did not care, I just stopped paying attention to the NHL.

But to a city like Calgary, it wouldn't really make much difference at all. It is in no danger of losing its status as 'major Canadian city', and let's face it, in all likelihood another NHL team would probably end up moving there before long.

I would love to know how CSEG snookered Calgary's council into this deal.

Winnipeg’s ability to sniff out a bargain really paid off with the Jets ... the team was on the clearance table and they got an arena built for next to nothing.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's fine, but when your hockey team takes in over two million bucks a game just from the box office (that's probably a very conservative estimate based on $115 * 18,000), you have to wonder why they can't pay for their own new arena.

Over $80 million a season in ticket revenue for most Canadian teams before getting into all the other revenue streams, and they still need government help to build arenas?

They can charge a thousand bucks a ticket if they feel they can get away with it, that isn't the issue. The issue is why governments should help a business that has no trouble raking in the money.

Originally Posted by king10

They can price tickets any way they want if arenas were 100% privately financed, but they aren't. You can't ask for $250M is government handouts then play the supply and demand card on ticket pricing. If there is that much demand and prices are so high then a business model with 100% private financing should be able to be worked out.

I don't disagree, but being concerned about ticket prices is irrelevant. If we want cheaper tickets, then we either need to build a bigger arena or somehow get another hockey team to set up here. Neither of which would be cheaper to the public than the expensive tickets.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

No question it hurt morale when the Jets left, but that was mainly because the city was being bombarded with bad news around that era. The loss of the Jets happened to be a particularly poignant symbolic blow. I personally did not care, I just stopped paying attention to the NHL.

But to a city like Calgary, it wouldn't really make much difference at all. It is in no danger of losing its status as 'major Canadian city', and let's face it, in all likelihood another NHL team would probably end up moving there before long.

I would love to know how CSEG snookered Calgary's council into this deal.

I don't know about that. Personally I would view the Flames and their disgusting management leaving as good riddance, but the 'woe is me' attitude of this city is unbearable right now, if the Flames were to leave it would be devastating to many I imagine.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't disagree, but being concerned about ticket prices is irrelevant. If we want cheaper tickets, then we either need to build a bigger arena or somehow get another hockey team to set up here. Neither of which would be cheaper to the public than the expensive tickets.

Of course accessibility/ticket prices are an issue. If a facility is effectively accessible to only a small wealthy sliver of the population, why should be it be funded by everyone?

The working class/working poor are pretty well excluded from attending Flames games, yet they are expected to contribute to the new arena? Would it be a good idea for the city to hand the members of the Calgary Golf & Country club a few million bucks toward a new clubhouse too?

[king10]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't disagree, but being concerned about ticket prices is irrelevant. If we want cheaper tickets, then we either need to build a bigger arena or somehow get another hockey team to set up here. Neither of which would be cheaper to the public than the expensive tickets.

Cheaper to the public would be private sector funding the arena, not government. I think thats the crux of the issue.

Private business is free to charge whatever they want for a building built and owned 100% by the private business. When the private business charges exuberant prices in a building they do not own that the public is already paying for through taxes, you start seeing issues. Middle to lower class residents are footing a portion of their taxes to pay for a building that makes money for a private business for which they cannot afford to attend. You have tax dollars going to supplement the business of millionaires(billionares?) meanwhile canadian infrastructure like roads, bridges, community centres, fire stations etc are in desperate need of that capital investment.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by king10

Cheaper to the public would be private sector funding the arena, not government. I think thats the crux of the issue.

Exactly. It's one thing to fund a facility that is available to everyone like a community rink, pool or library. It's quite another to fund a facility that is effectively only open to a small portion of the population.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

Of course accessibility/ticket prices are an issue. If a facility is effectively accessible to only a small wealthy sliver of the population, why should be it be funded by everyone?

The working class/working poor are pretty well excluded from attending Flames games, yet they are expected to contribute to the new arena? Would it be a good idea for the city to hand the members of the Calgary Golf & Country club a few million bucks toward a new clubhouse too?

I don't like the subsidy either, just saying the ticket prices are irrelevant. There are only so many seats so the price is determined by the market.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't like the subsidy either, just saying the ticket prices are irrelevant. There are only so many seats so the price is determined by the market.

Ticket prices are relevant because if the owners are charging high prices for admission, they should be able to build their own venue.

No one expects the university team charging 10 bucks a pop to build a flashy new arena. But if you're charging into the hundreds per ticket, times 18,000+ seats, times 42 games a season plus playoffs and preseason, then you have to wonder why any public money is necessary in the first place.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by esquire

Ticket prices are relevant because if the owners are charging high prices for admission, they should be able to build their own venue.

No one expects the university team charging 10 bucks a pop to build a flashy new arena. But if you're charging into the hundreds per ticket, times 18,000+ seats, times 42 games a season plus playoffs and preseason, then you have to wonder why any public money is necessary in the first place.

If they don't get the tax breaks how will Neal and Lucic make millions of dollars?

[milomilo]

How else would you price the tickets? A cap with a lottery, or first come, first served? What happens after when they go onto the unregulated secondary market and people pay more?

The subsidy is relevant, the ticket prices later aren't as there is no more efficient way to allocate a scarce resource.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Lol yes the BC Lions are privately owned. Guess who the BC Place landlord is? Guess who gets to determine the rent the Lions pay, and keeps all of the profit from concessions inside BC Place? The same people that paid for its construction and renovation.

The rest of your argument is equally laughable.

As usual, you're wrong.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

As usual, you're wrong.

Please provide some proof.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

How else would you price the tickets? A cap with a lottery, or first come, first served? What happens after when they go onto the unregulated secondary market and people pay more?

The subsidy is relevant, the ticket prices later aren't as there is no more efficient way to allocate a scarce resource.

You seem to be arguing against a point I'm not trying to make.

I'm not saying ticket prices should be lower. I'm saying that because they are as high as they are, team owners should be able to find a way to build their own rinks.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

If they don't get the tax breaks how will Neal and Lucic make millions of dollars?

I know you put a little haha smiley in there, but that is literally the implied argument that the owners are making.

18,000 seats
$115 a game (probably conservative but whatever)
42 games
=$87 million

That is more than enough to finance and build a $500 million rink on their own.

Of course, if you said that to CSEG, they would say "well we don't pocket all that money, most of it goes to player payroll".

It's almost like it's cheaper for them to pay the players a fortune and then have government bail them out on capital costs than it is to set the cap lower and use the money for their own arena.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's fine, but when your hockey team takes in over two million bucks a game just from the box office (that's probably a very conservative estimate based on $115 * 18,000), you have to wonder why they can't pay for their own new arena.

Over $80 million a season in ticket revenue for most Canadian teams before getting into all the other revenue streams, and they still need government help to build arenas?

They can charge a thousand bucks a ticket if they feel they can get away with it, that isn't the issue. The issue is why governments should help a business that has no trouble raking in the money.

$80 million+/year in ticket revenue sounds like a lot until you start looking into their expenses. The salary cap for this coming season is going to be US$81.5 million. Then there are travel costs, etc. Unless there are a lot of real estate development opportunities for the owners they're not going to pay 100% of a new arena.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

$80 million+/year in ticket revenue sounds like a lot until you start looking into their expenses. The salary cap for this coming season is going to be US$81.5 million. Then there are travel costs, etc. Unless there are a lot of real estate development opportunities for the owners they're not going to pay 100% of a new arena.

Yes, you are right it is absolutely necessary for the salary cap to be US$81.5 million because otherwise the players would all jump to the WHA.

There is simply no conceivable way that the NHL could operate on a salary cap of, say, US$25 million.