• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2016-2017 NHL Thread

Bates said:
There is $60 or $70 million in salaries paying State income tax, that's not a small number. The taxes on ticket sales, merchandise, hotel room, and so on is a sizable number.  You seem to want me to be saying it's significant in terms of City and State revenue. I'm not saying any such thing.  Simply saying that the dollar number is significant.  And it is.

You said, and I quote, that the economic impact from the team to the city and state is large.
 
I say again and you can quote, I think $30 million or more is large.  If the State and City eat $20 million a year and recoup $30 million plus that's a win isn't it??  But I doubt they are being asked for that little.  I think they are asking for a tax area, so it's actually the public using the area who will pay back the State. 
Nik the Trik said:
Bates said:
There is $60 or $70 million in salaries paying State income tax, that's not a small number. The taxes on ticket sales, merchandise, hotel room, and so on is a sizable number.  You seem to want me to be saying it's significant in terms of City and State revenue. I'm not saying any such thing.  Simply saying that the dollar number is significant.  And it is.

You said, and I quote, that the economic impact from the team to the city and state is large.
 
It seems the paper you inserted didn't deal with taxes to the State either so it doesn't reflect against what I was saying. 
 
Bates said:
I say again and you can quote, I think $30 million or more is large.  If the State and City eat $20 million a year and recoup $30 million plus that's a win isn't it??  But I doubt they are being asked for that little.  I think they are asking for a tax area, so it's actually the public using the area who will pay back the State.

It's a very insignificant win, when you're talking about entities that are dealing with budgets in the 10s of billions, if not hundreds of billions. Coming out $10M ahead doesn't move the needle for them.
 
I know it's not changing a City or State's fortunes to get $30 million or so a year by being hoe to a sports franchise but looking at the other side one could also argue putting the same money into a stadium is also insignificant. 
bustaheims said:
Bates said:
I say again and you can quote, I think $30 million or more is large.  If the State and City eat $20 million a year and recoup $30 million plus that's a win isn't it??  But I doubt they are being asked for that little.  I think they are asking for a tax area, so it's actually the public using the area who will pay back the State.

It's a very insignificant win, when you're talking about entities that are dealing with budgets in the 10s of billions, if not hundreds of billions. Coming out $10M ahead doesn't move the needle for them.
 
Bates said:
I say again and you can quote, I think $30 million or more is large.

That's the first time you've used a specific number, one that I think you'd agree you don't have a source for and are pulling out of the air, but you didn't say "30 million dollars is a lot of money". You said that the economic impact on the city and state is large.

Last year, the state of Arizona took in 14.3 billion dollars in gross tax revenues. Assuming that 30 million dollars is split evenly between the city and the state, the 15 million dollars the Coyotes contribute would represent .1% of statewide tax revenue.

.1% of anything will not have a significant impact on the total. It's a rounding error.
 
Bates said:
I know it's not changing a City or State's fortunes to get $30 million or so a year by being hoe to a sports franchise but looking at the other side one could also argue putting the same money into a stadium is also insignificant. 

Sure. At which point, what's best is to take the path that requires the least amount of energy/has the lowest opportunity cost - which, in this case, is not building the stadium, and investing that money into more important things or things that could potentially bring in a more significant return.
 
The number is significant, the impact isn't.  I picked a rough number bit I'd bet it would be a minimum.  If every City and State was willing to ignore every industry providing them with $30 million a year well you can see where I'm going.  And again I see no point in anyone building the Coyotes an arena on their own but if you're already building the Suns one in a few years adding another tenant makes sense for the City and the State. 
Nik the Trik said:
Bates said:
I say again and you can quote, I think $30 million or more is large.

That's the first time you've used a specific number, one that I think you'd agree you don't have a source for and are pulling out of the air, but you didn't say "30 million dollars is a lot of money". You said that the economic impact on the city and state is large.

Last year, the state of Arizona took in 14.3 billion dollars in gross tax revenues. Assuming that 30 million dollars is split evenly between the city and the state, the 15 million dollars the Coyotes contribute would represent .1% of statewide tax revenue.

.1% of anything will not have a significant impact on the total. It's a rounding error.
 
I agree as I'm not actually petitioning for the building of an arena for the Coyotes.  BUT the City and State will be building the Suns a new building in the next few years anyway so adding the Coyotes seems like the right move. Personally I'd let them walk.  And that's both of them. 
bustaheims said:
Bates said:
I know it's not changing a City or State's fortunes to get $30 million or so a year by being hoe to a sports franchise but looking at the other side one could also argue putting the same money into a stadium is also insignificant. 

Sure. At which point, what's best is to take the path that requires the least amount of energy/has the lowest opportunity cost - which, in this case, is not building the stadium, and investing that money into more important things or things that could potentially bring in a more significant return.
 
Bates said:
The number is significant, the impact isn't.

Ok, you specifically said the opposite a little while ago.

Bates said:
  I picked a rough number bit I'd bet it would be a minimum. 

Except it almost certainly isn't and, again, if you wanted to read the academic literature on the subject that's out there then, as the quoted professor said, there's virtual consensus on the issue.

There are two fundamental errors you're making when calculating the number. One, the largest, is that you're comparing the revenue the Coyotes generate with nothing. As I said though, if the Suns new arena had 40 more nights to host concerts some of that revenue generated would be there anyway. So the impact of the Coyotes isn't going to be the gross total of money spent on Coyotes games it's going to be the net of Coyotes games vs. an alternative.

Which leads to the second mistake which is the idea that if the Coyotes left, people wouldn't just channel money elsewhere in the economy. Maybe people would eat out more, maybe they'd see more movies. They'd still be generating sales tax, just not at the arena. When Sports teams leave towns people don't decide to just stop having fun. Like the article says, some places have lost sports teams and seen sales tax revenues increase rather than decrease.
 
You keep leaving out the State revenue from Income Tax from the team.  That will not be replaced by concerts and neither will 40 nights of revenue, there just isn't that many extra events available for the building. Oddly you literature never dealt with it either, it's almost as if the for side overestimates and the against side under estimated the economic gain from sports teams. 
Nik the Trik said:
Bates said:
The number is significant, the impact isn't.

Ok, you specifically said the opposite a little while ago.

Bates said:
  I picked a rough number bit I'd bet it would be a minimum. 

Except it almost certainly isn't and, again, if you wanted to read the academic literature on the subject that's out there then, as the quoted professor said, there's virtual consensus on the issue.

There are two fundamental errors you're making when calculating the number. One, the largest, is that you're comparing the revenue the Coyotes generate with nothing. As I said though, if the Suns new arena had 40 more nights to host concerts some of that revenue generated would be there anyway. So the impact of the Coyotes isn't going to be the gross total of money spent on Coyotes games it's going to be the net of Coyotes games vs. an alternative.

Which leads to the second mistake which is the idea that if the Coyotes left, people wouldn't just channel money elsewhere in the economy. Maybe people would eat out more, maybe they'd see more movies. They'd still be generating sales tax, just not at the arena. When Sports teams leave towns people don't decide to just stop having fun. Like the article says, some places have lost sports teams and seen sales tax revenues increase rather than decrease.
 
Bates said:
You keep leaving out the State revenue from Income Tax from the team.  That will not be replaced by concerts and neither will 40 nights of revenue, there just isn't that many extra events available for the building. Oddly you literature never dealt with it either, it's almost as if the for side overestimates and the against side under estimated the economic gain from sports teams. 

I didn't provide you with any literature on it. I linked to an article on it. When an economics professor says there's consensus on the lack of economic impact sports teams make, you can believe him or not but the choice to read on the subject matter is yours.

And I don't "keep leaving out" anything. I accepted your fanciful 30 million dollar figure as including state revenues. I just said the economic benefits of a sports teams aren't the gross revenues generated. You have to take into account replacement events(which even if we accept won't fully replace Coyotes revenue lessens the impact of that 30 million dollars further) and that the money people spend on recreation doesn't just stop being spent if a hockey team leaves town which makes the sales tax argument something of a canard.

As for the income tax number, state income tax in Arizona on income over 300k per year is 4.54%. That means that on a 70 million dollar payroll the maximum amount of statewide revenue would be in the neighbourhood of 3.2 to 3.3 million dollars a year.

However we all know that the Coyotes don't have a 70 million dollar payroll or anything close to it so even that is on the high side. Again, you're talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of a budget.

The economic impact of sports teams is negligible. There's really no way around that.
 
Also, for crissakes, the idea that having a sports team automatically generates a significant amount of revenue is probably best refuted by the absolute mess the Coyotes are going to have left behind in Glendale.
 
Not really, the financial success of the team or the arena really doesn't have any bearing on how much money goes into the economy of the City or the State.  The Coyotes generate somewhere around $100 million a year, taxes collected on that figure would be heading towards $10 million for Govt.  I personally don't think the Coyotes getting their own arena makes sense in any way but I see a case for subsidizing them in Glendale or including them in new Suns arena. 
Nik the Trik said:
Also, for crissakes, the idea that having a sports team automatically generates a significant amount of revenue is probably best refuted by the absolute mess the Coyotes are going to have left behind in Glendale.
 
Bates said:
Not really, the financial success of the team or the arena really doesn't have any bearing on how much money goes into the economy of the City or the State.  The Coyotes generate somewhere around $100 million a year, taxes collected on that figure would be heading towards $10 million for Govt.

That doesn't address anything I've said and the math doesn't make sense. You're getting a 10% tax rate based on what? And if tax revenue generated is based on a % of revenues, how would the team's financial success not increase that figure?

Either way this all seems to be moot. There's a reason most of these buildings aren't being built with 2 tenants these days. Unless a single entity owns both teams you're either asking one team to voluntarily not control their building, which most of them don't like, or you're asking them to sacrifice a significant amount of revenues/prime entertainment nights by housing a low-rent tenant.
 
What City has built an arena that has both League's and separate arenas?  I can't think of any? 
Nik the Trik said:
Bates said:
Not really, the financial success of the team or the arena really doesn't have any bearing on how much money goes into the economy of the City or the State.  The Coyotes generate somewhere around $100 million a year, taxes collected on that figure would be heading towards $10 million for Govt.

That doesn't address anything I've said and the math doesn't make sense. You're getting a 10% tax rate based on what? And if tax revenue generated is based on a % of revenues, how would the team's financial success not increase that figure?

Either way this all seems to be moot. There's a reason most of these buildings aren't being built with 2 tenants these days. Unless a single entity owns both teams you're either asking one team to voluntarily not control their building, which most of them don't like, or you're asking them to sacrifice a significant amount of revenues/prime entertainment nights by housing a low-rent tenant.
 
Bates said:
What City has built an arena that has both League's and separate arenas?  I can't think of any?

It depends on if you mean City or metro area. If you specifically mean a single entity city the answer to the best of my knowledge is none but the same can be said of arenas built in the last 15 years with multiple tenants and different owners.

Conversely if you look at what the Red Wings just did they worked out their own arena deal despite there being rumours that the Pistons want to move to downtown Detroit as well.
 
How did the Leafs end up in the ACC? It was sort of before my time, or the very beginning of my time following the sport, but wasn't the ACC initially designed only for basketball then the Leafs tagged on?

Which is why there's some seats in the upper bowl with horrendous views of the ice.

(Sorry this is slightly off what's being discussed but sort of relates to having to be in from the start on planning a new arena if you want both sports)
 
Aren's the Wings and the Pistons both going to be playing in that arena? 
Nik the Trik said:
Bates said:
What City has built an arena that has both League's and separate arenas?  I can't think of any?

It depends on if you mean City or metro area. If you specifically mean a single entity city the answer to the best of my knowledge is none but the same can be said of arenas built in the last 15 years with multiple tenants and different owners.

Conversely if you look at what the Red Wings just did they worked out their own arena deal despite there being rumours that the Pistons want to move to downtown Detroit as well.
 
Arn said:
How did the Leafs end up in the ACC? It was sort of before my time, or the very beginning of my time following the sport, but wasn't the ACC initially designed only for basketball then the Leafs tagged on?

Which is why there's some seats in the upper bowl with horrendous views of the ice.

(Sorry this is slightly off what's being discussed but sort of relates to having to be in from the start on planning a new arena if you want both sports)

Yeah, basically. When the city got the Raptors through the expansion process they immediately had to start looking into building a new arena as neither of the existing Toronto ones were good fits for Basketball(the Raptors actually played their first few seasons in the Skydome instead of the Gardens). The ACC was being designed as a building for the Raptors when the precursor to MLSE bought the Raptors and turned it into a multi-use venue. They never shared the building under separate owners.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top