Bombers (...and Jets, Moose, 'Eyes...) Eligible For Millions In Grant Funding

[Noeller]

This is kind of interesting.....

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pro-sports-subsidies-1.3898261#cbcmb

 

"The Winnipeg Football Club, which owns the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, is entitled to $1.4 million worth of government assistance next year. That comes in the form a $1.4-million entertainment-tax refund, which is unchanged from 2016.

The Bombers are also exempt from paying city business taxes, thanks to the football club's non-profit status. The club also doesn't pay property taxes to the city or province because Investors Group Field is owned by the University of Manitoba. Educational properties are portioned at a zero-per-cent rate by tax assessors."

Edited December 15, 2016 by Noeller

[coach17]

Pretty standard across the board. If a city wants a pro sports franchise they are going to have to subsidize them in the form of tax breaks or lottery revenue. The benefits are many though as sports teams bring fresh cash into the economy generating tax income in another way. Happens all over the world.

 

[IC Khari]

Some of the posts on this website are pretty entertaining as well ... where's our tax break?

 

[peggars]

True North has been receiving tax breaks in the range of $6.5 to 7$ million since the MTS Centre was built.  That equals approximately 65 to 70 million now in tax revenue that is now taken out of City operating and capital funds.  I love pro sports and am glad to have them but the continued corporate subsidies of True North is disgusting.  Tack on more millions for True North Square, which will help contribute to a growing Class A office space surplus issue in the downtown (not even mentioning the backdoor subsidies given with nice fat crown corp leases like the new MLCC store).  Considering how bad financially Wpg and Manitoba are in at the moment, this is even more infuriating.    

Rant over.  

[JCon]

 

5 hours ago, peggars said:

True North has been receiving tax breaks in the range of $6.5 to 7$ million since the MTS Centre was built.  That equals approximately 65 to 70 million now in tax revenue that is now taken out of City operating and capital funds.  I love pro sports and am glad to have them but the continued corporate subsidies of True North is disgusting.  Tack on more millions for True North Square, which will help contribute to a growing Class A office space surplus issue in the downtown (not even mentioning the backdoor subsidies given with nice fat crown corp leases like the new MLCC store).  Considering how bad financially Wpg and Manitoba are in at the moment, this is even more infuriating.    

Rant over.  

MLCC is not moving into True North Square.

 

Don't forget the share of gambling revenues they take in for the Shark Club. True North does well in this city. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by JCon

[SpeedFlex27]

Goldeyes & Bombers should be getting tax subsidies but not True North &/or the Jets.

[JCon]

9 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Goldeyes & Bombers should be getting tax subsidies but not True North &/or the Jets.

Why those two and not True North?

[peggars]

True North is a for profit enterprise as are the goldeyes so neither should get any subsidies, especially this far after their venues were built.  Bombers are a community owned non-profit so the justification for subsidies has more weight to it.  

3 hours ago, JCon said:

Why those two and not True North?

 

[JCon]

1 minute ago, peggars said:

True North is a for profit enterprise as are the goldeyes so neither should get any subsidies, especially this far after their venues were built.  Bombers are a community owned non-profit so the justification for subsidies has more weight to it.  

 

I'm not debating the merits or disagreeing, just playing Devil's Advocate....

We subsidize plenty of industries. We provide funds for the Grey Cup, which turns a profit. We provide subsidise to support building facilities, to invest in training, etc.  The idea, is that this "investment" pays off with greater returns.

Let's say, all levels of Gov't said, no more subsidizes to the Jets (or any pro sports). True North decides it can make more money in Seattle. The City and Province lose the economic benefit of having the Jets here. So instead of collecting (and I'm making up these figures) $30M in taxes, while kicking back 15% to True North, they're now collecting $5M instead.

------------------

I think Gov't needs to find a balance that includes a return on the investment.

I think we, the public, should also know the full kickback that True North gets and not pretend they're a benevolent entity.

[Noeller]

Sometimes, if you really want to have big businesses be a part of your community, you have to give them certain "incentives" to be there. It's something Calgary is learning right now with a lot of Big Oil moving south... 

[SpeedFlex27]

6 hours ago, JCon said:

Why those two and not True North?

The money they generate. The Jets shouldn't have it. The Goldeyes & Bombers have much, much smaller revenue streams.

[BigBlue]

13 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The money they generate. The Jets shouldn't have it. The Goldeyes & Bombers have much, much smaller revenue streams.

Should .... shouldn't.... spoken like a true socialist

[SpeedFlex27]

6 hours ago, BigBlue said:

Should .... shouldn't.... spoken like a true socialist

Well, according to your avy I'm talking to a chimp so pfft. 

[JCon]

7 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The money they generate. The Jets shouldn't have it. The Goldeyes & Bombers have much, much smaller revenue streams.

They generate more revenue and contribute a lot more to the GDP. The City and Province would get a lot bigger return from them. That return can go to support other worthwhile programs. 

[SpeedFlex27]

1 minute ago, JCon said:

They generate more revenue and contribute a lot more to the GDP. The City and Province would get a lot bigger return from them. That return can go to support other worthwhile programs. 

Well, since you put it that way then okay.

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

They generate more revenue and contribute a lot more to the GDP. The City and Province would get a lot bigger return from them. That return can go to support other worthwhile programs. 

 

1 minute ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Well, since you put it that way then okay.

That's not an an acceptable answer.

Are you going allow every money generating business to hold this province hostage every time it wants to pad it's pockets more? 

And who's to say that the economic activity would not continue to happen? Maybe people are not buying Jets tickets but maybe they're going to movies and concerts, or out for dinner? Are people just going to not spend money just because the Jets aren't here? Heck no. 

[SpeedFlex27]

I'm having a hard time discerning what you're trying to say. You put forth a statement that makes sense to me & I actually agree with you. Then you say my answer is unacceptable? Okay then,  I don't have time to argue with someone who has two sides of an axe to grind at the same time.

[GCn20]

In principle the subsidizing of pro sport with tax dollars is not to my liking. In practical, knowing the buffoons and bloated bureaucracy would just waste this money on something to prop up their own weight makes me not care.

When our governments at the different levels fix their epic mismanagement of funds then I will be more adverse to them not getting more.

Edited December 23, 2016 by gcn11

[JCon]

6 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'm having a hard time discerning what you're trying to say. You put forth a statement that makes sense to me & I actually agree with you. Then you say my answer is unacceptable? Okay then,  I don't have time to argue with someone who has two sides of an axe to grind at the same time.

I apologize. No disrespect intended. My comment was made tongue-in-cheek.

I was simply trying to put forth both sides of the argument, if only at a basic level. There are a lot of competing factors that are considered when forming these types of policies.

[17to85]

20 hours ago, Noeller said:

Sometimes, if you really want to have big businesses be a part of your community, you have to give them certain "incentives" to be there. It's something Calgary is learning right now with a lot of Big Oil moving south... 

Are you turning blue? That's decidedly conservative talk there....

[Noeller]

20 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Are you turning blue? That's decidedly conservative talk there....

You know me....."politically a la carte"......fiscally conservative, socially progressive....

[SpeedFlex27]

Socially progressive & so called fiscally conservative (of even that I doubt) Red Tories got Alberta into deep doo doo squat so badly the NDP unbelievably got in. Red Tories are like the Liberals, are a plague on the political landscape federally & provincially & just as vile. The most famous Red Tory was Joe Clarke & he lasted like 4 months as PM. Then there was Flora McDonald, his henchwoamn. Brian Mulroney's cabinet was full of separatists & Red Tories. 

Edited December 23, 2016 by SpeedFlex27

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Socially progressive & so called fiscally conservative (of even that I doubt) Red Tories got Alberta into deep doo doo squat so badly the NDP unbelievably got in. Red Tories are like the Liberals, are a plague on the political landscape federally & provincially & just as vile. The most famous Red Tory was Joe Clarke & he lasted like 4 months as PM. Then there was Flora McDonald, his henchwoamn. Brian Mulroney's cabinet was full of separatists & Red Tories. 

Think again. The PCs in Alberta lost due to their own stupidity, corruption, mismanagement and intolerance. Harper lost because of much the same reason.  How many of the things that make Canada a great place to live (UIC, universal healthcare, CPP, the Bill of Rights, etc) have been the result of the Tories? I will give you a hint- the answer is : NONE! 

[SpeedFlex27]

"Progressive" Conservatives like Clark, McDonald & later the Brian Mulroney coalition-umbrella gave us nearly two additional decades of Liberal rule going into the mid 2000's after 1980. Liberals love to promise the world & spend, spend, spend as well as raise taxes. That's what progressives do & how they roll.

[Tracker]

9 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

"Progressive" Conservatives like Clark, McDonald & later the Brian Mulroney coalition-umbrella gave us nearly two additional decades of Liberal rule going into the mid 2000's after 1980. Liberals love to promise the world & spend, spend, spend as well as raise taxes. That's what progressives do & how they roll.

Unlike say, Harper, who ran deficits 5 of the seven years he was in power. He didn't raise taxes, but borrowed to pass the debt down to the next government. It has been the wont of Tories to make token tax cuts after bewailing the state of affairs and then reward themselves and their cronies while slashing vital government services to people like veterans. Government is supposed to balance the needs of all parts of the society they have a mandate to govern and not favour one over another as a matter of policy.