Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So does this mean that all revenue generated that remains after football operation costs goes into the team's bank account/rainy day fund??

Posted
5 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

We all knew this day would come eventually. There's no way the Bombers could ever pay off the principal of that loan. The interest payments alone were enough.

did you read the article? The portion of the loan this is referring to is the portion that was supposed to be paid from property tax from development of the old stadium site. Not the portion the Bombers are paying and will continue to pay.

Posted
Just now, brett_c_b said:

did you read the article? The portion of the loan this is referring to is the portion that was supposed to be paid from property tax from development of the old stadium site. Not the portion the Bombers are paying and will continue to pay.

Nope twitter is blocked at work:lol:. With that being said, I stand by my statement. That Bomber debt will have to be "forgiven" eventually.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

Nope twitter is blocked at work:lol:. With that being said, I stand by my statement. That Bomber debt will have to be "forgiven" eventually.

I saw it was Brodbeck and almost didn't read it, so be glad twitter is blocked

Edited by brett_c_b
Posted
43 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

Nope twitter is blocked at work:lol:. With that being said, I stand by my statement. That Bomber debt will have to be "forgiven" eventually.

Ive advocated this for a long time.  Broadbeck makes the point that its not a "public building" but its really a red herring anyway.  Im not sure what benefit there would be to the public to have it owned by the province. 

The profit the team would generate without paying the debt would be tremendous and make them one of the wealthiest teams in the league.  But since they have made their debt obligations, I suppose there is nothing wrong with continuing to insist they do so.  At some point, the Bombers will have some down years and there will be a movement to have the debt wiped out I think.  probably not for awhile though.

If they ever discuss private ownership again, it would surely have to happen.  Perhaps True North would add the Bombers & IGF to their portfolio without the debt. 

Posted

I get that the city and province are overlapping but different tax bases. I do not feel like the money being paid from the province as opposed to city taxes on the redeveloped land are two sources of payments that are drastically different ends of the spectrum.

Posted

I’m not sure why it’s tragic that the province does not own the stadium.  They don’t want to operate a stadium and honestly it’s almost more of a liability than an asset in terms of maintenance vs the actual value of it in terms of finances in the long run.  That said, the province does have a huge say in Triple B and the Blue Bombers board.  It’s actually a very good arms length kind of setup.

IGF is most definitely a public building.  Brodbeck is being obtuse.  What does he want?  To be able to walk his dog there whenever he wants?

Posted
3 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

I’m not sure why it’s tragic that the province does not own the stadium.  They don’t want to operate a stadium and honestly it’s almost more of a liability than an asset in terms of maintenance vs the actual value of it in terms of finances in the long run.  That said, the province does have a huge say in Triple B and the Blue Bombers board.  It’s actually a very good arms length kind of setup.

IGF is most definitely a public building.  Brodbeck is being obtuse.  What does he want?  To be able to walk his dog there whenever he wants?

Brodbeck is famous for his interpretations of reality and his history of trying to look informed and intelligent. He has failed at both.

Posted
19 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

I’m not sure why it’s tragic that the province does not own the stadium.  They don’t want to operate a stadium and honestly it’s almost more of a liability than an asset in terms of maintenance vs the actual value of it in terms of finances in the long run.  That said, the province does have a huge say in Triple B and the Blue Bombers board.  It’s actually a very good arms length kind of setup.

IGF is most definitely a public building.  Brodbeck is being obtuse.  What does he want?  To be able to walk his dog there whenever he wants?

Isnt the general formular for public ownership of sports buildings that they are "owned" but the "management" (ie. sports team owners) get a 100 year lease (or whatever) and retain all the revenue anyway?  The public doesnt get anything but the retention of ownership puts them on the hook for capital expenses, no?

The make up of Triple B probably provides more oversight and decision making than "owning" the stadium would.  Its a silly argument designed to make people mad who dont really think about it.  "We dont even own it!".  Its not like Triple B is planning to sell the damn stadium.

Its not even like the arena where the team ownership is very rich.  The Bombers are not rich at all and have far fewer potential revenue streams.  But if the public believes government should not invest in buildings such as this, then they essentially believe we should not have a world-class stadium at all.  And you know what, add that to the ballot and we wouldn't.

Posted

 

On 2018-07-25 at 9:24 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

If they ever discuss private ownership again, it would surely have to happen.  Perhaps True North would add the Bombers & IGF to their portfolio without the debt. 

This is a terrible idea, the Jets would absolutely let the Bombers wither and die as they are in direct competition with the Jets for entertainment revenue.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

 

This is a terrible idea, the Jets would absolutely let the Bombers wither and die as they are in direct competition with the Jets for entertainment revenue.

 

They wouldn't be in competition if True North owned them.  Your point doesn't really make any sense.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

You're right, Maple Leafs Entertainment (which also owns the Toronto Maple Leafs) has done wonders for the Argonauts franchise. They haven't neglected the Argonauts at all.

In fairness, marketing the Argos in Toronto is like trying to sell snow shovels in Hawaii.  Nobody wants them, nobody needs them.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

In fairness, marketing the Argos in Toronto is like trying to sell snow shovels in Hawaii.  Nobody wants them, nobody needs them.  

Exactly - and MLSE has recognized that, and focused advertising towards more profitable revenue streams (like the Toronto Maple Leafs). As a private business, there isn't anything legally wrong with this, it just sucks for the Argos.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...