Nationwide Arena/CBJ Finances Discussion II

[jag72]

Is it so hard to believe that all sides gain something from this deal? Schools and services still get their same piece of the pie from the casino. Not sure I understand how this affects them in any way.

I am for the arena deal but the schools are losing out on this deal IMO. They currently get 1 million in tax dollars from Nationwide but as soon as the City and County own the arena those tax dollars are lost.

 

[SuperGenius]

I am for the arena deal but the schools are losing out on this deal IMO. They currently get 1 million in tax dollars from Nationwide but as soon as the City and County own the arena those tax dollars are lost.

Nationwide has pledged to continue this until 2015, or when the current abatement ends.

I would tend to think this could be renewed down the road by the org. I'd feel better if they announced a longer term now, but am satisfied with the offer of an extension.

also, Columbus City Schools has a budget of $700 million. $1 million isn't a game changer as much as it seems like it ought to be.

 

[Robert]

fwiw, franklin county voters as a whole didn't want it, so pretty much anyone looking to have a say in where the $$ goes is kind of hypocritical.

wish it had been in the AD, though..made too much sense, I guess.

I was thinking of locals in the sense of city boroughs, Franklin County is close to being extinct.

 

[CapnCornelius]

I got a chuckle out of this quote:

But $500,000 of the principal will be forgiven for each year in which the Blue Jackets, the arena’s anchor tenant, have a payroll of at least $45 million.

That provision is an incentive for the team to keep its player payroll – and hopefully its performance (always a problem it seems) – competitive with other National Hockey League teams.

The current salary cap FLOOR is more than $45 million. So, were the pols idiots in crafting this deal, or is it the media who is or thinks that we are?

If they wanted to get some guaranty of competitiveness, why not draft the clause based on the number of years the team qualifies for the playoffs? Or would that create some real risk on the part of the team as opposed to the fake risk created by the $45 million threshhold?

A new 500 bed Hilton is going up 400 yards from Nationwide Arena in the Arena District (AD) as I type, the Casino was banished from the AD because the locals didn't want riff raff in their playground; but the money from that riff raff in someone else's backyard is welcomed by those same locals..

Yeah, the way this has played out has been just brilliant. Nationwide and the CBJ both directly oppose the casino under typical NIMBY rhetoric with the primary reason being that Nationwide was afraid it my depress the value of their real estate holdings. They then demand a handout from their profits to subsidize their money-losing enterprise...and continue to artificially inflate the value of these same real estate holdings. And pivoting from how the casino was bad for the upscale Arena District's economy (with usual alusions to crime) but is somehow good for the economically depressed west side location (I guess it won't cause crime there?) was also impressive. But you can do that when you have pretty much all of the local media in the pocket of one of your business partners.

I think you mean county. The state's loan is a rather small part of this.

Also, I wouldn't discount Nationwide's ~$50m infusion as easily either, nor their obligation of risk if casino $$ doesn't live up to projections.

Is it so hard to believe that all sides gain something from this deal? Schools and services still get their same piece of the pie from the casino. Not sure I understand how this affects them in any way.

Nationwide isn't "risking" all that much. Sure, if casino revenue is less than anticipated (and that's on a statewide, not casino-specific basis) then Nationwide gets repaid last. But look more closely at that sentence. The key word is "repaid". Nationwide has structured a deal where they sell a money-losing Arena (and look at the public record, they've always known it would lose money), get the tax-benefit of the "loss", and then get appreciation on their "loan" to the County. So, they flipped a depreciating asset into an appreciating asset (i.e. the Arena to the loan) while getting an immediate tax benefit. Even if Nationwide never sees its interest and only gets back its principal, this is going to be a nice deal for them.

Trust me, the one entity that's winning in this deal more than any other is, again, Nationwide and since their business partner controls the media, no one is going to ever bother to question it. Given how far the economics have shifted since this deal was initially discussed, I don't see how the Jackets return to profitability simply by getting the lease fixed--sure, it is a necessary first step, but that's it. Taxpayers "win" nothing unless you actually believe that the Arena District is more special and important for the local economy than any other real estate development, which I don't.

 

[Dr. Fire]

I am for the arena deal but the schools are losing out on this deal IMO. They currently get 1 million in tax dollars from Nationwide but as soon as the City and County own the arena those tax dollars are lost.

Jag72, nothing personal, but when will the Columbus Public schools actually be fixed, and why is it always felt that the path to fixing schools is more and more money? This has been the mind-set for far to long, and people are starting to realize this. Good money after bad has done nothing to fix these schools for how long now?

The money from the casino for the arena deal is a drop in the bucket of this bloated school funding. How about some fresh ideas on how to actually find a way to fix our schools.

Sorry, but this thread, by it's very nature, is political, and I for one grow so weary of the idea that throwing more money at every problem will fix it, while in reality, there isn't much being fixed despite all the money that has been thrown down the drain, and the calls for even more money to be thrown down the sewer.

I guess, in a sense, we are throwing money at the Jackets. But the Jackets do create a return of that money. If it helps to improve the product to create more money down the road then it is a good thing.

Just my rant. No more from me on this.

 

[CapnCornelius]

Jag72, nothing personal, but when will the Columbus Public schools actually be fixed, and why is it always felt that the path to fixing schools is more and more money? This has been the mind-set for far to long, and people are starting to realize this. Good money after bad has done nothing to fix these schools for how long now?

The money from the casino for the arena deal is a drop in the bucket of this bloated school funding. How about some fresh ideas on how to actually find a way to fix our schools.

Sorry, but this thread, by it's very nature, is political, and I for one grow so weary of the idea that throwing more money at every problem will fix it, while in reality, there isn't much being fixed despite all the money that has been thrown down the drain, and the calls for even more money to be thrown down the sewer.

I guess, in a sense, we are throwing money at the Jackets. But the Jackets do create a return of that money. If it helps to improve the product to create more money down the road then it is a good thing.

Just my rant. No more from me on this.

One could just as easily argue, why should we continue to throw money at a hockey team that has failed financially and on ice?

It really boggles my mind that, while people have become more attuned to failures of governmental entities, the same people will then suggest that the government should or even MUST get involved to bail out failed businesses under some sort of "greater good" argument. When in reality, all it does is eliminate the basic principal of risk that is inherent to capitalism. Government bailouts of private enterprise are anti-capitalistic by their nature and improperly reward inefficient and poorly thought out/managed enterprises.

This "deal" is yet another example of government intrusion on the market providing a less preferable outcome than what would have likely occurred without intervention--i.e. Nationwide, not the casinos, not the taxpayers, etc., would have been the one that would have had to make a business decision about the importance of the Arena and, in all likelihood, they and the Jackets would have come to a mutually beneficial arrangement all at no cost to the taxpayer. Instead, Nationwide is, for a second time in the history of the Arena and its namesake District, going to be the one that comes out as the big winner while sticking someone else with the costs and expenses associated with the biggest money pit in the entire project.

 

[SuperGenius]

http://www.bluejacketsxtra.com/content/stories/2011/11/21/citys-quick-arena-deal-vote-spurred-by-jackets-creditors.html

Kind of an odd article. I have a hard time believing 'they are out of money' but would believe 'they are running out of money'. It would seem to be a poor choice of words from the mayor's spokesman.

The reason for the different approaches: The council expedited its action before the contract was written because the Columbus Blue Jackets’ creditors feared the team would run out of money and wanted assurances that help was on the way.
“Creditors needed to see action; they (the Jackets) were out of money,” said Dan Williamson, the spokesman for Mayor Michael B. Coleman, who went to the council in early October to support the deal. “I remember council needed to act quickly to show this isn’t just talk, we’re doing something.”
Blue Jackets managers also approached Franklin County in late September, seeking a letter to the creditors certifying the commissioners’ support for the deal, according to those involved in the negotiations. The county said that commissioners’ public statements of support would have to be enough until the contract was finalized.
A final draft could be ready within a week. It is to spell out that the city and county will use casino revenue so that the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority can buy the arena. Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien hopes to vet the contract and present it to the commissioners by the end of the year.

It is unclear what would have happened if the city had not signed off on a plan. Jackets President Mike Priest declined to comment on Friday. At the time of the council vote, Coleman, City Council President Andrew J. Ginther and other council members said nothing about reassuring the hockey team’s creditors. They talked about saving Arena District jobs and the economic damage that would occur if the Jackets moved out of town and the arena lost its key tenant.
“The vote said a lot of things to a lot of people,” council spokesman John Ivanic said on Friday. Council members were showing their commitment to the deal and to the Arena District, he said, and “it probably said something to the creditors as well.”
Asked whether the timing of the vote had to do with the team’s creditors, Ivanic said: “There was a certain sense of urgency that was articulated. We took action when we did because it was the right thing to do.”

and finally as if spoken directly to the dispatch commentors

Jennison said the hockey team’s recent woes on the ice shouldn’t affect the deal. “This is a 30-year agreement, and the hockey season is only a month old,” he said. “What we’re doing is solving the building problem. Solving the hockey problem is their job.”

 

[blahblah]

Kind of an odd article. I have a hard time believing 'they are out of money' but would believe 'they are running out of money'. It would seem to be a poor choice of words from the mayor's spokesman.

Not sure it was a poor choice of words or not. I don't have a hard time believing they were out of easily available capital.

 

[SuperGenius]

Not sure it was a poor choice of words or not. I don't have a hard time believing they were out of easily available capital.

Which would be a much better way to put it than "they're out of money", IMO.

 

[blahblah]

Which would be a much better way to put it than "they're out of money", IMO.

I guess I just don't see much of a distinction, which is fine. Both phrases conjure the same image in my mind.

Figured at some point the creditors were going to start playing hard ball.

 

[KeithBWhittington]

I know this is a 30 year deal, but the comment about the lack of oversight for the team, and how it shouldn't affect the deal, worry me.

Seems to me that if they want to save jobs in the Arena District and save the area, the Key tenant of that area needs to do its fair share. Yes, paying to ice a team is great, but its obviously not produced better results. I'm not sure if this issue could ever be "Recalled" or anything (doubt it since it never was put to a public vote). But bailing out the area's main tenant seems to only be putting a band aid on a bullet wound. Continued struggles on the ice would seem to indicate that the Arena District will not be as vibrant as it could be on game nights, which to me, seems like jobs in the area could still be in jeopardy. If our business at my work tapers off and stays that way, the company cuts payroll to compensate, is this not the essence of what the county/city WANT to stop? My fear is 5 or 10 years from now, average citizens of this town will say "Why are continuing to help sublet an organization that doesn't value winning?"

Something needs to be ammended and the team needs to be told to get its act together and start producing. The admission that nothing may change (or be pressured) for the positive with the product on the ice troubles me.... I don't think I'd call it an "Ultimatum", just an incentive to keep the end of a bargain... The county/city did its job, it wasn't a real popular move either.... I don't think this would have passed had it gone to a public vote. These comments would seem to indicate a green light for the status quo in Jacketland, with nothing asked in return. Troubling.

McConnell Sr. stuck his neck out for this town, he was rewarded with great fan support and a packed building for years, despite the poor management from the top to the bottom, the fans showed up and supported it wholeheartedly.... This team hasn't done much since then to repay its city or its fanbase.

 

[blahblah]

Seems to me that if they want to save jobs in the Arena District and save the area, the Key tenant of that area needs to do its fair share. Yes, paying to ice a team is great, but its obviously not produced better results. I'm not sure if this issue could ever be "Recalled" or anything (doubt it since it never was put to a public vote). But bailing out the area's main tenant seems to only be putting a band aid on a bullet wound. Continued struggles on the ice would seems to indicate that the Arena District will not be as vibrant as it could be on game nights, which to me, seems like jobs in the area could still be in jeopardy.

You are just arguing about stuff that can't be guaranteed or reasonably be put in a contract.

Good luck with that.

 

[Samkow]

I know this is a 30 year deal, but the comment about the lack of oversight for the team, and how it shouldn't affect the deal, worry me.

Seems to me that if they want to save jobs in the Arena District and save the area, the Key tenant of that area needs to do its fair share. Yes, paying to ice a team is great, but its obviously not produced better results. I'm not sure if this issue could ever be "Recalled" or anything (doubt it since it never was put to a public vote). But bailing out the area's main tenant seems to only be putting a band aid on a bullet wound. Continued struggles on the ice would seem to indicate that the Arena District will not be as vibrant as it could be on game nights, which to me, seems like jobs in the area could still be in jeopardy. If our business at my work tapers off and stays that way, the company cuts payroll to compensate, is this not the essence of what the county/city WANT to stop? My fear is 5 or 10 years from now, average citizens of this town will say "Why are continuing to help sublet an organization that doesn't value winning?"

Something needs to be ammended and the team needs to be told to get its act together and start producing. The admission that nothing may change (or be pressured) for the positive with the product on the ice troubles me.... I don't think I'd call it an "Ultimatum", just an incentive to keep the end of a bargain... The county/city did its job, it wasn't a real popular move either.... These comments would seem to indicate a green light for the status quo in Jacketland, with nothing asked in return. Troubling.

McConnell Sr. stuck his neck out for this town, he was rewarded with great fan support and a packed building for years, despite the poor management from the top to the bottom, the fans showed up and supported it wholeheartedly.... This team hasn't done much since then to repay its city or its fanbase.

Jesus Christ.

Are you Rodney Marcelleno? If not, it'd be a great username.

Edit: Now taht I'm not on a phone, I'll ask you.

Do you actually think what you're suggesting is feasible in any way shape or form?

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I know this is a 30 year deal, but the comment about the lack of oversight for the team, and how it shouldn't affect the deal, worry me.

Seems to me that if they want to save jobs in the Arena District and save the area, the Key tenant of that area needs to do its fair share. Yes, paying to ice a team is great, but its obviously not produced better results. I'm not sure if this issue could ever be "Recalled" or anything (doubt it since it never was put to a public vote). But bailing out the area's main tenant seems to only be putting a band aid on a bullet wound. Continued struggles on the ice would seem to indicate that the Arena District will not be as vibrant as it could be on game nights, which to me, seems like jobs in the area could still be in jeopardy. If our business at my work tapers off and stays that way, the company cuts payroll to compensate, is this not the essence of what the county/city WANT to stop? My fear is 5 or 10 years from now, average citizens of this town will say "Why are continuing to help sublet an organization that doesn't value winning?"

Something needs to be ammended and the team needs to be told to get its act together and start producing. The admission that nothing may change (or be pressured) for the positive with the product on the ice troubles me.... I don't think I'd call it an "Ultimatum", just an incentive to keep the end of a bargain... The county/city did its job, it wasn't a real popular move either.... I don't think this would have passed had it gone to a public vote. These comments would seem to indicate a green light for the status quo in Jacketland, with nothing asked in return. Troubling.

McConnell Sr. stuck his neck out for this town, he was rewarded with great fan support and a packed building for years, despite the poor management from the top to the bottom, the fans showed up and supported it wholeheartedly.... This team hasn't done much since then to repay its city or its fanbase.

There is no way to craft a political solution to address winning and losing. About all that can be done are spending requirements. This team has shown little reticence to spend. It just hasn't been well managed.

 

[KeithBWhittington]

There is no way to craft a political solution to address winning and losing. About all that can be done are spending requirements. This team has shown little reticence to spend. It just hasn't been well managed.

I can understand that, I just feel like this would be a different story for me if this team was competitive, even if they were still hurting at the gate or what have you. Its pretty much been proven that this franchise has been shaky at best with its decision making, I'd feel better if someone decided to get behind the wheel that could prod a bit.

It just seems like nobody outside of the ever-dwindling fanbase cares about this team, they are just a "permanent tenant" to most of them. Thats why without a some changes, I fear this will cause a lot of negative opinions and backlash within this city... Its not about "saving the Arena district" to the public, its about putting this pro franchise on "Corporate Welfare"... A franchise that a majority of people said "no" to in 1996.

 

[CapnCornelius]

Not sure it was a poor choice of words or not. I don't have a hard time believing they were out of easily available capital.

As a lawyer I read the situation actually much worse than simply being out of easily available capital.

The question is what the consequence of that would be? My guess is that they may have reached a maturity date or an extension date on their line of credit. Their creditors aren't willing to either (1) forbear from an exercise of remedies or (2) extend the maturity without assurances either that the Jackets financial situation is going to improve shortly or there will be take-out financing available (which in reality will probably require an improvement in the financial situation).

If the creditors had pushed the button to exercising remedies, the Jackets may well have ended up in bankruptcy court. If I'm remembering correctly, it was the Coyotes line of credit which ultimately led them to bankruptcy court.

All this still calls into question whether the Arena deal ultimately will solve all. I'm concerned that the ongoing shortfalls in cash flow are significantly higher than the amounts attributable to the lease. Hopefully I'm either wrong or this team is focused on solving the other part of the equation (i.e. increasing revenues by improving the on-ice product).

 

[TaketheCannoli]

All this still calls into question whether the Arena deal ultimately will solve all. I'm concerned that the ongoing shortfalls in cash flow are significantly higher than the amounts attributable to the lease. Hopefully I'm either wrong or this team is focused on solving the other part of the equation (i.e. increasing revenues by improving the on-ice product).

I've looked at the team's financial situation for several years, using known figures, applying some conventional wisdom and building a pro-forma.

The bankruptcies yielded lots of information that would not have been publicly available.

I've never seen a way for this team to break even. While attendance has been poor, even a sold out house for 41 games doesn't bring revenues to the needed levels. The real issues are related to market size: media rights, sponsorships, corporate spending.

 

[blahblah]

As a lawyer I read the situation actually much worse than simply being out of easily available capital.

The question is what the consequence of that would be? My guess is that they may have reached a maturity date or an extension date on their line of credit. Their creditors aren't willing to either (1) forbear from an exercise of remedies or (2) extend the maturity without assurances either that the Jackets financial situation is going to improve shortly or there will be take-out financing available (which in reality will probably require an improvement in the financial situation).

If the creditors had pushed the button to exercising remedies, the Jackets may well have ended up in bankruptcy court. If I'm remembering correctly, it was the Coyotes line of credit which ultimately led them to bankruptcy court.

All this still calls into question whether the Arena deal ultimately will solve all. I'm concerned that the ongoing shortfalls in cash flow are significantly higher than the amounts attributable to the lease. Hopefully I'm either wrong or this team is focused on solving the other part of the equation (i.e. increasing revenues by improving the on-ice product).

Thank you for detailing out what was boring for me to bother typing. Yes, I've seen this type of stuff before in two other companies.

The Arena deal will not solve all. I can subtract. -25-10=-15. Oversimplification (if the numbers reported were correct), but you can't run a negative forever. Sooner or later the credit will dry up and they will need other sources of capital to stay afloat. That was also based on last years payroll. Our attendance isn't increasing and I'm not sure what profit sharing will even look like this year.

This goes back around to CBA, again.

 

[Fred Glover]

I've looked at the team's financial situation for several years, using known figures, applying some conventional wisdom and building a pro-forma.

The bankruptcies yielded lots of information that would not have been publicly available.

I've never seen a way for this team to break even. While attendance has been poor, even a sold out house for 41 games doesn't bring revenues to the needed levels. The real issues are related to market size: media rights, sponsorships, corporate spending.

I heard Jay Feaster a couple of years ago speak to this same situation when he was GM in Tampa (It was on NHL LIVE ). He stated that the Tampa hockey team would not make money (and he implied many NHL teams would not make money) until the team would make the second round of the playoffs. Once a team reaches the second round, then and only then will they be able to "break even". I don't know the logistics of it, but if this is the case, then more than one hockey team is in trouble. It would also speak for the need for the Jackets to make the playoffs and go at least into the second round so as they can be in a better $$$ position.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I heard Jay Feaster a couple of years ago speak to this same situation when he was GM in Tampa (It was on NHL LIVE ). He stated that the Tampa hockey team would not make money (and he implied many NHL teams would not make money) until the team would make the second round of the playoffs. Once a team reaches the second round, then and only then will they be able to "break even". I don't know the logistics of it, but if this is the case, then more than one hockey team is in trouble. It would also speak for the need for the Jackets to make the playoffs and go at least into the second round so as they can be in a better $$$ position.

Tampa is in a better situation. My calculations lead me to believe the Jackets can't break even with a Finals appearance.

A few quick numbers to ponder:

Current revenues needed to break even:

$98 million

Ticket revenues per sell out $ 850,000 per game

Annual Media rights $2 million

I can go into greater detail but think about those numbers.

 

[Fred Glover]

Tampa is in a better situation. My calculations lead me to believe the Jackets can't break even with a Finals appearance.

A few quick numbers to ponder:

Current revenues needed to break even:

$98 million

Ticket revenues per sell out $ 850,000 per game

Annual Media rights $2 million

I can go into greater detail but think about those numbers.

 

[Viqsi]

Tampa is in a better situation. My calculations lead me to believe the Jackets can't break even with a Finals appearance.

A few quick numbers to ponder:

Current revenues needed to break even:

$98 million

Ticket revenues per sell out $ 850,000 per game

Annual Media rights $2 million

I can go into greater detail but think about those numbers.

I would point out that an improved on-ice product would not only increase ticket revenues, but also improve our revenue sharing status. That's also been going downhill for a while now, and I kind of wonder just how much that accounts for the extra lossage.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

44 sellouts including pre-season games is only $37 million.
Media rights $2 million
NHL shared media rights $8 million per team

There's $47 million. They need another $51 million to break even.

Examples of how the market works agains the CBJ:

Media rights:
CBJ $2 million
Phoenix $7 million (per the bankruptcy filings)
Tampa $9 million
Detroit $30 million
Toronto $41 million
Montreal $20 million

Now imagine things like sponsorships, corporate spending etc. follow media rights.

 

[CapnCornelius]

Thank you for detailing out what was boring for me to bother typing. Yes, I've seen this type of stuff before in two other companies.

The Arena deal will not solve all. I can subtract. -25-10=-15. Oversimplification (if the numbers reported were correct), but you can't run a negative forever. Sooner or later the credit will dry up and they will need other sources of capital to stay afloat. That was also based on last years payroll. Our attendance isn't increasing and I'm not sure what profit sharing will even look like this year.

This goes back around to CBA, again.

You can allege oversimplification all you want. The numbers available to us are not good. And the numbers being thrown around as "solving" the problem...don't solve it based on the other numbers available to us.

This is where, if our so-called public servants were doing their jobs, they'd actually demand that the public be given the information that the investment of THEIR tax funds isn't going into a money pit.

It is all well and fine for the town fathers to promise this arrangment will keep the Jackets in town forever and a day...but if they aren't solvent that promise means nothing. The Jackets numbers have never added up. Not even when they were touting that baloney report from the OSU economist. "Pay no attention to the gaping chasm in non-hockey operations of the Arena which has been conveniently assumed to be a blip on the radar...without any explanation for the basis of such assumption."

I know everyone wants to pretend the casino is found money, but the reality is that is money that could have been tapped to cover the decreasing tax base that results from a downturn in incomes and property values. And since dollars are fungible, that means at the end of the day the County will come crying to the taxpayers for funds for some other purpose because they chose to spend these funds on the Jackets. As such, I think the least the County and the team could do is give a thorough explanation of the economics of this deal. Because God knows the Dispatch will not be doing any investigative journalism on a sweetheart deal it stands to benefit from.

 

[blahblah]

You can allege oversimplification all you want. The numbers available to us are not good. And the numbers being thrown around as "solving" the problem...don't solve it based on the other numbers available to us.

I can't figure out if you think I was arguing with you, busting your chops, or what. There was nothing in there directed in a negative manner toward you. Maybe I'm missing something.

As for the second part, your obsession not mine. Opening up books like that is a pipe dream and chest thumping is pointless on that point.

The Jackets are trying to get on a more even playing field with the rest of the league and most of sports on the arena issue. We keep going around in circles. Do you think you are going to change the playing field by making a stand on this issue? Thanks for making a stand from the West coast on a local issue. I hope you have family here or something. Worry about your state issues, out there you've got far bigger issues than we have here.