Aid Package to Cdn NHL teams
ICEMAN
our teams at home ? It is a pretty touchy subject here in Ottawa, half of
the folks I talk to are for it, many understand the math behind the subject
that if you lose the teams, the cities and provinces will lose much more
than the subsidies given by the govt. On the other hand it really irritates
me that the govt has to bow down to "blackmail" from the owners "give us
money or we go" attitude.
Although I want to see NHL hockey remain in Canada, I would rather see all
the money that the govt is promising the owners go to amateur sports, used
these subsidies to help minor hockey, baseball etc...to help parents buy
equipment and pay for registration fees and this would raise the awareness
of amateur sports and encourage more youngsters to participate in our great
game. Just my 2 cents (cdn).
Keep your stick on the ice...
Peter Steen
Many internationally known Canadian companies (like Bombardier, for one) have a
fair share of their success owed to the Canadian taxpayer (through loans and
forgiven debts). There is, rightly or wrongly, a tradition of government help
to companies. If the government can spend $1 on the Senators, and recoup $1+ in
taxes (on concessions, tickets, employee incomes etc.), then the aid helps the
greater good. However, if the government spends $1 and recoups less, then
simply the costs of losing jobs/status etc. must be weighed.
I think, unfortunately, that both sides in the argument are valid.
ICEMAN wrote:
--
Peter Steen
Pe...@TheHockey.Net
http://TheHockey.Net
Cordial Boy!
> Although I want to see NHL hockey remain in Canada, I would rather see all
> the money that the govt is promising the owners go to amateur sports, used
> these subsidies to help minor hockey, baseball etc...to help parents buy
> equipment and pay for registration fees and this would raise the awareness
> of amateur sports and encourage more youngsters to participate in our great
> game.
There is a huge pool of money. Setting the argument up as a
dichotomy between pro sports subsidization and amateur sport
subsidization is a false dichotomy. There is no rational connection
demanding either one or the other and this juxtaposition has been set
up, in bad faith, by activists such as the feminists running the CBC
who have other axes to grind.
> Keep your stick on the ice...
Too bad you'll have to move to the States to do so...
cordially, as always,
rm
Jim
care(?). I would think loosing the team and ALL the taxes and jobs, and
revenue they provide would be worse. Besides, what I read, the tax plan
wouldn't affect services, such as health care.
The loss of teams and the money they generate will.
ICEMAN <lleb...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:869lbp$msf$1...@gps4.ndhq.dnd.ca...
> You guys are pretty quiet on the subsidies proposed by the our govt to
keep
> our teams at home ? It is a pretty touchy subject here in Ottawa, half of
> the folks I talk to are for it, many understand the math behind the
subject
> that if you lose the teams, the cities and provinces will lose much more
> than the subsidies given by the govt. On the other hand it really
irritates
> me that the govt has to bow down to "blackmail" from the owners "give us
> money or we go" attitude.
>
> Although I want to see NHL hockey remain in Canada, I would rather see all
> the money that the govt is promising the owners go to amateur sports, used
> these subsidies to help minor hockey, baseball etc...to help parents buy
> equipment and pay for registration fees and this would raise the awareness
> of amateur sports and encourage more youngsters to participate in our
great
> game. Just my 2 cents (cdn).
>
Ron B.
The whole issue of government aid to corporations has been debated for
years. In some cases, it may buy time for a company to establish a market or
otherwise "get on it's feet", and provide significant long term benefits. In
other cases, it may only delay the inevitable bankruptcy or relocation, in
which case it can be questioned as to whether it was a particularly good use
of public funds.
And the issue of comparing tax dollars put in vs tax dollars received from
concessions etc is not straightforward either. Such analyses sometimes
overlook the fact that, in general, if people don't spend their money on
going to a hockey game, they will probably spend it somewhere else, which
would ALSO generate tax revenues and economic benefits.
Looking at the bigger picture, does anyone know if a comprehensive analysis
is available of the financial situations of all NHL teams? The debate in
Canada seems to be focused on the financial problems affecting Canadian
teams, and seems to implicitly assume that American teams are far better
off.
It's certainly true that Canadian teams face higher taxation (which can also
be viewed as massive tax subsidisation by American governments of
professional sports), and a low Canadian dollar. But on the other hand,
hockey is far more popular in Canada, with markets that extend far beyond
the geographical limits of a particular city.
It seems to me that many American teams are not doing particularly well.
Some examples which come readily to mind are New York Islanders, Carolina,
LA, Pittsburgh. And the jury is probably still out on Nashville and Atlanta,
not to mention the Florida teams and others. Sure, some teams may APPEAR to
be doing well so long as they can put a winner on the ice, but no team wins
all the time. Again, look at NY Islanders and LA, once their teams faltered.
To what extent are apparently successful operations being masked by owners
with deep pockets (i.e. cross-subsidisation from non-hockey businesses),
deferred payments on big player contracts and other such factors?
Is it really just the Canadian teams which have fundamental financial
challenges?
Just wondering...
Ron B.
(to reply directly, delete the 'prot')
"Peter Steen" <Pe...@TheHockey.Net> wrote in message
news:38889167...@TheHockey.Net...
ppb...@hotmail.com
"ICEMAN" <lleb...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> You guys are pretty quiet on the subsidies proposed by the our govt to
keep > our teams at home ? It is a pretty touchy subject here in
Ottawa, half of > the folks I talk to are for it, many understand the
math behind the subject > that if you lose the teams, the cities and
provinces will lose much more > than the subsidies given by the govt. On
the other hand it really irritates > me that the govt has to bow down to
"blackmail" from the owners "give us > money or we go" attitude.
>
> Although I want to see NHL hockey remain in Canada, I would rather see
all > the money that the govt is promising the owners go to amateur
sports, used > these subsidies to help minor hockey, baseball etc...to
help parents buy > equipment and pay for registration fees and this
would raise the awareness > of amateur sports and encourage more
youngsters to participate in our great > game. Just my 2 cents (cdn).
> Keep your stick on the ice...
Here's the thing, when Manley retracted the Financial Aid Package to NHL
clubs, he did it because of the public backlash. In reality, there are
sports athletes and organizations that are probably more needy than NHL
clubs. If they move, so be it. I would rather the Canadian clubs move,
like the Jets did, than fold. If the Canadian fan base can't adequately
support the franchise, the franchise should move where they can be
supported financially. A problem is that Ottawa is getting taxed at a
much higher rate than comparable American clubs I believe, and that
hurts them. Another fact is that the Canadian dollar's devaluation, and
the high tax rate. I would rather see the money go into health care
(because of the aging Canadian population) or education (so Canada's
youth can get adequate or high paying jobs to give Canada a solid tax
base to fund Canada's social programs which will likely be slashed or
the people in Gen-X and future generations will be paying even more in
taxes, because there are less people in the Gen-X generation than the
aging Baby Boomers category, some of whom are probably retiring or
getting ready to, depending on their financial situation and
profession.) If it has to go to sport, give it to the development of
amateur sport, or amateur athletes who receive a pittance for training
expenses and allowance, in comparison to the pro athletes. Canada is
pretty screwed when the U.S.A. can offer a more enticing package, not
only in terms of salary, but in terms of facilities and resources for
research and other perks to lure those Waterloo engineering and computer
science grads, and other Canadian talent to the south. I love hockey,
and would like to see Canadian clubs stay in Canada, if it is
a financially viable and feasible option, otherwise, the club is a
business, which is one part of an even bigger business, the NHL, and it
owes it to itself to do what it can to find the best place, in terms of
support, fan support, financially and otherwise to survive. Do you think
the Edmonton Oilers would have been broken up if they were being owned
by some huge corporation, like Paramount (like the Rangers
are?),Paramount is in turned owned by Viacom. Pocklington can't compete
there. The Red Wings are owned by the founder of a pizza franchise. When
FOX bought the Dodgers, it just shows you need an owner with really deep
pockets to play the game. There are individual owners, but I see more
corporate ownership in the long run. I would like to see some form of
revenue sharing implemented (not only TV, but concession, and ticket
revenue), as a well as a salary cap to help the small market teams. It
worked in the NBA, and it is probably one of the reasons a team like
Green Bay could still be in the NFL. That's one of the problems in
baseball, where teams like San Diego, Montreal, Pittsburgh and Florida
are having trouble staying with the likes of Braves, Yankees, and
Dodgers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
K. Vern Faulkner
: And the issue of comparing tax dollars put in vs tax dollars received from
: concessions etc is not straightforward either. Such analyses sometimes
: overlook the fact that, in general, if people don't spend their money on
: going to a hockey game, they will probably spend it somewhere else, which
: would ALSO generate tax revenues and economic benefits.
Heard a chap on the radio yesterday, an economist from Winnipeg, who
basically stated that there had been _no_ economic impact from thee move
of the Jets.
Also went on to quote a number of studies stating that the net impact of a
team moving to/from a team was basically minimal, ie: less than one
percent.
Sorry, I was driving, and didn't get names/references.
: Is it really just the Canadian teams which have fundamental financial
: challenges?
Nope. As I've mentioned before, the issue here is that business are coming
to the government for handouts after demonstrating they *won't* operate
their businesses in a sensible manner. (Ie: high player salaries.)
Wait for 2004. That will be an interesting year.
--
---------------------------------
Vern Faulkner, freelance writer
http://horizon.bc.ca/~vernf
K. Vern Faulkner
: hurts them. Another fact is that the Canadian dollar's devaluation, and
: the high tax rate. I would rather see the money go into health care
The dollar's decline is not relevant. The Canadian buck hasn't changed
more than ten cents in the last twenty years (13%, I guesstimate), while
player salaries have increased by a factor of 20. (2000%)
Which do YOU think is more relevant, financially? The issue here is player
salaries, nothing more - and the NHL owners/GMS are responsible for
mis-managing themselves into this mess in the first place.
ppb...@hotmail.com
yg...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (K. Vern Faulkner) wrote:
> The dollar's decline is not relevant. The Canadian buck hasn't changed
> more than ten cents in the last twenty years (13%, I guesstimate),
>while > player salaries have increased by a factor of 20. (2000%)
Vern, that's where I disagree. While a lower dollar helps our exporters
and hurts imports, you have to remember most players like to get paid in
U.S. dollars. In the last 20 years, we would have to go back to 1980 or
so to see where the Canadian dollar was...probably around 80 cents or
higher. There was a time when the Canadian dollar was actually valued
higher than the American dollar in terms of the exchange rate. As for
player salaries, I think Gretzky signed a 20 year contract with
Pocklington in 1979 which was due to expire in 1999, but I think that
contract was torn up and a new contract was brought in eventually. In
terms of hockey salaries, I think Wayne was only making $100,000
Canadian or so in his first season in the league, which was skimpy
compared to the players are making today.
> Which do YOU think is more relevant, financially? The issue here is
player > salaries, nothing more - and the NHL owners/GMS are responsible
for> mis-managing themselves into this mess in the first place.
Exactly...the teams' management/ownership drove up the market price,
probably largely in due to teams who could afford to spend money on big
name free agents like Detroit,Dallas,Toronto,New York Rangers and
Philly. They are to blame, but I don't see why the Canadian taxpayer has
to pay for it. I mean the Canadian taxpayer is already suffering for the
billion dollar goof made by the Human Resources department, coupled with
the fact some in the same department are getting bonuses...typical
political mismanagement...but then again I shouldn't be surprised.