denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Maybe this would be justifed if the Ticats stopped losing money and started winning!!
|
|
|
- Thread starter FutureMayor
- Start date
Maybe this would be justifed if the Ticats stopped losing money and started winning!!
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
IMO this a joke but we have to keep those teams here in Canada.
jn_12
Senior Member
Pretty sure the only thing that matters is that they're making money. Plenty of teams do just fine while losing abysmally (we have a couple of them in Toronto actually).
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
True but they can't even do that(make money) and have not for a long time.
What do yu think about tax money for the oilers arena?
jn_12
Senior Member
I have no problem with tax money for arenas. Hockey and sport are as much or more a part of our culture than the arts are and we think nothing of spending hundreds of millions on museums and theatres. Sure, there's a bit of a difference because of the professional nature of hockey, but it is still as much a public good, in my mind at least.
TOareaFan
Superstar
This is a point I have been making to people for years and no one ever agrees with me....so thanks! The amount of public money that goes into things like the Four Seasons Centre in Toronto (as one example) is very large. With all due respect to the performers/arts, there are far more hockey/football/baseball/name a sport fans in toronto than there are ballet an opera fans. Yet there was absolutely no controversy when the public money went into that facility (the donated land alone was worth over $25 million before the cash contributions to construction).....and let's not forget, the performers at that facility are hardly amateur!!!
Somehow, funding sports infrastructure has a much higher public irritation level than funding theatres and arts facilities!
Jonny5
Senior Member
Because 25,000 seat arenas and stadiums are used by for-profit sports teams owned by millionairres who balk at even being asked to contribute a penny when they demand a new stadium be built.
Arts Facilities are happy when the government kicks in 10% of their capital costs and they are not in it to make money.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Goverments kicked in far, far more than 10% of the cost of the facility I mentioned (the contributed land alone was greater than 10%).....the performers/troupes that use that facility are proffessionals and do you think DanCap put shows on there for the public good?.....
.....don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with public funding of infrastructure....sporting, arts, transportation, institutional.....they all contribute to city building.....
....I just don't know why any investment in sporting infrastructure is so greatly scrutinized as compared to arts?
As an example, the ACC draws more fans, more economic activity, more tax revenue for the city than any arts facility ever could....it was built entirely with private money but, yet, there was huge controversy over the transferring of one strip of land (which really was useless/valueless before the arena plans were made) than there was for the total investment made in the Four Seasons Centre....it is confusing.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
The Arts return investment. Sports rarely do.
jn_12
Senior Member
Depends on what you mean by that.
TOareaFan
Superstar
How so? I am no economist but I suspect the economic spin off of the ACC has far exceeded the economic spin off of the 4seasons (and, again, I am not against the 4seasons or other arts facilities).......the ACC is open for events for more nights, generates larger crowds, spending big dollars, generating higher tax revenue....is there some link you can send me to that compares the return on public investment at the 4seasons to a similar spend on a sports facility?
Jonny5
Senior Member
Arts facilities are for non-profit activities. The contributions to capital costs by governments to arts facilites, whether 100% (almost never) or 10% (almost always), do not generate profits for their owners. Hence they are rarely controversial.
Large Sports facilities are almost always built for FOR-PROFIT enterprise. The contributions to capital costs by government generate profits solely for private business. Hence, controversey. Further, in any case where the private owners require governemnt money for facilities it is because they can't arrange their own financiang. If they can't get their own financing it is because banks believe the project to be unviable and a certain money loser. Hence, further controversey. Further still, in many cases, the facilities are for teams owned by people capable of paying for everything outright, but insist the government pay for some by holding everyone hostage to their plan, then stick them with any loses that arise in the future. Hence maximum controversey.
Government funding of anything for-profit is controversial, whether it's Bombardier or MLSE.
Government funding for the arts is rarely controversial, because at the end of the day, no one is turning that into profits and then saying give us more or we'll move our dance troupe to another city!
But nothing is absolute. You can't say arts funding is not controversial in Toronto in the face of Theatre Passe Muraille.
jn_12
Senior Member
Major League Losers (though I haven't read the whole thing yet. Just a couple chapters from when I was writing my thesis). Also a recent book called "Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit, Revised and Expanded Edition" came out with the same premise.
I don't buy into these books entirely. It's almost impossible to measure economic impacts of virtually anything. For example, do these books take into account something as minute as the landing fees at Pearson that are obtained when a team flies in or out? Does it take into account that the players purchase real estate or groceries or dinners at nice restaurants? Do they take into account the multiplier effect of every dollar spent, and even if they do, do they do it accurately (which any knowledgable academic would tell you is actually impossible to do)? I agree with you that the Leafs and the ACC generate far more wealth than any art facility in the city. But would a Pan Am stadium in Hamilton do the same? We also have to keep in mind that the ACC is one of the most havily used arenas in the world. It's pretty amazing how much use they get out of it compared to most arenas.
Well, I think it's a bit difficult to say that every owner can afford to build an arena on their own. You can't paint everyone with the same brush, because many owners are millionaires but not billionaires. Sure you could say "so and so is worth $500million, surely he can afford to build it himself" but that's not very realistic given the risks associated and the costs of operating a team. Also, given the economic effects that professional sports can have, it's probably in the government's best interest that they do what they can to keep teams, particularly in markets where the team is vital not just economically but also to the culture of the city (thinking along the lines of the Roughriders or the Habs or Oilers or the Sabres).
Also, you can make the argument that sport serves a far greater proportion of the population than any form of the arts. It's just a fact that hockey is far more ingrained in our national psyche and I think if you asked the people of Quebec or Winnipeg what kind of effect losing their teams had because politicians wouldn't help with arenas, you'd find that some of the civic (and in Quebec, national) pride went with it, which is why both cities are clamoring to get their teams back. I don't think you could say the same about any art gallery or performance venue.
And I'm a huge believer in the need for arts. I just think there's also a need for sport.
TOareaFan
Superstar
^thanks....I was aware of books that discredited public spend on sports infrastructure....I was looking for something that supported the statement that was made earlier "The Arts return investment. Sports rarely do." Which would, I guess, need something that was positive in nature regarding spending on arts infrastructure and negative in nature with regards to sports infrastructure.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Many of the people performing at our arts facilities make a fair bit of money......many events are promoted by people such as DanCap who, presumably, are in it for the money? So they generate profit for some people.....I think, though, you are correct that the perception that everyone in the arts loses money (not necessarily true) and everyone in sports makes money (also not necessarily true) contributes to the relative controversy levels.