Originally Posted by Bdog (Post 5141385)

The feds should really change the name of this program to something other than the P3 Canada Fund if they will be supporting stadium and arena projects in this way. Funding a project that has private contributions doesn't automatically make the project a P3...

Originally Posted by Chaps (Post 5141624)

You do know what P3 stands for right?

Originally Posted by Bdog (Post 5141806)

Yes Chaps, I've done graduate research on P3 infrastructure projects, so yes, I do know what P3 stands for. However, the "partnership" in P3 rarely ever means, "feds will contribute to a project because the private sector is".

Rather, in P3s, the government contracts a private firm to Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) a public infrastructure project, who will have a contract to operate that infrastructure for the length of the concession. It's the private sector who puts up most of the money up front, plans most of the project, and bears a significant share of the fianncial risk. Other times, (in a BOT contract), the private sector builds, operates (for the length of the concession), and then turns over the infrastructure back to the government.

In these stadium cases, the projects are government led, primarily government financed, and the government will definitely be taking on all the financial risk (ie: don't expect the private sector to cover cost overruns, or fund potential operating losses). Just because a few private sector firms are rumoured to be donating funds (whether through sponsorships, or through the goodness of their hearts) does NOT make these deals P3 in the P3 sense. Not even close...

Originally Posted by Stormer (Post 5141847)

Yes that may be the conventional definition of a P3 but the P3 Canada Fund will allow projects where the private sector merely bears construction risk and does not necessarily need to own or operate the facility after it is completed.

Originally Posted by Bdog (Post 5141858)

^And that is exactly my point. The private sector will not bear any construction risk in this project. Let's say various private donors are ponying up 70 Million, as has been speculated many times. Some of that is obviously in sponsorship money, and some of it is obviously long term commitment (ie: hotel association over 15 years). The private sector is not on the hook for cost overruns. The private sector is not on the hook for operating losses.

As I've said before, I have no problem with the feds contributing reasonable, and fairly to sports projects accross the country. However, if this is a priority for the feds, call a spade a spade - this is nothing close to what the feds intended when creating the P3 fund, and doesn't fit the P3 definition.

Originally Posted by Bdog (Post 5141858)

^And that is exactly my point. The private sector will not bear any construction risk in this project. Let's say various private donors are ponying up 70 Million, as has been speculated many times. Some of that is obviously in sponsorship money, and some of it is obviously long term commitment (ie: hotel association over 15 years). The private sector is not on the hook for cost overruns. The private sector is not on the hook for operating losses.

As I've said before, I have no problem with the feds contributing reasonable, and fairly to sports projects accross the country. However, if this is a priority for the feds, call a spade a spade - this is nothing close to what the feds intended when creating the P3 fund, and doesn't fit the P3 definition.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby (Post 5141917)

The P3 Canada Fund is also designed to get the money back after a certain term. It isn't a grant - more like a low interest loan.

Originally Posted by Stormer (Post 5141946)

You are not correct. All the major construction companies have P3 divisions that do exactly that. Obviously they get compensated for taking the construction risk, but they are in a much better position to manage the risk given that construction is their business.

Originally Posted by Stormer (Post 5141950)

Where did you get that notion. Have you even read the Fund's materials?

Originally Posted by Bdog (Post 5141985)

Stormer, we're not talking about the construction companies here as the private sector - Whatever company builds this stadium won't be financing, operating, or owning this stadium, and therefore can't be considered as a private partner in the P3 sense. For example, if a municipal government (using money they borrowed, or took out of their capital budget) pays PCL to build a bridge, that doesn't make it a P3. However, if PCL used their own capital to build the bridge, and were granted a concession to collect tolls from the bridge for 30 years (or, if no tolls, paid back over 30 years by the municipality), that would be a P3. PCL would have most of the risk, rather than the municipality.

In regards to "P3" for this stadium, we're talking about private firms who will by putting up $70 M for the project (and not the construction firms). Let's say, in this hypothetical example, Mosaic put up $20 M. Do you think that if there are cost overruns, Mosaic is going to have to cover them over and above the $20 M contribution? Or, lets say the hotel association is paying $1 M a year - if there is an operating deficit, are they going to have to pay $2 M or $3 M instead? Of course not - and that is why the private sector is not taking on any risk - the overruns and defecits I mentioned will be covered by the province or city...

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby (Post 5141995)

From the political staffer that set up the fund under Flaherty. It is a crown corporation, sort of like Export Development Canada. It isn't designed to pay out its budgeted allotments then fold up shop - it is a perpetual funding machine, helping to encourage P3 projects by taking some of the risk from the private sector while allowing the private sector to absorb most of the benefits.

Originally Posted by djforsberg (Post 5142122)

Can we just stop debating whether or not this should be built or where the funding should or shouldn't come from? Lets keep the discussion to the construction and design details, and keep the politics out.

Originally Posted by khabibulin (Post 5142187)

The stadium proposal is really getting trashed in the comments section on the cbc headline website (link attached). I would say 2 or 3 to 1 against.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewa...ng-110125.html

Originally Posted by Beadyeyez (Post 5142203)

LOL....any thing that requires public money gets thrashed on the CBC. Ninety-nine percent of the whiners just type against anything any given article is about...just to be against it. Much like some on this board.

Originally Posted by khabibulin (Post 5142187)

The stadium proposal is really getting trashed in the comments section on the cbc headline website (link attached). I would say 2 or 3 to 1 against.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewa...ng-110125.html