View Single Post
  #1274  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2012, 4:03 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is online now
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,306
No worries Chris, it happens to the best of us; no harm done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmo View Post
I live in Toronto now for school but grew up in Regina. I'm very much a Regina boy as you. I get your arguments but again that number is still peanuts. The issue is not how much the Riders can and will make. My stance is that the CFLs revenue streams don't justify the public expenses we must put in towards a facility. At least in Quebec they could go to court to set a deal that would at fill a good chunk of the 30 million per year the tax payers must pay. This opportunity does not exist in the CFL and facility makeup would be unable to bridge that gap.

This is why I am more loose on Quebec because an NHL rink makes marginally more business sense. The arena will turn profits each year which the Govt can wrestle a piece of. It is not a sink like a football facility - dome or not - the opportunities and revenue potentials are night and day. The top 10 grossing sports faculties in North America are all Arenas aside from Yankee Stadium.

The Quebec example will expose us to the harsh realities of costs and the sheer size of public investments we must make for zero ROI. Again this is hockey and Quebec is nuts but even with the deficits in the Province. The City and province trump us in scope in their ability to take on a 400million project such as this (even though are books are in better shape - debt is debt - Quebec has 8-10 million to absorb it).

Quebec City with 500k vs Regina with 200k asking to take on roughly the same amount of debt. Which seems more plausible ?
I do no expect any return on investment for the stadium value (just as I don't expect any return for galleries, museums, libraries, or any other sport/cultural investment). It should also be noted that galleries, museums, and libraries require annual subsidization to continue to exist.

And I would argue that Saskatchewan (provincially and municipally) is in a much better position to absorb 400 million in debt (I'm not saying the province should pay for it all, although this is what occured in BC; the city should pay it's share, but Regina has gotten very little from the provincial government over the last few years, so I don't see why a fairly sizeable contribution can't be made).

Quebec is currently having students rebel over having their tuition fees brought up to more equitable rates with the rest of the country (although still much lower than here), they have severe infrastructure deficits that have killed people (collapsing overpasses), and their provincial debt is $183 billion compared to Saskatchewan's ~$4 billion. For Saskatchewan to have the same level of indebtedness, we would have to have ~$24 billion or $20 billion more than we have. Not to mention that Quebec is still running a deficit and spending money they do not have, meanwhile we are not.

So yes, although Quebec has a larger tax-base and net to catch revenue, they are hobbled by their astronomical debt.

If Regina's share of the Stadium is guaranteed by the province, the interest rates will be low, and a long term payment structure would definitely be doable. Regina's economy grew by 6.1% last year, and population is steadily increasing, so the "value" of such payments, although remaining monetarily the same, will in real terms drop as our fiscal capacity increases.

I'm tired of us always going with the cheapest alternative instead of trying to push forward and get something done that is actually a step forward. Why replace a stadium with a slightly newer version of itself? What are we gaining by investing that money? We can do no more with it than we currently do, so we may as well try and add value by doing something extra.

We don't need to build a new arena (that would seat 15k+) as that would be too large for the Pats, we won't be getting an NHL team anytime soon, and we just spend a fair amount of money upgrading it for the World Junior's tournament; however, we do need an indoor space that can house that many for concerts/events. If we build a new stadium, whichever type, we won't have any investment in an arena that could support those events for decades. This is why I see it as a valuable investment to go retractable. It will be the only infrastructure investment needed for at least 30 years (assuming that regular maintenance and upkeep can keep the Brandt Centre functional that long).

Commonwealth in Edmonton had a total cost of less than $100 million (in 2011 dollars), yet in today's world, Hamilton is constructing a stadium that will cost over $100 million, but only seat 22,000. Construction costs definitely have not followed normal inflation, and I don't see them beginning to anytime soon.



However, people have by this time already made up their minds about which option is the most suitable/useful for Regina/Saskatchewan. I have weighed the pros and cons, and think a retractable stadium makes the most sense in the long run. Others have decided they think that an outdoor stadium is best. It is doubtful that either camp will be convinced the other option is better, so there is really no point in debating the merits further is there?

And I'm actually a Saskatoon boy that calls Regina home now .
Reply With Quote