HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 3:37 PM
Chaps Chaps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
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...
You do know what P3 stands for right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 5:12 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,435
Sounds like the federal NDP are in support as well, as long as there is a good business plan and that there are no one offs. So I guess that makes zero opposition to funding from the P3 program.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 5:51 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaps View Post
You do know what P3 stands for right?
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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 6:18 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
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...
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 6:30 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
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.
^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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 6:52 PM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
^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.
get over it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 7:02 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,016
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 7:14 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
^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.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 7:16 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
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.
Where did you get that notion. Have you even read the Fund's materials?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 7:39 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
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.
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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 7:44 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
Where did you get that notion. Have you even read the Fund's materials?
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 8:13 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
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...

You are thinking about a typical P3 like many of the recent high profile projects. The P3 Canada Fund however will also support projects that do not generate income, with non-repayable contributions from the Fund of up to 25% of the cost. The Fund only requires the private sector to construct and finance the project. This is referred to as the Design Build Finance Transfer (DBFT) model. It is not necessary that they own or operate it over time. Big contractors' P3 divisions are set up to arrange this construction financing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 8:15 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
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.
Sure but they also will make non-repayable contributions, AKA grants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 8:50 PM
djforsberg's Avatar
djforsberg djforsberg is offline
Saskatchewan pride
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 1,199
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 9:21 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,016
There is no construction and design details without money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 9:30 PM
khabibulin khabibulin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 804
cbc website - public comments

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 9:38 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by djforsberg View Post
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.
If you want to keep the discussion about construction and design details, then this thread would have had no posts since the feasibility study came out almost a year ago. All there is right now is politics and funding issues, and if you don't find those interesting and worthy of debate, then why even post in this thread?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 9:39 PM
Beadyeyez Beadyeyez is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by khabibulin View Post
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
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 9:58 PM
djforsberg's Avatar
djforsberg djforsberg is offline
Saskatchewan pride
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beadyeyez View Post
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.
In general, comment sections on newspaper sites don't typically consist of the smartest or rational people. No one should pay attention to them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2011, 10:02 PM
Spongebob's Avatar
Spongebob Spongebob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by khabibulin View Post
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
I can't post on the CBC website without getting accosted by rabid social activist types. Resistance is futile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:52 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.