Bombers Post $5.1M Operating Profit in 2017

[Eternal optimist]

7 hours ago, JCon said:

Fact is, they've already lost a lot of money and are going to continue to lose a lot of money on the stadium. They might want to cut their losses and find a buyer at a deep discount. 

I don't think anyone would disagree that the stadium fiasco has cost the Bombers, however the idea of the Province forgiving the debt just so the Bombers can be back in the black is just silly. They've managed to carry the debt thus far without issue, so I don't see why they'd need a helping hand to begin with. Even if they were in trouble financially, the crusade the Pallister government is currently on is to eliminate debt for the Province - not create more of it.

[JCon]

23 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

I don't think anyone would disagree that the stadium fiasco has cost the Bombers, however the idea of the Province forgiving the debt just so the Bombers can be back in the black is just silly. They've managed to carry the debt thus far without issue, so I don't see why they'd need a helping hand to begin with. Even if they were in trouble financially, the crusade the Pallister government is currently on is to eliminate debt for the Province - not create more of it.

The debt is owned by Triple B, not the Bobmers. The Province, in the end, will be booking the loss. 

And, they debt is mounting. The Bombers have paid what they realistically can but they won't be able to keep up with the debt servicing costs and the repairs/maintenance of the building. The costs are going up. 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 hour ago, Eternal optimist said:

I don't think anyone would disagree that the stadium fiasco has cost the Bombers, however the idea of the Province forgiving the debt just so the Bombers can be back in the black is just silly. They've managed to carry the debt thus far without issue, so I don't see why they'd need a helping hand to begin with. Even if they were in trouble financially, the crusade the Pallister government is currently on is to eliminate debt for the Province - not create more of it.

They have had issues.  And really, imagine if they didnt fire Garth and hire Wade Miller.  They'd probably be losing money every year BEFORE paying the mortgage.

The Province should have just paid for the thing outright in the first place.  They came up with this scheme because taxpayers dont like $200 million being spent on sports Stadiums, especially one being used ten times a year.  And I can't argue with that other then to say, a Stadium is a community asset and for the life of the facility, the cost is rather minimal compared to many other things.

I'd have rather seen a small fee on tickets (like $1-$2) as a sort of facility fee then taking on massive debt servicing.

Bombers are doing well so the idea of private ownership isnt talked about anymore.  I had always hoped True North could have been convinced to come in and take it all over but Miller is doing a fine job running things.

[northwd]

11 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

They have had issues.  And really, imagine if they didnt fire Garth and hire Wade Miller.  They'd probably be losing money every year BEFORE paying the mortgage.

The Province should have just paid for the thing outright in the first place.  They came up with this scheme because taxpayers dont like $200 million being spent on sports Stadiums, especially one being used ten times a year.  And I can't argue with that other then to say, a Stadium is a community asset and for the life of the facility, the cost is rather minimal compared to many other things.

I'd have rather seen a small fee on tickets (like $1-$2) as a sort of facility fee then taking on massive debt servicing.

Bombers are doing well so the idea of private ownership isnt talked about anymore.  I had always hoped True North could have been convinced to come in and take it all over but Miller is doing a fine job running things.

Why is it when they talk about the stadium debt, it is the bombers' debt?  Why is there never anything about how much rent the Bisons or minor football, that is played there, pays to Triple B? Or do they even pay rent when they use the facility?

[Rich]

16 minutes ago, northwd said:

Why is it when they talk about the stadium debt, it is the bombers' debt?  Why is there never anything about how much rent the Bisons or minor football, that is played there, pays to Triple B? Or do they even pay rent when they use the facility?

I don't think anything was paid for the land the U of M put into the project for the stadium.   I think the deal was the Bisons would get to use the stadium and facilities in exchange for the use of the land.

No idea on minor football.

[WBBFanWest]

20 minutes ago, Rich said:

I don't think anything was paid for the land the U of M put into the project for the stadium.   I think the deal was the Bisons would get to use the stadium and facilities in exchange for the use of the land.

No idea on minor football.

I would expect that if minor football pays, it will be "cost recovery" and not much more.

[JCon]

1 hour ago, Rich said:

I don't think anything was paid for the land the U of M put into the project for the stadium.   I think the deal was the Bisons would get to use the stadium and facilities in exchange for the use of the land.

No idea on minor football.

Correct. There is a $1/year lease payment to the U of M. 

[JCon]

1 hour ago, northwd said:

Why is it when they talk about the stadium debt, it is the bombers' debt?  Why is there never anything about how much rent the Bisons or minor football, that is played there, pays to Triple B? Or do they even pay rent when they use the facility?

Bombers are responsible for managing the stadium, renting it out and whatnot. They collect the revenue. Triple B does not do that. 

[Eternal optimist]

23 hours ago, JCon said:

The debt is owned by Triple B, not the Bobmers. The Province, in the end, will be booking the loss. 

And, they debt is mounting. The Bombers have paid what they realistically can but they won't be able to keep up with the debt servicing costs and the repairs/maintenance of the building. The costs are going up. 

Very good points - not to completely derail this topic, but interestingly enough it appears the litigation by Triple B against RAYMOND S.C. WAN ARCHITECT INC is still ongoing.

For anyone else looking for dirt on Triple B (or anyone else for that matter) the Manitoba Court Registry offers a free, publicly accessible search engine that lets you search by name for any court proceedings. It doesn't provide a whole lot of detail, but you can at the very least see where a litigation stands, and if it is still pending. It can be found here:

http://www.jus.gov.mb.ca/

[Rich]

9 hours ago, JCon said:

Correct. There is a $1/year lease payment to the U of M. 

I wonder if the Bombers actually cut a cheque for that $1 payment for the paper trail or if Wade waltzes into the President's office once a year and tosses him a loonie.

[rebusrankin]

32 minutes ago, Rich said:

I wonder if the Bombers actually cut a cheque for that $1 payment for the paper trail or if Wade waltzes into the President's office once a year and tosses him a loonie.

I think Wade waltzes into the office and tosses the president a loonie and walks out.

[17to85]

2 hours ago, Rich said:

I wonder if the Bombers actually cut a cheque for that $1 payment for the paper trail or if Wade waltzes into the President's office once a year and tosses him a loonie.

I kind of hope he goes in with sock full of nickles to pay it. 

[Jaxon]

Amateur  Football  does pay a significant fee to use the stadium.   Much of it has to do with security costs, cleaning, power, lights, scoreboard operation etc.    That being said, the Bombers are a significant supporter of amateur football in total, and those costs are real.  

[Tracker]

No question the stadium has been and will be subsidized to an extent, like pretty much every pro arena and stadium in North America and probably world-wide. There was no alternative to building a new facility- the old one was crumbling and would have condemned the Bombers to a slow death.

Edited April 27, 2018 by tracker

[WBBFanWest]

41 minutes ago, Jaxon said:

Amateur  Football  does pay a significant fee to use the stadium.   Much of it has to do with security costs, cleaning, power, lights, scoreboard operation etc.    That being said, the Bombers are a significant supporter of amateur football in total, and those costs are real.  

That's what we call "cost recovery".  They pay the actual costs involved but the price is not designed to make the Bombers a profit.

[blue_gold_84]

4 hours ago, 17to85 said:

I kind of hope he goes in with sock full of nickles to pay it. 

A used jock...? Because a pox on the U of M.

[SpeedFlex27]

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 6:19 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

They have had issues.  And really, imagine if they didnt fire Garth and hire Wade Miller.  They'd probably be losing money every year BEFORE paying the mortgage.

The Province should have just paid for the thing outright in the first place.  They came up with this scheme because taxpayers dont like $200 million being spent on sports Stadiums, especially one being used ten times a year.  And I can't argue with that other then to say, a Stadium is a community asset and for the life of the facility, the cost is rather minimal compared to many other things.

I'd have rather seen a small fee on tickets (like $1-$2) as a sort of facility fee then taking on massive debt servicing.

Bombers are doing well so the idea of private ownership isnt talked about anymore.  I had always hoped True North could have been convinced to come in and take it all over but Miller is doing a fine job running things.

No private owner wants to assume the debt you're discussing. The NDP did throw a massive yolk around the Bombers necks with this deal. Don't know what the solution is. maybe this should be on Asper to assume the Bombers debt as he's the one who reneged on building the stadium yet still walked away with money in his pocket when everyone panicked. 

[JCon]

49 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

No private owner wants to assume the debt you're discussing. The NDP did throw a massive yolk around the Bombers necks with this deal. Don't know what the solution is. maybe this should be on Asper to assume the Bombers debt as he's the one who reneged on building the stadium yet still walked away with money in his pocket when everyone panicked. 

The Bombers don’t have the debt. They can walk away from the stadium at any time, really. Triple B has debt, backed by the Province. 

You can sell the stadium for half the building cost  and write off the loss. Bombers can continue to pay “rent” and the new owner becomes responsible for paying maintenance, etc  

 

[SpeedFlex27]

1 hour ago, JCon said:

The Bombers don’t have the debt. They can walk away from the stadium at any time, really. Triple B has debt, backed by the Province. 

You can sell the stadium for half the building cost  and write off the loss. Bombers can continue to pay “rent” and the new owner becomes responsible for paying maintenance, etc  

 

Where will the Bombers go, Steinbach? If new owners buy the team they assume the Bombers portion of the debt. 

[Eternal optimist]

2 hours ago, JCon said:

The Bombers don’t have the debt. They can walk away from the stadium at any time, really. Triple B has debt, backed by the Province. 

You can sell the stadium for half the building cost  and write off the loss. Bombers can continue to pay “rent” and the new owner becomes responsible for paying maintenance, etc  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the problem with this solution be that the incoming landlord could hypothetically charge pretty much whatever they want? I mean from the perspective of the Bombers, at that point their only alternative would be to build a new stadium. Wouldn't doing this effectively be giving the new landlord a monopoly on professional football?

[JCon]

8 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the problem with this solution be that the incoming landlord could hypothetically charge pretty much whatever they want? I mean from the perspective of the Bombers, at that point their only alternative would be to build a new stadium. Wouldn't doing this effectively be giving the new landlord a monopoly on professional football?

Sure, but without the Bombers, who are their tenants that will bring in enough revenue to cover operating the stadium? 

[Eternal optimist]

23 hours ago, JCon said:

Sure, but without the Bombers, who are their tenants that will bring in enough revenue to cover operating the stadium? 

Touché.

[Jacquie]

The stadium can't be sold to a private entity unless the province changes the legislation regarding the U of M. As it stands, no private entities can own property on the U of M campus. 

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, Jacquie said:

The stadium can't be sold to a private entity unless the province changes the legislation regarding the U of M. As it stands, no private entities can own property on the U of M campus. 

So then, how can the university develop the land around the stadium if no private companies can own property? 

[JCon]

4 hours ago, Jacquie said:

The stadium can't be sold to a private entity unless the province changes the legislation regarding the U of M. As it stands, no private entities can own property on the U of M campus. 

 

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

So then, how can the university develop the land around the stadium if no private companies can own property? 

They lease the land, as they've done with the stadium.

 

Yes, they can (obviously) sell the stadium, just not the land. Look up and down Chancellor Matheson for many, many more examples.