This is good news for the Bombers. 

So does this mean that all revenue generated that remains after football operation costs goes into the team's bank account/rainy day fund??

We all knew this day would come eventually. There's no way the Bombers could ever pay off the principal of that loan. The interest payments alone were enough.

Its not the Bombers debt being written off

5 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

We all knew this day would come eventually. There's no way the Bombers could ever pay off the principal of that loan. The interest payments alone were enough.

did you read the article? The portion of the loan this is referring to is the portion that was supposed to be paid from property tax from development of the old stadium site. Not the portion the Bombers are paying and will continue to pay.

9 minutes ago, Booch said:

So does this mean that all revenue generated that remains after football operation costs goes into the team's bank account/rainy day fund??

No.  Bombers are still obligated to pay their debt

Just now, brett_c_b said:

did you read the article? The portion of the loan this is referring to is the portion that was supposed to be paid from property tax from development of the old stadium site. Not the portion the Bombers are paying and will continue to pay.

Nope twitter is blocked at work. With that being said, I stand by my statement. That Bomber debt will have to be "forgiven" eventually.

6 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

Nope twitter is blocked at work. With that being said, I stand by my statement. That Bomber debt will have to be "forgiven" eventually.

I saw it was Brodbeck and almost didn't read it, so be glad twitter is blocked

Edited July 25, 20187 yr by brett_c_b

43 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

Nope twitter is blocked at work. With that being said, I stand by my statement. That Bomber debt will have to be "forgiven" eventually.

Ive advocated this for a long time.  Broadbeck makes the point that its not a "public building" but its really a red herring anyway.  Im not sure what benefit there would be to the public to have it owned by the province. 

The profit the team would generate without paying the debt would be tremendous and make them one of the wealthiest teams in the league.  But since they have made their debt obligations, I suppose there is nothing wrong with continuing to insist they do so.  At some point, the Bombers will have some down years and there will be a movement to have the debt wiped out I think.  probably not for awhile though.

If they ever discuss private ownership again, it would surely have to happen.  Perhaps True North would add the Bombers & IGF to their portfolio without the debt. 

I get that the city and province are overlapping but different tax bases. I do not feel like the money being paid from the province as opposed to city taxes on the redeveloped land are two sources of payments that are drastically different ends of the spectrum.

I’m not sure why it’s tragic that the province does not own the stadium.  They don’t want to operate a stadium and honestly it’s almost more of a liability than an asset in terms of maintenance vs the actual value of it in terms of finances in the long run.  That said, the province does have a huge say in Triple B and the Blue Bombers board.  It’s actually a very good arms length kind of setup.

IGF is most definitely a public building.  Brodbeck is being obtuse.  What does he want?  To be able to walk his dog there whenever he wants?

Bombers still on the hook for their share.  Thread title is very misleading.

3 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

I’m not sure why it’s tragic that the province does not own the stadium.  They don’t want to operate a stadium and honestly it’s almost more of a liability than an asset in terms of maintenance vs the actual value of it in terms of finances in the long run.  That said, the province does have a huge say in Triple B and the Blue Bombers board.  It’s actually a very good arms length kind of setup.

IGF is most definitely a public building.  Brodbeck is being obtuse.  What does he want?  To be able to walk his dog there whenever he wants?

Brodbeck is famous for his interpretations of reality and his history of trying to look informed and intelligent. He has failed at both.

19 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

I’m not sure why it’s tragic that the province does not own the stadium.  They don’t want to operate a stadium and honestly it’s almost more of a liability than an asset in terms of maintenance vs the actual value of it in terms of finances in the long run.  That said, the province does have a huge say in Triple B and the Blue Bombers board.  It’s actually a very good arms length kind of setup.

IGF is most definitely a public building.  Brodbeck is being obtuse.  What does he want?  To be able to walk his dog there whenever he wants?

Isnt the general formular for public ownership of sports buildings that they are "owned" but the "management" (ie. sports team owners) get a 100 year lease (or whatever) and retain all the revenue anyway?  The public doesnt get anything but the retention of ownership puts them on the hook for capital expenses, no?

The make up of Triple B probably provides more oversight and decision making than "owning" the stadium would.  Its a silly argument designed to make people mad who dont really think about it.  "We dont even own it!".  Its not like Triple B is planning to sell the damn stadium.

Its not even like the arena where the team ownership is very rich.  The Bombers are not rich at all and have far fewer potential revenue streams.  But if the public believes government should not invest in buildings such as this, then they essentially believe we should not have a world-class stadium at all.  And you know what, add that to the ballot and we wouldn't.

Columnists like Brodbeck care less about accurate facts and more about manufacturing outrage.

Which is why he and the Sun, are a good fit

Wish they'd write off the Bomber portion of the debt.

54 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Wish they'd write off the Bomber portion of the debt.

Hope the Bombers are buying lottery tickets. Cause that's 200m with interest right?

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Hope the Bombers are buying lottery tickets. Cause that's 200m with interest right?

The Bombers portion of the debt was $85 million plus interest.

29 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

The Bombers portion of the debt was $85 million plus interest.

85 mil +interest over 45 years = 175 mil.  Hey I was pretty close to 200. Don't forget Lotto Max!

Oh and source.

 

 

 

On 2018-07-25 at 9:24 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

If they ever discuss private ownership again, it would surely have to happen.  Perhaps True North would add the Bombers & IGF to their portfolio without the debt. 

This is a terrible idea, the Jets would absolutely let the Bombers wither and die as they are in direct competition with the Jets for entertainment revenue.

 

5 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

 

This is a terrible idea, the Jets would absolutely let the Bombers wither and die as they are in direct competition with the Jets for entertainment revenue.

 

They wouldn't be in competition if True North owned them.  Your point doesn't really make any sense.

46 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

They wouldn't be in competition if True North owned them.  Your point doesn't really make any sense.

You're right, Maple Leafs Entertainment (which also owns the Toronto Maple Leafs) has done wonders for the Argonauts franchise. They haven't neglected the Argonauts at all.

6 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

You're right, Maple Leafs Entertainment (which also owns the Toronto Maple Leafs) has done wonders for the Argonauts franchise. They haven't neglected the Argonauts at all.

In fairness, marketing the Argos in Toronto is like trying to sell snow shovels in Hawaii.  Nobody wants them, nobody needs them.  

2 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

In fairness, marketing the Argos in Toronto is like trying to sell snow shovels in Hawaii.  Nobody wants them, nobody needs them.  

Exactly - and MLSE has recognized that, and focused advertising towards more profitable revenue streams (like the Toronto Maple Leafs). As a private business, there isn't anything legally wrong with this, it just sucks for the Argos.

15 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

You're right, Maple Leafs Entertainment (which also owns the Toronto Maple Leafs) has done wonders for the Argonauts franchise. They haven't neglected the Argonauts at all.

Again, this false equivalency doesn't support the point you're trying to make.

Winnipeg isn't Toronto.

The Bombers aren't the Argos.

The Argos have been a mess for at least 30 years of which MLSE has been involved for 3 seasons.

 

I'm not advocating for True North to take on the Bombers, which is pretty much guaranteed to not even be in the realm of possible unless that debt is dealt with, but I wouldn't see it as a problem if it happened.  TNSE has done a very good job of managing many events and venues in this city.  I don't see them running one business into the ground purposefully.  It just doesn't make much sense.