|
|
Post by Slap Shooter on Jun 4, 2019 8:12:15 GMT -4
City council approved a 112,500 dollar deal to keep the Dogs in Saint John. According to Councilor Ray Strowbridge the Dogs said if they can't get a better deal they are leaving and they even provided a city name where they would be going. The Councilor did not say where that city was.
The deal will keep the Sea Dogs in Saint John until 2024.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 4, 2019 8:28:54 GMT -4
They might leave...but within 12 months someone else is going to want into that market.
Empty threat to a city council probably not knowing all the ins and outs and feeling like they have no other option. Too bad teams at times choose this confrontational route vs trying to act as partners with those who run the building. It can't create much goodwill feeling like you have a gun to your head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Jun 4, 2019 8:37:12 GMT -4
I don't see what the controversy is, if you really look at what it means closely.
The optics of it look bad as this sounds like "Hey we're going to hand this multi-millionaire Scott McCain some free cash over the next five years." Yeah, that sounds bad I agree.
Now if the head line was "Sea Dogs and City ink a 5 year extension", and this money was given as say a discount in the amount the team pays to rent the rink...its a much easier pill to swallow. It's a discount of:
$112,500 over 5 years or to make it sound better;
$22,500 per season over the next 5 seasons or even better;
$661.77 per game over the next 5 seasons.
I doubt many, if anyone, raises a stink over that.
Its people picturing of a near bankrupt city handing over taxpayer money to a multi-millionaire in the way this was done/handled/worded that makes the deal "controversial".
|
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on Jun 4, 2019 8:37:28 GMT -4
They might leave...but within 12 months someone else is going to want into that market. Empty threat to a city council probably not knowing all the ins and outs and feeling like they have no other option. Too bad teams at times choose this confrontational route vs trying to act as partners with those who run the building. It can't create much goodwill feeling like you have a gun to your head. The partner that put the team in this position is the city. They own Harbour Station. Also, I may be wrong, but I believe this money is tied to the naming rights which was part of the last lease and which the city hasn't secured yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Slap Shooter on Jun 4, 2019 8:37:49 GMT -4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 8:50:15 GMT -4
cbc.ca/news/canada/ne…
-
"Basically what was told to us, and what I heard, is if we can't reach an agreement, the Saint John Sea Dogs are leaving town," said Coun. Ray Strowbridge. "And they even gave us the name of another city where they were going." - Looks like they have another city in mind! Interesting...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 4, 2019 9:01:58 GMT -4
They might leave...but within 12 months someone else is going to want into that market. Empty threat to a city council probably not knowing all the ins and outs and feeling like they have no other option. Too bad teams at times choose this confrontational route vs trying to act as partners with those who run the building. It can't create much goodwill feeling like you have a gun to your head. The partner that put the team in this position is the city. They own Harbour Station. Also, I may be wrong, but I believe this money is tied to the naming rights which was part of the last lease and which the city hasn't secured yet. And the team making the idle threat is why their "partner" released the info they did to show people why they did what they did. As others have said...if they just negotiated the lease and sold it as being the lease...nobody questions anything about the process. But putting the details out there about the threats from the team was meant to not only tell the public how they ended up here know but warn them about future deals in the future as the team at some point will run into a government who won't break and call their bluff. There should have been no reason to make the threat on one sides part and no reason to put it out there on the other side. Both are to blame...but only one has to worry about actually paying the bills on the building which is funded by tax payers. The other is a millionaire with deep pockets who has reaped huge profits from your playoff runs. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 4, 2019 9:05:19 GMT -4
I don't see what the controversy is, if you really look at what it means closely. The optics of it look bad as this sounds like "Hey we're going to hand this multi-millionaire Scott McCain some free cash over the next five years." Yeah, that sounds bad I agree. Now if the head line was "Sea Dogs and City ink a 5 year extension", and this money was given as say a discount in the amount the team pays to rent the rink...its a much easier pill to swallow. It's a discount of: $112,500 over 5 years or to make it sound better; $22,500 per season over the next 5 seasons or even better; $661.77 per game over the next 5 seasons. I doubt many, if anyone, raises a stink over that. Its people picturing of a near bankrupt city handing over taxpayer money to a multi-millionaire in the way this was done/handled/worded that makes the deal "controversial". Any idea how it compares to past leases? A huge drop in cost could be deemed as controversial. Outside of the threat to leave i'm not seeing the controversial part and assume those conversations ("give us X or we'll move to Y") happen with most negotiations around the league as of course there's always a chance a deal isn't struck. But it's usually not released as a "they gave us no other option" like this one which could be an issue the next time around. |
|
|
|
Post by Slap Shooter on Jun 4, 2019 9:29:48 GMT -4
I don't see what the controversy is, if you really look at what it means closely. The optics of it look bad as this sounds like "Hey we're going to hand this multi-millionaire Scott McCain some free cash over the next five years." Yeah, that sounds bad I agree. Now if the head line was "Sea Dogs and City ink a 5 year extension", and this money was given as say a discount in the amount the team pays to rent the rink...its a much easier pill to swallow. It's a discount of: $112,500 over 5 years or to make it sound better; $22,500 per season over the next 5 seasons or even better; $661.77 per game over the next 5 seasons. I doubt many, if anyone, raises a stink over that. Its people picturing of a near bankrupt city handing over taxpayer money to a multi-millionaire in the way this was done/handled/worded that makes the deal "controversial". Any idea how it compares to past leases? A huge drop in cost could be deemed as controversial. Outside of the threat to leave i'm not seeing the controversial part and assume those conversations ("give us X or we'll move to Y") happen with most negotiations around the league as of course there's always a chance a deal isn't struck. But it's usually not released as a "they gave us no other option" like this one which could be an issue the next time around. (City inks controversial deal to keep Sea Dogs) Was the title of the Telegraph Journal story. They are probably trying to sensationalize it to make the story sound juicier. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 4, 2019 9:38:09 GMT -4
Any idea how it compares to past leases? A huge drop in cost could be deemed as controversial. Outside of the threat to leave i'm not seeing the controversial part and assume those conversations ("give us X or we'll move to Y") happen with most negotiations around the league as of course there's always a chance a deal isn't struck. But it's usually not released as a "they gave us no other option" like this one which could be an issue the next time around. (City inks controversial deal to keep Sea Dogs) Was the title of the Telegraph Journal story. They are probably trying to sensationalize it to make the story sound juicier. If the deal was only struck because the team threatened to leave if they didn't get their way i'd call that a controversy. Especially if the 6 figure payout really hurts their bottom line or causes them to look for that money in other areas. Municipal governments everywhere are struggling to keep roads paved and bills paid so any concessions to people like McCain will come off as controversial to most tax payers. It's too bad all we get is talk and nobody using any platform to educate everyone about the process. Was a study done internally to weigh the cost of the 6 figure total in comparison to if the rink was empty? That might not look so controversial to tax payers but also makes the "they said they'll leave" talk pointless as those results might actually show where the team has even more room to expect concessions the next go around....or paint a picture of the municipality propping up the team...either situation looks really bad for one of the 2 parties. I feel like in these situations it's clearly in everyones best interest to get along because the alternative for either side is not very ideal and living in harmony with each other is the best way to keep everyone happy. So to see a grenade launched from the government side is interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on Jun 4, 2019 11:09:07 GMT -4
It's a 5 figure per annum payback (again for naming rights on Harbour Station which will be renamed) without SJ getting any discount on the worst lease in the league.
Keep in mind that the comments are all from council who aren't even part of the negotiations of the terms themselves (only this grant). Also keep in mind that HS's manager doesn't negotiate. He either dictates terms or watches things go to other cities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slap Shooter on Jun 4, 2019 11:31:39 GMT -4
|
|
yorb
Draft Pick
Posts: 71
|
Post by yorb on Jun 4, 2019 12:54:16 GMT -4
Such a weird threat. Where would they move? Edmundston? Sorel? Unless something's about to go down in St John's with the Growlers, no city has the population or arena to host/support a QMJHL team.
And the city took the threat seriously??
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 4, 2019 12:57:54 GMT -4
Such a weird threat. Where would they move? Edmundston? Sorel? Unless something's about to go down in St John's with the Growlers, no city has the population or arena to host/support a QMJHL team. And the city took the threat seriously?? St. John's is never stable as long as they're bouncing between pro teams so they're the easiest threat for any existing team to make to their current market. But they also might be the only market where anyone can move to any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Jun 4, 2019 13:23:36 GMT -4
Such a weird threat. Where would they move? Edmundston? Sorel? Unless something's about to go down in St John's with the Growlers, no city has the population or arena to host/support a QMJHL team. And the city took the threat seriously?? They probably told comedy council of SJ that McCain and Georgie would move it to somewhere in Ontario and join the OHL, and comedy council believed it. Regardless of where they said...think about it. Even IF the threat was real, would the league really let the team move? I doubt it. Saint John is always a top 5 market attendance wise. Harbour Station would not go empty. This really was something so minor, that because of how it got handled, has become much ado about nothing. |
|
