Fantastic Place

[logicalview]

*shakeshead*

[NAB]

PavCO LOSS on operations before government (taxpayer) contribution....

2008/09 actual = $17 Million

2009/10 actual = $61 Million

2010/11 target = $77 Million

2010/11 actual = $45 Million

2011/12 target = $66 Million

2012/13 target = $56 Million

2013/14 target = $ 58 Million

Debt

2007/08 actual = $243 Thousand

2008/09 actual = $143 Thousand

2009/10 actual = $30 Million

2010/11 actual = $150 Million
(2010/11 target = $150 Million)

2011/12 target = $150 Million

2012/13 target = $150 Million

2013/14 target = $148 Million

[logicalview]

Not sure where you pulled those numbers from Nab but let's run with them.

Financial Responsibility – We make significant economic contributions to the Province and generate revenues to offset our operating costs.

Nowhere does it say that Pavco is supposed to make money. Their mandate is....

To create significant economic and community benefits for the people of British Columbia by developing, marketing and operating iconic world class public convention, sports and entertainment facilities.

So, if the naysayers don't want the facility, shut it down along with the convention centre.

Would that make you guys happy?

Oh, and let's shut down the ferries while we are at it, and any thing else you guys can identify that operates at a loss.

[GordonH]

Well in rumor is true they maybe going after an NHL team once arena is buildt, plus they are American League team.

The Toronto Blue Jays are in the American League.

So is Seattle...

Yep. Hockeyfan doesn't seem to understand the MLB league concept.

Lets see:
New York Yankees AL........ NewYork Mets NL
LA Angels AL....... LA Dodgers NL
Oakland A's AL..... San Francisco Giants NL

Now using a straight line measurements Vancouver to Seattle 192.4 Km...... Vancouver to Toronto 3,368.2 Km

So RichardWede please inform me to why I do not understand MLB.

Added later: Montreal Expos NL

[NAB]

Not sure where you pulled those numbers from Nab but let's run with them.

Financial Responsibility – We make significant economic contributions to the Province and generate revenues to offset our operating costs.

Nowhere does it say that Pavco is supposed to make money. Their mandate is....

To create significant economic and community benefits for the people of British Columbia by developing, marketing and operating iconic world class public convention, sports and entertainment facilities.

So, if the naysayers don't want the facility, shut it down along with the convention centre.

Would that make you guys happy?

Oh, and let's shut down the ferries while we are at it, and any thing else you guys can identify that operates at a loss.

Just so long as the taxpayers know how much it is costing them logical and will continue to cost them well into the future even as they take on massive debt to do so. It's not about whether their mandate is to make money or not, or even stay open or not. Even then, at least break even would be nice as a target.

Nab

[logicalview]

It's not about whether their mandate is to make money or not, or even stay open or not. Even then, at least break even would be nice as a target.

Nab

How come your conveniently ignoring the fact that Pavco will generate $717 million in revenues for Vancouver's economy this year?

Or that Pavco is slated to generate $840 million next year?

Hmmm, a leak in the roof, or $840 million into the local economy. Tough choice.

And here we have posters wishing harm for those that sit in the executive boxes.
And others complaining that they weren't consulted on a roof job.

Could it be that Steven is right? The taxpayers are so ignorant they can't be trusted with anything as dangerous as democracy.

[wthwyt]

Toronto's Sky Dome in 2011 cost $914 mil.
BC Place $823 mil.

Wonder which one generates more revue.

[NAB]

Sorta like the old "bird in the bush" arguments surrounding the HST isn't it Logical, or Wakefest in Kelowna, etc etc? No one that I know of has as yet generated any accurate actual figures on such alleged or forecasted spin offs (Olympics for one example), particularly as if they find they way back into government revenues to even begin to start to pay back the massive amounts of money taxpayers will front every year for Vancouver's BC Place and Convention Centre (along with all sorts of other venues, infrastructure, and events that get subsidized by taxpayers directly or by ever increasing debt for our children and grandchildren ad nauseum. But then living within one's means is not a very popular attitude these days is it, particularly for BC politicians - and extra particularly those in the lower mainland....

Nab

[NAB]

Toronto's Sky Dome in 2011 cost $914 mil.
BC Place $823 mil.

Wonder which one generates more revue.

Interesting you bring up the SkyDome. This from late 2004...

The long-awaited sale of the SkyDome to Rogers Communications was in the final stages of being negotiated on the weekend, including last night. It should be formally completed and announced this week and possibly today, according to multiple sources.


The stadium was state of the art when it opened, mostly at taxpayer expense, in 1989 with a final cost of more than $600 million (all figures Canadian). Rogers will buy it from U.S.-based Sportsco International LP (limited partners) for something approaching $30 million.

Due diligence had been taking place over the past several weeks, since Sportsco, which bought the stadium out of bankruptcy proceedings six years ago, began to feel a financial crunch and became more agreeable to selling. The death this past summer of Alan Cohen, one of the principals in Sportsco who lived in Florida, also played a factor.

This deal has been rumoured before as being imminent. This time, apparently, they’ve either tied the knot or are at least at the altar.

Considering how much taxpayer money has been pumped (and continues to be pumped) into BC Place and the Convention Centre, I wonder what the deal will look like if (more likely "when") the decision is made to sell that off out of bankruptcy into private hands for pennies on the dollar - most likely to US Interests?

More on the Sky Dome history (2004)..

TORONTO -- Toronto's SkyDome has become the latest team-owned sports facility after Canadian cablecaster Rogers Communications Inc. on Monday announced that it has paid $21.25 million to buy the 50,000-seat stadium for its Toronto Blue Jays baseball franchise.

SkyDome, built in 1989 at a cost $487 million, mostly at taxpayer expense, was bought out of bankruptcy by Chicago-based investors group Sportsco International in 1999 for about $92 million.

Rogers, Canada's largest cablecaster, subsequently bought the Toronto Blue Jays as part of its sports diversification, and now it controls the SkyDome, which features a retractable roof.

"The purchase of SkyDome is an opportunity for us to acquire a tremendous asset at an extremely attractive price, but more importantly, we will now have significantly better control over our product and the fan experience," Blue Jays president and CEO Paul Godfrey said in a statement.

The sale is expected to close in December.

Edit to add: How many instances can you think of where something was put together at considerable public expense, then sold off at a huge loss to the for profit private sector? ((Don't leave BC Gas and PetroCan (and potentially BC Hydro, ICBC, and BC Ferries) off your list LOL)).

Edit to add: Interesting is it not that dollar for dollar they built the entire SkyDome for less than the BC taxpayer spent on just the freakin retractable roof and related upgrades to BC Place. Construction of the BC Place stadium as a replacement for the old Empire Stadium started in 1981 and was completed in 1983 at a cost of .$126 million. BC Place was built as part of the preparations for the 1986 World's Fair, Expo 86. There were also hopes that the stadium would attract a never-yet realized Major League Baseball (MLB) team to Vancouver.

Nab

[steven lloyd]

How does a $150 million dollar project balloon to over $500 million? Could someone point me to a good article as to what happened? Or for those in the know, why did this happen and why is it okay?

Don’t forget the one year warranty Nolan. Aside from completely missing the points of the criticism, one might suspect that by this point at least a few of the lapdogs would be starting to recognize just how pathetically lame their continued defence of this government is.

It is unlikely that there was only one possible option available to replace the roof. I would like to assume that the project considered many different technologies and made a selection based on some criteria. It is not too much to ask that the selection process be justified and communicated to the public whose money is being spent.

In fact, on this morning’s news a spokesperson from the BC Taxpayers Association questioned the choice of contractor based not only on the final cost (surprise, surprise), but on the fact there were BC contractors capable of doing the job and able to offer ten, fifteen and even lifetime warranties. Of course, for some it would seem that accountability in government spending is nothing we should be concerned about (it is only tax money after all). Of course the stadium needed a new roof and of course we want a good one, but the audacity to be questioning the decision-making process of this government.

Assume the position ...

[NAB]

How does a $150 million dollar project balloon to over $500 million? Could someone point me to a good article as to what happened? Or for those in the know, why did this happen and why is it okay?

Don’t forget the one year warranty Nolan. Aside from completely missing the points of the criticism, one might suspect that by this point at least a few of the lapdogs would be starting to recognize just how pathetically lame their continued defence of this government is.

It gets rather convoluted nolanrh (not surprising with this government), but perhaps this will help....

DEVELOPMENT COULD PAY FOR B.C. PLACE UPGRADE
January 21, 2010
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures

Vancouver, B.C. - A C$500 million land development deal could provide the revenue needed for an upgrade of B.C. Place, including a C$458 million retractable roof. PavCo chairman David Podmore said the deal was "imminent". The agreement involves 700,000 square feet of development and will be a key element of the retrofit of B.C. Place, which will get its make-over after hosting the opening and closing ceremonies for the Winter Olympic Games.

The provincial government announced this past October that the stadium would get a new, C$458 million retractable roof after the Games and that PavCo Ð the Crown corporation that runs the stadium Ð would pay for the job by developing nearby properties.

Those properties, across False Creek from the Olympic Village, are considered the last undeveloped lands in downtown Vancouver and are in an area that the city calls False Creek North.

In 2008, the city approved changes to the False Creek North Official Development Plan that cleared the way for 1.4 million feet of development capacity on the B.C. Place site and a high-density, mixed use neighborhood to focus around B.C. Place and GM Place.

The B.C. Place retrofit, including upgrades that have already been completed, is budgeted at C$565 million. Once complete, the stadium will feature the largest cable-supported retractable roof in the world.

ETA: Perhaps one day those outside of Vancouver will realize just how their tax dollars are being surreptitiously channeled into Vancouver developers pockets rather than into their own communities on an equitable basis.

[logicalview]

Of course the stadium needed a new roof and of course we want a good one, but the audacity to be questioning the decision-making process of this government.

Assume the position ...

Ah, there it is again.

The more you post this picture the more we think of you.

[NAB]

Of course the stadium needed a new roof and of course we want a good one, but the audacity to be questioning the decision-making process of this government.

Assume the position ...

Ah, there it is again.

The more you post this picture the more we think of you.

While I might be able to be convinced the stadium needed a new roof, I don't easily accept that it needed a half a billion dollar old technology retractable one that leaks.

Nab

[Urbane]

While I might be able to be convinced the stadium needed a new roof, I don't easily accept that it needed a half a billion dollar old technology retractable one that leaks.

Nab

The roof is under warranty and the company that built the roof is saying that the leaks will be repaired within the next couple of weeks. Can you provide a link with an article refuting that? In fairness (in short supply from some of you) the quality of the roof should be judged after the repairs are made. If the roof ends up being a "fast ferry" type disaster then I'll agree with you but I see no evidence to support that. As to the cost it seems on the high side to me as well and would have preferred something more modest. I'm hoping the roof ends up paying for itself in the long run though.

[logicalview]

While I might be able to be convinced the stadium needed a new roof, I don't easily accept that it needed a half a billion dollar old technology retractable one that leaks.

Nab

Well, that's where you guys don't quite "get it".

They did.

Heck, maybe they should have spent more. You know, tear it down and build a $5 billion Gladiator Palace.