Excerpt:This fee is between the league and the WHP, it has nothing to do with the city of Janesville or the facility.
4. Risk to Contract
The risk is shared by the team in the fact that the team also is paying an upfront $200,000 franchise fee.
Excerpt:The WHP survey is posted on the taxpayer funded city website.
Community Survey
The WHP conducted a market survey.....
The contract begins on Page 8. Some sections of the contract are laughable.
It looks like taxpayers won't be on the hook for paying WHP's insurance or gametime security, but city staffed services are freebies while money-makers such as refreshment sales, advertising and broadcast rights are written away. No commissions for the city. What rights does the city receive in exchange for this sweet deal? We get to repair and improve our facility, snowplow the lot and walkways and make it safe and available. Per game rental rates ($440) are extremely low for a specialized indoor facility.
At this point in time, posting the memo and contract on the web several days before the council meeting is better than nothing. A thank you to Cheryl R. for alerting me of this information made available on the city Website.
8 comments:
Your graphic is very unfair. Some of those are still being debated (like senior parking), while others are not funded by the city (like sidewalks) and still others are ongoing expenses (like the Tallman House).
True. But unlike the hockey team, none of them had the marketing or the political operatives working inside the ropes of city hall. The Rock Historical Society is not a political operative, neither is the gentleman speaking on behalf of the senior center. And two, many of those other ideas have become pressing issues that stay in the news but are repeatedly dismissed for lack of funding or from opposition to tax increases. And three, nearly all of the others serve the common population with an intrinsic value that cannot be tabulated in dollars or profits for the few. Again, the hockey team skates right in.
So you've given an unfair and unbalanced view of the topic. You're no different than the city. Shame on you. Provide both sides to the story.
I won’t argue. My opinion and counterspin is no more fair than the city’s, the WHP’s or the Gazette’s. However, those three are presenting one side, and one of them claims to be objective. The odds are overwhelmingly against anyone trying to counter their marketing power and perspective and still remain balanced. The difference here of course is I make no claim to objectivity.
But by visiting and reading this webpage, I can say with some certainty that you now have more than one side (perspective) to the story. The balance is up to you.
Shame on the Gazette for NOT informing their readership in weekend editions or their Website that this contract is available on the web. The Janesville city website is a nightmare to navigate, and I thank kaye for posting a direct link.
I can't wait to hear your thoughts on this:
http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/feb/23/finding-name-janesville-hockey-team/
Anyone want to bet the team chooses one of these logos, since they're all done and ready to go?
Thanks for the link. Some might the team has gotten way ahead of themselves, but I think they've been measuring the curtains for some time now.
It looks like a few deep-pocketed individuals noticed an under-utilized asset in the Janesville Ice Arena and came up with an idea to make some money. I’d give them credit for that, marketing themselves to induce a pursuit, and spinning a deal. It all seemed to be in reverse. Once somebody (Janesville) took the bait, they set the hook and reeled in a big fat one. Now they can mount it on the wall and pay their franchise fee.
I'm not at all against a hockey team utilizing the ice arena, that's what it's there for. But the team won't "belong" to Janesville. They can pack up and move out almost at will.
Someday Janesville will hire a manager who will not be content on just breaking even, but market our assets to return tax-lowering profits.
Ooops, I missed the word "think" after "might" in the above comment.
When I recall how the Rock County Board handled the land swap and gift deal two years ago for the 14/51 farmland from the Mulder Group, the pursuit never changed directions. It was up to the speculators to present what they would bring to the table, not the other way around. No one took the bait. The County Board handled it like pro's in my view. The land might have lost some value with the current conditions, but all boats dropped.
Post a Comment