Oakland Raiders Las Vegas Stadium Shows $27 Million Annual Loss With BofA Loan

Oakland Raiders Las Vegas Stadium Shows $27 Million Annual Loss With BofA Loan Video

Oakland Raiders Las Vegas Stadium Shows $27 Million Annual Loss With BofA Loan In the original Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee Staff Model that was presented to the SNTIC on July 11, 2016, the document issued to the SNTIC reported that of the $264 million in expected total annual stadium revenue for the planned NFL Oakland Raiders UNLV Facility, 11.7 percent was retained by the stadium operator, or $31.14 million per year (page 16 of the SNTIC document here: http://ift.tt/2jsYFAl) With that SNTIC Model, what would the impact be of a Bank Of America loan of $650 million over 20 years, with the interest rate at 414 basis points on the annual stadium operating cash flow? Inserting that those loan terms into a spreadsheet of the SNTIC model, the free stadium operating cash flow that was at $5,427,364 is now at -$27,072,104. In other words, the Las Vegas Oakland Raiders Stadium Project starts out in the red by -$27 million. How can we change this so the project balances at zero, let alone show a surplus cash flow? Well, the original SNTIC Model had $12 million of annual debt service, but never really explained where that came from. So let's, for the sake of argument, eliminate it, and have only the Bank Of America annual loan debt of $32.5 million. The result is still a negative stadium cash flow to the tune of -$15,072,104. The question is, what is taken out of that $264 million? Well, the SNTIC report said that the NFL Team got 70.8 percent of all non-event revenues, or the net of Naming Rights, Catered Events, Team Online Sales, Advertising & Sponsorship, Facility Tours, Non-Team Game Day Sales – the stadium operator retained 27.5 percent, with advertising and sponsorship revenues the most critical items. The Raiders Rent Issue Causes A Bigger Problem For Stadium Cash Flows Of the $31 million in annual total stadium revenue retained by the stadium operator, $8,992,037 was facility rent. So since the Raiders don't want to pay rent according to their proposed lease, let's, for the sake of argument, take that out of our SNTIC-based model, too. That leaves the stadium cash balance at a negative -$24,064,141. The only way the Oakland Raiders could even realize a better cash balance is to give up its entire expected share of annual suite revenue, or $22 million, either in the base case with the SNTIC $12 million debt, or the example where facility rent was set to zero, and the SNTIC $12 million debt was removed. In the latter instance, the cash balance is still negative, although it's -$2 million. Bank Of America is a mouth to feed here, because the debt casues the Oakland Raiders to part with a giant revenue stream. Even if Bank Of America elected to trade naming rights for the bond, then that is money the Raiders would give up. In the SNTIC Model, naming rights were assumed to be $7.38 million annually, of which the Raiders retained $5.53 million and stadium operator $1.84 millon, or a total of $221.4 million over 30 years. If Bank Of America elected to exchange a loan for naming rights (which is unheard of) they would undoutedly want so much of the stadium branded that it could crowd out other sponsorship deals. And how would that impact supposed stadium partner UNLV? In short, working to shift the shares of revenue to fit this loan proves to yield more negative outcomes for the stadium cash flow for the proposed NFL stadium. The only real way to solve the problem is via external development, and that's not at all in the proposal at this point. And if it were, the developer would still seek a percentage. With stadium costs as high as they are, you have to share revenues – you have to feed more than one mouth. This deal, absent development, does not pencil out without some major sacrafices. More development, more suites, equals a question of if the already flimsy Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Economy can create demand for them – if it can't, then the deal is even worse. It's a bad deal. Stay tuned. Scribd: http://ift.tt/2ocr67M
via IFTTT
https://youtu.be/WJZon84nZkQ