[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Then they should be able to cover the loan themselves, shouldn't be a need for the city to take on any risk whatsoever if it is this much of a slam dunk, right?

Obtuse argument. A civic or provincial guarantee gets a much more favorable interest rate. Individual companies that don't have established credit lines can't just go into public debt markets and pitch a tent. It's a little more complex than that. By having the guarantee, the bond gets substantially better terms. Also, in the extremely unlikely event that it did go south, it would be a massive ####show to have a civic arena being controlled by private creditors. And the city would likely get sued in that scenario anyway.

It's in their interests to book as many as they can, but what happens if there's another lockout and 800,000 tickets don't get sold?

pretty easy to establish provisions for that in the agreement

Why would it be mandatory in this case? Just because? What if the Flames don't want a mandatory one and instead want more flexibility? We can take it on their word that as arena managers it is in their best interest to keep the Flames around as long as the arena is there. Just like how people seem to trust that the CRL idea is a good funding idea and not a laughably terrible one.

Umm, because the city would demand that in order to agree to the loan provision? They're called negotiations.

I'd point right back to Glendale but you'd probably try to move the goalposts on that one, so there's:

Newark's ridiculous mess http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/0...nd-like-crazy/

And there's the fancy accounting of the American Airlines Arena http://deadspin.com/for-the-first-ti...ent-1469960778

And just for good measure because it came up in the search, North Bay Ontario http://www.nugget.ca/2015/01/29/team...harge-increase


$250M is also unusually large for a ticket tax. Twice as much as Edmonton's and most American funding models package them with a variety of other taxes like sales and tourism taxes (that counties and cities can impose down there, but not up here).

If you think those situations are relevant here, I don't know what to say to you. Just because a couple of deals were poorly negotiated and/or contested on silly items, does not mean that all rental agreements are crap. Believe it or not, there are actually a few sports facilities in NA where the tenants are paying their bills.

Your argument is essentially: here is an example of a bad deal, therefore all these types of deals are bad.

Hating for hating's sake.