Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Are you saying that the city saying it's offer to pay 1/3 is disingenuous because the city wants to recoup it's cost?
Because if that's the case then you need to apply the same logic to the Flames.
They are going to recoup their costs too right? So they aren't paying anywhere near 2/3 or even 90%.
If the criteria for "Paying" is that you don't get any of your money back, then neither side is being very genuine with what they are proposing to pay.
|
Correct. Its a loan, not a donation.
Of course every side wants their money back through the revenue of the asset they are intending to build. If they didnt they wouldnt build it.
Saying the City's contribution to the cost of initial construction isnt worth paying back is almost equivalent to saying that the Flames shouldnt charge for tickets to pay their initial investment back.