I sometimes have to wonder it all the experts interjecting with their wisdom and outlook on the debate even take the time to read the materials available on the discussion.
The "drop your pants" crowd consider a 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 model unfair if the evil City insists on recouping at least a portion of their investment from a revenue sharing model of some kind.
Meanwhile, not a one of them address this line from the Jason Markusoff Macleans article.
Quote:
|
Nenshi’s council has reportedly offered to pay roughly one-third of the arena’s costs, with another third coming from a ticket surcharge and the rest from the Flames organization. The Flames refused, in part because King reasons that proceeds from a ticket surtax should be considered part of the owners’ contribution. In the club’s offer, the owner contribution and user fee would come closer to half the total cost, and public fu≈nds would cover the rest.
|
http://www.macleans.ca/author/jason-markusoff/
I mentioned this possibility yesterday.
So if the Flames offer is $50 million cash from CSEC, $200 million from a ticket tax and $250 million in the form of a gift from the City, are the CSEC still onside with the owners?