I'm sure the entire conversation is more nuanced than this, but it seems where there is disagreement is over whether the city should act like an investor or a bank.
If the city is investing in the new arena, then the 1/3 they contribute shouldn't be paid back. However, they should be entitled to a substantial portion of the profits.
If the city is playing the role of a bank by giving CSEC an interest free loan, then their portion should be paid back and they shouldn't receive any of the profits from revenue generated.
It seems like when it comes to paying the money back CSEC wants to city to take the role of an investor, but when it comes to the profits from the revenue they want to city to be considered a bank.
Honestly, I don't know if I have an opinion either way, if the city should be an investor or a bank, but there should at least be internal consistency.
__________________
"I’m on a mission to civilize." - Will McAvoy
|