Fair ball. It's not a model or notion I'm that familiar with - but it has some surface appeal. Thanks for the insight.
More than anything just trying to inject some thought of innovation or creativity into a conversation that will need those involved to think outside entrenched positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjesse
If you'd like to discuss or PM over why partial citizenship ownership will never, ever be acceptable to the Flames, and that the Flames are totally correct in never, ever allowing it, let me know. I opine that it would become a complete disaster over time.
1/4 citizen ownership would come with minority shareholder rights that would eventually absolutely sink the governance of the Flames, and lead to an uncertain outcome for the majority's share. That 1/4 could rally and wreak havoc in court if they felt they weren't being treated fairly, and it would lead to a major dispute that could wind up the corporation entirely.
Its a really nice thought in principle. Have the citizens part owners, be partners! In reality it the minority rights would tend to drop the value of the team from a marketability point of view with lots of other problems. You could paper the deal as much as you want there would still be too much risk to the majority. Their ability to control a unique asset is part of the actual value of the franchise.
100% ownership by the city could work on the other hand, if one thinks the city should own such an asset. At least then the internal fights could be controlled.
|