Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
I may have misunderstood, but per the City proposal the Flames would front the 1/3 attributable to the "ticket tax"/user fee. Then they would recoup it from the patrons. Thus, I can see why King would say the Flames are paying for it. Whatever price the Flames wind up charging for the tickets is what they could have charged regardless, whether they are trying to recoup $185M or $370M - thus, clearly it comes out of their pocket from their perspective. If the City fronts or loans or guarantees a loan for that 185 and recoups it from the surcharge, it's a different story.
|
In price theory - assuming maximizing revenue, whether the City or the Flames fronts the ticket tax recovered portion - the (profit-driving) revenue the Flames see is the same. In either scenario money is earmarked to pay back the lender. The matter is more who backstops the loan - I.e - whose debit obligation - City or Flames. It's the presence of the ticket tax that affects ongoing revenue - but it was their proposal from the start.