[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Again, you're looking at this in an apples to apples approach.

What makes it work in Winnipeg isn't the arena itself. Lets say it cost $500m for either arena. Winnipeg pays for it all and makes it work and only earns 1% return on the new arena (bear with me), assuming you could see arenas return alone. So CSEC says, nope, 100% doesn't work, nor does the 1/3 model, because they need to earn 10% return.

From your perspective, Winnipeg made it work at 1% and CSEC is being greedy because they want to hold out to 10%.

Ignoring the fact that they may have different risk profiles and costs of capital, the value in Winnipeg isn't from a new arena, it was from the ability to get the team at all. Winnipeg (TNSE) may have sacfiriced to make only 1% on the arena, because the real return for that ownership group comes from the value of the franchise as a whole and its increased value. So they either ate a lower return or got no team at all. CSEC isn't in the same position.

When does it become public duty to make their business successful?