Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Holding somewhat stagnant may be a better number, but even with a modest grown of say 5% and running it out for the whole life of the new building at 35 years, and then selling it that year the discounted value of that increase is only $62M
Doesn't do much to the $285M loss to go it alone.
|
To me, anyway, that's the biggest takeaway from this exercise. It doesn't make sense for ownership to got it alone. As you pointed out earlier, it doesn't make sense for the ownership to break even and hand the entire loss to the city either. It demonstrates that the City/Prov/Fed or whatever combination thereof need to contribute something less than zero to make this work. Which I think (hope) everyone knows.
I would contend something similar with regards to the gravy train of the past vs. the jumping of the shark today. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Figuring out where in the middle with any degree of accuracy what that growth might be, what the government should/could chip in, what that means to the return ownership gets and how much of that franchise appreciation it enjoys when/if it sells - that's why the deal is complicated. The stakes are high, and calculating wrong could really sting any involved party.