Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
I agree with your points & logic - but the point isn't returns are lower in Entertainment, but we don't know what management wants to earn and what they are earning, and what they seek to earn in a new deal. Its all unknowns, and frankly doesn't matter. Management will take a deal that works for their return, and it is up to the city to hold their line on a deal that works for them as well.
|
I don't disagree, they can certainly aim and ask for what they want. I certainly agree we don't have all of the facts and each of us are doing our best to read the tea leaves here.
But to me, it's not really a reasonable position to balk at the other side of the party, and call them so unreasonable to remove themselves from the bargaining table, while presenting an offer that shows minimal sacrifice and appears based on the parameters of using public money to get a sizeable roi (and has been supported by models in this thread that the city's deal is not achievable for the flames to get 10 percent return). On that basis, I don't believe it should be the aim, because such a return leaves the other party in a deficit.
Point being, in studies I have read, investing in sports stadiums is not in an overall basis the best use of resources compared to other opportunities. This deal, and similar other ones, aren't going to achieve that kind of return on an overall basis, and therefore, both sides investing, if they are truly interested in making a fair deal, should be prepared to accept that fact, rather than expect the other side is going to take on all of the risk and lack of returns. Currently neither side appears willing to make that sacrifice. It's not a reasonable position to me to act like you are actually interested in pursuing this without willing to look at the reality of this type of investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk