Quote:
Originally Posted by heep223
The Flames don't need the city to lend them money, they can do that on their own. They want the city to put in equity, and that's why anything resembling a loan from the city with repayment isn't worth peanuts to them.
|
If by "equity" you mean purchasing a share of the business without receiving equity appreciation, voting rights or dividends... then yes.
Ultimately this is where the Flames' proposal bugs me (and likely many people) the wrong way. You can't be a for-profit business and ask people to contribute equity and receive absolutely no financial compensation in return.
I'd be much more open to a Flames proposal if they provided some type of direct return to the city from the club itself. Even if it meant the city paying (hypothetically) 50% of the cost and receiving a disproportionately low (say 5%) of the net profits.
Their proposal is like Zuckerberg saying "hey, buy these shares of facebook that don't have voting rights! In return, you get... to use facebook!" Except this deal is even worse.