Quote:
Originally Posted by mikephoen
You may or may not be fired if a deal falls apart, I would assume a lot of factors would be considered. I'm certain you would be fired if you caved on every point and just handed over a few hundred million to the other party with no chance of ever getting value back.
|
As I mentioned, you have to agree upon some principles at the start whether its purchase price/defn of Assets or in this case whether each side believes that the Flames bring direct and indirect benefits to the City. If the parties agree upon that then you are starting from the same spot and you are negotiating/evaluating the size of those benefits which then will lead to the size of investment and allocation of revenue streams. I haven't seen the detailed economics of either proposal (and I would expect everyone on this Board is in the same position) so its difficult to judge either position other than saying each proposal doesn't pass the eye test (not sure we can go as far as you suggested in saying the City hands over a few hundred million without getting value back). The main point, if Francis's (who I'm not a fan of) quotes are correct, is that the parties don't agree on the fundamental issue of whether the Flames bring direct and indirect benefit to the City. If that's correct then there is no point in discussing level's of investment or allocation of revenue streams.