Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius
From my understanding, “owning” the building was what CSEC wanted. I might be wrong here, but the CSEC basically wanted none of the risk associated with owning the building, but all of the rewards and profits from any event held there and more as part of their proposal. That seems hugely inequitable. Why would the City take a deal like that? I would be okay with the City paying for the arena as long as the City made money of it, not this “trickle down” stuff that the CSEC was peddling.
|
They don't want to own it, just lease it. That's the same as the present situation. However, the lease they would take on puts pretty much all risk on the lessee, CSEC. For example, CSEC had to cover all the cleanup after the flood. CSEC would be liable for any accidents in the premises. CSEC covers all the maintenance, utilities, security, etc. It's a triple net lease.