Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
It’s very hard to present a different funding model if there is literally no negotiation happening. The willingness to talk about a new funding model is explicit in the Notice of Motion. So, I’m puzzled by your statement (and the Flames’)
|
You've moved to the private side, you should know better, Bunk.
Flames' ownership would have had some basis for optimism if the City had expressed firm commitment to change their stance on public funding. When a vendor's response to the offer is "not good enough", it signifies that the vendor is either not motivated or not interested. Either option is a showstopper to any bona fide purchaser, unless they purposely lowballed and are really keen on making a deal. Flames' response to-date has been "we have not lowballed, this was a fair offer and we are not that keen anymore". It is absolutely in the City's court to signal the willingness to revive the negotiations by actually offering a counter-proposal that includes public funding instead of just saying that they are willing to negotiate. Otherwise, for the Flames organization, it's just negotiating with shadows. This is the key difference, I believe.
Notwithstanding all of the above, I also think that they should avoid these public statements until there's something to report. The conversation should be re-started privately and quietly.