Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Edmonton public funding contribution deal is so far more beneficial to Oilers, it's not even a fair argument here. Flames' proposal was much more modest in comparison.
|
... what?
The funding ratio is basically the same. The only difference was that the Flames owners offered the whole amount upfront while Katz financed it in the form of rent (The Flames were also demanding a laundry list of other goodies that likely more then offset any time value of money differences between the two offers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
The "why" question has been answered. A reasonable offer requires a reasonable counter-offer to keep the negotiations alive.
|
Yes, and from my perspective the Flames 1st offer was "Katz Funding Ratio" and their last offer was "Katz Funding Ratio". Where was their reasonable counter-offer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
There has been no publicly-expressed movement on the City's side acknowledging even a possibility of non-refundable public contribution to a new arena.
|
... which is the only sane premise when evaluating a business partnership proposal IMO. Regardless there has been no publicly-expressed movement on the Flames side suggesting they want anything less then the City to take a fiscal bath = to half the project cost.