View Single Post
Old 04-25-2018, 06:22 PM   #5308
CaptainYooh
Franchise Player
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
No, not major... sole... sole tenent. Major would imply that there would be other tenants and there would not be. The cost of the lease is the sum total revenue the city the presumed owner here would receive and the Flames are proposing that sum total be NEGATIVE $275,000,000.00. There isn't even a chance that the city will even break even on the Flames proposal.
Sure. That is if all of the following apply:

  1. The value of the land going back to the City at the end of the lease is zero or negative.
  2. The value of the building going back to the City at the end of the lease is zero or negative.
  3. There is no positive growth of property and business tax revenues over the duration of the lease to the City from properties developed and re-developed as a result of a new arena.
And, of course, if there is a zero "pride value" placed on having an NHL franchise in Calgary.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
CaptainYooh is offline