Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
YMMV but folk don't generally play hot potato "you own it, no you own it, no you own it..." with valuable assets like the two of them did.
Who owns it is really an ancillary issue... I think it was pretty clear that the City wanted to be made whole on it's investment (and they were willing to take a liberal interpretation of "made whole" at that) I don't imagine the current council feels any different so all the Flames (or anyone else) have to do is offer up a % of revenue streams that accomplishes that.
|
This is wrong on three levels, sorry:
1) They don't push it back and forth. CSEC cannot own the arena, because it is being built on the land, which cannot be subdivided and sold off with the building. So, the ownership question is not trivial, ancillary or irrelevant. The expected appreciation of the land value alone in 40 years could be reasonably expected to support the City's decision to contribute.
2) City's contribution should be based PRIMARILY on its belief in the value of having an NHL franchise. Financial considerations of this ownership come secondary and must be evaluated on the balance of cost of this contribution vs. (direct financial returns + indirect financial returns + non-financial returns). The latter variable is difficult to quantify, of course, because it is zero to people who don't care about it and very high to those who do.
3) % of revenue streams cannot be offered by CSEC, period. You probably meant % of profits, which is meaningful. But this means ownership. And ownership means being on the hook for the liabilities, losses and other obligations, which come with ownership. The City does not want to be in this business and it shouldn't.