Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
1) They don't push it back and forth.
|
They absolutely did. Do you not remember the dueling proposals that saw the city propose a structure that saw CSEC owning it and CSEC proposing that the City own it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
2) City's contribution should be based PRIMARILY on its belief in the value of having an NHL franchise.
|
That's just an opinion. CSEC is a business... if they want the city to make an investment in their operations then they need to make a business case to the City as a potential investor. I won't deny that there is an element of sentimentality involved but sentimentality only goes so far. Which for the city seems to be "we want to break even or at least appear to break even" so the sentimentality is essentially
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
3) % of revenue streams cannot be offered by CSEC, period. You probably meant % of profits
|
Revenue actually. I said streams because in the agreement they spelled out what operations the money came from (2% ticket price user fee, x dollars from naming, etc. etc.). I mean it makes sense to me... if the investment is greater then the return should likewise escalate.