Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
That’s interesting. For all those people that looked at this and concluded it is either a good deal or bad deal for taxpayers, I’m guessing they had their mind made up in advance.
|
This is fair, but it's pretty hard to imagine the reality of the actual final deal works out better for taxpayers than what is now presented. It's in all parties' interest to present this as favourably as possible (ie. exaggerate CSEC contribution, minimize public funds)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamenator
Most observers and policymakers seem not to grasp just how massively franchise values have jumped in recent years. If I were in the room, I would have hammered this point over and over: with this deal, the Flames' franchise valuation is going to jump at least $350 million, maybe more. The city doesn't see any of that value (nor should it). It feeds entirely to the owners in terms of net worth, borrowing and purchasing power, etc. In this sense, it's fair to expect CSEC to contribute at least half the upfront/financing costs in order to achieve that outcome, or to at least provide clearer and more robust pathways for the city to access some of the revenue generated by the new facility over the next 35 years.
CSEC's play worked, and they make out like bandits here. I am happy there will be a new rink, but the last deal was so much better for the city.
|
Just curious why you think the bolded? It's a pretty standard business arrangement to sell shares in a corporation in exchange for investment. It would only be a paper transaction unless/until the club is ever sold, and would make a ton of sense for the city for the next time the extortion game comes around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal and True
The way I see it, previous City leaders (edit - including Gondek) blew it. Scored a few political points in the short term but eventually the city needs the event centre and is fortunate to receive $750 million from tenant over 35 years. Would have saved a lot of money if they hadn't played "chicken" with this file.
On the other hand, provincial money for the expanded scope is saving grace for the current city leaders so they can save face.
|
Presuming you mean the red herrings when the deal fell apart, why do you believe CSEC wouldn't simply keep demanding more and more and more if the city bent entirely on those items?