Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Yeah, if the details come out that there’s a bunch of non-CSEC event revenue going to the city, including something like naming rights, it makes the deal better to me. Do I think they would have left those major benefits to the city out of the initial announcement? No, unless they’re saving them to announce with some other details that aren’t so flattering to provide some balance. But it’s not like I have any personal stake in the perception of this deal, so if it looks better than it is now that’s nothing but good to me.
I’ve said it before, but I really like the Rivers District. I’ve read through the plans and with or without an arena I think it’s going to be awesome. Do I think it requires an NHL team as the anchor? Absolutely not, so most of my view of this (aside from the POV that there’s just more urgent ways to spend the money atm) is how does this compare to something like a world-class concert hall, or theatre, or something more geared toward how it’s going to be used the other 250-300 days per year.
I think that’s missing from the discussion. Could the deal look better for this specific kind of deal? Yeah, I hope it does. But is this even the best project for this area in this category? I don’t know, I’d like some strong justification for that being true if we’re going to be stuck with a bad deal for it.
|
Exactly it does feel like the city is not being forthcoming with details and whether or not that’s justified I’m also not sure. I’m sure it is difficult culminating a deal with 4 negotiating parties let alone trying to thread the needle with public opinion on top of it too.
Revenue sharing is the biggest piece of the puzzle and cost sharing second. Seems like they have built a more realistic cost estimate this time though so cost overruns less important.
I’m not sure in my own mind what is a good “acceptable” deal, or what’s “fair”.