Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
They're separating it away because it wasn't included as either the owner's $100M or the ticket tax's $150M as a part of the overall $275M in the Flames proposal. There was $25M without a funding source in the Flames proposal.
|
Again, semantics. Both sides agree that the Flames would be covering that somehow.
Quote:
Except it isn't the same. The city's proposal has the team owning the building paying property taxes (but therefore no rent/lease, because why would they?).
The Flames proposal has the city owning the building (therefore no property taxes) but the Flames also paying no rent.
One side has a way for the city to recoup their investment. The other doesn't.
|
Well, yes, that's the heart of the dispute: The end goal from the city is that the team repays the entire cost through various means while the team's goal is that some percentage (just over 40% based on their pie chart) is never repaid. That doesn't change the fact that in the City's proposal it would still be a cost to the Flames. That tax/lease/rent dispute is the heart of the issue. It's disingenuous on the part of both sides to try and mask it for PR purposes.