Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Again, semantics. Both sides agree that the Flames would be covering that somehow.
|
Well that's just it. They don't. City sees $150M of that as a user charge, and $100M as the Flames portion. So to the city, what side of that $25M does it fall into?
The Flames see it as all theirs so I guess it doesn't matter to them that they can't add and follow their own financial proposal, but the expectation is that the city will still finance part of their contribution. So is the city financing $150M of that or $175M of it?
But more than that, they're highlighting that the Flames can't add.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Both sides masking it?
The city's proposal explicitly states the team would be paying property taxes.
The Flames proposal is trying to mask paying their proposed portion of construction debt as 'rent' and nothing on top of it.
One side is masking it.