Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
Yeah, but it's the City that gets the borrowed money and is obligated to repay. Sure it is designed to be repaid through ticket surcharges but if the Flames fold in 5 years the City is on the hook for this amount regardless if the building sits empty or not. Risk of borrowing is on the City so that's why I count it on them. At least that's the way the Edmonton deal worked, surcharges went to the City to repay the loans.
|
There's two components - the ticket tax and the City "contribution". I think the City actually doesn't gets the borrowed money in either case. They use their credit to enable the Flames to borrow it. The risk of borrowing is on both the Flames and the City.
Unless the City actually borrows on its own and then lends to the Flames. But I don't think that's what's proposed.