Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I'm not saying that the Edmonton deal is 50/50. I am saying that if you asked Katz or if Katz was selling the deal to Council he would say he is putting up 50% of the cost. He is not but that is how you would sell it
So when I here King say 50/50 without detail. I wonder where the screw job is coming from. Is land in or out of 50-50, in CalgaryNext land was not included in Kings numbers.. When CalgaryNext was "50/50" but really was 800/450 much closer to 2/3 1/3 you can see why one would believe the 50/50 offer when getting the details will look much closer to Edmontons deal then really 50/50.
And this still doesn't consider an 8 million dollar per year tax subsidy. Until King releases details I will continue to assume that he has left costs off of the table to make his numbers look better.
|
Oh, this is all on the Flames? Are you forgetting Nenshi's Rule of Thirds offer, that turned into a 100% Flames financed arena, because the City's contribution was really a loan? Funny how details matter on one side, but not the other. Both sides are playing games here. Let's not try to suggest one side is the victim when both are taking turns trying to tie the other to railway tracks.