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.
|
I don't think that's fair... assuming there is a new building, I have to honestly believe we can agree the Flames aren't folding.
As I thought I understood it, the Flames are taking the loan, with the city co-signing to get a better rate (maybe from the province?).
So the Flames are taking the loan (guaranteed by the city), but it is being repaid by the ticket holders.
I also don't think that's where the city and the Flames are stuck.
I'm my assumptions above are correct, the Flames want the city's 1/3 to be a contribution being repaid by Victoria Park's higher property taxes. The City wants the Flames to repay them the 1/3, and I guess they assume the increased property taxes will go towards offsetting the interest on the loan they take out for their 1/3.
If I'm wrong, can someone please clarify?