Maybe I am dazed and confused by attending too many consulations on Lansdowne but there seem to be some obvious loose ends. We need better understanding of two questions of definition in the Lansdowne redevelopment proposal.
The first is defining what is needed to upgrade the stadium and civic centre. It seems that OSEG, the project proponents, are defining what is to be done. Just how crucial are VIP suites to the success of football? How important is it to install wider seats in the stadium?
The reason for my concern is that OSEG decides what is done; OSEG gets the contract to do it and the city pays for whatever OSEG defines as required. We do not seem to be challenging the extensive nature of the renovation. If we look at some other apparently successful CFL football teams and OHL hockey teams, we might rethink what needs to be done.
My second concern about definition centres around the phrase "net cashflow". The panels on display at the public consultations say "The proposed partnership agreement would see the net cashflow of the stadium, retail and parking operations shared between the City (MSC) and the OSEG according to a formula." The formula is of course the famous waterfall which provides for the City to be paid last.
But maybe being paid last does not matter if there is no "net cashflow". Depending on how we define "net cashflow", it would be easy for OSEG to charge management and like fees to such an extent that no "net cashflow" is ever generated. My examination of the documents released to date give no indication that terms and conditions for establishing "net cashflow" will be established. Failure to do so could be the equivalent of signing a blank cheque.
Clearer definition is needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment