View Single Post
Old
11-20-2012, 01:22 PM
  #873
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
And how do you propose they condense four years worth of tough questions down to fit a 4 1/2 minute news interview spot?

The answer is you can't.
Simple. Just 3 questions.

You are paying GJ all this money in addition to the paying of the bonds for the building of the arena. How much revenue are you receiving from events at the arena?

If this is such a good deal and business proposition, why has it taken 3 years and providing a subsidy to get anyone interested and no one closing?

Why do the numbers change with every single proposed owner and lease deal though you are using the same source of information?



Quote:
Originally Posted by GF View Post
Clark:"With the Coyotes gone, we lose the revenue..." Is she talking about the 2.4m$ in revenue? I wish the reporter would ask how much revenue are you gonna lose, I'd be curious to know what numbers would have come out of Clark's mouth. And then says without those revenues they are gonna need to cut expenses. As if the Coyotes are the cure to Glendale's financial problems!!!

She really tried to downplay the costs for the city. Jamieson can buy the arena, the AMF is down to 11m$ etc... Does she believe herself? I'm starting to question what's in it for her... if you know what I mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
A big part of the "mistake" was that the COG didn't expect that they would have to pay $15 million a year to secure a hockey team for the Jobing.com. Now that the reality is sinking in, some are now rethinking the original business and development model. Clark is not. I think that's fine. Her vision, and that of other council members, is centered on keeping the Coyotes, even if it means a large subsidy. That's their prerogative and if they can convince citizens to support them and do this legally, then I'm all for it. I like hockey.

What is objectionable is the way in which she and other council members and the city administration has so consistently misrepresented the actual cost of the deals and the exaggerated claims about the financial benefits. Maybe the electorate become just educated enough to realize that they didn't want to re-elect a council member who would play fast and loose with the facts and act without conveying a sense of fiscal responsibility. If she wants to educate the citizens, give them the facts, not some cooked up version that supports your position.
Two excellent points.

Tommy Hawk is offline