View Single Post
05-15-2013, 09:26 AM
Registered User
Worraps's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,061
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
This is the key point of disagreement in this specific exchange. You stated:

For one Katz has a below market interest rate to work on in what is a very long amortization period. Neither of which he could obtain from a bank and especially for no money down.
Two, as mentioned Katz is getting a 2M/yr "kickback" for "advertising" on a facility the city owns. Please explain why the city should have to be paying that stipend. Next Katz has naming rights on a facility he doesn't own. Somebody explain that to me. Finally, this is a purported investment of some sort and Katz obtains all revenue from all events at the facility. Again more than "'fair share".

So Katz really isn't paying back anything out of pocket here.
Personally I don't agree with the City spending any money on advertising anywhere.

But given that they do, $2 M spent advertising at what is essentially the City's window to the rest of the world makes sense.

Worraps is offline