And I know for a fact that it doesn't take $265M per year in Gross Revenue to get the debt holders and equity investors their money out with standard returns to both. It would take about $80M, and that is without a dime of capital contribution from the state. If you can't get that, why should anyone pay any attention to what you say. This project is to build a large, capital intensive, PUBLIC building. The same thing as building a park, a library, a museum, a new bridge, a tunnel, or a courthouse. When the government "invests" in those things they don't expect 20% margins. To set that as the benchmark shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Debt issuers aren't expecting 20% returns. It's a building, not a business in an off itself. A special purpose corporation is set up. It doesn't have any profit or loss responsibility, it's purpose is to obtain funding, manage the construction, and manage the enterprise in a manner that the debt holders and equity get their money out with reasonable returns. The purpose is to cover operations and debt service, that's it, not make a dime in profit after that. The private investors require a reasonable return on the investment, but they make the bulk of their money on the construction or the concession, not on the building itself. Now the business case might be that there isn't $80M in business, and that's where the hard decisions have to be made, that's where the need of capital contributions or revenue support agreements come in. Can direct investments from the public be justified on the basis of trades, additional tax revenues, ancillary development, good will, tourism, come in. That's a legitimate question. But to make it a question of hundreds of millions vs tens is absurd and shows you just don't get it.
