It seems like the basis of Graswich's argument is that no arena can be built if nobody is going to foot the bill. In and of itself, that is a sound argument. The question really should be whether or not anybody will foot the bill. And wouldn't financing be a fundamental part of the proposition on the 27th? He assumes that financing does exist and cannot be procured. I'd like to wait at least until hearing the proposal's financing plans before coming to that conclusion.
That's why I say RE just made up what he thinks will be presented on Friday and then goes into a rant about it. He has no better idea than us about what will be actually presented as the proposal.
What I liked, is he rants about how the consultants will present essentially a fake, baseless plan (smoke/mirrors) with no financing plan, then say they are working hard so they can get more billable hours.
What he fails to point out is that the Maloofs are paying for this up front consultant work, not the taxpayers. If the deal doesn't go, they lose that money. Of course, that wouldn't give him a reason to hate on the Maloofs, would it? Up front costs are one of the main risks for any developer. You can put a lot of money in upfront, with no guarantee a deal actually pans out.
My understanding is that it is coming with a plan to finance it, although it is dependent on the economy improving. Since any ground-breaking is pretty far away, there is time to see if the economy is going to turn in the next year or two.
The one thing the Cal Expo board has said is, even though there will be a financial feasibility study presented by the NBA, they will have their own financial feasibility study done, once they have the proposal.