“We get the revenues. Then the servicing of the costs of the bridge and paying the debt of the bridge, and then what’s left over, there’s a split of that for 15 years,” Mr. Carney told CTV last Sunday, adding later: “There’s not going to be a lot of net to split.”

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The official called the new side deal with the U.S. a parallel agreement to the 2012 Canada-Michigan agreement and said it stipulates that an amount equal to half the net revenues from the bridge will be paid into a U.S.-run economic development fund. The mandate of the fund would be to increase economic development and trade between Canada and the U.S., but it will be up to the U.S. how the money is spent, the official said. The official emphasized that the money paid to the United States would not come directly from the toll revenues but would come from Canadian government coffers in an amount equal to half the net revenues from tolls.

[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Net revenues, not gross revenues.

It says that twice

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes but that usually doesn't include debt repayment.

[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

That will come down to contract details and wording. I'm sure we won't be hearing the last of the whining from south of the boarder.

I know in the movie industry the studios started to inflate studio fees as a way to increase movie costs. This was all for the purpose of not having to pay actors for a share of the profits. This only worked so long. Eventually actors started to negotiate for a share of box office revenues and not profits.