What do you think of this project?

  • I like it a lot

    Votes: 10 47.6%

  • I like it

    Votes: 11 52.4%

  • I neither like nor dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I dislike it a lot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
northlands said:
"Both the Katz Group and Boyle Street declined interviews for this story, but provided written statements saying they're in the midst of trying to resolve the dispute through a private arbitration process."

Not a legal guy whatsoever but for those who know, would a lawsuit help push parties to engage in a private arbitration process? Given how careful Katz Group have been with minding PR of this entire saga, this feels like the nuclear option.
Click to expand...
What nuclear option is worth trying to sink a homelessness serving organization to save your 2 Billion dollar corporation a one time $5 mil donation? I can't see anyway this isn't anything but petty.

I personally know how hard Boyle has worked to fundraise for the King Thunderbird and that the fundraising was their biggest concern because they know how much donor fatigue there is at this time of social and economic turmoil. People often seem to be under the impression non-profits should be able to just "fundraise more" to solve resource concern without understanding the mismatch between need and how few donor dollars are actually out there. I used to work with one of the larger and more successful donor funded non-profits in town and the amount of work and $ they put in is incredible, at one point the the Director of Donor Development told me they saw a return of $1.20 for every $1 spent fundraising.
 
northlands said:
"Both the Katz Group and Boyle Street declined interviews for this story, but provided written statements saying they're in the midst of trying to resolve the dispute through a private arbitration process."

Not a legal guy whatsoever but for those who know, would a lawsuit help push parties to engage in a private arbitration process? Given how careful Katz Group have been with minding PR of this entire saga, this feels like the nuclear option.
Click to expand...
I'm also not "a legal guy" but it's worth noting that the nuclear option was commenced/filed last November even though it's just being reported now. As noted above, this is regarding a potential additional $5m, not clawing back any of the support that's already been given both in cash and in kind.

From my perspective, if you do give a "contingency commitment", you need to be able and prepared to fund it when the time comes. In this case the "able" isn't really in question so it's a matter of prepared to or not with the answer being not. This is a classic dilemma when it comes to contingency agreements and contingency commitments.

From my perspective, if there is a contingency commitment that you would prefer not to fund (which is the underlying rationale for providing a contingency commitment and not a donation) then you should have some rather direct involvement if not outright control over the venture being backstopped (the additional fundraising in this case). That way if you fail, you fund but you control your destiny. If you're not prepared to accept that responsibility or take on that commitment, then you need to rely on the other party to perform and should be fully prepared to fund if they fail. I would assume there were certain undertakings and best effort requirements and probably some reporting obligations from Boyle Street and it would seem Katz Group now wants to make the case that those obligations weren't met. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't but if they weren't that didn't happen on an end date. Was Katz aware and if so were concerns expressed that were ignored which is what resulted in the action being filed? All of that will come out in court or it will get resolved directly or through arbitration or mediation and little if anything will be made public on the why and how even though the result will be public even if simply in Boyle Street's public financial reporting.

In any case, for most of us it would appear that Katz will lose more than $5M in "good will" here but they already have a reputation for playing hardball and for being litigious that would indicate "good will" is not necessarily the highest priority. Which is a shame.
 
Exploding on the socials and is a very, very bad look for them.

I suspect we have not heard anywhere near the end of this.
 
bodsbods9090 said:
Well yeah, a billionaire complaining about $5 million will never look good.
Click to expand...
I can understand their argument that they felt the organization should have worked harder to get other donations and perhaps they even really believe it, but they gave a backstop and now to try take it away is really not a good look.
 
So we all agree Katz is the bad guy because. Charity. If I was a multi millionaire and donated millions of dollars to a charity with the understanding that they find matching grants and not use me as a cash cow and they failed to live up to that understanding I would be pissed no matter how much I was worth. I think we should reserve judgment.
 
^It's possible that's right, or it's possible there are five million other reasons why the Katz Group is taking this position. None of us -- being non-parties to this dispute -- are in a position to ascertain the truth. I can say that the Katz Group has benefited from extremely generous public subsidies with the arena deal, so this sort of fight with a charity serving the most downtrodden of Edmontonians, personally, strikes me as petty in the extreme, even if they do have some merit to their position.
 
Hate to say it but with the issues in that area, I'd rather it be torn down and left as a lot over being broken into by the homeless and potentially causing issues like a fire or vandalism.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top