Die Vereinbarung zur Aufteilung der Einnahmen auf der Gordie-Howe-Brücke scheint im Widerspruch zu Carney zu stehen
Gordie Howe bridge revenue-sharing agreement appears to contradict Carney
Die Vereinbarung zur Aufteilung der Einnahmen auf der Gordie-Howe-Brücke scheint im Widerspruch zu Carney zu stehen
Gordie Howe bridge revenue-sharing agreement appears to contradict Carney
33 Kommentare
Uh oh. Carney is dangerously close to finding out that he can lie and absolutely nothing will happen
Same BS articles that don’t clarify anything being posted here ten times a day?
How many times is this going to be posted anyways?
This is bizarre, seems like a crazy misstep. If your going to concede bridge revenue at least do it as part of the bigger trade deal. I’d rather this bridge sit unused for 2 years then agree to this deal.
“Appears to contradict Carney” gentlemen, can we get a single news source capable of calling a spade a spade?
The word we’re looking for is “liar”.
Guys we can’t keep posting the article 10 times a day if there is no new news
Would Carney really do that? Just talk to Canadians and tell lies?
This guy is a sell out to Trump, smh
It’s not clear where the debt repayment and interest comes from. If it’s buried in the company that runs the bridge such that it is included in the “operating costs”, Carney’s statements make sense. But we don’t know. Maybe the Canadians know this and hoped it wouldn’t come out until after it was fully open, before Nutlick realized what they agreed to.
A super intelligent politician lying!
I wrote to our (F)iberal MP asking for the details and an explanation. Everyone one should so they realize that you can fool some of the people, some of the time and maybe all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time!
Very unimpressive. And strange. Not something that wouldn’t ever leak…
Why not just mothball the bridge until 2029?
This deal proves that any deal with the US is worthless. The original deal wasn’t great for Canada to begin with but now we somehow end up owing them money for a bridge we paid to build.
Weird. We just used to call that lying.
>Portions of it appear to contradict what Prime Minister Mark Carney has said about how money will be split and how much the U.S. will get before Canadians are repaid for the debt of the bridge.
I’ve seen some lobs but man they’re really putting the soft gloves on.
If what Carney said isn’t the truth (and now we have two separate accounts of it plus the document), just say so.
The fact that it took all this heat to force the government to be transparent should already be a red flag.
People aren’t going to be pressed we got a bad deal.
People will be pressed if you talk from both sides of your mouth AND get caught.
Carney said he’d give Trump 50% of net revenue.
Bridge won’t make any net revenue until it’s paid off.
Carney just made a deal so Trump could brag about something
We’re going to have to have a speech from MacKinnon soon talking about “tin foil hats”
I don’t understand what’s contradictory here. It’s net revenues that are split. Those are also called… profits. Profit only occurs after costs have been paid off.
This article is making semantics of the fact that the agreement doesn’t explicitly say that net revenues are accounting for bridge construction costs but usually profit is… after costs. So I don’t really understand the confusion.
edit: it also specifically notes that:
*“Nothing in this Agreement in Principle shall be interpreted as amending, modifying or superseding the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement or the ownership, governance and financial framework established thereunder,” it says.*
To me it’s plain that the original agreement had revenues accounting for bridge construction costs and the new agreement only accounts for what occurs after those costs are paid.
Wow he lied again. Shocking.
Phew!
Well so long as it only „Appears to“
well, he lied. I’ve been a supporter but this is very disappointing. Good Value(s) there.
that appears in the title is doing a lot of heavy lifting, if they knew he was lying they wouldnt be tip toeing around it, they know he didnt lie and want to rush out as many headlines about it while they still can
Why is everyone on Reddit so desperate to make this a big deal?
Operating costs plus debt servicing should mean no net revenues?
Ya but what about how bad the deal would be if Pierre made kit ? /S
The new agreement has „Canada“ paying 50% of its net revenues to the US development fund for the first 15 years. It also has a clause saying the new agreement doesn’t supersede the financial framework of the 2012 agreement.
The financial framework of the 2012 agreement has „Canada“ receiving its revenues from the „Crossing Authority“, which is a separate entity from „Canada“, and one of the *3 parties* signed on to the agreement (the other 2 being „Canada“ and „Michigan“.
***This side agreement is with only one of those 3 parties: „Canada“, not the „Crossing Authority“ or „Michigan“.***
The „Crossing Authority Costs“ is defined in the 2012 agreement as including the debt, and their net revenue is the „Crossing Authority Revenue“ minus the „Crossing Authority Costs“. „Canada“ (and „Michigan“) only receives revenue (distributed annually) when the „Crossing Authority“’s net revenue is above $0.
Therefore, under the financial framework of the 2012 agreement (which again, the new agreement specifies it *does not supersede*), until the „*Crossing Authority“* is made whole on their debt, „*Canada“* will not receive any annual disbursements of revenue from the bridge, and will therefore have no net revenue of their own to contribute to the US fund.
[https://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/MI_Canada_Crossing_Agreement_FINAL.pdf](https://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/MI_Canada_Crossing_Agreement_FINAL.pdf)
So he was just lying.
>“Nothing in this Agreement in Principle shall be interpreted as amending, modifying or superseding the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement or the ownership, governance and financial framework established thereunder,” it says.
I’m confused by this part. So they do have to pay the debt according to that agreement?
So, he lied? Quick, give him 1,000,000 more votes for a super majority, he deserves it. That’s what Canadians do, right?
It becomes a point we have to conclude Carney cant handle Trump and Canada needs a different strategy. Doug ford should be sent to the White House to negotiate.
Last time Doug promised tarrifs on American energy, Howard Lutnick came running and Trump called Doug a strong man
He should have just been honest that leaving the bridge closed will cause more economic harm than changing the payback strategy, but instead he tried to play it like a win, that’s the issue
This was a no win scenario. Carney could have handled it better but we lose on this one no matter how you cut it. Like it or not, the bridge touches down onto US soil which brings the crazy into play at the moment.
I dislike the deal, but dig our heels in for 2 (maybe more?) years and mango’s buddy who owns the ambassador bridge gets exactly what he wants – no competition.
Getting it open has become a loss leader for the benefit of international trade, and yet another valuable lesson on negotiations with a crocodile.
Definitely need to grill him on this. Disappointing that he feels he can lie
It says Carney originally claimed sharing 50% on profit
Wording is sharing on revenue less operating expenses . I’m not an accountant … but isn’t that equal to PROFIT if there is no further investment in the project ???