Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
I'm no accountant, but at the end of the day the main issue is how much the purchaser is paying for the finished product. If there is some deficiency that eats into the designer/builder's overhead, I'm not sure that's really a concern to me as a buyer.
In other words, if I have a $30,000 Ford Fusion which has to go in for warranty work to replace the transmission 6 months out, does the car now become a $35,000 car? Maybe in some technical accounting sense yes, but to the world I'd still be driving a $30,000 car.
|
Depends if it was something that was done incorrectly or something that was a design deficiency. If more due diligence were done, and there were no major issues to address afterward, would the original stadium have still cost $213 mill? Or would it have cost $250?
Presumably, Montreal wouldn't be looking at a pre-correction of deficiencies IGF as the comparable here. They would need to consider the full cost of the stadium post remedial work required for complete functionality as the standard.
I'd prefer an example of a home... Say you got a home built for $215k, and the builder screwed up and had to put in $35k of additional fixes/repairs.. Sure you may have still paid $215k (assuming it was all the builder's fault), but the next home built for the next customer isn't going to come at a price tag of $215k, the builder is going to bump it up to $250k as the cost to produce a fully finished home.
I'm guessing it would be somewhere between the 2 figures though... There's likely some demo work that wouldn't have to be done if it were done correctly at the outset.