I was going to wait to comment after draftnik piped in with his made up figures.
I do not think anything said is a sign that the discussions are not going well. I will say, that Rendell made a huge error in bringing up the ten million and the parking issues, then claiming he does not want to negotiate in the media.
Burkle and Lemieux are now on the defensive - my guess they respond with another trip to KC.
I agree with you when you say that you don't think what transpired this past week is a sign that negotiations aren't going well. As I've said before, it sounds to me like they are in agreement or close to agreement on what are far and away the two main sticking points in this negotiation - the control of the hockey and non-hockey revenue streams at the new building and the contribution to the financing plan from the team.
Onorato has been saying for almost two months now that the elected officials are prepared to offer the team control of all hockey and non-hockey revenue streams at the new building. The only exception to that may be parking, which may be split with Barden, although that's being negotiated right now. Even if they split parking revenues, this deal would still make them significantly more money over the life of the lease than the one in KC would, where they would only control at most 50% of the revenues.
The team's contribution was initially supposed to be $2.9 million a year for 30 years, plus the forfeiture of naming right worth $1.1 milion a year for 30 years. Two media outlets reported on Friday that the team contribution may have been cut to $1.5 million a year for 30 years. That leads me to believe that they're close on a figure there as well, as the Pens have alluded in the past that they'd be open to contributing something at a reduced rate from the initial $4.0 million a year.
As I've said, if the revenues here are comparable to what they would be bringing in in KC - and they should be, given that KC and Pittsburgh are relatively comparable markets - they stand to make a lot more money over the life of the lease here than they do in KC...possibly twice as much. You could be talking about a difference of hundreds of millions of dollars. What they now seem to be haggling over are ancillary costs that would represent a mere fraction of the revenues they would still stand to make.
In other words, even if they disagree with the allocation of some of these costs (especially the relatively short-term costs), I can't imagine that they would kill the deal over them because they could be making so much more here from the comprehensive control of the revenues. It just doesn't seem like it would be worth it in the long term.
I do think you might have your timeline messed up a little. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all parties after the first meeting said they don't want to negotiate through the media, and THEN Rendell spouted off after this second meeting about some of these new issues.