Hong Kong Disneyland is essentially a joint venture that has required infusion of cash from its co-owners to keep expanding. The joint venture is neither Disney proper nor the government. It’s a separate entity that is co-owned by the two.
Past investments have required them to send money in the portion of the ownership. When the venture ran operational losses, Disney extended them a revolving line of credit. But it was sort of arms length.
It’s theoretically an easier proposition when the venture makes money and can fund itself. Disney (or vice versa) doesn’t need to step through as many hoops. Primarily tax payers having to pony up more money or Disney needing to be reportable to their own shareholders. It’s not that they aren’t reportable to either group, but there’s something more palatable by the venture having its own money and therefore not constantly seeking more external investment from its owners.
Generally it’s a good thing and a good structure… but it’s taken 20 years to get where it should have been rather than 5 or so if the resort was built properly from the start. Politically it plays a lot better, if you own local government has public companies and ventures, you’ll know how popular and unpopular the idea of subsidies can seem.
The resort can, In theory, start also seeking financing more reliably than asking the owners for money. For example, a DCL ship.
