Ok, let me address this because it's the second time I've seen it come up:Do I think SeaWorld should get this loan? Most definitely not. The stipulations of the loan relate to maintaining and keeping employees. The money can't go to other important things like animal care or facility maintenance.
That's not breaking the terms of the loan at all. If the loan is being used to payroll and that's the terms or the loan, then they have no say over you shifting money to other areas.And you are right that the money could indirectly help other areas, but that is a slippery slope which I think leans more to breaking the terms of the loan. A dollar is a dollar. If you move $5 to payroll, but then get a $5 loan to over payroll, so you move the original $5 back, you basically just took the loan money and used it for something other than payroll. I'm not certain that they could get away with that, or they very well may be able to get away it. But does that make it right to stretch the terms in such a way? Most definitely not.
Except they couldn't:I think you missed the point where is said, this is why I personally think they should not get this loan. And then I continued to say that they should have used this loan before furloughing all their employees because it really kind of defeats the purpose of the program to furlough all your employees and then beg for money to keep employees.
Sure....I'm not sure why they would though. Makes no sense to do so. Especially when they don't know how long it's going to be until they open again.Is is also 100% within the bounds of the loan rules that you can have already furloughed your staff and then used the funds to bring them back.