[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Your talking points from Regan era economics are getting tired.

We are discussing a type of labour which is essentially a commodity. It's not priced based on the value of the labour provided to the business owner, but is based on the balance of labor supply and labor demand. If labor supply is above labor demand business owners can pay below the value of the work recieved and still attract workers. When labor supply is below labor demand wages go up, potentially even to the value of the work provided (presumably an owner can't over pay as they will go out of business). Lots of work has been done to understand the impact of minimum wage increases, and some very interesting results from studies of Big Mac pricing across different minimum wage jurisdictions. I would suggest you read this work if you think increases in minimum wage lead to less employment, because they do not.

You seem to either misunderstand or ignore the power balance that frequently exists in over supplied labour markets that lead to predatory wages which is what required the creation of unions and a minimum wage.

Regarding your trickle down, supply side position on corporate tax rates and "growing the pie" of investment. You may want to take a look at what the tech, banking, pharmaceutical, and energy industries have done with their cash windfalls at various points over the last decade. I will give you a hint. They have had so much money they were forced to "invest" it in such productive things as:

1. Share buy backs;
2. Increasing dividends;
3. Massive executive bonus packages;
4. Straight up hoarding cash.

None of these very common practices "grow the investment pie". They do not lead to hiring or increased productivity. They lead to one thing, the concentration of wealth in a place where it mostly sits idle.

Can't believe I got sucked into this on a hockey forum.

This is a well thought out and well reasoned post that makes good points. I just wanted to highlight the bolded as I hear these two things get criticized a lot and I just don't believe they belong in the same category as massive executive salaries. A business that decides to return profits to it's owners is a perfectly appropriate course of action IMO. If you don't like what the owners do with that money, well I guess that's a different argument.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

lol
Quote me where I am being mutually exclusive.

You made the claim over and over.
I have asked you to quote me multiple times, and responded to your questions.


Quote me - my text, my words, without you interpreting it and changing it, or we all know you don't grasps the argument enough/ trolling

I'm asking you to clarify your position - maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Nothing could be less trolling than that. There is no need to go back and quote you if I can just get a better understanding of what you are saying by asking you a question.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mull

lol
Quote me where I am being mutually exclusive.

You made the claim over and over.
I have asked you to quote me multiple times, and responded to your questions.


Quote me - my text, my words, without you interpreting it and changing it, or we all know you don't grasps the argument enough/ trolling

For the millionth time, he’s trolling. He’ll never quote you or whatever you ask him to do, he’ll just goad you into another response. He never has any idea of what he’s talking about, just takes some position that annoys somebody and hangs around until people stop responding to him. He’s topic agnostic, does it all the time, plays dumb about it, and does it again. Just ignore him like most people, he will literally never be worth the time you waste interacting with him.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm asking you to clarify your position - maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Nothing could be less trolling than that. There is no need to go back and quote you if I can just get a better understanding of what you are saying by asking you a question.

1. You have made a charge- I am being mutually exclusive based on text I wrote
2. Quote me where you saw this mutually exclusive text that I wrote.

No clarifications are needed given you made the charge based on text I previously wrote

[Major Major]

This thread's whack as hell.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

1. You have made a charge- I am being mutually exclusive based on text I wrote
2. Quote me where you saw this mutually exclusive text that I wrote.

No clarifications are needed given you made the charge based on text I previously wrote

Why would I bother going back and finding some quotes dozens of posts ago? I'm just interested in the issue, which you no longer seem interested in discussing despite me specifically asking about your views (something that rarely happens on a forum I should add).

It doesn't bother me at all if you think I don't understand your point - especially if you aren't interested in answering my questions which were good faith attempts to understand said point.

You seem more intent on addressing a perceived affront, which I find uninteresting.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Why would I bother going back and finding some quotes dozens of posts ago? I'm just interested in the issue, which you no longer seem interested in discussing despite me specifically asking about your views (something that rarely happens on a forum I should add).

It doesn't bother me at all if you think I don't understand your point - especially if you aren't interested in answering my questions which were good faith attempts to understand your position.

You seem more intent on addressing a perceived affront, which I find uninteresting.

Boom! There it is. Thank you!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Freeway

The fuzziest things in 2019 were how the real estate options were being captured. A couple council members specifically objected to them not being included in the valuation and voted against the deal as a result.

For sure, and ultimately it's moot, but I'm sure there are several items beyond the real estate which could have been better clarified to avoid future pitfalls...things like insurance were brought up in the council meeting, but I don't think most councillors actually digested the implications.

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You can repeat it as much as you want , but eventually they will need a new stadium or will move.

If you argument is not in the next decade that is fine , but under no circumstances is completely wrong . The second a rich owner who has access to a stadium overbids for the Flames and drives up the arbitrary value of a NHL franchise and any future expansion fees the Flames would be sold and moved if it becomes apparent no stadium is coming

No one actually believes no stadium is coming eventually . It is just posturing and negotiating

IMO moving is possible, but highly unlikely. Especially considering the city has already agreed to a more than fair deal that would essentially be on the table for anyone interested in keeping the team here...

What are the odds that a prospective owner makes a bid that Murray is willing to accept, but no other owner will? Ottawa especially seems like much lower hanging fruit at the moment...

[Mull]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

For sure, and ultimately it's moot, but I'm sure there are several items beyond the real estate which could have been better clarified to avoid future pitfalls...things like insurance were brought up in the council meeting, but I don't think most councillors actually digested the implications.




IMO moving is possible, but highly unlikely. Especially considering the city has already agreed to a more than fair deal that would essentially be on the table for anyone interested in keeping the team here...

What are the odds that a prospective owner makes a bid that Murray is willing to accept, but no other owner will? Ottawa especially seems like much lower hanging fruit at the moment...

And frankly, I don't the flames have the leverage they think they do.
If council let the flames walk, I don't think most of them would loose their jobs over it.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

For sure, and ultimately it's moot, but I'm sure there are several items beyond the real estate which could have been better clarified to avoid future pitfalls...things like insurance were brought up in the council meeting, but I don't think most councillors actually digested the implications.




IMO moving is possible, but highly unlikely. Especially considering the city has already agreed to a more than fair deal that would essentially be on the table for anyone interested in keeping the team here...

What are the odds that a prospective owner makes a bid that Murray is willing to accept, but no other owner will? Ottawa especially seems like much lower hanging fruit at the moment...

Not tomorrow . Not in 3 years

But eventually if the city and team reach a true impasse the Flames will 100% move in the long run

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Not tomorrow . Not in 3 years

But eventually if the city and team reach a true impasse the Flames will 100% move in the long run

Yep. There are 11 years left on the lease which probably take the Dome to the very end of its life. If there is no building by 2033, the Flames will leave because there will literally be no place for them to play in Calgary. I think if there is no agreement in place within 5 or 6 years, then it will be a runaway train.

The last deal took 10 years to work out from the time talks started and they were ready break ground. If they are going to get a deal done, they need to move a lot faster this time.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

Boom! There it is. Thank you!

It's unfortunate, because I think you actually have some interesting points in the discussion. Most people here just derp about "reagan" or "rand" or "trickle down economics" or some such nonsense.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

And frankly, I don't the flames have the leverage they think they do.
If council let the flames walk, I don't think most of them would loose their jobs over it.

I agree, I don't think the Flames are a big part of Calgary's identity any more. At least I hope not. The city has a lot to offer.

[Jason14h]

Sorry Flames aren’t a big part of the cities identity ? If the Flames were to ever leave those who “let” it happen on both sides would go down as some of this cities greatest failures in history

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Sorry Flames aren’t a big part of the cities identity ? If the Flames were to ever leave those who “let” it happen on both sides would go down as some of this cities greatest failures in history

Says you.

I would be disappointed and that’s it

They are a private for profit organization that trades on civic services pride for wealth gain.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Sorry Flames aren’t a big part of the cities identity ? If the Flames were to ever leave those who “let” it happen on both sides would go down as some of this cities greatest failures in history

I think it would be a big news story for a while, and then people would move on. When the Flames are bad, attendance crashes and you don't hear much about the team. When they get eliminated from the playoffs people talk about it for about 48 hours, and then move on to enjoying their spring.

This isn't the 80's anymore. Nobody cares about our "Olympic Legacy" either, for what its worth.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For the millionth time, he’s trolling. He’ll never quote you or whatever you ask him to do, he’ll just goad you into another response. He never has any idea of what he’s talking about, just takes some position that annoys somebody and hangs around until people stop responding to him. He’s topic agnostic, does it all the time, plays dumb about it, and does it again. Just ignore him like most people, he will literally never be worth the time you waste interacting with him.

So I am probably the willing idiot here but I still don't think BoLevi is the troll in the typical sense most of the folks here do.

I think he/she truly doesn't understand the issues.

I don't think they were trolling when they wouldn't quote me, I also don't think anyone reading their posts believes they wouldn't put in the effort in to go back a few pages to quote me when:

a) they said they were disappointed when I stopped interacting with them,
b) they respond to any and all posts here engaging with them- yet ignored my first post asking them to quote me all together,
c)they refused to go a few pages back to find the quote, which only occurred since I decided to give them time to respond and they conveniently ignored my first request... when they never ignored any other comment quoting them....

I truly think they know they don't understand the issue, hence can't find the quotes in question- but think they "know" deep down they are right.

Quoting me incorrectly would put their ignorance on display and they wouldn't be able to refute me despite them "knowing" their actually right. So, best to first a) ignore my post all together, and then b) when I become a pain and repeat my request, pretend to be lazy despite it contradicting their previous actions.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mull

So I am probably the willing idiot here but I still don't think BoLevi is the troll in the typical sense most of the folks here do.

I think he/she truly doesn't understand the issues.

I don't think they were trolling when they wouldn't quote me, I also don't think anyone reading their posts believes they wouldn't put in the effort in to go back a few pages to quote me when:

a) they said they were disappointed when I stopped interacting with them,
b) they respond to any and all posts here engaging with them- yet ignored my first post asking them to quote me all together,
c)they refused to go a few pages back to find the quote, which only occurred since I decided to give them time to respond and they conveniently ignored my first request... when they never ignored any other comment quoting them....

I truly think they know they don't understand the issue, hence can't find the quotes in question- but think they "know" deep down they are right.

Quoting me incorrectly would put their ignorance on display and they wouldn't be able to refute me despite them "knowing" their actually right. So, best to first a) ignore my post all together, and then b) when I become a pain and repeat my request, pretend to be lazy despite it contradicting their previous actions.

Ya no. He's always trolling.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Not tomorrow . Not in 3 years

But eventually if the city and team reach a true impasse the Flames will 100% move in the long run

And if that happens it'll just be bad luck...mostly that a pandemic messed things up, but also just bad luck to have a lame owner, because the city has stepped up to the plate plenty.

[Bs&Cs]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I think it would be a big news story for a while, and then people would move on. When the Flames are bad, attendance crashes and you don't hear much about the team. When they get eliminated from the playoffs people talk about it for about 48 hours, and then move on to enjoying their spring.

This isn't the 80's anymore. Nobody cares about our "Olympic Legacy" either, for what its worth.

It isnt the 80s anymore? You must be bummed about that. I mean, they've been on and off bad (with some fun seasons of course) for the past twenty years and attendance hasn't crashed at all in that time frame. Classic BoLevi combination of not knowing what century it currently is and ignoring inconvenient facts to whatever point theyre trying to make.

I personally expect even the most casual sports fan to complain endlessly for months after elimination, no matter the expectation of the team. People move on after something out of their control happens? Shocking revelation.