09-13-2017, 03:35 PM
|
#1161
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
How is it unshowable? The Flames move to the other side of town. The restaurants around the Saddledome suffer and the ones near the new arena do better.
You are looking at it from the sense the Flames and the Saddledome don't exist. They do. So building a new arena just moves the spending from one spot to another.
|
We're not talking about one location vs another, we're talking about whether there is a local team or not (i.e. if the Flames moved, is there an impact?)
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:38 PM
|
#1162
|
Franchise Player
|
Anyone know with the municipal election coming up we can vote to have new ownership/management for the Flames? Is anyone contesting those seats or are they going to win again? Not sure I can take 8 more years of Edwards/King & Co.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:39 PM
|
#1163
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild GM
You are assuming that people with a different opinion than you are not being honest about why they feel that way. That is incredibly arrogant.
I think what people are challenging you on is that there is value to a sports team that goes beyond both the direct economic impacts AND ones personal love for a team.
For instance, if I lived in Calgary (as I do) and cheered for a different team (e.g. the Canes) I would still really want their to be an NHL club here because I think it adds to the broader culture of the city and the fabric of that society. And the more you start to strip that stuff away, the less interesting and compelling a city becomes.
These are the points people are trying to make and they don't deserve to be shouted down by you about them.
|
It's not that they disagree, it's using untrue information to do so. If they're trying to use economic impact as the hub of their argument, they are being dishonest. It's never been proven, and will never be proven. It's based on vague, intangible assumptions. There's two decades of examples of this all across North America.
And I already said other arguments are valid, but at least be up front about them and don't try to couch them in the above. No one is shouting down anyone.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:39 PM
|
#1164
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
No, the studies draw the conclusion that there is no negative economic impact to losing a team.
They use the substitution effect as an example for the conclusion.
You continue to use anecdotal evidence to attempt to trounce actual peer-reviewed sources.
|
That is my point. They don't prove that there is no negative impact, they infer it. And it requires the assumption that the substitution effect is 100%.
And that is a huge assumption.
And yes, I made an anecdotal comment. For the simple reason that it is also impossible to refute (just as it is impossible to prove). But what my anecdotal comment shows is that there are very obvious possible outcomes, other than full substitution. Which leaves that conclusion on rather dubious ground.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:41 PM
|
#1165
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
It's not that they disagree, it's using untrue information to do so. If they're trying to use economic impact as the hub of their argument, they are being dishonest. It's never been proven, and will never be proven. It's based on vague, intangible assumptions. There's two decades of examples of this all across North America.
And I already said other arguments are valid, but at least be up front about them and don't try to couch them in the above. No one is shouting down anyone.
|
And yet you use the opposite unknowable intangibles as proof that they are wrong.
You are just as guilty of using highly emotionally charged arguments as those you are attempting to attack.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:43 PM
|
#1166
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
And yet you use the opposite unknowable intangibles as proof that they are wrong.
You are just as guilty of using highly emotionally charged arguments as those you are attempting to attack.
|
I mean it's pretty black and white. There's either a solid, direct and provable economic gain, or there isn't.
That's not an intangible, that's the absence of the evidence to the claim that some people are still clinging to.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:43 PM
|
#1167
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
That is my point. They don't prove that there is no negative impact, they infer it. And it requires the assumption that the substitution effect is 100%.
And that is a huge assumption.
And yes, I made an anecdotal comment. For the simple reason that it is also impossible to refute (just as it is impossible to prove). But what my anecdotal comment shows is that there are very obvious possible outcomes, other than full substitution. Which leaves that conclusion on rather dubious ground.
|
Your anecdotal example was poor anyway. Whether the flames are here or not does not change the amount of travel the vast majority of Calgarians can do.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:44 PM
|
#1168
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
That is my point. They don't prove that there is no negative impact, they infer it. And it requires the assumption that the substitution effect is 100%.
And that is a huge assumption.
And yes, I made an anecdotal comment. For the simple reason that it is also impossible to refute (just as it is impossible to prove). But what my anecdotal comment shows is that there are very obvious possible outcomes, other than full substitution. Which leaves that conclusion on rather dubious ground.
|
It's not a huge assumption, nor does it require substitution to be 100%.
Substitution does not need to be 100% to lead to a negative or non-positive economic impact.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:48 PM
|
#1169
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
Your anecdotal example was poor anyway. Whether the flames are here or not does not change the amount of travel the vast majority of Calgarians can do.
|
The vast majority of Calgarians aren't STHs that go out to dinner before every game either.
I am, and pretty much do. And if I didn't, I would spend that money on travel.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:50 PM
|
#1170
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
I mean it's pretty black and white. There's either a solid, direct and provable economic gain, or there isn't.
That's not an intangible, that's the absence of the evidence to the claim that some people are still clinging to.
|
Wait a minute, you and others were claiming that it is a fact that there is no economic benefit to having a sports franchise in town.
Now your position is that there is an absence of evidence that there is? Well, at least we are making progress.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:51 PM
|
#1171
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
It's not a huge assumption, nor does it require substitution to be 100%.
Substitution does not need to be 100% to lead to a negative or non-positive economic impact.
|
It is a huge assumption because it is pretty much the backbone of the argument.
Without full substitution, by definition there must be a benefit to having the team.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:52 PM
|
#1172
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
I mean it's pretty black and white. There's either a solid, direct and provable economic gain, or there isn't.
That's not an intangible, that's the absence of the evidence to the claim that some people are still clinging to.
|
Nothing in this is black and white. And that's part of the problem - the arguing on extremes and binary arguments being made. This is far more complicated and nuanced.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:53 PM
|
#1173
|
First Line Centre
|
Nm
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:53 PM
|
#1174
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Wait a minute, you and others were claiming that it is a fact that there is no economic benefit to having a sports franchise in town.
Now your position is that there is an absence of evidence that there is? Well, at least we are making progress.
|
No, I said there's no proven economic benefit for municipalities paying for arenas.
No wonder you're confused, you're too busy trying to move the goalposts.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:56 PM
|
#1175
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
It is a huge assumption because it is pretty much the backbone of the argument.
Without full substitution, by definition there must be a benefit to having the team.
|
Not entirely.
less than 100% substitution can be beneficial to the city based on multipliers. A sports team's multiplier is insignificant whereas spending money on other things in the city has a more substantial effect.
Substitution is a factor in the conclusion that arenas don't bring positive economic impact; but it isn't the only one.
We are also assuming that the Flames are here (with zero input from tax payers) vs the Flames leaving. In reality, that isn't the case, the City potentially has to kick in millions of dollars to keep them here, so even assuming that 100% substitution was the correct way to measure economic benefit, you would need to factor in the cost of keeping them here.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:57 PM
|
#1176
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Oh yeah...this is not going to go well.
|
Tomorrow: Ken King threatens to pull life support on Filipino in hospice unless city meets CSEC demands immediately
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobHopper
The thing is, my posts, thoughts and insights may be my opinions but they're also quite factual.
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to saillias For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:57 PM
|
#1177
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild GM
Nothing in this is black and white. And that's part of the problem - the arguing on extremes and binary arguments being made. This is far more complicated and nuanced.
|
And yet no one has been able to quantify all this complexity and nuance for two decades. We know how stars work, and yet can't figure out just how a city paying for an arena makes economic sense.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 03:58 PM
|
#1178
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
Not entirely.
less than 100% substitution can be beneficial to the city based on multipliers. A sports team's multiplier is insignificant whereas spending money on other things in the city has a more substantial effect.
Substitution is a factor in the conclusion that arenas don't bring positive economic impact; but it isn't the only one.
|
Again, assumptions need to be made in order to come to that conclusion.
My point is that those studies are quoted as fact, when they are highly dependent on assumptions.
But I don't expect anyone who quotes them to ever accept that, so I'll leave it at this point.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 04:00 PM
|
#1179
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
And yet no one has been able to quantify all this complexity and nuance for two decades. We know how stars work, and yet can't figure out just how a city paying for an arena makes economic sense.
|
And yet you are 100% certain that it doesn't make economic sense.
And yet you can't see that you too are talking from an emotionally charged position.
|
|
|
09-13-2017, 04:01 PM
|
#1180
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
And yet you are 100% certain that it doesn't make economic sense.
And yet you can't see that you too are talking from an emotionally charged position.
|
Well the difference is one saves you from a gamble of hundreds of millions of tax dollars.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.
|
|