Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-13-2017, 03:35 PM   #1161
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
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?)
Enoch Root is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:38 PM   #1162
Ducay
Franchise Player
 
Ducay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

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.
Ducay is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:39 PM   #1163
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild GM View Post
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.
nik- is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 03:39 PM   #1164
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy View Post
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.
Enoch Root is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:41 PM   #1165
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik- View Post
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.
Enoch Root is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:43 PM   #1166
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
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.
nik- is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 03:43 PM   #1167
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
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.
Weitz is online now  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:44 PM   #1168
Cappy
First Line Centre
 
Cappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
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.
Cappy is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:48 PM   #1169
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
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.
Enoch Root is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 03:50 PM   #1170
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik- View Post
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.
Enoch Root is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:51 PM   #1171
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy View Post
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.
Enoch Root is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:52 PM   #1172
Jiri Hrdina
Franchise Player
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik- View Post
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.
Jiri Hrdina is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 03:53 PM   #1173
Cappy
First Line Centre
 
Cappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Exp:
Default

Nm
Cappy is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:53 PM   #1174
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
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.
nik- is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:56 PM   #1175
Cappy
First Line Centre
 
Cappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
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.
Cappy is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:57 PM   #1176
saillias
#1 Goaltender
 
saillias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
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 View Post
The thing is, my posts, thoughts and insights may be my opinions but they're also quite factual.
saillias is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to saillias For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2017, 03:57 PM   #1177
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild GM View Post
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.
nik- is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:58 PM   #1178
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy View Post
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.
Enoch Root is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:00 PM   #1179
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik- View Post
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.
Enoch Root is offline  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:01 PM   #1180
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
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.
nik- is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021