|
|
Post by Skilly on May 25, 2004 19:53:41 GMT -5
Of the 11,000 jobs, I am willing to venture more than half will still be working whether there is a strike or not. Retailers for instance in sports merchandising will still be selling NHL jerseys, and they have a myriad of other sports items to rely on , not just NHL merchandise. The municipalities are still going to recive the property taxes on the buildings. If I move to Montreal, I still have to pay taxes on my house here in Newfoundland. . I am not arguing that NHL teams do not bring in a considerable amount of money. I am, however, jaded on the actual impact of the league on each city. Winnepeg and Quebec City are still operating today without the teams. They may be operating with less money, but they are not exactly ghost towns either. The economic viability of those cities did not revovle around the teams cause if they did then I would have expected government help to keep them there. As for the player's salaries arguement. Well next year the player's under contract will still get their money in a lock-out situation. Under a strike I would assume they wouldn't. But if they are locked-out then it would be a breach of the contract. So there will still be taxes on some of the salaries. I am however glad to see you found such interesting information. 11,000 jobs seems more realistic than hundreds of thousands. Again, I don't see the Canadian government getting involved over so few jobs. You stated 8,600 directly affected. 600 of those are jobs paying over $300,000 per year. So in essence 8,000 jobs (and who knows what these jobs actually are and the salary structures) to be fought for when the Canadian governemnt just had massive layoffs of their own. I don't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 25, 2004 21:41:25 GMT -5
I also question the impact of a team in the overall economy of a city, let alone a province or a country. After all, even if we don't have hockey there is still movies, bowling alleys, baseball games, amateur hockey, massage parlors, restaurants, bordellos, bars and a million other ways people can spend their leisure money.
It's not as if this money is a windfall or dug up from the ground. It is NOT lost, just shuffled from a different direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 26, 2004 12:06:47 GMT -5
Pay attention Mr. Bettman Owners want 'cost certainty' to keep a competitive balance but Al Strachan asks why? By AL STRACHAN -- Toronto Sun COMPETITIVE imbalance? What competitive imbalance? If you listen to National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman explain why he intends to lock out the players on Sept. 15, that's one of his primary reasons. Under the existing system, he insists, there is a competitive imbalance caused by rich teams being able to buy high-priced players who are unavailable to poorer teams. For three years now, Bettman has been making that point. But the facts just don't support his case. - slam.canoe.ca/Slam040525/col_strachan-sun.html Strachan is missing the point. He's right that rich teams did not rule hockey so far. But the problem isn't there. Sure, what New York and others kept on doing did not help them much but the problem is that their continual "stealing" of other team's high profile players and their overpaying ways is hurting the whole league. That is why, IMO, a luxury tax won't work, because it won't prevent the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers and Wings to spend like mad, steal every impact players and drive up the salaries. At the very best, a luxury tax will diminish (not get rid of) the loses of some teams. Things will stay the same but a handfull of owners will fork a few mills to teams that probably shouldn't even be in the league anymore. Given the slim revenue stream, a hard cap is the only way to go in this league IMO. If that makes the rich a whole lot richer, than so be it. We're not in this for the Robin Hood syndrom, but for the health of hockey and the NHL needs their team to retain their players and be competitive to grow the fan base. It's Bettman's last stand, I am usually a guy of comprise but in this case, I hope he doesn't bend and maintains a hard line. The NHL will be in really bad shape given a lenghty lockout, but with a low hard cap and fewer teams, it will have the right and strong basis to rebuild itself. Anything else is just postponing a sure death. As for the gov't. They HAVE TO stay of it until the NHL can prove that it has some kind of control on their industry. I agree with BC that the government has subsidized worst industries in bigger volumes but that's a trend I'd like to see less of, not be used as a justification to do more. IE, if the NHL has a hard cap in place and can control it's cost, than I can see the government helping out in financing the return of teams like the Jets or the Nordiques. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 26, 2004 14:15:17 GMT -5
System can be made to work in NHL By STEPHEN BRUNT From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Taking a long view, Calgary and Tampa Bay is a Stanley Cup match-up the National Hockey League ought to be heralding from the rooftops. Sadly, though, because of the politics of the moment, it's going to sound more like a whisper. - full article
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 26, 2004 14:32:11 GMT -5
No deal, no season, Bettman hints By ERIC DUHATSCHEK With a report from Canadian Press Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - Page S3 TAMPA -- In the strongest indication yet that the National Hockey League will lock out its players in September, commissioner Gary Bettman hinted that training camps for the 2004-05 season will not open as scheduled without a new collective labour agreement in place. * Bettman also indicated that he may contact Philadelphia Flyers general manager Bobby Clarke to clarify his comments in the Philadelphia Inquirer that appeared to be critical of the current contract and the league's vision for a new NHL order that may have "economic consequences" for the NHL club. The league has asked club personnel not to comment on the state of negotiations, under the threat of heavy fines. - full article
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 26, 2004 14:40:03 GMT -5
Veterans making too much to stayTuesday, May 25, 2004 By KEVIN ROBERTS Courier-Post Staff VOORHEES The first thing that greets you when you enter the Flyers' practice facility is the sign on the door announcing that all 2004 merchandise is now available at a discount. That's what happens when the season is over; you get rid of the old stuff. That's just about the exact task facing the Flyers today. The difference is that the jerseys GM Bobby Clarke and coach Ken Hitchcock will soon be marking down for a quick sale will have actual people in them. That sounds a little cold, sure. But it really is just that simple. The Flyers will have to make strict dollars and cents business decisions in the next couple of weeks. This team will get younger, because Flyers Chairman Ed Snider insisted they will have to get cheaper. Snider said the Flyers lost money last season. "We're spending way too much," Snider said. "We have to get our payroll down." - www.southjerseynews.com/issues/may/s052504b.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 26, 2004 15:03:04 GMT -5
On the road to nowhereBy Matt McHale Staff Writer * The Kings, in many ways, are a classic example of the dysfunction that shrouds the debate. Despite missing the playoffs for the second consecutive season, the club set an attendance record. Yet it lost between $8 million and $10 million. The Kings have a reputation for being frugal, but their 2003-04 payroll of $53 million is $18 million more than the figure the league is proposing as a salary cap. * The NHL's ratings have declined the past few years, but in the playoffs they have increased 17 percent on ESPN to a 0.7 (or 613,633 TV homes) and 25 percent on ESPN2 to a 0.5 (or 399,845 TV homes). The network gets more viewers for poker tournaments. * Brisson said the union made a proposal on revenue sharing for the new CBA. There also was a plan to lower entry-level contracts. Revenue sharing would help bridge the gap between small-market teams such as Nashville and Edmonton and clubs in New York and Toronto that boast payrolls of more than $60 million. Bettman says that is not good enough. Stating the often-used phrase of "cost certainty," the league says the cap is the only way to reach stability. The biggest problem with the rookie deals didn't turn out to be salaries but incentive clauses. Last season, 19-year-old forward Rick Nash of the Columbus Blue Jackets made just more than $1 million in salary but nearly $4 million more in performance bonuses. Nash, who tied for the league lead in goals with 41, is eligible for a new contract after the upcoming season. * A comparison of teams' revenue from national television contracts in the four major sports leagues last season (averages do not include local TV revenue): League Team avg. NFL $77 million NBA $26 million MLB $19 million NHL $6 million - www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~28541~2169544,00.html
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 26, 2004 15:32:53 GMT -5
No deal, no season, Bettman hints By ERIC DUHATSCHEK With a report from Canadian Press Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - Page S3 TAMPA -- In the strongest indication yet that the National Hockey League will lock out its players in September, commissioner Gary Bettman hinted that training camps for the 2004-05 season will not open as scheduled without a new collective labour agreement in place. * Bettman also indicated that he may contact Philadelphia Flyers general manager Bobby Clarke to clarify his comments in the Philadelphia Inquirer that appeared to be critical of the current contract and the league's vision for a new NHL order that may have "economic consequences" for the NHL club. The league has asked club personnel not to comment on the state of negotiations, under the threat of heavy fines. - full article After Scott Oake interviewed Bettman at Game 1, he interviewed Bob Goodenow, who said, "The league wanted a salary cap 10 years ago and they didn't get it." Greed and mistrust...two sides of the same coin here. It certainly hasn't helped the game since the last contract that the "trap" has been a dominant strategy. Even though winning is a result ...it's almost like watching curling. I know I usually end up yelling, "Hurry...harder...."  Want to see a real hockey problem in the U.S.? Calgary wins the Cup. We may see a separate fully-supported Canadian pro league yet. Problem is, can attendance and Canadian TV rights foot the bill? That league would probably go the way of well-attended CFL, where we're left with lower-priced players who couldn't make the big, splashy "Rollerball-like" league they'll develop south of the border. Perhaps no-touch icing, elimination of the centre red line, severe discipline for any blows to the head, and the banning of the "trap" will make the game more saleable in the States. I'd like to see those changes too. In any case, the days of multi-million dollar contracts for marginal players have to be gone IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2004 17:10:38 GMT -5
Pay attention Mr. Bettman Owners want 'cost certainty' to keep a competitive balance but Al Strachan asks why? By AL STRACHAN -- Toronto Sun COMPETITIVE imbalance? What competitive imbalance? If you listen to National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman explain why he intends to lock out the players on Sept. 15, that's one of his primary reasons. Under the existing system, he insists, there is a competitive imbalance caused by rich teams being able to buy high-priced players who are unavailable to poorer teams. For three years now, Bettman has been making that point. But the facts just don't support his case. - slam.canoe.ca/Slam040525/col_strachan-sun.html Well Al, I will tell you why. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. The players are crying out now that a cap is not needed because the small markets teams do just as well as the big market teams. The owners turn it around and say that a winning team can be built on $40 million, so why the need to spend the money. Ahhhhh the circle of hockey ...... We all have stated at one point or another that the thing we want most (besides the Stanley Cup) is for the Habs to be in the playoffs every year and showing consistency. To me that is the mark of competitiveness. But let's look at the last three years for a second. 2001 - Pittsburgh in conference finals 2002 - Pittsburgh not in playoffs 2002 - Carolina in conference finals 2002 - Minnesota and Anaheim not in playoffs 2003 - Carolina not in playoffs 2003 - Minnesota and Anaheim in conference finals 2003 - Calgary and San Jose not in playoffs 2004 - Minnesota and Anaheim not in playoffs 2004 - Calgary and San Jose in conference finals So for the last 3-4 years a team in the conference finals did not even make the playoffs the next season, and for the last 2 years the conference finalists in the west were not in the playoffs the previous year to their success. This is not competitiveness. It is atrocious. We can almost predict now that it will be Edmonton and Phoenix in next year west final. (Every year Calgary made the finals, Edmonton won the next year.) |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 26, 2004 17:30:41 GMT -5
I've been saying for a while now that the NHL has achieved parody. Come out "Montrealer" wherever you are, I am ready for you  That vacation gambit was clever, but you are drawn here like a bee to honey or a fly to nuts (notice my generosity in providing you the metaphor of your choice). |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 26, 2004 18:15:51 GMT -5
I also question the impact of a team in the overall economy of a city, let alone a province or a country. After all, even if we don't have hockey there is still movies, bowling alleys, baseball games, amateur hockey, massage parlors, restaurants, bordellos, bars and a million other ways people can spend their leisure money. It's not as if this money is a windfall or dug up from the ground. It is NOT lost, just shuffled from a different direction. Since the Nordiques left Quebec City, I can tell you tons of new movies theaters have been built, and various other cultural activities have picked up. Also, the local university football team got a new stadium and attracts huge crowds... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2004 18:33:33 GMT -5
Since the Nordiques left Quebec City, I can tell you tons of new movies theaters have been built, and various other cultural activities have picked up. Also, the local university football team got a new stadium and attracts huge crowds... I was thinking about Winnipeg and the Jets . . . the death of the city (almost dead to begin with) and the woe is us attitude -- and about a city being "on the map" because of a hockey team. People still shop and eat, and there are other entertainments (always were) . . . its just a redistribution of spending. Instead of a couple hundred for a family to see a game, instead of freezing on the way to the Arena they stay home and watch a video. In the summer they they go see the GoldenEyes, wander around the Forks, maybe have a Skinners hot dog, and try to avoid mosquitos. Life goes on. The NHL thought that Winnipeg, Hartford, Quebec City, and Edmonton were too small to support franchises (hence the WHA); they've been proven right. If only Buttman had used his brain (OK, a stretch) he wouldn't have rushed into planting more teams that couldn't be supported in areas that don't care about hockey. And if hockey leaves the Ottawa area . . . well, there's still . . . um . . . oh . . . hmm . . . it better not leave! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 26, 2004 22:55:58 GMT -5
It's seems to me that the blow to Winnipeg's economy from losing the Jets might have been cushioned by the disproportionate number of national and international sporting events they were able to secure in the years following the move of the hockey team.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 27, 2004 7:14:13 GMT -5
I suggest that there wasn't as much of a blow to Wpg's economy as sports/Jets fans had suggested (or perhaps hoped). It helps, too, that the city it a government town (provincial and federal).
Just think, though, if Saskatoon had indeed nabbed the Blues from St. Louis in hte early 80s. How long would that (any) team have lasted there?
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 27, 2004 8:54:35 GMT -5
From the Federal Government report I posted a link to:
Employment: Approximately 11,000 Canadians are employed in full and part time positions – either directly or indirectly – as a result of NHL teams.
(ii) Local Investment: Municipalities benefit from the investment of NHL teams; it was noted, for example, that the six Canadian teams have generated approximately $1 billion in infrastructure investment over the last decade.
(iii) Public Revenues: It is estimated that the activities of the six NHL teams generate over $200 million annually in taxes paid to or collected on behalf of different levels
of government, e.g. income, property and entertainment taxes.
11,000 jobs, $1 billion in infrastructure development, $200 million in taxes.
Of those three things, only the 11,000 jobs are replaceable. Maybe. The $200 million in taxes is on player salaries, for the most part, which go with the team. Patrice Brisebois moves to Nashville, and Joe Schmoe working at the widget factory doesn't replace the $1.5 - 2 million in income tax Brisebois pays. The Habs payroll was what? $46 million? US? What does that work out to Canadian? $55-60 million? That's close to $25 - 30 million in income tax from the Habs alone. Any other industries with 25 employees generating that much income tax?
Sure, entertainment dollars are spent elsewhere. Yes, Winnipeg and Quebec survived, as will Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and so on. But that's not the point. You can make the same argument for the Ste. Therese GM plant that the government threw millions of dollars at. Or Dominion Bridge in Lachine. Or Air Canada. Or the CBC. Or the Museum of Arts. Or whatever. Canada will survive without any, or even all, of those things, yet the government continues to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at them, way more than the $3 million they were going to give each Canadian NHL team.
Doc Holiday says that just because the government gives money to other floundering industries, doesn't mean they should continue to do so. Fair enough. That's a fine and perfect argument that I have no rebuttal for. If you don't think tax payers money should be used to save private industries, then so be it.
But you can't turn around and say "its okay to save GM jobs in Boisbriand, but not okay to save NHL jobs in Montreal." That's a double standard.
11,000 people employed by the NHL. Of those 11,000, only 150 are overpaid (the 25 players on the 6 Canadian teams). Should you throw 10,850 people out of work, just to spite those 150?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2004 9:40:08 GMT -5
Doc Holiday says that just because the government gives money to other floundering industries, doesn't mean they should continue to do so. Fair enough. That's a fine and perfect argument that I have no rebuttal for. If you don't think tax payers money should be used to save private industries, then so be it. From a philosophical point of view, you have already made my argument. Unless of course we want Canada to head down the third world course of corruption and trough politics. Why pay for golf when you can have the goverment buy you a golf course?  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 27, 2004 9:40:55 GMT -5
Doc Holiday says that just because the government gives money to other floundering industries, doesn't mean they should continue to do so. Fair enough. That's a fine and perfect argument that I have no rebuttal for. If you don't think tax payers money should be used to save private industries, then so be it. Actually I think you can and should subsidize the private sector. I believe more in the private sector than the public one for the most part. My main issue with throwing money at the NHL now is that it's a sick industry, with salary rocketing, profits diving, bankrupcy looming, totally out of control and on the virge of a major lockout. Once the house is in order than I'd be all for it. You do make a good argument though about investing 20mil in order to get back 200mil in taxes, under that light it does make sense but politicly it's almost impossible to sell. The minute you do it, you have on your back the "...oh my God you're throwing money at overpaid millionaires from overseas while our health systems is in dire need of funds..." you know the drill. It would take either a government with balls of steal, ready to do what they feel is right, despite the outcry. Or and industry that can show it achieves some degree of financial and business respectability to make the public sell easier. I do not believe in the first sceanrio but think the second has a slim chance. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 27, 2004 10:41:25 GMT -5
11,000 jobs, $1 billion in infrastructure development, $200 million in taxes. Realizing it is a stretch, but . . . Money redistributed equals jobs redistributed. And with the exception of the few, the 11,000 jobs are not high-paying, nor full-time (concessions, parking, Zamboni driver) and are often second jobs. The amount for infrastructure seems high to me, but really, I have no idea so I won't comment. Taxes . . . ah, that's the thing. There is definitely good revenue there . . . but let's not forget the other side: tax write-offs for corporations who buy boxes and entertain clients (entertainment would happen anyway, yes), losses written off (see: Bryden), small businesses that write off non-payment of bills or go under (see: under Bryden). I don't think the Feds should be subsidizing NHL hockey (though I did want them to shove a few $$ Bryden's way to keep the team in Ottawa, now I'm glad they didn't). Nor should they be subsidizing GM or Bombardier. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 27, 2004 14:20:04 GMT -5
You do make a good argument though about investing 20mil in order to get back 200mil in taxes, under that light it does make sense but politicly it's almost impossible to sell. The minute you do it, you have on your back the "...oh my God you're throwing money at overpaid millionaires from overseas while our health systems is in dire need of funds..." you know the drill. This is what I don't get. If it makes financial sense to do that then why not?? You're investing a paltry sum (by government standards) in order to preserve a source of income an order of magnitude larger (not to mention any other benefits to keeping the NHL in Canada) - this is money you're getting that can be spent on healthcare or education or whatever. I remember reading at the time of the government proposal to help the NHL that they had given something like $80M to IBM - the largest company in the world - in order to fund some research lab or something, because IBM said they would move it out of Canada if they didnt' get government money. Where was the public outcry then? How much money do the top guys at IBM make? I just don't understand the opposition to this that's not based on logic. "Oh, I don't want any of my tax dollars going to some millionare hockey player," says the guy who shells out $400 a year to watch the same hockey players live, money which helps to pay those multi-million dollar salaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 27, 2004 14:53:46 GMT -5
Since the Nordiques left Quebec City, I can tell you tons of new movies theaters have been built, and various other cultural activities have picked up. Also, the local university football team got a new stadium and attracts huge crowds... Since Celine Dion left, the Quebec City winter carnival continues to draw crowds and in Trois Rivieres we continue to see musicians bang wooden spoons on their knees. If watching minor league hockey satisfies you (and there is nothing wrong with watching minor leagues) there is no problem. It has reduced Quebec City to minor league status, and the departure of the Expos will reduce Montreal's status in North America. It is not the end of the world, but it is a step backward. I remember watching the Royals. I enjoyed the games and the atmosphere in Delormier Stadium, but I resented it when Johnny Podres, Duke Synder, Roy Campanella and Tommy Lasorda left to play for the Dodgers. When I watch a movie, I like to see the best ones or I don't go at all. College football is a great draw and the skill levels are below the NFL (about equal to the CFL LOL). There is nothing wrong with watching a USC UCLA game. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 27, 2004 15:28:34 GMT -5
If watching minor league hockey satisfies you (and there is nothing wrong with watching minor leagues) there is no problem. I think PTH's point is that if it isn't there, it doesn't create the "big void" some think it might. People do other things and life goes on. That being said the Nordiques created something really special in this province and not a fan from either side of the fence are not missing the Mtl/Nords rivalry. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 27, 2004 18:14:52 GMT -5
From the Federal Government report I posted a link to: Employment: Approximately 11,000 Canadians are employed in full and part time positions – either directly or indirectly – as a result of NHL teams. (ii) Local Investment: Municipalities benefit from the investment of NHL teams; it was noted, for example, that the six Canadian teams have generated approximately $1 billion in infrastructure investment over the last decade. (iii) Public Revenues: It is estimated that the activities of the six NHL teams generate over $200 million annually in taxes paid to or collected on behalf of different levels of government, e.g. income, property and entertainment taxes. 11,000 jobs, $1 billion in infrastructure development, $200 million in taxes. Of those three things, only the 11,000 jobs are replaceable. Maybe. The $200 million in taxes is on player salaries, for the most part, which go with the team. Patrice Brisebois moves to Nashville, and Joe Schmoe working at the widget factory doesn't replace the $1.5 - 2 million in income tax Brisebois pays. The Habs payroll was what? $46 million? US? What does that work out to Canadian? $55-60 million? That's close to $25 - 30 million in income tax from the Habs alone. Any other industries with 25 employees generating that much income tax? Sure, entertainment dollars are spent elsewhere. Yes, Winnipeg and Quebec survived, as will Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and so on. But that's not the point. You can make the same argument for the Ste. Therese GM plant that the government threw millions of dollars at. Or Dominion Bridge in Lachine. Or Air Canada. Or the CBC. Or the Museum of Arts. Or whatever. Canada will survive without any, or even all, of those things, yet the government continues to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at them, way more than the $3 million they were going to give each Canadian NHL team. Doc Holiday says that just because the government gives money to other floundering industries, doesn't mean they should continue to do so. Fair enough. That's a fine and perfect argument that I have no rebuttal for. If you don't think tax payers money should be used to save private industries, then so be it. But you can't turn around and say "its okay to save GM jobs in Boisbriand, but not okay to save NHL jobs in Montreal." That's a double standard. 11,000 people employed by the NHL. Of those 11,000, only 150 are overpaid (the 25 players on the 6 Canadian teams). Should you throw 10,850 people out of work, just to spite those 150? In your original post you claimed 11,000 jobs, of which 8,600 are direct jobs. The 2,400 indirect jobs, I can only assume are merchandising, retails, etc. (They will not lose thier jobs over this) You state that only 150 of those 8,600 are overpaid. Again, I question that number. 25 players on 6 teams = 150 The Montreal Canadiens web-site lists 13 people employed with the administration of the Habs and 13 more on the coaching staff. 26 x 6 = 156 I haven't even discussed the scouting staff which I am willing to bet there are at least 10 people employed. That gives us 60 more overpaid employees. Like I said you have to look at who these "direct employees" actually are, and there salary structures. I have no link or proof but I would venture that about 600 of the jobs for sure are definately overpaid. So for 8,000 jobs do we subsidize hockey? How many of these jobs go on EI when hockey is over? I know here in Newfoundland the ushers, concessions, etc, most work a second job because they are only working 40 nights of the year. In fact those jobs are mostly given to teenager/university students to suppliment their incomes --- they are not providing a big boom to any economy. The $200 million in taxes is fine. I can not argue that amount. I will however state that of the $33 Million that the Habs contribute, that the $9-11 Milion in property taxes will be paid with or without NHL hockey, and the taxes on players contracts already under contract will be paid next year as well. So that $200 million is a little misleading to say the least. As a tax paying Canadian citizen who loves hockey, I would pay to keep Montreal in Montreal. Butthat is as far as it goes for me. I can, however, see why others woudl be so mad. For instance, how much of the $9 million in property taxes will Newfoundland see? Sure I get the benefit of the $200 million (?) generated, but so does the municipality of Montreal. But my tax dollars (only 3 milllion) just saved Montreal, or Ottawa, or Calgary but it didn't keep jobs in Newfoundland, it didn't help the Newfoundland economy squat, so why should I have to fork it out. Why doesn't the Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, BC governments shell the money out of their budgets, since they will be reaping the most rewards. I know what some will say. The Canadian government helped out the farmers out west, the fishermen out east, etc ...... but so did the provincial governments. And without the farmers out west, and the fishermen in the east the provincial economies would have went into a depression and that doesn't help anybody in Canada to support tens of thousand families. The NHL is not the main staple of the provincial economies and I would oppose any government that could lay-off thousands of full-time jobs (my wife could have gotten the axe ... but luckily didn't), and then turn-around and attempt to save thousands of part-time jobs with $20 million tax paying dollars! |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 27, 2004 20:25:42 GMT -5
In your original post you claimed 11,000 jobs, of which 8,600 are direct jobs. The 2,400 indirect jobs, I can only assume are merchandising, retails, etc. (They will not lose thier jobs over this) You state that only 150 of those 8,600 are overpaid. Again, I question that number. 25 players on 6 teams = 150 The Montreal Canadiens web-site lists 13 people employed with the administration of the Habs and 13 more on the coaching staff. 26 x 6 = 156 I haven't even discussed the scouting staff which I am willing to bet there are at least 10 people employed. That gives us 60 more overpaid employees. Call me crazy, but I don't think the trainers, scouts, or secretaries are making over a million bucks a year... When people talk about not subsidizing hockey, they say so because they don't want to subsidize millionaire athletes. Nobody says they don't want to subsidize the Habs travelling secretaries. Only the players are overpaid. Like I said you have to look at who these "direct employees" actually are, and there salary structures. I have no link or proof but I would venture that about 600 of the jobs for sure are definately overpaid. And I would disagree. Again, how much is the trainer making? So for 8,000 jobs do we subsidize hockey? How many of these jobs go on EI when hockey is over? I know here in Newfoundland the ushers, concessions, etc, most work a second job because they are only working 40 nights of the year. In fact those jobs are mostly given to teenager/university students to suppliment their incomes --- they are not providing a big boom to any economy. That's an assumption, that the 8000 jobs "aren't good jobs, and therefor not worth saving." And even if they are lowering paying, minimum wage jobs, so what? Work is work, and its an honest living. Personally I would hate to live in a society where one person's job isn't considered important, merely because somebody decides its more menial than somebody else's. The $200 million in taxes is fine. I can not argue that amount. I will however state that of the $33 Million that the Habs contribute, that the $9-11 Milion in property taxes will be paid with or without NHL hockey, and the taxes on players contracts already under contract will be paid next year as well. So that $200 million is a little misleading to say the least. I don't think the taxes on the players salaries will go to the federal government. If Montreal moved to Las Vegas tomorrow, I doubt there would be any way the Quebec government could charge Brisebois income tax for 2005. As for the building tax, that may or may not be true, I am not an accountant, but I have my doubts. Did Sears pay taxes on the empty building they had downtown all those years? And who, exactly, owns the Molson Centre? Is it the Montreal Canadiens? Or is it the Gillette Entertainment Group? Because if its the latter, Uncle George might be able to declare that company bankrupt, and slip out from any taxes. What if he sells the building to a museum? Or declares it a Canadian Entertainment facility, and thus gets a break because he is supplying Canadian entertainment? (a Celine Dion concert pays no taxes, because it is a "Canadian Entertainment" event - the Canadiens do, because they are considered international). As a tax paying Canadian citizen who loves hockey, I would pay to keep Montreal in Montreal. Butthat is as far as it goes for me. I can, however, see why others woudl be so mad. For instance, how much of the $9 million in property taxes will Newfoundland see? Sure I get the benefit of the $200 million (?) generated, but so does the municipality of Montreal. But my tax dollars (only 3 milllion) just saved Montreal, or Ottawa, or Calgary but it didn't keep jobs in Newfoundland, it didn't help the Newfoundland economy squat, so why should I have to fork it out. Why doesn't the Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, BC governments shell the money out of their budgets, since they will be reaping the most rewards. I know what some will say. The Canadian government helped out the farmers out west, the fishermen out east, etc ...... but so did the provincial governments. And without the farmers out west, and the fishermen in the east the provincial economies would have went into a depression and that doesn't help anybody in Canada to support tens of thousand families. The NHL is not the main staple of the provincial economies and I would oppose any government that could lay-off thousands of full-time jobs (my wife could have gotten the axe ... but luckily didn't), and then turn-around and attempt to save thousands of part-time jobs with $20 million tax paying dollars! Lots of provincial governments already do. Alberta has a sports lottery and subsidizes the Oilers and Flames arenas (they pay very little tax on the buildings) and the Ontario government helped bail out Bryden, and lowered the taxes on that building as well. The city of Montreal, after some heavy lobbying from Pierre Boivin, lowered the municipal tax on the Molson Centre. So local governments are pitching in their shares (somewhat). |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2004 21:54:28 GMT -5
Actually I think you can and should subsidize the private sector. I believe more in the private sector than the public one for the most part. My main issue with throwing money at the NHL now is that it's a sick industry, with salary rocketing, profits diving, bankrupcy looming, totally out of control and on the virge of a major lockout. Once the house is in order than I'd be all for it. You do make a good argument though about investing 20mil in order to get back 200mil in taxes, under that light it does make sense but politicly it's almost impossible to sell. The minute you do it, you have on your back the "...oh my God you're throwing money at overpaid millionaires from overseas while our health systems is in dire need of funds..." you know the drill. It would take either a government with balls of steal, ready to do what they feel is right, despite the outcry. Or and industry that can show it achieves some degree of financial and business respectability to make the public sell easier. I do not believe in the first sceanrio but think the second has a slim chance. I could not disagree with you more even if I tried. No one can ever mention "free trade" and "capitalism" in the same sentence with "subsidies". Subsidies and trough politics are brothers born two seconds apart by the illegitimate union of politics and power brokers. *Ugghh..I need more meds* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BC, I can not buy the justification of government intervention under any circumstance. All you will do is put more money in the pocket of the elite and owners straight form our pockets. If the NHL owners and mercenaries have gotten themselves into this mess then it’s up to them to sort it out or go bankrupt. Further…… No matter WHAT you give them, they will find a way to spend MORE money. There is NO limit to human greed and certainly we have seen that the NHL and it’s mercenaries are no exception. Think back 15 years ago and tell me if you thought that players like Holik would get 9 million a year? Or how about seats costing $150 a game? There is no better justification for either other then GREED and STUPIDITY. *more meds* |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 28, 2004 3:52:56 GMT -5
I could not disagree with you more even if I tried. No one can ever mention "free trade" and "capitalism" in the same sentence with "subsidies". Subsidies and trough politics are brothers born two seconds apart by the illegitimate union of politics and power brokers. *Ugghh..I need more meds* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BC, I can not buy the justification of government intervention under any circumstance. All you will do is put more money in the pocket of the elite and owners straight form our pockets. If the NHL owners and mercenaries have gotten themselves into this mess then it’s up to them to sort it out or go bankrupt. Further…… No matter WHAT you give them, they will find a way to spend MORE money. There is NO limit to human greed and certainly we have seen that the NHL and it’s mercenaries are no exception. Think back 15 years ago and tell me if you thought that players like Holik would get 9 million a year? Or how about seats costing $150 a game? There is no better justification for either other then GREED and STUPIDITY. *more meds* Ah, gone are the days when a player's off-season job paid him more than playing hockey did. And coaches without hesitation threw things at under-achievers (and hit them) between periods. Makes you wonder why anyone bothered playing professional hockey, doesn't it? Ah.good times, good times...but perhaps I have painted too rosy a picture of the past. Nonetheless it does give me pause and make me wonder about today's bubble-boys. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 28, 2004 4:31:15 GMT -5
Subsidies and trough politics are brothers born two seconds apart by the illegitimate union of politics and power brokers. I would include what we know as "free" trade in that, personally, but that's a whole other debate.... www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7295I think you can take most political strategies, be they right, left, conservative or liberal and point to examples where they worked and examples where they failed, or were abused because of greed. Making blanket statements like "subsidies are always bad" can only deprive you of options, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 28, 2004 8:23:47 GMT -5
I could not disagree with you more even if I tried. No one can ever mention "free trade" and "capitalism" in the same sentence with "subsidies". Subsidies and trough politics are brothers born two seconds apart by the illegitimate union of politics and power brokers. *Ugghh..I need more meds* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BC, I can not buy the justification of government intervention under any circumstance. All you will do is put more money in the pocket of the elite and owners straight form our pockets. If the NHL owners and mercenaries have gotten themselves into this mess then it’s up to them to sort it out or go bankrupt. Further…… No matter WHAT you give them, they will find a way to spend MORE money. There is NO limit to human greed and certainly we have seen that the NHL and it’s mercenaries are no exception. Think back 15 years ago and tell me if you thought that players like Holik would get 9 million a year? Or how about seats costing $150 a game? There is no better justification for either other then GREED and STUPIDITY. *more meds* Well, like I said, I have no counter-argument for that. That's a philosophical debate on the best way to run a country, and if you take that position, then no-way, no-how should governments get involved. I would point out however, that there is no government in the world that is as strict as you are. The people I do disagree with however, are those who say that "governments should prop up private industries - just not the NHL." That's a knee-jerk reaction, in my opinion, that doesn't take into account all the facts. Last night, before the hockey game, the CBC ran a one-hour special documentary on - get this - the 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Civil Servant strike. Yep, your tax payer's money going to civil servants making a documentary on civil servants demanding more money. THIS is where I take issue. People look at these wastes - at governments throwing money at huge conglomerates like GM, IBM, Air Canada, you know the list, most aren't even Canadian, people look at this and say, "meh." In general, the reason they need money thrown at them is because they are so horribly run, in sick, sick industries. The government gave literally millions of dollars to GM (like they need the money) so that 1,250 workers could continue to make non-selling Firebirds and Camaros. Thats a waste, anyway you cut it. People thought that was a good idea, and indeed, there was genuine outrage that the government "didn't do more." But god forbid a trifle amount get thrown at an NHL hockey team... The field I work in has been classified by the Canadian government as "Research and Development." As such, my company recieves a subsidy of $15,000 for every employee working here. For those of you keeping track at home, thats about 95% of my salary. The building we work in was built by the SITQ, which builds prestigious office space in and around Montreal. SITQ was founded and is 93% owned by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDP), which is the Quebec government's pension plan. My company pays very little rent here, as the Quebec government, along with the City of Laval, is trying to attract investors to its new Science and Technology sector. My company is a wholly owned subsidary, with its office in Sunnyvale, California. Our parent company is in Japan. We sell virtually nothing in the Canadian market, wtih most of our customers being in Asia, or Europe. As you know, these sorts of deals are everywhere, in just about every company. Nobody complains, and in fact, most people consider this "good government." Creating jobs and all. So why is it different for NHL teams? So what if the players are overpaid? The City of Montreal, the Quebec Government, and even the Canadian Government, give out huge tax breaks to encourage Hollywood movie makers to make their flicks in Montreal. Hollywood stars can make upwards of $20 million a film, and a blockbuster movie will make hundreds of millions - in some cases billions - of dollars for its American owner. So why no bleating against subsidies for these people? If you think NOBODY should get a dime from the government, then fine. But I don't understand how you can say its okay to prop up one industry, but not another. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on May 28, 2004 9:31:14 GMT -5
I believe in the principle of enlightened self-interest. A government may rightly decide to subsidize the private sector in two circumstances. 1) The business generated with the help of the subsidy increases governmental revenues from sales, property, or income taxes to the point at which the subsidy is fully recovered or exceeded. 2) The jobs created directly or indirectly by the subsidy remove unemployed people from the welfare or other public assistance rolls, thereby reducing any governmental deficit or creating a surplus that can be applied to tax reduction, improvement of the infrastructure, or support of nonprofit organizations (schools, museums, parks, concert halls, etc.) that improve the quality of life. I am not in favor of subsidies that have the sole net effect of lining the pockets of entrepreneurs without also benefiting the public. The George Steinbrenners of this world are not worthy of charity; nor do they need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 28, 2004 15:57:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 28, 2004 17:34:32 GMT -5
The people I do disagree with however, are those who say that "governments should prop up private industries - just not the NHL." That's a knee-jerk reaction, in my opinion, that doesn't take into account all the facts. Last night, before the hockey game, the CBC ran a one-hour special documentary on - get this - the 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Civil Servant strike. Yep, your tax payer's money going to civil servants making a documentary on civil servants demanding more money. Fortunately, I have a first hand account of this strike, since I was one of the public servants(I am nobody's servant) service workers on strike. And I take exception to this paragraph in your soliloquoy. First, it was a documentary done by CBC St. John's employees who were going to get paid whether they did this documentary or not. Second, the strike was not about the union demanding more money. Perhaps, you turned the TV over due to lack of interest in this part of the country. On March 15, 2004 the union was handed an offer by the NL government that contained 44 concessions and a wage offer of 0% in the first year and 0% in the second year. Truth be told we never would have went on strike if the 44 concesions were not there, and we fully would have accepted a 2 year wage freeze. (Keep in mind that the public service in NL has only gotten a raise in 3 years out of the last 22 - we are used to wage freezes) On March 31st, the offer was at 5 concessions and a wage offer of 0% , 0%, 2%, 3% over four years. Again the 5 concessions made us go on strike. What were the 5 concessions? 1. Take away our management over our pension. 2. Eliminate severance pay. 3. Make us pay for our own job reclassification program 4. take away 12 sick days a year 5. the government did not want to guarantee hours of works for custodial and secretarial staff in schools. The strike was never about money, it was about a government who refused to collective bargain (the announced in January they were not going to give the union any increases - so we knew that from the start - and they wanted to strip the contract), and protecting the rights of future generations who may work for government. I was on strike for 28 days over this, and not once did anyone whisper thatthey wanted money, and when we got legislated back, it was for less money than what government had offered during negoitiations. |
|
