blueandgoldguy

It will be Hillary's election to lose. Can't see the Republicans reign of error from 2000-08 being so quickly forgotten even with Obama's rather mediocre run as president.. which was no doubt hindered by not having control of the house and senate thus making it rather difficult to affect any real change. Funny how Republican leaders like John McCain would publicly urge the party to "work together with the Dems to find a middle ground" or saying something like that, but in practice the party did anything but - see the shutdown of government in 2013. Absolutely childish. Jeb Bush, from all accounts is the "smart one" in the family and not nearly as conservative (in some respects) as his brother but that probably won't sway the several million voters in America who aren't predisposed to voting for any one particular party, to swing towards the Republicans. Then you have the GOP, which primarily consists of white elderly men many of whom are very vocal and rigid about their socially conservative views..as in no equality for homosexuals, anti-abortionist and yes, racist although not as overtly as in the past; their outmoded ideas regarding crime and punishment (how is having the highest percentage of any OECD country's population in jail and still having the highest rates of crime, both violent and overall, of any OECD country working out for you USA?) and gun control (highest rates of gun-related deaths of any OECD country). They have just grown more out of touch with the majority of voters as time has passed and the party is not at all representative of the voting population (over 50% women and nearly 40% hispanic and african-american). Unfortunately for the GOP, it's doubtful anything will change despite losing two elections in a row quite handily. Too many members in the party not willing to or capable of change. Stubborn...arrogant....religious nutjobs. Need to be reigned in or kicked out of the party for them to have a chance in a socially progressive world. Assuming it's Jeb, not sure if he is up to the task. Even if he is he has to contend with his brothers legacy..widely considered to be the worst president in US history - see Iraq War, subprime mortgage crisis, Katrina debacle, taking Clinton's surplus and turning it into a the worst deficit in US history all the while lowering taxes. Other than deficit and employment issues that have continued on from the previous administration, Obama and the Dems haven't had scandals even remotely on the level as the previous Bush Admin which will work in their favour. Early estimates for 2016 - Dems take 52% of the popular vote with 70 million votes and at least 340 seats.

MPI lot by the Superstore is $10 although I think it fills up at least 1/2 an hour before the game so that might not be an option for you. It's a 20 minute walk from the there to the stadium but the times I parked there it took only 5 - 10 minutes to get out of the lot.

TV revenue increases by more than $2 million per team per season for 5 seasons. New stadiums online with new revenue streams like club seats and suites and the best the league can do is increase the cap by $350,000 by year 5. What a joke.

no but their owners, True North, were here..the ones who financed most of the arena and who subsequently negotiated a deal with the province and the city upon the Jets arrival..a deal that made sense. No coming back to the city saying hey our business plan didn't work and was completely unrealistic, we didn't foresee these extra costs due to the location of our facility so we're gonna need more subsidies. Bombers didn't choose the location of the stadium. Location was dictated by the Feds on a condition of funding. The Bombers did have a choice though. They and the province could have said no to the feds and and picked a better spot. As it is the transport subsidies the Bombers are getting from the the city will end up being more than the $15 million they received from the feds.

no but their owners, True North, were here..the ones who financed most of the arena and who subsequently negotiated a deal with the province and the city upon the Jets arrival..a deal that made sense. No coming back to the city saying hey our business plan didn't work and was completely unrealistic, we didn't foresee these extra costs due to the location of our facility so we're gonna need more subsidies.

No I'm comparing the business people in charge of these respective pro teams and how they negotiate with the province and city. I'm not sure how the business people on the board would fail to account for the extra costs associated with bus transport and negotiate accordingly. Did they not realize more people would have to take the bus to get to the Bomber games and thus they would have to rent more buses and pay more drivers to accomodate those people? Apparently not, as they came to the province nearly one year later asking for a discount on bus transportation. It doesn't matter. You're comparing two different entities that have no common bond and entirely different issues. Can't be done. And you say the Bomber mgmt. could have foreseen something happening when it had never been tried before? I find that interesting. The sheer volume of traffic and tie-ups? It is only then that the solution to charter more and more buses was brought in…and of course, at the going rate. Why would they have committed to dozens and dozens of buses if they might have gone unused? This year, they are doing what is necessary to negotiate a better deal, something everybody wants. They are both professional sports teams. I don't think they are that different at all. Given the limited parking available on site (5300 spots) and limited parking available within a 25-30 minute walk, yes, the Bombers should have been more thorough with their research for bus transit needs. The bombers themselves estimated over 10,000 people would be taking the bus to the stadium each game and yet they failed to provide the appropriate transporation for the first few games and thus failed to consider this cost in their initial business plan. What, did they think they could magically transport 75-100 people per bus given the limited buses they were using and everything would turn out hunky-dory? If they had over-estimated the number of buses needed in the first few games, they could have simply rented fewer for the following games. Anyways, a good business plan has contingencies built in for unexpected costs. Something the Bombers failed to do given they came to the city asking for more subsidies recently.

Your projections are overly optimistic. How so? Are you disputing the reported numbers? We made a $3M profit in a year where we had transition costs to a new stadium, severance packages to pay, increased transit costs. It is a fact TV revenues are going up. We also had a horrible on field product. And while season ticket numbers were up, I believe we only had 2 sellouts last year. When is the last time this team made $3M in a year where we didn't host the Grey Cup? Show me your math. Well for starters, the severance packages aren't a one-time cost. Do they not have to pay for Burke's, Mack's and Buchko's contracts over a number of years? Even if they don't, do you believe the organization will never have to pay out the remainder of contracts to coaches and players who are fired prior to the final years of their contracts in the future. It's the cost of doing business in sports. I seem to remember the Bombers paying a million plus back in 2009/10 for Mike Kelly and his assistants offhand... $2 million in additional tv revenues does not mean $2 million in additional profits for the Bombers. I think by the end of the 5 year tv agreement the Bombers will be paying half of that to the players. Attendance will fall this year mostly due to the decline in season ticket sales and it will not be completely compensated by walkups. Many people went to check out the new stadium and won't be back..at least as season ticketholders..too time-consuming given the location, too expensive for some. I could see average attendance decreasing to 28000 per game this year so loss of 2500*$50 per ticket on average * ten games = $1.25 million lost at the gate. Even the modest price increases of 2 - 3%(with the exception of the 25% increase in the P7 section) won't come close to offsetting that ..maybe a few hundred thousand at most. And I haven't even begun to account for lost revenues in concessions and merchandise. Labour costs increase as the years go by and so will maintaining the stadium as it ages so that will cut into their increased revenues from tv, gate and advertising revenues. How much do you think the Bombers receive from concert revenues? Back in 2010 there were 3 concerts at the old stadium - The Eagles, Rock on the Range and Bon Jovi and according to the Bombers' financial report they received an additional $700,000 from those events - a decent number but nothing amazing. I doubt Bomber revenue from the soccer game is all that significant considering how cheap the tickets were. Top ticket price was only $50. For the other concerts the Bombers have to share revenue with True North considering they are the ones bringing in the acts. As for the NHL Heritage Classic, I'm pretty sure the Bombers are just renting out the facility to the Jets. True North and the NHL will be the true benefactors of that event. I agree with you on the Grey Cup although that's once every 8- 10 years Outside of the years hosting the Grey Cup I think this team will struggle to make $4.5 million in profits and thus, meet their annual debt obligations. Maybe in 5 years if we see another increase in tv revenues similar to the new contract (increase 2-3 times the $40 million current deal) will it become easier for the Bombers to meet their debt obligations.

Your projections are overly optimistic.

It all comes back to having to start and build that stadium when they did. Any further delays would have resulted in further expenditure at the old stadium….and now you're talking wasting money. If everybody agrees that a new stadium had to be built, then it was a matter of where and when. We may have short-sighted the location, but I'll tell you right now…the way these politicians work and the process to acquire another location (never mind agree on another location) would have taken years….if at all. But I'll surely agree the money to acquire a proper stadium design and build should have been spent. At the very least there would have been a major refurbishment at the old stadium. If not, the new stadium would have been constructed eventually. Canad Inns probably had at most a decade left in it's lifespan before being condemned (One of Landowne's grandstands was condemned and torn down a few years ago and it wasn't as old as Canad Inns grandstands). No politician (conservative or NDP) would have suffered the embarrassment of being in charge while a CFL team became homeless. Do agree with you that the proper stadium design and build should have been pursued as well as a better location (preferably old stadium site and possibly at the downs).

No I'm comparing the business people in charge of these respective pro teams and how they negotiate with the province and city. I'm not sure how the business people on the board would fail to account for the extra costs associated with bus transport and negotiate accordingly. Did they not realize more people would have to take the bus to get to the Bomber games and thus they would have to rent more buses and pay more drivers to accomodate those people? Apparently not, as they came to the province nearly one year later asking for a discount on bus transportation.

When you factor in the yearly subsidies for the bus transportation alone that will nullify the money they received from the feds within a decade or so. Then there is the issue of extra costs associated with using the plans of an architect (Ray Wan) who has never designed a stadium in his life...already seen a few million wasted because of design flaws and who knows how many more millions in the coming decades. Would have been better off hiring a firm with experience in stadium construction

Yet another example that illustrates the difference (business competence) between Bomber management (the BBB) and Jets management. Bomber management -agreeing to pay the $4.5 million debt obligation annually in the first year only to renegotiate to delay first $4.5 million payment by several years...and on top of that adding $10 million in extras late in stadium construction to exacerbate their debt repayments. -Unable to forecast the additional costs associated with transit due to the stadium location which results in the organization negotiating a subsidy with the city after the fact to mitigate costs. Meanwhile Jets' management (owners) - negotiated to privately finance 2/3 of the MTS Centre before construction began. Originally they were going to privately finance 100% of the arena across from the Convention Centre. Would have been a 12,000 seater and 90 miliion or so. Province and city convinced them to build 15,000 seater on site of the Eaton's building and chipped in the rest. - Negotiated subsidies with the province (VLT revenue and reimbursement of entertainment tax) prior to the puck dropping for the first Jets game in 2011. -Spending millions (private money by the way) to enhance customer experience at the MTS Centre...latest being the expansion of the upper deck concourse with expanded washrooms facilities and concessions. Now you could argue against the subsidies the jets receive, that's certainly fair. However the Jets' owners drew up a business plan that determined what they needed to make the operation a viable one and negotiated these subsidies with the province and the city..all that prior to the first game of the Jets' inaugural season. And they have done this with the intention to spend millions each year until 2020 to update the MTS Centre as outlined in their email to season ticketholders - expanded concourse, expanded concessions, expanded washrooms, new scoreboard, improved restaurant facilities at event level plus a few more added benefits. No coming back to the province hat in hand stating we did not foresee these _____ costs years later. In contrast the Bombers' management, in their infinite wisdom, did not have a very good business plan in place otherwise they would have negotiated beforehand with the city or province to account for the additional transportation costs given the location of the stadium...not come hat in hand asking for subsidies nearly one year after completion of the stadium. To do so now, show a lack of competence and due diligence on their part. Further, I doubt any improvements and major repairs to the stadium over the coming decades will be funded by the Bombers at least in any substantial way..most likely the province will take care of that.

For the most part I agree. The Bombers are only one team in the CFL. Big profits but big paybacks (liabilities) too. Plus Toronto & Hamilton are pretty marginal operations right now. Ottawa remains to be seen after their year 1 honeymoon. I suspect there will be more rights for CFL players, especially 3+ year veterans, a higher salary cap - perhaps $250k to $350k more, perhaps one extra canadian, one extra import per team. Other thing the league minimum salary might increase by $5 to $6.5k. I think the players will get a $200,000 or so raise (or 1/5th the annual additional revenue from the tv deal) in the first year and it will culminate in a $1 million raise by the fifth and final year of the tv contract. So within 5 years the players will receive nearly half the new tv revenue.

Yes and as Iso stated earlier the traffic there would have been worse than the U of M site. Based on where they would have built the stadium in the Point Douglas proposal ( the waterfront) there would have been two ways out - Higgins (a crappy winding road which bottlenecks down to two lanes at the Higgins bridge going east) and Waterfront Dr (a two-lane street not exactly conducive to heavy traffic). Not sure why people use the Disraeli as an argument for the Point Douglas stadium as you can't even access it from Point Douglas. It's only accessible from Main St.

And I agree, no lectures, and it should work both ways. But the only thing I would add is, consumers should just educate themselves on what they're ingesting and take it from there. One common misconception is the belief that simply washing your foods will erase any memory of pesticides…that has been proven false. what about using that vegetable/fruit wash spray? That's what I use - spray it on, rub it on the fruit or vegetable to get a lather going then wash it off with water. Does that remove the pesticides?

Anonymous caller is probably a Rider fan.

Meh, the transitway will only be useful for anyone coming through downtown or from the north (west of the river), probably far less than half of people taking transit to the game. Not necessarily. Anyone could park anywhere along its path and have quicker egress from that quagmire around the U. Remember - game day tickets allow fans a free ride. In no time people would figure it out and the need for parking and spaces would diminish. Also, most of those game day buses wouldn't be needed, leaving the roadway for cars only. Less cars, less buses less hassle. I know its true, I read it on a bus billboard when I was aboard and bored. Just crossing the river to park on the transitway for anyone from the east side of the city would double travel time. Honestly, if I have to cross the river to access reasonable transit to the stadium, I'm driving the whole way, but we park for free about 2 KM's south of the stadium and walk. And there's zero chance I'm wading into the mess that those buses are after the game. I've been to some interesting places and I don't think I've seen anything quite as dangerous as the number of drunk people staggering down University Crescent combined with people whizzing by on bikes and confused bus drivers/riders trying to figure out where to go, all of this in the pitch black dark. I'm surprised at the lack of private shuttles to the stadium. I thought places like BP, Tavern etc would be all over that. I really think it's a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or even killed on Chancellor Matheson..at which point the city will then decide to spend a several million extending the sidewalk on the north side of Chancellor Matheson all the way to Pembina, as well as adding streetlights along the route and probably a few designated crosswalks for good measure. Reactive rather than proactive.

With regards to the $1.2 million in transit costs, I thought toward the end of last season it was announced that MPI would be paying for all gameday transit?

I think it's the large number of immigrants from outside the country - don't identify with the CFL game. Football or American Football as it's known around the world, is not all that well-known and receives little or no exposure outside of North America. Similar case with inter-provincial migration, but not as extreme - people moving to Calgary from places like the Maritimes and Newfoundland have little to no exposure to the CFL at a local level so they have little interest in it even when they move to a CFL city like Calgary. I'm sure many people moving from cities with CFL teams chose to retain their home town alliances instead of adopting the stamps as their favorite team...if they liked the CFL at all to begin with.

They have 3.5 weeks to fix the issue before the Women's Soccer Friendly at the stadium. The Bomber organization said this flooding would not effect the date of that game (May 8). Guess we will find out within a couple weeks if that is true.

Why would the Sun write fairly or deal with the consequences. This is the same chain that gives a voice to the likes of Tom Brodbeck, Michael Coren and Ezra Levant.

I cast a weary eye at all politicians - there is a degree of fabrication amongst all of them. That goes for the PCs and the NDP and I guess the Libs as well although they haven't been relevant since the Carstairs years. But I have to ask you, what scandals involving the PCs are you talking about because the only one that really sticks out in my mind was the vote-rigging scandal in the 1995 election and I have my doubts that Filmon was even aware of it? I'm certainly not aware of any widespread corruption during his tenure. I'm aware of his balanced budgets in the face of decreased transfer payments from the federal government during the belt-tightening 90s and how he passed into law that the province could not have back-to-back years of provincial deficits - a law that was put to pasture by the NDP without any form of discussion a few years ago. And if this province is doing so well and if other provinces would kill to have our hydro, why is the 1% increase in the PST necessary along with the myriad of other tax hikes approved by the NDP the last few years? Good for Lyle I guess. I imagine his career as a football executive is over even is this doen't turn out well for him.

Happy for Charles! He had the ability to make a 5-yard run exciting. Now that I think about it he was voted the league's most exciting player a few times.

This is what happens when you get an architect with no experience designing a stadium. I'm sure if a firm with experience in designing stadiums had designed IGF the number of flaws emerging after construction would be lessened

It 's pretty much proven that Pavs is one of the worst starting goalies in the NHL, if not the worst. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the Jets forum on the Hfboards. Pretty sure I have seen the Unknown Poster post there several times. Garret, one of the more frequent posters on the board, happens to be excellent with advanced stat analysis and has shown time and time again that Pavs is a below average goaltender. While Pavs is a great athlete who can make the occasional great save he is 1) poor at controlling rebounds which lead to subsequent high quality scoring chances 2) very poor stick handling which put additional pressure on the defense and forwards in their own zone to try and clear the puck 3) poor positionally in the net leading to the acrobatic saves fooling people into believing he is a good goaltender and also leading to goals which should have been saved if he was covering the angle properly 4) weak glovehand 5) frequently plays too deep in his net The guy is just fundamentally a poor goaltender relying on athleticism to look better than he is. The one season in Atlanta with the .914 save percentage was a fluke as seen by his three years in Winnipeg in which it appears he has become progressively worse. The bad defense argument in defense of Pavs doesn't wash as teams with worse defense like the Buffalo Sabres and the Toronto Maple Laffs have goalies with significantly higher save percentages (Miller, Reimer and Bernier). If the Jets had even average goaltending last year (which would be exceptional for pavs) they would have made the playoffs.. Chevy needs to buyout Pavs and/or bring in competition next year and I'm talking about legit competition, not Montoya or one of the goalies currently with the Ice Caps. Someone like Halak or Reimer. There are a few others but I can't think of them right now - will have to take a look at the free agent list. Won't be able to trade Pavs due to the horrible contract unless we trade him for an equally bad contract. Cam Ward's $6+ million contract with 2 years remaining is an example.