View Single Post
Old
03-08-2013, 03:59 PM
  #447
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelli27 View Post
Can you not see the error in your argument?
Your argument is premissed on your understanding of "financial advantage". But, here's the difference: Windsor's financial advantage entailed going "against the rules" (as you pointed out correctly). London's financial advantage is in keeping with the rules. So, you can't use 'financial advantage' across the board or you're guilty of an equivocation.
In other words, 'financial advantage' is obviously justified when it's done within the rules = London.
'Financial advantage' is not legitimate when it violates league rules = Windsor.

If you'd like to argue that London's 'financial advantage' in bidding for the Memorial Cup should be a violation of league rules, then you'll need a separate argument altogether.
Who makes the rules? London can use it's financial advantage to host the Mem Cup for the second time in nine years - I wonder how much of that current financial advantage comes from the fact they hosted the Memorial Cup in 2005 in the first place. You get the exposure, the prestige, positive media coverage of your area that you can then use to sell kids to your program, expanding your season ticket base with new fan interest as well as making millions off hosting the tournament that could allow you to spruce up your arena which will then give you a further advantage the next time you bid.

So use your financial advantage to pay off the league = completely okay and even encouraged, but just don't use that financial advantage to treat players better.

It's even more amusing that the reason Mississauga was given the hosting gig in 2011 was supposedly to try and help sell the game in the GTA. London certainly doesn't need any help selling tickets or establishing a fan base.

Hosting the cup should be an enticement for teams to improve their situations - Barrie will put a million bucks into their arena - that's great. Windsor built a $70M arena on the tax payers dime - and for what? Gee, thanks for trying, but we're going to give gig to London again because they give us more money.

Windsor was royally screwed in 2011 - Branch made promises to Melynuk. Windsor was coming off one Mem Cup, was the odds on favorite for another given a very dominant team - so there was a chance to sell the potential three peat, and the returning team wouldn't have been the odds on favorite but our roster if we built instead of sold (Shugg and Cantin for Ebert and Kerby) would have been top five in the league (given we made it to the final four).

How much was the penalty lowered money wise? $150K right? Now if the Spits were told that they're not going to get the hosting gig outright already, why bid? Unless this is paying their fine without paying it ie. it was dropped to show maybe Windsor's crimes weren't as egregious as the initial penalty suggested - but Branch still wanted his money. Why else would Windsor waste $150K - give it to Branch for the honor of being able to give a presentation that they can't win?


Last edited by Ottomatic: 03-08-2013 at 04:14 PM.
Ottomatic is offline