I know. Your mostly right. All this dialogue is really about my beef that we should ofgot a much better deal. A few beers with reasonable, unemotional dialogue, and even most people on here would agree.
I really don't see where you get off belittling others and telling them to learn English when you are clearly not very good at it yourself.
What company is going to gurantee the maximum price? Really? If there is a massive overrun, then they won't try and wiggle out of it? Why did the city council agree upon this as part of the framework for the agreement? Can you answer that for me without giving me a pile of crap for an answer based on conjecture and personal bias?
You might as well have said "I know you are, but what am I"?
Nice evasion attempt, but i'm still waiting for an answer.
I really don't see where you get off belittling others and telling them to learn English when you are clearly not very good at it yourself.
Hmmm, i get belittled 10 posts per day, because of my views. I make one, perhaps rude, off the cuff comment, and BAM you catch it. Why don't you catch the other ones? Is it because they are on your side?
Your comments and quickness to judge say an awful lot about your character. Do I see you as the guy who stands up for justice for all, or are you the school yard bully, or maybe the coward who shy's away from confrontation because it is the easy thing to do. I think we both know who you are.
Umm, you just tried to do it again. Dude....you seriously will never learn, and i don't know why i even try. I am still waiting for an answer from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone
No you don't get it. No company is going to guarantee the maximum price, without an out. You believe what you want, but I review contracts all the time. They all have OUTS! And if there is an overage in the building, in the LRT extension, in the pedway or other infrastructure; or if a contractor goes broke etc. ... and you believe Katz will cover the cost .... then you are the one who is "Delusional".
- Me -
Okie...here we go. Katz is not responsible for LRT extensions, but is paying for half of the pedway costs up to 25 million. You can speculate all you want, but contracts with guranteed maximum's have been done before and will be done again.
So you can speculate all you want, but at the end of the day that's all it is. Pure speculation that the sky will fall, and that Katz is screwing the city.
No company is going to gurantee the maximum price? Really? Then why do these type of contacts even exist? Why did the city council agree upon this as part of the framework for the agreement? Can you answer that for me without giving me a pile of crap for an answer based on conjecture and personal bias?
BTW I did not once say that i believed that Katz would cover the cost of going over the guaranteed amount. Why would I if i have faith that they will not go over due to the guaranteed maximum amount spent on the arena agreement that is part of the framework? Jeebus that's a stupid accusation.
[QUOTE=Booya42;38986033]Umm, you just tried to do it again. Dude....you seriously will never learn, and i don't know why i even try. I am still waiting for an answer from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone
No you don't get it. No company is going to guarantee the maximum price, without an out. You believe what you want, but I review contracts all the time. They all have OUTS! And if there is an overage in the building, in the LRT extension, in the pedway or other infrastructure; or if a contractor goes broke etc. ... and you believe Katz will cover the cost .... then you are the one who is "Delusional".
Okie...here we go. Katz is not responsible for LRT extensions, but is paying for half of the pedway costs up to 25 million. You can speculate all you want, but contracts with guranteed maximum's have been done before and will be done again.
So you can speculate all you want, but at the end of the day that's all it is. Pure speculation that the sky will fall, and that Katz is screwing the city.
No company is going to gurantee the maximum price? Really? Then why do these type of contacts even exist? Why did the city council agree upon this as part of the framework for the agreement? Can you answer that for me without giving me a pile of crap for an answer based on conjecture and personal bias?**/QUOTE]
I'm waiting for real answers from you. You have none.
I am done even trying to talk rationally to you. If you'd rather use grade school tactics to try and prove your point, then you've got nothing to say. You're not wasting anymore of my time. Do yourself a huge favour and try reading the framework on the link i provided first, before posting something related to this thread. It might go easier for you if you at least appear educated on the subject.
I am done even trying to talk rationally to you. If you'd rather use grade school tactics to try and prove your point, then you've got nothing to say. You're not wasting anymore of my time. Do yourself a huge favour and try reading the framework on the link i provided first, before posting something related to this thread. It might go easier for you if you at least appear educated on the subject.
I think you are wasting your own time. Your personal attacks and name calling really help the dialogue move forward.
Hmmm, i get belittled 10 posts per day, because of my views. I make one, perhaps rude, off the cuff comment, and BAM you catch it. Why don't you catch the other ones? Is it because they are on your side?
Your comments and quickness to judge say an awful lot about your character. Do I see you as the guy who stands up for justice for all, or are you the school yard bully, or maybe the coward who shy's away from confrontation because it is the easy thing to do. I think we both know who you are.
Actually your comments get belittled, not you. If you take said belittling about your comments personally, than it is your issue and not anyone else's. Perhaps if you made comments that were a little less uneducated on the subject, or a little less asinine, or a little less subjective, than maybe you might be taken a bit more seriously. I don't agree with Replacement very much for example, but he's always educated himself on the subject and i respect him.
Unfortunately, you make a habit of doing none of those things and so reap the results. It's a bad habit to blame others for your own faults.
Actually your comments get belittled, not you. If you take said belittling about your comments personally, than it is your issue and not anyone else's. Perhaps if you made comments that were a little less uneducated on the subject, or a little less asinine, or a little less subjective, than maybe you might be taken a bit more seriously. I don't agree with Replacement very much for example, but he's always educated himself on the subject and i respect him.
Unfortunately, you make a habit of doing none of those things and so reap the results. It's a bad habit to blame others for your own faults.
2/Katz and the CC have come to an agreement that changed some things...true - see 1/.
3/In which universe did the city "donate" $250 million to Katz? Show me some links for proof on this one . The city is contributing $125 million towards the arena as you can again see in the framework link i provided in 1/.
4/Redford and Stelmach both said that the province would not directly help fund the arena construction, but also said that they see no reason why the last $100 million could not be funded from the MSI.
5/ The city (once again, because you cannot seem to get this through your skull) is not giving Katz any money. The arena and it's land will be owned by the city. I cannot apparently say this enough to you. It's like talking to a cup of coffee but inherently less satisfying. I agree that the mayor would like to leave some kind of legacy however...they all do.
6/I read the first sentence and stopped after that because you started to say some really stupid stuff. Once again...There is a guarantee in place as part of the agreement to not have the arena cost more than the $450 million. If you actually take the time to read the framework in the link provided, you would see this in the very first paragraph:
It's absolutely draining when you constantly try to show someone the facts but they consistently refuse to look due to bias. You keep going back to arguments that have no merit, or have been disproven. Beyond what i just posted, i simply cannot help you if you don't get it.
On Oct. 26 city council voted 10-3 in favour of proceeding with a downtown arena. Here are the remarks I made at council to tell why I could not support this particular deal at this time:
I think we can agree that the majority of Edmontonians want to see a new downtown arena. I do but only if it’s done right.
So let’s get it RIGHT.
In the public hearing yesterday we all heard pushback on the fact Daryl Katz was paying very LITTLE up-front money and getting ALL revenues from an arena that the City will own.
Now we’re being asked to approve a NEW 17-point framework of this deal. And it has MAJOR changes to the ones we approved back in April. I supported that April negotiating framework. But it’s now mutated into a critter I barely recognize.
Back then, we trumpeted the fact the Katz Group was putting up $100M, the bulk of it upfront. Now they’ll put up only $5.5 million per year. This deal should not proceed unless we get that $100 million upfront. No question.
We agreed in April this deal could not proceed without $100M in provincial gov’t money. They’ve turned us down flat. So we’re breaking our own word on this by proceeding anyway without the money. In my view that’s completely irresponsible.
It’s long been said the City is paying $125M for the arena. That’s what Edmontonians have been told repeatedly. But we learned JUST today it’s going to cost City taxpayers as much as $305M all-in, including the interest on huge loans we’ve got to take out. That’s a big, big change, folks.
This is a bad deal for taxpayers.
Now that council has voted to buy the land for the arena, there’s no need to approve this deal today.
I urge council to vote against this latest deal and tell administration to go back and negotiate a far better deal; A deal where we get that $100 million from the Katz Group upfront — guaranteed — before we proceed.
And a better deal where WE get a share of revenue from an arena that we OWN. And, before we take one more step down this dangerous fiscal path, we’ve got to get that $100 million from the feds or province or get it from another source other than taxpayers.
Some people complain that we should just do this deal because it’s been talked about and debated for years. I’m sorry. That’s no reason to agree to a bad deal.
Would the average Oiler fan complain if the team went into triple overtime in Game Seven and won the Stanley Cup? Would they complain that Cup win took too much time? I don’t think so.
I support a new arena as do the majority of Edmontonians I’ve heard from. But we absolutely owe it to the taxpayers to get this deal right. It’s not right though — it’s offside. And I cannot with good conscience support it as it’s spelled out.
On Oct. 26 city council voted 10-3 in favour of proceeding with a downtown arena. Here are the remarks I made at council to tell why I could not support this particular deal at this time:
I think we can agree that the majority of Edmontonians want to see a new downtown arena. I do but only if it’s done right.
So let’s get it RIGHT.
In the public hearing yesterday we all heard pushback on the fact Daryl Katz was paying very LITTLE up-front money and getting ALL revenues from an arena that the City will own.
Now we’re being asked to approve a NEW 17-point framework of this deal. And it has MAJOR changes to the ones we approved back in April. I supported that April negotiating framework. But it’s now mutated into a critter I barely recognize.
Back then, we trumpeted the fact the Katz Group was putting up $100M, the bulk of it upfront. Now they’ll put up only $5.5 million per year. This deal should not proceed unless we get that $100 million upfront. No question.
We agreed in April this deal could not proceed without $100M in provincial gov’t money. They’ve turned us down flat. So we’re breaking our own word on this by proceeding anyway without the money. In my view that’s completely irresponsible.
It’s long been said the City is paying $125M for the arena. That’s what Edmontonians have been told repeatedly. But we learned JUST today it’s going to cost City taxpayers as much as $305M all-in, including the interest on huge loans we’ve got to take out. That’s a big, big change, folks.
This is a bad deal for taxpayers.
Now that council has voted to buy the land for the arena, there’s no need to approve this deal today.
I urge council to vote against this latest deal and tell administration to go back and negotiate a far better deal; A deal where we get that $100 million from the Katz Group upfront — guaranteed — before we proceed.
And a better deal where WE get a share of revenue from an arena that we OWN. And, before we take one more step down this dangerous fiscal path, we’ve got to get that $100 million from the feds or province or get it from another source other than taxpayers.
Some people complain that we should just do this deal because it’s been talked about and debated for years. I’m sorry. That’s no reason to agree to a bad deal.
Would the average Oiler fan complain if the team went into triple overtime in Game Seven and won the Stanley Cup? Would they complain that Cup win took too much time? I don’t think so.
I support a new arena as do the majority of Edmontonians I’ve heard from. But we absolutely owe it to the taxpayers to get this deal right. It’s not right though — it’s offside. And I cannot with good conscience support it as it’s spelled out.
Finally something i can respect...Kerry brings up some points, but none that i particularly agree with. It doesn't help IMO that he is on the Northland's board. What i found hillarious about this though, was that he was complaining about the 17 changes made that were forwarded by Caterina and voted upon and approved by council.
Anyhew..The 5.5 million a year pays for the interest of the city's loan and a bit more. It's to be paid over 30 years i believe and will actually amount to 165 million(?) when all is said and done. This is on top of the 125 million that is coming from the ticket tax that would have gone into Katz's pocket. This is also on top of the 100 million that he is spending towards the surrounding development. So in reality, the city only spends the $125 million as promised when all is said and done.
As far as the 100 million from the provincial govt. - Yes they said that they would not be directly funding it, and we've known this all along. Have you heard of the MSI?
Asking to get a share of the revenue is actually one of the reasons that Katz was looking for a new deal in the first place. All other teams in the NHL get full revenue. Katz wants equality.
That Stanley Cup argument had many folks laughing in confusion. Diotte should have left that one out, as it hurt his case. They've been talking about the city's need for a new arena for almost 7 years now, and the costs are not going down. Let's get this ball rolling!
Last but not least, it was voted in favour by our city council 10-3. 'Nuff said.
Don't forget that the Katz Group will operate the building and be responsible for all maintenance, upgrades, operating and capital expense costs, as well as all taxes for the arena.
Actually your couldnt be further from the truth be Hey what ever floats your boat.
This entire thread is surreal or Dystopian .... I can't *** believe you guys really believe there is no tax payer money involved. 1984, A Brave New World, it is all alive and well in Edmonton. Our society is doomed, you have all proven it to me tonight.
This entire thread is surreal or Dystopian .... I can't *** believe you guys really believe there is no tax payer money involved. 1984, A Brave New World, it is all alive and well in Edmonton. Our society is doomed, you have all proven it to me tonight.
This entire thread is surreal or Dystopian .... I can't *** believe you guys really believe there is no tax payer money involved. 1984, A Brave New World, it is all alive and well in Edmonton. Our society is doomed, you have all proven it to me tonight.
I was going to say something, but i think it would be best to just bump this instead... By the way, i never said that no tax payer money would be involved. The MSI is actually tax payer money, but is designed for stuff like this.
Alberta’s municipalities are strong, vibrant places to live, work and raise a family. In 2007, Premier Stelmach announced the $11.3 billion MSI to provide predictable, sustainable funding for our province’s municipal infrastructure projects to keep our municipalities strong.
Since 2007, Alberta’s municipalities have been allocated $3.1 billion in MSI funding. This has meant communities across Alberta have been able to build or upgrade their public transit vehicles and facilities, recreation and sport facilities, roadways and bridges, and storm sewer systems, to name a few key projects chosen locally, based on priorities.
This website is dedicated to telling your community MSI story – and increasing the profile of the projects that are making Alberta’s communities even greater places to live.
Given the lack of arena news and the hilarity of the night's discussion, thought some relevant humor would fit. Sums up quite a bit of the arguments around the whole arena -
You might as well have said "I know you are, but what am I"?
The city (once again, because you cannot seem to get this through your skull) is not giving Katz any money. The arena and it's land will be owned by the city. I cannot apparently say this enough to you. It's like talking to a cup of coffee but inherently less satisfying. I agree that the mayor would like to leave some kind of legacy however...they all do.
You keep going back to arguments that have no merit, or have been disproven. Beyond what i just posted, i simply cannot help you if you don't get it.
Finally something i can respect...Kerry brings up some points, but none that i particularly agree with. It doesn't help IMO that he is on the Northland's board. What i found hillarious about this though, was that he was complaining about the 17 changes made that were forwarded by Caterina and voted upon and approved by council.
