finally, someone says it ... EDM clearly is not disadvantaged in the results department by the previous CBA.Chayos1 said:....The reality is Edmonton has been competive in all but 3 season in the last 25, which is something that can't be said by the Storied franchise in Tor.
DR said:finally, someone says it ... EDM clearly is not disadvantaged in the results department by the previous CBA.
so, then why shut the damn league down just because they have had to be succesful without the same money as TOR ?
dr
successful? I think he said competive...big differenceDR said:finally, someone says it ... EDM clearly is not disadvantaged in the results department by the previous CBA.
so, then why shut the damn league down just because they have had to be succesful without the same money as TOR ?
dr
DR said:finally, someone says it ... EDM clearly is not disadvantaged in the results department by the previous CBA.
so, then why shut the damn league down just because they have had to be succesful without the same money as TOR ?
dr
Mr Sakich said:if it weren't for the people, BC would be the richest by a big margin but there are too many tree huggers and socialists. Alberta has oil and gas but we also have edmonton so that kinda hurts us.
IMO, Ontario would be the richest because their population has reached a critical mass, they don't need the rest of canada. Per capita, alberta or BC but Ontario would be the biggest economy.
DR said:finally, someone says it ... EDM clearly is not disadvantaged in the results department by the previous CBA.
so, then why shut the damn league down just because they have had to be succesful without the same money as TOR ?
dr
GregStack said:But it will improve the Red Wings, the Leafs, and the Rangers drafting when we infuse $5,000,000 into scouting...
I think Bloodsport explained it well, you could argue all day about whether or not certain provinces could exist without the others and how one economy depends on the others and so on, I won't get into that, its definetaly better for all provinces to stay in Canada. But when it comes to equalization, which was what I was talking about, its pretty clear who's paying and who's not, just look at the numbers already posted, financially, there is no province in as good a position as Alberta is currently.HF2002 said:Feel free to explain why this is so. I'd like to understand how little you really know about the topic.
DR said:finally, someone says it ... EDM clearly is not disadvantaged in the results department by the previous CBA.
so, then why shut the damn league down just because they have had to be succesful without the same money as TOR ?
dr
me2 said:How many of those 25 years can under the old CBA?
Was Edmonton better under the old CBA or better in the years before that?
You're right, I apologize, because it was more of a collective "you" rather than you yourself.kruezer said:I think Bloodsport explained it well, you could argue all day about whether or not certain provinces could exist without the others and how one economy depends on the others and so on, I won't get into that, its definetaly better for all provinces to stay in Canada. But when it comes to equalization, which was what I was talking about, its pretty clear who's paying and who's not, just look at the numbers already posted, financially, there is no province in as good a position as Alberta is currently.
But I am no economist, I just minor in it at school, and I really don't know alot about it, its just pretty clear on this point IMO, but lets not make this personal.
Shhhhhhhhhhh....Bloodsport said:92.9% of Alberta's revenues are stolen from them every year and nothing gets returned to them. Ontario and BC don't receive any transfer payments either but they aren't taxed to the nines like Alberta is. That's his point there sparky.
HF2002 said:What is unique to the provinces is that the Federal government cannot tax certain natural resources - giving AB a huge boost when it comes to oil even though the oil actually belongs to Canada, not Alberta.
HF2002 said:You're right, I apologize, because it was more of a collective "you" rather than you yourself.
The Federal government transfers money to each province through 5 different programs. Equalization is 1 of the 5 programs.
Equalization payments come from the Federal government, not by shifting money from Alberta to other provinces. The federal government taxes everything, as we all know, and that's where the revenue comes from. "Payments" are what the province is entitled to receive based on the province's fiscal capacity. The greater your capacity the lower the need to receive funding from the Federal government. Not a bad thing at all.
What is unique to the provinces is that the Federal government cannot tax certain natural resources - giving AB a huge boost when it comes to oil even though the oil actually belongs to Canada, not Alberta. Because AB's tax base is concentrated to a large extent on natural resources (which the Fed's can't touch) there is actually less money leaving the province for the rest of Canada to "use". It goes to the province.
The chart that everyone seems to be using as the basis for this "AB is carrying the rest of the country" just shows where provinces stand in relation to the standard required to receive transfer payments in the Equalization Program. The idea behind the program is to help less prosperous provinces provide reasonably comparable public services without their taxes being out of line with those of more affluent provinces.[/QUote
believes that sharing is bad, its just that the timing of new taxes(on resources) and the implementation of the equalization payments smacks of poltiacal pork barreling(at Albertas expense).
hockeytown9321 said:How many came under CBA prior to the last one, one that didn't even have a rookie cap?
And when did the NHLPA propose to keep the last CBA in place?
Look it up yourself. A good starting point might be the Department of Justice.Mr Sakich said:I must have missed the anouncement that gave the federal gov't jusrisdiction over natural resources. Please provide a link.
HF2002 said:Look it up yourself. A good starting point might be the Department of Justice.
Anyway, we're supposed to be talking hockey in here, or at least the business side of it.
It's hardly misinformation. You said it yourself "..were given authority" through the BNA Act of 1867.oil slick said:I agree about talking hockey, but you really shouldn't post misinformation. The provincial legislatures were given authority over natural resources in the BNA Act, and this was strengthened in the Constitution.
guymez said:Strachans main objective is to stir the pot. He is clearly pro player in this dispute. Like most pro player takes, sound research and logic are somewhat lacking. I liked Peter Mahr's opinion on the article (expressed today on The Fan). He essentially stated that he understood that Strachan was pro NHLPA so he reads his article and moves on. He doesn't let it bother him.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Strachan is trying to do his part to stir things up and try to sway public opinion. Probably the best way to approach his work is like reading the National Enquirer while you wait in line to pay for groceries. You read it...chuckle a litte...then put it down and forget about it.
HF2002 said:It's hardly misinformation. You said it yourself "..were given authority" through the BNA Act of 1867.
HF2002 said:Look it up yourself. A good starting point might be the Department of Justice.Mr Sakich said:I must have missed the anouncement that gave the federal gov't jusrisdiction over natural resources. Please provide a link.
Yup...and to think some people use Strachans stuff as a basis on which to support an argument.dakota said:i believe you is correct... this guy is all about selling papers... and making a name for himself (good or bad)... and for the few fools who are "slaves" to his thinking he is a breath of fresh air... he is good at stiring the pot... how else can one explain this guys thinking...
guymez said:Yup...and to think some people use Strachans stuff as a basis on which to support an argument.