Confirmed with Link: Melnyk talks about new coach, new arena, etc

[StefanW]

Sometimes I feel that is no pleasing some fans. People have complained about the location of the Palladium/Corel Center/Scotiabank/CTC since it was built. Now, they may be an opportunity to have the arena in a more desired (for some fans) location and people are picking it apart.

Live and let live!

I think a large part of that is it may be different fans. Some fans may want a new arena built in a better location while others do not. Yet another group of fans may be very unhappy that the arena was built in Kanata, but see no sense in building a new one right now. I am in that last group.

 

[TeamRenzo]

I think a large part of that is it may be different fans. Some fans may want a new arena built in a better location while others do not. Yet another group of fans may be very unhappy that the arena was built in Kanata, but see no sense in building a new one right now. I am in that last group.

Fair enough.

I am not sure if I want to see the arena move. From a selfish perspective i think it would hurt local businesses but I am convinced if they built a new facility downtown it would be first rate.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I think a large part of that is it may be different fans. Some fans may want a new arena built in a better location while others do not. Yet another group of fans may be very unhappy that the arena was built in Kanata, but see no sense in building a new one right now. I am in that last group.

Just to play devil's advocate, where would you envision the building be located when it has reached end of lifecycle in 10-15 years.

I think the main point many realize is that the best spot for the building is downtown and the current location available will certainly not be available or held for another 10-20 years for the Sens to make a decision. You see your chance you take it in my eyes.

Also weird that a lot of people are concerned with the original location and some claiming it would be un-sellable if a new buidling was created. A few options A) re-purpose the building if another business wants to, otherwise B) tear it down and sell the land. The true value is in the commercial land with highway access, See Tanger Outlets for example and what they payed to build there.

 

[StefanW]

Just to play devil's advocate, where would you envision the building be located when it has reached end of lifecycle in 10-15 years.

I think the main point many realize is that the best spot for the building is downtown and the current location available will certainly not be available or held for another 10-20 years for the Sens to make a decision. You see your chance you take it in my eyes.

Also weird that a lot of people are concerned with the original location and some claiming it would be un-sellable if a new buidling was created. A few options A) re-purpose the building if another business wants to, otherwise B) tear it down and sell the land. The true value is in the commercial land with highway access, See Tanger Outlets for example and what they payed to build there.

I think you are perfectly correct with the "see your chance and you take it" part, which IMO is exactly what the Sens are doing. However, that may not be the most rational approach to long term decision making. Two decades-ish ago the Kanata location seemed like the best out of limited options. A decade and a half from now a different option that is not on the table now may come up.

I apologize if I come across as trying to dodge your questions, but I am not. I just think that the decision of when to build a new arena comes first, and if that decision is made you then look at and evaluate potential locations.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think the problem is reading way far into a single line quote. It's very possible that he meant the stadium wasn't built to last 30 years + without millions in upgrades.

But at this point, Melnyk could fly to Africa, end hunger on the continent, fly back to Canada and **** out a rainbow that drops gold from the sky and you'd spin it into a budget issue and make him into a villain.

Give it a rest.

To me this is the obvious interpretation

When I worked in the building, which is within the last 5 years, the team lauded the fact that the arena still had at least 25 years left as an NHL arena and premium events venue.

Either we (staff) were lied to back then, or we're (the city) being lied to now. Either way, they can't both be true.

I think you're being a little too sensitive here and likely mashing a dislike for the man, with what has been said. You, as an employee, get what information your employer sees fit to foster a healthy work place. Just like they rarely share financial woes with the staff, you should probably not be surprised when getting a new job in a building, that the employer extols the virtues of the building and errs on the side of excess for effect.

If you find yourself upset over some bending of the truth, or being overly optimistic for effect, you must take a moment to consider why.

I don't think I'm asking for a lot here. "Don't lie to me." Seems easy enough.

That being said, there's not much more I can add to this, so I suppose I'll "give it a rest" due to not really having anything else to add to this particular discussion?

As other have said, the building, even with the series of expensive upgrades, has a range from optimum to needing-immediate repairs that probably covers a period of 5-10 years. At 30 years the building moves out of optimum and into an increasing state of needing major repairs. In this sense one could argue that the building was made the right way and can last 45 years, the caveat being that after 30 it will need some major renos. This is a suitable line when talking to rank and file, as well as proving assurances that the team, and their jobs are safe and secure in perpetuity. However, one could also legitimately argue that building, as it stands, was not designed to last more than 30 years, without major renos. This narrative would be the appropriate line to take if the conversation was about considering building a new area in a better location, in 10-15 years time.

Neither is a lie, both fit the necessary narrative needed, and neither are any different than the way you sugarcoat how boring a night out it's going to be with the boys, and how you'll probably just end up having pizza and playing poker. The reality being you guys are more likely to start at the strippers and then hit the bar. Easier to argue that things "just happened" when you get home drunk later, and no one is hurt in the process.

Ok, so the only way I can rationalize his statement is that it can't last that long without significant revovations costs (beyond what would be considered regular maintenance). FWIW, in my experience, the info fed to employee's (particularly those not in decision making positions) is always sugar coated and best case scenario. So while it may have been true that the building had 25 more years, that was providing major upkeep costs were done (ie the venue's life could be extended to up to 25 more years).

I think Melnyk could probably stand to be more transparent on the matter; if he came out and said the arena would need significant upgrades to last 35-40 years, and was not built to do so without those upgrades, everyone would be happy. As is, he's staying within a message box that best suits his desired outcome, and I can see how that rubs people the wrong way.

This

Entirely possible.

Either way, you can imagine how my impression of the team's credibility in this matter is compromised.

I'm not asking anyone here to feel this way - I'm just explaining why I personally feel this way.

I really feel that you're being entirely unrealistic here, which is fine and fair given that we are all guilty of it sometimes. What it does raise to me is that you appear to have some deeper issues at play here.

I'm not sure why we're putting so much stock in a sell job

We all know arenas generally last 30-35 years

Melnyk softening up the ground on the radio in regards to a arena in Lebreton shouldn't be such a contentious issue I think

I agree with this, and not only can I understand the what and why, I recognize that this happens all the time, we all do i, and there really isn't anything wrong with it.

 

[Ice-Tray]

It only is if you start with assumption that the current arena must be done, and that the sell job is more than just softening the ground.

I 100% agree with you, this is exactly what is happening. That is why it is important to realistically assess whether the city needs a new arena rather than taking anyone's word for it.

An independent assessment on the structural integrity of the CTC would be the type of evidence I would need to fully make up my mind.

I disagree with your premise in the first line. That does't have to be the case at all to have that opinion.

The two issues are mutually exclusive, and can be intertwined however necessary.

The discussion about whether an area should be built is a conversation that needs to happen regardless of the state of the CTC. We all know that the CTC can be renovated (expensive) and stay put if the will and interest is not there.

While hedging on the short side, Melnyk is not crying that the CTC is falling apart, he's basically saying that in 10-15 years it will time to either move the building, ore renovate it for another 20 years in it's current spot. I don't have a problem with this, and it seems to be quite reasonable a position to take, especially if you are open to making a move. How dare he try and push something that he wants to happen! I mean really? I do that stuff all the time, don't you?

This is the discussion as it pertains to the CTC: It will be a good time to build a new one, and it's a good spot. So if the city and the people want it, there is potential for it to get done. If they don't, then it won't.

The agenda here isn't at all a secret, nor is Melnyk being under-handed or disingenuous about the CTC, or his motives.

At the end of the day he will tender a plan, and the NCC will decide if they want it as part of the vision. If they accept it, THEN we will get the real talks going, you know, the ones about who is going to pay what, and when is it going to start.

My opinion

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think this article may be from the same interview, someone can correct me if I'm wrong:

http://ottawacitizen.com/sports/hoc...tential-move-to-lebreton-flats-a-game-changer

Senators owner Eugene Melnyk says it is too early to discuss details of a possible move to a new arena in the LeBreton Flats.

But he sounds like a man ready to take his best shot.

“This building wasn’t built to last 35, 40 years,†Melnyk said Monday from the Canadian Tire Centre, where he held his annual skate for children.

Despite the money the Senators organization has spent recently to upgrade the current arena, built in 1996, “you have to build a new one eventually, I hope in my lifetime,†Melnyk said.

“It’s where do you put it from here? We’ve had tremendous support (for a LeBreton pitch), but you’re always going to have naysayers.â€

Melnyk noted the Request for Qualification (RFQ) proposal is due on Jan. 7, but that he would likely file it before Christmas, so that staff aren’t working on it over the holidays.

“The project itself is very premature to even talk about it,†Melnyk said. “We haven’t even decided if we should do it.â€

And yet he added he hopes he and his staff come to the “right decision†on a proposal very soon.

“If we’re going to do it, we want to do it right, we want to be organized,†Melnyk said. “We want to make sure this has been very carefully thought through. This impacts the city in a huge way, it impacts the organization in a huge way, we just need to clearly understand what we’re getting ourselves into because it is a long-term project and it’s really a game-changer for us.

“The main thing is we want to do what’s right for the city, for the fans and the organization long term.â€

The irony is delicious!

People hedging Melnyk's numbers from 35-40 down to 30, or order to argue that he's being disingenuous by hedging using the numbers 35-40.

Then more people pile in and start using the poster-hedged numbers as fact, and away we go!

This place is totally bunkers, and entirely entertaining to follow sometimes.

 

[StefanW]

I disagree with your premise in the first line. That does't have to be the case at all to have that opinion.

The two issues are mutually exclusive, and can be intertwined however necessary.

The discussion about whether an area should be built is a conversation that needs to happen regardless of the state of the CTC. We all know that the CTC can be renovated (expensive) and stay put if the will and interest is not there.

While hedging on the short side, Melnyk is not crying that the CTC is falling apart, he's basically saying that in 10-15 years it will time to either move the building, ore renovate it for another 20 years in it's current spot. I don't have a problem with this, and it seems to be quite reasonable a position to take, especially if you are open to making a move. How dare he try and push something that he wants to happen! I mean really? I do that stuff all the time, don't you?

This is the discussion as it pertains to the CTC: It will be a good time to build a new one, and it's a good spot. So if the city and the people want it, there is potential for it to get done. If they don't, then it won't.

The agenda here isn't at all a secret, nor is Melnyk being under-handed or disingenuous about the CTC, or his motives.

At the end of the day he will tender a plan, and the NCC will decide if they want it as part of the vision. If they accept it, THEN we will get the real talks going, you know, the ones about who is going to pay what, and when is it going to start.

My opinion

I don't see the need for the sarcasm, especially since I don't disagree with that point at all. The difference between our positions, I think, is that I am looking at it from a point of view beyond simply identifying what would be nice for the team. Building arenas typically have some level of support from all three levels of government, which means I can voice my concerns as a taxpayer and not simply a hockey fan. There is also the issue of whether the primo space could be better used on something else.

I never said that Melnyk was being disingenuous with his proposal. My point was simply that I don't think building a new arena right now is the best investment for Ottawa. For record, I think there is a lot of merit to the Sens making a proposal for the land. I believe Melnyk at some point stated that the current place has too high a seating capacity, which is true. The team would do better with fewer seats, which leads to a higher demand. A higher demand has the direct benefit of making it more likely to reach capacity, which help the team in many way including being able to put together a budget that does not rely so heavily on walk up crowds. Cost certainty is a huge deal and would be a huge benefit for the team. The downside, of course, is that less seating and high demand would allow ticket prices to increase. This is also good for the team, but less so for your Joe average fan. Considering how little tickets have increased over the past few years, it makes sense to have a correction.

 

[StefanW]

The irony is delicious!

People hedging Melnyk's numbers from 35-40 down to 30, or order to argue that he's being disingenuous by hedging using the numbers 35-40.

Then more people pile in and start using the poster-hedged numbers as fact, and away we go!

This place is totally bunkers, and entirely entertaining to follow sometimes.

You should probably explain the bolded point. I went through the thread again and I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I don't see the need for the sarcasm, especially since I don't disagree with that point at all. The difference between our positions, I think, is that I am looking at it from a point of view beyond simply identifying what would be nice for the team. Building arenas typically have some level of support from all three levels of government, which means I can voice my concerns as a taxpayer and not simply a hockey fan. There is also the issue of whether the primo space could be better used on something else.

I never said that Melnyk was being disingenuous with his proposal. My point was simply that I don't think building a new arena right now is the best investment for Ottawa. For record, I think there is a lot of merit to the Sens making a proposal for the land. I believe Melnyk at some point stated that the current place has too high a seating capacity, which is true. The team would do better with fewer seats, which leads to a higher demand. A higher demand has the direct benefit of making it more likely to reach capacity, which help the team in many way including being able to put together a budget that does not rely so heavily on walk up crowds. Cost certainty is a huge deal and would be a huge benefit for the team. The downside, of course, is that less seating and high demand would allow ticket prices to increase. This is also good for the team, but less so for your Joe average fan. Considering how little tickets have increased over the past few years, it makes sense to have a correction.

I made my post with a smile on my face, and I am guilty of enjoying my own little quips. Please accept my apology, I didn't intend for it to seem snarky or to be offensive to you. My mood was lost in text.

I am totally in agreement with you for most of what you're saying, and really just trying to reframe what you are saying so that both our opinions can match up.

In sum:

I agree that the most important thing here is to decide what is best for the city. This discussion will be had and a decision will be made by the appropriate authorities, for good or for bad, but it won't be Melnyk's decision. The taxpayer talk, and city planning discussion will be had, unless it's not part of the process. But this has very little to do with Melnyk, and more to do with the NCC and what they decide to do with the federal land they control. I haven't seen anywhere that has hinted that Melnyk is somehow trying to run an endgame around open discussion about what's best for the city. It seems like the idea that your right to an open discussion might be being infringed on, really has no place in this discussion.

For Melnyk's part, he is a businessman who is going to submit a proposal just like all of the other interested parties, and be ready to defend it and campaign for it. This is what is expected from anyone who is vying for the land, be it a museum, a park, condos, etc...

The building is not being built right now, the city/NCC is being asked to invest in a building to be built in 10-15 years time. At that point it will actually be time for action on the CTC end. This isn't a pressing issue in any other way other than the land development strategy is being decided now, for the future.

Ottawa is a very conservative place, and often holds itself back, just to be on the safe side. As the capital, and the beautiful little gem it is, it deserves to treat itself with something nice, something that will ad a little action to its stuffy core.

NIMBY and a general resistance to change often pits youth against elders, a it always seems to. There is being open for discussion, and being open to change based on the discussion.

 

[Ice-Tray]

You should probably explain the bolded point. I went through the thread again and I have no idea what you mean.

Ok

Poster A says Melnyk claimed the building wasn't made to last 30 years. Based on this, Poster A then accuses Melnyk of being a liar.

Melnyk actually said 35-40 years.

Sum: Poster A accuses Melnyk of lying, when in fact it was Poster A who was lying to show Melnyk was lying. See the irony?

The added fun occurs when other posters take Poster A's account of Melnyk as fact and run with it as well... Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Hope it's clear now, since it certainly took the chuckles out of it all.

 

[BonkTastic]

To me this is the obvious interpretation



I think you're being a little too sensitive here and likely mashing a dislike for the man, with what has been said. You, as an employee, get what information your employer sees fit to foster a healthy work place. Just like they rarely share financial woes with the staff, you should probably not be surprised when getting a new job in a building, that the employer extols the virtues of the building and errs on the side of excess for effect.

You posted more than this, but I cut it short to be succinct, as my point here is against the general nature of your rebuttal, and not any one specific point.

I think it's obvious at this point that I am anti-Melnyk. I don't think that should come as a surprise to anyone.

That being said, the thing that I want to stress is that I still have a lot of friends who work for the team, ranging from part-timers to people involved in a lot of the goings-on. There's a lot going on that I know about that I can't write here, because I don't want to get friends in trouble for placing their trust in me. I hear things that aren't supposed to leave the arena, and I'm told by people who know I'm not going to post it online, because they could get in trouble/ lose their jobs.

So when it might seem that I am being anti-Melnyk, and from time to time am vague about it, I usually have a little more knowledge about the situation than the average fan might, but can't really talk about it, because I respect the source.

So yeah. I agree that I'm sometimes too critical of Melnyk on the public stuff that gets out, and I apologize. It must seem like I have an "agenda" or something at times. On the surface, it's unfair... but usually when I'm venting about one public thing that gets out, I'm really venting about 3 or 4 things that I've heard about recently. It sucks that I have to be vague, and I really don't want to discuss it all that much, but if I ever seem overly critical, it's usually because I know about the other stuff that never makes it out of the arena, and it pisses me off, and I'm coming at it from another perspective. I'll try to be better about that in the future, and this will be the only time I bring it up, but I'm not usually ONLY judging what's on the surface, out in the press.

Anyways, let's just leave it at "I don't trust Melnyk at his word on almost anything he says", and understand that I hold that opinion based on reasons that aren't immediately obvious. That's really all I want to say on the matter. I'll try to be better about it in the future, because it's not fair to you guys, but that's where I'm coming from.

 

[StefanW]

I made my post with a smile on my face, and I am guilty of enjoying my own little quips. Please accept my apology, I didn't intend for it to seem snarky or to be offensive to you. My mood was lost in text.

I am totally in agreement with you for most of what you're saying, and really just trying to reframe what you are saying so that both our opinions can match up.

In sum:

I agree that the most important thing here is to decide what is best for the city. This discussion will be had and a decision will be made by the appropriate authorities, for good or for bad, but it won't be Melnyk's decision. The taxpayer talk, and city planning discussion will be had, unless it's not part of the process. But this has very little to do with Melnyk, and more to do with the NCC and what they decide to do with the federal land they control. I haven't seen anywhere that has hinted that Melnyk is somehow trying to run an endgame around open discussion about what's best for the city. It seems like the idea that your right to an open discussion might be being infringed on, really has no place in this discussion.

For Melnyk's part, he is a businessman who is going to submit a proposal just like all of the other interested parties, and be ready to defend it and campaign for it. This is what is expected from anyone who is vying for the land, be it a museum, a park, condos, etc...

The building is not being built right now, the city/NCC is being asked to invest in a building to be built in 10-15 years time. At that point it will actually be time for action on the CTC end. This isn't a pressing issue in any other way other than the land development strategy is being decided now, for the future.

Ottawa is a very conservative place, and often holds itself back, just to be on the safe side. As the capital, and the beautiful little gem it is, it deserves to treat itself with something nice, something that will ad a little action to its stuffy core.

NIMBY and a general resistance to change often pits youth against elders, a it always seems to. There is being open for discussion, and being open to change based on the discussion.

Yeah, I see the point you are making and I definitely am still in agreement with most of your points. I did not see building a new arena as a 10-15 year time frame, but if you couch it in those terms then yeah, what you are saying makes complete sense.

Sorry if I came across as terse in my response to you. We generally agree on most things, and I thought it was unlike you to be sarcastic with what I was saying. In the end it was me who overreacted. My apologies.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I think you are perfectly correct with the "see your chance and you take it" part, which IMO is exactly what the Sens are doing. However, that may not be the most rational approach to long term decision making. Two decades-ish ago the Kanata location seemed like the best out of limited options. A decade and a half from now a different option that is not on the table now may come up.

I apologize if I come across as trying to dodge your questions, but I am not. I just think that the decision of when to build a new arena comes first, and if that decision is made you then look at and evaluate potential locations.

Good point i can certainly see where your coming from, it is an interesting discussion and i don't feel you dodged the question. I am not sure there any real correct answers here but always interesting hearing civil discussion on the matter.

Lived in bhaven most my life and now down in south keys. I have always felt the buidling should be downtown honestly more for what i believe it will bring to city i.e. turn downtown into a destination for all not necessarily just the bars stars.

 

[BonkTastic]

Sum: Poster A accuses Melnyk of lying, when in fact it was Poster A who was lying to show Melnyk was lying. See the irony?

Wait, what was I lying about?

I'm off to dinner with friends. Whatever you want to respond with, I can offer a rebuttal later this evening/ night.

 

[TeamRenzo]

You posted more than this, but I cut it short to be succinct, as my point here is against the general nature of your rebuttal, and not any one specific point.

I think it's obvious at this point that I am anti-Melnyk. I don't think that should come as a surprise to anyone.

That being said, the thing that I want to stress is that I still have a lot of friends who work for the team, ranging from part-timers to people involved in a lot of the goings-on. There's a lot going on that I know about that I can't write here, because I don't want to get friends in trouble for placing their trust in me. I hear things that aren't supposed to leave the arena, and I'm told by people who know I'm not going to post it online, because they could get in trouble/ lose their jobs.

So when it might seem that I am being anti-Melnyk, and from time to time am vague about it, I usually have a little more knowledge about the situation than the average fan might, but can't really talk about it, because I respect the source.

So yeah. I agree that I'm sometimes too critical of Melnyk on the public stuff that gets out, and I apologize. It must seem like I have an "agenda" or something at times. On the surface, it's unfair... but usually when I'm venting about one public thing that gets out, I'm really venting about 3 or 4 things that I've heard about recently. It sucks that I have to be vague, and I really don't want to discuss it all that much, but if I ever seem overly critical, it's usually because I know about the other stuff that never makes it out of the arena, and it pisses me off, and I'm coming at it from another perspective. I'll try to be better about that in the future, and this will be the only time I bring it up, but I'm not usually ONLY judging what's on the surface, out in the press.

Anyways, let's just leave it at "I don't trust Melnyk at his word on almost anything he says", and understand that I hold that opinion based on reasons that aren't immediately obvious. That's really all I want to say on the matter. I'll try to be better about it in the future, because it's not fair to you guys, but that's where I'm coming from.

To say "there is a lot going on here but cant write about it" is ridiculous and to be honest sounds like someone who is back peddling because they've painted themself into a corner.

Unless you have friends that are at the executive level I doubt very much you have the "inside info" you claim to have. Even if you do have friends at that level how can you trust what has been told to them by Melnyk...after all he is a pathological liar.

We get it, you dont like Melnyk and that is your right but you dont need to spew venom in every Melnyk thread that comes up.

 

[Ice-Tray]

You posted more than this, but I cut it short to be succinct, as my point here is against the general nature of your rebuttal, and not any one specific point.

I think it's obvious at this point that I am anti-Melnyk. I don't think that should come as a surprise to anyone.

That being said, the thing that I want to stress is that I still have a lot of friends who work for the team, ranging from part-timers to people involved in a lot of the goings-on. There's a lot going on that I know about that I can't write here, because I don't want to get friends in trouble for placing their trust in me. I hear things that aren't supposed to leave the arena, and I'm told by people who know I'm not going to post it online, because they could get in trouble/ lose their jobs.

So when it might seem that I am being anti-Melnyk, and from time to time am vague about it, I usually have a little more knowledge about the situation than the average fan might, but can't really talk about it, because I respect the source.

So yeah. I agree that I'm sometimes too critical of Melnyk on the public stuff that gets out, and I apologize. It must seem like I have an "agenda" or something at times. On the surface, it's unfair... but usually when I'm venting about one public thing that gets out, I'm really venting about 3 or 4 things that I've heard about recently. It sucks that I have to be vague, and I really don't want to discuss it all that much, but if I ever seem overly critical, it's usually because I know about the other stuff that never makes it out of the arena, and it pisses me off, and I'm coming at it from another perspective. I'll try to be better about that in the future, and this will be the only time I bring it up, but I'm not usually ONLY judging what's on the surface, out in the press.

Anyways, let's just leave it at "I don't trust Melnyk at his word on almost anything he says", and understand that I hold that opinion based on reasons that aren't immediately obvious. That's really all I want to say on the matter. I'll try to be better about it in the future, because it's not fair to you guys, but that's where I'm coming from.

It's all good Bonk, just chatting' away.

What you say makes sense, good to know that your perspective comes from a place of information.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Wait, what was I lying about?

I'm off to dinner with friends. Whatever you want to respond with, I can offer a rebuttal later this evening/ night.

Haha, I knew I was going to get in trouble here. I preferred to leave the original post as it was, and was purposefully vague as to not call anyone out. And it was posted tongue in cheek, because, like I said, it makes me laugh, in a good way. The way topics change and grow creates many gems of irony.

This board has some interesting organics and I enjoy them.

For the record I am not above or beyond involvement in all forms of written shenanigans.

The 'clarification' or simplification post was for Stefan, and wasn't meant to be a direct jab at you.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Yeah, I see the point you are making and I definitely am still in agreement with most of your points. I did not see building a new arena as a 10-15 year time frame, but if you couch it in those terms then yeah, what you are saying makes complete sense.

Sorry if I came across as terse in my response to you. We generally agree on most things, and I thought it was unlike you to be sarcastic with what I was saying. In the end it was me who overreacted. My apologies.

Hey no worries, I need to remember that sometimes what is thought doesn't always translate into what is types. That, and when tensions begin to rise a little, especially due to bumps in communication, it is the perfect time to practice clarity of thought.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Hey no worries, I need to remember that sometimes what is thought doesn't always translate into what is types. That, and when tensions begin to rise a little, especially due to bumps in communication, it is the perfect time to practice clarity of thought.

I thought you were the master of tone though?

 

[Ice-Tray]

I thought you were the master of tone though?

Pretty sure I was arguing that it exists in all text, not just novels, and I also never claimed that I couldn't be careless.

This particular episode does however illustrate the validity of my point now doesn't it.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

My point was that there is no such thing as tone, as understood in a litterary sense, on an internet forum

The high variance in the types of people who interact on a internet forum means the notion of a "universally understood use of tone in written communication" is false

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

And you guys are forgetting one thing....even if the Sens made a bid for the land use in Lebreton tomorrow and win, it doesn't mean they have to start building two days from now. The land can still stay there (and used for Bluesfest) for the next 20 years before the team decides to put shovels in the ground or money exchanges hands.

 

[sauce11]

And you guys are forgetting one thing....even if the Sens made a bid for the land use in Lebreton tomorrow and win, it doesn't mean they have to start building two days from now. The land can still stay there (and used for Bluesfest) for the next 20 years before the team decides to put shovels in the ground or money exchanges hands.

i think this is overlooked by most people opposed to the lebreton arena idea. it's not like we would be prematurely abandoning the CTC. there are so many things that need to happen before the ground is broken... surveying the land, architects competing for design, builders bidding on the contract, city infrastructure changes (LRT, roads leading in from the 417, better bridges too maybe?)

NCC property? to me that sounds like a decade of red tape

 

[Cosmix]

And you guys are forgetting one thing....even if the Sens made a bid for the land use in Lebreton tomorrow and win, it doesn't mean they have to start building two days from now. The land can still stay there (and used for Bluesfest) for the next 20 years before the team decides to put shovels in the ground or money exchanges hands.

I doubt very much that the NCC would sign an agreement that would permit a delay of 20 years before construction begins. There will be timeframes specified in any agreement that must be met, and penalties that would apply if they are not met.

In any event I suspect it will take a few years to work out the details and complete construction.