Strachan sets Alberta straight

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr Sakich

Registered User
Mar 8, 2002
9,641
1,279
Motel 35
vimeo.com
actually, it is just my frustration about a comment taken out of context. The whole "let them freeze" was about the feds staying out of provincial jurisdiction.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
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.
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
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
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


Do all twelve year olds think the league is shut down by a 1-29 vote amongst owners, and that the Oilers have supreme authority against the wishes of every other single owner?? Yeah, the other 29 are doing cartwheels over how much they loved the last cba.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,431
29,169
St. OILbert, AB
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 difference
 

Kestrel

Registered User
Jan 30, 2005
5,814
129
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

Competitive while tightly controlling a budget, vulnerable to the whims of the all powerful Canadian dollar and any possible profit killers. If you were a business owner, wouldn't you hold out for an opportunity to be successful AND decently profitable as opposed to being a middle of the pack company that's never sure when it will turn a profit or a loss? And, as Bucky said - the Oilers aren't holding the league hostage - they DON'T have that power.
 

Ice Cream Man

$1 Oysters
Aug 22, 2002
5,079
0
Visit site
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.

Not sure Ontario would be the 'richest' because theit population has reached a 'critical mass'. If that was the case, Bangladesh would be exponentially richer than it actually is. Population does not equal wealth.
 

Roughneck

Registered User
Oct 15, 2003
9,609
1
Calgary
Visit site
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

So I guess you haven't really read the thread then?

Level playing field. Retaining players. Big Market teams covering up the same problems small market teams have with big free agents etc.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
GregStack said:
But it will improve the Red Wings, the Leafs, and the Rangers drafting when we infuse $5,000,000 into scouting...

Given how much teams, even the rich ones, screw up their 1st round draft choices, I don't think it will matter a great. Teams, all teams, scout the absolute daylights out of 1st round possible players, you'd think every player in the 1st round couldn't possible miss with that amount of scouting. Look at some of the top 5 and top 5 busts, more scouting wouldn't have made much difference to the draft order.

If the big teams start doing noticably better then two or three poorer clubs will combine money/scouts and get equally good level of scouting.

At the end of the day an 18 year old entry draft is a lottery: many players don't peak until later and barely rate at the draft (Zetterberg), many peak early and bust, others just suck the NHL game.
 

Vagabond

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
8,995
3,608
Edmonton
Alberta united along with BC and Sask as the country of Western Canada. We'd have sole possession of most resources, minerals, agriculture, Pacific ports, mountain resorts... A major bargain chip if you'd ask me.

I don't see Ontario uniting with any other province for the exception of the odd maritime provinces. ..Much people needing much resources, minerals, agriculture to fuel their industries and vehicles - heat most their homes - feed their large population... Not having any seaports unless Quebec gives them permission and may come at a cost. :lol If they wanted, they could tally every ship leading through the St.Lawrence into the heartland of Ontario.

It'd be a cold day in hell seeing Quebec uniting along the likes of Ontario.

Anyhow, all the provinces of Canada, are they not all Canadian? :dunno:
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,717
274
North Bay
HF2002 said:
Feel free to explain why this is so. I'd like to understand how little you really know about the topic.
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.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
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

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?
 

Ziggy Stardust

Master Debater
Jul 25, 2002
63,032
33,986
Parts Unknown
I'm surprised, after 6 months, some of you still don't realize what the big problem is. This lockout wasn't triggered because a couple of teams aren't doing as well financially as other bigger markets. THIS IS ABOUT THE LEAGUE AS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE! Quit comparing Edmonton and Ottawa and Calgary and Toronto and their budgets and transactions and drafts. Put your selfish bickering aside and do yourselves a favor and open your eyes and enlighten your minds and think of the National Hockey League as a collective whole, with all (or a good majority) of the markets striving, and hockey becoming a big success and being respected once again in the mainstream media (outside of only Toronto, there are hockey fans outside of Canada if you weren't aware of that). The sport has not grown and prospered, even after expansion and multimillion dollar TV contracts (that pale in comparison to other sports).

The league and the sport of hockey as a whole is on the decline in the US. Fan interest was wavering while the league was active and it sure isn't going to get any better. The players are part of the product and this is hurting everyone involved, not just the Leafs or the Oilers or the Rangers. Sure it hurts some clubs more than others, but if people bothered to take a step back and look at the sport and the league as a whole, as a viable, entertaining (and profitable) product outside of a few select markets.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
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?

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?
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
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.
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.
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
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.
Shhhhhhhhhhh....
 

Mr Sakich

Registered User
Mar 8, 2002
9,641
1,279
Motel 35
vimeo.com
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.

I must have missed the anouncement that gave the federal gov't jusrisdiction over natural resources. Please provide a link.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Im sure no one

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).
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
hockeytown9321 said:
How many came under CBA prior to the last one, one that didn't even have a rookie cap?

or Arbitration or mandatory salary disclosure etc.

And when did the NHLPA propose to keep the last CBA in place?


After the one time, unsustained rollback, their Dec 9 offer wasn't far off it: take the old CBA and add a feeble luxury tax and some minor tweaks.
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
Mr Sakich said:
I must have missed the anouncement that gave the federal gov't jusrisdiction over natural resources. Please provide a link.
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.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
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.

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.

As for this whole misplaced debate, Alberta has the highest GDP per capita and is a strong economy. However, IMO make no mistake that Ontario is the economic engine of the Country. A lot more people producing almost as much. If the Ontario economy tanks, the Canadian economy tanks, whereas I don't think the same can be said for Alberta.
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
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.
It's hardly misinformation. You said it yourself "..were given authority" through the BNA Act of 1867.
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
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.

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...
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
HF2002 said:
It's hardly misinformation. You said it yourself "..were given authority" through the BNA Act of 1867.


OK - now you have me confused...

HF2002 said:
Mr Sakich said:
I must have missed the anouncement that gave the federal gov't jusrisdiction over natural resources. Please provide a link.
Look it up yourself. A good starting point might be the Department of Justice.

Aren't you saying natural resources are a federal jurisdiction? Maybe I'm confused.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
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...
Yup...and to think some people use Strachans stuff as a basis on which to support an argument.:eek: :help:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->