Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs
You're thinking a little too hard on this bdog. Its pretty simple, if the province went ahead and said there were building it anyways, that immediately deflates any pressure being put on the feds to come through with their portion of funding.
|
Migs, you make it sound like delaying this project for months and months is somehow leveraging the province's position with the feds. If YOU know that the project is going ahead regardless of the feds, then the MPs of Saskatchewan must also know this as well. And since the project's plan B (moving forward with the project regardless of fed funding, you've claimed) has a february deadline, then the months and months of delay will have been for what? If the deadline passes, and the feds still haven't got an answer, what pressure what put on the feds?
Quote:
I am sure they aren't aware of that? Come on man, think for a second. Just because intricate details haven't been revealed in the press doesn' mean they aren't being worked on. Its common sense that the price will go up, might be why there are rumours that the feasibility study used worse-case scenario numbers to begin with. Projects this size with so many stakeholders are very fluid, patience is a virtue.
|
Intricate details? Migs, these are tens of millions of dollars we're talking about here. I'm glad that you've finally admit that the price will go up though... And what are these rumours about worst-case scenario numbers being used? It certainly is not mentioned in the feasibility study. I guess PCL has worst-case scenario for steel, concrete, and labour or what?
Quote:
Once again, details will come to the surface on a need to know basis, read Murray Mandryks article from last week and you might get an idea of possible things that are on the table.
|
Need to know basis? This project is being sold as a complete urban revitalization, with affordable housing a top priority Migs. This isn't a minor detail, this is supposedly a major component. I find it funny that you suggest I read Mandryk's article, considering you did everything you could to discredit him the last time I posted an article by him, in which his opinion differed from yours.
You can disregard my points all you want, with your eye-rolling smilies and sarcastic remarks. However, I'm raising legitimate questions here Migs, and I hope other posters here see that.
Interestingly, Fiacco says he doesn't support using gas tax money for the stadium:
http://www.newstalk650.com/story/20110210/46900