HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Arts, Culture, Dining, Recreation & Entertainment


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6101  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2018, 11:52 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,569
     
     
  #6102  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2018, 2:45 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
^Wrong thread. FIFA sucks, everybody knows that already. Nothing to do with a Halifax stadium, of which nobody knows any details yet.
     
     
  #6103  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2018, 8:25 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63 View Post
^Wrong thread. FIFA sucks, everybody knows that already. Nothing to do with a Halifax stadium, of which nobody knows any details yet.
It's relevant in the discussion of whether local governments should bend over for sporting bodies related to event and stadium requests and expenditures. In particular, the line from Chicago's mayor citing cost certainty is relevant to Halifax residents.
     
     
  #6104  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2018, 10:28 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
It's relevant in the discussion of whether local governments should bend over for sporting bodies related to event and stadium requests and expenditures. In particular, the line from Chicago's mayor citing cost certainty is relevant to Halifax residents.
I wonder what FIFA demanded and received from Moncton and the New Brunswick government.
I attended one World Cup game in 1966 - Italy v Russia
     
     
  #6105  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2018, 10:53 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 40,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
I wonder what FIFA demanded and received from Moncton and the New Brunswick government.
Moncton was chosen because of a federal desire to make the bid a nationwide one.

I don't know too much about the particulars of any demands made by FIFA regarding Moncton, except for the fact that the Moncton stadium had to sacrifice a perfectly good natural turf infield in order to lay down a new artificial surface.

This effectively destroyed the ability of the stadium to host future track & field events.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
     
     
  #6106  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 1:23 AM
TheNovaScotian's Avatar
TheNovaScotian TheNovaScotian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 247
Here's some relevant articles as well

The articles a few years old but shows what type of investment the rest of Canada is putting into stadiums. Many of the teams, that are housed in these buildings are having great success in their respective sports.

http://http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/a-look-at-canadian-stadiums-built-with-public-funds

     
     
  #6107  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 1:28 AM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
It's relevant in the discussion of whether local governments should bend over for sporting bodies related to event and stadium requests and expenditures. In particular, the line from Chicago's mayor citing cost certainty is relevant to Halifax residents.
It's totally irrelevant to this situation, just more of Colin's attempted FUD about a stadium that is football not soccer driven. Apparently you two know something about this deal the rest of us don't.
     
     
  #6108  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 1:33 AM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian View Post
The articles a few years old but shows what type of investment the rest of Canada is putting into stadiums. Many of the teams, that are housed in these buildings are having great success in their respective sports.

A look at Canadian stadiums built with public funds
Jason van Rassel Calgary Herald August 18, 2015
Thanks, fixed the link.

Just read the article and am thinking to myself, how many of those cities have regretted the decision. The answer that came to me was none and all are points of pride. Then I find myself wondering why that was written for the Calgary Herald in a city with an old stadium and arena that aren't points of pride. Again I say pride and embarrassment aren't a good reason to build a stadium but can be important as well.
     
     
  #6109  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:37 AM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,569
Much better article from the Vancouver Province. FIFA corrupt from top to bottom under Blatter and we can't be sure it is cleaned up.
http://theprovince.com/opinion/columnist...u-inside-the-governments-fight-with-fifa

" B.C. Place is owned by the provincial government and managed by the B.C. Pavilion Corp., a Crown agency known as Pavco.

A “risk analysis” document prepared by Pavco officials outlined an astonishing series of non-negotiable contract terms from FIFA that would have burned taxpayers to a crisp.

They included a requirement that B.C. Place install not just one temporary natural-grass playing surface on top of the stadium’s existing artificial turf (installed just three years ago at a cost of $1.3 million).

The contract demanded a second “contingency pitch” just in case something went wrong with the first grass field and a new one had to be installed on short notice.

FIFA not only demanded two grass fields for B.C. Place, they also demanded two electricity supplies to the stadium in case of a power failure.

A “second separate source of power supply for the stadium” would be “entirely and wholly the responsibility of the stadium and host city,” the risk assessment said.

Stoking the fears of the government was the 2014 World Cup experience of Brazil, which spent over $900 million on security, including a massive video-surveillance system and training on potential chemical and radiological terror attacks.

Keep in mind Vancouver was only in line to get two or three soccer games as part of a unified bid to host the World Cup by Canada, the United States and Mexico.

But, even though the number of games was small, FIFA still demanded “exclusive use” of B.C. Place for up to two months, requiring all other events to be cancelled or postponed.

During the “exclusive use period,” FIFA insisted on a “clean stadium clause” banning all non-authorized advertising and commercial activity — and not just within the confines of B.C. Place itself.

The ban included “prohibition of any promotional, public-relations, religious, political or commercial advertising of any kind in, on, above, around or about the stadium without prior written approval by FIFA,” the assessment said.

“When they were using words like ‘around’ and ‘about’ the stadium, we sought clarity on that and the bid committee could not provide it,” Beare said.

“It would have made us responsible for activities that happened outside the stadium,” she added, saying the government was concerned about policing the activities of businesses near B.C. Place.

If you’re wondering whether all these costs would have been offset by a share of World Cup ticket sales or TV rights — forget it.

“An exceptionally broad and almost universal ownership of commercial rights with respect to the competition” would remain exclusively with FIFA, the assessment said, including “media rights, marketing rights and ticketing.”

As B.C. taxpayers absorbed all the costs — and FIFA scooped all the World Cup profits — FIFA also demanded special treatment under B.C. taxation and labour laws.

Note : In the London Olympics the IOC demanded to be free of all laws, special traffic lanes in the city only for IOC use ......
     
     
  #6110  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 12:08 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
Meanwhile back at the proposed Halifax stadium thread...
     
     
  #6111  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 1:03 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63 View Post
Thanks, fixed the link.

Just read the article and am thinking to myself, how many of those cities have regretted the decision. The answer that came to me was none and all are points of pride.
Well, they're also sources of controversy, from poor construction quality and continuing problems plaguing Tim Hortons Field in Hamilton, to the debate over the gross over-expenditure of public money ($313 million!) on Rogers Place in Edmonton, and the sleazy threats of the Oilers' owner to move the team out of town, and the disputes over public funds being used for BC Place's repairs.

It's not as if citizens of other cities are happy to see any amount of public money dumped into stadium projects with no debate. The discussions happening in all of these cities are very real. And these are cities that currently have pro sports teams, and aren't talking about hypotheticals.
     
     
  #6112  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 2:18 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
I would ask the people who make use of those facilities whether they regret them having been built. I would say the answer would be a resounding no. There will always be a segment of the population who will bitch, moan, and cry about just about any project, particularly if it is sport related.

As for THF, I would think that any project that would be exposed to the elements and built under a tight deadline would have issues. The issues THF is having are hardly serious enough to condemn the building, they're just a political football (pardon the expression) to try and discern who will pay what after the fact.

One thing I learned is that people opposed to sports projects will say or do anything to scuttle those projects and that goes anywhere from deflecting and creating strawman arguments to outright lying.
     
     
  #6113  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 8:06 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63 View Post
I would ask the people who make use of those facilities whether they regret them having been built. I would say the answer would be a resounding no. There will always be a segment of the population who will bitch, moan, and cry about just about any project, particularly if it is sport related.

As for THF, I would think that any project that would be exposed to the elements and built under a tight deadline would have issues. The issues THF is having are hardly serious enough to condemn the building, they're just a political football (pardon the expression) to try and discern who will pay what after the fact.

One thing I learned is that people opposed to sports projects will say or do anything to scuttle those projects and that goes anywhere from deflecting and creating strawman arguments to outright lying.
To use your same argument, what about the people who don't use the facilities but are paying for them regardless? Maybe they would rather have their tax dollars spent on bike lanes or libraries (which are not associated with profit-making organizations).

I don't think it is reasonable to think that they would all be happy with this use of public funds. Remember, it can go both ways.

I personally would like to see a stadium built, even though I am not a football (American/Canadian) or a football (European) fan. I think it would be good for the area, but I do think there's a tipping point whereby a certain amount of public funding would be too much, and better spent on other projects that will benefit a greater number of citizens.
     
     
  #6114  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 8:21 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,569
Thanks, but no thanks message to FIFA :
But behind the fanfare, four major cities – Chicago, Minneapolis, Vancouver and Glendale– told Fifa and the United Bid they didn’t want to be part of a World Cup. Local authorities from those cities cited heavy-handed requests from Fifa and the United Bid that included potentially huge taxpayer bills, as well as hosting contracts that exposed their cities and residents to immense financial and legal risk.

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel announced on Wednesday that Chicago was out – even if the bid was successful. A city official told the Guardian that although Chicago considered itself a “big event city” the requirements for the 2026 tournament “just didn’t feel right”. One demand from Fifa was that the organization could require Chicago to construct a dome over Soldier Field, the venue that hosted the 1994 World Cup opening game and would have hosted matches in 2026.
Fifa’s requirements also included an open-ended ability to modify the agreement at any time; no indemnity to protect the city or taxpayers from legal and financial risks; for Chicago to meet requirements that fall outside of its jurisdiction and authority and therefore could not be ensured; and for contracts to be governed and interpreted under Swiss law (Fifa is headquartered in Zurich)....."
https://www.theguardian.com/football/201...cup-hosting-duties-as-a-poisoned-chalice

Read the comments
Capetown losing $10 million a year !!
     
     
  #6115  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 9:10 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
To use your same argument, what about the people who don't use the facilities but are paying for them regardless? Maybe they would rather have their tax dollars spent on bike lanes or libraries (which are not associated with profit-making organizations).

I don't think it is reasonable to think that they would all be happy with this use of public funds. Remember, it can go both ways.
As you said, it goes both ways, there are thousands of sports fans who will never step inside a library or museum, are they any lesser a person than those who do. I pay taxes on lots of things I don't agree with, that's democracy.
     
     
  #6116  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 9:12 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
Thanks, but no thanks message to FIFA
Do you have any point at all concerning the Halifax stadium?
     
     
  #6117  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 10:21 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63 View Post
As you said, it goes both ways, there are thousands of sports fans who will never step inside a library or museum, are they any lesser a person than those who do. I pay taxes on lots of things I don't agree with, that's democracy.
Well, yeah, we all pay taxes for things we don't want...

...that's why it's a weak argument to say: "I would ask the people who make use of those facilities whether they regret them having been built." What does that matter, really? Are their opinions are worth more than the peoples' who don't attend the games?

It really should come down to overall public opinion, shouldn't it? If there is enough support from people who aren't fans of the sport to make a majority when added to those who do support it... then great, it should go ahead. Like, in a democracy...

But if not? If the majority thinks we're diverting too much public money to this private enterprise? Maybe the private sector needs to make a better business case to their investors? If it won't float without substantial public investment, then maybe it's not a good business plan?

By the way, is that really what we are talking about here? A good ol' democratic majority rules? I ask because the thread is starting to sound more like: if you agree, then great ...but if you don't agree (like Colin, for example), then FU and go away...

I understand and applaud your enthusiasm, but there will always be people who agree and people who don't. And all opinions are important IMHO. Hopefully the majority still rules in these cases.

Personally, I still would like to see a stadium built and a team come to Halifax. Hopefully a good business case can be made for it.
     
     
  #6118  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 11:40 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
It really should come down to overall public opinion, shouldn't it? If there is enough support from people who aren't fans of the sport to make a majority when added to those who do support it... then great, it should go ahead. Like, in a democracy...
If you've read the thread you will find that I said in response to the amount of public funding that should go towards the stadium "As much as the local citizenry is willing to bear. If they want to pay for everything, great, if they want to pay for nothing that's great too."

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
By the way, is that really what we are talking about here? A good ol' democratic majority rules? I ask because the thread is starting to sound more like: if you agree, then great ...but if you don't agree (like Colin, for example), then FU and go away...
Perhaps then can you tell me how by even the biggest stretch of imagination how Colin's articles on FIFA corruption are relevant here. We're not talking about building a 70k+ white elephant or doling out millions for security for a cities allotted few games. We are talking about a 24k stadium that will get pan community usage for decades and is needed infrastructure for Halifax. That is using information that we know that has come from the ownership group not Colin's unsubstantiated and/or off topic FUD. If we used the example that we need to pave the roads and house the homeless and build new hospitals, we'd never have new museums or libraries either. They are not mutually exclusive (that we can have both a hospital and a stadium).

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I understand and applaud your enthusiasm, but there will always be people who agree and people who don't. And all opinions are important IMHO. Hopefully the majority still rules in these cases.

Personally, I still would like to see a stadium built and a team come to Halifax. Hopefully a good business case can be made for it.
On topic opinions are important. I don't need anyone to tell me I come across as a prick sometimes (not saying you are saying that) but that's how you have to deal with some of these people. I have no problem at all with those who pose pertinent facts, that are substantiated, but this off topic distraction stuff, that has no basis in anything we know so far has to be refuted.

Like the Commonwealth Games bid, this will only get done if it is palatable to the public, if it isn't we won't have to worry about it.

Last edited by elly63; Mar 19, 2018 at 11:56 PM.
     
     
  #6119  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 12:10 AM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
It really should come down to overall public opinion, shouldn't it? If there is enough support from people who aren't fans of the sport to make a majority when added to those who do support it... then great, it should go ahead. Like, in a democracy...
While we're at it, let's get this part straightened out. While a CFL team is the impetus for this project it would be crazy to suggest they will be the sole benefactors. The only way for this to work is to have everyone benefit. Pro football, university football, local minor football, community soccer, rugby, lacrosse, winter community usage with a bubble, offices and community meeting rooms, this is the only way it will be a total success. Earlier in the thread I detailed some other ideas that could possibly be implemented to create usage.

Again we would have to look at the Ottawa model, and that is relevant because that is what the Halifax ownership group says they are basing their plans on and see what kind of usage they are getting out of their facility and see if that is relatable or not to this situation.
     
     
  #6120  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 11:32 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
To use your same argument, what about the people who don't use the facilities but are paying for them regardless? Maybe they would rather have their tax dollars spent on bike lanes or libraries (which are not associated with profit-making organizations).
As someone who does not and will never use bike lanes or the palatial library, I hereby request a refund.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Arts, Culture, Dining, Recreation & Entertainment
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.