Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Abbotsford's $expensive$ AHL pipedream
I cannot predict whether or not Abbotsford will get an AHL hockey franchise.
What I can predict is that if Abbotsford should get an AHL franchise all the financial dealings and contracts between Abbotsford City Council on behalf of the City of Abbotsford, the investors bringing the franchise to the city and the AHL will be buried deep in the bowels of City Hall and securely hidden from the people who will be footing the cost of the required yearly seven-figure subsidies – the beleaguered and impoverished Abbotsford taxpayer.
I can also predict council will have a multitude of excuses for why they will not or cannot release the information that would allow calculation of how many millions of dollars taxpayers will be required to pay to subsidize any AHL team in order to entice that AHL team to locate in Abbotsford.
AHL President David Andrews made it clear that any Abbotsford team will be responsible to fully subsidize teams increased travel costs to travel to Abbotsford for games. The expense of paying this cost will be in addition to the increased travel costs a team located in Abbotsford will face in travelling to away games.
Simple mathematics reveals that covering increased travel costs will require 1 – 2 million dollars a season. Where is that money going to come from? Where else but Abbotsford taxpayers?
There are numerous other costs and subsidies I can think of that could well end up coming out of Abbotsford taxpayer pockets in order to entice a hockey team to Abbotsford.
Which is why full disclosure on all the costs and contracts connected and/or associated with the new arena complex and its operations is required. While it may be publicly embarrassing to leave the new arena dark, it is likely the most economically and financially sound decision to make.
With the economy in the worsening shape it is, the besieged taxpayers of Abbotsford simply cannot afford to pour millions of dollars of operating subsidies into the arena every year on top of the millions paid out in debt and interest repayments for sole purpose of allowing council to save face.
What I can predict is that if Abbotsford should get an AHL franchise all the financial dealings and contracts between Abbotsford City Council on behalf of the City of Abbotsford, the investors bringing the franchise to the city and the AHL will be buried deep in the bowels of City Hall and securely hidden from the people who will be footing the cost of the required yearly seven-figure subsidies – the beleaguered and impoverished Abbotsford taxpayer.
I can also predict council will have a multitude of excuses for why they will not or cannot release the information that would allow calculation of how many millions of dollars taxpayers will be required to pay to subsidize any AHL team in order to entice that AHL team to locate in Abbotsford.
AHL President David Andrews made it clear that any Abbotsford team will be responsible to fully subsidize teams increased travel costs to travel to Abbotsford for games. The expense of paying this cost will be in addition to the increased travel costs a team located in Abbotsford will face in travelling to away games.
Simple mathematics reveals that covering increased travel costs will require 1 – 2 million dollars a season. Where is that money going to come from? Where else but Abbotsford taxpayers?
There are numerous other costs and subsidies I can think of that could well end up coming out of Abbotsford taxpayer pockets in order to entice a hockey team to Abbotsford.
Which is why full disclosure on all the costs and contracts connected and/or associated with the new arena complex and its operations is required. While it may be publicly embarrassing to leave the new arena dark, it is likely the most economically and financially sound decision to make.
With the economy in the worsening shape it is, the besieged taxpayers of Abbotsford simply cannot afford to pour millions of dollars of operating subsidies into the arena every year on top of the millions paid out in debt and interest repayments for sole purpose of allowing council to save face.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Close enough!
I usually park in the Yale high school lot when I go to ARC to swim my lengths since it is a shorter walk to the “(old) pool front desk” - unless the weather is sufficiently bad as to encourage me to use the new underground parking space.
The last time I used the underground parking rain was coming down in a deluge and as I walked down the ramp to the ice and pool area I had to walk around the water dribbling down the ramp and the bucket set out to catch water leaking through the brand new roof.
Monday’s strong winds encouraged me to take advantage of the shelter from the wind the underground parking offered my poor old car. Finished swimming my lengths I rode the elevator down to the parking level and as I stepped out of the elevator I found myself once again stepping around a wet spot on the floor, in this case a growing puddle.
I found myself looking at the ceiling where the water was dripping from and wondering exactly where the water was coming from. I had just walked across the floor upstairs, directly above the spot were the water was dripping down from the ceiling to the floor, and it was dry. The water was dripping from (through? out of?) the bare, poured concrete ceiling.
Water dripping from (through? out of?) a poured concrete ceiling in a spot well inside the confines of the building and under a spot where the floor upstairs above was dry sent me back up the elevator to report the leak and growing puddle to staff at the “new front desk”.
Since they did not come down to check the matter out in the 5 -10 minutes I spent trying to get a decent picture using my cell phone (I need a newer, better camera cell phone) I cannot say what staff’s reaction to the leak was.
The two gentlemen who came down the elevator and stopped to look at the ceiling and floor also wondered just where the water was coming from (through? out of?).
They also shared my less than impressed opinion on the workmanship standards this leak evidenced; especially since the dripped water was running along the cracks, thus highlighting the cracks/cracking, in the brand new poured concrete floor.
I am currently contemplating avoiding the underground parking and confining my activities at ARC to the time-tested solid “old ARC”.
As well as wondering “We paid how much for this?” and “Whatever happened to quality control and pride of workmanship?”
Caveat emptor I suppose.
The last time I used the underground parking rain was coming down in a deluge and as I walked down the ramp to the ice and pool area I had to walk around the water dribbling down the ramp and the bucket set out to catch water leaking through the brand new roof.
Monday’s strong winds encouraged me to take advantage of the shelter from the wind the underground parking offered my poor old car. Finished swimming my lengths I rode the elevator down to the parking level and as I stepped out of the elevator I found myself once again stepping around a wet spot on the floor, in this case a growing puddle.
I found myself looking at the ceiling where the water was dripping from and wondering exactly where the water was coming from. I had just walked across the floor upstairs, directly above the spot were the water was dripping down from the ceiling to the floor, and it was dry. The water was dripping from (through? out of?) the bare, poured concrete ceiling.
Water dripping from (through? out of?) a poured concrete ceiling in a spot well inside the confines of the building and under a spot where the floor upstairs above was dry sent me back up the elevator to report the leak and growing puddle to staff at the “new front desk”.
Since they did not come down to check the matter out in the 5 -10 minutes I spent trying to get a decent picture using my cell phone (I need a newer, better camera cell phone) I cannot say what staff’s reaction to the leak was.
The two gentlemen who came down the elevator and stopped to look at the ceiling and floor also wondered just where the water was coming from (through? out of?).
They also shared my less than impressed opinion on the workmanship standards this leak evidenced; especially since the dripped water was running along the cracks, thus highlighting the cracks/cracking, in the brand new poured concrete floor.
I am currently contemplating avoiding the underground parking and confining my activities at ARC to the time-tested solid “old ARC”.
As well as wondering “We paid how much for this?” and “Whatever happened to quality control and pride of workmanship?”
Caveat emptor I suppose.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Auto Bailout? Are you that stupid?
Let’s get real here.
To listen to the proponents of a bailout you would think that if a bailout is not forthcoming the North American headquartered auto industry with all its assets and jobs will, *poof*, disappear. Trust me, it won’t.
What will happen is that the North American headquartered auto industry will file for court protection via bankruptcy. The North American headquartered auto industry will then have to come up with a viable reorganization plan and get the plan approved by the court. This course of action would result in a reasonable chance that the North American headquartered auto industry would come out of the process in a viable state.
The first point that seems to be getting lost here is the fact that as it is now constituted the North American headquartered auto industry is not viable and is burning through $billions$ of dollars as it haemorrhages loses. A bailout will only allow the North American headquartered auto industry to continue to waste money, this time at taxpayer’s expense.
The North American headquartered auto industry needs to undergo a massive makeover in order to be a viable industry and bankruptcy is the best process to ensure this occurs. Remember that bankruptcy protection of business was designed to facilitate this reorganization, re-emergence process.
The second point to remember is that we are speaking only of the North American headquartered auto industry, the so-called big-three, here. There is an entire North American auto industry that is not headquartered in North America and while it is suffering from the economic downturn it is healthy and will grow, creating jobs, to cover and satisfy any market demand left unmet by the loss of a North American headquartered auto company.
The third point I would make is that the situation the North American headquartered auto industry finds itself in is the direct result of management, shareholder and employee decisions made over the past decades.
These decisions focused not on neither the long-term health and viability of the companies, or even the short-term health and viability of the companies, but entirely upon the greed based decision framework of maximizing the money made by management, workers and shareholders.
Playing these types of paper financial games will always result in, at some point, either the death of the entity or entities playing such games or in the need to reorganize in accordance with the real economic and business position of the company or companies.
The fourth point I want to make, or perhaps share, is that I have no sympathy for shareholders who have not only permitted management to mismanage the companies but actively encouraged them through executive reward and remuneration systems based on meeting quarterly (extremely short term) targets and goals as opposed to remuneration tied to the long term success, viability and health of the corporation. When all decisions are made on short term artificial targets and goals, these decisions are made at the expense of the long-term viability and survival of the corporation and nobody should be surprised that at some point this results in a non-viable corporation.
Points three and four reflect and underscore the reality that unless corporations, in this case the North American headquartered auto industry, refocus or are forced to refocus to consider the long-term effects of the decisions being made they will simply cycle through short-term paper success, financial trouble/disaster, bankruptcy and emergence from bankruptcy. There were sound reasons that the management and financial courses at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Commerce stressed the need for basing decisions not just on the short term but on the long term effects on the survival and prospering of the company.
Which brings me to the final and perhaps most important point I want to make – the situation where greed results in decisions that provide (excessive) rewards for what prove in the longer run to be self-destructive decisions with costly consequences to all is not confined or unique to the North American headquartered auto industry.
The meltdown of the banking system in the US is/was clearly a result of greed running rampant. The only thing that saved Canadian banks from a similar fate was far tighter banking regulations and the luck that without a majority government Stephen Harper was not able to follow the US deregulation craze into disaster.
We either need to stop basing decisions on Greed or (more likely) provide regulation and remuneration systems that prevent short term abuse in pursuit of greed and reward/mandate long-term decisions based on survival, viability and health.
To listen to the proponents of a bailout you would think that if a bailout is not forthcoming the North American headquartered auto industry with all its assets and jobs will, *poof*, disappear. Trust me, it won’t.
What will happen is that the North American headquartered auto industry will file for court protection via bankruptcy. The North American headquartered auto industry will then have to come up with a viable reorganization plan and get the plan approved by the court. This course of action would result in a reasonable chance that the North American headquartered auto industry would come out of the process in a viable state.
The first point that seems to be getting lost here is the fact that as it is now constituted the North American headquartered auto industry is not viable and is burning through $billions$ of dollars as it haemorrhages loses. A bailout will only allow the North American headquartered auto industry to continue to waste money, this time at taxpayer’s expense.
The North American headquartered auto industry needs to undergo a massive makeover in order to be a viable industry and bankruptcy is the best process to ensure this occurs. Remember that bankruptcy protection of business was designed to facilitate this reorganization, re-emergence process.
The second point to remember is that we are speaking only of the North American headquartered auto industry, the so-called big-three, here. There is an entire North American auto industry that is not headquartered in North America and while it is suffering from the economic downturn it is healthy and will grow, creating jobs, to cover and satisfy any market demand left unmet by the loss of a North American headquartered auto company.
The third point I would make is that the situation the North American headquartered auto industry finds itself in is the direct result of management, shareholder and employee decisions made over the past decades.
These decisions focused not on neither the long-term health and viability of the companies, or even the short-term health and viability of the companies, but entirely upon the greed based decision framework of maximizing the money made by management, workers and shareholders.
Playing these types of paper financial games will always result in, at some point, either the death of the entity or entities playing such games or in the need to reorganize in accordance with the real economic and business position of the company or companies.
The fourth point I want to make, or perhaps share, is that I have no sympathy for shareholders who have not only permitted management to mismanage the companies but actively encouraged them through executive reward and remuneration systems based on meeting quarterly (extremely short term) targets and goals as opposed to remuneration tied to the long term success, viability and health of the corporation. When all decisions are made on short term artificial targets and goals, these decisions are made at the expense of the long-term viability and survival of the corporation and nobody should be surprised that at some point this results in a non-viable corporation.
Points three and four reflect and underscore the reality that unless corporations, in this case the North American headquartered auto industry, refocus or are forced to refocus to consider the long-term effects of the decisions being made they will simply cycle through short-term paper success, financial trouble/disaster, bankruptcy and emergence from bankruptcy. There were sound reasons that the management and financial courses at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Commerce stressed the need for basing decisions not just on the short term but on the long term effects on the survival and prospering of the company.
Which brings me to the final and perhaps most important point I want to make – the situation where greed results in decisions that provide (excessive) rewards for what prove in the longer run to be self-destructive decisions with costly consequences to all is not confined or unique to the North American headquartered auto industry.
The meltdown of the banking system in the US is/was clearly a result of greed running rampant. The only thing that saved Canadian banks from a similar fate was far tighter banking regulations and the luck that without a majority government Stephen Harper was not able to follow the US deregulation craze into disaster.
We either need to stop basing decisions on Greed or (more likely) provide regulation and remuneration systems that prevent short term abuse in pursuit of greed and reward/mandate long-term decisions based on survival, viability and health.
