|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 17, 2013 21:26:59 GMT -6
The MLB not letting them go to San Jose for the A's is absolutely insane. Just let it happen and man up negotiate the deal. Selig is such a bad commissioner. I think he is worse than bettman, no way bettman wouldnt have already worked that out. There is ZERO difference between a team playing in San Jose or Oakland, the MLB knows this, the Giants KNOW this. ITs going to happen in San Jose, Selig needs to get the other owners together and put the pressure on San Fran and they will fold on a decent settlement. Absolutely ridiculous. If any team is going to Montreal it should be Tampa. Works out better, The Jays would benefit from having a canadian in division rival. They need to build a park though, the love for that giant deteriorating craphole olympic stadium is mindblowing. Don't agree with you on Selig/Bettman, Selig never has done anything like an insane sunbelt experiment. But I do agree Bettman would have worked this out. Selig is waaaaaay more indecisive than Bettman. It takes FOREVER for Selig to make decisions even when he makes the right one. Selig rules by concensus and will NOT step on anyones toes and hurt their feelings. There certainly is a difference between Oakland and San Jose. San Jose is where the corporations and $$$ are the Giants don't want to risk losing even a small portion of that and know Selig is spineless. If you owned the Giants you'd do the same thing. Personally I don't care if they get a new stadium in the Coliseum parking lot or in San Jose. Just end this farce and get out of that crap hole Oakland Coliseum. What I think is going to happen is that MLB will TRY to work it out in Oakland since it's the path of least resistance and Selig always prefers that path. The water front site won't work but maybe the Coliseum site can. The realestate market is picked up in Oakland so maybe they can do enough housing to make it pay off for Wolf. If not then I could see MLB saying to the Giants we have no other options accept a fair payoff or under the best interest in baseball clause we will force a relocation of the A's to your current park.(this was the rumor a month ago on how MLB would force the Giants to give up San Jose) problem with the coliseum site is the raiders want a stadium there to, and the whole three arena with mystery investers from arabia is a farce that wont happen especially since the warriors are gonzo in a few years. Oakland might have to pick, A's or Raiders. |
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 18, 2013 21:54:37 GMT -6
The Nationals at the time were still owned by MLB so that's different. They weren't actually helping a team owner build a stadium, they were the team owners themselves. Remember MLB owned the Montreal Expos their last 2 years in Montreal and in the beginning years(don't recall how many) in Washington until they were sold to the Lehner family. The guarantee part was MLB promised to cover cost overruns. Overall Washington still got absolutely screwed in the new stadium deal. It was probably the worst stadium deal in MLB history(for the new retro parks). gotchya but how was it a bad deal the owner wants a roof now?!?! Here is why it was such a bad deal. It cost 667M and MLB put in next to nothing. Here is a key quote from Jerry Reinsdorf who was the baseball relocation chief in the Expos relocation drama. Jerry Reinsdorf told Williams that his proposed two-thirds/one-third public-private split “is fine, but three-thirds/no-thirds is more of what we had in mind,” Williams didn’t tell him to get the hell out of his office. He said, in effect, “okay” — agreeing not only to pay for the stadium, but for all cost overruns and future capital repairs as well. www.fieldofschemes.com/2012/10/09/3914/why-the-washpost-killed-my-nationals-stadium-op-ed/Washington had ALL the leverage. They could have bear minimum had MLB pay for at least a 3rd of the stadium. Washington was the only relocation option. All the other cities like Portland/Vegas had no stadiums and aren't big enough/have enough corporate support for MLB. The roof thing is a complete joke. Talk about overkill. If I was the Washington mayor I wouldn't have been so polite when rejected the owners offer for a roof. |
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 18, 2013 21:57:27 GMT -6
Don't agree with you on Selig/Bettman, Selig never has done anything like an insane sunbelt experiment. But I do agree Bettman would have worked this out. Selig is waaaaaay more indecisive than Bettman. It takes FOREVER for Selig to make decisions even when he makes the right one. Selig rules by concensus and will NOT step on anyones toes and hurt their feelings. There certainly is a difference between Oakland and San Jose. San Jose is where the corporations and $$$ are the Giants don't want to risk losing even a small portion of that and know Selig is spineless. If you owned the Giants you'd do the same thing. Personally I don't care if they get a new stadium in the Coliseum parking lot or in San Jose. Just end this farce and get out of that crap hole Oakland Coliseum. What I think is going to happen is that MLB will TRY to work it out in Oakland since it's the path of least resistance and Selig always prefers that path. The water front site won't work but maybe the Coliseum site can. The realestate market is picked up in Oakland so maybe they can do enough housing to make it pay off for Wolf. If not then I could see MLB saying to the Giants we have no other options accept a fair payoff or under the best interest in baseball clause we will force a relocation of the A's to your current park.(this was the rumor a month ago on how MLB would force the Giants to give up San Jose) problem with the coliseum site is the raiders want a stadium there to, and the whole three arena with mystery investers from arabia is a farce that wont happen especially since the warriors are gonzo in a few years. Oakland might have to pick, A's or Raiders. Warriors may not be gonzo. The arena is likely to go to public referendum in San Francisco. A former mayor is leading a fight against it. The reason is it will block the view of the Bay for rich people that live in that area. I don't think Oakland will build any new stadiums. I think the whole thing is a farce so they can say they tried. |
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 9, 2014 1:07:48 GMT -6
This is 1 year old but still interesting. 42% of Anglos considered leaving Quebec post PQ win: poll
Anglophone rights group fears brain drain
The election of the minority Parti Québécois government last September has many anglophones questioning their future in Quebec, a new poll commissioned by the CBC suggests.Forty-two per cent of those surveyed in the EKOS research poll said they have considered leaving the province in the wake of the PQ victory. In particular, the PQ's stance on language restrictions has raised eyebrows in the English-speaking community. On Sunday, a crowd gathered in front of Premier Pauline Marois' Montreal office to protest Bill 14, which proposes amendments to Quebec's language laws. Marc Stamos, who participated in the demonstration, grew up in Montreal. After living in Toronto, he moved back home to start a family. Now he's thinking of leaving again. "We were starting to plant our roots here," he said. "For the first time in 17 years, all of a sudden, we're starting to think of leaving again." Real estate 'surge' in eastern Ontario Jackie Smith, an Ontario Real Estate Broker, said she has noticed an increase in business since the election.
"We tend to notice a surge when the PQ gets into power," she said. Smith, works for the Lancaster Royal LePage and sells homes just minutes from the Quebec border. She estimated her business has gone up by about 25 per cent since the PQ's election. Many of her clients are English-speaking Quebecers who are wary of the government's language policies. Some of them are also francophone parents who want their children to learn English in school. 'Tired of linguistic roadblocks,' Quebec City resident says Ginny Roy and her family are pulling up stakes in Quebec City and moving to Toronto this summer, after having agonized over what they should do for the past several years. Roy moved to Quebec from the United States 15 years ago, settling down in her francophone husband's hometown to raise her daughter, who is now in high school. She said her daughter is reluctant to leave, but she and her husband have decided it's a question of survival for their family. "I'm tired of the linguistic roadblocks," Roy told Bernard St-Laurent, host of Quebec's Radio Noon. Roy said her job history is spotty because her French is not considered good enough by many Quebec City employers. However, she said it was the difficulty in getting health care in her native language that was the final straw. Roy has had cancer three times, and she said that last summer one of the specialists who had always been willing to speak to her in English in the past suddenly refused to. She said this happened shortly after the start of the provincial election campaign. "It was very telling — her political affilation," Roy said. "I was out the door as fast as she could get me… She looked like she didn't even want me in her office." 'Glass ceiling' for non-francophones, activist says Richard Yufe is a member of the executive committee of Canadian Rights in Quebec (CRITIQ), a newly formed organization that aims to defend the rights of Quebecers to live in both French and English. Yufe says there is a glass ceiling in Quebec for those who don't have a French-language background. "The environment in Quebec is hostile," he said. "[In] the law firms, the accounting firms, the marketing firms, there's a perceived notion that you can't have too much of an English face," Yufe said. "You have to have a French character and flavour because we're in Quebec." Yufe said this creates an environment that is particularly difficult for English speakers. Quebec brain drain The Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), an organization that works to defend the rights of anglophones, said it's not surprised people are crossing the border. Sylvia Martin-Laforge, director general of the QCGN, said the poll results suggest a significant percentage of the English-speaking population is unhappy about their place in Quebec "Forty-two per cent is a pretty big number," she said. Martin-Laforge said the PQ's stance on language laws has created concern among anglophones since the election. Since the PQ's first election win in 1976 and the subsequent 1980 sovereignty referendum, Quebec's English speaking population has declined by thousands of people. "By their leaving, there is a brain drain, there's an enormous brain drain," Martin-Laforge said. In 1971, before the PQ's first election, the anglophone population sat at 788,833. By 2011, the total had dropped to 599,230www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/42-of-anglos-considered-leaving-quebec-post-pq-win-poll-1.1321552 |
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 9, 2014 1:14:09 GMT -6
This is from last month. Number of Quebecers leaving province is on the rise
The number of Quebecers heading down the 401 is on the rise, partial statistics for 2013 suggest.Departures from Quebec to other provinces rose to their highest level this century in the first nine months of 2013, according to the Canadian Institute for Identities and Migration. Statistics are not available yet for the final three months of the year. A total of 28,439 people moved from Quebec to another province from January to September 2013 — the highest number of departures for that period in any year since 2000.
In most cases, Quebec’s loss was Ontario’s gain, with two out of three ex-Quebecers moving to Ontario, one in four to Alberta and just under one in ten to British Columbia, according to quarterly demographic estimates released by Statistics Canada in December. Quebec had a net loss of 11,887 residents due to interprovincial migration (departures minus arrivals) in the 12 months from October 2012 to September 2013, compared to a loss of 7,700 people in the corresponding period of 2011-12 and a loss of 4,394 in 2010-11. The rise in departures corresponds with the election of the Parti Québécois in September 2012 — but there is no evidence the political situation is a contributing factor, said Jack Jedwab, the institute’s executive vice-president.
“It’s too early to say,” he said.“I would argue it’s more about our economy,” Jedwab said. “These numbers have a very recessionary look to them, at a time when we’re not in a recession.” Jedwab said the loss of residents sounds a warning signal. “Significant population losses have a negative effect on our economy,” he said. The rise in out-migration is not related to the divisive debate over the PQ government’s proposed charter of values, Jedwab said, since the departures occurred before the charter was unveiled. A National Assembly committee will commence hearings on the charter Jan. 14. But Jedwab said if the trend continues, the hypothesis that political angst is spurring departures would deserve a second look. “ If it persists into the next quarter, we’ve got to start thinking non-economic considerations are at work here,” he said. The PQ government’s focus on identity issues has decreased the comfort level of some members of cultural minorities, particularly the values charter, which proposes to bar all public sector workers from wearing religious garb like the Muslim head scarf, Jewish skullcap or Sikh turban. In September, an Ontario hospital published recruitment ads aimed to capitalize on the controversy. A photo of a female health worker wearing a hijab (head scarf) bore the caption: “We don’t care what’s on your head. We care what’s in it.” Aaron Lazarus, director of communications at Lakeridge Health in Bowmanville, Ont., east of Toronto, said the hospital received several job applications from doctors, nurses and other health professionals from Quebec in response to the ads. But Michel Leblanc, president and CEO of the Montreal Board of Trade, warned against jumping to the conclusion that the current political climate could be causing people to leave Quebec. “What is worrisome is that we have a net loss of residents every year,” Leblanc said. “People have a tendency to migrate not only to places with better weather, but also to places where the economy is performing better,” he said. Leblanc said that while the recent increase in departures is cause for concern, it is much smaller than the massive exodus of anglophones from Quebec in the 1970s and ’80s. He called on the government to improve the integration of immigrants into the workforce and to lower taxation to retain residents. Statistics Canada’s quarterly demographic estimates showed Alberta — with a population of 4,060,700 in October 2013 — continues to lead the provinces in population growth, adding 137,703 new residents from October 2012 to September 2013, of whom 49,031 moved there from elsewhere in Canada. Ontario (population 13,585,900) had slower population growth, gaining 128,442 new residents from October 2012 to September 2013. Quebec, numbering 8,174,500 residents, added 67,385 new residents from October 2012 to September 2013, with immigration and the natural increase of the population compensating for out-migration. Previous studies have shown that about two-thirds of Quebec residents who move to other provinces are allophones — people whose first language is neither French nor English. www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Number+Quebecers+leaving+province+rise/9360879/story.html |
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 9, 2014 1:19:21 GMT -6
Then from a few days ago Marois promises public hearings on the future of Quebec The Parti Québécois is promising if it wins a majority government it will hold public hearings across the province on the political future of Quebec in hopes they will generate popular support for holding a third referendum on sovereignty. “We will have a consultation on a white paper on the future of Quebec. I am a sovereigntist. And should the people elect me and my government I will have the possibility to [achieve] sovereignty,” Premier Pauline Marois said during a news conference marking the end of a two-day caucus meeting. Ms. Marois is ratcheting up the rhetoric over Quebec sovereignty in a bid to boost national fervour, yet another indication that an election is imminent. The initiative may be all show and little substance: Ms. Marois refused to commit to holding a referendum should she form a majority government. As with her predecessors, Bernard Landry and Lucien Bouchard, her refusal to commit to a clear referendum strategy has created skepticism among sovereigntists. Ms. Marois even added that the public consultation on the white paper should not be viewed as a “black paper” against Canada. “This is not a process toward sovereignty,” she insisted. “We will examine all the options.” Despite apparent contradictions in Ms. Marois’s position – she says she wants to increase support for sovereignty while inviting Quebeckers to express their support for a united Canada – cabinet ministers were enthusiastic about her proposal to hold public consultations across the province. “The white paper will allow us to draft a plan for a country and how we can collectively draw the country we want and why we should do it,” said Minister of Higher Education Pierre Duchesne. At no time since winning the election in September, 2012, has the minority PQ prepared for another referendum, creating discontent within the sovereignty movement. Some PQ caucus members, such as Léo Bureau-Blouin, acknowledge that the white-paper proposal may at least give hope to disgruntled sovereigntists at a time when support for sovereignty has fallen below 40 per cent. Others want it to rally the troops in time for a coming election. There is growing speculation that Ms. Marois will call an election next month for a vote likely to be held on April 14. PQ insiders say that public opinion polls show Ms. Marois has the edge she needs to achieve majority status. The sooner she can call an election the better, they argue, even if it means going to the polls before presenting a budget. “It is possible to go into an election without tabling a budget,” Ms. Marois acknowledged, even though her government hasn’t presented a budget since November, 2012. “We know what the facts are regarding our economic situation. We won’t learn much from tabling a budget.” Besides, she added, the opposition parties have already said they would likely vote against a PQ budget and defeat the government. Liberal Leader Philippe Couillard accused the PQ of using sovereignty as a scheme to avoid tackling the province’s economic problems. He said the idea of public consultations on the future of Quebec was aimed at breaking up the country and that it was nothing more than a clever attempt at dividing Quebeckers and shifting attention away from day-to-day concerns. “White paper, red herring. It’s another way to shift people’s attention away from the true reality, the reality of Quebec, which is a very weak economy, public finances that are very badly managed, ” Mr. Couillard said Thursday www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/majority-pq-government-would-mean-mandate-to-seek-sovereignty-marois-says/article16729998/ |
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 9, 2014 1:25:30 GMT -6
With below 40% support for sovereignty Quebec is NOT going to separate BUT if PQ gains majority you can expect tougher laws against English and more of an exodus. MLB is not going to get involved in this. What's the upside? At best Montreal would be a small market. At worst if you get the wrong election result in a certain year they could fall to not viable and MLB would be stuck with an empytish retro park and be forced to do Bettman like things so the park is "saved".
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Feb 10, 2014 21:08:38 GMT -6
quebec most likely will wiat to see scotlands results and possible transition before even thinking about it.
Its nt like they have it bad in canada.....though it would make international hockey more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 12, 2014 17:39:56 GMT -6
I hope it never happens. It would be weird to call the Montreal Canadiens the Canadiens yet having Montreal no longer being part of Canada.
Doesn't Quebec take a lot of money from other providences? If so why would they want to ever give that up? Most likely thing is tougher language laws/more English leave but no separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 19, 2014 17:17:03 GMT -6
Tix still available for Jays-Mets at Olympic StadiumIt’s funny how word gets around on a topic and it’s not true. Take the false notion about ticket sales for the two exhibition games scheduled for March 28 and 29 at Olympic Stadium in Montreal between the Toronto Blue Jays and New York Mets. “There is a fake rumor that we are sold out for both games, but we are not,’’ said Simon Arsenault, manager of events and business development for Montreal-based Evenko, which is promoting the games and selling tickets on its website. “ We don’t like to say how many tickets we have sold so far for each game, but we have sold 68,000 total for both games. There are good seats still available. We are expecting that we will be sold out, but there is still a lot of work to do. We have to sell 20,000 more tickets. We have sold more tickets for the second game because it’s a Saturday.’’ What is not true either is that the seating capacity for the games will be the capacity 60,000 that was available when the Expos played at the Olympic Stadium from 1977-2004. Don’t expect crowds of 59,260 like you saw on July 27, 1979 when Expos early-franchise hero Rusty Staub returned to Montreal for his first home game following a trade with the Detroit Tigers some eight years after he left in the first place for the Mets in a trade. “ Seating capacity for the games will be 44,000. That’s the baseball configuration,’’ said a spokesperson for the Olympic Installations Board, although she admitted she had no explanation about the decision to cut back close to 16,000 seats. It does make sense because in a vast oasis like Olympic Stadium, a cosier, smaller venue would look a little more chic. Ticket prices range from $15-$80 plus service charges. Staff at the stadium have been busy rebuilding new bullpens, batting cages, dugouts, foul poles, coaches’ boxes, a pitcher’s mound, a backstop and other essentials with the help of equipment supplied by the Jays. The March exhibitions will mark the first time baseball of any sort has been played at the Olympic Stadium since that sad night Sept. 29, 2004 when the Expos played their last game, a 9-1 loss to the Florida Marlins. Since then, a variety of other events such as monster-truck shows, soccer games and CFL games have been staged at the stadium. Groups such as the fan-based ExposNation led by Matthew Ross and the Montreal Baseball Project headed by former Expo Warren Cromartie hope the public will help sell out the stadium to send a message to Major League Baseball that Montreal can support another franchise. “We would have to get a new stadium and a lot of investment is needed but Montreal is a baseball marketplace,’’ Arsensault said. Sportsnet will air both games with the March 28 game scheduled for 7:07 p.m. and the March 29 encounter going at 1:07 p.m. To end a memorable weekend, the 1994 Expos will be honoured at a gala dinner on the night of the 29th. www.canadianbaseballnetwork.com/articles/tix-still-available-jays-mets-olympic-stadium/
|
|
