475 replies to this topic

[AllseeingEye]

These types of things are very hard to measure.

 

Sure, it will increase spending in bars and restaurants during the event days, but that money might just be diverted from the BC camping trip the viewers do not take.

 

Oh I agree 100%; where the province messed up IMO was releasing the original estimate without a fulsome understanding of exactly what they would be on hook for + not factoring in inflation, and that far out how could that estimate be close considering increasing costs for construction, time labor and materials, ongoing supply chain issues etc. That was wildly optimistic as we now see, if not an outright fool's errand.

[Victoria Watcher]

I'd like to see an accounting of where the money goes.

 

Like I say, Taylor Swift will host 6 shows in the same stadium, full, and the taxpayer is paying little or nothing for that.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 01 May 2024 - 07:26 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

I'd like to see an accounting of where the money goes.

 

Like I say, Taylor Swift will host 6 shows in the same stadium, full, and the taxpayer is paying little or nothing for that.

 

 

The online research group QuestionPro crunched the numbers and found the Eras Tour will generate billions of dollars in economic activity in the U.S. alone. It said the average concertgoer was spending about US$1,300 per show.

 

It's not clear what the financial spinoff effect of Swift's performances in Vancouver will be just yet, but one University of Toronto business professor estimated Swift's six-concert run in that city would generate as much as $700 million for the city, as fans book hotels, eat at restaurants and shop.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/n...otels-1.7017810

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 01 May 2024 - 07:29 AM.

[Mike K.]

It’s not like those billions wouldn’t be spent elsewhere.

The Eras Tour doesn’t create wealth, it competes for it, and directs it to a select few beneficiaries, namely the performer and their agencies.

Tax dollars should not be going to subsidies for FIFA. It’s hubris.

[Nparker]

...Tax dollars should not be going to subsidies for FIFA. It’s hubris.

Or the Olympics or any other massive circus to distract the masses.

[Mike K.]

Look at this incredulous pomposity.

We’ll fund grown men playing games to the tune of $600 million so other grown men can live their fantasies out watching them play.

When for that money, we could build significantly improved highway infrastructure to lower travel times, lower emissions, save on energy, give people more time, support more prosperity and lower the cost of goods, for generations, realizing billions in savings, productivity and economic benefits, just by cutting travel times by 30 minutes to travel a measly 137km.

We are completely backwards and we need grown men in our society to expect better for their communities and not satisfy themselves with bread and circuses.

[Mike K.]

30 minutes we waste because of traffic lights and single lane ‘highways.’

Unbelievable.

Multiply that by the 11 million vehicles that travel that span annually. Even if everyone saved just 2 litres of gas, in one direction, that would be a savings of 44 million litres of gasoline in both directions.

44 million x 2.10/litre = $92.4 million per year. Just for that one tiny little section of highway.

[Mike K.]

Or the Olympics or any other massive circus to distract the masses.

 

For all the billions of people who watch FIFA, you're telling me, they don't have the money to put on their own events, and need taxpayers to pitch in billions of dollars? Sounds a little wobbly, if indeed this game has such a following.

[Victoria Watcher]

They do “put on their own events” but they ask for certain standards and for the local jurisdiction to pick up ancillary costs.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong.

But Taylor Swift isn’t asking the same favours.

[Matt R.]

For all the billions of people who watch FIFA, you're telling me, they don't have the money to put on their own events, and need taxpayers to pitch in billions of dollars? Sounds a little wobbly, if indeed this game has such a following.

Why not pitch in a dollar each.

[Victoria Watcher]

Les Leyne: World Cup overrun? Don't go there

 

 

Original estimates on major public projects are like jottings of what a crayoned elementary-school mural might cost, before it turns into a giant diamond-encrusted tapestry of spun gold.

 

 

https://www.timescol...o-there-8685103

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 May 2024 - 05:06 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Greenland manager Morten Rutkjaer says membership of Concacaf would be "a dream" for the Arctic island, after it applied to join football's governing body for North and Central America.

Greenland, which has never played competitive international football, is a sovereign territory of Denmark but is geographically part of North America.

It has a population of just 57,000, though that is larger than some existing Concacaf members including Montserrat and Saint Kitts and Nevis.


https://www.bbc.co.u...977j6j53n5o.amp

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 May 2024 - 01:32 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Canada on to semi-final of the Copa.

[Victoria Watcher]

Biggest upset in Canadian sports history - all sports, professional, club or international - if we win tonight.

[Nparker]

Win what?

[Victoria Watcher]

A soccer game.

[lanforod]

rank 1 vs 48. I dunno about biggest, but I don’t think Argentina runs away with it.

Edited by lanforod, 09 July 2024 - 03:56 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

If we win, what’s a bigger upset in Canadian sports history?

I assume we willl lose.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 09 July 2024 - 03:58 PM.

[AllseeingEye]

Ugh. Decent first 15 mins in the first half but Canada losing some composure now and starting to fold like a cheap tent since the second Argentine goal. In spite of some brave talk before the game its not hard to figure out which team is world ranked # 48 and which # 1. Its been Canada's achilles heel ever since the 1986 WC - we simply cannot develop creative players upon whom we can rely to generate offence when we need it most.

 

When playing the top teams our very best offensive players basically disappear. When we look to have a promising go we shoot well wide, too high, make a bad decision on a setup pass etc. The Argentina's of the world do none of those things especially when it matters most. When we need a goal the team appears to wilt under the pressure of expectations. When Argentina and other top squads need a goal - they get creative and put the ball in the back of the net almost at will.

 

An adage you hear in hockey all the time applies equally: your best players must be your best players when it matters most if you expect to win. More often than not in really big games, that rarely happens for Canada unfortunately. Davies, Larin and David have been ineffective for us tonight on the offensive side of the ball - which is always bad news for Canada.

[aastra]

I don't care what anyone says, I think those chaps from Argentina are starting to figure out soccer's fundamentals.

Seriously though, I feel like Canada would score more goals if they tried kicking the ball toward the net whenever they have the opportunity. Methinks pretty much any squad in the world would have had at least one goal out of their chances tonight.