Hey folks,
In the last couple weeks, a public consultation forum on uranium development in Saskatchewan has been traveling the province, gathering input from citizens on the further development of the uranium value chain in the province. This discussion is looking at the Uranium Development Partnership's (UDP) report and recommendations to the province on what should be done. The trigger for this process is the strong growth our province has seen in recent years, and the forecasted future growth. With growth in the economy and population comes increased power demands. On June 15th, I attended the forum in Saskatoon.
SaskPower is a part of this process, because by 2020 between economic growth and retired assets they need to come up with an additional 1700 MegaWatts (MW) of generating capacity. A nuclear reactor can make up 1000 MW of this gap, which is why this discussion is happening right now.
I'll come out and state where I'm coming from. In the decade that I've been working in professional jobs, 6 years have been spent in the nuclear industry in Saskatoon. I believe that while the industry did not perform well in the 50s and 60s with regards to the environment, the necessary environmental and regulatory framework is in place to ensure these types of projects show the utmost care for the environment. The industry has numerous professionals that work with regulators on environment assessments and licensing.
That being said, I'm not completely sold on the idea of building of a reactor based PURELY on the economics. Nuclear reactors are big and expensive, and I'm not sure with all the associated upgrades required to our grid we can afford it. That being said, the forum was interesting, although the "anti-nuke" crowd was there in full force. A lot of what was said was informed dissent and gave me some pause for thought, and a lot was based on misguided assumptions or simply fear mongering. My favourite example was the idea that nuclear material is altering our DNA through soldier's semen. Not an exaggeration.
Here are a few discussion points I'd like to make about this:
1. Many people at the forum seemed to think this was a choice between nuclear and other cleaner power options such as wind, solar, and hydro. That is not the case. There is still 700 MW of capacity that SaskPower needs to come up with, and renewables will be part of that mix. Wind and solar are social no-brainers, which is why large public forums like this one are not required for renewables.
2. Many people also had the impression we are not looking at solar and wind as options, and that is not the case. The province currently has 170MW of wind turbines scattered around the Swift Current area. As a former resident of Swift Current, I can't think of a better place for wind power in our province. SaskPower is looking at expanding this capacity all the time.
3. Some folks in attendance are convinced that wind, hydro and solar power can replace our fossil fuel generation completely. Unfortunatly, with current technology this is not the case (unless we use nuclear as well). The technological issue with wind and solar right now is energy storage, and I'll outline why this is important. As I'm writing, the temperature today is forecasted to approach 30 degrees. When the hottest part fo the day hits, air conditioners in homes and offices will be working the hardest and consuming the most power. To manage this, power plant operators forecast this and will bring increased capacity online to cover the spike in demand. This is done by consuming more natural gas or coal to run additional turbines in a power plant. Right now, this demand management is not possible with wind or solar. If we have a windy day of 80km/hr but the additional power generated is not required it can not be saved for the calm hot day. Operators can not turn on the wind or the sun to meet increased demand. Can wind and solar be an integral part of our energy mix? Absolutely, but natural gas, coal, or nuclear must also be part of our mix for the purposes of demand management.
4. Nuclear is often touted as a clean energy source, and compared to fossil fuels it is. However, a good point is raised that the mining, transport and construction processes use a lot of fossil fuels (namely diesel). This is true, and is a valid argument. However, one must remember that solar panels do not magically appear, they have to be manufactured. Components in photovoltaic solar panels use precious metals (such as cobalt, cesium, and platinum) in their manufacture. These metals are mined, just like uranium, and most of it comes from areas such as South America and Africa. So, once the product is mined and refined, it has to be transported to the United States, Mexico and SouthEast Asia where it is a raw material in the manufacturing of solar panels. A lot of fossil fuels are consumed in this process as well. This is not saying that solar is not a viable option, but it is a comment that the manufacture of most products has an extraction and transportation component to it that uses fossil fuels.
Thats all for today,
Cheers.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Facebook musings and observations...
Hi folks,
As with the majority of the people I know that around my age or younger, I am on facebook. Have been for at least a couple years now. As far as how much I use it? I'm still checking it daily, and it has replaced email and MSN as my primary way to electronically talk to friends. I don't need to discuss in detail how facebook has been ingrained in modern pop culture, but there are two major indications. One, most people know that the abbreviation "fb" stands for "facebook". Second, facebook has now been turned into a verb as well as a noun. I can go on facebook and facebook someone and it makes sense.
Ultimately, facebook is a tool for marketing. What company is it marketing? "Me, Inc." Every person on facebook (including yours truly) uses the tool to market themselves to varying degrees. Since most people are facebook friends with people from high school and college, there is also an element of competition and a touch of spite involved. Let me be clear though, this marketing is not strictly about finding a mate. People who are married and engaged use facebook to market themselves as much as single people do. What I'm going to talk about are the various ways people do this on facebook, and some suggestions. I do, or have done these types of things to some degree. Again, I'm not going to talk about finding a mate specifically, as my buddy Switzer does this specifically in one of his posts (and I'm not really a good source on that topic anyways).
The primary method people use on facebook is the status update, or the "what's on your mind" as it is called now. A typical theme in all of these categories is simply "don't overdo it". Facebook now allows you to block status updates from friends from appearing in your "news section". And yes, I have done this. Largely because someone has overdid it on all of these categories (except the last one I mention). Keep in mind when updating, as it is tough to market yourself if everyone has your updates blocked.
Here are the various types of status updates I notice...
a. The generic update of what is up. This is the "x is at work", "x is hangin with the family", "x is watching hockey". Pretty basic and innocuous. Just don't update it 14 times a day.
b. The vacation post. At some point, at least a dozen of your friends (or you) are on vacation somewhere. This is one of the most easiest marketing updates. It is an easy way of saying "Check me out, I travel to broaden my horizons and be more worldly". Typically, the more exotic the place, the more frequent the posts. Have I done this? Absolutely. The trick is to find that appropriate amount of times to update without annoying people. I'll use a personal example of when I was in Europe three years ago. In general, your friends are interested in where your travels are taking you, but only at a high level. For example, if my updates looked like this, I am sure it would get old very quickly:
1. Shane is at the Eiffel Tower 5:50pm
2. Shane is strolling the Champ d'Elyesse
3. Shane is at the Arc de Triumphe 8:00pm
4. Shane is at a lovely Paris bakery getting some breakfast 9:00am
5. Shane is on his way to Notre Dame 10:00am
6. Shane is at Notre Dame 10:15am
That is as annoying as those long winded bulk emails people send when they are on those 6 month travel vacations. Only your mom wants to know your every movements. For vacation updates, keep it to:
1. Shane is in Paris
2. Shane is in Brugge
3. Shane is in Amsterdam
and then write some type of comment afterwards to make it interesting and unique to yourself.
If you want to share intricate details your vacation on facebook, do it through the photos section. Give people the choice of checking out the vacation or not.
3. The baby post
I'm almost frightened to write this section. Almost. Yes, I know the birth of a child is a reason for the new parents to celebrate. And yes your friends all want to know the basics - is baby healthy, is momma healthy, what is the new addition's name, time of birth, gender. I know it's tough to fathom, but the majority of people aren't interested past the basics. For example "baby X looks so cute in her new sleeper". Thanks for the info, but it comes off as trying to hard. Again, for the proud momma, post a photo album and give your friends the option of checking the baby out. The new grandmother wants to here everything I'm sure, but facebook is not the place.
4. The achievement post
This is the post that people share where they have reached a goal that they are proud of, and they share it through facebook. Naturally, this is pure personal marketing designed to get a "Good Job!" response from your friends. These posts are very effective, but must be used sparingly to avoid looking like a braggart. Big occasions like graduations, completing a running race, new jobs, and promotions are occasions that should be shared with your friends.
5. The drama post
My favourite types of posts. Sharing to everyone about relationship troubles, family troubles, etc... is not a good reflection on yourself, and I have seen posts that are even spiteful or hateful. Ultimately, if your girlfriend, boyfriend, or mother is giving you trouble it is really none of my business. And I don't want it to be. There is really no good drama post. Period.
6. The humour post
This has become more and more prevalent as facebook evolves, which is a good thing. The funny status update, or joke. These are the posts that keep people interested if done properly. A good humourous facebook status is slightly self-deprecating (shows people you can laugh at yourself) and is a means to provide entertainment to your friends. The humour post can be combined with the vacation or baby posts to make them entertaining even if the updates are more frequent then they should be. For example, instead of saying you are in you say "X is in Amsterdam" say "X is in Amsterdam. Something smells like the art teachers' lounge". These are the types of posts are difficult to overdo, if you are good at it. If you aren't sure, update occasionally and see what the responses are, then update more often.
Those are the big five, and of course I am simplifying a little bit.
Cheers.
As with the majority of the people I know that around my age or younger, I am on facebook. Have been for at least a couple years now. As far as how much I use it? I'm still checking it daily, and it has replaced email and MSN as my primary way to electronically talk to friends. I don't need to discuss in detail how facebook has been ingrained in modern pop culture, but there are two major indications. One, most people know that the abbreviation "fb" stands for "facebook". Second, facebook has now been turned into a verb as well as a noun. I can go on facebook and facebook someone and it makes sense.
Ultimately, facebook is a tool for marketing. What company is it marketing? "Me, Inc." Every person on facebook (including yours truly) uses the tool to market themselves to varying degrees. Since most people are facebook friends with people from high school and college, there is also an element of competition and a touch of spite involved. Let me be clear though, this marketing is not strictly about finding a mate. People who are married and engaged use facebook to market themselves as much as single people do. What I'm going to talk about are the various ways people do this on facebook, and some suggestions. I do, or have done these types of things to some degree. Again, I'm not going to talk about finding a mate specifically, as my buddy Switzer does this specifically in one of his posts (and I'm not really a good source on that topic anyways).
The primary method people use on facebook is the status update, or the "what's on your mind" as it is called now. A typical theme in all of these categories is simply "don't overdo it". Facebook now allows you to block status updates from friends from appearing in your "news section". And yes, I have done this. Largely because someone has overdid it on all of these categories (except the last one I mention). Keep in mind when updating, as it is tough to market yourself if everyone has your updates blocked.
Here are the various types of status updates I notice...
a. The generic update of what is up. This is the "x is at work", "x is hangin with the family", "x is watching hockey". Pretty basic and innocuous. Just don't update it 14 times a day.
b. The vacation post. At some point, at least a dozen of your friends (or you) are on vacation somewhere. This is one of the most easiest marketing updates. It is an easy way of saying "Check me out, I travel to broaden my horizons and be more worldly". Typically, the more exotic the place, the more frequent the posts. Have I done this? Absolutely. The trick is to find that appropriate amount of times to update without annoying people. I'll use a personal example of when I was in Europe three years ago. In general, your friends are interested in where your travels are taking you, but only at a high level. For example, if my updates looked like this, I am sure it would get old very quickly:
1. Shane is at the Eiffel Tower 5:50pm
2. Shane is strolling the Champ d'Elyesse
3. Shane is at the Arc de Triumphe 8:00pm
4. Shane is at a lovely Paris bakery getting some breakfast 9:00am
5. Shane is on his way to Notre Dame 10:00am
6. Shane is at Notre Dame 10:15am
That is as annoying as those long winded bulk emails people send when they are on those 6 month travel vacations. Only your mom wants to know your every movements. For vacation updates, keep it to:
1. Shane is in Paris
2. Shane is in Brugge
3. Shane is in Amsterdam
and then write some type of comment afterwards to make it interesting and unique to yourself.
If you want to share intricate details your vacation on facebook, do it through the photos section. Give people the choice of checking out the vacation or not.
3. The baby post
I'm almost frightened to write this section. Almost. Yes, I know the birth of a child is a reason for the new parents to celebrate. And yes your friends all want to know the basics - is baby healthy, is momma healthy, what is the new addition's name, time of birth, gender. I know it's tough to fathom, but the majority of people aren't interested past the basics. For example "baby X looks so cute in her new sleeper". Thanks for the info, but it comes off as trying to hard. Again, for the proud momma, post a photo album and give your friends the option of checking the baby out. The new grandmother wants to here everything I'm sure, but facebook is not the place.
4. The achievement post
This is the post that people share where they have reached a goal that they are proud of, and they share it through facebook. Naturally, this is pure personal marketing designed to get a "Good Job!" response from your friends. These posts are very effective, but must be used sparingly to avoid looking like a braggart. Big occasions like graduations, completing a running race, new jobs, and promotions are occasions that should be shared with your friends.
5. The drama post
My favourite types of posts. Sharing to everyone about relationship troubles, family troubles, etc... is not a good reflection on yourself, and I have seen posts that are even spiteful or hateful. Ultimately, if your girlfriend, boyfriend, or mother is giving you trouble it is really none of my business. And I don't want it to be. There is really no good drama post. Period.
6. The humour post
This has become more and more prevalent as facebook evolves, which is a good thing. The funny status update, or joke. These are the posts that keep people interested if done properly. A good humourous facebook status is slightly self-deprecating (shows people you can laugh at yourself) and is a means to provide entertainment to your friends. The humour post can be combined with the vacation or baby posts to make them entertaining even if the updates are more frequent then they should be. For example, instead of saying you are in you say "X is in Amsterdam" say "X is in Amsterdam. Something smells like the art teachers' lounge". These are the types of posts are difficult to overdo, if you are good at it. If you aren't sure, update occasionally and see what the responses are, then update more often.
Those are the big five, and of course I am simplifying a little bit.
Cheers.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Book Review...
Hey folks,
I recently read an interesting book called "The Sexual Paradox". I can't remember the author, but it's a very interesting read. No, it's not a book about relationships and intimacy, it's a look at women in the workforce and the decisions they make, in comparison to men. I have been long been fascinated with this topic since I was in the seventh grade (I actually did a Science Fair project on this issue).
To really understand the point this book is trying to say, you have to look at the feminism movement that took place in the 60's and 70's. This movement is largely responsible for the increased role women have in the workplace, politics, and decision making that we see in the 21st century. Change for the better, to be sure. However, what has troubled researchers that look at trends is that despite the increased role of women there is still a significant gap at the top of organizations, and in certain professions. The point that is consistently being made is that these gaps are not closing as fast as they should be. The book I read takes a close look at some of the reasons why.
What the 60-70s brand of feminism did was say that Women and Men are not only equal, but alike. That essentially said that women and men can do the exact same tasks equally well which was an effort to attract women outside of traditional female professions such as education and nursing. While it has worked to a certain extent, as there are more women accountants, lawyers, and doctors than ever, there are still significant gaps in some areas. A side effect of this "alike" concept was that it has become taboo to imply that women are wired different then men and therefore, in general, are not attracted to the same professions.
Two main areas of concern are engineering and the computer sciences. Both are lucrative, well respected professions that are still dominated by men. Less than 20% of University Grads in these areas are women. The book explores why this gap does not seem to be closing. A knee jerk response may be to say that "Men are traditionally better at Math and Science". This is actually not the case. A study that was cited in the book indicated that men and women's performance in Science are equal, and men scored marginally better in math. Looking at these stats, one would think the gap should be closing. It isn't, it is actually widening.
With that, there has to be another reason. What the book seems to indicate is that, in general, women don't enter these professions because they aren't as interesting to women as they are to men. Women tend to gravitate towards professions that allow them to assist or help people in some fashion. It comes from the biological maternal instinct and empathy. The book indicates that women tend to get frustrated in their professions if they don't see themselves as makign a difference in other people's lives.
To show this, case studies of the legal profession were looked at. Right now, more women graduate law school then men. And the same proportion end up working at big law firms right out of University. Law firms are not discriminatory these days, they covet brilliant women as much as brilliant men. However, what is startling is the number of women that LEAVE the legal profession after 10-20 years. This number is much more then men, and the "family" argument only explains some of it.
What seems to be happening is that women join the legal profession to make a difference and help people. After several years, they discover that their current path is not taking them to the end goal, and they leave the profession or leave the big money in corporate law to work in the public defender's office. One can imagine a corporate lawyer dealing with corporate taxes, big lawsuits, and endless paperwork could get jaded. Not saying that men do not have that same goal for getting into law, but as a trend they are able to adjust their expectations to fit the reality of the legal profession and overall find compensation as more of a motivator then women do.
There is a lot more in this book, but this is a summary of the main thesis.
Cheers.
I recently read an interesting book called "The Sexual Paradox". I can't remember the author, but it's a very interesting read. No, it's not a book about relationships and intimacy, it's a look at women in the workforce and the decisions they make, in comparison to men. I have been long been fascinated with this topic since I was in the seventh grade (I actually did a Science Fair project on this issue).
To really understand the point this book is trying to say, you have to look at the feminism movement that took place in the 60's and 70's. This movement is largely responsible for the increased role women have in the workplace, politics, and decision making that we see in the 21st century. Change for the better, to be sure. However, what has troubled researchers that look at trends is that despite the increased role of women there is still a significant gap at the top of organizations, and in certain professions. The point that is consistently being made is that these gaps are not closing as fast as they should be. The book I read takes a close look at some of the reasons why.
What the 60-70s brand of feminism did was say that Women and Men are not only equal, but alike. That essentially said that women and men can do the exact same tasks equally well which was an effort to attract women outside of traditional female professions such as education and nursing. While it has worked to a certain extent, as there are more women accountants, lawyers, and doctors than ever, there are still significant gaps in some areas. A side effect of this "alike" concept was that it has become taboo to imply that women are wired different then men and therefore, in general, are not attracted to the same professions.
Two main areas of concern are engineering and the computer sciences. Both are lucrative, well respected professions that are still dominated by men. Less than 20% of University Grads in these areas are women. The book explores why this gap does not seem to be closing. A knee jerk response may be to say that "Men are traditionally better at Math and Science". This is actually not the case. A study that was cited in the book indicated that men and women's performance in Science are equal, and men scored marginally better in math. Looking at these stats, one would think the gap should be closing. It isn't, it is actually widening.
With that, there has to be another reason. What the book seems to indicate is that, in general, women don't enter these professions because they aren't as interesting to women as they are to men. Women tend to gravitate towards professions that allow them to assist or help people in some fashion. It comes from the biological maternal instinct and empathy. The book indicates that women tend to get frustrated in their professions if they don't see themselves as makign a difference in other people's lives.
To show this, case studies of the legal profession were looked at. Right now, more women graduate law school then men. And the same proportion end up working at big law firms right out of University. Law firms are not discriminatory these days, they covet brilliant women as much as brilliant men. However, what is startling is the number of women that LEAVE the legal profession after 10-20 years. This number is much more then men, and the "family" argument only explains some of it.
What seems to be happening is that women join the legal profession to make a difference and help people. After several years, they discover that their current path is not taking them to the end goal, and they leave the profession or leave the big money in corporate law to work in the public defender's office. One can imagine a corporate lawyer dealing with corporate taxes, big lawsuits, and endless paperwork could get jaded. Not saying that men do not have that same goal for getting into law, but as a trend they are able to adjust their expectations to fit the reality of the legal profession and overall find compensation as more of a motivator then women do.
There is a lot more in this book, but this is a summary of the main thesis.
Cheers.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The continuing saga...
Well, a bit over a week has passed and the saga with regards to the Phoenix Coyotes continues. What has become apparent in the recent days is that the competing offer is not even close to Balsillie's. Second, the NHL is trying to portray Balsillie and the owner of the Coyotes as the villains in this, and that they are trying to subvert NHL rules in the bid for the Coyotes. They are also trying to portray the Coyote fans as the victims, and having their team stolen from them. That is maybe true, but when 15,000 people came out in 1995 to save the Winnipeg Jets, and only 200 come out in a similar rally to save the Coyotes this week that should be an indicator to the NHL that not many people will lose sleep over the Coyotes relocating.
Now, we are starting to see the PR battle taking shape. Bettman knows the court of public opinion is HEAVILY on Balsillie's side in Canada. So, he throws it out there that he prefer to see the team to Winnipeg if it does indeed move. Say what you want about Bettman, he may be stubborn but he is not stupid. Bettman does not want another team in Winnipeg. However, what he is trying to do is polarize the Canadian supporters of the move. What better way to play the nostalgia card and get the fans of the Jets and other Western Canadian teams questioning the move to Southern Ontario.
In response, Balsillie offered an olive branch and displayed that is bargaining in good faith by offering to keep the team in Phoenix one more season. This was alleviate scheduling concerns the NHL brought up. A nice counter-punch from Mr. Blackberry.
However, that does bring up an interesting issue. Moving a Western conference team to the Eastern conference does create an issue for the league that a team in Winnipeg or Kansas City would not. Which team moves to the Western conference? The three choices are likely Pittsburgh, Atlanta, or Hamilton. None of these three choices are great.
1. Pittsburgh would move into the Central with Chicago, Detroit, Columbus and Nashville. That's not bad, but the question becomes what happens to St. Louis? Likely, Vancouver would have to join the Pacific Divison, and St. Louis would move into the NorthWest divison.
2. Atlanta moves into the Central Divison with Nashville, Detroit, Columbus, and Chicago. Again, St. Louis would have to be re-aligned.
3. As a "punishment", Hamilton moves into the central with Detroit, Columbus, Chicago, and St. Louis/Nashville. If Nashville was left hanging, a divison would likely be formed with Edmonton, Calgary, Nashville, Minnesota and Colorado. This leaves Vancouver, San Jose, Dallas, LA, and Anaheim.
A team moving to Winnipeg does not create these types of headaches. Winnipeg would easily slide into the NorthWest, and Colorado would take Phoenix's place in the Pacific.
This saga is a nice side story to the playoffs. I'm following it almost as close.
Cheers.
Now, we are starting to see the PR battle taking shape. Bettman knows the court of public opinion is HEAVILY on Balsillie's side in Canada. So, he throws it out there that he prefer to see the team to Winnipeg if it does indeed move. Say what you want about Bettman, he may be stubborn but he is not stupid. Bettman does not want another team in Winnipeg. However, what he is trying to do is polarize the Canadian supporters of the move. What better way to play the nostalgia card and get the fans of the Jets and other Western Canadian teams questioning the move to Southern Ontario.
In response, Balsillie offered an olive branch and displayed that is bargaining in good faith by offering to keep the team in Phoenix one more season. This was alleviate scheduling concerns the NHL brought up. A nice counter-punch from Mr. Blackberry.
However, that does bring up an interesting issue. Moving a Western conference team to the Eastern conference does create an issue for the league that a team in Winnipeg or Kansas City would not. Which team moves to the Western conference? The three choices are likely Pittsburgh, Atlanta, or Hamilton. None of these three choices are great.
1. Pittsburgh would move into the Central with Chicago, Detroit, Columbus and Nashville. That's not bad, but the question becomes what happens to St. Louis? Likely, Vancouver would have to join the Pacific Divison, and St. Louis would move into the NorthWest divison.
2. Atlanta moves into the Central Divison with Nashville, Detroit, Columbus, and Chicago. Again, St. Louis would have to be re-aligned.
3. As a "punishment", Hamilton moves into the central with Detroit, Columbus, Chicago, and St. Louis/Nashville. If Nashville was left hanging, a divison would likely be formed with Edmonton, Calgary, Nashville, Minnesota and Colorado. This leaves Vancouver, San Jose, Dallas, LA, and Anaheim.
A team moving to Winnipeg does not create these types of headaches. Winnipeg would easily slide into the NorthWest, and Colorado would take Phoenix's place in the Pacific.
This saga is a nice side story to the playoffs. I'm following it almost as close.
Cheers.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Balsillie and the latest Saga
So, I'm sure everyone has heard by now about Jim Balsillie's latest pitch to buy himself an NHL team. Unlike the last two, this time he has been explicit in the requirements that he be able to move the franchise to Southern Ontario. Balsillie has played this last offer incredibly well, and it has Bettman fuming. In his last two offers, Bettman has stepped in to ensure that Balsillie does not get his team.
Here is why this offer is so well done. With the Phoenix offer, Balsillie waited until the Coyotes petitioned for bankruptcy protection. By doing this, the lion share of the decision making now ends up in a bankruptcy court instead of the NHL headquarters. Bettman is now challenging this, not surprisingly. But, he is challenging whether the owner of the Coyotes legally can put the team into bankruptcy. This makes sense, since the NHL will lose a lot of control over the fate of the Coyotes if the bankruptcy proceeds.
What the bankruptcy court is most concerned with is how the Coyotes' creditors (secured and unsecured) can get the biggest share of their money owed. To do this, the assets are put into auction and go to the highest bidder. Balsillie, with his $212 million USD offer, is the highest bidder and it is unlikely the competing bid that Bettman likes will match it. However, with the situation in the courts, Bettman can not go to the Coyotes owner and persuade him to take the lower bid (as what happened in Nashville). The bankruptcy court will not allow that. So, there are a couple things that can happen that would work out negatively for Balsillie:
1. The bankruptcy court finds that it can not force the Coyotes to relocate legally, which voids his offer to purchase.
2. A new ownership group bids $217 million USD or more. The Coyotes owner would be mandated to take the highest bid in bankruptcy.
Of course, Balsillie needs 2/3 of the NHL governors to approve him as an owner. This is far from a slam dunk, since MLSE and Buffalo would surely vote no. As would the handful of GM's that Bettman has in his pocket. However, with the economy in the states some owners have become increasingly concerned about falling franchise values. $212 million USD is an overpayment for the Coyotes, which would help in bringing franchise values of places like Anaheim, Nashville, San Jose, Atlanta, Columbus and Florida up into the $200 million mark. This is great for those owners. It has little impact on the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, Canadiens, and Red Wings since their values are well over the $212 million mark. The vote will be interesting.
Good luck to Balsillie on this one. Canada deserves another NHL team.
Cheers.
Here is why this offer is so well done. With the Phoenix offer, Balsillie waited until the Coyotes petitioned for bankruptcy protection. By doing this, the lion share of the decision making now ends up in a bankruptcy court instead of the NHL headquarters. Bettman is now challenging this, not surprisingly. But, he is challenging whether the owner of the Coyotes legally can put the team into bankruptcy. This makes sense, since the NHL will lose a lot of control over the fate of the Coyotes if the bankruptcy proceeds.
What the bankruptcy court is most concerned with is how the Coyotes' creditors (secured and unsecured) can get the biggest share of their money owed. To do this, the assets are put into auction and go to the highest bidder. Balsillie, with his $212 million USD offer, is the highest bidder and it is unlikely the competing bid that Bettman likes will match it. However, with the situation in the courts, Bettman can not go to the Coyotes owner and persuade him to take the lower bid (as what happened in Nashville). The bankruptcy court will not allow that. So, there are a couple things that can happen that would work out negatively for Balsillie:
1. The bankruptcy court finds that it can not force the Coyotes to relocate legally, which voids his offer to purchase.
2. A new ownership group bids $217 million USD or more. The Coyotes owner would be mandated to take the highest bid in bankruptcy.
Of course, Balsillie needs 2/3 of the NHL governors to approve him as an owner. This is far from a slam dunk, since MLSE and Buffalo would surely vote no. As would the handful of GM's that Bettman has in his pocket. However, with the economy in the states some owners have become increasingly concerned about falling franchise values. $212 million USD is an overpayment for the Coyotes, which would help in bringing franchise values of places like Anaheim, Nashville, San Jose, Atlanta, Columbus and Florida up into the $200 million mark. This is great for those owners. It has little impact on the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, Canadiens, and Red Wings since their values are well over the $212 million mark. The vote will be interesting.
Good luck to Balsillie on this one. Canada deserves another NHL team.
Cheers.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Questions about Everyday Life
Hi all,
Went to Calgary over the weekend to check out The Killers on Sunday April 26th. They rocked the Saddledome. I'm sure that performance was much more enjoyable then the performance at the Saddledome the night after (ouch).
Interesting update, I gave notice to the current job last week without having anything lined up right after. A little scary, but I did give notice for the end of June. Gives me a little time.
I have always wondered about certain protocols in life that either should be established, or whether they are and I just don't know about them, or whether the protocol is disputed. I welcome all comments.
1. At what age does a woman become a "cougar". And is cougar an absolute or relative term. I mean, can a 19 year old boy call a hot 29 year old woman a cougar? If it's an absolute term, can I call a 32 year woman a cougar, even though I'm 30?
2 Speaking of which, is there an comparable term for older bar-star men? Male slang always enters the lexicon much quicker. Girls are much more secretive and subtle about this stuff. My guess: each group of girlfriends has their own unique term.
3. I'm sure most of us has gone through the first few birthdays after we became legal to drink. It is always an exercise in how drunk the birthday person can get, and how horrible the shooters are. My question is, at what age are you eligible to refuse certain shots on a birthday? For example, I refuse to drink tequila and at some point in time it stopped being bought for me on the birthday. Refusing tequila is not possible on a 19th or 20th b-day, but how long do you have to earn drinking cred before you can start refusing...
4. The "third date" rule. I've never been clear on what the actual rule is. I know that the third date is some standard that if "something" doesn't happen by the third date with a girl that it's time to cut-bait. What is that "something"? A kiss? Heavy-Petting? Full on monkey lovin in the back of a 1979 Cordoba station wagon? (On the Corinthian leather of course). I think a true standard should be established. It's really all too confusing, and gives me too much to think about. Especially on the third date. Maybe that's why I'm so distracted on the third date all the time?
These are types of thoughts that keep me busy when I'm sitting at home and the power goes out.
Cheers.
Went to Calgary over the weekend to check out The Killers on Sunday April 26th. They rocked the Saddledome. I'm sure that performance was much more enjoyable then the performance at the Saddledome the night after (ouch).
Interesting update, I gave notice to the current job last week without having anything lined up right after. A little scary, but I did give notice for the end of June. Gives me a little time.
I have always wondered about certain protocols in life that either should be established, or whether they are and I just don't know about them, or whether the protocol is disputed. I welcome all comments.
1. At what age does a woman become a "cougar". And is cougar an absolute or relative term. I mean, can a 19 year old boy call a hot 29 year old woman a cougar? If it's an absolute term, can I call a 32 year woman a cougar, even though I'm 30?
2 Speaking of which, is there an comparable term for older bar-star men? Male slang always enters the lexicon much quicker. Girls are much more secretive and subtle about this stuff. My guess: each group of girlfriends has their own unique term.
3. I'm sure most of us has gone through the first few birthdays after we became legal to drink. It is always an exercise in how drunk the birthday person can get, and how horrible the shooters are. My question is, at what age are you eligible to refuse certain shots on a birthday? For example, I refuse to drink tequila and at some point in time it stopped being bought for me on the birthday. Refusing tequila is not possible on a 19th or 20th b-day, but how long do you have to earn drinking cred before you can start refusing...
4. The "third date" rule. I've never been clear on what the actual rule is. I know that the third date is some standard that if "something" doesn't happen by the third date with a girl that it's time to cut-bait. What is that "something"? A kiss? Heavy-Petting? Full on monkey lovin in the back of a 1979 Cordoba station wagon? (On the Corinthian leather of course). I think a true standard should be established. It's really all too confusing, and gives me too much to think about. Especially on the third date. Maybe that's why I'm so distracted on the third date all the time?
These are types of thoughts that keep me busy when I'm sitting at home and the power goes out.
Cheers.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Trash Talking
Well, my favourite sports league (the NHL) is at it again. NHL VP Colin Campbell came out today warning Calgary and Chicago players about the amount of "chirping" or "trash-talking" going on at ice level. You mean to tell me that some pro hockey players may engage in trash-talking? That is just unconscionable. Hockey is a respectful game... please return to your running players from behind and punches to the face after every whistle.
Yes, that was snarky, but I'm illustrating a point about the NHL. The pundits (such as Don Cherry) in the league always like to talk about "respect" and a "code" and all that. However, nobody ever talks about what this "respect" in hockey is supposed to look like. Hockey is a contact sport, but people talk about respect when the team goon goes after an opposing player after a CLEAN hit. That makes no sense to me. To me, the most respectful thing a player can do in the NHL is let up when a player has his back turned or on a foot race for an icing. And, in most cases, the players do. Until the playoffs are at stake. If a team is down one goal with 5 minutes left in a playoff game, and you see a player let up when the opposing player is in a dangerous position please find me a youtube clip.
This brings me back to trash-talking and what the big deal is. Here's my opinion, and it's back to my general opinion that the NHL has a gigantic bug up its ass. In the NBA and NFL, trash-talking happens all the time. It is a tool some players use to try to get other's off their game or goad them into a stupid penalty. There is a youtube clip floating around with Ryan Kesler and Alex Burrows taunting David Backes with comments like "Kelly is a great girl, tell her I said hi" (Backes' wife is named Kelly). Harmless stuff meant to try to get players off their game. Sure, if a player crosses the line and makes a racist comment that's different. However, the comments about mothers, wives, etc... are common to the sport. Reg Dunlop's "Your wife is a D**e" taunts from "Slap Shot" are based on reality.
Shouldn't the NHL be worried about hits from behind and the endless skirmishes it seems after every whistle instead of Adam Burish making comments about Jarome Iginla's mother? God forbid that the NHL mimics some of the NBA and NFL. God forbid, the NHL may actually get a decent US television contract.
Anyways, keep enjoying the playoffs folks. Carolina and Jersey is turning into the series to watch.
Cheers.
Yes, that was snarky, but I'm illustrating a point about the NHL. The pundits (such as Don Cherry) in the league always like to talk about "respect" and a "code" and all that. However, nobody ever talks about what this "respect" in hockey is supposed to look like. Hockey is a contact sport, but people talk about respect when the team goon goes after an opposing player after a CLEAN hit. That makes no sense to me. To me, the most respectful thing a player can do in the NHL is let up when a player has his back turned or on a foot race for an icing. And, in most cases, the players do. Until the playoffs are at stake. If a team is down one goal with 5 minutes left in a playoff game, and you see a player let up when the opposing player is in a dangerous position please find me a youtube clip.
This brings me back to trash-talking and what the big deal is. Here's my opinion, and it's back to my general opinion that the NHL has a gigantic bug up its ass. In the NBA and NFL, trash-talking happens all the time. It is a tool some players use to try to get other's off their game or goad them into a stupid penalty. There is a youtube clip floating around with Ryan Kesler and Alex Burrows taunting David Backes with comments like "Kelly is a great girl, tell her I said hi" (Backes' wife is named Kelly). Harmless stuff meant to try to get players off their game. Sure, if a player crosses the line and makes a racist comment that's different. However, the comments about mothers, wives, etc... are common to the sport. Reg Dunlop's "Your wife is a D**e" taunts from "Slap Shot" are based on reality.
Shouldn't the NHL be worried about hits from behind and the endless skirmishes it seems after every whistle instead of Adam Burish making comments about Jarome Iginla's mother? God forbid that the NHL mimics some of the NBA and NFL. God forbid, the NHL may actually get a decent US television contract.
Anyways, keep enjoying the playoffs folks. Carolina and Jersey is turning into the series to watch.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
