gbill2004 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Couldn't agree more with the editorial. Bang on. Bowman is basically going through the motions and potentially wasting millions of dollars just to satisfy all the gbill's out there.When you're dealing with taxpayer dollars, politicians must ensure they are transparent and getting value for money. It really amazes me how some people just don't understand this concept. But that's fine, I'll continue to be the bad/unreasonable guy here. It really amazes me how you still don't get it. When you are wasting millions of dollars just to put on a show for the unreasonable observer, that's not getting value for money. That's bureaucratic waste. Bureaucratic process is the worst enemy of progress and innovation. Sometimes the right choice is obvious and you don't have to jump through ten hoops to know it. We will have to agree to disagree then. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. I'm quite comfortable in my thoughts here. My guess is that most of you have never worked in government (not that there is anything wrong with that). There are huge checks and balances in place to ensure there are no abuses of taxpayer dollars; they don't always work, but they are there for a reason. Sam Katz ignored the rules in place and look where that got us...an RCMP investigation and millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars wasted. Both processes cost money (rules vs. no rules), but I'll take the transparent option. As a taxpayer, I care where my money is going and I'd like to know why decisions were made and what other options were available. Most people don't give a ****, but some people do care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Media drumming up a story that isnt really the one they are telling. I dont see this as Bowman throwing stones at Chipman. Here's the thing. To me (and Im not expert), the issues all lay with CV and their over-reach. My understanding is SOD had zero success in luring a hotel development and let CV know that. Chipman would have been privy to that information ofcourse as he sat on the BOD of CV. True North then said 'hey look if they cant find a development, maybe the land suits our needs'. Is this conflict? I dont see it that way. Is it wrong? I dont see it that way either. If Chipman becomes aware of a piece of land being available that he covets is he supposed to say "nah, pass"? The ONLY issue I see is that once SOD let CV know they werent having success in finding a hotel development, CV should have opened it up to anyone to pitch an idea. Instead, they signed a deal with TN. The thing about that is, how many other developers were sitting around waiting for SOD's deal with CV to expire? If SOD was actively looking for a developer, then surely anyone wanting to develop the property would have made their intentions known. If True North did anything, it was saying to CV "we will develop the land but we dont want to work with SOD, we want to work with out own people." I suppose CV *should* have said to TN, hey if you want to develop it, great, lets sit you down with SOD and you guys make a deal. Instead CV said 'well SOD isnt able to develop it anyway so we'll hand it over to TN." Once that happened, SOD claims they DID find a willing partner but CV now was in bed with TN and blocked SOD from working their option. The way I see it, CV should have released SOD from their obligation first (thus releasing them from paying any penalty) and then offered the land up to any pitches from any developers. At that point, the only one might have been TN and everything would have APPEARED above board. I dont see this is a back room deal in the general Sammy/Shindico sense. I see it as CV desperately wanting to develop that land, feeling SOD couldnt do it and making a deal with TN to get it done. If SOD never was able to entice anyone and no one was interested, wouldnt the CV/TN deal have really looked like great news? Mark Chipman clearly wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict by resigning from CV. There is ZERO evidence that Chipman did anything wrong. Bowman wasnt even aware of the deal so any insinuation that this was a quid pro quo between Chipman and Bowman is ludicrous. Bowman is doing the right thing by stepping back and saying screw everyone...here is land, if you want it, pitch us. Personally I hope TN's bid wins in the end and if they make the best proposal it will. I think CV was wrong. I dont think TN or Bowman were. Ya this one isn't really shady as much as it is a major screw-up by Centreventure who got desperate when Stuart Olson Dominion couldn't put a deal together for a chain hotel to operate what was to be built in the original proposal. The major problem here is a lack of oversight (information getting to council) and clear guidelines for arms length governmental agencies like Centreventure or even WFD/WPS to work under when it comes to these land deals. Makes it easy for the Sheegl's and Shindico's of the world to press their personal agendas forward with all the blurred lines and avoid real scrutiny until the deal is already past the point of no return. Stuart Olson Dominion and Abou-Zaid are 5 words I don't want to hear in the same sentence as "Winnipeg" for a long time. A lot of ignorance and incompetence in their work in this city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagingIce Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Ya this one isn't really shady as much as it is a major screw-up by Centreventure who got desperate when Stuart Olson Dominion couldn't put a deal together for a chain hotel to operate what was to be built in the original proposal. The major problem here is a lack of oversight (information getting to council) and clear guidelines for arms length governmental agencies like Centreventure or even WFD/WPS to work under when it comes to these land deals. Makes it easy for the Sheegl's and Shindico's of the world to press their personal agendas forward with all the blurred lines and avoid real scrutiny until the deal is already past the point of no return. Stuart Olson Dominion and Abou-Zaid are 5 words I don't want to hear in the same sentence as "Winnipeg" for a long time. A lot of ignorance and incompetence in their work in this city. We do seem to have a lot of terrible construction/property management companies in Winnipeg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Couldn't agree more with the editorial. Bang on. Bowman is basically going through the motions and potentially wasting millions of dollars just to satisfy all the gbill's out there.When you're dealing with taxpayer dollars, politicians must ensure they are transparent and getting value for money. It really amazes me how some people just don't understand this concept. But that's fine, I'll continue to be the bad/unreasonable guy here. The problem is some people want the world to stop while the taxpayers are informed of every single step of every single decision ever made. Part of the responsibility of our system is we elect representatives to look after our interests and do whats best, which means X amount of people will always be upset with any decision made because you cant please all the people. I think Bowman is doing the right thing for this specific time following the corrupt former regime. But I also think he doesnt have to be *as* transparent as he is trying to be. SOD wanted to be released from their obligation long before CV and TN discussed a deal. How CV behaved, we can debate, but they did business in a way that was permitted under the old regime. Its not difficult to look at this as TN being convinced to expand their interest and in a way, *save* the project. Certainly TN isnt doing it out of the goodness of their heart but for a profitable venture. But if Bowman and Council looked at this and say gee, the deal CV and TN entered into is a good deal and above board, then I would have no issue with it being rubber stamped. What Bowman is essentially doing is saying "if anyone has a problem with this deal, make us an offer" and Im sure the belief is TN's deal will be the best one. And just you watch....if TN wins the bid, people will wonder why they wasted time and money and didnt rubber stand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 If TN wins the bid? Lol, they will because it seems like they are the only real interested party in developing that land there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Let's hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 8, 2017 Report Share Posted April 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted April 8, 2017 Report Share Posted April 8, 2017 Well I can't wait for the Bomber fans to come forth and scream "None of your business!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 8, 2017 Report Share Posted April 8, 2017 11 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: Well I can't wait for the Bomber fans to come forth and scream "None of your business!" Tone deaf behaviour by Triple B. They should be out in front of this. It's not like it will remain a secret so no reason to play games with the media and public I maintain that people aren't so much angry about the cost they are angry about the lies and BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacquie Posted April 8, 2017 Report Share Posted April 8, 2017 Is it possible that the work was the concourse widening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted April 8, 2017 Report Share Posted April 8, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Jacquie said: Is it possible that the work was the concourse widening? Looking at MTS, IGF and i'll throw in the ball park - there was no thought in concourses other then smallest possible. Edited April 8, 2017 by FrostyWinnipeg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 8, 2017 Report Share Posted April 8, 2017 35 minutes ago, Jacquie said: Is it possible that the work was the concourse widening? For sure. But there was a lot of work. There are previous media stories about the remediation needed due to leaking and water pooling etc. But is absolutely strange for Triple B to be so evasive about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted April 9, 2017 Report Share Posted April 9, 2017 can someone recap the story? I can't get past the paywall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 9, 2017 Report Share Posted April 9, 2017 43 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said: can someone recap the story? I can't get past the paywall. It had been revealed last year that the Stadium needed extensive work done due to leaking and pooling water. Apparently ripping up all the concourses and redoing them etc. I believe (memory, didn't re-read) that there ws a $35mm loan for this work. Media asked Triple B (company that "owns" and runs IGF) to explain the work being done and cost. Triple B promised to get the info and arrange a tour then the guy went out of town and passed it on to a co worker who knew nothing about it. Basically, dodging answering the questions. Freep framed it as a public funded building so why are they being so evasive about things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 I'm not sure why they're being evasive. I would imagine this work is related to the structural defects identified in the ongoing litigation between Triple B (et al) and builders and architect. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 for those without access Triple B says they will limit comment due to the ongoing court case between them and the builder and architect of IGF. Triple B is suing and believes they should pay for the repairs. Repairs are over $21m. They won't say what the total cost is budgeted at but the province guaranteed a loan for repairs of $35m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustamente Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 24 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: for those without access Triple B says they will limit comment due to the ongoing court case between them and the builder and architect of IGF. Triple B is suing and believes they should pay for the repairs. Repairs are over $21m. They won't say what the total cost is budgeted at but the province guaranteed a loan for repairs of $35m. Two more years of work to do and the total will probably fly by the 35m loan. Hopefully they can win the lawsuit and bring recoup some of the loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, bustamente said: Two more years of work to do and the total will probably fly by the 35m loan. Hopefully they can win the lawsuit and bring recoup some of the loan. You think the construction company got the extra cash? No use even talking about the architect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said: for those without access Triple B says they will limit comment due to the ongoing court case between them and the builder and architect of IGF. Triple B is suing and believes they should pay for the repairs. Repairs are over $21m. They won't say what the total cost is budgeted at but the province guaranteed a loan for repairs of $35m. Thanks for the recap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted April 14, 2017 Report Share Posted April 14, 2017 4 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: You think the construction company got the extra cash? No use even talking about the architect. They have insurance, which would pay the settlement. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 14, 2017 Report Share Posted April 14, 2017 5 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: You think the construction company got the extra cash? No use even talking about the architect. The problem is they went with Ray Wan who has a pretty vanilla style to designing buildings. He works a lot because he comes in quickly and cheaply. But he never designed a stadium. Look at the palace in Regina. That's what happens when you hire a stadium design firm rather than a guy who designs office buildings. JCon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted April 14, 2017 Report Share Posted April 14, 2017 Well they also had 100m more to work with but yah. Walls, roof and lots of concourse room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 14, 2017 Report Share Posted April 14, 2017 11 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: Well they also had 100m more to work with but yah. Walls, roof and lots of concourse room. IGF is beautiful. Not taking anything away from IGF compared to Reginas stadium. Theirs should be nicer because it is newer and more expensive. It's similar to ours so they had the advantage of seeing what works and doesn't work. Good for them. But these repairs are related not related to luxury items. Leaking. Drainage. Etc. Should have been caught in the design and building phase. As for "luxury" things like wider concourses and room for conessesions. Access to kitchen. Etc. A stadium designer catches all that. Althougj I really believe IGF was built knowing there were deficiencies but the government had a maximum price they felt the public could live with and they decided to build it and deal with remediation later. Had they simply said this will cost $250mm, there would have been pushback but then it would have died down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted April 14, 2017 Report Share Posted April 14, 2017 Had a tour from the project manager before IGF opened. He basically said that he was up most nights re-planning / designing to fit the budget. The project basically had no contingency built in so if one piece went over they had to save somewhere else. He was an interesting guy who had built large scale projects across the world, including Vegas casinos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted April 14, 2017 Report Share Posted April 14, 2017 Since this is the stadium news thread... http://lasvegasstadium.raiders.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now