What’s in a Word?
I suppose this is a really small thing in the grand scheme of things, but it drives me crazy when the NHL (or any other organization) manages to influence (even manipulate) public opinion by framing an issue with a single word. In this case, the word is concession. In the story, that word is used eleven times to describe what the city of Glendale is going to have to do to keep the Coyotes. What do they have to concede? Money. Lots of it. Between $14 and $20 MM a year.
The correct word – subsidy – is only used twice. The NHL has managed to get the media to use a misleading word, a word that implies that the city would merely be compromising in a negotiation. All the league’s spin doctors have to do is use the word themselves and use it often. The well trained media follows. The league knows the public is much more likely to go for a concession than agree to a subsidy.
How the debate is framed can turn on a single word and the media should not let the league get away with it.
(Not that the public is likely to go for a concession either, given that 72% of the population thinks the idea stinks no matter what they call it. Furthermore, the city probably can’t afford it anyway. Which small city can “concede” $20 MM a year for any purpose these days? The fact that all of Gary Bettman’s alternative – to Balsillie – buyers expect city subsidies, means he has no real alternative buyers.)
Postscript: In an unrelated Coyote comment Tyler Dellow points out how the difference between the value of a team in Phoenix and the value of a team in Hamilton – the court’s criteria for setting the relocation fee – could be zero.
I don’t know that it’s all that crazy to think that the value of the opportunity to the NHL may, in fact, not be worth that much, and that most of the value would consist of taking away rights from Buffalo and Toronto… If anything, you could argue that NHL owners are probably getting a windfall here – collectively, they would be getting the rights to the Phoenix market back if Balsillie were allowed to move the team.
I’m not sure that I buy the argument, but it does occur to me that if Balsillie is successful in moving the team to Southern Ontario, Phoenix probably becomes the most attractive “new” market for hockey in North America. What does that say about the state of the league?
Why stop at subsidy? Corporate handout, or even le mot du jour, bailout, is probably most accurate, especially in terms of the rage it should foment.
Yeah, I hear you Tom. It’s like how when Bettman says that there’s a “lease problem”, what he means is “We aren’t getting enough free money.”
What’s your problem with my argument? I’m interested in hearing how it’s wrong.
I don’t have any problem with the logic, Tyler. As a practical matter, though, I don’t think either the Leafs or the Sabres are really going to lose much.
I agree, Raj. I’d just settle for a reporter demanding an answer the first time Bettman used the term “concession”.
“What exactly do you mean by concession? Since Glendale only gets about $4 MM a year from the Coyotes in rent and parking fees, what do you expect them to do? What is the difference between a concession and a subsidy (corporate welfare, bailout) in your mind? Why don’t you call a spade a spade?”
Then I would use the term subsidy every time the league used concession.
You should get Brian to link you on the front page again.
As a practical matter, though, I don’t think either the Leafs or the Sabres are really going to lose much.
I agree with this almost completely with the Leafs, although I’m not as sure about the Sabres. I think that the Sabres are in a world of hurt anyway because Buffalo is a dying city. It’s all going to be blamed on Balsillie ten or twenty years from now.
I AM curious about how the NHL justifies a fee though. I’d love to know what’s going on internally – if I owned the Leafs, I’d be asserting that the NHL doesn’t have an opportunity to sell because the right to play games in Southern Ontario belongs to me. The NHL’s argument, I suppose, is that the Leafs only have the right to have one team in Southern Ontario, not multiple teams and that that’s what the league has the power to grant. The economics of all of this is pretty murky, I think.
I’m not sure that I buy the argument, but it does occur to me that if Balsillie is successful in moving the team to Southern Ontario, Phoenix probably becomes the most attractive “new” market for hockey in North America. What does that say about the state of the league?
Over-saturated and over-expanded.
The City of Glendale is getting exactly what it deserves here. They are the new poster children for the stupidity of building big, taxpayer financed Taj Mahals in the hopes of attracting a pro sports franchise. It was a bad idea a few years ago, when real estate was booming, and in today’s economic climate it is looking laughably stupid. Of course Bettman is going to squeeze Glendale’s goodies right now – he has leverage, and will try to use it. Glendale only has themselves to blame for getting into this situation. I hope the politicians responsible for this debacle are held accountable at the ballot box.
Even if the politicians responsible are voted out, they always land on their feet – it’s the residents that are going to bear the costs.
I understand the point, but my question would be how one can characterize third party payments made in respect of the City’s own asset a “subsidy”? The City owns the arena in question. Is it a subsidy to pay a third party to run it?
Has it now become the case that payment of a municipality to a third party for services rendered is a “subsidy”? If the team goes bankrupt and the City hires (for example) AEG to run it, are they paying them a “subsidy” to run the City’s assets?
I understand the point, but my question would be how one can characterize third party payments made in respect of the City’s own asset a “subsidy”? The City owns the arena in question. Is it a subsidy to pay a third party to run it?
In this case, of course it is. A subsidy is financial assistance (usually from government) paid to support a business that might otherwise fail or paying to encourage an activity that might not otherwise take place. Paying an entity to manage an arena is not a subsidy as long as the city profits from owning the arena. Paying a third party to run it at a loss obviously involves a subsidy, particularly when the payments cover the loss two or three times over and even more particularly when the third party is a hockey team that can’t survive unless it provides this “service” to the city.
Calling what the league is asking for a subsidy involves a common sense use of the term. I often think that the lawyer’s role in our society is to destroy common sense with this type of sophistry. We’re all the worse for it.
I can’t believe the BS. The Phoenix Coyotes organization does not provide a service to the city. It does not “run” the arena, unless the organization passes the revenue generated from the arena to the city, which I don’t think it does. The relationship is no doubt landlord-tenant. Are you subsidizing your friend if you own a house and let you friend live in there for free AND pay your friend every month? Or should you call it “running” the house? And your friend sublets one of the rooms but keeps the revenue from subletting?
I don’t even think what the league is asking for is a subsidy as only defined by the “common sense use of the term” – I think it’s a subsidy by its own technical and formal definition, which Tom has provided and is basically spot on. The building of the arena in the first place was most definitely a public subsidy. Subsequently, any non-contractually provided for increase in payments aimed at keeping the tenant operating – a necessity so the city can collect revenues to be used to pay back the debt created by the initial subsidy – must also on its face be considered a subsidy.
I don’t think it has anything to do with lawyers or the law itself acting to destroy common sense; I think it has to do with certain peoples, and specifically a certain class of peoples, willfully, if often subconsciously, obfuscating the issue(s) so as to (1) misinform and mislead the public, (2) so as to continue to concentrate wealth and resources. Subsidization of costs, privatization of profit. That is the pro-Business, particularly American, way.
Calling what the league is asking for a subsidy involves a common sense use of the term. I often think that the lawyer’s role in our society is to destroy common sense with this type of sophistry. We’re all the worse for it.
So much for my trying to be nice and simply asking a question that I thought needed an answer.
Thanks. Thanks much.
Excuse me, you were trying to be nice? I don’t get it. And the first thing Tom did was answer your “nice” question and you conveniently forgot to quote it.
Well, Rodier certainly wasn’t afraid to use the word “subsidy” today. I’m kind of beginning to love that guy. You could basically hear him pleading to the other owners, “this is how you want Bettman to run your league?” I kind of want Balsillie to get his team in Hamilton, appoint Rodier as GM, and then see Rodier punch out Burke during a GM meeting while arguing over having TV timeouts after an icing call.
Excuse me, you were trying to be nice? I don’t get it. And the first thing Tom did was answer your “nice” question and you conveniently forgot to quote it.
Kel, I was not “trying”. I was asking a respectful question. I also didn’t “conveniently [forget] to quote” anything. I felt Tom’s first paragraph elaborated on and addressed his views. I don’t agree, but that is fine and it is hardly surprising that I might disagree. The part I quoted (which you seemed to miss, if you think I didn’t quote anything) was a diversion into an intemperate personally directed (IMO) response to a valid impersonally delivered question. The first part is Tom’s view on the issue. The second part (the part I quoted) states that my question is mere sophistry (not a complimentary term, IMO) and casts my profession as a blight on the world.
I could capably debate the point Tom made in the first paragraph, but frankly the second paragraph is not exactly inviting of a debate, so I will defer. And whatever it is that is evidently working you up I want no part of, frankly.
First of all, you said you were trying to be nice yourself. Later you said you were not “trying”. I am confused by that point, but it’s a trivial point regardless.
More importantly, you think you were asking a respectful question. I disagree. Your question is misleading at best. Your mentioning of “running” and “services” completely distorted the reality of the landlord-tenant relationship. The city is the landlord and the team is the tenant. Explain to me why the contract between the two entities is always described as a lease, if the city is the customer and the team is the vendor/service provider?
The second part (the part I quoted) states that my question is mere sophistry (not a complimentary term, IMO) and casts my profession as a blight on the world.
Whether it is complimentary depends on the context. It isn’t here, but it was also not impolite. I see a sophist as a hairsplitting wordsmith who can use that skill to argue either side of any case. Your argument goes precisely to the point of the post. It isn’t a subsidy or a concession. It is a renegotiated set of fees to be paid to the Coyotes for managing the arena for the city.
This is clearly a subsidy and would be called a subsidy by any reasonable person who stopped and thought about it. Glendale is already paying the Coyotes to operate the arena when they give them all the revenues for both hockey and non-hockey events. If they agree to pay a new $20 MM a year “fee” to the Coyotes, they will not be doing it to pay a third party to run their arena for them even if the arena management contract declares that’s why the payment is made. They will be delivering up a subsidy to keep the Coyotes in Glendale.
Lawyers as a blight on the world goes too far, but not by miles. This isn’t to say there are not good people who happen to be lawyers or that lawyers do not occasionally manage to accomplish worthwhile things. But, on balance, I don’t have much respect for the profession even granting that somebody has to do it. And I’m not alone.
This Harris poll from 2002 shows that the public generally doesn’t consider lawyers very trustworthy. In my opinion the public lacks trust because the art of sophistry is an essential tool in the lawyer’s toolbox. We don’t expect sincerity or truth from lawyers. We expect the best argument money can buy.
First of all, you said you were trying to be nice yourself. Later you said you were not “trying”. I am confused by that point, but it’s a trivial point regardless.
Nice catch. Very lawyerly of you. You win on that point, counsel. I was attempting to convey the point that I WAS being nice, rather than simply trying to, but you caught me tripping myself up. Yay.
More importantly, you think you were asking a respectful question. I disagree.
Respectfulness is IMO a question of intent. I assume therefore that you know my intent better than me.
Might I suggest a more reasonable standard of “respectful” by asking the following question:
Which of the following two statements is more respectful:
1. “I understand the point, but . . . “, followed by three plain vanilla questions.
2. “I can’t believe the BS.”
In my experience, this is not your style, so I would prefer to chalk it up to a bad day on your part.
Your question is misleading at best. Your mentioning of “running” and “services” completely distorted the reality of the landlord-tenant relationship. The city is the landlord and the team is the tenant. Explain to me why the contract between the two entities is always described as a lease, if the city is the customer and the team is the vendor/service provider?
If I wanted to engage in “sophistry”, I would point out that the PHO contract with the City of Glendale is itself in fact described as much more than a lease. That, however, is beside the point.
More to the point is the inaccurate nature of your analogy. For your information, the team does pass substantial monies and benefits to the City. $500k in rent and $2.5 million in parking fees, for starters. One can argue whether foregoing that payment is the same as the City “paying” the team, but that is for sophists. Secondly, the agreement (which I am reading as I type this) sets out 100+ pages of obligations of the team, all of which cost money to satisfy – insurance, repairs, etc. Up to $1.7 mil per year in capital improvements alone, all of which improvements belong to the City.
I can understand that you probably have not read the court documents themselves, including the actual transaction documents themselves. It is hard slogging for little reward. The fact is that this transaction was much more than a mere landlord/tenant relationship. Not everything can be boiled down to something comparable to everyday life. The City built this arena with the intent of not getting all of their money back through payments from the team (just $75 mil or so from them over the term of the lease), but rather through the use of the arena by the team and the team’s customers. $794 million, in fact.
If the City decides that, out of that $794 million that it expects to receive over the term of the lease, some of that should go to the party that is actually generating it, is that a subsidy? That is a legitimate question.
I find it more than a little odd that, in a thread about the misleading use of words, you (or Tom) would hang on specific words in an attempt to prove your point (“but it’s a LEASE”). I hope that you don’t need the contradiction to be further explained.
Whether it is complimentary depends on the context. It isn’t here, but it was also not impolite. I see a sophist as a hairsplitting wordsmith who can use that skill to argue either side of any case. Your argument goes precisely to the point of the post. It isn’t a subsidy or a concession. It is a renegotiated set of fees to be paid to the Coyotes for managing the arena for the city.
Except that I was not arguing either side of the case. I feel like doing it now just out of an emotional reaction to the grating unearned sense of certainty about this matter permeating this thread, but I am struggling against that reaction. I was asking a freaking question. That is how one advances discussion sometimes, is it not?
Lawyers as a blight on the world goes too far, but not by miles. This isn’t to say there are not good people who happen to be lawyers or that lawyers do not occasionally manage to accomplish worthwhile things. But, on balance, I don’t have much respect for the profession even granting that somebody has to do it. And I’m not alone.
You hate lawyers. Right. I get it. Everyone who reads this blog semi-regularly gets it. I sincerely hope that is working for you. I am not sure how such a negative outlook on a specific group of people can be acting as a positive element in one’s life, but that is just me. Evidently, you judge people and their character based on how they lawfully earn their money and feed their families. We also know that you judge the character of people based on their physical appearance, including their height and whether they look like a muppet to you. Those are all your choices, and they say more about you than you probably intend. I am sure that you feel justified in all of your choices. They aren’t mine, though. I sincerely hope that those things are working for you.
This Harris poll from 2002 shows that the public generally doesn’t consider lawyers very trustworthy. In my opinion the public lacks trust because the art of sophistry is an essential tool in the lawyer’s toolbox. We don’t expect sincerity or truth from lawyers. We expect the best argument money can buy.
I find it interesting that you can so readily pull up an 8 year old poll that negatively portrays lawyers.
I must confess that I do not have a poll link so readily available, but I would suspect that if one asks people “do you trust YOUR lawyer?”, the answer would be quite different (even though it would contradict their answer on the other question). People supposedly distrust lawyers, and yet they charge them with their most intimate confidences, and charge them to handle their most critical affairs not because they need to, but because it is important enough for them to make sure that those affairs are handled with precision and correctness. They get lawyers to handle the manner in which their estate will be divided among their loved ones, and they do that even though they will not be around to monitor it. They collectively put hundreds of billions of dollars in their lawyers’ trust accounts to allow them to buy homes, buildings, businesses, and any number of commodities. Because they have to? Not in my eyes. There are many means by which those transactions could be accomplished without lawyers. They do so because they want to make themselves comfortable that everything will go right. If you are someone buying a company, do you trust the representations that the seller is making? No. You send your lawyer in to read the company’s contracts, review their arrangements, do all of the other due diligence, and report back to you.
The idea that people do not trust lawyers is a pop culture punchline, nothing more. One can look at what people say or what they do.
Gerald, everyone loves to dump on lawyers, until the day comes that you need one. At that time, you want the smartest, toughest barracuda you can find to work for you. People also will tell you that all lawyers are crooks, except for their lawyer, who is of course a great. (Especially if they managed to get you out of whatever stupid legal mess you managed to land yourself in.)
Except that I was not arguing either side of the case.
No, you always argue the NHL case. The point is that it doesn’t matter to the sophist – or the lawyer – which case he argues. The skill – parsing words to create ambiguity – is for sale and can be used to advance any side of any case.
You hate lawyers. Right. I get it. Everyone who reads this blog semi-regularly gets it. I sincerely hope that is working for you. I am not sure how such a negative outlook on a specific group of people can be acting as a positive element in one’s life, but that is just me.
I didn’t say I hate lawyers. I said I don’t have much respect for the legal profession. That opinion is neither a positive element or a negative element in my life. It doesn’t matter much to me one way or another. And it took me about 12 seconds to find that Harris poll using google.
The idea that people do not trust lawyers is a pop culture punchline, nothing more. One can look at what people say or what they do.
I don’t think so. I think it is an occupational hazard. I expect my lawyer to tell me the truth because I am paying him to tell me the truth. I don’t expect him to tell anyone else the truth, particularly if I am a guilty defendant in a criminal matter. I expect him to protect my interest without considering whether or not that interest is worth protecting.
That’s the nature of the job. Lawyers frequently work to protect the interests of people and corporations who deserve no protection. Someone has to defend the rights of Wall Street, the tobacco industry, the energy industry or the OJ Simpsons of the world.
I don’t think it is necessarily wrong or immoral to earn a living doing those type of things. I do think it is a lot to expect that people will like you or respect you for doing those things.
I admitted I wasn’t very respectful in my first response to your post. I couldn’t help but feel enraged after reading what you wrote. But at least I didn’t claim to be respectful in that post. You are right that it’s not my style generally, and I’ll try not to do that again.
There’s no arguing that the team has paid the city for the use of the arena. I paid maybe 1% of my salary to the cable company, but I don’t think anyone considers that I’m passing my salary to the cable company. Now, if I gave 90% of my salary to my wife and kept only 10%, I would consider that passing my salary. (But I wouldn’t say she paid 10% for my services.)
When you asked that if it is a subsidy when the city pays a third party for services, I feel that you were misleading the readers by implying that the team provides services and therefore it is reasonable for the city to pay for them. The services, if you can call some of the team’s activities services to the landlord, are only provided as part of the payment to the city for the use of the arena. To me, you are not paying for anything unless you are cash flow negative.
Subsidy, on the other hand, is different. (By the way, it’s something that I have not written about.) My employer used to tell me that lunch is subsidized. Earlier this year, the employer told us the subsidy has ended because of financial hardship of the company. The price of all the food items went up 1000%. (It was pretty heavily subsidized; I was paying cents for lunch). It was a subsidy when my employer lowered the cost of food for me, even if it’s compensation for my service. I see that the city is already subsidizing the Coyotes because the cost of using the arena is higher. I read that the arena that the Suns is using would charge the Coyotes a lot more if the team decided to move there.