Its a good move for city west.
What’s a good move? Losing a market? Surrendering? Costing taxpayers millions?
[quote=“MiG”]Reflect on this: a few years ago Citywest had a monopoly on mobile service in Prince Rupert. Now it is out of that business.
Perhaps you should dig into that a bit.[/quote]
I would have to know the details of the partnership deal before I could even begin to quantify any direct gains or losses to city tax payers. It is a little premature to make conclusions. Doing so would compromise credibility.
We know how much Citywest has cost taxpayers already. For the past few years, in fact.
How about the ‘writedown’ of $20 million or so from the last ‘partnership’ ?
This somehow allows us to throw out all objectivity when quantifying the latest partnership deal between CityWest and Telus?
[quote=“MiG”]
How about the ‘writedown’ of $20 million or so from the last ‘partnership’ ?[/quote]
We went over this before Mig. This is a common accounting practice with incorporated companies. I can go over it again more slowly if you do not understand the principles behind this writedown.
Well, despite you trying to make this personal, I won’t take the bait. The fact that you insist on making this about me, and not about Citywest’s record is a reflection of your intentions.
But hey, we have a decade of Citywest’s record versus the unknown future. I deal with reality, and reality is that Citywest is worth half what it was just a few years ago. The reality is that Citywest Mobility once was a monopoly in Prince Rupert, now it doesn’t even exist. Citywest hasn’t paid a dividend in years. Citywest had a partnership with Bell, and look what that did for the bottom line.
But you keep on making this about me, Dex, that will make that history all go away. Take a look at your tax bill for this year and thank Citywest for the increase. Or somehow try making that tax increase about me.
The “We asked around and nobody wanted it” mobile strategy won’t disappear just because you think Citywest will make some money selling Telus phones and selling bandwidth.
Meanwhile, I think it was you that stated that when dealing with the unknown, it’s important to look at history. I believe we were talking about something in Iran. We couldn’t know the future, but you pointed out that we did know the past record. Perhaps you’ve changed your opinion on that, but that’s ok. I don’t need to insult you to be wary of Citywest announcements. We’ll let history speak to those.
Okay. I am putting on my moderator hat now. Please make your arguments without resorting to insulting your opponent. Let us have a civil debate. Carry on. Thank you.
[quote=“hitest”]
Okay. I am putting on my moderator hat now. Please make your arguments without resorting to insulting your opponent. Let us have a civil debate. Carry on. Thank you.[/quote]
My offer was genuine, it was not a personal attack.
[quote=“MiG”]Well, despite you trying to make this personal, I won’t take the bait. The fact that you insist on making this about me, and not about Citywest’s record is a reflection of your intentions.
[/quote]
Dont take it personal. I am responding to the unsubstantiated statements you have made regarding the deal with Citywest an Telus. I am curious as to why you would make those claims though.
Again, “This somehow allows us to throw out all objectivity when quantifying the latest partnership deal between CityWest and Telus?”
Ironically, it appears, you are making “this” more about you than I. I am only responding to your posts and statements made. I think I have been more than clear on this.
I have not committed to a conclusion on this matter, I do not have the details of the deal to make any informed opinion. To do so would be premature/prejudiced, in my opinion. I think I made that clear a couple posts ago when I made this statement : " I would have to know the details of the partnership deal before I could even begin to quantify any direct gains or losses to city tax payers. It is a little premature to make conclusions. Doing so would compromise credibility."
[quote=“MiG”]
Meanwhile, I think it was you that stated that when dealing with the unknown, it’s important to look at history. I believe we were talking about something in Iran. We couldn’t know the future, but you pointed out that we did know the past record. Perhaps you’ve changed your opinion on that, but that’s ok. I don’t need to insult you to be wary of Citywest announcements. We’ll let history speak to those.[/quote]
I have never endorsed using history alone to substantiate an accusation/claim.
Perhaps too much is being made of this “partnership”.
Telus is opening its’ store (today if I recall). Will they have their own employees there? Probably not, they’ll contract with Citywest for that. There would be some financial terms around that.
Citywest customers will be offerd a credit on their existing phones if they want to pay for an upgrade to a Telus phone. Who will pay for the credits? No doubt Citywest and Telus have worked out some terms on that as well.
As for those customers that want to keep their CDMA phones, Telus will not be taking on their out-of-date technology. They are excluded from the deal. Eventually Citywest will withdraw that service and any remaining customers will be out of luck.
There is nothing in the North Coast Review and Northern View coverage and media releases that suggests that there is any more to this ‘partnership’ than the above.
So Citywest is getting out of a declining part of their business - good idea, the writing has been on the wall for a long time - and they are looking out for those customers who want to pay to upgrade their phones - that’s nice - while the remaining CDMA users only have so long before their service goes dead - maybe that’s not so nice - and our elected council as the shareholder is highly unlikely to question how this came about or what it might say about how the company is being run.
[quote=“Dex”]
if you do not understand the principles behind this writedown.
Okay. I am putting on my moderator hat now. Please make your arguments without resorting to insulting your opponent. Let us have a civil debate. Carry on. Thank you.
My offer was genuine, it was not a personal attack.[/quote]
Fair enough. It is difficult on occasion to gauge the emotional tone of a post. Just a suggestion. Perhaps in the future you could say I disagree and then list your counter points rather than state that someone needs a “slower” refresher course. Thanks for the reply. 
Did I get here at a wrong time? Besides your debate here fellas, you might be right, or wrong, or maybe we don’t care about what holds those two beautiful companies to a crappy standard… It doesn’t change the fact that if you are calling Customer Service at CityWest and Telus, it takes 20-45 minutes for them to answer at any time of the day, calling Tech Support for both as well? If you’re lucky, 20 minutes. Not lucky? 1h. Cities ruining their people with bad investments and decisions, mega companies playing big shots that are above their customers…
Both companies suck. And royally at that. They both have the “this issue you’re having, it’s not from our end” mentality. I dealt with Telus before, lots, for personal and for work, and now I’m stuck the same with CityWest. I recognize crap when I see and smell it. They both live life the same.
If you are on the right side of Prince Rupert, your Telus phone will work and your CityWest internet too. If you are, as I am, on the wrong side of town, your Telus phone will stay by the window waltzing in and out of service with barely one bar and all of that happening when Telus is building towers in the mountains so we have a better signal on Hw16 than in my house. That’s nice for the bears and the stranded of course, but how do I call 911 in an emergency? Oh right, drop, roll, and hold the phone by the window… And CityWest? An 80$/month slow internet, waiting 2 weeks for someone to show up to fix it.
I’ll enjoy my Fido cell service and pray for anyone else than these 2 clowns to show up for internet/cable 'round here. That’s my Christmas wish.
[quote=“BTravenn”]Perhaps too much is being made of this “partnership”.
Telus is opening its’ store (today if I recall). Will they have their own employees there? Probably not, they’ll contract with Citywest for that. There would be some financial terms around that.
Citywest customers will be offerd a credit on their existing phones if they want to pay for an upgrade to a Telus phone. Who will pay for the credits? No doubt Citywest and Telus have worked out some terms on that as well.
As for those customers that want to keep their CDMA phones, Telus will not be taking on their out-of-date technology. They are excluded from the deal. Eventually Citywest will withdraw that service and any remaining customers will be out of luck.
There is nothing in the North Coast Review and Northern View coverage and media releases that suggests that there is any more to this ‘partnership’ than the above.
snip…
[/quote]
How do any of your points above enable Telus to "bring customers new technology such as 4G LTE, likely next year. "? As per the Telus statement below. Any insight? I see it as a hint there is possibly more than what you have suggested.
"This new partnership gives TELUS the platform to continue investing in the area, including bringing customers new technology such as 4G LTE, likely next year. "
edited for grammar.
[quote=“hitest”]
if you do not understand the principles behind this writedown.
[quote=“hitest”]
Okay. I am putting on my moderator hat now. Please make your arguments without resorting to insulting your opponent. Let us have a civil debate. Carry on. Thank you.[/quote]
Fair enough. It is difficult on occasion to gauge the emotional tone of a post. Just a suggestion. Perhaps in the future you could say I disagree and then list your counter points rather than state that someone needs a “slower” refresher course. Thanks for the reply. [/quote]
I think I was quite clear. I did state (the counterpoint) that writedowns are common practice with incorporated companies. I also made the point that we have already discussed the issue of the 20 million dollar writedown.Mig has not brought forth any counterpoint in prior threads or the current one. Giving the benefit of the doubt that Mig might possibly not be trolling by bringing forth the subject without any counterpoint, I told him I could " go over it again more slowly if you do not understand the principles behind this writedown". I fail to see how Mig could reasonably find this insulting or perceive it as a personal attack.
I have added the complete paragraph below in bold for review.
**"We went over this before Mig. This is a common accounting practice with incorporated companies. I can go over it again more slowly if you do not understand the principles behind this writedown. **
Which was a response to Mig’s question/statement: “How about the ‘writedown’ of $20 million or so from the last ‘partnership’ ?”
[quote=“Dex”]
I think I was quite clear. I did state (the counterpoint) that writedowns are common practice with incorporated companies. [/quote]
It is hard to say how common write downs of incorporated companies are when their assets are over-valued and auditors feel compelled to make adjustments, but that’s really beside the point because what was written down in 2008 was $20 million in debt that Citywest owed the City. See Note 6 (pg 21) of the City’s audited financial statement: “The City has forgiven debt of $20,000,000 in the year to reflect current economic conditions.” < princerupert.ca/images/edito … tement.pdf >.
It is hard to know how that was reflected in Citywest’s financial statements because they no longer make that information available on their website.
Hi Dex,
Citywest owed the City $20 million, and the City forgave the loan. Is that the gist of it? Can you put is slower than that, so I can understand better?
Also, can you explain to me, very slowly, because I don’t understand these things, how Citywest went from having a cellphone monopoly to exiting the market? I’d like it if you could explain how previous partnerships helped with this wonderful transformation. It would be great if you could also explain to me why property taxes went up this year after Citywest again announced it wasn’t paying a dividend. Please use small words.
I don’t understand any of this, you see, I’m just a caveman. I fell in some ice and was frozen for thousands of years, and was then thawed out by your scientists. Cellphones are a mystery to me. When I talk on my LTE Telus phone in Prince Rupert, I keep asking myself, “are there demons inside this magic box talking to me?”
Maybe you could explain Citywest’s “we asked around and nobody wants it” mobile strategy. I’ve never understood that. Maybe because I didn’t read it slowly enough.
The slower the explanations the better, thanks.
MiG
[quote=“BTravenn”]
You could probably also say it is even less common for a city to “sell” its assets to a corporation, for which it becomes sole shareholder, to later write down a 20 million debt (corporation owed city) which came from the city selling it to the corporation (City sold to Corporation) which the city owns. But I digress 
[quote=“BTravenn”]
It is hard to know how that was reflected in Citywest’s financial statements because they no longer make that information available on their website.[/quote]
Yep, it is hard to fully quantify the writedown strategy as we have no real insider knowledge. We do not even know the full reasons. Could have been to acquire more finance or partnerships. But we do know the 20 million loan forgiveness/writedown came from money the city acquired by selling its assets to the corporation, for which it is sole owner. It wasn’t like the City lost 20 million dollars. In a simplistic way of describing it, we just cancelled debt we owed ourselves for the benefit of the corporation that we own. I see nothing that really raises alarm bells , although worthy of honest scrutiny. I made you aware in one of my posts that you can use the FOI act to request Citywest documents. Have you done this? I ask because you have expressed concern about it prior.
[quote=“MiG”]Hi Dex,
Citywest owed the City $20 million, and the City forgave the loan. Is that the gist of it? Can you put is slower than that, so I can understand better?
Also, can you explain to me, very slowly, because I don’t understand these things, how Citywest went from having a cellphone monopoly to exiting the market? I’d like it if you could explain how previous partnerships helped with this wonderful transformation. It would be great if you could also explain to me why property taxes went up this year after Citywest again announced it wasn’t paying a dividend. Please use small words.
I don’t understand any of this, you see, I’m just a caveman. I fell in some ice and was frozen for thousands of years, and was then thawed out by your scientists. Cellphones are a mystery to me. When I talk on my LTE Telus phone in Prince Rupert, I keep asking myself, “are there demons inside this magic box talking to me?”
Maybe you could explain Citywest’s “we asked around and nobody wants it” mobile strategy. I’ve never understood that. Maybe because I didn’t read it slowly enough.
The slower the explanations the better, thanks.
MiG[/quote]
I apologize if you took offence to my statement. Any insults, degradations, or personal attacks, was not intended.
The real outrage that tax payers should be expressing is how the city allowed what was once a crown jewel to become so devalued and uncompetitive. What kind of effective oversights does our city council have over the old boys club that sits as the directors and management of Citywest.
How is that we as taxpayers meekly accepted the counter petition used by the council of Mayor Pond, Councillors Kathy Bedard, Tony Briglio, Nelson Kinney, Paul Kennedy, Jack Rudolph, and Ken Cote when they incorporated the city department known as CityTel as a municipal corporation and purchased a cable company to expand through the Northwest. Did they not in fact expect CityWest would be unable to pay dividends when it took on major debt and expansion plans? How is it that we as taxpayers are no longer able to easily access the financial statements of a company that belongs to us?
Where is the Mayor and council’s leadership to salvage what is left of our investment and divest themselves of a business they obviously don’t understand and which they have proven incapable of governing? The history of CityWest from its inception to today is one of poor governance, poor management, lack of transparency, lack of accountability and declining financial returns for the taxpayer shareholders. It’s time that taxpayers demand full disclosure and for Council to deal with this white elephant before a receiver does.
As for the write down of the company’s assets. The real question to ask is how Kumar and Pond and the council of the day arrived at the valuation of the CityTel’s assets and Skeena Cable. Where are the appraisals, what were the qualifications of the firm’s or individuals that initially valued the Skeena Cable and City Tel assets. A write down of that magnitude coming so soon after the purchase may be due to an initial overvaluation of the acquired assets. Did we overpay for Skeena Cable and if so why?
Does anyone in this town still believe our broke city should own a company operating in a highly competitive industry that our politicians don’t have a clue about? Maybe we’d all be better off if we sold what’s left of CityWest and used the proceeds to pay down our debt or fix our city’s basic infrastructure.
[quote=“Dex”]
I apologize if you took offence to my statement. Any insults, degradations, or personal attacks, was not intended.[/quote]
Thanks for this statement.
A note to members.
It is always a good idea to carefully consider the consequences of a post prior to clicking on the submit button.