The campaign has started. I am running the yes side. So we can discuss it, and candidates can mention coke in their platforms.

Out of curiousity, why aren't you participating in the Coke debate that was scheduled?

I'm in the midst of midterm season, so sorry if I don't respond to things quickly.

Originally Posted by mike_2133

I'm not seeing the benefit of an exclusive deal for the average student because our choices are cut in half (essentially) and we're STILL paying $1.98 for a bottle of Coke and $1.25 for a can, which is far more than I can go outside of campus and buy it for.

How is that benefiting the average student?

Go to union market and you'll see that the prices are much better than you are quoting.

This referendum is asking if you support the MSU going into an exclusive contract, not the university.

As has been previously stated, there currently aren't any benefits of any deal right now on campus, so things would only improve should that route be taken.

For the record, I'm officially neutral on this topic as I am a member of the Elections Committee.

Originally Posted by mike_2133

I'm not seeing the benefit of an exclusive deal for the average student because our choices are cut in half (essentially) and we're STILL paying $1.98 for a bottle of Coke and $1.25 for a can, which is far more than I can go outside of campus and buy it for.

How is that benefiting the average student?

One we don't have a contract anymore. Before with the contract we got 2 cokes for $1. Thats something the average student does benefit from!

Originally Posted by Jay

Out of curiousity, why aren't you participating in the Coke debate that was scheduled?

I'm in the midst of midterm season, so sorry if I don't respond to things quickly.
[/color][/color]

Good question. The debate was scheduled to bring in guest speakers. I tried to work to bring someone in but couldn't with such short notice. The other side has a Labour Studies prof who they were going to bring in. I do not feel comfortable speaking against a retired prof. I may have stronger arguements than him, but he is much more clear with his speaking. I also am in the middle of completing my fourth year and have tons of seminars, as well as all the other things I do, so I don't feel I would be able to.

I do not claim to be an expert. But my sources are strong and speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by mike_2133

I'm not seeing the benefit of an exclusive deal for the average student because our choices are cut in half (essentially) and we're STILL paying $1.98 for a bottle of Coke and $1.25 for a can, which is far more than I can go outside of campus and buy it for.

How is that benefiting the average student?

I don't understand how your choices are cut in half. Coca Cola owns a lot of brands and I'm sure that on the 80% of shelf space that the other 20% of rbands doesn't equal those sold at Mac by Coca Cola

For example:
Coke (and all its varieties)
Canada Dry
Dasani
Barq's Root Beer
Sprite
Fruitopia
Full Throttle
Minute Maid
Nestea
Powerade
Simply**(as in Simply Orange, Simply Apple, etc.)
Vault
Vitamin Water

These are just the ones I can name off the top of my head that is a Coca Cola brand.
Also, Like Mr.Finlay said, there are price benefits to having a contract

Originally Posted by aviaf

I don't understand how your choices are cut in half. Coca Cola owns a lot of brands and I'm sure that on the 80% of shelf space that the other 20% of rbands doesn't equal those sold at Mac by Coca Cola

For example:
Coke (and all its varieties)
Canada Dry
Dasani
Barq's Root Beer
Sprite
Fruitopia
Full Throttle
Minute Maid
Nestea
Powerade
Simply**(as in Simply Orange, Simply Apple, etc.)
Vault
Vitamin Water

These are just the ones I can name off the top of my head that is a Coca Cola brand.

I can't speak towards the prices as I don't know exactly what the terms of the contract could be.

Good Point!

Also Coke before the previous contract had 93-96%, and at the end of the contract had 93% product. Chances are if you vote no in 3 years there will be 93% coke......

So if I was offered money for every time something that was for sure going to happen happened, say the sun rising every morning, why wouldn't I?

i def. would not mind drinking coke for the next couple of years at mac. i personally think that coke has been doign well here at mac, and singning a contract to have exclusively coke products, wouldnt really hurt anyone. it would initially just make it better for those of us who do thrive on coke.

Originally Posted by hamnahx02

i def. would not mind drinking coke for the next couple of years at mac. i personally think that coke has been doign well here at mac, and singning a contract to have exclusively coke products, wouldnt really hurt anyone. it would initially just make it better for those of us who do thrive on coke.

I am a coke fan too but I wouldn't be upset with pepsi. I don't want this to get down to the coke pepsi wars. Ultimately it comes down to two things for me;

1) the benefits we as students would receive.

- Coke paid, from my estimate of $5 million to some other peoples estimates of $10+ million for the building of MUSC. I like to be cautious with figures.
- Coke paid for a job for students
- Clubs got funding and free product from coke
- 2 for $1!
- Free equipment and repairs
- endowment fund for student grants
- $500,000 for the McMaster operating budget
- $60-70,000 a year for the MSU


2) misinformation/framing of information which is wrong.


Exclusive Contracts benefit Mac Students.

I heard that if a contract was signed this time around therewould be no economic benifits. Is this true?

Originally Posted by crazyfree

I heard that if a contract was signed this time around therewould be no economic benifits. Is this true?

This is far from true.

The benefits would not be near the old benefits due to market timing and the old contract was based on USA figures rather than Canadian University figures(we were the second uni to sign a deal of this kind so not really anything to match it to). Really we didn't hit our targets, so the new contract would reflect a marginally smaller and so would the benefits.

What would the point be to sign an exclusive deal if there were no benefits? Not worth the time or resources.

Ok thank you, I just wanted to understand

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

Exclusive Contracts benefit Mac Students.

Expansion: A exclusive contract of a limited term after intense competition benefits mac students. What we have now doesn't and neither would an exclusive contract if it was just handed to coke. (Which at one point seemed to be a policy of one of the presidential candidates)

Originally Posted by arathbon

Expansion: A exclusive contract of a limited term after intense competition benefits mac students. What we have now doesn't and neither would an exclusive contract if it was just handed to coke. (Which at one point seemed to be a policy of one of the presidential candidates)

Last I heard the talk was for a 5 year agreement.

Being a fan of Free Market(No McMaster isn't its own market) I completely agree. If they keep it too long, it may benefit us, but we could get a better deal. Also handing a contract to someone wont get the best deal. You need competition to get the best. Some may question coke and pepsi's competition since they both are the same company working with eachother, but you will still see a better contract!

Thanks for pointing this out!

Thanks for the reply Aviaf. Just wanted to point out that a paragraph or two from the quote wasn't actually from my original post.

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

The campaign has started. I am running the yes side. So we can discuss it, and candidates can mention coke in their platforms....

...I just spoke with Jeff Green the Editor of the Sil and he has requested information from both sides. Hopefully it isn't as one sided like it was the last time this issue was on the table. I have faith that they will let this run fairly though!

What I don't understand is how you say that you are running a YES side but as far as I know and according to Election Services there is no registered campaign team for the yes side of the referendum which is why we cannot have an open debate on the issue.

What do you mean you are running the yes side? Do you mean unofficially?

Also your excuse for not being able to organize a guest speaker etc. because you did not have time to organize on this referendum is not a great argument. In fact you have know since March 2009 that there was going to be a referendum and you personally initiated the motion to have a referendum.

https://www.msumcmaster.ca/content/documents/Link/SRA%202009/Minutes/SRA%2008R%20-%20March%2029,%202009 .pdf

All people involved in campaigns both presidential and for the referendum are also very busy but they have set aside time to campaign because they feel that these issues are worth taking the time to debate properly. How can we have a proper referendum if we cannot even have a public debate on the issue?

"Moved by Finlay, seconded by McIntyre to have the motion read, “that the SRA call a referendum on the exclusivity agreement with Coca Cola concurrent with the 2010 Presidential Elections...”

“...Finlay – I plan on campaigning for an exclusive deal and have documents backing with research.” (Minutes from SRA meeting March 29, 2009)

I am still waiting for your documentation. The ILO report which does not address the past atrocities in Colombia is not going to cut it. Also you have yet to address any of our claims about Coca-Cola’s unethical practices in India or El Salvador.

In response to your questions samd:

1. If students vote NO to the referendum question all it means is that the university cannot negotiate an exclusive deal with Coca-Cola. Since there is no deal on the table right now it is very difficult to answer the question of what Coca-Cola would accept. It would be a possibility to negotiate another version (% less than 100) but we do not know for certain what Coca-Cola would accept.

2. If students vote YES the MSU is given permission to negotiate an exclusive deal but this does not necessarily mean that they have to.

3. There is no deal on the table right with Coca-Cola. If students vote YES it could be possible to set up a bidding war but there is no guarantee that this will happen.

4. This referendum deals only with Coca-Cola.

5. I am a member of the team campaigning for the NO side and the campaign has started. There is no official YES side as I have been told countless times by Elections Services.

An important aspect of our campaign to think about is Coca-Cola’s unethical behaviour which is a huge reason why we are advocating against the exclusive contract. You can check out our facebook group at:

http://www.facebook.com/#/event.php?... 02170&ref=ts

We are also hosting some educational events

COKE 101 Thursday Jan 28 7-9pm in BSB 106 with three guest speakers

Professor Emeritus, Dept Biology, McMaster University
B Sc Honours in Genetics, McGill University
PhD in Microbial Genetics, Yale University

The Coca-Cola Case Documentary Tuesday, Feb 2
HSC 1A6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2EXbOcb_QE&f eature=player_embedde d#

6. In regards to the Sil they will be covering the issue but it will not appear until after their Wednesday meeting.

In response to Ian’s comment “Hopefully it isn't as one sided like it was the last time this issue was on the table”:

You said you were going to campaign for the Yes side at the March 2009 meeting when the SRA voted to have this referendum and you haven’t officially been campaigning. The only opposition you’ve provided us with is positing on this online forum. How are we expected to have a public two-sided debate if you won’t provide us with one?

Originally Posted by Natalie M

1. If students vote NO to the referendum question all it means is that the university cannot negotiate an exclusive deal with Coca-Cola.

No, it doesn't. Voting NO would mean the MSU won't negotiate any exclusive deals. The University can do whatever it wants.