PDA

View Full Version : MLSE Committed to getting Grass



jabbronies
06-11-2009, 08:47 PM
MLSE EXECS COMMITTED TO INSTALLING GRASS FIELD AT BMO FIELD

TORONTO -- Toronto FC's home turf could become a real grass playing field by 2010 or 2011, according to the team's parent company Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd.

"We want to put grass in BMO Field, we are committed to it happening," MLSE's executive vice-president and chief operating officer Tom Anselmi said Thursday at BMO Field during a mid-season briefing on the state of the team.

http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/story/?id=281575

Esquire
06-11-2009, 09:02 PM
"We're committed to it, our fans want it, our players want it, everybody wants it. It's the right thing for soccer."

I like the sound of that. But, it better be 2010 not 2011.

Pachuco
06-11-2009, 09:02 PM
I'm so sick of hearing this shit. PUT THE FUCKING GRASS IN!

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-11-2009, 09:17 PM
I'm so sick of hearing this shit. PUT THE FUCKING GRASS IN!


its not up to them..its the city of toronto council...tell them!! TFC would have grass now if it were their choice...next TO city council, sit in on the meeting and ask whats the hold up with grass at BMO? fill the chambers with RPb,U sector, NEE, TRN and let them hear from the supporters

rocker
06-11-2009, 09:18 PM
we need to pool our cash and bribe city officials to fastrack this. who's with me? ;)

or if anyone has mafia connections maybe we can intimidate! isn't that how they do it in Europe?? ;)

Pachuco
06-11-2009, 09:20 PM
its not up to them..its the city of toronto council...tell them!! TFC would have grass now if it were their choice...next TO city council, sit in on the meeting and ask whats the hold up with grass at BMO? fill the chambers with RPb,U sector, NEE, TRN and let them hear from the supporters

Do you really think I woke up yesterday? I know exactly what's going on. It's up to TFC to meet the demands of the city if they want grass at BMO. Anybody who's been reading the news knows that.

Personally, I don't give a shit who wants to pass the buck to who anymore. Grass needs to be put in NOW, and I'm blaming TFC and the CITY until it does.

Sonny Cheeba
06-11-2009, 09:22 PM
they still suck. fuck you MLSE.

FluSH
06-11-2009, 09:23 PM
One of the main obstacles (from reading all of the grass issues written by the media) is this man:


http://www.toronto.ca/councillors/pantalone1.htm

Sonny Cheeba
06-11-2009, 09:25 PM
city hall is full of dicktrees in disagreement.

rocker
06-11-2009, 09:30 PM
what's Rob Ford gonna say about this?

tfc
06-11-2009, 09:30 PM
haha pretty funny that he also explained why real madrid wasn't in the ticket package, pretty much stuffed the protest back down your throats.

what would you rather? this years season ticket package doubled in price with real madrid as the friendly, or the option to pay extra if you want to go. pretty easy choice for most people here, and clearly it was the right one.

nascarguy
06-11-2009, 09:38 PM
it's time we need to have a rally at city hall.

Kevvv
06-11-2009, 09:41 PM
^ shouldn't you be having a rally outside Copps Coliseum right about now?

billyfly
06-11-2009, 09:48 PM
One of the main obstacles (from reading all of the grass issues written by the media) is this man:


http://www.toronto.ca/councillors/pantalone1.htm


I've been saying this for a long, long time. I have disliked Joe and his batshit crazy sister for many years.

You can send Joe my love Stu.

I will add that I do understand his desire for something downtown however, I would wave this holdup in the end after getting as many concessions as I could from MLSE.

Suds
06-11-2009, 09:55 PM
haha pretty funny that he also explained why real madrid wasn't in the ticket package, pretty much stuffed the protest back down your throats.

what would you rather? this years season ticket package doubled in price with real madrid as the friendly, or the option to pay extra if you want to go. pretty easy choice for most people here, and clearly it was the right one.

actually, he didn't say that at all .. and that was not what the protest was about .. can't believe I took the time to respond this post ... you really have no clue

S_D
06-11-2009, 10:05 PM
ok sounds fine and dandy. As far as I am concerned it is all talk until I smell the grass at the stadium.

BUT

What happens if there are more concillors who want to see BMO stay the way it is and effectively block grass. Then what.

TorCanSoc
06-11-2009, 10:06 PM
One of the main obstacles (from reading all of the grass issues written by the media) is this man:


http://www.toronto.ca/councillors/pantalone1.htm


This is the first time somone has put a face to the "No grass" stance from the city. What has Pantalone said about it? Just a flat out no to grass?

Suds
06-11-2009, 10:09 PM
BUT

What happens if there are more concillors who want to see BMO stay the way it is and effectively block grass. Then what.


good question, the answer is council can as a group vote down any motion .. that being said, if MLSE gets Miller on side it's a done deal ... Miller and those on council who support him run city hall these days ... get Miller to agree it's good for Toronto and it's a done deal.

Kickit09
06-11-2009, 10:11 PM
It's hard to believe anything Anselmi says, and I'm getting sick of all the big talk and empty promises from MLSE. If they really wanted grass they could have it in the blink of an eye. They are a multi billion dollar company. Instead of fighting city hall they could very easily just build another community field somewhere else and BMO is all theirs. And after all the money MLSE has rapped this city for, a community field is the least they can do. But the truth is they love the excuses that city hall and turf don't allow them to lay grass and sign a DP. MLSE is scum. This is no different from the grass talk after the Edu sale and when Carver guaranteed us a DP. Nothing more than a smoke show to distract us from the shitty performance of the team and make us think management actually gives a fuck. Did i mention MLSE is scum. Fuck you Anselmi, Mo, Peddie, Tanembaum, and the rest of the Bay Street Mafia.

jazzy
06-11-2009, 10:15 PM
its not up to them..its the city of toronto council...tell them!! TFC would have grass now if it were their choice...next TO city council, sit in on the meeting and ask whats the hold up with grass at BMO? fill the chambers with RPb,U sector, NEE, TRN and let them hear from the supporters

Excellent. Since when has Toronto city council done the right thing when left to its own devices..........

billyfly
06-11-2009, 10:16 PM
This is the first time somone has put a face to the "No grass" stance from the city. What has Pantalone said about it? Just a flat out no to grass?


Multiple threads have mentioned Joey Pants.

jazzy
06-11-2009, 10:19 PM
It's hard to believe anything Anselmi says, and I'm getting sick of all the big talk and empty promises from MLSE. If they really wanted grass they could have it in the blink of an eye. They are a multi billion dollar company. Instead of fighting city hall they could very easily just build another community field somewhere else and BMO is all theirs. And after all the money MLSE has rapped this city for, a community field is the least they can do. But the truth is they love the excuses that city hall and turf don't allow them to lay grass and sign a DP. MLSE is scum. This is no different from the grass talk after the Edu sale and when Carver guaranteed us a DP. Nothing more than a smoke show to distract us from the shitty performance of the team and make us think management actually gives a fuck. Did i mention MLSE is scum. Fuck you Anselmi, Mo, Peddie, Tanembaum, and the rest of the Bay Street Mafia.

sounds like you should change sports.....UFC?

H Bomb
06-11-2009, 10:21 PM
These are good words, but in truth they are necessary words. I want grass next year, if it's not in place fully before the beginning of next season then I want to see a signed invoice for them to be getting it at some point after that. Thanks MLSE, we appreciate the sentiment, but there's been a lot of sentiment the last three years and the only one that's really been followed through is Dero.

Roogsy
06-11-2009, 10:26 PM
Do we expect Anselmi or anyone else at MLSE to say anything different in public?

This is the same organization that is "committed" to winning a Stanley Cup. Doesn't mean we're going to see a parade in this city anytime soon.

I will believe it when I see it.

wzhxvy
06-11-2009, 10:30 PM
Well the only good news I see from this is that the pressure being put on MLSE is at least causing them to take notice. There is no question in my mind that the protests were very effective in embarassing the TFC FO. They do not want to be the idiots to cause the MLSE mothership the embarassment. So I am confident they feel the heat. What I can not assess is how serious Ansalami is in fixing the issue.

He says he is willing to write a check. For how much and when ? What is their proposal and why have we not seen it ? I just question the urgency and the seriousness with which they are pursuing this.

And when he says it will be tabled in the fall, is this when the STH tickets will be up for renewal again ? Where is the DP that we have approval from the board to sign ?

Beach_Red
06-11-2009, 10:34 PM
Where is the DP that we have approval from the board to sign ?

Do you really believe that? From this board?

Roogsy
06-11-2009, 10:41 PM
Well the only good news I see from this is that the pressure being put on MLSE is at least causing them to take notice. There is no question in my mind that the protests were very effective in embarassing the TFC FO.

And when he says it will be tabled in the fall, is this when the STH tickets will be up for renewal again ? Where is the DP that we have approval from the board to sign ?

I agree about the protests...I think even in the short period of time, they have been proven to have been effective.

As for announcements...just like the DP last year...of course there will be "talk" when STs come up for renewal. Whether they actually do that backs up their talk we will see.

Shep
06-11-2009, 10:42 PM
Do you really think I woke up yesterday? I know exactly what's going on. It's up to TFC to meet the demands of the city if they want grass at BMO. Anybody who's been reading the news knows that.

Personally, I don't give a shit who wants to pass the buck to who anymore. Grass needs to be put in NOW, and I'm blaming TFC and the CITY until it does.

I woke up yesterday, and again this morning.

:scarf:

H Bomb
06-11-2009, 10:43 PM
]

I will believe it when I see it.

This is the ultimate truth when it comes to MLSe

denime
06-11-2009, 10:44 PM
haha pretty funny that he also explained why real madrid wasn't in the ticket package, pretty much stuffed the protest back down your throats.

what would you rather? this years season ticket package doubled in price with real madrid as the friendly, or the option to pay extra if you want to go. pretty easy choice for most people here, and clearly it was the right one.

:troll:
I would rather have you stop trolling here in future,until you learn a little bit more about whole situation,just read,don't post.

wzhxvy
06-11-2009, 11:10 PM
Do you really believe that? From this board?

This is not from this board. Ansalami and Mo both stated they had approval from the MLSE board to sign a DP. This is not speculation...its fact. Its also a fact they have not signed a DP.

H Bomb
06-11-2009, 11:13 PM
But it's also a fact that DP targets have turned us down*. I dont wanna get behind these guys or anything but when it comes to trying to build a winner I dont have much against Mo. Sadly the record speaks for itself





*may not actually be a fact

right-back
06-11-2009, 11:23 PM
The community facility was a done deal! It was stopped because the new facility would have been located in Etobicoke. Pantalone stopped it because he needs to show that HE built something downtown in His ward with MLSE monies. If Miller and his puppets cannot handle something going into a ward of a councillor who doesn't kiss-ass we are in deep shit. BTW, who will be cleaning the stadium when all the great unionist workers are on strike?

Cashcleaner
06-11-2009, 11:51 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. If true, it's definitely a step in the right direction for the club, but I'm not getting my hopes up just yet. Cautiously optimistic is probably the best way to say it.

As long as the public gets the facility they were promised and the club gets a few more strings cut from the city, I say its a good deal.

Dunkers
06-12-2009, 12:45 AM
One of the main obstacles (from reading all of the grass issues written by the media) is this man:


http://www.toronto.ca/councillors/pantalone1.htm

(from the above link)

Profile

Joe Pantalone is a political veteran with a compelling track record in serving the City of Toronto. He is well known for his dedication to a beautiful and safe city, efforts in greening the city, and service to constituents. As Chair of the Board of Governors for Exhibition Place, Joe has worked tirelessly to making Exhibition Place an environmental, heritage and festival showcase. Besides pioneering the position of the City's Tree Advocate, which plants tens of thousands of new trees in Toronto yearly, Joe, has been a leader in Toronto's efforts to become North America's leader in implementing best practices in environmental sustainablity.


WOW! what a bunch of BS, Last time i checked we have a plastic pitch that needs to be replaced every 5 years. As shitty as the pitch is at BMO, i dont think it is made from recycled plastic bags....

Suds
06-12-2009, 11:18 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. If true, it's definitely a step in the right direction for the club, but I'm not getting my hopes up just yet. Cautiously optimistic is probably the best way to say it.

As long as the public gets the facility they were promised and the club gets a few more strings cut from the city, I say its a good deal.

I'm with you. I'm not getting my hopes up until I see a shovel hit the ground at BMO and actually start tearing the turf out. However, I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago.

MLSE has made a pretty strong statement in the media about getting grass and it's well documented in the media now. Come September all eyes will be on council and MSLE and it will be pretty obvious who will be the party who blocks it if the plans are not approved.

If MLSE is serious, the plan they put in front of the City should be be so strong that there is no way council could turn it down. The community facilty porposal should be kick-ass; our tax dollars went in to BMO and it's the least MLSE could do.

zeelaw
06-12-2009, 11:21 AM
I'm so sick of hearing this shit. PUT THE FUCKING GRASS IN!
chill out man its not up to them

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-12-2009, 11:27 AM
Excellent. Since when has Toronto city council done the right thing when left to its own devices..........

true but they are not as bad as some city councils...ie, Brantford's..we have got the worse..but TO"S will see the benefits of grass when a new
stadium built buy MLSE with a bubble over it for winter use is agreed upon, or at least use lamport stadium...close to BMO, close to the GO,TTC, this should be an option for both sides.

Beach_Red
06-12-2009, 11:31 AM
This is not from this board. Ansalami and Mo both stated they had approval from the MLSE board to sign a DP. This is not speculation...its fact. Its also a fact they have not signed a DP.

I believe the board said they would sign a DP. I believe that Anselmi and Mo nbelieved them.

But this is essentially the same board that wouldn't let Cliff Fletcher sign Wayne Gretzky when he'd agreed to terms (remember that whole mess, then Gretzky went to St. Louis and then New York).

I believe the board "says" all kinds of things, but when it comes to actually signing a cheque they won't do it.

There's just no reason why TFC wouldn't use everything available to them - it's not their money. Mo's wasted all kinds of MLSE's money (look at the Barrett contract), why wouldn't he do this as well? If the board really approved it, Mo would have had some old Scottish has-been in here in a second.

Chevy
06-12-2009, 11:37 AM
Does anyone know how long it takes to install a permanenent grass field?

DaBandit
06-12-2009, 11:38 AM
Well the only good news I see from this is that the pressure being put on MLSE is at least causing them to take notice. There is no question in my mind that the protests were very effective in embarassing the TFC FO. They do not want to be the idiots to cause the MLSE mothership the embarassment. So I am confident they feel the heat. What I can not assess is how serious Ansalami is in fixing the issue.

He says he is willing to write a check. For how much and when ? What is their proposal and why have we not seen it ? I just question the urgency and the seriousness with which they are pursuing this.

And when he says it will be tabled in the fall, is this when the STH tickets will be up for renewal again ? Where is the DP that we have approval from the board to sign ?



This is exactly what I stated yesterday.. they bring it to the table in the fall (but it should have been on the table last year after the edu money), then we'll get the whole 'oh yes yes' it looks great everyone, grass for 2010.. then after the renewal's, ooops sorry we dont have the time to put it in for 2010 so it will be 2011.. then because they will actually be spending some money they will jack up the renewal prices for the 2011 season to the point where the average person wont be able to afford season tickets. ML$E will not pay for the grass, WE WILL and through the nose. I honestly hope i'm wrong.

Redcoe15
06-12-2009, 11:38 AM
(from the above link)

Profile

Joe Pantalone is a political veteran with a compelling track record in serving the City of Toronto. He is well known for his dedication to a beautiful and safe city, efforts in greening the city, and service to constituents. As Chair of the Board of Governors for Exhibition Place, Joe has worked tirelessly to making Exhibition Place an environmental, heritage and festival showcase. Besides pioneering the position of the City's Tree Advocate, which plants tens of thousands of new trees in Toronto yearly, Joe, has been a leader in Toronto's efforts to become North America's leader in implementing best practices in environmental sustainablity.


WOW! what a bunch of BS, Last time i checked we have a plastic pitch that needs to be replaced every 5 years. As shitty as the pitch is at BMO, i dont think it is made from recycled plastic bags....
Someone needs to find some incriminating pictures of Joe Pantload and use them against him. Or photoshop some.

GBV
06-12-2009, 11:39 AM
city hall is full of dicktrees in disagreement.

props to the dicktree rickyism. one of my faves.
(and for paul bearer, of course.)

Gobi
06-12-2009, 12:00 PM
"We're working with the city, we're in front of city council at their next meeting in the fall," Anselmi said. "We're hoping to get city approval.

What, City Hall only meets once per season? Or gets the whole summer off?
Stu, honey, how much am I paying these guys?

rocker
06-12-2009, 12:10 PM
What, City Hall only meets once per season? Or gets the whole summer off?
Stu, honey, how much am I paying these guys?

they meet more than once as a whole group considering the final decisions on things. there are many other committees though, that meet much more often than that. They investigate issues and then make proposals to the whole group. but the next meeting of the whole council is July 7-9, and I believe to bring something to the council you have to go through other committees before then. but after that, July and August there are no meetings.
The next meeting for the whole council is in late September.

S_D
06-12-2009, 12:11 PM
I believe the board "says" all kinds of things, but when it comes to actually signing a cheque they won't do it.



MLSE are making it look like they are the ones spending the cash out of their own pockets which isn't the case if they are using the Edu transfer money.

MLS holds on to it until the team needs it for infrastrucure and then MLS releases the cash provided it is approved. Makes sure the teams don't just pocket it. :D Not sure if MLS sends the cash to TFC or cut the cheque themselves but either way it isn't like they are taking money away from their other sports properties or reducing their team profits to pay for it.

rocker
06-12-2009, 12:16 PM
MLSE are making it look like they are the ones spending the cash out of their own pockets which isn't the case if they are using the Edu transfer money.

MLS holds on to it until the team needs it for infrastrucure and then MLS releases the cash provided it is approved. Makes sure the teams don't just pocket it. :D Not sure if MLS sends the cash to TFC or cut the cheque themselves but either way it isn't like they are taking money away from their other sports properties or reducing their team profits to pay for it.

which is all the more reason that people shouldn't imply that the cost of it is a negative factor in management getting grass. Actually, the fact that MLS is holding the cash, and the cash is thus doing nothing, is a reason to blow the wad on grass, if the city says yes. It's essentially spending someone else's money.

Kickit09
06-12-2009, 12:27 PM
MLSE are making it look like they are the ones spending the cash out of their own pockets which isn't the case if they are using the Edu transfer money.



yet ticket prices will still go up, and they will say it is to cover the cost of the grass.

noochie
06-12-2009, 12:32 PM
MLSE are making it look like they are the ones spending the cash out of their own pockets which isn't the case if they are using the Edu transfer money.

How is that not their money? They did draft and then subsequently sell the player...

Jack
06-12-2009, 12:49 PM
How is that not their money? They did draft and then subsequently sell the player...
This.

Why are people searching for the negatives?

This news is a significant step forward to getting what we all have been calling for for a long time. :noidea:

Chevy
06-12-2009, 01:03 PM
This.

Why are people searching for the negatives?

This news is a significant step forward to getting what we all have been calling for for a long time. :noidea:


+1. I can't believe this board sometimes. Whine and bitch about getting grass for three years and then whine and bitch about it when it arrives. WTF?

VPjr
06-12-2009, 01:04 PM
Jack, do you really believe Grass at BMO is going to make a real difference in the fortunes of this team???? My friend, I simply dont buy it.

Sure, grass will look nicer, the ball will bounce truer, some washed up players looking for a final paycheque in MLS might be willing to sign on the dotted line but, if anything, grass just levels the playing field. Look at TFC's record on the road (mostly on grass pitches) it is nothing to write home about. I have not seen a noticeable difference in their ability to play good football on grass vs. turf.

As long as the people in charge are building the team, TFC could play on concrete littered with broken shards of glass and it won't make the slightest difference. The team is not good enough.

Players with hunger and desire don't care what surface they play on. More than anything, hunger and desire is what TFC needs to transplant into this team because this is what is sorely lacking. Too much complacency, not enough pressure to succeed, too many apologists protecting underperforming players and management...worry about those issues before worrying about grass.

Personally, I'd prefer a brand new Field Turf Surface every 2 years....TFC would have a truer home field advantage then, and they need every advantage they can find with the talent they've got.

Kickit09
06-12-2009, 01:07 PM
+1. I can't believe this board sometimes. Whine and bitch about getting grass for three years and then whine and bitch about it when it arrives. WTF?


when did we get grass? :noidea:

Super
06-12-2009, 01:18 PM
Personally, I'd prefer a brand new Field Turf Surface every 2 years....TFC would have a truer home field advantage then, and they need every advantage they can find with the talent they've got.

So you don't care that we're looked upon as a Mickey Mouse team because of not having grass? Or that it makes our players unhappy? Yes - it's true that we haven't played well on the road. But MLS teams generally do not perform as well on the road as they do at home, so this is no argument not to get grass. For all we know it will lift the spirits of our entire squad and they'll be able to play better as a result. CERTAINLY they will be happier. That's a fact! Also, do not forget the fact that fieldturf is unpredictable and it's hard to play any proper game on it. For the sake of the game, and the love of it, we should always want the best. Grass is the only way to go.

Super
06-12-2009, 01:20 PM
This.

Why are people searching for the negatives?

This news is a significant step forward to getting what we all have been calling for for a long time. :noidea:

Unfortunately there is very little faith in MLSE or FO to actually come through with their promises. However, I liked what I heard, and I have a feeling Tom Anselmi means it when he says that they're pushing as hard as they can to get us grass asap.

But I wouldn't place a bet on it.

Beach_Red
06-12-2009, 02:46 PM
Jack, do you really believe Grass at BMO is going to make a real difference in the fortunes of this team???? My friend, I simply dont buy it.

Sure, grass will look nicer, the ball will bounce truer, some washed up players looking for a final paycheque in MLS might be willing to sign on the dotted line but, if anything, grass just levels the playing field. Look at TFC's record on the road (mostly on grass pitches) it is nothing to write home about. I have not seen a noticeable difference in their ability to play good football on grass vs. turf.

As long as the people in charge are building the team, TFC could play on concrete littered with broken shards of glass and it won't make the slightest difference. The team is not good enough.

Players with hunger and desire don't care what surface they play on. More than anything, hunger and desire is what TFC needs to transplant into this team because this is what is sorely lacking. Too much complacency, not enough pressure to succeed, too many apologists protecting underperforming players and management...worry about those issues before worrying about grass.

Personally, I'd prefer a brand new Field Turf Surface every 2 years....TFC would have a truer home field advantage then, and they need every advantage they can find with the talent they've got.

MLS may simply not be for you yet, you might want to check back in 5 years. Your problems isn't really with TFC, it's with MLS and that's understandable, it is, as people here constantly point, a Mickey Mouse league.

It might get better. It might fold.

Jack
06-12-2009, 02:53 PM
Jack, do you really believe Grass at BMO is going to make a real difference in the fortunes of this team???? My friend, I simply dont buy it.

Sure, grass will look nicer, the ball will bounce truer, some washed up players looking for a final paycheque in MLS might be willing to sign on the dotted line but, if anything, grass just levels the playing field. Look at TFC's record on the road (mostly on grass pitches) it is nothing to write home about. I have not seen a noticeable difference in their ability to play good football on grass vs. turf.

As long as the people in charge are building the team, TFC could play on concrete littered with broken shards of glass and it won't make the slightest difference. The team is not good enough.

Players with hunger and desire don't care what surface they play on. More than anything, hunger and desire is what TFC needs to transplant into this team because this is what is sorely lacking. Too much complacency, not enough pressure to succeed, too many apologists protecting underperforming players and management...worry about those issues before worrying about grass.

Personally, I'd prefer a brand new Field Turf Surface every 2 years....TFC would have a truer home field advantage then, and they need every advantage they can find with the talent they've got.
Of course I don't think that, Dino.

This is a piece of the puzzle here. I'm pleased that we will be playing football on grass. That's one more step to respectability and one less excuse.

I will still expect improvement out of our team, players and management (supporters too!) on a yearly basis.

A culture of winning should be instilled from the early days. I am as gutted as ever about the Voyageurs Cup, but I see some steps being taken to address issues which are of concern to us. This is a positive.

Whether the team is headed in the right direction on the field, be it grass or plastic, is another piece of the puzzle.

TorontoMO
06-12-2009, 03:08 PM
Had MLSE actually paid for the stadium. They could install grass. This is not the government's fault. The blame lies on MLSE doorstep.

When you choose to live in a welfare home, you lose the right to demand what type of flooring you have. If you don't like, buy your OWN house, with your own money.

We should be thankful that the City/Province and feds built the place-- or we wouldn't have the team.

PERIOD.

billyfly
06-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Had MLSE actually paid for the stadium. They could install grass. This is not the government's fault. The blame lies on MLSE doorstep.

When you choose to live in a welfare home, you lose the right to demand what type of flooring you have. If you don't like, buy your OWN house, with your own money.

We should be thankful that the City/Province and feds built the place-- or we wouldn't have the team.

PERIOD.


While I agree with your overall sentiment pls remember that they had to build it for the U20 tourney. MLSE did not make them build it either, they just capitalized on the Argos backing out etc

Southender
06-12-2009, 03:21 PM
Had MLSE actually paid for the stadium. They could install grass. This is not the government's fault. The blame lies on MLSE doorstep.

When you choose to live in a welfare home, you lose the right to demand what type of flooring you have. If you don't like, buy your OWN house, with your own money.

We should be thankful that the City/Province and feds built the place-- or we wouldn't have the team.

PERIOD.

You knew before TFC started that it was going to be a roaring success?
Enough to add $70 million to a $10 million investment? :rolleyes:
I don't love MLSE, but man, you should be a stock broker or something with that kind of predictive ability.
Seriously, why do you post? Aren't you the same one who thought Lombardo was better than Vitti?
Abraham Lincoln once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

Cashcleaner
06-12-2009, 03:55 PM
You knew before TFC started that it was going to be a roaring success?
Enough to add $70 million to a $10 million investment? :rolleyes:
I don't love MLSE, but man, you should be a stock broker or something with that kind of predictive ability.
Seriously, why do you post? Aren't you the same one who thought Lombardo was better than Vitti?
Abraham Lincoln once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"^ Oh, so we don't believe in taking risks in the business world anymore?

No other club in the league knew how popular they were going to be either, but not all clubs have had their stadia subsidized like Toronto has. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years or so, this isn't the first time MLSE has convinced a municipal government that they really need a brand new sports facility and have managed to get most of them built primarily on the taxpayer's dime.

VPjr
06-12-2009, 03:56 PM
Of course I don't think that, Dino.

This is a piece of the puzzle here. I'm pleased that we will be playing football on grass. That's one more step to respectability and one less excuse.

I will still expect improvement out of our team, players and management (supporters too!) on a yearly basis.

A culture of winning should be instilled from the early days. I am as gutted as ever about the Voyageurs Cup, but I see some steps being taken to address issues which are of concern to us. This is a positive.

Whether the team is headed in the right direction on the field, be it grass or plastic, is another piece of the puzzle.

thanks for clarifying your position.

I'll agree that it is part of the puzzle. I just think its a tiny part, very very tiny but that some make it out to be THE problem.

Southender
06-12-2009, 03:58 PM
^ Oh, so we don't believe in taking risks in the business world anymore?

No other club in the league knew how popular they were going to be either, but not all clubs have had their stadia subsidized like Toronto has.

Of course you take risks, sunshine. :) But there's a bit of a difference between "let's throw $10M at a football team and hope it works and we make a few bucks" and "let's throw $100M at a football team and stadium and hope we make the money back in 15 years".

Don't you think?

I'm probably not as smart of a businessman as you, but even I know which scenario looks more intelligent.

Shep
06-12-2009, 04:09 PM
For me, turf is the biggest problem. Players will come and go, that picture will forever be shifting and never perfect, but no footballer should be playing on that turf, and it's one huge problem with one solid final solution, one direct course of action to make the problem disappear.

This analogy might be way off, but it sounds right to me:
"The most important part of any structure is its foundation"
Taking that to a literal extreme, we are growing a club on crappy turf, it's bad.

I'm not so mad I'm cursing firstborns, I can even hold myself down until 2011, but in my head it's a huge deal. I have faith they want it as much as we do, at least from Mo down, they are all footballers.

Cashcleaner
06-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Of course you take risks, sunshine. :) But there's a bit of a difference between "let's throw $10M at a football team and hope it works and we make a few bucks" and "let's throw $100M at a football team and stadium and hope we make the money back in 15 years".
Don't you think?
I'm probably not as smart of a businessman as you, but even I know which scenario looks more intelligent.

All I gotta say is that if I were in the position and had the resources to bring in an MLS franchise and create the organisation from the ground-up, I'd have a little more faith in the market and would build the stadia and club's infrastructure specifically to our needs and requirements.

Rudi
06-12-2009, 04:10 PM
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years or so, this isn't the first time MLSE has convinced a municipal government that they really need a brand new sports facility and have managed to get most of them built primarily on the taxpayer's dime.
MLSE didn't convince anyone to build this stadium. The CSA convinced MLSE to come on as primary tenant and invest $10 million (the naming rights).

The stadium was already going to be built for the U20 WC. The governments wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be a white elephant after the tournament, so MLSE was brought in.

Southender
06-12-2009, 04:11 PM
All I gotta say is that if I were in the position and had the resources to bring in an MLS franchise and create the organisation from the ground-up, I'd have a little more faith in the market and would build the stadia and club's infrastructure specifically to our needs and requirements.

Ahhh...sweet, sweet hindsight. It makes everyone a genius. :rolleyes:
MLSE didn't convince anyone to build this stadium. The CSA convinced MLSE to come on as primary tenant and invest $10 million (the naming rights).

The stadium was already going to be built for the U20 WC. The governments wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be a white elephant after the tournament, so MLSE was brought in.

Thanks for actually bringing facts instead of useless rhetoric and uniformed opinion.

Rudi
06-12-2009, 04:15 PM
Thanks for actually bringing facts instead of useless rhetoric and uniformed opinion.
Not taking sides, but I've been a huge geek for this stadium process and followed it closely for years.

Southender
06-12-2009, 04:16 PM
Not taking sides, but I've been a huge geek for this stadium process and followed it closely for years.

I was thanking you, not asking you to be on my side :). It's refreshing to see.

Cashcleaner
06-12-2009, 04:19 PM
MLSE didn't convince anyone to build this stadium. The CSA convinced MLSE to come on as primary tenant and invest $10 million (the naming rights).

The stadium was already going to be built for the U20 WC. The governments wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be a white elephant after the tournament, so MLSE was brought in.

Shit, that's right. Fuck, the whole thing with Varisty and York really threw a monkey wrench into thing as well now that I think of it.

But hold on a second, Rudi. Are you saying the stadium came before the club, so to speak?


Ahhh...sweet, sweet hindsight. It makes everyone a genius. :rolleyes:

And again, it probably would have paid off, wouldn't it. Risks. You gotta take them.

boban
06-12-2009, 04:20 PM
^ Oh, so we don't believe in taking risks in the business world anymore?

No other club in the league knew how popular they were going to be either, but not all clubs have had their stadia subsidized like Toronto has. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years or so, this isn't the first time MLSE has convinced a municipal government that they really need a brand new sports facility and have managed to get most of them built primarily on the taxpayer's dime.
Where was the 1st?

Cashcleaner
06-12-2009, 04:22 PM
^ GM Centre here in Oshawa. Ugh. It was a bad deal and the city got shafted. I don't blame just one party though, it takes two to really screw something like that up.

boban
06-12-2009, 04:23 PM
MLSE didn't convince anyone to build this stadium. The CSA convinced MLSE to come on as primary tenant and invest $10 million (the naming rights).

The stadium was already going to be built for the U20 WC. The governments wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be a white elephant after the tournament, so MLSE was brought in.
They put $8 mil of their own plus the $10 mil naming rights (which gets paid to them by BMO).

Rudi
06-12-2009, 04:24 PM
But hold on a second, Rudi. Are you saying the stadium came before the club, so to speak?
Absolutely.

The CSA announced their original CNE stadium plan way back in 2003. They secured money from the feds and the province long before any MLS team was seriously considered as a tenant.


Where was the 1st?
He's probably referring to the Oshawa arena that MLSE managed for a few years.

Aside from that, they've built their own facilities, from what I can recall.

Cashcleaner
06-12-2009, 04:28 PM
Absolutely.

The CSA announced their original CNE stadium plan way back in 2003. They secured money from the feds and the province long before any MLS team was seriously considered as a tenant.

Cah-razy. Thinking about it now, though, if a stadium was just built specifically for the CSA, would it likely have grass and increased seating? I'm just wondering because I would imagine such a facility would be the host for almost all national team events.


He's probably referring to the Oshawa arena that MLSE managed for a few years.

Aside from that, they've built their own facilities, from what I can recall.

They did try to do the same with another OHL club recently. I think it was the John Labbatt Centre in London. I'd have to look it up.

boban
06-12-2009, 04:29 PM
Absolutely.

The CSA announced their original CNE stadium plan way back in 2003. They secured money from the feds and the province long before any MLS team was seriously considered as a tenant.
Correct. But the stadium then danced to Varsity where MLSE was expressing interest, but then pulled out because of ROI issues, and then on to York U, then to Donsview, and back here where it is presently and where MLSE came on board. But with each dance, the cost and capacity kept getting lower.




He's probably referring to the Oshawa arena that MLSE managed for a few years.

Aside from that, they've built their own facilities, from what I can recall.
Well that was never their arena. They just managed it.
So it is that the NSS was the first sport facility they got public money for.

boban
06-12-2009, 04:32 PM
Cah-razy. Thinking about it now, though, if a stadium was just built specifically for the CSA, would it likely have grass and increased seating? I'm just wondering because I would imagine such a facility would be the host for almost all national team events.
Actually it was the CSA who advocated FieldTurf from the outset back in 2003. In my books they take the biggest blame for the shit we see down there now. Had they taken a different line perhaps things would be different.




They did try to do the same with another OHL club recently. I think it was the John Labbatt Centre in London. I'd have to look it up.
But they are not the owner of the arena nor a tenant so who cares.

Cashcleaner
06-12-2009, 04:37 PM
Well that was never their arena. They just managed it.
So it is that the NSS was the first sport facility they got [ublic money for.

Yes, but this is what I'm getting at. MLSE came in and convinced the city (Oshawa) that they needed a new arena. The city then said to MLSE, "well if an arena is such a good idea, we'll sell you the land at a good price downtown and you can do what you think is best with it". But MLSE wasn't having that and said, "How about this: You build the arena according to our specs and we'll operate it for you and take a certain cut from the revenues".

So the city considered that and had a townhall meeting about it because it was gonna cost quite a lot to build. MLSE bussed in their own guys from Toronto to take part in the meeting and advocated the proposal on the part of MLSE. In fact, it is believed they actually outnumbered the local residents at the function. So in the end, MLSE got their arena and the city got the bill and that was that until last year when MLSE realised it couldn't get enough non-hockey events booked in the facility and agreed to break their operational contract with Oshawa.

Yeah. I think that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Rudi
06-12-2009, 04:47 PM
Correct. But the stadium then danced to Varsity where MLSE was expressing interest, but then pulled out because of ROI issues, and then on to York U, then to Donsview, and back here where it is presently and where MLSE came on board. But with each dance, the cost and capacity kept getting lower.
What killed the Varsity deal was the neighbourhood NIMBYs.



Well that was never their arena. They just managed it.
So it is that the NSS was the first sport facility they got public money for.
Again, MLSE never "got" money for BMO Field.

They were the last of the five major stakeholders (the CSA, The City of Toronto, the federal government and the provincial gov't being the others) to come aboard. The financing was already mostly in place at that point.

As you said, MLSE kicked in an additional $18 million (I forgot to include the $8 million outside of the naming rights in my original post) to get the project started, and took over all operations, including getting the stadium built in 12 months from start to finish.

boban
06-12-2009, 05:05 PM
What killed the Varsity deal was the neighbourhood NIMBYs.
True. But MLSE pulled out before that became a forgone conclusion.



As you said, MLSE kicked in an additional $18 million (I forgot to include the $8 million outside of the naming rights in my original post) to get the project started, and took over all operations, including getting the stadium built in 12 months from start to finish.
Well PCL did that part actually ;)

boban
06-12-2009, 05:07 PM
Yes, but this is what I'm getting at. MLSE came in and convinced the city (Oshawa) that they needed a new arena. The city then said to MLSE, "well if an arena is such a good idea, we'll sell you the land at a good price downtown and you can do what you think is best with it". But MLSE wasn't having that and said, "How about this: You build the arena according to our specs and we'll operate it for you and take a certain cut from the revenues".

So the city considered that and had a townhall meeting about it because it was gonna cost quite a lot to build. MLSE bussed in their own guys from Toronto to take part in the meeting and advocated the proposal on the part of MLSE. In fact, it is believed they actually outnumbered the local residents at the function. So in the end, MLSE got their arena and the city got the bill and that was that until last year when MLSE realised it couldn't get enough non-hockey events booked in the facility and agreed to break their operational contract with Oshawa.

Yeah. I think that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Just goes to show you, and proof, that MLSE isn't the business genius that some media and people believe it to be.

Kickit09
06-12-2009, 05:23 PM
Just goes to show you, and proof, that MLSE isn't the business genius that some media and people believe it to be.


I've been saying for years now that MLSE is just lucky to be in city that loves its sports. In many other cities, MLSE would of went bust the way they mismanage their sports teams.

Rudi
06-12-2009, 05:24 PM
Well PCL did that part actually ;)
LOL well obviously. :cool:

menefreghista
06-12-2009, 05:38 PM
One of the main obstacles (from reading all of the grass issues written by the media) is this man:

http://www.toronto.ca/councillors/pantalone1.htm

To be fair to Joe Pantalone, he and David Miller were instrumental in lobbying the other councilors to pass the vote to help fund and allow the building of BMO Field in the first place.

As much as it may suck for TFC fans, I can't really blame them for insisting that the year-round use facility is closer to BMO Field than the rumoured Etobicoke location.

Suds
06-12-2009, 05:58 PM
MLSE didn't convince anyone to build this stadium. The CSA convinced MLSE to come on as primary tenant and invest $10 million (the naming rights).

The stadium was already going to be built for the U20 WC. The governments wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be a white elephant after the tournament, so MLSE was brought in.

+1

A lot of people forget this point. And let's not forget the economical benefits the city received for hosting the U-20 world cup. Include the indirect benefit the city received in the promotion of Toronto around the world for hosting this tournament. This all seems to be lost in the debate around BMO. There is a payback thee City and Province received.

The CSA wanted to host the U-20 world cup and the City of Toronto wanted to be a part of that.

With that being said, I don't want MLSE to get free ride on this. Afterall, it's our tax dollars that were invested. This is what MLSE should come to the table with a kick-ass proposal to the City to provide a great community use facility.

Rudi
06-12-2009, 06:13 PM
With that being said, I don't want MLSE to get free ride on this. Afterall, it's our tax dollars that were invested. This is what MLSE should come to the table with a kick-ass proposal to the City to provide a great community use facility.
Agreed.

S_D
06-12-2009, 06:25 PM
How is that not their money? They did draft and then subsequently sell the player...

It isn't their money because the players aren't contracted to the teams. All player contracts are owned by MLS, and the majority owner of each team is MLS. It was MLS that sold Edu not TFC. But to be clear, MLS can't just go and sell a player. The team that the player is playing for has to agree to it too.

When a player is sold, the league takes a cut and the balance the team can spend. Depending on the selling price, MLS dictates to a team how much can be spent on players through allocation (the league holds onto this too since they are the ones paying the salaries) and thus how much can be spent on club infrastructure. MLS holds on to the money, and the team has to get approval to spend the cash on it's infrastructure.

And I have to say I really like this system. It forces the minority owners (in this case MLSE) to improve the team and not just pocket the cash if they happen to win the draft lottery.

As Rocker said, it isn't their money so it shouldn't be an issue at all if they really want the grass.


So it is that the NSS was the first sport facility they got public money for.

Didn't they get the city of St. Johns to pay for the baby leafs arena? (not that I care or anything, just to throw it out there and fan the flames lol)

noochie
06-12-2009, 07:29 PM
It isn't their money because the players aren't contracted to the teams. All player contracts are owned by MLS, and the majority owner of each team is MLS.

A large sum of money was deposited into their bank account. Therefore it is their money. You want to call taking Edu at No. 1 a fluke, then maybe you have an argument but at the end of the day it is their money (minus the cut for MLS, granted).

I don't see the point of your comment in any case. It is probably useless to debate that selling Edu is the only thing that made grass possible in Toronto. Other factors like scheduling friendlies with big clubs, inability to sign some players and their own players feelings on it would have likely made the case for grass with or without Edu.

rocker
06-12-2009, 07:32 PM
A large sum of money was deposited into their bank account. Therefore it is their money.

who the the "they" you refer to here?

noochie
06-12-2009, 07:34 PM
who the the "they" you refer to here?

MLSE

rocker
06-12-2009, 07:40 PM
MLSE

maybe I'm confused (haven't read all the way back).
But MLSE hasn't seen, and will not see, any of the money yet from the Edu transfer in its own bank account.

Part was allowed for allocation to sign new players, but since contracts are paid by Major League Soccer, that is only an imaginary transaction (so MLS is putting the money into its own account and TFC can say "MLS, we want to sign Joe Blowski, please sign him and use that allocation from the Edu sale."). But none of that money went to TFC and then to the player(s).

The remainder is still with MLS, awaiting MLSE to propose some sort of project to use it on.

noochie
06-12-2009, 07:44 PM
The remainder is still with MLS, awaiting MLSE to propose some sort of project to use it on.

Like a grass field, perhaps :) I guess by "bank account" analogy was too literal. The point being they have funds based on what they have done as an organization in drafting and selling a player. So saying that it isn't their money to do with what they want is really just splitting hairs.

See: link (http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/story/?id=246908&lid=sublink04&lpos=headlines_main)

One-third of the transfer fee goes to the league, which as a single entity owns the rights to all its players, and two-thirds to Toronto's coffers. Of that, $500,000 will go towards player allocation money - which can be spent over 18 months starting next year, used on salary or to buy a player - with the rest earmarked towards the club's soccer operations such as facilities and youth programs.

noochie
06-12-2009, 07:47 PM
Actually... based on that link I did the math. TFC banked 2.85M in the clear from that. (3.35M with only 500K in escrow). And the league made 1.65M.

Sullivan
06-12-2009, 07:52 PM
I've generally stayed away from this topic in each thread that it's popped up in. So if this point has been brought up in the past, I do apologize.

But...

Does the city of Toronto own Lamport?
If yes, why won't MLSE put a bubble over it for winter use?
Would that not satisfy the city?
Perhaps MLSE can even throw a little coin to Lamport for a retro-fit and a facelift to facilitate an Annex for TFCA.

TorontoMO
06-12-2009, 08:05 PM
You knew before TFC started that it was going to be a roaring success?
Enough to add $70 million to a $10 million investment? :rolleyes:
I don't love MLSE, but man, you should be a stock broker or something with that kind of predictive ability.
Seriously, why do you post? Aren't you the same one who thought Lombardo was better than Vitti?
Abraham Lincoln once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"


I do think Lombardo was better for the team than Vitti. Vitti is useless and a huge expense. Lombardo cost 17K and looked like he cared. I think Mo once said "the morons want a south american- so here's a south american turd, but a south american one- now worship him idiots" and some of you have.

My point about the stadium is simple. MLSE didn't spend a cent on it. What reason or for who originally it was built doesn't matter. To try to blame a city councillor for it, is MLSE butt licking at it's worst.

If MLSE doesn't like it, they can spend some of that BILLION dollar self worth on a 70 million dollar stadium. I think we can all agree their is market for it and it's a proven fact.

I have always hated BMO feild. It looks like a high school football stadium in Texas. The fact that their isn't even a roof makes the place ugly and soulless. The plastic Christmas tree surface make the place look terrible on TV. But ---you get what you pay for.

Which in MLSE and TFC case was NOTHING. Sorry-- they also get to run the place. A terrible deal for the city, province and country.

TFC FORZA RPB
06-12-2009, 08:24 PM
i know everyone else has already said this but, if MLSE was committed then we would already have the grass

Shep
06-12-2009, 08:33 PM
.... Vitti is useless...

That's a matter of opinion. Like mine differs from yours.

Vitti has skill, he just hasn't had the PT/luck to show it.

see? opinion.

S_D
06-12-2009, 08:38 PM
Actually... based on that link I did the math. TFC banked 2.85M in the clear from that. (3.35M with only 500K in allocation). And the league made 1.65M.


Correct with the exception of the MLS amount. They have to give the player sold 10% of the selling price out of their cut, so reduce that by 500K. Just as an FYI the 10% payment rule is in the collective bargaining agreement. And I assume you meant allocation rather than escrow.


Like a grass field, perhaps :) I guess by "bank account" analogy was too literal. The point being they have funds based on what they have done as an organization in drafting and selling a player. So saying that it isn't their money to do with what they want is really just splitting hairs.



It may be splitting hairs but at the end of the day MLS either says yes or no to the spending proposal, so they do have control on how money is not to be spent. (Whether they can dictate the order of spending priorities though is something that I have never come across; say a team approaches them with a long to do list.) It is one of these subtle pain in the ass rules of MLS.

I can't see why they would say no and Mo saying he wanted to spend it on grass leads me to believe that he knows there is no way MLS would say no. I wouldn't be surprised if they want grass as bad as the players do.

I would imagine the players no matter what team they play for would love to see the plastic pitch end up in a recycling bin or on a field that they will not step foot on. If MLS said no to grass, I bet there would be a riot in the stands and the players would probably join in :D

Tezza
06-13-2009, 09:34 AM
Jack, do you really believe Grass at BMO is going to make a real difference in the fortunes of this team???? My friend, I simply dont buy it.

Sure, grass will look nicer, the ball will bounce truer, some washed up players looking for a final paycheque in MLS might be willing to sign on the dotted line but, if anything, grass just levels the playing field. Look at TFC's record on the road (mostly on grass pitches) it is nothing to write home about. I have not seen a noticeable difference in their ability to play good football on grass vs. turf.

As long as the people in charge are building the team, TFC could play on concrete littered with broken shards of glass and it won't make the slightest difference. The team is not good enough.

Players with hunger and desire don't care what surface they play on. More than anything, hunger and desire is what TFC needs to transplant into this team because this is what is sorely lacking. Too much complacency, not enough pressure to succeed, too many apologists protecting underperforming players and management...worry about those issues before worrying about grass.

Personally, I'd prefer a brand new Field Turf Surface every 2 years....TFC would have a truer home field advantage then, and they need every advantage they can find with the talent they've got.

fail

TorontoMO
06-13-2009, 04:35 PM
That's a matter of opinion. Like mine differs from yours.

Vitti has skill, he just hasn't had the PT/luck to show it.

see? opinion.


tons of chances. zero goals. usless. fact.