PDA

View Full Version : MLSE pulls out of $13M Lakeshore campus project



Yohan
07-02-2009, 04:14 PM
MLSE pulls out of $13M Lakeshore campus project
By TAMARA SHEPHARD

Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) and a $13-million cash injection to revitalize a new Lakeshore Collegiate campus and create a community centre-like resource - is off the table.
In a shocking turn of events, a clearly disappointed project lead, Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustee Bruce Davis, said Thursday morning the deal is dead.


http://www.mirror-guardian.com/article/71884

Yohan
07-02-2009, 04:15 PM
cost of practice facility: 13 million

MLS team salary per year: 2.8 million

compare that, and one can't really say MLSE is not willing to invest in the team

Dirk Diggler
07-02-2009, 04:24 PM
cost of practice facility: 13 million

MLS team salary per year: 2.8 million

compare that, and one can't really say MLSE is not willing to invest in the team

Why compare those numbers? Why not bring in their total revenue on the table as well?

Yohan
07-02-2009, 04:26 PM
Why compare those numbers? Why not bring in their total revenue on the table as well?
what, TFC's 2.5 million profit from last year?

Or MLSE's total net worth?

Shep
07-02-2009, 04:35 PM
The way I'm reading it is that it was somehow the cities decision?

Not sure how to take the article, he mentions how great MLSE were about the whole thing, but says the 'city' wanted it elsewhere... so still happening just not where they had initially planned.. back to the drawing table then?

kodiakTFC
07-02-2009, 04:48 PM
Just letting you know, I have the best source possible for BMO related news and expansion isn't in the cards for a long time either.

Shway
07-02-2009, 04:51 PM
cost of practice facility: 13 million

MLS team salary per year: 2.8 million

compare that, and one can't really say MLSE is not willing to invest in the team

Practice Facility is a one-time pay, that will eventually pay off

Dirk Diggler
07-02-2009, 04:53 PM
what, TFC's 2.5 million profit from last year?

Or MLSE's total net worth?

Yeah the $2.5 million profit is quite significant ... especially in the second year alone.

Yohan
07-02-2009, 04:55 PM
why do I have a feeling that this thread will degenerate into MLSE is a cheap bastard fest again?

I was trying to imply that nothing has shown really that MLSE is cheaping out, when it comes to TFC. at least so far

Rudi
07-02-2009, 04:58 PM
The way I'm reading it is that it was somehow the cities decision?

Not sure how to take the article, he mentions how great MLSE were about the whole thing, but says the 'city' wanted it elsewhere... so still happening just not where they had initially planned.. back to the drawing table then?
Reading between the lines:

MLSE was told in no uncertain terms that the Lakeshore facility would not meet the City's requirements for moving the community usage out of BMO Field.

The City (ie. Joey Pants) want the facility closer to downtown, or no deal.

Cambridge_Red
07-02-2009, 04:58 PM
The city was not co-operating. Read the article first folks.

Blizzard
07-02-2009, 04:58 PM
why do I have a feeling that this thread will degenerate into MLSE is a cheap bastard fest again?

I was trying to imply that nothing has shown really that MLSE is cheaping out, when it comes to TFC. at least so far

The article spelled it out quite clearly IMO. MLSE was going to put $14M into the project but the city said don't bother. We want it downtown. That's very unfortunate for that community.

jabbronies
07-02-2009, 05:03 PM
Ya this thing has to be closer to the downtown core. Considering all of the condos going up down there, the city wants to have facilities to accomidate these people. and that proposed lakeshore site doesn't do that.

At least that's my take on it.

Dirk Diggler
07-02-2009, 05:05 PM
why do I have a feeling that this thread will degenerate into MLSE is a cheap bastard fest again?

I was trying to imply that nothing has shown really that MLSE is cheaping out, when it comes to TFC. at least so far

No one is bashing MLSE for failing to go through with this project.

Ladies Love Julius James
07-02-2009, 05:14 PM
That 13mill will go to JDG :D

DichioTFC
07-02-2009, 05:52 PM
That 13mill will go to JDG :D

and there's no complaining about that
:D

Pookie
07-02-2009, 05:54 PM
... so Lamport it is then.

FluSH
07-02-2009, 05:56 PM
Reading between the lines:

MLSE was told in no uncertain terms that the Lakeshore facility would not meet the City's requirements for moving the community usage out of BMO Field.

The City (ie. Joey Pants) want the facility closer to downtown, or no deal.

And without reading the artcile yet... this makes TOTAL SENSE...

Good on MLSE for playing hardball here...

DichioTFC
07-02-2009, 05:57 PM
about the article... 13M for the lakeshore community... four-rink arena for the Leafs and Marlies on Kipling... for all the crap that we all write about MLSE, they are definitely committed to our community. toronto in general has a demanding and cynical fanbase and a HUGE, obsessive media contingent. teams in other parts of north america have left for greener pastures under much weaker circumstances.

kudos to MLSE (from a certified maple leafs hater) for contributing to the development of toronto and the GTA.


...harold ballard must be spinning in hell right now

nascarguy
07-02-2009, 06:05 PM
this city is being run by assholes anyways mlse it's time to play hard ball and tell the city to smart up

Stryker
07-02-2009, 06:14 PM
So I take it this means that any hope for grass next season is at this moment dead?
Wonderful. :rolleyes:

billyfly
07-02-2009, 06:21 PM
So I take it this means that any hope for grass next season is at this moment dead?
Wonderful. :rolleyes:

No. The opposite. This means that Lamport is the only site so all parties shoudl concentrate on that location.

billyfly
07-02-2009, 06:22 PM
about the article... 13M for the lakeshore community... four-rink arena for the Leafs and Marlies on Kipling... for all the crap that we all write about MLSE, they are definitely committed to our community. toronto in general has a demanding and cynical fanbase and a HUGE, obsessive media contingent. teams in other parts of north america have left for greener pastures under much weaker circumstances.

kudos to MLSE (from a certified maple leafs hater) for contributing to the development of toronto and the GTA.


...harold ballard must be spinning in hell right now


Well Jesus did say he forgive all sins....

joesoccerfan
07-02-2009, 06:24 PM
Anything I've read on this topic in the past few weeks has referred to the Lamport option. I believe that the city would rather make use of the MLSE cash by re-vamping Lamport than creating a new facility.

At least discussions are active...seems to me a deal will get done eventually, it is just a matter of when.

olegunnar
07-02-2009, 06:27 PM
cost of practice facility: 13 million

MLS team salary per year: 2.8 million

compare that, and one can't really say MLSE is not willing to invest in the team

FYI
The league pays the salaries.

The only salary MLSE would ever pay is anything the DP makes over $400K
No DP...no salary payments

boban
07-02-2009, 06:52 PM
I was trying to imply that nothing has shown really that MLSE is cheaping out, when it comes to TFC. at least so far
Are you kidding me?
Just look at the stadium and nothing more needs to be said.

boban
07-02-2009, 06:54 PM
FYI
The league pays the salaries.

The only salary MLSE would ever pay is anything the DP makes over $400K
No DP...no salary payments
On the face of it yes. But MLSE has to fork over 1/3 of ticket revenues to MLS.

ensco
07-02-2009, 06:59 PM
And without reading the artcile yet... this makes TOTAL SENSE...

Good on MLSE for playing hardball here...

Actually I think it's the City playing hardball with MLSE

rocker
07-02-2009, 07:01 PM
FYI
The league pays the salaries.

The only salary MLSE would ever pay is anything the DP makes over $400K
No DP...no salary payments

well, to be technical, MLSE pays something like 30% of the revenue to MLS to pay for those salaries.

So in a sense, MLSE pays the salaries. Actually they contribute far more than if they paid the salary bills directly.

olegunnar
07-02-2009, 07:17 PM
well, to be technical, MLSE pays something like 30% of the revenue to MLS to pay for those salaries.

So in a sense, MLSE pays the salaries. Actually they contribute far more than if they paid the salary bills directly.

It's not 30% of the revenue. If it were then a north stand might be a possibility, as it is the beer revenue that goes straight to MLSE is too much to give up....but it's all about fire exits right?

We need someone to get that pdf doc that broke down the costs...the cut the city/the ex/mlse/mls etc. all get. I remember it was all spelled out very specifically.

That's sort of besides the point though. I only posted what I originallty posted so that I could gently remind the OP that he's making stuff up

Yohan
07-02-2009, 07:20 PM
Are you kidding me?
Just look at the stadium and nothing more needs to be said.
would you have put in extra money into a project that you don't know if it's going to succeed?

how much would the roof cost? another 30-40 million?

boban
07-02-2009, 07:41 PM
would you have put in extra money into a project that you don't know if it's going to succeed?

how much would the roof cost? another 30-40 million?
Doesn't stop other teams from doing it.

BTW, your roof costs are waay off.

ensco
07-02-2009, 07:42 PM
would you have put in extra money into a project that you don't know if it's going to succeed?

how much would the roof cost? another 30-40 million?

Even if I understand why it happened, it won't stop me from feeling blue at just how barebones BMO is.

Every time I see a picture of Rio Tinto, Home Depot, Toyota Park, NYRB new stadium, new Philly stadium....my heart sinks a little.

BMO as a facility is inferior to about 100 high school stadiums in the state of Texas alone. Let's hope someday it'll be upgraded.

Rudi
07-02-2009, 07:48 PM
Doesn't stop other teams from doing it.
How many of those teams were expansion sides? One by my count.

The "MLSE is cheap" meme is a lazy one, one that can be debunked by some fairly basic research.

ensco
07-02-2009, 07:54 PM
How many of those teams were expansion sides? One by my count.

The "MLSE is cheap" meme is a lazy one, one that can be debunked by some fairly basic research.

It's about 50/50, isn't it? TFC, RSL (the new stadium was part of their bid, it just couldn't be ready in time), Philly are expansion teams, the others aren't.

Re MLSE cheapness. MLSE aren't cheap, they're a business, sadly. But from our point of view, what's the difference? The end result is the same.

They spend big money if they can identify low risk revenue streams that are created by the spending. They don't do big dreams over there. If someone would give them a big TV contract, they'd spend millions on a DP. But they can't, so they haven't (a de Guzman signing would happily prove me wrong on this).

olegunnar
07-02-2009, 08:05 PM
The funny thing is they based the numbers on New England and 12,600 a game attendence for MLS games. SO MLSE sandbagged the gov't

The STUPID CSA based their numbers on 18,000 average attendence per CSA game.

MLSE may not be cheap...but they;re sneaky and smart. They conned the various levels of government into paying for everything...in return...MLSE agreed to pay 50% of any budget deficit....and that was based on their sandbagged numbers of 12600 a game.
So no decifits = zero costs. So they got the gov't to pay for pretty much everything and had to give up nothing

And with MLSE getting 25% of beer and BMO field getting 75%...at $13 bucks a beer...there won't be a deficit.

It's also interesting to read the Argos clause. Any capital expenditures required for them to move in are their responsibility.

Ottawa has done a lot of due diligence about MLS teams. They have the original docs for TFC up on their site

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/02-24/8-CSS0013-Document%201%20Appendix%20C%20-%20BMO%20Toronto%20Report.pdf

edit: the good stuff starts on page 14

Bobo
07-02-2009, 08:08 PM
Well Jesus did say he forgive all sins....

Only if you ask for forgiveness.

T_Mizz
07-02-2009, 11:08 PM
MLSE pulls out of $13M Lakeshore campus project?
Good thing too because I wouldn't want the $13M Lakeshore campus project to get pregnant:D:hump:

DichioTFC
07-03-2009, 12:23 AM
Well Jesus did say he forgive all sins....

If only I were Christian... lol

DichioTFC
07-03-2009, 12:25 AM
MLSE pulls out of $13M Lakeshore campus project?
Good thing too because I wouldn't want the $13M Lakeshore campus project to get pregnant:D:hump:

MLSE should use protection next time. It would save their assets.

rocker
07-03-2009, 07:06 AM
The funny thing is they based the numbers on New England and 12,600 a game attendence for MLS games.

that's pretty normal... they made a cautious prediction. The reason they chose NE is cuz NE was about average in MLS. Making a budget for a stadium based on average attendance isn't "sandbagging" it's just good business planning.

They tried to show the city that even they just got average attendance, the city wouldn't have to pay back anything over the period of the lease. If they had told the city "oh yea, we're gonna get 20000 a game" the city might have be wary and less likely to sign the deal.

Actually, the city is quite happy because 20000 a game means the city is making more than they could have expected every single year. Win-Win proposition.

ensco
07-03-2009, 07:17 AM
The original deal worked well because, as Pookie argues, it kind of masked the subsidy from the various levels of government to MLSE. The problem is that the thing that masked the subsidy, the public use, is being altered/removed. The fact that the public use can be provided at a lower cost doesn't help things.

Very tricky situation. There is a loud, vocal constituency for the public use. The CBC and the Star are dying for this to get screwed up, so they can do a week's worth of stories on how a central parcel of the Exhibition lands were turned over to a well-connected private company, who got most of the construction cost of their private facility thrown in too.

Hitcho
07-03-2009, 07:51 AM
MLSE pulls out of $13M Lakeshore campus project?
Good thing too because I wouldn't want the $13M Lakeshore campus project to get pregnant:D:hump:

:rofl: fucking brilliant dude!

Hitcho
07-03-2009, 07:53 AM
Hey Yohan - I've been trying to work out for ages what your avatar is, because it really looks like an RPB scarf draped round a pile of turd dude! Is it some kind of Davy Crockett hat or something? Or is it just draped round Columbus? Hard to see...

TFC Tifoso
07-03-2009, 08:04 AM
How many of those teams were expansion sides? One by my count.

The "MLSE is cheap" meme is a lazy one, one that can be debunked by some fairly basic research.


Yeah, and there's a difference between spending money, and spending it wisely (see Leafs......Raptors.....)

mmmikey
07-03-2009, 10:52 AM
i would be far more upset if MLSE was totally silent and happy with the status quo. that's the most profitable situation for them.

instead they ARE interested in expansion, and ARE working on getting grass at bmo and proper practice facilities for the Reds.

it could be far worse, it just isn't happening fast enough to satisfy everyone. a little patience will see these things all come to pass..

anyone who is watching their green bins fill up with stinking piles of food and dog crap knows how slow anything political moves in this city. i really don't think MLSE is to blame for this.

i will agree, it is disappointing to know that we will likely be stuck with some pretty crappy stands for a while. im taking a wait and see approach to the new stands whenever they install them (wont be til community use is long gone). the quality they invest in for an expansion will definitely make a statement. no reason to be cautious now..

but hopefully in the meantime someone will cancel their season tix and let me in. ill be happy to stand on those crappy stands. :)

boban
07-03-2009, 10:57 AM
How many of those teams were expansion sides? One by my count.
And the ones that were existing were not near the 20,000 avg yet they invested heavily in their infrastructure. MLSe rode the gravy train.


The "MLSE is cheap" meme is a lazy one, one that can be debunked by some fairly basic research.
Only if you like reading cover titles.
I respect your opinion on many thing Rudi, but can't agree with you on this.
Sometimes the inside of the book has to be read, and even then things that weren't written have to be looked at. And then only one conclusion can be reached. They are cheap fuckers.

boban
07-03-2009, 11:01 AM
They spend big money if they can identify low risk revenue streams that are created by the spending. They don't do big dreams over there. If someone would give them a big TV contract, they'd spend millions on a DP. But they can't, so they haven't (a de Guzman signing would happily prove me wrong on this).
But that is to a degree a sign of cheapness. They want everything in return and nothing to go out.
I'm not advocating or asking for marble floors or whatnot, but some more money could of been put into the stadium for example.

boban
07-03-2009, 11:07 AM
i would be far more upset if MLSE was totally silent and happy with the status quo. that's the most profitable situation for them.

instead they ARE interested in expansion, and ARE working on getting grass at bmo and proper practice facilities for the Reds.

it could be far worse, it just isn't happening fast enough to satisfy everyone. a little patience will see these things all come to pass..

anyone who is watching their green bins fill up with stinking piles of food and dog crap knows how slow anything political moves in this city. i really don't think MLSE is to blame for this.

i will agree, it is disappointing to know that we will likely be stuck with some pretty crappy stands for a while. im taking a wait and see approach to the new stands whenever they install them (wont be til community use is long gone). the quality they invest in for an expansion will definitely make a statement. no reason to be cautious now..

but hopefully in the meantime someone will cancel their season tix and let me in. ill be happy to stand on those crappy stands. :)
Not anymore. At least not on their dime. Anselmi said s on the FAN about 2 weeks back.

Roogsy
07-03-2009, 11:12 AM
The article spelled it out quite clearly IMO. MLSE was going to put $14M into the project but the city said don't bother. We want it downtown. That's very unfortunate for that community.

This is the part that upsets me.

It was a great idea, and great for that community. A community that needs it. It has such great potential.

If I see Joey Pants anywhere near BMO Field I hope I don't accidentally spill my beer on the bastard.

I don't think there should be any blame on TFC or MLSE on this one. They were willing to pony up the cash and contribute to a community. Apparentlyi councillors believe Toronto only lies within Joey Pants' voting district.

billyfly
07-03-2009, 11:24 AM
What is stopping MLSE from doing the training facility at Lakeshore with some community usage and then giving the City Lamport upgrade to fufill the BMO "community usage" part?

boban
07-03-2009, 11:32 AM
What is stopping MLSE from doing the training facility at Lakeshore with some community usage and then giving the City Lamport upgrade to fufill the BMO "community usage" part?
Nothing.
I was thinking the same thing after my last post.
They could scale down the Lakeshore facility without the dome and what not.
They still need a grass training facility and a place to run their academy out of. One field (fake at that) does not do it.

Rudi
07-03-2009, 11:37 AM
And the ones that were existing were not near the 20,000 avg yet they invested heavily in their infrastructure.
Really?

Perhaps you should read up on the history of the SSS' and the sweetheart deals that almost all the teams have gotten.

You're simplifying the situation way too much in regards to BMO Field. No way were we ever going to have another Home Depot Center built here in less than 12 months.

TFC Tifoso
07-03-2009, 11:37 AM
Maybe MLSE knew the Lakeshore idea wouldn't fly with the City, but went through with it anyways, so in the end they could say "look we tried", make the city out to be the bad guy who said no, and keep the money in their pockets.....

cynicism...its faaaaaantastic!

billyfly
07-03-2009, 11:42 AM
This is where I agree with you Boban about MLSE's motives or modus operandi. I also agree with Rudi that they aren't "cheap". People automatically define that word as not spending any money. A better word (or definition) is needed.

Ensco's "They spend big money if they can identify low risk revenue streams that are created by the spending. They don't do big dreams over there." is a better way of summing it up.

Roogsy
07-03-2009, 11:43 AM
Really?

Perhaps you should read up on the history of the SSS' and the sweetheart deals that almost all the teams have gotten.

You're simplifying the situation way too much in regards to BMO Field. No way were we ever going to have another Home Depot Center built here in less than 12 months.

I agree with Rudi. MLSE did benefit, but everyone involved knew what they were getting themselves into. The whole BMO Field arrangement was good for everyone involved, most especially soccer fans in Toronto. Looking back and wishing MLSE had gotten a worse deal is silly in my mind. Without a economically viable deal for everyone involved, we'd have no stadium, we would have had no U20 World Cup and we would have no TFC. What's the point of that?

Roogsy
07-03-2009, 11:46 AM
This is where I agree with you Boban about MLSE's motives or modus operandi. I also agree with Rudi that they aren't "cheap". People automatically define that word as not spending any money. A better word (or definition) is needed.

Ensco's "They spend big money if they can identify low risk revenue streams that are created by the spending. They don't do big dreams over there." is a better way of summing it up.

Big corporations can't and don't. That's just the way it is. Blaming them for being big is silly. Big dreams usually come from little guys taking risks to become big.

But at the end of the day, without them and all their ways, we would have no TFC so I don't get the hate for them around here. I am totally for calling them out when they screw up, but this irrational "let's blame MLSE for everything wrong in the world" is ignorant at best.

flatpicker
07-03-2009, 11:47 AM
Hey Yohan - I've been trying to work out for ages what your avatar is, because it really looks like an RPB scarf draped round a pile of turd dude! Is it some kind of Davy Crockett hat or something? Or is it just draped round Columbus? Hard to see...


seriously... I've been wondering the same thing for awhile.
I asked... but I guess he didn't want to tell.

Pookie
07-03-2009, 11:57 AM
I'm not so sure that you can argue that they don't "do big dreams" @ MLSE.

They launched a 24 hour channel dedicated to hockey and may still be the only ones to do so. They followed that up with another 24 hour channel dedicated to basketball and are getting in the soccer market with GOLTV.

They were the only ones stepping up to bring a MLS franchise here which is a bit of dream in its own right.

Of course, there is plenty of work to do. One look at the ESPN Franchise Rankings for 2009 has the Leafs 120 out of 122 NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL teams. Raptors were 105th. Apparently, ESPN doesn't consider the MLS a "Professional Sport."

I don't blame MLSE for not immediately throwing up a roof or putting in grass or expanding by 8,000 seats.

The facts are that this franchise has not yet completed it's 3rd season and MLSE still does not own the building. To ask them to invest millions in the roof, expansion all in addition to the grass (which is coming) is probably a little premature.

All sides involve realize that they are sitting on a potentially valuable asset. What we are seeing is essentially a dance for ownership and an attempt by each side to maximize it's position.

The city doesn't want to just hand over a publicly funded building to line the pockets of MLSE. They want (and need) to demonstrate that the taxpayers were rewarded.

MLSE doesn't want to invest in infrastructure without a clear path to recover that revenue. Ideally, that path involves a greater share of the profits so as to be able to pay off the construction costs and start filling the bank account back up.

Give it time, it will work itself out.

Yohan
07-03-2009, 11:58 AM
Hey Yohan - I've been trying to work out for ages what your avatar is, because it really looks like an RPB scarf draped round a pile of turd dude! Is it some kind of Davy Crockett hat or something? Or is it just draped round Columbus? Hard to see...
it's a racoon cap I bought in Mtl to symbolizing the scalping of Impact.

I was going to wear it for all TFC games, but in the summer, I think I'll stick to wrapping the scarf around my forehead lol

Roogsy
07-03-2009, 12:00 PM
I don't think we will ever get a roof at BMO.

And honestly, I don't think we will get much of an expansion, maybe a cheapy here or there.

MLSE has a lease with the city right? What, 10 years? Of which we are into the lease 3 years.

What will happen is when they renegotiate that lease, all will break loose. The city will want to keep their control, MLSE will say no, we want it or we walk. It will turn into a game of chicken and someone will blink first.

One hope I have is that MLSE decides it worth it to build a new stadium with their complete ownership somewhere down the line. A stadium done right including a real supporters section without the scalpers. But that is just a dream.

Kevvv
07-03-2009, 12:02 PM
This is where I agree with you Boban about MLSE's motives or modus operandi. I also agree with Rudi that they aren't "cheap". People automatically define that word as not spending any money. A better word (or definition) is needed.

Ensco's "They spend big money if they can identify low risk revenue streams that are created by the spending. They don't do big dreams over there." is a better way of summing it up.


There is a better word - investing. MLSE (and their OTPP overlords) invest in businesses with an expectation of earning a return that justifies the risk - not necessarily 'low risk.' TFC itself couldn't have been considered a low risk back in 2005/6; if it truly was a low risk/high return project, someone else would have put an MLS franchise here sooner.

As to Lakeshore, it's not a huge surprise. BMO serves a different geographic community than Lakeshore reasonably could. Sure, their is overlap, but getting to Lakeshore is a different proposition than to BMO.

Kevvv
07-03-2009, 12:05 PM
it's a racoon cap I bought in Mtl to symbolizing the scalping of Impact.

I was going to wear it for all TFC games, but in the summer, I think I'll stick to wrapping the scarf around my forehead lol


(Still looks like a scarf that fell in poo.)





One hope I have is that MLSE decides it worth it to build a new stadium with their complete ownership somewhere down the line. A stadium done right including a real supporters section without the scalpers. But that is just a dream.

Ah, but where?

I_AM_CANADIAN
07-03-2009, 12:14 PM
cost of practice facility: 13 million

MLS team salary per year: 2.8 million

compare that, and one can't really say MLSE is not willing to invest in the team
Jeff Finger's salary this year: $4 million :facepalm:

I see your point, but yeah.

mmmikey
07-03-2009, 12:28 PM
Not anymore. At least not on their dime. Anselmi said s on the FAN about 2 weeks back.

are you really going to believe that at face value?

think about the optics. "get out so we can put in grass... oh and btw we might expand by 8000 seats shortly after so we can make more cash!!" that would go over REAL well in the press.

im not an MLSE fan, but i think your trying awfully hard to be negative about them.

there is a reality here: our team is ultimately owned by an investment fund. we don't have some crazy fanatical billionaire funding our teams in toronto. you can't expect massive spending, or your setting yourself up for disappointment. this is what we have. unless you start calling for a new ownership group, your asking a rock to stop acting like a rock.

mmmikey
07-03-2009, 12:33 PM
I don't think we will ever get a roof at BMO.

And honestly, I don't think we will get much of an expansion, maybe a cheapy here or there.

MLSE has a lease with the city right? What, 10 years? Of which we are into the lease 3 years.

What will happen is when they renegotiate that lease, all will break loose. The city will want to keep their control, MLSE will say no, we want it or we walk. It will turn into a game of chicken and someone will blink first.


Sadly, you might be right. I hope not though. I really believe the location of BMO makes a huge difference in making it an integral part of the City that will grow as Toronto continues to revitalize surrounding areas..

Downsview park would be much more convenient for me, but something about taking in a game with the Toronto skyline and the lake close by really makes you enjoy what we have here.

olegunnar
07-03-2009, 12:49 PM
MLSE has a lease with the city right? What, 10 years? Of which we are into the lease 3 years.


It's 20 years...see page 6. I swear this doc (link at the bottom of my post) is the most informative doc ever if you're looking for BMO Field info

(v) management Agreement for 20 years between City/Board and MLSE to manage the stadium on behalf of the Board and City;.

(viii) use Agreement for 20 years between the City/Board and MLSE for the stadium to be the
home of the MLSE major league soccer franchise subject to payment of rent ;

With reference to expansion...

(ii) 20,000-seat stadium (capable of expansion to 30,000 seats and capable of conversion to a football format) with luxury viewing suites, premier seating, FIFA specifications including artificial field turf, food and beverage concessions and an air supported winter field structure;

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/02-24/8-CSS0013-Document%201%20Appendix%20C%20-%20BMO%20Toronto%20Report.pdf

flatpicker
07-03-2009, 12:57 PM
it's a racoon cap I bought in Mtl to symbolizing the scalping of Impact.


the great mystery is solved!

I can now sleep soundly tonight.

But I may have nightmares about giant piles of shit wrapped in TFC scarves.

Yohan
07-03-2009, 01:06 PM
the great mystery is solved!

I can now sleep soundly tonight.

But I may have nightmares about giant piles of shit wrapped in TFC scarves.
the hat also makes good bondage gear though ;)

Rudi
07-03-2009, 01:21 PM
An update on the project. It's not dead, it's 'on hold.'

http://www.insidetoronto.ca/article/71959

boban
07-03-2009, 01:21 PM
are you really going to believe that at face value?

think about the optics. "get out so we can put in grass... oh and btw we might expand by 8000 seats shortly after so we can make more cash!!" that would go over REAL well in the press.

im not an MLSE fan, but i think your trying awfully hard to be negative about them.

there is a reality here: our team is ultimately owned by an investment fund. we don't have some crazy fanatical billionaire funding our teams in toronto. you can't expect massive spending, or your setting yourself up for disappointment. this is what we have. unless you start calling for a new ownership group, your asking a rock to stop acting like a rock.
No what is going to wok is that Toronto will get the Pan Am games and MLSE will sit back and let those funds pay for the expansion.

Not trying to be negative about MLSE. They are rutheless in the search for profits, nothing else. And part of what I speak is from people I know who deal with them.

DOMIN8R
07-03-2009, 01:30 PM
Nice find. Thanks, Rudi.

Hitcho
07-03-2009, 01:31 PM
the hat also makes good bondage gear though ;)

Woah - Flatpicker's nightmares just got 100 times worse dude! Ha ha!

Thanks for the clarification though, interesting idea for an avatar.

Hitcho
07-03-2009, 01:33 PM
One hope I have is that MLSE decides it worth it to build a new stadium with their complete ownership somewhere down the line. A stadium done right including a real supporters section without the scalpers. But that is just a dream.

Oh man Roogsy, that really is a dream. Location would be key, but my God I live for that day. I think I'd even find a way to come back from the dead for the opening game! (And you better believe I'd be scaring the crap out of the KK fans if they wer eunlucky enoguh to be the first visitors).

flatpicker
07-03-2009, 01:43 PM
Woah - Flatpicker's nightmares just got 100 times worse dude! Ha ha!

Thanks for the clarification though, interesting idea for an avatar.

hahaha... yeah... I wasn't sure how to respond to the whole 'bondage' thing!

billyfly
07-03-2009, 02:13 PM
Just to clarify, I don't hate MLSE.

I hate that my teams that they own don't win EVERYTHING.

I understand business, ROI, risk assessment etc, but as a fan who believes that sports is slightly different than widgets , I wish that MLSE would give me more "value" for my dollar and consider us more than the standard definition of "consumer".

Another example of this is when healthcare started calling patients, "clients". I hated that for its double-meaning.

boban
07-03-2009, 02:21 PM
Just to clarify, I don't hate MLSE.

I hate that my teams that they own don't win EVERYTHING.

I understand business, ROI, risk assessment etc, but as a fan who believes that sports is slightly different than widgets , I wish that MLSE would give me more "value" for my dollar and consider us more than the standard definition of "consumer".

I agree a lot with what you are saying here.

Miko
07-03-2009, 02:44 PM
And with MLSE getting 25% of beer and BMO field getting 75%...at $13 bucks a beer...there won't be a deficit.



edit: the good stuff starts on page 14

MLSE gets far more than 25% in real terms. They get 25% of gross sales (3.25 a beer). BMO gets 75% of net revenue ($13 minus the cost of beer, labour, MLSE's share, equipment).

olegunnar
07-03-2009, 02:51 PM
MLSE gets far more than 25% in real terms. They get 25% of gross sales (3.25 a beer). BMO gets 75% of net revenue ($13 minus the cost of beer, labour, MLSE's share, equipment).

You're right.
Good catch

Miko
07-03-2009, 02:56 PM
The other part of the report I found interesting was that the city was projecting 20% of the revenue to come from concerts even though they knew BMO was at a competitive disadvantage due to the fact that BMO has to use unionized labour.

1 concert in 3 years is the proof of that.

boban
07-03-2009, 02:59 PM
The other part of the report I found interesting was that the city was projecting 20% of the revenue to come from concerts even though they knew BMO was at a competitive disadvantage due to the fact that BMO has to use unionized labour.

1 concert in 3 years is the proof of that.
Its a shit hole for a concert venue anyway.
Ampitheatre right across the street is ten times the venue for that kind of thing.

olegunnar
07-03-2009, 03:02 PM
The other part of the report I found interesting was that the city was projecting 20% of the revenue to come from concerts even though they knew BMO was at a competitive disadvantage due to the fact that BMO has to use unionized labour.

1 concert in 3 years is the proof of that.


There's a lot of "fine print" or "whatever is less" type of stuff.

For example. Ticket revenues. BMO field gets 7%* (the * is 7% or $15,000, which ever is less). So I guess with the introduction of the private tables at field level MLSE gets all the regular ticket revenue, and BMO field bascially gets the revenue from 3 or 4 tables.

VoxPopuliCosmicum
07-03-2009, 03:12 PM
MLSE gets far more than 25% in real terms. They get 25% of gross sales (3.25 a beer). BMO gets 75% of net revenue ($13 minus the cost of beer, labour, MLSE's share, equipment).


You're right.
Good catch


The other part of the report I found interesting was that the city was projecting 20% of the revenue to come from concerts even though they knew BMO was at a competitive disadvantage due to the fact that BMO has to use unionized labour.

1 concert in 3 years is the proof of that.


There's a lot of "fine print" or "whatever is less" type of stuff.

For example. Ticket revenues. BMO field gets 7%* (the * is 7% or $15,000, which ever is less). So I guess with the introduction of the private tables at field level MLSE gets all the regular ticket revenue, and BMO field bascially gets the revenue from 3 or 4 tables.

The last part of the equation is that "BMO Field" is (I believe) the joint venture between the city and MLSE, of which each party owns 50%. So, MLSE gets 25% of gross revenue PLUS HALF of 75% of net revenue.

Hitcho
07-03-2009, 04:11 PM
^ So in other words Vox, they're fucking milking it, right? :D

VoxPopuliCosmicum
07-03-2009, 11:11 PM
^ So in other words Vox, they're fucking milking it, right? :D

They're getting theirs, that's for sure. We could spend eternity debating the merits of whether the city got hosed (and we probably will)...but based on what happened with the Roadrunners at Ricoh Coliseum, the city probably wouldn't have trusted most counterparties other than MLSE.

They're still making hand-over-fist money, though.