PDA

View Full Version : BMO Field loses money in winter



Oldtimer
06-19-2008, 12:09 PM
BMO Field at Exhibition Place has racked up a bigger loss in the first four months this year than projected in its budget, but management still expects to achieve a small profit by year-end.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/445798

They're losing money on the community access????

Scrap the community access, sell of the bubble, and bring in real grass!!!

olegunnar
06-19-2008, 12:12 PM
Nice to see it officially.
BMO Field admitted as such on the boards when the 2007 numbers came out. I believe the 2007 profit was only $900,000. I wonder what the profit during the season is...I bet it's double that if not more.
The excuse for maintaining the bubble is that the funding for the stadium was predicated on community use. So the fact the bubble loses money is irrelevant, because they're accomplishing their goal of having a community facility.

Load of shite!

yellowfellow
06-19-2008, 12:20 PM
Snow removal costs, staff training and uniform expenses all cost more than expected.

They sent a f-king team to England to train how to handle a big rowdy crowd!! Snow removal and uniforms shouldn't cost millions. I think this is a big load of shite.

Honestly, BMO Field fills up every game and they sell beer like fuels ($10?!?). I think they are pretty close to maximizing their revenues from TFC games. If they are not making a load of cash, SOMETHING IS WRONG!!

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-19-2008, 12:24 PM
put down an ice surface and have the leafs play a couple of outdoor games this season..haha

pat416
06-19-2008, 12:40 PM
^^ LOL, we need some real grass on there and when that happens community use will end. Its a double edged Sword, but i would rather have real Grass. That way our players are prepared to play on real grass and also we can hav a MNT that wants to play at BMO. Also real grass is so much safer.

BakaGaijin
06-19-2008, 12:48 PM
Doesn't MLSE manage BMO Field on behalf of the city? I wonder what kind of management fee's MLSE is stiffing the city for....

ChrisLav
06-19-2008, 12:54 PM
All profits were split 50/50 if I remember the deal right.

greatwhitenorf
06-19-2008, 12:56 PM
Trust the Star to strap a megaphone to this bit of news.

Note that only two TFC home games were factored into the first quarter statements. Add in a busy summer with friendlies, CCL qualifying AND the unbudgeted-for CCL group games plus our possible playoff game(s) and the ink will turn black in a hurry.

The Star could have used one of their soccer experts to point out that last year's U-20 tournament brought in 12 extra games which, while well attended, wouldn't have produced quite the same revenue due to FIFA and the CSA taking their cuts.

Revenue from a dozen extra TFC games would definitely produce more revenue. We could easily approach that again this year with the longer and more lucrative TFC schedule.

That would have brought some balance to the story and illustrated how quickly soccer has become a growing sport, how smart it was to build the stadium the Star opposed and how TFC, the team they tried to ignore, are building for long-term success...

But NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!!!!!












whoarethey?

olegunnar
06-19-2008, 01:00 PM
Trust the Star to strap a megaphone to this bit of news.

Note that only two TFC home games were factored into the first quarter statements. Add in a busy summer with friendlies, CCL qualifying AND the unbudgeted-for CCL group games plus our possible playoff game(s) and the ink will turn black in a hurry.

The Star could have used one of their soccer experts to point out that last year's U-20 tournament brought in 12 extra games which, while well attended, wouldn't have produced quite the same revenue due to FIFA and the CSA taking their cuts.

Revenue from a dozen extra TFC games would definitely produce more revenue. We could easily approach that again this year with the longer and more lucrative TFC schedule.

That would have brought some balance to the story and illustrated how quickly soccer has become a growing sport, how smart it was to build the stadium the Star opposed and how TFC, the team they tried to ignore, are building for long-term success...

But NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!!!!!




whoarethey?

Uhm they're doing us a favour.
The city is in a money crunch, we want the team to own the stadium. If the stadium is doing well the city will never sell or budge on improvements etc. If it's losing money then they need to find a way to make some money.
Also it's good to know that the frisbee leagues cost the city money. The average joe public (not the soccer team) wouldn't have a clue.

From a PR standpoint, this article is a homerun for supporters.

Northern Soul
06-19-2008, 01:10 PM
I have an idea.....they can rent it out to the Argos!

:hide:

sweetlemon69
06-19-2008, 01:22 PM
I hope they keep the bubble. Indoor there in the winter is great. I still don't understand peoples arguments against the turf, other than stalteri making a huff about it, and certain old players complaining of it increasing injury (yet look at our injury stats for the season thus far).

greatwhitenorf
06-19-2008, 01:30 PM
ole - That's a valid take on the story. Some media could work with that.

On the other hand, the cynic in me says that, rather than look at how to improve the stadium's financial performance from soccer, easily achievable and sustainable, the Star will spin the financial data to make a case that the stadium needs to be rented out to the Argos.

ExiledRed
06-19-2008, 02:32 PM
ole - That's a valid take on the story. Some media could work with that.

On the other hand, the cynic in me says that, rather than look at how to improve the stadium's financial performance from soccer, easily achievable and sustainable, the Star will spin the financial data to make a case that the stadium needs to be rented out to the Argos.

the star's spin is unimportant here, what's important is the facts.

IF the bubble months are losing the city revenue, that's perfect, because we dont want the fucking thing anyway.

Whatever excellent use the facility brings to the community, it's like renting out the houses of parliament to High School debating teams.

The community doesnt need a multi million dollar SSS for the things it uses it for.

Roogsy
06-19-2008, 02:34 PM
the star's spin is unimportant here, what's important is the facts.

IF the bubble months are losing the city revenue, that's perfect, because we dont want the fucking thing anyway.

Whatever excellent use the facility brings to the community, it's like renting out the houses of parliament to High School debating teams.

The community doesnt need a multi million dollar SSS for the things it uses it for.

QFT

Sell it to MLSE, upgrade Lamport for "community" use and let's end this charade.

TFC_Junky
06-19-2008, 02:44 PM
QFT

Sell it to MLSE, upgrade Lamport for "community" use and let's end this charade.

DAMN RIGHT!

Toronto Ruffrider
06-19-2008, 02:48 PM
the star's spin is unimportant here, what's important is the facts.

IF the bubble months are losing the city revenue, that's perfect, because we dont want the fucking thing anyway.

Whatever excellent use the facility brings to the community, it's like renting out the houses of parliament to High School debating teams.

The community doesnt need a multi million dollar SSS for the things it uses it for.

Well put, Exiled. The city doesn't need a 20,000-seat stadium for community use. All that's needed is a field and proper changeroom facilities. There are far better (and more lucrative!) ways to play the Beautiful Game at BMO.

greatwhitenorf
06-19-2008, 02:50 PM
ExR, Roogs: We're all on the same side on this issue. Since this site was formed, I've been advocating a grass surface. Took dog's abuse for it in the early going.

The Star's spin is worth paying attention to. It's the largest circulation paper in Canada, one of the highest in N. America. It owns the Metroland chain of community papers as well. It has clout come election time and this issue will be a political one as much as a sports administration one.

I'm as baffled as any body why the Lamport solution can't be implemented. It would work on so many levels. If MLSE were looking for a 'good cause' to take up, the revamping of Lamport would be an ideal one to create all sorts of community good will.

Put the FIFA 2 Star turf in there, build the frame to house the bubble and let the community make this place become a vibrant home for all sorts of activity. You could play soccer, field hockey, frisbee, even that quaint gridiron football in there. And it's on the streetcar line, right to the front door.

Put grass in BMO Field and watch TFC and Canadian national teams take it to the next level by attracting the best players, best teams and creating strong financial returns.

What's not to like?

Oh. No room for the Argos.

As I was saying. What's not to like?

Jack
06-19-2008, 02:52 PM
ExR, Roogs: We're all on the same side on this issue. Since this site was formed, I've been advocating a grass surface. Took dog's abuse for it in the early going.

The Star's spin is worth paying attention to. It's the largest circulation paper in Canada, one of the highest in N. America. It owns the Metroland chain of community papers as well. It has clout come election time and this issue will be a political one as much as a sports administration one.

I'm as baffled as any body why the Lamport solution can't be implemented. It would work on so many levels. If MLSE were looking for a 'good cause' to take up, the revamping of Lamport would be an ideal one to create all sorts of community good will.

Put the FIFA 2 Star turf in there, build the frame to house the bubble and let the community make this place become a vibrant home for all sorts of activity. You could play soccer, field hockey, frisbee, even that quaint gridiron football in there. And it's on the streetcar line, right to the front door.

Put grass in BMO Field and watch TFC and Canadian national teams take it to the next level by attracting the best players, best teams and creating strong financial returns.

What's not to like?

Oh. No room for the Argos.

As I was saying. What's not to like?

Run for mayor. I'd vote for that plan!

Cashcleaner
06-19-2008, 03:00 PM
I think people are forgetting that provincial and federal funding also paid for the stadium. I don't think the city can sell BMO Field to MLSE without arranging a deal with the other goverments. It's definitely not and cut-and-dry as some people think. Putting the venue in the hands of MLSE would probably work out great for TFC fans in the long-run, but I don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon.

Ron Manager
06-19-2008, 03:06 PM
I don't see us buying it for all the above reasons, but we could be an exclusive tennant.

Roogsy
06-19-2008, 03:08 PM
I think people are forgetting that provincial and federal funding also paid for the stadium. I don't think the city can sell BMO Field to MLSE without arranging a deal with the other goverments. It's definitely not and cut-and-dry as some people think. Putting the venue in the hands of MLSE would probably work out great for TFC fans in the long-run, but I don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon.


Obviously a deal would need to be done with whatever levels of government have invested interest in the project. But I believe if I am not mistaken, that neither the provincial nor federal government have any ownership in the stadium. The funds they provided were with the purpose of securing the U20 World Cup and creating jobs. That purpose is done. I don't believe they are sharing in any of the revenue being created by the stadium, hence they would have little say in what happens to it.

At this point, I think it's just MLSE and the city that would need to work something out.

That being said, the FEDERAL government might have something to say with regards to the National Team use of the stadium. And being that the Senior Mens Team has indicated they are not happy with the FieldTurf...then having the community use move out of BMO Field might actually receive approval from Ottawa to ensure that the CMNT trains and plays at BMO more than we think will happen if the Turf stays.

Cashcleaner
06-19-2008, 03:30 PM
^ Interesting development, then. Yeah, if there are no strings attached with the feds and province, it would make negiotiations with the city a lot smoother. Good point about the National Team as well.

greatwhitenorf
06-19-2008, 03:33 PM
The federal government happily supplied the funds because the implementation of a soccer-specific stadium dovetailed with their plans to host the U-20 world cup as a way of showcasing Canada to potential immigrants.

The fight for the best and brightest of potential immigrants is a passionate one amongst any number of countries and if Canada can clearly distinguish itself as a place easy to integrate into, it serves to create an advantage.

Soccer is a universal language, yet one not spoken as openly or enthusiastically in the States. By helping to give the game a higher relative profile in Canada, it's one way our government sees us gaining an advantage. Which is a big part of why federal dollars were available for the building of BMO Field.

Don't think they'd have much problem with seeing it get MORE soccer specific with a grass pitch.

olegunnar
06-19-2008, 03:47 PM
The Star's spin is worth paying attention to. It's the largest circulation paper in Canada, one of the highest in N. America. It owns the Metroland chain of community papers as well. It has clout come election time and this issue will be a political one as much as a sports administration one.



That's the point and that's why it's good the Star is letting the public know that when TFC is not playing the stadium is wasting their tax dollars.

You're 100% right it's a political issue...and to this point the "hey it's cool to have a chance to play at BMO in the winter" crowd is winning because of the warm fuzzies that that creates.

Inject a bit of reality to the situation and the bubble makes no sense. I'm glad the Star is letting the public know the reality of the situation.

greatwhitenorf
06-19-2008, 03:59 PM
And I'm glad you've brought this point up, it's a good one.

I think the use of BMO Field should be as a soccer-specific stadium, with an emphasis on TFC or national team soccer rather than rec league soccer.

But given the Star's past attitude and natural tendencies in their sports coverage, just be ready for the Argos-to-BMO Field angle as a solution to any financial concerns. And be ready to battle just as hard against it.

mlsintoronto
06-19-2008, 04:20 PM
silly headline writers... the building projected a loss in the first quarter. It will make money this year... but the expenses happen in the first and last quarter, and the revenues happen in q2 and q3

DOMIN8R
06-19-2008, 04:27 PM
Well that clears that up.

Ron Manager
06-19-2008, 04:42 PM
silly headline writers... the building projected a loss in the first quarter. It will make money this year... but the expenses happen in the first and last quarter, and the revenues happen in q2 and q3


Thanks Paul...any news on the McBride deal?

mlsintoronto
06-19-2008, 05:12 PM
Thanks Paul...any news on the McBride deal?

no - no idea where the mlsrumours com from...the previous news reports were pretty close to the truth... we know what we want and chicago has a lot to think about.

ag futbol
06-19-2008, 05:16 PM
I find it funny they can run that story considering it's still projected to be profitable over the year. Shotty journalism at it's best.

RPB_RED_NATION_RPB
06-19-2008, 05:17 PM
silly headline writers... the building projected a loss in the first quarter. It will make money this year... but the expenses happen in the first and last quarter, and the revenues happen in q2 and q3


Great news...now bring in the GRASS and ROOF!

katatonic
06-19-2008, 05:22 PM
they need to invest in a retractable roof so stadium is open for 365 days of football

ExiledRed
06-19-2008, 08:22 PM
silly headline writers... the building projected a loss in the first quarter. It will make money this year... but the expenses happen in the first and last quarter, and the revenues happen in q2 and q3

How does this contradict the article, which states the losses were higher than projections and that the final gains are expected be less than Cunningham gets paid by over half?

Does your statement mean that the bubble runs at a profit, or that the loss caused by the bubble is compensated by the summer use?

Would losses to the city be reduced by removing the winter bubble?
How much does that thing cost to heat in the midwinter anyway?

Fort York Redcoat
06-20-2008, 05:56 AM
I wish i could see their faces when the players said they prefer Saputo...What's the turf done for them lately?