PDA

View Full Version : BMO to Host Winter Classic...



Flipityflu
12-31-2013, 10:08 PM
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/24-7/winter-classic-could-be-coming-to-toronto/

Richard
12-31-2013, 10:24 PM
Let the Argo's to BMO rumour heat up again...

DOMIN8R
12-31-2013, 10:28 PM
Thanks, Flipityflu.

We heard some of this in the past. Nice to see it something in print with quotes though. A couple of things TL says doesn't quite make sense. But very interesting nevertheless.

Ivy
12-31-2013, 10:36 PM
Would be interesting to see a "200"s levels added all around the field, as well as a roof and enclosed confession stands. Turn it into an open roof Air Canada Center.

mowe
12-31-2013, 11:09 PM
If this happens, especially with talk of a Grey Cup, the Argos seem like a safe bet to move to BMO. Government wouldn't spend that much money just for one off events.

prizby
12-31-2013, 11:28 PM
well I guess I'll be dropping my season tickets in a couple of years

Ron Manager
12-31-2013, 11:32 PM
Would be interesting to see a "200"s levels added all around the field, as well as a roof and enclosed confession stands. Turn it into an open roof Air Canada Center.

Would that open the door for investment from the Catholic Church? Now that is a wealthy ownership group........

Flipityflu
12-31-2013, 11:38 PM
yeah, the talk of the Grey Cup means that adjustments will be made to BMO to allow CFL to use it. if TFC is forced back into playing on an artificial pitch again...

Kaz
01-01-2014, 12:10 AM
if the Field is adjusted I doubt I'd go back.. It would kill the atmosphere.

Cashcleaner
01-01-2014, 12:39 AM
^ Yeah, that point should be very concerning for TFC fans. They're not just talking about expanding for a single outdoor hockey game; Lieweke brought up a few other events/functions.


“It fits a lot of needs,” he said. “It renovates it for TFC, it certainly renovates it for the Pan Am Games, it renovates it for rugby. The Grey Cup would be phenomenal in an outdoor setting in Toronto on the lake, but (the Winter Classic is) clearly one of the things we put on the wishlist."

So....yeah. That's actually quite concerning. And of course as it's been mentioned, if it's renovated to accommodate the biggest CFL game of the season, you bet your ass we're going to see a push to put the Argos there permanently.

jimiv
01-01-2014, 01:26 AM
well I guess I'll be dropping my season tickets in a couple of years

Exactly my thought, it's another example of TFC taking a backseat to every other team in the city.

Ridiculous!

Flipityflu
01-01-2014, 01:31 AM
oh, and the best part...funded by all three levels of government, and not MLSE. want to keep CFL out, start with the tax paying public and see how they feel about it.

ManUtd4ever
01-01-2014, 02:12 AM
Have at it. I couldn't care less, as long as the integrity of the natural grass playing surface for TFC in not compromised.

Cashcleaner
01-01-2014, 04:45 AM
^ I have never been against the principles of ground-sharing, but in the case of BMO Field I just don't see any up-side to it for TFC.

There would have to be substantial renovations made to a stadium that was designed and built specifically to accommodate soccer only. We'd have no choice but to go back to the artificial turf which players constantly criticized, and TFC fans would have to watch the team play from much further back due to the size of the CFL playing field which is about 140 metres in length (compared to 105 metres for soccer).

Unfortunately, its seems very unlikely that we would be able to fit the Argos in and keep the grass pitch and current field dimensions.

Pookie
01-01-2014, 07:15 AM
I think they will find a way to keep the grass and add a roof. Their business plan includes big name players and big name players don't play on turf.

I'd be more interested in the size of the stadium and sight lines. Sounds like they are looking for permanent seating expansion combined with temporary.

If the stadium grows to 30,000-35,0000 permanent seats, where are all the soccer fans going to come from? I can't mention the phrase "waiting list" without snickering and many feel that announced attendance is generous at best. BMO, sadly, resembles Crew stadium on most nights.

Will they close down sections with tarps to make it appear full? Or shuffle folks to one side for the cameras like New England?

Sadly, the National Soccer Stadium appears to be taking a back seat. They aren't considering a roof or improvements for the soccer community. They are considering it for a hockey game and likely to bring in more rent money from The CFL.

Nice.

prizby
01-01-2014, 08:27 AM
So....yeah. That's actually quite concerning. And of course as it's been mentioned, if it's renovated to accommodate the biggest CFL game of the season, you bet your ass we're going to see a push to put the Argos there permanently.

no way all 3 levels of government chip in if the Argos aren't part of the plan

ensco
01-01-2014, 08:35 AM
This is all PT Barnum's got? That is a weak hand.

The best part is the howler putting this all on whether the league will go for it. Whizzing right by government participation piece, like it's an afterthought.

If MLSE gets a single dime for this from any level of government, a lot of people are going to be upset. Whether that happens or not is the real game here.

Peddie was great at this stuff, but he did it all out of sight, that's how this city and this country works. Something tells me PT Barnum, publicly pressuring politicians, talking smack, generally crashing through the brambles, will not be effective at this.

The Leafs would make $5M or similar from every single game played at a 40K seat venue. The facts don't support what he wants. The public doesn't have to, or need to, pay for this.

I actually feel better now, I think there is a real chance this initiative will fail, if this is how he is handling it.

Flipityflu
01-01-2014, 09:43 AM
yes, thats what I was thinking in my post. As soon as he mentioned funding from three levels of government, that would be the way to fight this, and trust me, any TFC/football supporter is going to want to fight this. I know a roof is wanted, but this is not how we want to get it. this reno will ruin BMO. we will be heading back to artificial pitch, and pushing the stands back to fit the CFL.

oh, and keep in mind our crack smoking gang mayor loves his pointy ball, so city funding will be easy to get.

Initial B
01-01-2014, 10:47 AM
I wouldn't mind Hybrid Turf: If it's good enough for Wembley, it's good enough for us. But if they lengthen the field, they'd better relocate the supporters section in front of the goal line. No serious fan wants to be farther from the action than they have to be. I would see a mass exodus of hardcore support if they did that.

Just to give an example, the Ottawa Fury originally had their supporter's section at the new Frank Clair Stadium located in the seats around the CFL endzone - at least 20 yards behind the goal line. The supporters waged an email/in person protest and got them to move the section to just before the goal line. They have to pay more as a result, but the supporters are satisfied. And they made sure to move the family-friendly section as far from the supporters as possible so they hopefully won't hear too much colourful language.

Auzzy
01-01-2014, 11:02 AM
Agreed that the flippant mention of funding from all three levels of government is bizarre. Check the first comments under the article to see how that's gonna fly.

There are theoretically technical ways to do this & still keep the venue decent for footy. Maybe the CFL end zones, & keeping TFC fans close to the field, is not the hardest part? Especially in the south end, the bottom section of seats could be similar to now for soccer (RE distance to the pitch), but retractable to open up the area for the longer CFL end zones. CFL seating would start a bit higher up, above a wall as is common for gridiron stadiums.

There are issues even with that though. Retracting those front rows removes seats, giving you less seating for CFL than for footy, which is probably not what they want. Plus I don't know if/how it could be done in the North End, where there is apparently a big foundation under the patio, and generally a more complicated configuration. The whole stadium & seating would likely have to be pushed south to make room for both CFL end zones. As previously mentioned, that means you have to also reconfigure the east & west stands, so the "best" seats are still near the midline, increasing cost & complexity. Plus that pushes the playing field away from the north stand, which isn't good for anyone.

Note also that the SW steps up to the west side concourse & seating seem to be a significant concrete structure, that wraps partway behind the south stands. Pushing the south stands further south, means demolishing those steps & the structure.

For the pitch: theoretically you can have removable grass, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ9Da7Dvf0 or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKpTV0mi7k
With the grass pitch pushed out, you can have plastic turf for Argos; or concrete floor for Winter Classic and similar events. Plus a roof of any kind shades the grass & makes it not grow & regenerate as well, so pushing the pitch out into the open between the events can help.

HOWEVER, that solution is surely incredibly expensive. Plus you need room to store the grass pitch outside the stadium while CFL/hockey/other events take place. TL wants to use the open space to turn things like the Winter Classic into bigger events; hard to do both.

Probably they would cheap out. Maybe they would put in Desso Grassmaster or something like that (mixed plastic & natural grass). Better than plastic pitch, but I still doubt it's as good for knees & tendons as well-maintained natural grass.

They would try to book Argos games a day or so (Sundays) after TFC games, giving the field a week or two to regenerate before the next footy game. Would probably screw up our TFC schedule even more, with less home games in summer & early fall. They would try to scrub out the CFL lines for TFC -- which isn't great for the durability of any type of turf BTW.

TL seems to think stadium sharing with gridiron works great at a few locations in MLS. But if you check what happens with the grass in Houston & a few other MLS venues, you know that's not true.

Haddy
01-01-2014, 11:03 AM
It's really starting to drive me nuts when TL gets talking about this stuff and the reporter isn't prepared enough.

When TL mentioned govt funding, the reporter should have followed with, "I was under the impression all further BMO renos were to be privately funded - and you have repeated as much in other recent interviews. Is this not true anymore? How did public funding come into the picture?"

Even if the man says "no comment", I want to see his reply.

That and the fact that no Argos mentioned despite Grey Cup coming up......terrible.

This articles leaves me with more questions than answers. Arghh!!!

Haddy
01-01-2014, 11:08 AM
Agreed that the flippant mention of funding from all three levels of government is bizarre. Check the first comments under the article to see how that's gonna fly.

There are theoretically technical ways to do this & still keep the venue decent for footy. Maybe the CFL end zones, & keeping TFC fans close to the field, is not the hardest part? Especially in the south end, the bottom section of seats could be similar to now for soccer (RE distance to the pitch), but retractable to open up the area for the longer CFL end zones. CFL seating would start a bit higher up, above a wall as is common for gridiron stadiums.

There are issues even with that though. Retracting those front rows removes seats, giving you less seating for CFL than for footy, which is probably not what they want. Plus I don't know if/how it could be done in the North End, where there is apparently a big foundation under the patio, and generally a more complicated configuration. The whole stadium & seating would likely have to be pushed south to make room for both CFL end zones. As previously mentioned, that means you have to also reconfigure the east & west stands, so the "best" seats are still near the midline, increasing cost & complexity. Plus that pushes the playing field away from the north stand, which isn't good for anyone.

Note also that the SW steps up to the west side concourse & seating seem to be a significant concrete structure, that wraps partway behind the south stands. Pushing the south stands further south, means demolishing those steps & the structure.

For the pitch: theoretically you can have removable grass, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ9Da7Dvf0 or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKpTV0mi7k
With the grass pitch pushed out, you can have plastic turf for Argos; or concrete floor for Winter Classic and similar events. Plus a roof of any kind shades the grass & makes it not grow & regenerate as well, so pushing the pitch out into the open between the events can help.

HOWEVER, that solution is surely incredibly expensive. Plus you need room to store the grass pitch outside the stadium while CFL/hockey/other events take place. TL wants to use the open space to turn things like the Winter Classic into bigger events; hard to do both.

Probably they would cheap out. Maybe they would put in Desso Grassmaster or something like that (mixed plastic & natural grass). Better than plastic pitch, but I still doubt it's as good for knees & tendons as well-maintained natural grass.

They would try to book Argos games a day or so (Sundays) after TFC games, giving the field a week or two to regenerate before the next footy game. Would probably screw up our TFC schedule even more, with less home games in summer & early fall. They would try to scrub out the CFL lines for TFC -- which isn't great for the durability of any type of turf BTW.

TL seems to think stadium sharing with gridiron works great at a few locations in MLS. But if you check what happens with the grass in Houston & a few other MLS venues, you know that's not true.

If Argos games are a day later you are virtually guaranteed gridiron lines. See: Seattle Sounders playoff match ;)

Auzzy
01-01-2014, 11:19 AM
If Argos games are a day later you are virtually guaranteed gridiron lines. See: Seattle Sounders playoff match ;)

Can't they lay down the gridiron lines within a day after TFC plays?

Agreed that playoffs would change everything, since you can't really schedule that well enough. The most important games (if they ever come) could end up looking the worst.

Eastend
01-01-2014, 11:23 AM
I don't want my seat and experienced changed either but I can't say yea or nay on this without seeing the plan. This argument has gone on for so many years now but we've never heard or seen any real plan. Hopefully when/if this comes to fruition we get some input, and I don't mean just RPB but all supporters and SSH of TFC.

Dom

jimiv
01-01-2014, 11:33 AM
With all the changes talked about, we will no doubt be at the skydome for a full season or at least a big portion of one or possibly 2 seasons with the wonderful "turf" and crappy sightlines.

Pookie
01-01-2014, 11:39 AM
Dear Tim

Let me get this straight. You want to build a multipurpose 50,000 seat stadium with a partial roof to protect from the elements right in the heart of downtown near hotels, bars and restaurants?

No thanks. We already fianced one.

Ask your ownership about it. It's called the Rogers Centre.

Signed,

Taxpayers of Ontario

BuSaPuNk
01-01-2014, 11:42 AM
Dear Tim

No thanks. We already financed a 55,000 seat stadium in downtown Toronto that is perfect for CFL games and a winter classic. Not to mention concerts and the odd soccer game.

Ask your ownership about it. It's called the Rogers Centre.

Signed,

Taxpayers of Ontario

Unfortunately the can't use the SKYDOME as the roof doesn't open in winter. So that's a no go for a winter classic.

Haddy
01-01-2014, 11:55 AM
Can't they lay down the gridiron lines within a day after TFC plays?

Agreed that playoffs would change everything, since you can't really schedule that well enough. The most important games (if they ever come) could end up looking the worst.

Theoretically yes - by staffing the night after TFC plays and possibly paying OT. Seattle has it tough, they are a guest at CenturyLink and didn't have a choice. Hopefully with TFC's owner also operating the stadium we would see a different result.

Haddy
01-01-2014, 11:56 AM
http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/does-mlse-want-to-buy-bring-argos-to-bmo-field/

Follow up to the original article. Arash Madani explores the Argos-to-BMO.

Pookie
01-01-2014, 11:58 AM
Is opening the roof a criteria for hosting the game? Vancouver's may be closed today.

Regardless, I am sure an engineer can figure out a way to get it to open or a lot less than building a duplicate corporate welfare money pit.

Redcoe15
01-01-2014, 01:41 PM
So Phineas Tim wants to roughly expand BMO Field.

And he wants to see all levels of government kick in millions to make it happen.

And all in the hopes of bringing one event to the stadium.

Either that grand scenario has no chance of ever getting off the ground, or they'll get their money on the condition that they reconfigure the stadium to be more CFL friendly so that the Argos can be jammed in and be the main tennant there. Very different from Phineas Tim's assurances back in November that his number one concern was to see BMO Field remain a soccer only stadium.

If the latter is what ends up happening, then PT's surname needs to emphasize the "Lie" in the first syllable.

jazzy
01-01-2014, 01:59 PM
can't see the city falling for MLSE's pitch to fund 'their' business again.......aholes like Ford however cutting taxes(HAHA), would love to find a way to fund them of course if football was included.....the only way to it is with retracting seating.......TL seems to think we're like Americans and will watch footie with the same sight lines as the skydome..........never for me , I don't ever want to go to the skydome again,....for anything...occasional one off's maybe but , they'de lose me.....no intimate experience = no fun . Even Montreal in the big hole sucks huge , simply enjoy the times surrounding the game with fans and the experience.

jazzy
01-01-2014, 02:03 PM
With all the changes talked about, we will no doubt be at the skydome for a full season or at least a big portion of one or possibly 2 seasons with the wonderful "turf" and crappy sightlines.

great point .....do we keep our seats , 'blackmail' and stay away for those 1-2 years , or just give them up....I see lose lose situation . Can one ever trust MLSE ?

Initial B
01-01-2014, 02:17 PM
You know, after reading the second article, I think this CFL talk is Leiweke's Plan B. He has said that he would do nothing to alienate the TFC fanbase, but that's assuming there will still be a TFC around after 2015. If all the off-season moves don't work out and TFC has another train-wreck season, I see that as being all she wrote for the organization. I'm sure their ticket reps have been hearing from SSHs that this is probably their last chance to make things right and they won't be renewing next year. MLS will probably move the franchise somewhere in the States that still doesn't have market saturation (Minnesota? Phoenix? St Louis?) or may actually start the ball rolling on a forced relegation/promotion scenario (Hello NASL, Indianapolis will take our place).

Regardless, no TFC means BMO can be changed to suit whatever tenants MLSE has in mind. If that happens, well, I guess we'll have to hope that some other group brings professional soccer back to Toronto. Because I would refuse to support any MLSE-run soccer team - they will not get my hard-earned dollars because they will have shown they really don't care about the fans.

Richard
01-01-2014, 02:27 PM
You know, after reading the second article, I think this CFL talk is Leiweke's Plan B. He has said that he would do nothing to alienate the TFC fanbase, but that's assuming there will still be a TFC around after 2015. If all the off-season moves don't work out and TFC has another train-wreck season, I see that as being all she wrote for the organization. I'm sure their ticket reps have been hearing from SSHs that this is probably their last chance to make things right and they won't be renewing next year. MLS will probably move the franchise somewhere in the States that still doesn't have market saturation (Minnesota? Phoenix? St Louis?) or may actually start the ball rolling on a forced relegation/promotion scenario (Hello NASL, Indianapolis will take our place).

Regardless, no TFC means BMO can be changed to suit whatever tenants MLSE has in mind. If that happens, well, I guess we'll have to hope that some other group brings professional soccer back to Toronto. Because I would refuse to support any MLSE-run soccer team - they will not get my hard-earned dollars because they will have shown they really don't care about the fans.

What? Really? TFC will never, ever move cities. We can reach Chivas levels of support and it wouldn't even be a conversation because this city has too much potential. TFC is also a money maker, the worst I could see happen is we have no DP's and will just be using the salary cap like all the other low revenue teams. On MLSE's watch this franchise is here to stay, to much embarrassment for them to have a franchise moved out.

Ivy
01-01-2014, 02:35 PM
What? Really? TFC will never, ever move cities. We can reach Chivas levels of support and it wouldn't even be a conversation because this city has too much potential. TFC is also a money maker, the worst I could see happen is we have no DP's and will just be using the salary cap like all the other low revenue teams. On MLSE's watch this franchise is here to stay, to much embarrassment for them to have a franchise moved out.
Exactly...
When MLSE is ready to fork out 50million on a 4 year contract, it's a safe bet this team isn't going anywhere. Even if they don't win a single game in the next 3 years.

TFC07
01-01-2014, 02:38 PM
Oh great. What a great way to start off the new year with this CFL/Argos BS. I hope if they do bring CFL to BMO field, then TFC lose all their customers(fans) to point they have to fold and desperately find a new tenant. I personally would never support MLSE or any other Toronto sports team ever again if this happens.

The lack of respect for soccer fans in this city is sicken.

Flipityflu
01-01-2014, 02:58 PM
Oh great. What a great way to start off the new year with this CFL/Argos BS. I hope if they do bring CFL to BMO field, then TFC lose all their customers(fans) to point they have to fold and desperately find a new tenant. I personally would never support MLSE or any other Toronto sports team ever again if this happens.

The lack of respect for soccer fans in this city is sicken.


that's exactly how i feel about this.

billyfly
01-01-2014, 03:44 PM
I want BMO upgraded.

I don't want the Argos there.

Not sure one can happen without the other.

TFC07
01-01-2014, 03:57 PM
I want BMO upgraded.

I don't want the Argos there.

Not sure one can happen without the other.

It can happen if MLSE decides to spend their own money to upgrade BMO field, but so far, it seems like MLSE rather get government involved. Point is: MLSE is being cheap and need to realize in the long term, their cheapness is going to cost them more (lost revenue from TFC side).

billyfly
01-01-2014, 03:58 PM
^There is more to it than that. There is pressure (be it internal or external) to not appear that they are killing the Argos.

TFC07
01-01-2014, 04:11 PM
^There is more to it than that. There is pressure (be it internal or external) to not appear that they are killing the Argos.

No offence to Argos fans, but they don't have much pull. This has been proven in the past with their stadium issues (UofT, York university, BMO field). Argos have made their own bed and it's time for them to move uptown in 905 region (which they're getting interest from municipal governments over there) where they get better support than they will in City of Toronto.

Even Toronto City council wanted Argos to move to BMO field, then City would need to sale the idea to taxpayers that city will use taxpayer money to "save" Argos which isn't going to happen. MLSE doesn't have to do anything here!

billyfly
01-01-2014, 04:14 PM
Its not just the Argos, it is the CFL since no Argos means not that much (if at all) TV money.

jimiv
01-01-2014, 04:30 PM
I want BMO upgraded.

I don't want the Argos there.

Not sure one can happen without the other.


How about MLSE pays to have the stadium upgraded to a world class soccer stadium, perhaps field a woman's soccer team, and then work with the CSA to ensure that it becomes a true National Soccer Stadium and have a few big national team games or international games every year to fill the seats. MLSE could either get money from the Federal Government to upgrade the National Stadium or they could turn around and somehow write off some of the investment as a donation to the National Team.

OgtheDim
01-01-2014, 04:30 PM
All this is based on one line in what TL said about a possible Grey Cup option? Really?!?

We are going to go through this whole "Oh my gosh the Argos are coming to BMO!!!!" thing every time TL randomly throws out a CFL reference just to keep the media talking about MLSE?

Look, I get that TSN badly wants the CFL to succeed and thus Bell is going to be going full bore on all fronts to keep the Argos going. But, the idea that a few hundred million is going to be spent by 3 levels of government for this is all dependent upon Hudak winning in Ontario, the Feds kicking in money to downtown Toronto (something the Federal Tories do not want to do) and even more fanciful, Rob Ford being mayor in 2015.


Nah...this was all talk to keep MLSE looking good at an event that they are not going to get access to again for a decade.

BTW, for those who remember, Joey Pants was the biggest booster of the CNE and thus a relatively easy to develop chearleader for BMO 10 years ago - there is nobody like that at City Hall anymore - somebody supportive of this whole thing with enough knowledge of how to get things through council.

TL is blowing smoke.

OgtheDim
01-01-2014, 04:32 PM
Its not just the Argos, it is the CFL since no Argos means not that much (if at all) TV money.

I'm not certain of that anymore. The biggest in game sponsor of the CFL is a grocery franchise with no stores east of Manitoba.

That and, well, the bigger point is the Argos don't need a downtown stadium to survive.

billyfly
01-01-2014, 04:32 PM
How about MLSE pays to have the stadium upgraded to a world class soccer stadium, perhaps field a woman's soccer team, and then work with the CSA to ensure that it becomes a true National Soccer Stadium and have a few big national team games or international games every year to fill the seats. MLSE could either get money from the Federal Government to upgrade the National Stadium or they could turn around and somehow write off some of the investment as a donation to the National Team.

Unicorns and rainbows but I think you know that.

jimiv
01-01-2014, 04:41 PM
Unicorns and rainbows but I think you know that.

Unfortunately you're right..
:facepalm:
The argument that they can only afford the improvements is to bring in the Argos is so short-minded at best and again shows total disdain for TFC fans. I for one think there are way better ways to make up the 10 games a year the Argos would play at the place but for some reason MLSE thinks we'll buy their reasoning.

Shakes McQueen
01-01-2014, 05:28 PM
Does anyone want to do anything about this, or just keyboard warrior it up some more?

You want to maybe bring it down a notch? The story went up less than 24 hours ago, and we still aren't even sure what exactly is happening.

- Scott

nascarguy
01-01-2014, 05:31 PM
I been hearing about this back around aug and I do not care anymore

Shakes McQueen
01-01-2014, 05:31 PM
All this is based on one line in what TL said about a possible Grey Cup option? Really?!?

We are going to go through this whole "Oh my gosh the Argos are coming to BMO!!!!" thing every time TL randomly throws out a CFL reference just to keep the media talking about MLSE?

Look, I get that TSN badly wants the CFL to succeed and thus Bell is going to be going full bore on all fronts to keep the Argos going. But, the idea that a few hundred million is going to be spent by 3 levels of government for this is all dependent upon Hudak winning in Ontario, the Feds kicking in money to downtown Toronto (something the Federal Tories do not want to do) and even more fanciful, Rob Ford being mayor in 2015.


Nah...this was all talk to keep MLSE looking good at an event that they are not going to get access to again for a decade.

BTW, for those who remember, Joey Pants was the biggest booster of the CNE and thus a relatively easy to develop chearleader for BMO 10 years ago - there is nobody like that at City Hall anymore - somebody supportive of this whole thing with enough knowledge of how to get things through council.

TL is blowing smoke.

Or he meant it when he said it, but is just ignorant of the fact that the CFL field wouldn't actually fit in BMO, as currently constructed. I'd like to see TL confronted with more specific questions about this proposed expansion, and how it relates to the CFL/Grey Cup, before I lose my shit - MLSE have actually generally been pretty good in the past, about trying to keep the CFL out. This would be a massive about-face, and all spurred by a single event?

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
01-01-2014, 05:36 PM
Unfortunately you're right..
:facepalm:
The argument that they can only afford the improvements is to bring in the Argos is so short-minded at best and again shows total disdain for TFC fans. I for one think there are way better ways to make up the 10 games a year the Argos would play at the place but for some reason MLSE thinks we'll buy their reasoning.

As far as I can tell, he didn't actually say this. He made a passing reference to the Grey Cup, as part of a list of events that would be great to have at a newly-renovated BMO Field. The rest we are extrapolating ourselves.

So like I said in my last post, I'd like to see TL asked more specific questions about how the CFL would fit into a post-renovation BMO Field first.

- Scott

ag futbol
01-01-2014, 05:38 PM
Exactly my thought, it's another example of TFC taking a backseat to every other team in the city.

Ridiculous!
Not to sound alarmist, but it's becoming a league-wide problem. MLS is losing it's focus and giving up hard-fought ground because of short sighted greed for expansion dollars. They should have told Vancouver no, Seattle to have a plan for a new stadium, and tell Atlanta/Detroit/every other expansion city looking for a secondary tenant to come back when they are serious about building a soccer specific venue.

Leiweke is going to find out the hard way this isn't Seattle or Vancouver. Whatever interest that is left in this team will be snuffed out if they do this reno. As clueless as MLSE was under Teachers', they knew enough to say that soccer without an authentic feel to it would never fly in this town. Too much sophistication, too much international influence to convince people that they should care about something in a half empty stadium played on an artificial surface. Heck, TFC even played right into it with the push for grass and the focus on game-day atmosphere. This isn't the market where a soccer team can be an afterthought and people will still care.

Tony Santiago
01-01-2014, 09:05 PM
Why does this guy continue to talk out his ass? Why do people scream the sky is falling every time he does? News flash: Tim Leiweke has no influence or control over any level of government, nevermind all 3.

He's new to this city, so maybe he isn't aware nobody wants to watch The Grey Cup outside by the lake in November when we have the Rogers Centre...a horrible Grey Cup experience was one of the major reasons a dome was built in the first place. People don't want to build stadiums for a novelty idea.

Nobody is building a stadium for the Winter Classic. The Pan Am games have already been planned, nobody needs a larger BMO for the Pan Am games. Rugby doesn't need a larger stadium.

Tim Leiweke seems to have no filter, and just says whatever pops into his head. People need to stop reacting to his bullshit.

ensco
01-01-2014, 09:13 PM
Leiweke doesn't want to rebuild BMO for a one-off Winter Classic. That makes no sense.

He wants to rebuild it so that the Leafs can play a lot of games there.

cmonyoureds
01-01-2014, 10:17 PM
As with all things TFC these days, believe it when I see it.
All this "statement" of Lieweke's does is put his sports franchises front and centre of everyone, even in the off season for most of them. It's free "buzz" based on carefully chosen, mean nothing, open to speculation statements.

From a business standpoint, he played it perfectly.

ensco
01-01-2014, 10:36 PM
As with all things TFC these days, believe it when I see it.
All this "statement" of Lieweke's does is put his sports franchises front and centre of everyone, even in the off season for most of them. It's free "buzz" based on carefully chosen, mean nothing, open to speculation statements.

From a business standpoint, he played it perfectly.

I don't think so. If Leiweke thinks the fact that he found a stenographer to take dictation means something, he is seriously confused. These public-private deals take years, and involve careful, respectful consideration of the public interest.

Leiweke acted like a 200 lb baby who wants something because he wants it. If I were Cope/Rogers, I'd be very concerned. These guys know how the game is played, and this isn't it.

prizby
01-01-2014, 11:23 PM
You know, after reading the second article, I think this CFL talk is Leiweke's Plan B. He has said that he would do nothing to alienate the TFC fanbase, but that's assuming there will still be a TFC around after 2015. If all the off-season moves don't work out and TFC has another train-wreck season, I see that as being all she wrote for the organization. I'm sure their ticket reps have been hearing from SSHs that this is probably their last chance to make things right and they won't be renewing next year. MLS will probably move the franchise somewhere in the States that still doesn't have market saturation (Minnesota? Phoenix? St Louis?) or may actually start the ball rolling on a forced relegation/promotion scenario (Hello NASL, Indianapolis will take our place).

Regardless, no TFC means BMO can be changed to suit whatever tenants MLSE has in mind. If that happens, well, I guess we'll have to hope that some other group brings professional soccer back to Toronto. Because I would refuse to support any MLSE-run soccer team - they will not get my hard-earned dollars because they will have shown they really don't care about the fans.

that is why MLSE built a $21 million training complex at Downsview

Abou Sky
01-01-2014, 11:29 PM
Does anyone want to do anything about this, or just keyboard warrior it up some more?

We can take action. We don't need to take this lying down. Surely this is one issue all of the supporters groups can work on together. Or maybe not...

???

I'm not saying I won't help out to do something but why would it be a bad thing to have 10 outdoor hockey games in BMO per year? (I think this is a worst case scenario)

I would be against Argos in BMO but I don't think it will happen.

ag futbol
01-01-2014, 11:40 PM
Well in case it wasn't obvious already, it's being openly speculated...

http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/does-mlse-want-to-buy-bring-argos-to-bmo-field/

Yagbod
01-02-2014, 12:07 AM
I'm not saying I won't help out to do something but why would it be a bad thing to have 10 outdoor hockey games in BMO per year? (I think this is a worst case scenario)

I would be against Argos in BMO but I don't think it will happen.

I agree. I have no problem with expansion, or use of the stadium in the off season. I speak purely about the Argos. I realize the articles are mainly about hockey and a grey cup, but I can't help think that the Argo's will be a part if it, despite the arguments against it happening.

I spoke directly to him about it. He wouldn't rule it out and he gave very dodgy answers to direct questions someone else asked at the same meet. I am very sure the Argo's are part of this plan. We need to make sure we are heard in opposition before a final decision is made. And we can't leave it to the last minute.

Abou Sky
01-02-2014, 12:43 AM
I agree. I have no problem with expansion, or use of the stadium in the off season. I speak purely about the Argos. I realize the articles are mainly about hockey and a grey cup, but I can't help think that the Argo's will be a part if it, despite the arguments against it happening.

I spoke directly to him about it. He wouldn't rule it out and he gave very dodgy answers to direct questions someone else asked at the same meet. I am very sure the Argo's are part of this plan. We need to make sure we are heard in opposition before a final decision is made. And we can't leave it to the last minute.

On the flip side, maybe he is just an honest guy who won't rule things out.

I know it sounds crazy to us, but if I were him, even if I didn't want the Argos playing there, I wouldn't say 'no way' because you never know what happens down the road.

Another possibility is that he threw it out to Guage reaction.

Anyway, I will be willing to do something, but I am not sold that the Argos will be there or be a problem.

MightyDM
01-02-2014, 08:54 AM
Three points: we have a purpose built football stadium that has done a fantastic job hosting the Grey Cup and works well for the Argos - except that they cannot draw enough support to make the atmosphere good. Unfortunately, the SkyDome needs to be full to sound loud. And it was built with public money, huge amounts of it. Secondly, we have a purpose built soccer stadium, the National Soccer Stadium (known as BMO field for TFC) that was built not for TFC but for the U20 world cup and to be a home for the National soccer team. MLSE and TFC were the long term tenant that sealed the deal. The stadium is publicly owned (by the City, through Exhibition Place) and is managed by MLSE. MLSE does not own it. Thirdly, I think we must assume that the talks are serious and advanced. The CSA needs to be our ally in saying " no dimunition of the soccer experience. No turf, no gridiron lines, and no changes unless the stands can be moved back to today's sight lines for soccer". If we fight that battle rather than " Argos out" we can win.

Tony Santiago
01-02-2014, 09:05 AM
Leiweke doesn't want to rebuild BMO for a one-off Winter Classic. That makes no sense.

He wants to rebuild it so that the Leafs can play a lot of games there.

Right, and the NHL will be perfectly cool with that? There is no way in hell the NHL (nevermind the ultra-high end platinum seat holder who has paid a seat license at the ACC) is going to be okay with one team deciding to play multiple outdoor games in a season. What are you thinking about?

I love how you say one thing makes no sense and then follow it up with something completely crazy. Classic.

reggie
01-02-2014, 09:24 AM
did anybody see that crap hockey game yesterday,i would love 10 of those a year....NOT LOL.

Initial B
01-02-2014, 10:27 AM
that is why MLSE built a $21 million training complex at Downsview
And what have they done with it? I thought they were on the right path when it was built, but considering all the dysfunction that followed, I think it was just a PR move to make it look like they cared. Knowing what we know now, do you really think they knew what they were doing?

Flipityflu
01-02-2014, 10:50 AM
And what have they done with it? I thought they were on the right path when it was built, but considering all the dysfunction that followed, I think it was just a PR move to make it look like they cared. Knowing what we know now, do you really think they knew what they were doing?

you really think they spent $21 million on a training facility as a PR move? that makes no sense.

Tony Santiago
01-02-2014, 11:18 AM
And what have they done with it? I thought they were on the right path when it was built, but considering all the dysfunction that followed, I think it was just a PR move to make it look like they cared. Knowing what we know now, do you really think they knew what they were doing?

What do you mean what have they done with it? Have you been there? I have, and it's awesome. It's only existed for a few years and if I'm not mistaken there are already players playing on TFC who were developed through the academy. It's a definite selling point to incoming talent because it is such a great facility.

Wasn't your initial post about new owners coming in and moving the team to the US? Now you say they spend $21 million as a PR move. In the words of Keyshawn Johnson, C'mon man!

SoccMan2
01-02-2014, 11:26 AM
So if they expand to 40 000 forget about everything else for one minute, even if attendance was to stay at 18 to 20 thousand which I doubt in a stadium shared with the Argos, what will 20 000 look like in a 40 000 seat stadium, ya it will look very intimate great atmosphere ya right.

Joe Kool
01-02-2014, 12:05 PM
So if they expand to 40 000 forget about everything else for one minute, even if attendance was to stay at 18 to 20 thousand which I doubt in a stadium shared with the Argos, what will 20 000 look like in a 40 000 seat stadium, ya it will look very intimate great atmosphere ya right.

Don't forget the big signings that will bring guaranteed playoff performances....according to TL's game plan anyway so I am sure he thinks it is possible to fill 40K stadium. Will be interesting to see how this develops nevertheless. They better fix the parking a little better as part of the reno because I don't think there is enough for 40K crowd. Another 20K trying to take the GO train because of no parking won't work well either.

Pookie
01-02-2014, 12:46 PM
What do you mean what have they done with it? Have you been there? I have, and it's awesome. It's only existed for a few years and if I'm not mistaken there are already players playing on TFC who were developed through the academy. It's a definite selling point to incoming talent because it is such a great facility.

Wasn't your initial post about new owners coming in and moving the team to the US? Now you say they spend $21 million as a PR move. In the words of Keyshawn Johnson, C'mon man!

MLS requires all teams to have a development academy and costs are offset through various league partnerships, with Adidas being a key component of that.

It's a requirement of having an MLS franchise.

As an aside, it's interesting that the curriculum appears to be set by US Soccer. They also rank the Academies twice a year and in 2012 FC Dallas and Vancouver topped the list of MLS Academies receiving 4 of 5 stars from US Soccer in 2012. TFC wasn't ranked, most likely because they just started in 2011 but that's just a guess on my part.

Also, said Garber in his state of the union address in Dec of this year:

Garber revealed Tuesday that the league is spending around $20 million per year on player development initiatives, which include the youth and academy teams run by individual clubs and the affiliation agreement MLS started with USL Pro, whose teams play at the third tier of the US and Canadian pyramid.

http://soccer.si.com/2013/12/03/don-garber-mls-state-of-the-league/2/

ensco
01-02-2014, 01:12 PM
Right, and the NHL will be perfectly cool with that? There is no way in hell the NHL (nevermind the ultra-high end platinum seat holder who has paid a seat license at the ACC) is going to be okay with one team deciding to play multiple outdoor games in a season. What are you thinking about?

I love how you say one thing makes no sense and then follow it up with something completely crazy. Classic.

So, the NHL always turns up its nose at megamillions bonanzas, and there's no way whatsover to manage the interests of platinum seat holder for outdoor games.

I'll let public opinion decide who is making sense and who is crazy.

Red4ever
01-02-2014, 01:26 PM
I mean here's the thing. is it out of the realm of possibility to have a grass field with Turf endzones? Cause if not I could very much see both teams at BMO and keep the footy atmosphere.

Ageroo
01-02-2014, 01:30 PM
I mean here's the thing. is it out of the realm of possibility to have a grass field with Turf endzones? Cause if not I could very much see both teams at BMO and keep the footy atmosphere.

With pointyball players all over the field and cleats grinding constantly down the middle of the field...I am not sure you can have a team play on grass...the field would be a mess. Considering CFL and MLS play at the same time for the most part I can't see how you would be able to have the field playable after a match......

TFC07
01-02-2014, 01:33 PM
Maybe TFC should move to Rogers Centre once they get their grass turf? I am sure Rogers wouldn't mind hosting soccer games since they're going to lose a lot of events when they switch to grass turf.

Pint
01-02-2014, 01:55 PM
Moving to Rogers Centre would cost us as many fans as having the argos at BMO.

I would actually be more likely to stay if the Argos came to BMO and the renovation did enough to keep the footy atmosphere.

If we were to ever played out of rogers centre with regularity i would be out.

Tony Santiago
01-02-2014, 01:55 PM
MLS requires all teams to have a development academy and costs are offset through various league partnerships, with Adidas being a key component of that.

It's a requirement of having an MLS franchise.

As an aside, it's interesting that the curriculum appears to be set by US Soccer. They also rank the Academies twice a year and in 2012 FC Dallas and Vancouver topped the list of MLS Academies receiving 4 of 5 stars from US Soccer in 2012. TFC wasn't ranked, most likely because they just started in 2011 but that's just a guess on my part.

Also, said Garber in his state of the union address in Dec of this year:

Garber revealed Tuesday that the league is spending around $20 million per year on player development initiatives, which include the youth and academy teams run by individual clubs and the affiliation agreement MLS started with USL Pro, whose teams play at the third tier of the US and Canadian pyramid.

http://soccer.si.com/2013/12/03/don-garber-mls-state-of-the-league/2/

Why is this post directed at me? I'm not disagreeing or anything, I'm just confused. My personal opinion is that the Training Ground is a great facility, definitely above average in the MLS.

Fort York Redcoat
01-02-2014, 01:57 PM
Why is this post directed at me? I'm not disagreeing or anything, I'm just confused. My personal opinion is that the Training Ground is a great facility, definitely above average in the MLS.

Pook is offering more info that's all.

TFC07
01-02-2014, 02:00 PM
Moving to Rogers Centre would cost us as many fans as having the argos at BMO.

I would actually be more likely to stay if the Argos came to BMO and the renovation did enough to keep the footy atmosphere.

If we were to ever played out of rogers centre with regularity i would be out.

I don't know about that.

Main reason why TFC fans don't want football because fake turf and football lines. I highly doubt Argos and TFC can share same stadium with grass turf. BMO field is going increase seating capacity regardless if Argos are coming or not (according to article: 40,000 seats to be exact). So if that's your main issue, then I guess you might as well be out now.

Pookie
01-02-2014, 02:04 PM
Why is this post directed at me? I'm not disagreeing or anything, I'm just confused. My personal opinion is that the Training Ground is a great facility, definitely above average in the MLS.

Nothing personal, you just offered the convenience of being the last guy to mention "academy" ... so I added it there.

Tony Santiago
01-02-2014, 02:06 PM
So, the NHL always turns up its nose at megamillions bonanzas, and there's no way whatsover to manage the interests of platinum seat holder for outdoor games.

I'll let public opinion decide who is making sense and who is crazy.

This is the kind of thing that boggles my mind. You honestly think that the Leafs want to renovate BMO to play multiple outdoor games there? Really? And you think that enough people would agree with you to think I'm crazy for disagreeing? Really?

Amazing.

Tony Santiago
01-02-2014, 02:07 PM
Nothing personal, you just offered the convenience of being the last guy to mention "academy" ... so I added it there.

Right on, just curious. I thought I was missing something.

Pookie
01-02-2014, 02:08 PM
Tim L should really offer a public statement on their commitment to grass. I believe they are committed to it but he should really get out in front of this story.

I'd wager he would have had to explain that to Defoe... if the 4 year deal is still on.

Canary10
01-02-2014, 02:10 PM
Could the Emirates hybrid grass not be used or is that still not strong enough to stand up to both sports?

TFC07
01-02-2014, 02:11 PM
MLS requires all teams to have a development academy and costs are offset through various league partnerships, with Adidas being a key component of that.

It's a requirement of having an MLS franchise.

As an aside, it's interesting that the curriculum appears to be set by US Soccer. They also rank the Academies twice a year and in 2012 FC Dallas and Vancouver topped the list of MLS Academies receiving 4 of 5 stars from US Soccer in 2012. TFC wasn't ranked, most likely because they just started in 2011 but that's just a guess on my part.

Also, said Garber in his state of the union address in Dec of this year:

Garber revealed Tuesday that the league is spending around $20 million per year on player development initiatives, which include the youth and academy teams run by individual clubs and the affiliation agreement MLS started with USL Pro, whose teams play at the third tier of the US and Canadian pyramid.

http://soccer.si.com/2013/12/03/don-garber-mls-state-of-the-league/2/

But that money is only to cover the basics of running academy (which isn't a lot once you divided money up by 18 teams). MLSE put their own money on construction of training facility. Same can be said about equipment and other resources for that matter. MLS and Adidas money isn't that great of investment at all. So this discussion is pointless in the end.

TFC doesn't get ranked by US soccer because TFC doesn't have any ties to USSF like Vancouver (their academy play in US development league).

Phil
01-02-2014, 02:11 PM
Tim L pretty much said that BMO would remain grass and there would be consultation with TFC seasons holders before any move concerning the Argos would be made. He is a bit dodgy on answering the direct questions sometimes but I believe that comes with the role he is in.

Pint
01-02-2014, 02:13 PM
I don't know about that.

Main reason why TFC fans don't want football because fake turf and football lines. I highly doubt Argos and TFC can share same stadium with grass turf. BMO field is going increase seating capacity regardless if Argos are coming or not (according to article: 40,000 seats to be exact). So if that's your main issue, then I guess you might as well be out now.

An expansion at BMO would be done with us in mind and trying to keep our atmosphere... I also believe that with a winning team we can get 30,000 people out for most games. It will not be a cavern, the atmosphere should be maintained or improved at minimum at BMO. The issue with BMO would be the disrespect by shoving another team in OUR building and the potential for terrible field conditions.

I find that much better than what would happen at Rogers Centre.

Rogers Centre we would need 40,000+ to even have a chance at a decent atmosphere, on top of that how far removed the supporters generally are from the field would be a major concern. I also think that the sightlines from most other places within the stadium are terrible for footy. We would be giving OUR stadium up to someone else and we would be getting arguably worse facilities for what we need.


In this end this conversation is moot because we won't be moving to Rogers Centre... logistics just don't work and i'm 99.99% sure Tim L and Tim B are smarter than to try and take our home away.

cmonyoureds
01-02-2014, 02:15 PM
Hmmm, I once heard the astroturf at Skydome zips together in huge sheets. Is this true?
If so, could they put turf overtop of the grass at BMO for a few hours for a pointy ball game without destroying the grass?
Crazy idea, but then it's a crazy ownership group as well.

TFC07
01-02-2014, 02:16 PM
Could the Emirates hybrid grass not be used or is that still not strong enough to stand up to both sports?

Good question. I personally don't think it could hold up or recover quickly as possible. Problem is that Argos will be playing 10-12 games during TFC season (18 MLS games plus 2 VC, friendly game, CCL games and playoff games). It would be hard to maintain grass turf especially during end of the year when weather gets colder.

TFC07
01-02-2014, 02:19 PM
An expansion at BMO would be done with us in mind and trying to keep our atmosphere... I also believe that with a winning team we can get 30,000 people out for most games. It will not be a cavern, the atmosphere should be maintained or improved at minimum at BMO. The issue with BMO would be the disrespect by shoving another team in OUR building and the potential for terrible field conditions.

I find that much better than what would happen at Rogers Centre.

Rogers Centre we would need 40,000+ to even have a chance at a decent atmosphere, on top of that how far removed the supporters generally are from the field would be a major concern. I also think that the sightlines from most other places within the stadium are terrible for footy. We would be giving OUR stadium up to someone else and we would be getting arguably worse facilities for what we need.


In this end this conversation is moot because we won't be moving to Rogers Centre... logistics just don't work and i'm 99.99% sure Tim L and Tim B are smarter than to try and take our home away.

BMO field has to be redesign to fit in CFL field which will push stands back (most likely south and east stands). Atmosphere is going to be affected if Argos move to BMO field.

TFC07
01-02-2014, 02:22 PM
Tim L pretty much said that BMO would remain grass and there would be consultation with TFC seasons holders before any move concerning the Argos would be made. He is a bit dodgy on answering the direct questions sometimes but I believe that comes with the role he is in.

TFC SSH (based on SSH events like BBQ and breakfast) have made it clear already about they think about Argos moving in.

Ageroo
01-02-2014, 02:24 PM
Hmmm, I once heard the astroturf at Skydome zips together in huge sheets. Is this true?
If so, could they put turf overtop of the grass at BMO for a few hours for a pointy ball game without destroying the grass?
Crazy idea, but then it's a crazy ownership group as well.

Even if that is possible...I still think the weaight of the turf would kill the grass to an extent....unless some sort of platform can be made to go over the entire field and not compress it at all.....who knows.

Pookie
01-02-2014, 02:24 PM
But that money is only to cover the basics of running academy (which isn't a lot once you divided money up by 18 teams). MLSE put their own money on construction of training facility.

They didn't have a choice. All teams are required to have one. Cost of doing business in the MLS.

As for TFC and USSF, that's an interesting point. TFC is the only MLS team that doesn't participate in the USSF league. (Vancouver and Montreal do). The new Director, Greg Vanney, used to work with the USSF so that may change in the near future.

Phil
01-02-2014, 02:25 PM
TFC SSH (based on SSH events like BBQ and breakfast) have made it clear already about they think about Argos moving in.

Yup, it was at one of those events that Tim L directly addressed it and made these statements. We all need to monitor the situation closely but it seems that any moves will take a bit of time, this isn't happening next week - its long term.

Ageroo
01-02-2014, 02:28 PM
BMO field has to be redesign to fit in CFL field which will push stands back (most likely south and east stands). Atmosphere is going to be affected if Argos move to BMO field.

As with most here I don't want my game experience affected. I have first row of stands in 115 and am pretty much right on top of the action at the goal. I would not want to be moved farther back. The question is as well....if they do expand the seating will they add seats where the field is lengthened and widened? Meaning that there will actually be seats in front of me now? If that is the case I am assuming they would have to give everyone who is pushed farther back the option to get their relative same location in a new layout before they fill the rest of the stadium with new season seat holders.

Pint
01-02-2014, 02:29 PM
BMO field has to be redesign to fit in CFL field which will push stands back (most likely south and east stands). Atmosphere is going to be affected if Argos move to BMO field.

Some sort of retractable stands would be my guess.... I really doubt they are throwing out all the money this offseason just to do something that would jeopardize the team. Between the Kia training ground and the DP players they have invested a ton of money into the team recently, the last thing they need is to look like they are screwing over the long time fan.

Detroit_TFC
01-02-2014, 02:33 PM
Having trouble visualizing how BMO Field can get expanded to something the size of Elland Road or Goodison Park. Even if the existing footprint was designed to accommodate a 2nd tier, all the additional facilities that would be be needed is essentially a rebuild, at a cost likely to exceed the original cost of BMO. The economics just don't make sense.

Pint
01-02-2014, 02:34 PM
I'm no grass expert but i knew i had seen this before somewhere. Would it be possible for Turf to be laid and then have our grass be "retractable"? If we are talking hundreds of millions on a renovation i'm sure this could be added to the budget.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUs70OZnqpc

TFC07
01-02-2014, 02:37 PM
They didn't have a choice. All teams are required to have one. Cost of doing business in the MLS.

As for TFC and USSF, that's an interesting point. TFC is the only MLS team that doesn't participate in the USSF league. (Vancouver and Montreal do). The new Director, Greg Vanney, used to work with the USSF so that may change in the near future.

I believe Rogen mention how there's going to be new MLS academy league which TFC might join during one of his weekly academy videos on TFC TV. Right now, TFCA are going to be playing in OPDL next season.

TFC07
01-02-2014, 02:42 PM
Having trouble visualizing how BMO Field can get expanded to something the size of Elland Road or Goodison Park. Even if the existing footprint was designed to accommodate a 2nd tier, all the additional facilities that would be be needed is essentially a rebuild, at a cost likely to exceed the original cost of BMO. The economics just don't make sense.

This is why TFC is trying to get all 3 level of government to invest into BMO field. In return, MLSE will have to take Argos back. However, I highly doubt current governments are willing to give taxpayer money to MLSE to rebuild BMO field.

Yohan
01-02-2014, 02:51 PM
This is why TFC is trying to get all 3 level of government to invest into BMO field. In return, MLSE will have to take Argos back. However, I highly doubt current governments are willing to give taxpayer money to MLSE to rebuild BMO field.
too much money tied up with Pan Am games. highly doubt BMO is going to get public money

Ivy
01-02-2014, 02:54 PM
I'm no grass expert but i knew i had seen this before somewhere. Would it be possible for Turf to be laid and then have our grass be "retractable"? If we are talking hundreds of millions on a renovation i'm sure this could be added to the budget.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUs70OZnqpc
That's cool and all, but it's obvious it wouldn't work at BMO. Just not enough real estate to store 2 fields side by side.

Pookie
01-02-2014, 03:09 PM
I believe Rogen mention how there's going to be new MLS academy league which TFC might join during one of his weekly academy videos on TFC TV. Right now, TFCA are going to be playing in OPDL next season.

ODPL is only for those born in 2001 and then phased in each year after next (ie. 2015 will be 2001 and 2002, 2016 will be 2001, 2002, 2003 and so on)

Initial B
01-02-2014, 03:38 PM
Just a quick question: Do those of you who were at the TFC-Impact game last March remember if the stands the Impact Ultras were using behind the goal were right next to the pitch? My memory is fuzzy on that. If so, then perhaps BMO could get away with retractible seating that they could pull ahead into the endzone area for soccer matches to get supporters closer to the action. And any stomping could make the metal scaffolding really resonate - a plus for making noise.

MightyDM
01-02-2014, 03:39 PM
MLSE does not own BMO. The City does. And it's official name is The National Soccer Stadium. Keeping it right for soccer, with the support of the CSA, is the fight we should make. If we win that, it may be far too expensive (moveable stands? Moveable turf?) to renovate for the Argos, who should either stick to the stadium built for them (SkyDome) or have their own outdoor stadium, with articial turf if that is what they need.

Abou Sky
01-02-2014, 03:46 PM
BMO field has to be redesign to fit in CFL field which will push stands back (most likely south and east stands). Atmosphere is going to be affected if Argos move to BMO field.

The south stands can roll out for CFL and back for soccer.

Anyone here actually know about grass other than the kind you smoke?

Red4ever
01-02-2014, 03:49 PM
Just a quick question: Do those of you who were at the TFC-Impact game last March remember if the stands the Impact Ultras were using behind the goal were right next to the pitch? My memory is fuzzy on that. If so, then perhaps BMO could get away with retractible seating that they could pull ahead into the endzone area for soccer matches to get supporters closer to the action. And any stomping could make the metal scaffolding really resonate - a plus for making noise.

This is the point people should remember. We would be occupying the football end zone if we were to share the field. Granted it would be fieldturf, almost assuredly, but I think they would put us in similar placement. They would want those similar stands for outdoor hockey games.

OgtheDim
01-02-2014, 03:55 PM
As mentioned before by me many times, the west stand would have to be rebuilt as well as the central seating area and pressbox for CFL would be quite a bit farther south then the current central seating area and pressbox.

Mega money.

TFC07
01-02-2014, 04:05 PM
The south stands can roll out for CFL and back for soccer.

Anyone here actually know about grass other than the kind you smoke?

What about east stands or maybe west stands? Also, MLSE is planning to increase seating capacity which means there might be a second deck/level in south end. It wouldn't be easy and cheap to move stands around.

prizby
01-02-2014, 04:09 PM
And what have they done with it? I thought they were on the right path when it was built, but considering all the dysfunction that followed, I think it was just a PR move to make it look like they cared. Knowing what we know now, do you really think they knew what they were doing?

expanded their academy program down to the u-12 age group...you don't invest 1.5-2 million a year on an academy just for 'show'

ensco
01-02-2014, 04:25 PM
This is the kind of thing that boggles my mind. You honestly think that the Leafs want to renovate BMO to play multiple outdoor games there? Really? And you think that enough people would agree with you to think I'm crazy for disagreeing? Really?

Amazing.



Not appreciating your style, with me or others, and I don't think you know what you are talk about.

Not much else can move the needle for the Leafs. Outdoor hockey may be a fad, but it's huge. The "Winter Classic" is dead, NCAA playoffs are on Jan 1 next year.

OgtheDim
01-02-2014, 04:31 PM
NCAA playoffs will be at night. Winter Classic is an afternoon thing. But, as a spectacle, its losing its lustre. As will outdoor games. All its going to take is one rainy day with the temp around 5 and we'll see how many people actually show up.

ensco
01-02-2014, 04:34 PM
I don't see the NHL doing more than 2-3 outdoor games involving one team per year.

This "Stadium Series" will be the litmus test.

I bet they are torn. Do you try to build a business, ie scale into 1-2 games per year in the big markets, or do you see it as a fad, and just maximize the hell out of it, do 5 games or something in multiple markets, milk it for all it's worth?

The Leafs are a special case, given that latent demand for tickets here is so massive. You can do things here that you cannot do in any other market.

ensco
01-02-2014, 04:45 PM
NCAA playoffs will be at night. Winter Classic is an afternoon thing. But, as a spectacle, its losing its lustre. As will outdoor games. All its going to take is one rainy day with the temp around 5 and we'll see how many people actually show up.

Time of games isn't set, based on a quick search, but it'll be the two semifinal games, each massive. I guess they'll kick off the first one between 3 and 5 pm. Pregame show for this will be Super Bowl-esque. The whole thing has to have a huge impact on the Jan 1 TV situation.

I'd be shocked if they don't move the Winter Classic off Jan 1, rather than play it at noon or whatever. Maybe it could work on Dec 31, but I think it loses a lot on any other day, it filled a major TV hole on Jan 1.

Pookie
01-02-2014, 04:48 PM
expanded their academy program down to the u-12 age group...you don't invest 1.5-2 million a year on an academy just for 'show'

Two points.

1. TFC was awarded a franchise in 2006 with 2007 being the first season. Academy came in 2011. If they were serious, it would have been lock step with the franchise award.

2. Adidas MLS partnership, worth over $200M, hinges on youth focus.

For example: "
In line with other recent initiatives by MLS, such as "Generation Adidas" and the newly expanded homegrown player rule, the new Adidas-MLS extension includes a specific focus on youth development. The major aim of this focus, according to league and corporate officials, is to help shape the future of the sport in North America....

http://www.newyorkredbulls.com/news/2010/08/adidas-mls-extend-strategic-partnership-through-2018

MLS owns TFC. MLSE is just the owner-operator. MLS wants to expand its reach to younger groups as that is the way that US Soccer is going to continue its upward progress on the world stage. It also knows that the more kids playing means that Adidas (or other sponsors) can reach a bigger audience through their programs and presumably, the more value they can get in the next deal. It does that through funding its franchises' development programs... $20M per year according to Garber.

This is more about MLS direction than some visionary inspiration from TFC/MLSE. TFC is just along for the ride.

Redcoe15
01-02-2014, 05:03 PM
I don't see the NHL doing more than 2-3 outdoor games involving one team per year.

This "Stadium Series" will be the litmus test.
Especially later this month when the Kings host the Ducks at Dodger Stadium. Lets see how the optics of an outdoor game look in sunbelt Los Angeles. I can't imagine anybody would be thrilled with it.

This Stadium Series wouldn't have happened if it wern't for the lockout last year.

Richard
01-02-2014, 05:39 PM
I could have sworn this thread was locked, wish it was kept that way, to much negativity for me.

ensco
01-02-2014, 05:42 PM
But you have to be careful to oversaturate the market.

I don't think TL is thinking multiple outdoor games.

He doesn't need a bigger stadium for the soccer, or the CFL either. What i am stuck on, is why would he care that much about spending $120M on BMO, if it was only for one hockey game a year? It's not worth the trouble.

I think he thinks some sort of winter outdoor hockey thing in Toronto, over multiple games, all paid for by the taxpayer in the name of saving the Argos and promoting "the Winter classic"' is the magic bullet that ties the whole Argos/BMO/hockey thing together.

I don't agree with the idea. I think outdoor hockey is a fad, personally.

I just think thats how the Ultimate Entertainer thinks.

Just my crazy opinion.

Shakes McQueen
01-02-2014, 05:45 PM
I could have sworn this thread was locked, wish it was kept that way, to much negativity for me.

It was reopened because it's a legitimate discussion. TL specifically name-dropped holding a future Grey Cup at BMO Field - implying that BMO could have CFL field dimensions in the future. That is something that needs to be investigated, and the supporters need to make sure their opinion is known to all involved, if it's the case.

- Scott

billyfly
01-02-2014, 05:46 PM
I could have sworn this thread was locked, wish it was kept that way, to much negativity for me.


Negativity? Don't come to the Leafs thread.

Richard
01-02-2014, 06:02 PM
Were commenting on a guy who like to boost his ego at any moment using the media, the guy cant keep his yap shut and slink away for a moment of silence. Give me something more concrete than this talking megaphone.

Beach_Red
01-02-2014, 06:10 PM
He doesn't need a bigger stadium for the soccer, or the CFL either. What i am stuck on, is why would he care that much about spending $120M on BMO, if it was only for one hockey game a year? It's not worth the trouble.

I think he thinks some sort of winter outdoor hockey thing in Toronto, over multiple games, all paid for by the taxpayer in the name of saving the Argos and promoting "the Winter classic"' is the magic bullet that ties the whole Argos/BMO/hockey thing together.

I don't agree with the idea. I think outdoor hockey is a fad, personally.

I just think thats how the Ultimate Entertainer thinks.

Just my crazy opinion.

Well, he's got to do something. He was brought in to make a big splash and that's not going to be an NFL team so what else is there?

The CFL is very important to Bell, more important than MLS because it's Canadian Content that gets ratings. What other Canadian Content have they got? Curling? Outdoor hockey may be a fad but right now it's a big TV event and they need that.

What else can MLSE do to make a big difference?

prizby
01-02-2014, 08:39 PM
This is more about MLS direction than some visionary inspiration from TFC/MLSE. TFC is just along for the ride.

1 point (lol) ;)

When it comes to spending on youth development and academy, TFC is at or is near the top in MLS; they don't do the bare minimum (from what I have been able to gather and understand)

Oldtimer
01-02-2014, 10:00 PM
Two points.

1. TFC was awarded a franchise in 2006 with 2007 being the first season. Academy came in 2011. If they were serious, it would have been lock step with the franchise award.



It was several years after TFC was founded before teams were allowed to sign their own academy players, so there was little incentive to run an academy except as a public-relations exercise until the rules were changed. As far as I remember, the Krafts fought the homegrown player rule just like they did the Designated Player rule. They hated anything that would raise costs above the barest minimum.

Vancouver pushed for a generous homegrown player rule even before they started in the league. As Vancouver had made good money while in D2 selling off academy players, they could make a pur$ua$ive argument.

Blizzard
01-03-2014, 02:52 AM
I mean here's the thing. is it out of the realm of possibility to have a grass field with Turf endzones? Cause if not I could very much see both teams at BMO and keep the footy atmosphere.

Edmonton did it for a season or two. It may have been around the time of the IAAF Track and Field World Championships.

Blizzard
01-03-2014, 02:56 AM
Even if that is possible...I still think the weaight of the turf would kill the grass to an extent....unless some sort of platform can be made to go over the entire field and not compress it at all.....who knows.

It's not possible. As you say, it would be terrible for the grass but additionally, you can't just lay a plastic pitch on top of grass. You need a firm base underneath the artificial surface. It would be like trying to run on a comforter on a mattress!

Blizzard
01-03-2014, 02:59 AM
Just my crazy opinion.

I don't think anybody here will disagree with that point. ;)

Ten games a year? No. There is absolutely no chance of that. It would be insane. These things are special events. A fad? Possibly but I think that one or two games a year in constantly changing markets is totally feasible and as a guy that grew up playing hockey outdoors, I consider these games to be very, very special.

habstfc
01-03-2014, 03:43 AM
Fads don't usually last 6 years, first winter classic was in 2008 in Buffalo. I see a yearly outdoor game in toronto for sure but not 10, no way. BMO would only need south end moved to accomodate CFL size field. I was watching the "crosssfit games" on tsn a couple of months ago, it was held at stubhub centre and the stands to the right of the tv were moved in about a third of the way to centre field, the stamds had wheels so I assume the same thing could be implemented at BMO.

ginkster88
01-03-2014, 04:25 AM
I just think thats how the Ultimate Entertainer thinks.


I think it's funny how your opinion of TL has evolved... you were among the highest on him when the possibility was floated.

Not calling you out or anything, everyone changes their mind. It just shows how much he's done wrong since he arrived.

ensco
01-03-2014, 08:06 AM
I think it's funny how your opinion of TL has evolved... you were among the highest on him when the possibility was floated.

Not calling you out or anything, everyone changes their mind. It just shows how much he's done wrong since he arrived.

Yeah, true. I thought he would be good at hiring people, because of Dean Lombardi and Bruce Arena. But I think he's blown it with Nonis and Bez (face it, he's basically made himself the TFC GM, it's ridiculous). Only Ujiri is a defensible hire. Plus I think this BMO thing is symptom of a kind of hubris that can wreck things for all these teams for years.

Same for Nelsen. I thought he was a terrific hire, or at least made a ton of sense. Becoming more and more underwhelmed by him with the passage of time.

Fort York Redcoat
01-03-2014, 08:08 AM
I think it's funny how your opinion of TL has evolved... you were among the highest on him when the possibility was floated.

Not calling you out or anything, everyone changes their mind. It just shows how much he's done wrong since he arrived.

Well it's been a gradual but documented case of blowhardiness until the results come. I see the frustration and impatience with it but we can all celebrate the eating of crow if the carny leader delivers.

ensco
01-03-2014, 08:08 AM
Fads don't usually last 6 years, first winter classic was in 2008 in Buffalo. I see a yearly outdoor game in toronto for sure but not 10, no way. BMO would only need south end moved to accomodate CFL size field. I was watching the "crosssfit games" on tsn a couple of months ago, it was held at stubhub centre and the stands to the right of the tv were moved in about a third of the way to centre field, the stamds had wheels so I assume the same thing could be implemented at BMO.

We agree, it'll never be 10 games. But like I said, one game doesn't do enough financially to justify this scale of undertaking for MLSE.

I think he'll want to push the market, based on who he is. He's a promoter not a builder.

GabrielHurl
01-03-2014, 08:52 AM
The "Winter Classic" is dead, NCAA playoffs are on Jan 1 next year.

Really? Someone better tell Washington that

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=683348


Washington Capitals owner Ted Leonsis announced Saturday his team will serve as the host for the 2015 Bridgestone NHL Winter Classic on Jan. 1, 2015.

"The excitement of the Bridgestone NHL Winter Classic continues to grow, and bringing the 2015 event to the D.C. area will write another chapter in the game's great history of entertainment," NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said. "We are looking forward to being in Washington with the Capitals' great fans."

ensco
01-03-2014, 09:01 AM
Really? Someone better tell Washington that

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=683348

OK, I meant that the ratings for that event, if it goes head to head with the new NCAA semifinal games, will decline dramatically going forward.

My New Years resolution is to use more hyperbole.

Tony Santiago
01-03-2014, 09:34 AM
OK, I meant that the ratings for that event, if it goes head to head with the new NCAA semifinal games, will decline dramatically going forward.

My New Years resolution is to use more hyperbole.

That really is a problem. Don't make grand declarations that make absolutely no sense because it leads to people disagreeing. I know that upsets you, as you have indicated earlier.

The Winter Classic is anything but dead and saying something like that really doesn't lend much credibility to anything else you say either.

Canary10
01-03-2014, 09:45 AM
BMO Field is a real detriment to expanding TFC in Toronto. If we want to be tapping into the soccer fans who watch their home clubs in other countries but would never watch a live TFC game, TFC need to deliver the game day experience of back home. When you got to Red Bull Arena, you feel like you could be watching a game in Europe. Even when not sold out, it is loud as hell, and feels like the big time. We need to have that here. I hate the idea of a CFL team at BMO, or winter hockey games, but if it gives a business case for investing in a proper stadium I'm keeping an open mind about it.

cmonyoureds
01-03-2014, 12:17 PM
BMO Field is a real detriment to expanding TFC in Toronto. If we want to be tapping into the soccer fans who watch their home clubs in other countries but would never watch a live TFC game, TFC need to deliver the game day experience of back home. When you got to Red Bull Arena, you feel like you could be watching a game in Europe. Even when not sold out, it is loud as hell, and feels like the big time. We need to have that here. I hate the idea of a CFL team at BMO, or winter hockey games, but if it gives a business case for investing in a proper stadium I'm keeping an open mind about it.

As long as that doesn't include no beer within sight of the pitch and mandatory seating for all. :D

I think the human megaphone should forget expansion and fix what he's got. And by fix I mean a roof.

ensco
01-03-2014, 12:41 PM
That really is a problem. Don't make grand declarations that make absolutely no sense because it leads to people disagreeing. I know that upsets you, as you have indicated earlier.

The Winter Classic is anything but dead and saying something like that really doesn't lend much credibility to anything else you say either.

I think I'll stick with what I am doing. How about we both leave policing to boards to mods, or at least people with more than 65 posts?

Yagbod
01-03-2014, 01:30 PM
If you are interested, there is a website that just started up on the Argos to BMO issue. Right now it is just posting a few links to articles. The most recent articles will be posted shortly. It also has an online petition which is working, but is a bit wonky. For instance it is still reporting that 0 people have signed it, which is not the case. Your signing will count. (click the link on the right, the left side one appears to be broken)

It is a work in progress, so please save your scathing reviews on the technical aspects.

Mods, if this is inappropriate please delete. However, this is a non-partisan effort on an issue that affects us all.

http://www.noargosatbmo.ca/content/

Yagbod
01-03-2014, 01:39 PM
There is also a Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/No-Argos-at-BMO-Field/230319237138994

Pint
01-03-2014, 01:45 PM
If you are interested, there is a website that just started up on the Argos to BMO issue. Right now it is just posting a few links to articles. The most recent articles will be posted shortly. It also has an online petition which is working, but is a bit wonky. For instance it is still reporting that 0 people have signed it, which is not the case. Your signing will count. (click the link on the right, the left side one appears to be broken)

It is a work in progress, so please save your scathing reviews on the technical aspects.

Mods, if this is inappropriate please delete. However, this is a non-partisan effort on an issue that affects us all.

http://www.noargosatbmo.ca/content/

Nice initiative Chris,

how long should the confirmation email take to arrive?

Fort York Redcoat
01-03-2014, 01:53 PM
As long as that doesn't include no beer within sight of the pitch and mandatory seating for all. :D

I think the human megaphone should forget expansion and fix what he's got. And by fix I mean a roof.

Whoah now. There's nothing wrong with human megaphones.g:D

But yeah mister mouthpiece has this "ask for the moon" mentality. We'll see where it gets him.

Yagbod
01-03-2014, 02:19 PM
Nice initiative Chris,

how long should the confirmation email take to arrive?

Chris Shiers is behind the website. He said you should get one shortly after you register with a link in it to confirm and add your name. Please let me know if you get it or not (PM is fine). As I mentioned, it still a bit of a work in progress. He is going to update it a bit more tonight. Thanks!

eustacchio
01-03-2014, 02:23 PM
If you are interested, there is a website that just started up on the Argos to BMO issue. Right now it is just posting a few links to articles. The most recent articles will be posted shortly. It also has an online petition which is working, but is a bit wonky. For instance it is still reporting that 0 people have signed it, which is not the case. Your signing will count. (click the link on the right, the left side one appears to be broken)

It is a work in progress, so please save your scathing reviews on the technical aspects.

Mods, if this is inappropriate please delete. However, this is a non-partisan effort on an issue that affects us all.

http://www.noargosatbmo.ca/content/

If you try to sign the petition, you get a 404 error.

Pint
01-03-2014, 02:27 PM
If you try to sign the petition, you get a 404 error.

I was able to sign but no email confirmation

eustacchio
01-03-2014, 02:29 PM
I was able to sign but no email confirmation

To be fair, the hover text says "Test petition" (in Chrome at least), so I'm going to assume that they're just working somethings out and I'll try again later.

eustacchio
01-03-2014, 02:32 PM
Actually, if you click the big, orange (blue in IE) 'Sign Now' button, you can fill it out, but if you click the CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION hyper link, you get the 404 (can you tell I test a lot of software at work?)

Yagbod
01-03-2014, 03:01 PM
Actually, if you click the big, orange (blue in IE) 'Sign Now' button, you can fill it out, but if you click the CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION hyper link, you get the 404 (can you tell I test a lot of software at work?)

Yup, use the link on the right. I have advised the admin guy of this. He will hopefully have it fixed later tonight. Thanks for the feedback.

habstfc
01-03-2014, 03:16 PM
We agree, it'll never be 10 games. But like I said, one game doesn't do enough financially to justify this scale of undertaking for MLSE.

I think he'll want to push the market, based on who he is. He's a promoter not a builder. There's other money making possibilities with a much larger BMO. Even one leafs outdoor game a year is going to at least triple a regular season game at ACC maybe even quadruple with souvenir sales etc. More seats means more fans even for TFC. I don't think from this point forward you are going to see this team at the bottom of the table. If TFC could be a perennial playoff team I think 40,000 people could come out regularly if the tickets are reasonably priced. TFC just needs to make playoffs, I don't think they even need to win MLS cups for fans to come out in larger numbers. A bigger BMO would also open up bigger international sides to play here. Imagine if they could promote a yearly friendly with teams like Italy or England, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina etc. I don't even mean playing Canada I'm talkibg playing each other. There are lots of ways to make money with a bigger BMO than with Leafs hockey.

ginkster88
01-03-2014, 05:56 PM
For ensco ;)

Winter Classic brings in record North American TV audience (http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24396862/winter-classic-north-american-tv-audience-reached-82-million)

ensco
01-03-2014, 06:20 PM
For ensco ;)

Winter Classic brings in record North American TV audience (http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24396862/winter-classic-north-american-tv-audience-reached-82-million)



Sure. It's a huge TV success. Now.

I feel like the NHL are the nice little local hardware store who discovered a great new neighbourhood the bizarrely had no competition (ie daytime Jan 1 in TV land), and now that they are succeeding, Home Depot is opening up a 10x bigger store across the street.

ensco
01-03-2014, 06:26 PM
There's other money making possibilities with a much larger BMO. Even one leafs outdoor game a year is going to at least triple a regular season game at ACC maybe even quadruple with souvenir sales etc. More seats means more fans even for TFC. I don't think from this point forward you are going to see this team at the bottom of the table. If TFC could be a perennial playoff team I think 40,000 people could come out regularly if the tickets are reasonably priced. TFC just needs to make playoffs, I don't think they even need to win MLS cups for fans to come out in larger numbers. A bigger BMO would also open up bigger international sides to play here. Imagine if they could promote a yearly friendly with teams like Italy or England, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina etc. I don't even mean playing Canada I'm talkibg playing each other. There are lots of ways to make money with a bigger BMO than with Leafs hockey.

These are very valid points.

Our positions aren't mutually exclusive, but you are right, there is non hockey upside.

Suds
01-03-2014, 08:14 PM
Sure. It's a huge TV success. Now.

I feel like the NHL are the nice little local hardware store who discovered a great new neighbourhood the bizarrely had no competition (ie daytime Jan 1 in TV land), and now that they are succeeding, Home Depot is opening up a 10x bigger store across the street.

I heard Howard Bloom talking on the radio today and he mentioned two of the outdoor games this year are not even sold out yet. It's one thing to sell one big event, it's another to sell a series of outdoor games. Once people have done it and seen it the novelty will wear off for a large group of fans.

I'm with you on the Winter Classic. That one game may still be a big sell in the future but I don't think multiple games for many years in the same market will be a long term money maker. Time will tell but it's not something I'd put a massive tax dollar output bet on to re-tool a stadium and I wouldn't want any level of government backing it. If MLSE wants to fork out all the cash themselves that's their call.

billyfly
01-03-2014, 08:40 PM
Sid Seixero mentioned the RPB on the PTS round table today...lol

Sid is so typically Portuguese negative.

Pookie
01-03-2014, 08:53 PM
... More seats means more fans even for TFC. I don't think from this point forward you are going to see this team at the bottom of the table. If TFC could be a perennial playoff team I think 40,000 people could come out regularly if the tickets are reasonably priced. TFC just needs to make playoffs, I don't think they even need to win MLS cups for fans to come out in larger numbers...

I agree with most of what you said but not so much on the above premise.

When TFC was in the thick of the one and only major CCL run and weren't playing a team with Beckham on it, they couldn't draw squat. In fact, the semis against Santos Laguna drew just over 18,000. The final leg against Vancouver for that Canadian Championship drew 14,000.

I believe Toronto has a couple of different fans. There are hard core soccer supporters that will be at every game, rain or shine, win or lose. There are "event" fans that will come out, once, for games like Real Madrid but aren't going to pay $150 a pop, continually, to see TFC. Those are the ones that come out for your Beckhams or Henry's but really couldn't tell you who Camilo or Magee are and honestly don't care. If there is no hype around the event, they will go to some other event.

I believe that a 40,000 seat stadium would essentially mean that there are approximately 20,000 seats available for every game. Now, MLSE would likely close down a section to try to ensure ticket scarcity to combat that and protect the value of a season's seat but in my view, a winning team won't make a ton of difference to the attendance on a regular basis. And they certainly won't achieve 40,000.

billyfly
01-03-2014, 09:04 PM
Ideally the build a stadium "extention" that can also handle a mass event seat increase.

Is that possible?

BuSaPuNk
01-03-2014, 09:06 PM
Sid Seixero mentioned the RPB on the PTS round table today...lol

Sid is so typically Portuguese negative.

Didn't hear what was said?

Pookie
01-03-2014, 09:19 PM
Ideally the build a stadium "extention" that can also handle a mass event seat increase.

Is that possible?

Sure. I think that the permanent seats would be in the neighbourhood of 25-30k. You could then add temporary seats for events like the Grey Cup or a winter hockey game.

The 30k limit is risky though for TFC, IMO. With current attendance and no wait list, it would be just over half full. Optics aside, that would mean plenty of unused tickets and the risk is real in devaluing season seats.

I don't think LA drew over 25,000 for their Beckham teams.

billyfly
01-03-2014, 09:21 PM
Didn't hear what was said?


That no Argos at BMO would make the Red patch Boys happy.

TFC07
01-03-2014, 09:48 PM
More seats = cheaper tickets = more fans coming to games. 30K (permanent seats) is doable especially if we have a good soccer team or at least sign major international player.

Selling soccer in this city isn't that hard as long it's done right.

If anything, it's CFL/Argos you got to worry about. Despite being last year's champ, they struggle selling games.

P.S. Rogers Centre game against Galaxy did well because tickets were cheap. Beckham affect didn't play that big of a role (looking at crowds in that game, it was almost hard to find any Beckham fanboy in sea of red).

BuSaPuNk
01-03-2014, 09:59 PM
That no Argos at BMO would make the Red patch Boys happy.

Lol. Thanks.

Yeah I can agree to that. We do have some people that probably wouldn't be against it. I guess it's a give and take. If it gives us a roof and even more seating and doesn't effect sightlines and closeness to the field or grass being taken out it might be worth it to some people.

habstfc
01-03-2014, 10:31 PM
I believe that a 40,000 seat stadium would essentially mean that there are approximately 20,000 seats available for every game. a winning team won't make a ton of difference to the attendance on a regular basis. And they certainly won't achieve 40,000.
I completely disagree. You are basically saying that a winning team won't draw better than they are drawing the last seven years of losing football. All these years of losing have turned lots of fans off but a winning team would fill BMO up again I have no doubts. They averaged over 19k this past season, Imagine if we had a decent team. Would they sell 40,000 tics to every game probably not, but I think a few games a year could pull that number in with the right date or opponent.

cmonyoureds
01-03-2014, 10:50 PM
I completely disagree. You are basically saying that a winning team won't draw better than they are drawing the last seven years of losing football. All these years of losing have turned lots of fans off but a winning team would fill BMO up again I have no doubts. They averaged over 19k this past season, Imagine if we had a decent team. Would they sell 40,000 tics to every game probably not, but I think a few games a year could pull that number in with the right date or opponent.

Two reasons they ain't filling up 40k, or even 25k.

1) their game day ticket price is completely out of touch with the market
2) the fans that gave up and walked away, if they come back, will want the same game day experience they had before. for a lot of them, they'll never get it. their seats are gone, only sitting sections are available, and see point 1.

Pookie
01-03-2014, 11:04 PM
^ to add to that, it is about disposable income. A winning team doesn't automatically put more money in the pockets of people who are already spending it on other things.

Perhaps the biggest reason I don't think 40k is realistic is that would mean that TFC, the team who is rarely hyped on any sports network, enjoys sparse print and radio coverage would be the biggest Toronto sports draw. Ahead of the Raptors, Argos and Blue Jays.

I just can't see it.

111_DrummerBoy
01-03-2014, 11:06 PM
Yup, use the link on the right. I have advised the admin guy of this. He will hopefully have it fixed later tonight. Thanks for the feedback.

Hey,if you signed the petition today, thank you! This is a project I have started, but have not had a chance to finish. I know it something that is very passionate for many TFC supporters. Unfortunately I have had other commitments come up and have not gotten back to this. If you did sign the petition, you should receive the confirmation email this evening. Please click the link and add your name.

I hope to have the site 100% ready by the end of the weekend. Thanks again to everyone who has already checked it out. I will continue to post Argos to BMO news there over the next while. Let's not lose the one thing we have left right now, that makes the game day experience.

http://www.noargosatbmo.ca/content.

Cheers,

Chris

ensco
01-03-2014, 11:09 PM
I think a winning TFC could still be Seattle and sell 35-40K tickets to 5 of their games, on the right night, against the right teams

... IF ....

TFC does what Seattle does and sells 25K of their inventory for $20-25 per ticket.

habstfc
01-04-2014, 03:05 AM
Two reasons they ain't filling up 40k, or even 25k.

1) their game day ticket price is completely out of touch with the market
2) the fans that gave up and walked away, if they come back, will want the same game day experience they had before. It's out of touch because of the teams losing ways, nothing else. Most people wouldn't have a problem with ticket prices if we had a half decent team. Toronto is the best soccer market in all of MLS in my opinion with plenty of people willing to spend money, but not on a completely shitty team. Winning will solve that.

Pookie
01-04-2014, 08:22 AM
I think a winning TFC could still be Seattle and sell 35-40K tickets to 5 of their games, on the right night, against the right teams

... IF ....

TFC does what Seattle does and sells 25K of their inventory for $20-25 per ticket.

5 games perhaps, assuming there are big name DPs on the visiting teams.... and it isn't cold outside.

Just don't think the local market exists to support 40k fans on an ongoing basis.

A good draw for TFC on the TV rating front is 100,000. Whereas the Jays average 500-600k viewers, have cheap tickets, have a ton of local media coverage and only hit 40k numbers for a few games a year. And before anyone suggests winning correlates to that, the 2006 team that finished 2nd in the AL had lower attendance by over 200,000 (annual) than the 2013 7th place version did.

Seems to suggest that interest in TFC, just isn't as high so it would be a stretch to think they could convert casual fans into consistent paying customers.

BuSaPuNk
01-04-2014, 08:54 AM
Seems to suggest that interest in TFC, just isn't as high so it would be a stretch to think they could convert casual fans into consistent paying customers.

I would go so far as saying I don't think we have any casual fans that watch games on TV. They show up to BMO for home games every now and again. Outside of that I can't see a lot of casual fans that actually watch every game. Especially casual fans that could be turned into SSH to bring up attendance.

ensco
01-04-2014, 09:01 AM
TV ratings really don't matter for this league, and won't for years. That is an element of the Beckham experiment that failed.

It's why i disagree with the Defoe signing as I marketing move (don't think it's smart in any way, really).

BuSaPuNk
01-04-2014, 10:05 AM
TV ratings really don't matter for this league, and won't for years. That is an element of the Beckham experiment that failed.

It's why i disagree with the Defoe signing as I marketing move (don't think it's smart in any way, really).

I really like the love but this isn't the thread to debate that.

This is still going to be a gate driven league for a long while. Only when gates become sellouts and forcing people to watch from home will the ratings ever rise.

There will be blips when the Beckhams, Henry's ect come over but there not sustainable.

SoccMan2
01-04-2014, 10:30 AM
If the MLS basis the success and survival of this league on TV ratings then might as well fold up shop now, TV ratings success not happening now or anytime soon. This league is about being there not watching on TV for the majority of people that go to games, only the diehards like myself watch on TV and will watch games of other teams that don't include mine. The general soccer fan in North America mainly watches the big leagues in Europe and the big international tournaments, The World Cup and the Euro, watching the MLS on TV on a regular basis not happening with the general soccer lovers in North America, I wish it was different but it's not and like I said this is not changing anytime soon unfortunately.

Pookie
01-04-2014, 11:54 AM
I agree with the TV ratings not being strong for the MLS. That's why I think the prospect of converting fans to paying customers will be immensely challenging.

When TFC started, their own market research indicated they expected a fan base of approx 14,000 on average. Now, in the early years they exceeded that expectation but didn't have any TV audience. Over time, the wait list has dried up completely and ratings haven't grown. Meaning that many came, saw, and went to something else. 18,000 -20,000 would be a strong number this year, even with Defoe or some other big name. Like Enscoe suggests, I think Defoe will have marginal impact (if any) on attendance as there just doesn't seem to be a big casual market showing an interest in TFC.

I'd look at stadium expansion from the other side of the coin. The theory that says the Argos would become the prime tenant at BMO.

The Argos enjoy the 2nd largest TV audience in southern Ontario, next to the Leafs. MLSE's owners are in the TV/content business. The Argos draw more than TFC (on average). They had no trouble averaging 30,000 per game a short few years ago. Put them into a new stadium that their fans have been clamouring for and you can quickly see where the priorities could be. Not to mention the fact that MLSE would own the Argos outright (presumably) and not have to share ownership... and thus revenue... outside of TV deals... with any league.

From a business perspective, how could you not chase the Argos and expand BMO for them?

TFC07
01-04-2014, 12:13 PM
5 games perhaps, assuming there are big name DPs on the visiting teams.... and it isn't cold outside.

Just don't think the local market exists to support 40k fans on an ongoing basis.

A good draw for TFC on the TV rating front is 100,000. Whereas the Jays average 500-600k viewers, have cheap tickets, have a ton of local media coverage and only hit 40k numbers for a few games a year. And before anyone suggests winning correlates to that, the 2006 team that finished 2nd in the AL had lower attendance by over 200,000 (annual) than the 2013 7th place version did.

Seems to suggest that interest in TFC, just isn't as high so it would be a stretch to think they could convert casual fans into consistent paying customers.

Not a good example since Blue Jays play about 80 home games and a lot of those games on weekday. However, if you look at Blue Jays' Saturday home game attendance, they usually draw over 30K. But that being said, Blue Jays is more family friendly compare to TFC. So we can't really use Blue Jays as an example to compare with TFC. Two different sports with two different customer base.

TFC07
01-04-2014, 12:16 PM
I agree with the TV ratings not being strong for the MLS. That's why I think the prospect of converting fans to paying customers will be immensely challenging.

When TFC started, their own market research indicated they expected a fan base of approx 14,000 on average. Now, in the early years they exceeded that expectation but didn't have any TV audience. Over time, the wait list has dried up completely and ratings haven't grown. Meaning that many came, saw, and went to something else. 18,000 -20,000 would be a strong number this year, even with Defoe or some other big name. Like Enscoe suggests, I think Defoe will have marginal impact (if any) on attendance as there just doesn't seem to be a big casual market showing an interest in TFC.

I'd look at stadium expansion from the other side of the coin. The theory that says the Argos would become the prime tenant at BMO.

The Argos enjoy the 2nd largest TV audience in southern Ontario, next to the Leafs. MLSE's owners are in the TV/content business. The Argos draw more than TFC (on average). They had no trouble averaging 30,000 per game a short few years ago. Put them into a new stadium that their fans have been clamouring for and you can quickly see where the priorities could be. Not to mention the fact that MLSE would own the Argos outright (presumably) and not have to share ownership... and thus revenue... outside of TV deals... with any league.

From a business perspective, how could you not chase the Argos and expand BMO for them?

Despite Argos great TV ratings, they're still losing money and they don't have much upside to make a lot of money. This is why Rogers or MLSE never bought them in the past.

It's pretty clear that MLSE is trying to government money and in return they'll "save" Argos. If there's no government money, then Argos aren't coming to BMO field.

Beach_Red
01-04-2014, 12:17 PM
The Argos enjoy the 2nd largest TV audience in southern Ontario, next to the Leafs. MLSE's owners are in the TV/content business. The Argos draw more than TFC (on average). They had no trouble averaging 30,000 per game a short few years ago. Put them into a new stadium that their fans have been clamouring for and you can quickly see where the priorities could be. Not to mention the fact that MLSE would own the Argos outright (presumably) and not have to share ownership... and thus revenue... outside of TV deals... with any league.

From a business perspective, how could you not chase the Argos and expand BMO for them?

Yes, this is true. And add to it a new stadium for the Ti-Cats, new team in Ottawa and serious looks at Quebec City and the CFL will likely continue to deliver solid TV ratings for Bell for years to come. So the business case for MLSE is obvious.

So, what's the best way for TFC to get what it needs in this scenario? If a deal is going to be made, how can we make sure it's the best possible deal for TFC?

TFC07
01-04-2014, 12:34 PM
Yes, this is true. And add to it a new stadium for the Ti-Cats, new team in Ottawa and serious looks at Quebec City and the CFL will likely continue to deliver solid TV ratings for Bell for years to come. So the business case for MLSE is obvious.

So, what's the best way for TFC to get what it needs in this scenario? If a deal is going to be made, how can we make sure it's the best possible deal for TFC?

CFL TV money isn't that great (better than before, but not great) while sponsorship money isn't huge either. CFL like MLS needs to rely on gate revenue to order to make money.

Argos are still losing money and struggling to get people coming to their games despite being a very good team.

Beach_Red
01-04-2014, 01:16 PM
CFL TV money isn't that great (better than before, but not great) while sponsorship money isn't huge either. CFL like MLS needs to rely on gate revenue to order to make money.

Argos are still losing money and struggling to get people coming to their games despite being a very good team.

It's the Canadian content that Bell needs for their networks. The CFL is many hours of good rated Canadian content. Networks usually run Canadian content at a loss so the CFL is very important, especially now that they won't have hockey.

Pookie
01-04-2014, 01:23 PM
Yes, this is true. And add to it a new stadium for the Ti-Cats, new team in Ottawa and serious looks at Quebec City and the CFL will likely continue to deliver solid TV ratings for Bell for years to come. So the business case for MLSE is obvious.

So, what's the best way for TFC to get what it needs in this scenario? If a deal is going to be made, how can we make sure it's the best possible deal for TFC?

I think you need to focus on business minded arguments to ownership, that includes MLSE but also includes the MLS and other influencers like the CSA.

If you accept the premise that the Argos are coming, you define what success looks like under that scenario.

1. Grass stays. For everyone's business interests it is a better scenario. TFC has no depth so will most likely always be looking to big names as band aids. Star players don't play on turf (for the most part). MLS wants soccer specific stadiums and grass is a key component of that. The CSA has the power to award WCQ games to any stadium it wants. If grass is a pre-requisite MLSE would lose out on rental dates if it went to turf.

2. Roof comes. More fans might come out for both the Argos and TFC if they knew they were sheltered somewhat. Important to MLS as well as it shares in gate revenue. MLS also wins in that the design brings BMO in line with more recent Soccer Specific Stadiums, a key strategic direction for the league.

3. South end expands upwards. Everyone, fans included, want "atmosphere" back. It's good for TV. It's good for walk up ticket sales. It's about the only thing TFC ever sold itself on. Portland is the model now. Build it like theirs and ensure that SGs have a major part in the planning and implementation of how a "unified" (as best as possible) south end would operate and be promoted. Structurally, it would also help with the elements coming off the lake.

4. Other issues. Scheduling. Earn agreement that for the most part, TFC plays Friday/Saturday and Argos on Saturdays/Sundays. A non chewed surface is more critical to soccer. Also, Argos' schedule goes from June to November. Maybe they hit the road during TFC's season ending home stretch (September/October) where games could "matter more" and TFC hits the road during their big draws (home openers or labour day games). They then have nearly exclusive use of the stadium to close out their season in November. MLSE can hype those "games that matter" as much as it wants.

I'm sure there are other must haves but for me, those would be what I would focus on.

The business case for the Argos coming is clearly attractive to MLSE. Likewise though, the business case for the above is there. Just have to ensure that an unified message... whatever that ends up being... gets delivered to all of the stakeholders.

TFC07
01-04-2014, 03:10 PM
It's the Canadian content that Bell needs for their networks. The CFL is many hours of good rated Canadian content. Networks usually run Canadian content at a loss so the CFL is very important, especially now that they won't have hockey.

But Argos moving to BMO field or folding shouldn't affect their content especially since CFL is expanding all over Canada. If anything, you would think Bell would buy Argos themselves if they cared so much about Argos. Even though CFL has great TV ratings, it doesn't demand a huge Ad revenue (this is how networks make their money) since most of their TV viewers aren't in 18-35 single male category. Canadian content argument is overrated since TSN already has plenty of Canadian content.

Secondly, Bell can't force Rogers and Larry T to move Argos to BMO field even though other cities in 905 region have shown interest of partnering up with Argos and building football oriented stadium. If Bell is so concern about state of Argos, then they could buy Argos themselves and partner up with one of 905 cities to build a home for Argos.

Lastly, MLSE is using Argos to get government money so they don't have to pay everything to rebuild BMO field for TFC and Maple Leafs.

MightyDM
01-04-2014, 04:34 PM
Re Pookie's points, above. I think the first position should be "leave it alone, it's the National Soccer Stadium". If we ask for changes, like a roof, then they will position this as doing it at the request of TFC supporters. TL already promised that it wouldn't disadvantage soccer, let's hold him to his word.

Flipityflu
01-04-2014, 05:41 PM
TL was on Fan590 tonight...said Rogers Centre a definite no go for the winter classic

Alonso
01-04-2014, 06:28 PM
^^^^^^ Here's the link for the interview for those interested: http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/on-demand/

Flipityflu
01-04-2014, 10:27 PM
"I know some people have suggested Rogers Centre," Leiweke said. "But that’s a non-starter for everybody.
"If we’re going to do this, we have to do it in a way where it is as iconic and legendary as what we just experienced in Detroit."
Share










yeah, BMO Field is now more iconic than the Rogers Centre? lol.

why don't you just knock the roof of Maple Leaf Gardens....that would be iconic.

Pookie
01-05-2014, 10:52 AM
Re Pookie's points, above. I think the first position should be "leave it alone, it's the National Soccer Stadium". If we ask for changes, like a roof, then they will position this as doing it at the request of TFC supporters. TL already promised that it wouldn't disadvantage soccer, let's hold him to his word.

I think the first position is admirable.

That said, odds are heavily stacked against it being successful. That isn't to say don't try it. Simply be prepared with a plan b.

The wave is coming

- Argo owner wants to sell

- Limited interested new owners exist
MLSE wants to buy and it's content driven owners want it too

- Argos would be owned by MLSE not shared ownership with the CFL like they have with TFC/MLS.

- Jays want Argos out as they are moving to grass (ironic I know) so they need a place

- Argos fans, and there are more of them, want to move to BMO

- City could share in any revenue generated at BMO (hockey, football, our football) or it could watch a new stadium get constructed in a suburb and lose all of it. That represents additional revene to a council that is going to be challenged to keep taxes low. Who knows, MLSE may even try to buy out their share in this process representing an immediate cash injection to the City.

- Province/Fedacould either fund a renovation or a brand new one (or of course not at all but spending of public funds on millionaire interests really isn't something they tend to say no to). With Pan Am games maybe there is more money kicking around.

Outside of national soccer interests and the $1M-$3M TFC generates in operating profit each year, I am struggling to envision a scenario in which this doesn't happen. You would need a different ownership group to want to buy and fund its own stadium. Are there any?

prizby
01-05-2014, 11:01 AM
I think the first position is admirable.

That said, odds are heavily stacked against it being successful. That isn't to say don't try it. Simply be prepared with a plan b.

The wave is coming

- Argo owner wants to sell

- Limited interested new owners exist
MLSE wants to buy and it's content driven owners want it too

- Argos would be owned by MLSE not shared ownership with the CFL like they have with TFC/MLS.

- Jays want Argos out as they are moving to grass (ironic I know) so they need a place

- Argos fans, and there are more of them, want to move to BMO

- City could share in any revenue generated at BMO (hockey, football, our football) or it could watch a new stadium get constructed in a suburb and lose all of it. That represents additional revene to a council that is going to be challenged to keep taxes low. Who knows, MLSE may even try to buy out their share in this process representing an immediate cash injection to the City.

- Province/Fedacould either fund a renovation or a brand new one (or of course not at all but spending of public funds on millionaire interests really isn't something they tend to say no to). With Pan Am games maybe there is more money kicking around.

Outside of national soccer interests and the $1M-$3M TFC generates in operating profit each year, I am struggling to envision a scenario in which this doesn't happen. You would need a different ownership group to want to buy and fund its own stadium. Are there any?

how about all the hst tax the ticket sales get; how about all the corporate tax attached to the operations of TFC

then there is the income tax applied to those who now have jobs with tfc/at BMO Field

i am sure there are a few other ways government has made some money

in 7 years, we have more than paid for the $45M the 3 levels of government have invested

Beach_Red
01-05-2014, 11:24 AM
how about all the hst tax the ticket sales get; how about all the corporate tax attached to the operations of TFC

then there is the income tax applied to those who now have jobs with tfc/at BMO Field

i am sure there are a few other ways government has made some money

in 7 years, we have more than paid for the $45M the 3 levels of government have invested

It's very frustrating because if MLSE had run a better operation and turned TFC into a winning team all of this talk would be less likely. But as you point out, all those ways in which TFC is making money are tied to ticket sales which is then tied to the performance of the team.

Pookie is likely right that a Plan B is very important. As he says, the business case for MLSE is very good and that's always their priority.

Since the very beginning my problem with this team has always been that they haven't had an experienced president to speak only for the team. TFC has always really been run directly by MLSE and that may be the worst it's ever been with Lieweke.

MightyDM
01-05-2014, 12:43 PM
I agree that we need a Plan B, but we shouldn't give it to them on a plate as part of Plan A, which is what demanding changes, like a roof, does. Both Payne and TL have said "the supporters want a roof" and one even said it was our first priority. (as if winning isn't). This gives them a pretext to go to Government. If the message was a clear "no" Governments would have to decide if they wanted the fight. They prefer good news, particularly when investing huge amounts of public money. And given what TL has said, we are talking about huge $$$$$.

MightyDM
01-05-2014, 12:44 PM
And let's not forget that they SkyDome was built for the Argos as well as the Jays. $650 million invested in those two sports.

billyfly
01-05-2014, 12:58 PM
IMO - The "new" BMO will have hybrid grass and stands on rails or something like that to take away the side-lines.

It will most likely also be a permanent 30,000 seater with event seating up to 40,000 etc.

billyfly
01-05-2014, 01:04 PM
hindsight being 20/20 etc. Should have mod'ed the mistake by the lake.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/mennnc1701/exhibition_01.jpg

MightyDM
01-05-2014, 01:45 PM
<error>

Mulder
01-05-2014, 04:46 PM
how about all the hst tax the ticket sales get; how about all the corporate tax attached to the operations of TFC

then there is the income tax applied to those who now have jobs with tfc/at BMO Field

i am sure there are a few other ways government has made some money

in 7 years, we have more than paid for the $45M the 3 levels of government have invested

Seeing as your the same person I told this to on facebook about, here's a refresher.

You cannot count income from sales tax, corporate tax, HST. As "new" revenue generated from the construction of BMO, and the play of TFC.
The levels of government would have generated this income anyways. Unless you put it in the bank and never spent it.

You still would have bought things that were taxed, people would be employed elsewhere, and the corporations involved would have found something else to spend money in, and thus be taxed. Saying it generates revenue from those tax sourceses is an extremely incorrect assumption.

There are 3 ways they generate "new" revenue to the government.
1. Rent.
2. The theoretical property value increase that could be tax as property taxes. Which could be borrowed for future (if you have cash n hand). Or sell off later.
Seeing as BMO field is in the middle of a huge plot of city? land. It really doesn't affect anybodies property tax assessment. I cannot say this for certain.
3. Share of profits BMO generates (which this year is very close to not generating profit. October report says they were up $80,000 Have to see when the final report comes out in Feb. or March.

Please don't assume that tax revenue from the first 3 sources above count as new income for level of governments. They would have received it if BMO was constructed or not.

TFC07
01-05-2014, 05:09 PM
Bright side of this that we will know for sure if Argos are coming or not in couple of years. After that, we either have Argos moving to BMO field or they will play somewhere for good. This issue of Argos moving in has been going on since day 1. Hopefully Argos find their own stadium where they get full control and finally able to make money so they can be successful. I admit, Argos made it tough for me to enjoy CFL recently because of this issue.

prizby
01-05-2014, 05:46 PM
You cannot count income from sales tax, corporate tax, HST. As "new" revenue generated from the construction of BMO, and the play of TFC.
The levels of government would have generated this income anyways. Unless you put it in the bank and never spent it.


because spending that money outside of the country is not entirely out of the realm of possibility; sayanora

TFC encourages consumer spending; government makes investments all the time to encourage citizens to spend money...the economic cycle

Mulder
01-05-2014, 07:44 PM
because spending that money outside of the country is not entirely out of the realm of possibility; sayanora

TFC encourages consumer spending; government makes investments all the time to encourage citizens to spend money...the economic cycle

This is not even a valid counter argument. The money would be spent either way, any amount that would have been spent outside the county would be to small and still impossible to calculate.

And even more to your point, do you think all the foreign born TFC players are spending their earnings in Canada? There is probably more economic loss there than what your proposing.

prizby
01-05-2014, 08:01 PM
This is not even a valid counter argument. The money would be spent either way, any amount that would have been spent outside the county would be to small and still impossible to calculate.

And even more to your point, do you think all the foreign born TFC players are spending their earnings in Canada? There is probably more economic loss there than what your proposing.

as long as they are earning money working in Canada, they are paying income tax...take Frings in 2012 (just for one yea of his contract) who was on $2,413,666.67 guaranteed (not including any subsequent bonuses etc...), based on the Canada and Ontario tax rates, he would have paid $993,515.23 in taxes or 1/45th (rounded) of the public money spent on BMO Field

Pookie
01-05-2014, 09:55 PM
how about all the hst tax the ticket sales get; how about all the corporate tax attached to the operations of TFC

then there is the income tax applied to those who now have jobs with tfc/at BMO Field

i am sure there are a few other ways government has made some money

in 7 years, we have more than paid for the $45M the 3 levels of government have invested

The tax argument is going on above and well presented. I'm also in the camp that says that our spending on TFC tickets comes from our disposable income. If I didn't go to TFC games, I'd do something else with the money (as I will next year). And I'll pay HST on that. The government will get the same share of that, it will just come from another source. I'll also be supporting other businesses, who have employees that earn income tax.

Many economic studies have concluded that the net impact of sports teams on the local economy is negligible, despite all the arguments (jobs, tourism, etc) that executives use to obtain corporate welfare.

prizby
01-05-2014, 10:19 PM
Many economic studies have concluded that the net impact of sports teams on the local economy is negligible, despite all the arguments (jobs, tourism, etc) that executives use to obtain corporate welfare.

I wish I had my sport finance textbook from university still lying around so I could dispel some of this

prizby
01-05-2014, 10:23 PM
wonder how much tax Jermain Defoe is going to pay over 4 years at $150,000/week; something tells me that'll be a piece of the $45 million of public money that went into BMO Field

Mulder
01-05-2014, 10:39 PM
I wish I had my sport finance textbook from university still lying around so I could dispel some of this

There is really no need. There is 3 charted accountants in my family. All of which explained it to me very similar as I did to you. (I already knew the basics)

Even the money going to players salaries would have hit the government a different way. It's not 'new' revenue .

prizby
01-05-2014, 11:02 PM
There is really no need. There is 3 charted accountants in my family. All of which explained it to me very similar as I did to you. (I already knew the basics)

Even the money going to players salaries would have hit the government a different way. It's not 'new' revenue .

big difference between what a CA knows/says and what an EIA tells you

Mulder
01-06-2014, 07:39 AM
big difference between what a CA knows/says and what an EIA tells you

I'll trust what CA's have to say in this matter, especially when they have 40, 25 and 10 years experience.
EIA's (which I assume you mean economic impact analysis) give you a very narrow picture of the specific events or projects. Yes, BMO, brings in revenue from tax sources. But for the 5th time. It's not new revenue. You need to look at the bigger picture.

Quite honestly you are so far gone and clueless in this topic that I'm not even going to debate this with you anymore.

Pookie
01-06-2014, 08:24 AM
ok, let's relax a little with the calculator war :)

Let's assume that TFC generates some income for the city. Whether that would be "new" income... set that aside.

The issue is that the Argos generate more. They draw more fans. They draw more to TV... by 5-6x as much as TFC. With 6 of 9 teams making the playoffs, they offer more opportunity for additional revenue. And by acquiring them, MLSE might be able to expand a property they own... with government contributions... to leverage other franchises like the Leafs for outdoor games and the $$$ they generate.

They are an attractive investment. Period. If the argument against all of that is that season tickets would plummet and revenue would be lost... that may be true. But remember that TFC was projected to be profitable for all investors with 14,000 attendees. And any lost revenue could be offset by all of the above.

If you really want to keep the Argos out, ensuring that the government does not contribute to the funding with our tax dollars changes the revenue equation. If MLSE has to lay out hundreds of millions of their own dollars they might not make it back and therefore might not make the investment.

That to me is the only strategy that makes Plan A work.

Otherwise, accept it is most likely to happen and leverage it to get improvements that impact the Soccer club.

ensco
01-06-2014, 08:26 AM
For anyone who wants to understand this issue better:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2012/10/09/3914/why-the-washpost-killed-my-nationals-stadium-op-ed/

prizby
01-06-2014, 08:48 AM
I'll trust what CA's have to say in this matter, especially when they have 40, 25 and 10 years experience.
EIA's (which I assume you mean economic impact analysis) give you a very narrow picture of the specific events or projects. Yes, BMO, brings in revenue from tax sources. But for the 5th time. It's not new revenue. You need to look at the bigger picture.

Quite honestly you are so far gone and clueless in this topic that I'm not even going to debate this with you anymore.

you are telling the players that play for TFC and their income tax and their spending in Toronto is not 'new income'?

or how about the number of fans that travel to TFC games; how many come from OUTSIDE of the city limits, so everytime they come into Toronto, that would be NEW income

you really this naive? how many home games does BMO Field have in a year between TFC playing there, and the Canadian National team's that play there? 20...25?

- Everytime TFC or another team fly into Toronto, they are paying the various airport fees/improvement fees, the taxes on flights etc, etc...
- Everytime the national team is in Toronto or whoever TFC is playing they have to stay at a hotel, how many room nights do you reckon the average team takes up during their visit to Toronto
- Everytime TFC brings in a trialist or a new player joins the club, neither have accommodation set up for them and they stay in extended stay hotels...how many room nights do you reckon that is in a year
- How about throughout the year all the away fans that travel to Toronto, all the long-distance TFC fans (there are a few on these boards) that travel to Toronto

These are just some of many things your 75 years of experienced CA's have clearly not factored that do create NEW income

Fort York Redcoat
01-06-2014, 08:55 AM
This decision has more impact against any goodwill this team makes this season.

If groundshare is the price for stadium upgrades I'll take BMO as she is.

I won't see this as adding opportunity but taking what was special out of BMO.

sashavukelich
01-06-2014, 09:11 AM
we're all being a bit dramatic i think...Tons of world football stadiums are used for other things than SOLELY the team they primarily serve, why should BMO be so different as long as the grass/field is maintained.

Beach_Red
01-06-2014, 09:23 AM
We've had the SkyDome, we seen what happened in Miami with Marlins stadium, we've seen what happened in Glendale, but the worst of the bunch was Cincinnati.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852

The most local example would be Edmonton at the moment.

I think if TL is going to go to government there will be some backlash coming soon. I love sports and all, but the economic impact analysis produced is usually overstated.

Yes, there was a book a few years ago from a couple of University of Indiana profs (I think) that pretty much came to the conclusion that any economy big enough to support a number of major league sports teams was too big for the impact of any one of them to be significant.

It's really unfortunate in Toronto that there's never another potential owner in the picture.

Mulder
01-06-2014, 09:27 AM
You clearly don't get it. Let me break it down one final time for you.


you are telling the players that play for TFC and their income tax and their spending in Toronto is not 'new income'?

How are TFC players paid? Though ticket sales and sponsorships. Essentially your/companies disposable income/advertising department.

If BMO was never built, you would spend your money elsewhere. You would go out to restaurants, bars, other sporting events, movies, etc etc. All items that ARE TAXED. All which employ people who ARE TAXED. And those employees will buy things that ARE TAXED.
As you say "The economic cycle" There is no 'new' income tax revenue or 'HST' revenue coming in. It's just coming from different sources. Is this really hard to understand?



or how about the number of fans that travel to TFC games; how many come from OUTSIDE of the city limits, so everytime they come into Toronto, that would be NEW income
Traveling from outside city limits is again from disposable income, that money would still be collected from other sources. You could argue that some income is coming from tourism. But since you cannot put a definitive dollar value on it, you cannot could it.


you really this naive?
I could ask you the same question.


how many home games does BMO Field have in a year between TFC playing there, and the Canadian National team's that play there? 20...25?
doesn't matter.



- Everytime TFC or another team fly into Toronto, they are paying the various airport fees/improvement fees, the taxes on flights etc, etc...

The same thing when TFC flys to the away to play. They are paying various airport fee's, taxes on flights that is LOST to the Toronto/Canadian economy.
2 points to this -
1. That money being spend on these fee's is being paid by the revenue of TFC. Which comes from Ticketsales and sponsorship's, Again, your disposable income that you would spend somewhere else.
2. You do not have a definitive number on this. And thus can't really argue for it.



- Everytime the national team is in Toronto or whoever TFC is playing they have to stay at a hotel, how many room nights do you reckon the average team takes up during their visit to Toronto
What about every time TFC has to do the same out of county? Lost
All the other points are the exact same as above.


- Everytime TFC brings in a trialist or a new player joins the club, neither have accommodation set up for them and they stay in extended stay hotels...how many room nights do you reckon that is in a year

Again, same points as above. This comes from YOUR disposable income. So you are paying for that player to stay in a hotel. Which is being taxed by your money. I'm sure after explaining it this way, you'd much rather stay in that hotel?



- How about throughout the year all the away fans that travel to Toronto, all the long-distance TFC fans (there are a few on these boards) that travel to Toronto
If you assume that those people would be hermits, stay at home, and not spend their money in other ways. Then you would be correct.


These are just some of many things your 75 years of experienced CA's have clearly not factored that do create NEW income

yes, they and myself had factored that in. And yes again, it's not NEW revenue. It would only be NEW revenue if TFC's players/coaches/tickets, etc where taxed differently than the rest of public. Which they are not.

I hope this explains things easier for you. And this is my absolute final post debating this with you.

prizby
01-06-2014, 09:40 AM
You clearly don't get it. Let me break it down one final time for you.

How are TFC players paid? Though ticket sales and sponsorships. Essentially your/companies disposable income/advertising department.

If BMO was never built, you would spend your money elsewhere. You would go out to restaurants, bars, other sporting events, movies, etc etc. All items that ARE TAXED. All which employ people who ARE TAXED. And those employees will buy things that ARE TAXED.
As you say "The economic cycle" There is no 'new' income tax revenue or 'HST' revenue coming in. It's just coming from different sources. Is this really hard to understand?

Traveling from outside city limits is again from disposable income, that money would still be collected from other sources. You could argue that some income is coming from tourism. But since you cannot put a definitive dollar value on it, you cannot could it.


The same thing when TFC flys to the away to play. They are paying various airport fee's, taxes on flights that is LOST to the Toronto/Canadian economy.
2 points to this -
1. That money being spend on these fee's is being paid by the revenue of TFC. Which comes from Ticketsales and sponsorship's, Again, your disposable income that you would spend somewhere else.
2. You do not have a definitive number on this. And thus can't really argue for it.


What about every time TFC has to do the same out of county? Lost
All the other points are the exact same as above.


Again, same points as above. This comes from YOUR disposable income. So you are paying for that player to stay in a hotel. Which is being taxed by your money. I'm sure after explaining it this way, you'd much rather stay in that hotel?


If you assume that those people would be hermits, stay at home, and not spend their money in other ways. Then you would be correct.



yes, they and myself had factored that in. And yes again, it's not NEW revenue. It would only be NEW revenue if TFC's players/coaches/tickets, etc where taxed differently than the rest of public. Which they are not.

I hope this explains things easier for you. And this is my absolute final post debating this with you.

you have missed one key concept; government needs to spend money to make money; economics 101; they made a $45 million investment and it has turned around and got people to spend money, it has brought people to toronto and they have spent money in the city, it has brought people to Ontario and Canada, taxes have been paid to the government, they are making money off this investment; simple

Just like when you build a road and you give people jobs and give them an income and then they turn around and spend some of that and pay taxes and government gets money back from their investment...but in your view building that road wasn't necessary because the people who were working would have worked somewhere else and would still be spending...government spend and invest and build to create people and jobs who will then in turn do the same thing; could they have spent $45M somewhere else, probably, would they have got their money back, maybe, but here we can see the government has made it's money back and will be making more and more of it for many years down the road through the $45M investment they made...it really can't be more simpler than that

Mulder
01-06-2014, 09:50 AM
you have missed one key concept; government needs to spend money to make money; economics 101; they made a $45 million investment and it has turned around and got people to spend money, it has brought people to toronto and they have spent money in the city, it has brought people to Ontario and Canada, taxes have been paid to the government, they are making money off this investment; simple

Just like when you build a road and you give people jobs and give them an income and then they turn around and spend some of that and pay taxes and government gets money back from their investment...but in your view building that road wasn't necessary because the people who were working would have worked somewhere else and would still be spending...government spend and invest and build to create people and jobs who will then in turn do the same thing; could they have spent $45M somewhere else, probably, would they have got their money back, maybe, but here we can see the government has made it's money back and will be making more and more of it for many years down the road through the $45M investment they made...it really can't be more simpler than that

I'm not debating this with you anymore, you are absolutely delusional and one dimensional about this topic. Hopefully someone else here can explain it better than I did. Otherwise you are hopeless.

You don't seem to understand that people will spend their disposable income regardless of what it is on.

Waggy
01-06-2014, 09:53 AM
you have missed one key concept; government needs to spend money to make money; economics 101; they made a $45 million investment and it has turned around and got people to spend money, it has brought people to toronto and they have spent money in the city, it has brought people to Ontario and Canada, taxes have been paid to the government, they are making money off this investment; simple

Just like when you build a road and you give people jobs and give them an income and then they turn around and spend some of that and pay taxes and government gets money back from their investment...but in your view building that road wasn't necessary because the people who were working would have worked somewhere else and would still be spending...government spend and invest and build to create people and jobs who will then in turn do the same thing; could they have spent $45M somewhere else, probably, would they have got their money back, maybe, but here we can see the government has made it's money back and will be making more and more of it for many years down the road through the $45M investment they made...it really can't be more simpler than that

I agree with you completely. But the conclusion we come to seems to be different. The city/province has more than had return on its initial investment into BMO, while the stadium is used roughly 20-25 times a year by ~20 000 people. Why wouldn't they want to invest more into the stadium if it can be used 35+ times a year by 30 000+ people? An annual Leafs outdoor game would presumably have a staggeringly high ticket price. If the Argos moved and had a similar result as when Montreal moved to McGill stadium Argos prices would inflate pretty dramatically, and presumably TFC ticket prices wouldn't fall, there would just be new tiers of tickets at the bottom of the scale for the seats further away. Economically, it'd make sense for them to invest.

From an emotional point of view though, if 3 levels of government are willing to invest 150 million bucks to save the Argos, why not just put that 150 million into a stadium that's CFL specific? The Argos have seen what happens when they're the 2nd tennant in a building. Do they really want to be taking a backseat to an MLS team and the Can Nat soccer team? TFC plays on/near weekends. The Argos would STILL have problems getting regular saturday home matches. And from MLSE's point of view, is 150 million of free money REALLY worth the risk of alienating the fans who keep their team alive? TFC has increased its value like CRAZY, and brings in a lot of cash for them. Why risk 150 million to make 150 million if you can find a way to get the 150 million without the risk? It doesn't make sense to me. The Feds/Province WILL pay for CFL stadiums. It's been shown in every province recently. Hamilton has a subsidized stadium, Ottawa is building one, Sask is building one, Winnipeg just got one, BC has one, Edmonton got money to upgrade Commonwealth. And word on the street is Halifax may be finding some public $ to build a stadium too (there may be an announcement in a few weeks about that whole situation). MLSE doesn't need to tie TFC to the project. They can hold out for more than 150 mil, then take the extra and put it into renovating BMO. Have the CFL stadium for outdoor games, leave the soccer stadium roughly the size it is (because as we all know, there is no demand for a 30 000 seat soccer stadium right now) and just upgrade it a bit. Then if TFC does turn around and the early demand does come back, they can look at trying to extort money again, or just splurging themselves to expand bmo.

Pookie
01-06-2014, 10:06 AM
Do they really want to be taking a backseat to an MLS team and the Can Nat soccer team? TFC plays on/near weekends. The Argos would STILL have problems getting regular saturday home matches...

Therein lies the real question isn't it? Who would have priority?

From the eyes of a CEO, they look at making an investment amongst all their business units. If they had $100M to invest, they don't share that equally amongst the departments. Typically, the unit that shows the most potential for growth gets the priority.

Which team offers the biggest potential for return? A team that sustained a much higher season ticket base, stands a 6/9 chance of making the playoffs (securing additional dates), draws the 2nd largest TV market (next to Leafs) and would be wholly owned by MLSE? Or a team that draws poor on TV, also had a much higher season ticket base but is jointly owned with the MLS?

Arguments can be made on both sides but if MLSE's own market research indicated an expected 14,000 crowd every night, I'm not sure that TFC wins.

SoccMan2
01-06-2014, 10:39 AM
The problem with building a new home for the Argos is simply that they play so few home games maybe 12 at the most including preseason games and a playoff game or two, in a season where they don't make the playoffs they could play probably as little as 10 I would think. Therefore, this is what any municipality looking to build them a stadium would have to look at, which is a negative. The only solution would be a stadium at York University where they could share the ground with the York team and get more use of the stadium, I think that is what the new Winnipeg stadium has done it was built on a university campus ground and shares the new stadium with the local university. Therefore, the Argo options for a new stadium don't look too good right now and unfortunately BMO seems to be the only option which could spell the downfall of TFC, because I believe that one of the attraction of TFC was that they played in their very own stadium and this fact not the only one mind you but a significant one, was a reason that attendance has been better than anyone expected. Take this away and I have a bad feeling that it will effect attendance. You go to a game at BMO now and you know you are at the home of TFC, bring in the Argos and BMO becomes just a stadium that has some soccer team play there.

Fort York Redcoat
01-06-2014, 11:04 AM
we're all being a bit dramatic i think...Tons of world football stadiums are used for other things than SOLELY the team they primarily serve, why should BMO be so different as long as the grass/field is maintained.


Why change it? We have the ideal. A sole purpose stadium. (For the official part)

Other grounds share. They look worse for it IMO. That's why.

Pookie
01-06-2014, 11:09 AM
^ they considering changing it because the net effect makes business sense. This isn't emotional.

Even if you want it to be emotional, did you get your MLSE Christmas shopping email with links to discounts? Notice that they had just the Raptors and Leafs featured as hot links? No mention at all of TFC which highlights there is limited profit, relative to its other business units and certainly no sense of "family".

Even if they allowed emotion to enter their decisions, this "on the job learning organization" just doesn't appear to rate within the corporate offices.

It wouldn't surprise me if the repainted the seats to match the double blue.

prizby
01-06-2014, 11:24 AM
I agree with you completely. But the conclusion we come to seems to be different. The city/province has more than had return on its initial investment into BMO, while the stadium is used roughly 20-25 times a year by ~20 000 people. Why wouldn't they want to invest more into the stadium if it can be used 35+ times a year by 30 000+ people? An annual Leafs outdoor game would presumably have a staggeringly high ticket price. If the Argos moved and had a similar result as when Montreal moved to McGill stadium Argos prices would inflate pretty dramatically, and presumably TFC ticket prices wouldn't fall, there would just be new tiers of tickets at the bottom of the scale for the seats further away. Economically, it'd make sense for them to invest.


you are most likely 110% correct. All I have been debating against is the people who say well it was publicly funded ($45 million), thus TFC have no right to having their own stadium. All I have done is pointed out, through multiple mechanisms, that by having the soccer team in Toronto, the three levels of government have, at minimum, made their money back from their initial investment. When it comes to expanding the stadium, adding more



From an emotional point of view though, if 3 levels of government are willing to invest 150 million bucks to save the Argos, why not just put that 150 million into a stadium that's CFL specific? The Argos have seen what happens when they're the 2nd tennant in a building. Do they really want to be taking a backseat to an MLS team and the Can Nat soccer team? TFC plays on/near weekends. The Argos would STILL have problems getting regular saturday home matches. And from MLSE's point of view, is 150 million of free money REALLY worth the risk of alienating the fans who keep their team alive? TFC has increased its value like CRAZY, and brings in a lot of cash for them. Why risk 150 million to make 150 million if you can find a way to get the 150 million without the risk? It doesn't make sense to me. The Feds/Province WILL pay for CFL stadiums. It's been shown in every province recently. Hamilton has a subsidized stadium, Ottawa is building one, Sask is building one, Winnipeg just got one, BC has one, Edmonton got money to upgrade Commonwealth. And word on the street is Halifax may be finding some public $ to build a stadium too (there may be an announcement in a few weeks about that whole situation). MLSE doesn't need to tie TFC to the project. They can hold out for more than 150 mil, then take the extra and put it into renovating BMO. Have the CFL stadium for outdoor games, leave the soccer stadium roughly the size it is (because as we all know, there is no demand for a 30 000 seat soccer stadium right now) and just upgrade it a bit. Then if TFC does turn around and the early demand does come back, they can look at trying to extort money again, or just splurging themselves to expand bmo.

the emotional aspect is a whole different nut; it is very simple for me, if they screw with the grass, if they screw with the sight lines, if we see other lines on the pitch, I'll be mailing my tickets back to the club and watch my team on the road at proper SSS like New York, Philadelphia, and Montreal

Does the stadium need upgrades; probably
Do we need a roof; might keep a few people in their seats through different elements & would certainly keep the wind from sucking any atmosphere left into Lake Ontario
Can BMO Field have more of an economic impact on the economy with another tenant; i wouldn't argue against that


but i also don't see why another BMO Field like field can't be put at YorkU or Varsity or Lamport and be put up cheaply to satisfy the Argo's needs; you can throw turf down, host outdoor concerts and everyone is happy and it won't cost $120-$150 million to do

TFC07
01-06-2014, 11:24 AM
^ they considering changing it because the net effect makes business sense. This isn't emotional.

Even if you want it to be emotional, did you get your MLSE Christmas shopping email with links to discounts? Notice that they had just the Raptors and Leafs featured as hot links? No mention at all of TFC which highlights there is limited profit, relative to its other business units and certainly no sense of "family".

Even if they allowed emotion to enter their decisions, this "on the job learning organization" just doesn't appear to rate within the corporate offices.

It wouldn't surprise me if the repainted the seats to match the double blue.

TFC had major discount sale during end of the season.

Anyway, Argos don't bring much money outside Grey Cup which is hosted once in a decade. You're way overvaluing Argos presence and its value in this market.

TFC is still unproven (let's see how winning TFC do in Toronto), but potential for TFC is huge compare to Argos in Toronto market due to soccer being more popular than football and TFC ability to sign major international players who bring "star" power which means more money for MLSE. TFC will bring more revenue to MLSE and city of Toronto than Argos simply because they play more games than them when comes to profiting off BMO field.

There's a reason why TFC is worth $120 million which makes them one of richest soccer clubs in Canada and USA. What's Argos value? What's their upside? As an investor, you don't look at current value, but also the future value when making an investment. TFC upside outweighs Argos upside in a huge margin. Argos despite being winning team still struggle to get people to their games.

Pookie
01-06-2014, 11:35 AM
^ if TFC is more popular, why do 5-6 x as many people watch the Argos? Which game would produce more advertising revenue... you know for the media conglomerates that would own each? Which team has consistently produced higher average attendances and which team would MLSE not have to share its revenue with a league entity?

The asking price for the Arogs may be less than the price of the rumoured Jermain Defoe contract value.

Think about that from the perspective of a media company. If they invest that in Defoe, are they going to get 5 times more viewers and outpace the Jays? Not in a million years.

Invest the same money in the Argos and you immediately double your gate receipts and quintuple your TV reach. How could you not roll the dice on that if you are a media company?

cmonyoureds
01-06-2014, 12:01 PM
This team/ownership has always, always done what makes business sense.
TL can spout all he wants about the wishes of the ticket holders, but $ talks.
If there's more $ to be made burning TFC and promoting the Argo's, they'll do it.

Why is TL even starting to spout about BMO field for outdoor games.............

http://timhortonsfield.ca/overview/

That's where an Ontario winter classic will go. Note the term used here is minimum, not maximum.

"expandable to a minimum of 35,000 seats for major events like Grey Cup Championships or suitable concerts."

When the NHL puts on a winter classic, they "buy-out" the home teams gate receipts and take the profits. So for the Leafs, they'll get bought out of an Air Canada game and watch it go down the highway to someone else's building.

Yes, the NHL hates Hamilton, but $ is the bottom line.

SoccMan2
01-06-2014, 12:28 PM
Wow but I just had to comment I just saw the new Hamilton stadium they are building from "cmonyoureds" post, that's what it will look like, it looks like your old typical CFL stadium(1960 design) so open and so dated. At least the new Winnipeg stadium looks a bit more modern, but this Hamilton stadium wow, it looks like the old one they are replacing wow!

Fort York Redcoat
01-06-2014, 01:19 PM
^ they considering changing it because the net effect makes business sense. This isn't emotional.

Even if you want it to be emotional, did you get your MLSE Christmas shopping email with links to discounts? Notice that they had just the Raptors and Leafs featured as hot links? No mention at all of TFC which highlights there is limited profit, relative to its other business units and certainly no sense of "family".

Even if they allowed emotion to enter their decisions, this "on the job learning organization" just doesn't appear to rate within the corporate offices.

It wouldn't surprise me if the repainted the seats to match the double blue.

Pook it doesn't matter the business sense or the likelihood of it happening. It won't change the fact that what they built has emotion attached to it. You're not alone in trying to concentrate on the business sense in predicting the outcome but it doesn't make it the right decision.

I care as much about their business sense as much as the commitment they give to me. So paint a bleak groundshare picture all you want. I'm not going to try to prove it doesn't make money. That's what the rest of NA sports facilities have done for generations. They know it can be done again. It's up to them to prove they can keep what they have.

Beach_Red
01-06-2014, 01:24 PM
Pook it doesn't matter the business sense or the likelihood of it happening. It won't change the fact that what they built has emotion attached to it. You're not alone in trying to concentrate on the business sense in predicting the outcome but it doesn't make it the right decision.

I care as much about their business sense as much as the commitment they give to me. So paint a bleak groundshare picture all you want. I'm not going to try to prove it doesn't make money. That's what the rest of NA sports facilities have done for generations. They know it can be done again. It's up to them to prove they can keep what they have.

I think what he's trying to do is make sure we come up with the most positive groundshare possible. Because right now no one inside MLSE is speaking for TFC.

Waggy
01-06-2014, 01:33 PM
Wow but I just had to comment I just saw the new Hamilton stadium they are building from "cmonyoureds" post, that's what it will look like, it looks like your old typical CFL stadium(1960 design) so open and so dated. At least the new Winnipeg stadium looks a bit more modern, but this Hamilton stadium wow, it looks like the old one they are replacing wow!

Hamilton is a bad example because it's a multi-sport venue being built for the pan am games. Winnipegs stadium (which looks like a miniature version of Seattles stadium and is INCREDIBLY dope), the new stadium in Regina and the new one in Ottawa are more indicative of where the CFL is going


Priz, you're totally right about all that.

Fact of the matter is, TSN/Bell owns 45% of the team, but they have 100% stake in the CFL. The CFL is consistently the 2nd highest draw in this country next to hockey (the Toronto market is an outlyer to the rest of the country. Check the ratings numbers on how the CFL stacks up to MLB/the NFL/MLS. The Argos, even when terrible/with 12000 people in the stands have 700 000+ people watching on TV to about 100 000 for TFC. It's a different animal). To me it's not about which of TFC/the Argos has a higher ceiling, it's which has a lower floor. The Argo's worst and best case scenarios aren't that far off, near 1 million people watching on TV and 25-30 000 people in the stands. No matter if they're the 2nd tenant, playing on tuesdays or Wednesdays in front of 1/3 full stadiums etc. TFC has a LOT more to lose from a bad stadium situation. Logically, I'd be much more worried about TFC in a shared situation and be doing everything I could to protect their interests.

Waggy
01-06-2014, 01:39 PM
Also, as a disclaimer, I am a HUGE TFC fan, been with the team since day 1 (literally), however my family has had Argos season tickets since the 1950's. I'm 28, when I was a young, YOUNG child the 2 things I always did were watch the Jays and Argos. Most birthdays I had between ages 3-13 were at Argos games. I'm a HUGE football fan (more of an NFL fan, but I like the Argos more than Denver, my NFL team). When I say I want what's best for both teams, I really mean it. A shared stadium situation doesn't make much sense for either fan base. That being said, if I take off my TFC fan hat and put on my Argos fan hat, a shared stadium with TFC at BMO is WAY better than a shared stadium with the Jays at the Dome. So who knows. Ultimately, if MLSE isn't in this to do right by both fan bases, they WILL fail with both. If they just want to take as much government money as possible, both fan bases will turn on them. But they have an opportunity to do right by both fan bases as well, and really become the sports empire they want to be in this city. I hope they make the right decision and don't get deluded with the the pipe dream of an NFL team

ensco
01-06-2014, 01:43 PM
I think this whole discussion is DOA. Leiweke is firing blanks.

MLSE are leveraged up the wazoo, so this can't happen unless public money is used. Which ain't happening.

Argos are Bell/TSN's problem, not MLSE's. The MLSE partnership didn't last a year before open warfare erupted (over the NHL rights/Leafs). No favours for the Argos are being done by MLSE.

The Argos will play at York in front of 15000 people in bleachers, or whatever.

Waggy
01-06-2014, 01:59 PM
I think this whole discussion is DOA. Leiweke is firing blanks.

MLSE are leveraged up the wazoo, so this can't happen unless public money is used. Which ain't happening.

Argos are Bell/TSN's problem, not MLSE's. The MLSE partnership didn't last a year before open warfare erupted (over the NHL rights/Leafs). No favours for the Argos are being done by MLSE.

The Argos will play at York in front of 15000 people in bleachers, or whatever.

The Argos average attendance this year was around 25 000 butts in seats. TFCs ass in seat avg attendance was closer to what, 17 000? Less? I wouldn't be so snarky. If any team is getting shafted in a sporting shake up in this city it's TFC. The Argos are worth way more than TFC to TSN and most importantly to the federal government. Plus if the rumors are true that any NFL team in Toronto is contingent on the Argos being taken care of in a viable and respectful way, the real value for the Argos is likely triple, if not more, than TFC's. The arguments should be that it's better for BOTH the Argos and TFC to be in separate, sport specific buildings. Not fuck _____, Disrespect to the Argos because they play in the 2nd highest tier of football instead of the highest, by Toronto FC fans of all people, is beyond petty. It's also ridiculous. For obvious reasons. Argos and TFC fans if anything should be allies in this city.

Edit: Ensco, that's not directly purely towards you. There are lots of people making comments disparaging the value/support the Argos have on this board. I don't mean it offensively, but objectively speaking, FAR, far, far more people in this city/province/country care about the Argos than TFC. Including the government and the sports networks.

ag futbol
01-06-2014, 02:35 PM
I think this whole discussion is DOA. Leiweke is firing blanks.

MLSE are leveraged up the wazoo, so this can't happen unless public money is used. Which ain't happening.

Argos are Bell/TSN's problem, not MLSE's. The MLSE partnership didn't last a year before open warfare erupted (over the NHL rights/Leafs). No favours for the Argos are being done by MLSE.

The Argos will play at York in front of 15000 people in bleachers, or whatever.
Looks like Tanenbaum's stake just became a lot more relevant.

What would be great is if there was a real falling out and started dividing up the sports properties. 2nd NHL team, someone with raptors, someone else with TFC... Things might actually get interesting.

ensco
01-06-2014, 03:00 PM
The Argos average attendance this year was around 25 000 butts in seats. TFCs ass in seat avg attendance was closer to what, 17 000? Less? I wouldn't be so snarky. If any team is getting shafted in a sporting shake up in this city it's TFC. The Argos are worth way more than TFC to TSN and most importantly to the federal government. Plus if the rumors are true that any NFL team in Toronto is contingent on the Argos being taken care of in a viable and respectful way, the real value for the Argos is likely triple, if not more, than TFC's. The arguments should be that it's better for BOTH the Argos and TFC to be in separate, sport specific buildings. Not fuck _____, Disrespect to the Argos because they play in the 2nd highest tier of football instead of the highest, by Toronto FC fans of all people, is beyond petty. It's also ridiculous. For obvious reasons. Argos and TFC fans if anything should be allies in this city.

Edit: Ensco, that's not directly purely towards you. There are lots of people making comments disparaging the value/support the Argos have on this board. I don't mean it offensively, but objectively speaking, FAR, far, far more people in this city/province/country care about the Argos than TFC. Including the government and the sports networks.

I'm not expressing any opinion about what the Argos are worth, or to whom. (It's a weird topic, TSN extracts all the value in the league, the teams get squat. Can't say I can think of another example like it. It's the model the XFL was trying - a league fundamentally owned by a broadcast outlet)

I'm suggesting that the resolution of the Argos ownership/stadium problems are very unlikely to involve MLSE, or BMO, for the reasons I suggest.

prizby
01-06-2014, 03:03 PM
The Argos average attendance this year was around 25 000 butts in seats. TFCs ass in seat avg attendance was closer to what, 17 000?

21k; down almost 2k from the year before; tfc was stead fast at 18 and change

Beach_Red
01-06-2014, 03:18 PM
I'm not expressing any opinion about what the Argos are worth, or to whom. (It's a weird topic, TSN extracts all the value in the league, the teams get squat. Can't say I can think of another example like it. It's the model the XFL was trying - a league fundamentally owned by a broadcast outlet)

I'm suggesting that the resolution of the Argos ownership/stadium problems are very unlikely to involve MLSE, or BMO, for the reasons I suggest.


But they'll probably involve that TV network. Without hockey does the CFL become even more important to TSN/Bell? The one place the TV ratings could see an increase for the CFL is southern Ontario. A new stadium in Hamilton, a new team in Ottawa and a renovated BMO could make a big difference. That would be good news for TSN. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

OgtheDim
01-06-2014, 04:30 PM
TSN and the Argos don't need BMO in order to succeed.

A new stadium in the 905 would do just as fine, and be about the same price.

And more likely to get government $'s.

TFC07
01-06-2014, 05:05 PM
^ if TFC is more popular, why do 5-6 x as many people watch the Argos? Which game would produce more advertising revenue... you know for the media conglomerates that would own each? Which team has consistently produced higher average attendances and which team would MLSE not have to share its revenue with a league entity?
How many of those people watching Argos are from Toronto? There's a good chance most of these viewers watching their team play against Argos or simply just avid CFL fan who watches every CFL game on TV.


The asking price for the Arogs may be less than the price of the rumoured Jermain Defoe contract value.

Asking price is somewhere near $20 million. Not a same thing!


Think about that from the perspective of a media company. If they invest that in Defoe, are they going to get 5 times more viewers and outpace the Jays? Not in a million years.

Once again, networks make their money from ads who want to advertise their products to people who willing to buy their stuff. CFL doesn't attract that type of viewer (18-35 single male) who willing to spend money on something they have saw on TV. The only value CFL has it's Canadian content which is needed to fit Canadian airtime requirement for Bell.


Invest the same money in the Argos and you immediately double your gate receipts and quintuple your TV reach. How could you not roll the dice on that if you are a media company?

No you wouldn't! Argos despite being winning team still fail to get people coming to their games. Just look at their recent attendance record for proof. CFL has reached it's peak already doesn't have that much upside since no one watches CFL outside of Canada. MLS in the other hand, can reach more international audience which will make more money for them if the league keeps on growing since soccer is played and watched all over the world.

Mulder
01-06-2014, 05:37 PM
How many of those people watching Argos are from Toronto? There's a good chance most of these viewers watching their team play against Argos or simply just avid CFL fan who watches every CFL game on TV.

Once again, networks make their money from ads who want to advertise their products to people who willing to buy their stuff. CFL doesn't attract that type of viewer (18-35 single male) who willing to spend money on something they have saw on TV. The only value CFL has it's Canadian content which is needed to fit Canadian airtime requirement for Bell.


Here you go.


Ratings for all CFL games were up 18 per cent from last year in Southern Ontario and the Hamilton-Toronto clash on Thanksgiving Day drew the league's fourth-largest TV audience of the season with 956,000 viewers.

The league won't supply actual audience numbers for what is known as the CFL's dead zone, which always makes the percentages a bit suspicious. For example, if 12 people watched lawnmower racing last year and 18 tuned in this year, that's a 50 per cent increase. So straight percentages don't really carry a lot of weight.

But I've seen actual Southern Ontario numbers in my previous incarnation and they're generally in line with NFL audiences and Blue Jays audiences -- so the increases are significant.


http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/key-cfl-television-ratings-increase-surprise-southern-ontario-183017606.html

TFC07
01-06-2014, 06:17 PM
Here you go.



http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/key-cfl-television-ratings-increase-surprise-southern-ontario-183017606.html

Southern Ontario = Toronto now?

I am talking about Toronto not Ontario. We all know Hamilton fanbase is stronger than ours. They recently invaded Rogers Centre in Eastern Conference final game and embarrassed us at home.

kryptyk
01-06-2014, 06:54 PM
Southern Ontario = Toronto now?

I am talking about Toronto not Ontario. We all know Hamilton fanbase is stronger than ours. They recently invaded Rogers Centre in Eastern Conference final game and embarrassed us at home.

Who was embarassed? No one watches the CFL in Toronto

Once I was walking home from work along Front and saw the saddest sight...several TiCats fans trying to heckle people on the streets because there was apparently an Argos/TiCats game at the dome....perhaps one shit was given...but no more

prizby
01-06-2014, 07:46 PM
If the Argos are so great, and there tv numbers (which I believe) are so much better than TFC, why is TFC's value 5 or 6 times the Argos? I think that alone says all it has to say

OgtheDim
01-06-2014, 11:21 PM
Who was embarassed? No one watches the CFL in Toronto

...

They do...they just don't go to Argo games.

TFC07
01-07-2014, 12:14 AM
Who was embarassed? No one watches the CFL in Toronto

Once I was walking home from work along Front and saw the saddest sight...several TiCats fans trying to heckle people on the streets because there was apparently an Argos/TiCats game at the dome....perhaps one shit was given...but no more

This is why Argos need to move out of downtown Toronto. They need move closer to where their fanbase live which is mostly 905 region. Build a stadium for Argos somewhere in 905 area or at least very close to 905 area (York U or Downsview).

Pookie
01-07-2014, 08:30 AM
If the Argos are so great, and there tv numbers (which I believe) are so much better than TFC, why is TFC's value 5 or 6 times the Argos? I think that alone says all it has to say

TFC's value is higher because it has more assets that are available to a potential buyer. TFC owns its stadium. Buildings are considered significant when assigning value as they can be used for more events.

Perhaps more importantly, buying TFC is essentially buying into Major League Soccer given the single entity ownership. As the league profits so do each of the investors (franchise operators). Buying into MLS means shares of expansion fees, league revenue, shared revenue from other clubs and perhaps most importantly a share of Soccer United Marketing (SUM). This is the entity that has held World Cup TV rights, rights for the USNT, rights for Mexican National Team games played in the US, the USSF, etc. It is VERY profitable.

MLSE could do nothing for TFC and it could continue to profit from the dividends that the league generates. They don't have invest another nickel (unless the MLS requires them to do so) and they continue to make good returns. Their attendance could fall off the map and provided MLS does not revoke their "shares", they would continue to make good returns.

The Argos on the other hand represent an interesting opportunity for return on an investment. The Argos have no stadium but MLSE does. Buying them immediately nearly doubles their gate driven rental income... generating as much or potentially more than TFC based on attendance figures and playoff dates... and allows them to reach a much more lucrative TV contract. All for the investment of Jerman Defoe's rumoured total contract value. Given the revenue TFC is said to generate which is a combination of gate receipts, TV/advertising and merchandise, it would seem that owning the building would enable MLSE to pay off the Argos investment within the first year(s). And they don't have to share any of the profits with anyone else.

Pookie
01-07-2014, 08:36 AM
Asking price is somewhere near $20 million. Not a same thing!


Defoe's deal, if he signs, is thought to be in the $4.5-5M range... per season... over a 4 year term.

Your calculator will tell you an asking price for the Argos in the $15-20M range would essentially be the same thing.

Beach_Red
01-07-2014, 09:06 AM
TFC's value is higher because it has more assets that are available to a potential buyer. TFC owns its stadium. Buildings are considered significant when assigning value as they can be used for more events.

Perhaps more importantly, buying TFC is essentially buying into Major League Soccer given the single entity ownership. As the league profits so do each of the investors (franchise operators). Buying into MLS means shares of expansion fees, league revenue, shared revenue from other clubs and perhaps most importantly a share of Soccer United Marketing (SUM). This is the entity that has held World Cup TV rights, rights for the USNT, rights for Mexican National Team games played in the US, the USSF, etc. It is VERY profitable.

MLSE could do nothing for TFC and it could continue to profit from the dividends that the league generates. They don't have invest another nickel (unless the MLS requires them to do so) and they continue to make good returns. Their attendance could fall off the map and provided MLS does not revoke their "shares", they would continue to make good returns.

The Argos on the other hand represent an interesting opportunity for return on an investment. The Argos have no stadium but MLSE does. Buying them immediately nearly doubles their gate driven rental income... generating as much or potentially more than TFC based on attendance figures and playoff dates... and allows them to reach a much more lucrative TV contract. All for the investment of Jerman Defoe's rumoured total contract value. Given the revenue TFC is said to generate which is a combination of gate receipts, TV/advertising and merchandise, it would seem that owning the building would enable MLSE to pay off the Argos investment within the first year(s). And they don't have to share any of the profits with anyone else.

So, it's like TFC is a Tim Hortons franchise and the Argos are that little donut shop owned by a guy in the neighbourhood.

Phil
01-07-2014, 09:12 AM
TFC's value is higher because it has more assets that are available to a potential buyer. TFC owns its stadium. Buildings are considered significant when assigning value as they can be used for more events.

Perhaps more importantly, buying TFC is essentially buying into Major League Soccer given the single entity ownership. As the league profits so do each of the investors (franchise operators). Buying into MLS means shares of expansion fees, league revenue, shared revenue from other clubs and perhaps most importantly a share of Soccer United Marketing (SUM). This is the entity that has held World Cup TV rights, rights for the USNT, rights for Mexican National Team games played in the US, the USSF, etc. It is VERY profitable.

MLSE could do nothing for TFC and it could continue to profit from the dividends that the league generates. They don't have invest another nickel (unless the MLS requires them to do so) and they continue to make good returns. Their attendance could fall off the map and provided MLS does not revoke their "shares", they would continue to make good returns.

The Argos on the other hand represent an interesting opportunity for return on an investment. The Argos have no stadium but MLSE does. Buying them immediately nearly doubles their gate driven rental income... generating as much or potentially more than TFC based on attendance figures and playoff dates... and allows them to reach a much more lucrative TV contract. All for the investment of Jerman Defoe's rumoured total contract value. Given the revenue TFC is said to generate which is a combination of gate receipts, TV/advertising and merchandise, it would seem that owning the building would enable MLSE to pay off the Argos investment within the first year(s). And they don't have to share any of the profits with anyone else.

TFC don't own BMO field. They contributed to its construction, its owned by the city.

prizby
01-07-2014, 09:24 AM
TFC's value is higher because it has more assets that are available to a potential buyer. TFC owns its stadium. Buildings are considered significant when assigning value as they can be used for more events.

Perhaps more importantly, buying TFC is essentially buying into Major League Soccer given the single entity ownership. As the league profits so do each of the investors (franchise operators). Buying into MLS means shares of expansion fees, league revenue, shared revenue from other clubs and perhaps most importantly a share of Soccer United Marketing (SUM). This is the entity that has held World Cup TV rights, rights for the USNT, rights for Mexican National Team games played in the US, the USSF, etc. It is VERY profitable.

MLSE could do nothing for TFC and it could continue to profit from the dividends that the league generates. They don't have invest another nickel (unless the MLS requires them to do so) and they continue to make good returns. Their attendance could fall off the map and provided MLS does not revoke their "shares", they would continue to make good returns.

The Argos on the other hand represent an interesting opportunity for return on an investment. The Argos have no stadium but MLSE does. Buying them immediately nearly doubles their gate driven rental income... generating as much or potentially more than TFC based on attendance figures and playoff dates... and allows them to reach a much more lucrative TV contract. All for the investment of Jerman Defoe's rumoured total contract value. Given the revenue TFC is said to generate which is a combination of gate receipts, TV/advertising and merchandise, it would seem that owning the building would enable MLSE to pay off the Argos investment within the first year(s). And they don't have to share any of the profits with anyone else.

TFC don't own BMO Field last time I checked

Are expansion fees shared or are they held by the league office so they can help with the transfer fees of guys like Clint Dempsey, paying down debt, and helping cover losses of half the teams in the league?
As for shared revenue, last time I checked, the league take a cut of kit sponsorship and a percentage of ticket sales are shared among the teams in the league
ABC, ESPN, and Univision hold the US TV rights for the World Cup

The Argos don't pay rent as is...and they still lose money; to then somehow suggest they'll make money in their first year let alone make the entire investment back sounds pretty crazy

My only point is the valuations of the teams says it all for the future


Defoe's deal, if he signs, is thought to be in the $4.5-5M range... per season... over a 4 year term.

Your calculator will tell you an asking price for the Argos in the $15-20M range would essentially be the same thing.

$150,000 a week = $4.5M-5M (although I agree with the range as his base salary, when you look at all the variable bonuses etc...i think it'll be much higher

Pookie
01-07-2014, 11:08 AM
So, it's like TFC is a Tim Hortons franchise and the Argos are that little donut shop owned by a guy in the neighbourhood.

Kinda. The little guy has line ups out the door. By buying him, you can close his shop but bring his doughnuts into your building, leverage your infrastructure and increase your traffic.

To those responding with comments over city ownership or BMO, I should have put "owned" in quotes. They are the owner-operator with a stake in the building. Quite correct in that the city maintains ownership.

Just like MLS owns TFC. This management stake still represents a value that is assigned to the TFC "share price" or value.

MightyDM
01-07-2014, 11:18 AM
Kinda. The little guy has line ups out the door. By buying him, you can close his shop but bring his doughnuts into your building, leverage your infrastructure and increase your traffic.

To those responding with comments over city ownership or BMO, I should have put "owned" in quotes. They are the owner-operator with a stake in the building. Quite correct in that the city maintains ownership.

Just like MLS owns TFC. This management stake still represents a value that is assigned to the TFC "share price" or value.

Not quite. The City of Toronto owns the stadium, through Exhibition Place. They have an operating/tenancy agreement with MLSE. It would be fair to say MLSE "controls use of" the stadium but it is not an owner in any legal way. It could, for example, host the Grey Cup there now as the operator of the Stadium but could not renovate it without the agreement of the owner, the City. MLSE cannot sell the stadium at all, only the right to occupy it, possibly, although there is usually a change of control clause in these kind of agreements.

Pookie
01-07-2014, 01:36 PM
^ I think we are saying the same thing.

Here's the actual report that council considered back in October of 2005.

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

MLSEL secures the right, over twenty years, to manage and participate in the revenue from the stadium, and the right to market the naming rights for the stadium to a third party.

For that, they receive a $200,000 annual operating fee and revenue as realized according to a variety of formulas and sources. And no business is going to renovate someone else's building without a vested stake in the profits (grass and rumours of this $100M roof). It would be like remodeling an apartment you rent.

Of course, ultimately the stadium is the city's... for now... but even without a transfer of title, this joint investment provides additional value to TFC should anyone wish to purchase the franchise (and MLS approves). This increases the value of owning a share of TFC. As a buyer, you'd get access to this value. Only highlighting it to explain the valuation differences of the Argos vs TFC.

In any event, its funny to me all this discussion about economic value particularly since the Argos are privately owned and we can only speculate as to their revenue and net operating income.

The facts of the matter are that Tim L is the one that brought up the Argos. They are considering it because it could represent a good investment. Whatever the price, it is attractive enough to them that they are continuing to publicly talk about it.

And for Tim it isn't a quite of if it's the Argos, it's how can the Argos work:

"To me it's not a debate of whether you do football or not," he added. "It's a debate about if it's the CFL, can you design the stadium so that it grows for the CFL and shrinks back down to its current intimacy for soccer?"

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/mlse-looks-at-bmo-field-upgrades-cfl-refitting-1.1300961

and they are actively looking at answering the how question (from the same article) :"MLSE is sending people to see other MLS stadiums, to see new designs and technology."

I was simply highlighting why the "if the Arogs come" question is irrelevant. The business case is there and MLSE is active in their due diligence. My gut says if the question being actively considered is "how" does it work, then that's where TFC fans have some leverage to get more out of their current experience. That's where efforts should be, IMO.

notthesun
01-09-2014, 06:04 PM
Good article from Molinaro just went up: http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/toronto-fc-bmo-field-argos-tim-leiweke-cfl-mls/

nascarguy
01-09-2014, 06:40 PM
this is only one game and yes I would buy a ticket if the price is not too high