PDA

View Full Version : Argonauts Co-Owner Speaks Out about Move to BMO



TFC+Argos4Life
08-12-2008, 10:47 PM
So much for your whole "It was meant to be a Soccer-Only Stadium!" argument. Hopefully (for me, anyways) it's enough to take MLSE to court if they don't play nice with the Argos and the city.

BMO built with football in mind

DAVID NAYLOR
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
August 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM EDT

TORONTO — Toronto Argonauts co-owner Howard Sokolowski insists the notion that BMO Field was intended to be a soccer-specific stadium is incorrect.

And there appears to be evidence to back him up.

Toronto city council minutes from the fall of 2005, at which $9.8-million of city money was committed to the complex, note that the stadium proposed for the exhibition grounds was to be "capable of a conversion to a football format."

However, the 20,000-seat stadium, built initially for the FIFA U-20 World Cup soccer tournament last year, doesn't fit a regulation CFL field, making it unusable for the Argonauts as well as amateur football teams.

Now, as the Argos are in the process of surveying fan support for a potential move from the CFL team's home, the Rogers Centre, to BMO Field, there has been considerable push-back from soccer fans and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, the owner of the stadium's primary occupant, Major League Soccer's Toronto FC.

"This is not a soccer-specific stadium," Sokolowski said yesterday. "It was built for soccer, but it clearly had an understanding that it was convertible for football and to be expanded to 30,000 seats. That's what city council voted on."

Sokolowski believes Mayor David Miller is doing his best to live up to council's promise of nearly three years ago, even though the stadium would require some reconstruction to accommodate a CFL field.

"The mayor has been very helpful," Sokolowski said. "He wants to please soccer and football fans together. There's no reason they can't coexist. This isn't the Hatfields and the McCoys, but I'm not sure [MLSE president] Richard Peddie feels that way.

"The mayor has told us a number of times that if the Toronto Argonauts want to come to BMO Field, he'll do all he can within the confines of his lease agreement with MLSE."

The lease agreement gives MLSE control of all stadium revenue streams, which are then shared with the city. Though the city might back a potential Argos request to be cut into some of the revenue streams, there's no indication MLSE would accommodate such a request.

It could also be argued that a stadium that requires construction to move stands to accommodate football does not necessarily meet the definition of "capable of conversion to a football format." But a spokesman for the Toronto mayor says it does.

"What we have is a $70-million public asset that is in the shape of a stadium," Stuart Green said. "The primary occupant is the game of soccer, and what council said [in 2005] is there has to be some compatibility option [for football] there.

"It has to be an option because that was built into the approval council gave. How that happens has to be worked out."

Sokolowski said the Argos have been willing to talk about that for some time, but are being put off by Peddie.

Peddie said this week that MLSE hadn't made up its mind whether to pursue stadium expansion to meet the current demand from Toronto FC fans.

"I had a meeting with Richard Peddie three or four months ago, and he informed me that in late August there may be a time to sit down and talk about what they want to see in the stadium expansion," Sokolowski said. "Now, I understand it's not on his radar screen. I spoke to Richard last week by e-mail and it's not a priority for him right now.

"Whether we could write a cheque [for stadium expansion] or help secure funds, I'm not sure. But the Toronto Argonauts could be part of making that happen."

Yesterday, Peddie said he had talked with Sokolowski, but called the topic of discussion "premature."

"It's not cheap to expand that building," Peddie said. "It's millions and millions of dollars. We haven't nailed down cost and determined if there's a return on investment, and won't for months. It's not a matter of accommodation.

"We're just not ready."

Sonny Cheeba
08-12-2008, 10:55 PM
why are they in the process of perhaps jumping on it after it was already built to be soccer specific?

if CFL is supposed to be played outdoors and in in intimate setting, they would have known that for decades by now. so fuck them for being late. they were presented with options before, and now they're acting on them. no need to survey the fans. they KNOW small outdoor parks are where it's at. so why wait? i'll tell you why. because they are fuckers.


but i do want to see what the plans are if they ever work them out.

TFC07
08-12-2008, 10:55 PM
Hopefully (for me, anyways) it's enough to take MLSE to court if they don't play nice with the Argos and the city.

Take MLSE to court? LMAO! Thanks for the laugh. I don't think the Argos have the balls to do so. As for your article, it states going to cost a lot of money and the Argos simply don't have that kind of money to spend. The same can be said about City.

TFC07
08-12-2008, 10:58 PM
why are they in the process of perhaps jumping on it after it was already built to be soccer specific?

if CFL is supposed to be played outdoors and in in intimate setting, they would have known that for decades by now. so fuck them for being late. they were presented with options before, and now they're acting on them. no need to survey the fans. they KNOW small outdoor parks are where it's at. so why wait? i'll tell you why. because they are fuckers.

You know, I am an Argo fan and CFL supporter in general, but this whole BMO field issue is really making me hate the Argos and CFL a lot. Heck, I am at the point that I want the Bills to come to Toronto for good and just kill Argos and CFL.

TFC+Argos4Life
08-12-2008, 10:59 PM
Sorry, forgot to add the link:

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080812.wsptbmo12/GSStory/GlobeSportsFootball/home

DigzTFC!
08-12-2008, 11:07 PM
The issue that bothers me is how much MLSE will invest to make TFC a premier club in North America...because it seems increasingly clear that the City and Argos are going to push this issue. MLSE should build another stadium and hopefully the City breeches the agreement of the lease so that they can leverage it to get prime land leased for cheap. The issue will never go away as long as the Argos are around and the city won't want to pay for another stadium and the Argos are financed by penny savers. The outlook might be just to start anew without the distraction of ass-clowns and a grass field.

TFC07
08-12-2008, 11:11 PM
True, I think TFC will eventually build their own house. City is being a pain in da ass with this turf and Argos issue.

Red CB Toronto
08-12-2008, 11:16 PM
Anyone who knew the interworkings of a stadium deal knew this could come to the for front, the initial deal at U of T which had involvement from MLSE, the Argonauts and the CSA along with the school died when president Robert Birgeneau departed for the University of California at Berkeley. The new president wanted a facility that would be for the students.

Red CB Toronto
08-12-2008, 11:16 PM
Why is turf completely fine for pro football but not for soccer?

Roogsy
08-12-2008, 11:22 PM
I love the trolls on this board.

Maybe someone should change your login to Argos4Life and take out the TFC part because I havent seen anything from you that is even remotely supportive of TFC and what it is trying to accomplish for soccer in Canada.

This is more media play...until the minutes are produced I take everything with a grain of salt. If this is true, I wonder if MLS knows anything about it. But if this is true, then what I said about the Mayor hedging is so true and in fact, it is MLSE is our last hope. Worrisome I know. Lord knows the city and the mayor's office is perfectly willing to whore themselves out to the Argos on this issue and sellout the soccer fans in this city so long as they can say "look ma, no lines!". And MLSE will just do whatever puts more money in their pockets.

So let's talk about the facts. "Soccer Specific Stadium" is not a legal term. Never has been. Cinnamon-Jr there is just playing semantics. Saying "this isn't a soccer specific stadium but is a stadium meant for soccer" is just dancing around the issue. The point is (and MLSE made it clear this evening) that when the stadium plans were finalized and executed, the Argos were out of the picture. The stadium was built for the U20 World Cup and for the use of TFC in Major League Soccer. The Argos signed a 15 year lease with the Rogers Centre...when exactly did people think they would find their way over to BMO Field that necessitated the stadium's adjustment to football? And was it high school football (which can still be played at BMO in it's current state) or CFL Football with it's super long field? Don't have an answer to that do you Argos4Life?

All contracts have caveats and hedges. It doesn't change the widely accepted fact that this stadium is a soccer stadium. The fact that we are talking about a need to fundamentally overhaul the stadium completely should the Argos move there proves that it was never built with the Argos in mind. Playing somewhat loose with the facts there aren't we? And aren't we overlooking the fact that the Provincial and Federal government also kicked in millions for the purposes of a SOCCER facility?

This doesn't change the fact that it's bad for Argos fans and bad for TFC fans. Nobody but the team owners should be looking forward to this because they have dollar signs in their eyes.

And if this thing winds up happening, I hope the cost of overhauling this stadium cripples the Argos, I hope Argos fans freeze their asses off outside and I hope that the NFL comes to Toronto to beat the CFL into oblivion.

Then you can change your nic to "Bills4Life".

BC101
08-12-2008, 11:23 PM
I've never seen anyone so desperate to see No more CMNT team games in Toronto and no REAL star power for TFC as well as say good bye to ANY Hope of ever seeing a high profile team here for a friendly...

Ah well have fun Montreal with all yer CMNT games and having Liverpoo over for friendlies...

Sonny Cheeba
08-12-2008, 11:24 PM
Why is turf completely fine for pro football but not for soccer?


they tend to keep the ball off the ground.

Roogsy
08-12-2008, 11:25 PM
Why is turf completely fine for pro football but not for soccer?

Ask the players that aren't willing to sign here and play for the team.

BC101
08-12-2008, 11:26 PM
Ask the players that aren't willing to sign here and play for the team.
After playing on it... I realize now that what their saying is true... I was hurtin for damn near a week after just playing on it for an hour. Not just me either...

Ah yes as for the troll... you know he's just doing this shit to be a dick.. Just ban him... Not just ban but IP ban... Screw this nonsense already. TFC could build their OWN ground somewhere else and the Argos would wanna go there too.. Fuck TFC could be playing at Old Trafford and the Argos would be following right behind like Milhouse saying they have a right to be there too.

Roogsy
08-12-2008, 11:29 PM
I was thinking tonight about some of the logistics that are needed to make the stadium "CFL" ready. You can't expand "north" because of the Food building, so it all has to be south, which is possibly since there is nothing there but parking space.

But it isn't just about tearing down the South stands and building them 100 yards down the road. You'd have the midfield seats at the 30 yard line!!! So how are you going to get the entire East and West stands centered? The only way is to completely tear down the stadium and build it from scratch.

So in their greed, the Argos, because they are Johnny-Come-Lately, think their crummy 30mill is worth totally re-doing the stadium.

Does anyone else not see this? Because if there is another way this stadium doesn't have to be torn down to scratch and built from nothing again, please let me know because it is blowing my mind how people are willing to tear down a stadium that is not even 2 years old.

Oh...and on a financial note...I do believe Steel and Concrete is much higher than when BMO Field was originally built. So the costs would be much higher.

Merlin
08-12-2008, 11:30 PM
I would hate for the argos to play in BMO. It would not make it seem like such a special location. I see it as the home for TFC and football (euro, not North American), But if we add in the Argos then it takes away the feeling of BMO being soccer specific. I hate seeing the NFL lines on football pitches in the states so why add them onto our pitch? And they better not be thinking about this removable pitch shit. This would cost more than just adding grass would it not?

I just hate the idea of the argos moving to BMO. Stay where you're wanted...in the past maybe?

Roogsy
08-12-2008, 11:32 PM
I stated before, I used to go to 1 or 2 Argos games per year. If they move to BMO Field, I will never watch or attend an Argos game ever again.

And I will scalp every last one of my TFC tickets.

king10
08-12-2008, 11:36 PM
some sort of demonstration must be put on to show the city and the argos what tfc fans think about this situation

BC101
08-12-2008, 11:38 PM
I stated before, I used to go to 1 or 2 Argos games per year. If they move to BMO Field, I will never watch or attend an Argos game ever again.

And I will scalp every last one of my TFC tickets.
Word...Never again at a home game me if that goes down. Scalp Scalp Scalp... and watch as BMO field becomes like oh I dunno Columbus... And laugh while the TFC away support far outweighs the home.


edit

WTF someone post i hate being the last poster...

MartinUtd
08-12-2008, 11:58 PM
I was thinking tonight about some of the logistics that are needed to make the stadium "CFL" ready. You can't expand "north" because of the Food building, so it all has to be south, which is possibly since there is nothing there but parking space.

But it isn't just about tearing down the South stands and building them 100 yards down the road. You'd have the midfield seats at the 30 yard line!!! So how are you going to get the entire East and West stands centered? The only way is to completely tear down the stadium and build it from scratch.

So in their greed, the Argos, because they are Johnny-Come-Lately, think their crummy 30mill is worth totally re-doing the stadium.

Does anyone else not see this? Because if there is another way this stadium doesn't have to be torn down to scratch and built from nothing again, please let me know because it is blowing my mind how people are willing to tear down a stadium that is not even 2 years old.

Oh...and on a financial note...I do believe Steel and Concrete is much higher than when BMO Field was originally built. So the costs would be much higher.

They can make south end mobile so you wont have to worry about being too far from the game. I'm more worried about getting those football lines off the pitch since i've long since accepted that we're stuck with a plastic surface.

Roogsy
08-13-2008, 12:03 AM
The grass is my biggest problem as well. I really wasn't on the pro-grass side until I started to see for myself that players refuse to come here to play (whether it is to sign for TFC or the CMNT) because we have turf...that did it for me. Before I was just a sympathizer, now I am a full-fledged advocate.

And I am not sure how they can possibly cover 30-50yards of field that needs to be added with "tracks". And you still have stands that are not "centered".

FluSH
08-13-2008, 12:06 AM
I stated before, I used to go to 1 or 2 Argos games per year. If they move to BMO Field, I will never watch or attend an Argos game ever again.

And I will scalp every last one of my TFC tickets.


Straight up... If they put football lines on that stadium you can say goodbye to me as well.

Dirk Diggler
08-13-2008, 12:06 AM
This is pissing me off. Up until now, I've been very supportive of the Argos on this board even though I'm not a fan of the team or the league ... at all. However, all this constant insistence is pissing me off. They had their chance .... and they blew it. Please don't mess with a good thing! Whats next? Rogers converting the Skydome to be NFL specific and moving the Blue Jays to BMO Field? Might as well rename it Mistake by the Lake v.2.0.

I hope the Argos die a quick yet painful death WHEN the Bills make their move to Toronto permanent. Their 130 years history of mediocrity can go to oblivion as well.

nascarguy
08-13-2008, 12:08 AM
I see anything cfl in bmo field and I'm buring the fucker down to the ground or they can have bmo field and give use a new place and with one free season ticket for all the ticket holders

FluSH
08-13-2008, 12:08 AM
P.S. If you don't have an account with Globe and Mail open one and state your displeasure.

Toronto needs to know that we are not going down with out a fight... forget that... we are not going down without WAR.

James17930
08-13-2008, 12:10 AM
They can make south end mobile so you wont have to worry about being too far from the game. I'm more worried about getting those football lines off the pitch since i've long since accepted that we're stuck with a plastic surface.

I don't think they can just move the south end because there are concessions and plumbing and piping and all that shit underneath there.

The only way to do it would be to get a zoning dispensation from the city and go north. But then, as Roogsy said, the field wouldn't be centred.

It's a completely retarded stupid idea.

You know, you'd think the Argos would want to build their own stadium anyway. Don't they care about controlling their revenue stream 100%?

Or are they that afraid of the Bills?

BuSaPuNk
08-13-2008, 12:12 AM
I think the co owners of the Argos are just saying stuff to the media to take away the real issues. There scared to shit of the NFL coming to town and the fact that there team is slowly falling apart. I'm sorry why is it that the Argos can't even make over 30k at there games and there "one of the best teams in the east"? Yet the Hamilton Tiger Cats which have sucked for really the last 10 years really can always sell out or have a pretty full building??? DEDICATION. Which is excactly why the argos can't come to BMO.

Just thinking after this rant......the moral of the story is.....the CFL, the Argos, the CFL loving Toronto City Council.....can all go to HELL.

Sonny Cheeba
08-13-2008, 12:18 AM
I don't think they can just move the south end because there are concessions and plumbing and piping and all that shit underneath there.



ummmmm when tens of millions of dollars are involved. i don't think this is a problem.

Sonny Cheeba
08-13-2008, 12:20 AM
I think the co owners of the Argos are just saying stuff to the media to take away the real issues. There scared to shit of the NFL coming to town and the fact that there team is slowly falling apart. I'm sorry why is it that the Argos can't even make over 30k at there games and there "one of the best teams in the east"? Yet the Hamilton Tiger Cats which have sucked for really the last 10 years really can always sell out or have a pretty full building??? DEDICATION. Which is excactly why the argos can't come to BMO.

Just thinking after this rant......the moral of the story is.....the CFL, the Argos, the CFL loving Toronto City Council.....can all go to HELL.


i think that's the point. they look at hamliton being in a smaller stadium and see that it sells out, and that the atmosphere is better than it is at skydome. that's why they want to move to BMO in the first place. did you miss that?

Roogsy
08-13-2008, 12:23 AM
So why did they pull out of not one but two stadiums negotiations?

I am sure they knew BMO Field plans were proceeding forward, why didn't they step in at that time? Why after the stadium has existed for 18 months do they now start sending out feelers for pushing their way in?

This whole issue is giving me a headache.

Sonny Cheeba
08-13-2008, 12:24 AM
So why did they pull out of not one but two stadiums?

I am sure they knew BMO Field plans were proceeding forward, why didn't they step in at that time? Why after the stadium has existed for 18 months do they now start sending out feelers for pushing their way in?

This whole issue is giving me a headache.

yeah i said that in my first post. but with a few f-bombs in there.

reggie
08-13-2008, 12:27 AM
So much for your whole "It was meant to be a Soccer-Only Stadium!" argument. Hopefully (for me, anyways) it's enough to take MLSE to court if they don't play nice with the Argos and the city.

BMO built with football in mind

DAVID NAYLOR
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
August 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM EDT

TORONTO — Toronto Argonauts co-owner Howard Sokolowski insists the notion that BMO Field was intended to be a soccer-specific stadium is incorrect.

And there appears to be evidence to back him up.

Toronto city council minutes from the fall of 2005, at which $9.8-million of city money was committed to the complex, note that the stadium proposed for the exhibition grounds was to be "capable of a conversion to a football format."

However, the 20,000-seat stadium, built initially for the FIFA U-20 World Cup soccer tournament last year, doesn't fit a regulation CFL field, making it unusable for the Argonauts as well as amateur football teams.

Now, as the Argos are in the process of surveying fan support for a potential move from the CFL team's home, the Rogers Centre, to BMO Field, there has been considerable push-back from soccer fans and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, the owner of the stadium's primary occupant, Major League Soccer's Toronto FC.

"This is not a soccer-specific stadium," Sokolowski said yesterday. "It was built for soccer, but it clearly had an understanding that it was convertible for football and to be expanded to 30,000 seats. That's what city council voted on."

Sokolowski believes Mayor David Miller is doing his best to live up to council's promise of nearly three years ago, even though the stadium would require some reconstruction to accommodate a CFL field.

"The mayor has been very helpful," Sokolowski said. "He wants to please soccer and football fans together. There's no reason they can't coexist. This isn't the Hatfields and the McCoys, but I'm not sure [MLSE president] Richard Peddie feels that way.

"The mayor has told us a number of times that if the Toronto Argonauts want to come to BMO Field, he'll do all he can within the confines of his lease agreement with MLSE."

The lease agreement gives MLSE control of all stadium revenue streams, which are then shared with the city. Though the city might back a potential Argos request to be cut into some of the revenue streams, there's no indication MLSE would accommodate such a request.

It could also be argued that a stadium that requires construction to move stands to accommodate football does not necessarily meet the definition of "capable of conversion to a football format." But a spokesman for the Toronto mayor says it does.

"What we have is a $70-million public asset that is in the shape of a stadium," Stuart Green said. "The primary occupant is the game of soccer, and what council said [in 2005] is there has to be some compatibility option [for football] there.

"It has to be an option because that was built into the approval council gave. How that happens has to be worked out."

Sokolowski said the Argos have been willing to talk about that for some time, but are being put off by Peddie.

Peddie said this week that MLSE hadn't made up its mind whether to pursue stadium expansion to meet the current demand from Toronto FC fans.

"I had a meeting with Richard Peddie three or four months ago, and he informed me that in late August there may be a time to sit down and talk about what they want to see in the stadium expansion," Sokolowski said. "Now, I understand it's not on his radar screen. I spoke to Richard last week by e-mail and it's not a priority for him right now.

"Whether we could write a cheque [for stadium expansion] or help secure funds, I'm not sure. But the Toronto Argonauts could be part of making that happen."

Yesterday, Peddie said he had talked with Sokolowski, but called the topic of discussion "premature."

"It's not cheap to expand that building," Peddie said. "It's millions and millions of dollars. We haven't nailed down cost and determined if there's a return on investment, and won't for months. It's not a matter of accommodation.

"We're just not ready."
why don't you go work on that great chant....ARGOOOOS
what a joke the argos are,jumping on the bills bandwagon so they can sell there own seasons tickets.

nascarguy
08-13-2008, 12:34 AM
someone tell me this why move the southend when you can move the north end back there is only 4 rows there and the 2 group box and there could move the north end look like the south end

Red CB Toronto
08-13-2008, 12:35 AM
The Argonaut had nothing to do with U of T deal dying

GhostPK
08-13-2008, 12:49 AM
I love the CFL ( Go Riders) but the Argos CANNOT set foot in BMO field without wearing complete TFC red. Why take 3 steps backwards when we lead the way for pro footyball in Canada? The Argos are greedy bastards. GM Place doesnt near sell out with their 50,000 seats in Hongcouver either. As far as I know they aren't pushing their way into Swangard.

A R G
Triple Os
Can stay the fuck out of B M O

Whoop
08-13-2008, 12:51 AM
I see a few people are saying that they will give up their season's if the Argos move in...

I'm telling you that's what will scare the shit out of the city or MLSE more than anything else.

Not much revenue when your building is empty...

That's the petition right there.

Get season ticket holders will to put their name on a list... hard copy... none of this online petition shit.

"If the Toronto Argonauts move into BMO Field, I will not renewal my season tickets and/or will remove my name from the waiting list."

End of story, bottom line.

If you get 12,000 signatures plus a few thousand from the waiting list, the city will shit its pants.

It's easier to fill a stadium with more football games than with pointyball games.

GhostPK
08-13-2008, 12:55 AM
I see a few people are saying that they will give up their season's if the Argos move in...

I'm telling you that's what will scare the shit out of the city or MLSE more than anything else.

Not much revenue when your building is empty...

That's the petition right there.

Get season ticket holders will to put their name on a list... hard copy... none of this online petition shit.

"If the Toronto Argonauts move into BMO Field, I will not renewal my season tickets and/or will remove my name from the waiting list."

End of story, bottom line.

If you get 12,000 signatures plus a few thousand from the waiting list, the city will shit its pants.

It's easier to fill a stadium with more football games than with pointyball games.

Haha I love it. Its basically rugby with oversized pads.

nascarguy
08-13-2008, 01:05 AM
I see a few people are saying that they will give up their season's if the Argos move in...

I'm telling you that's what will scare the shit out of the city or MLSE more than anything else.

Not much revenue when your building is empty...

That's the petition right there.

Get season ticket holders will to put their name on a list... hard copy... none of this online petition shit.

"If the Toronto Argonauts move into BMO Field, I will not renewal my season tickets and/or will remove my name from the waiting list."

End of story, bottom line.

If you get 12,000 signatures plus a few thousand from the waiting list, the city will shit its pants.

It's easier to fill a stadium with more football games than with pointyball games. I will allways have my season tickets but if the cfl moves in i just will not go to the game hell i will not even watch it on tv.

BC101
08-13-2008, 01:07 AM
I see a few people are saying that they will give up their season's if the Argos move in...

I'm telling you that's what will scare the shit out of the city or MLSE more than anything else.

Not much revenue when your building is empty...

That's the petition right there.

Get season ticket holders will to put their name on a list... hard copy... none of this online petition shit.

"If the Toronto Argonauts move into BMO Field, I will not renewal my season tickets and/or will remove my name from the waiting list."

End of story, bottom line.

If you get 12,000 signatures plus a few thousand from the waiting list, the city will shit its pants.

It's easier to fill a stadium with more football games than with pointyball games.

Problem is alot of the idiots who have seasons are too passive.. They dont' care as long as their part of the party.. Little realizing that the party will be gone...

Blizzard
08-13-2008, 01:16 AM
someone tell me this why move the southend when you can move the north end back there is only 4 rows there and the 2 group box and there could move the north end look like the south end

They'd need to move both as they'll need to add a fill sixty feet at each end to accomodate the CFL's 20 yard end zones. They'll need to keep the stadium balanced so will have no choice but to move both. Also, if they moved only the north, the field would almost reach the Food Building so there'd be no room left for seating or anything else.

B

Whoop
08-13-2008, 01:17 AM
Problem is alot of the idiots who have seasons are too passive.. They dont' care as long as their part of the party.. Little realizing that the party will be gone...

DING! DING! We have a winner.

The only way the City will listen, that MLSE will listen is....

Moving it to the other board.

nascarguy
08-13-2008, 01:17 AM
Haha I love it. Its basically rugby with oversized pads.no rugby is better..... girls wear pads!! the CFL is full of girls

flamehawk
08-13-2008, 01:20 AM
Has anything ever came out of the mayor's office to substantiate his claim that the city supporters Argos moving in?

This is fucking ridicules, we really need to up the ante and show the city and Argos that Torontonians will not allow them to basically take away our football facilities.

nascarguy
08-13-2008, 01:24 AM
the city will send out the some bull shit email saying that the city supports us.

Cashcleaner
08-13-2008, 02:32 AM
So why did they pull out of not one but two stadiums negotiations?

I am sure they knew BMO Field plans were proceeding forward, why didn't they step in at that time? Why after the stadium has existed for 18 months do they now start sending out feelers for pushing their way in?

This whole issue is giving me a headache.

This is a very good point the pro-groundshare people are forgetting. BMO Field was, during it's preliminary stages, intended as a multi-use stadium. As development progressed, it became soccer-specific. Anyone who would object to the newer plans had plenty of time to contact the city and petition their case at that time. Now that it's all built and we've got one and a half years of use out of the facility, people are saying that they want in?

TFC+Argos4Life, please tell me if you don't find it incredibly stupid to even open this debate up when the Argonauts have had multiple chances in the past to make a move. Simple question: Why now, and why not when the York stadium deal was in the works or at least before BMO Field's current incarnation was designed and approved?

MFG1
08-13-2008, 05:15 AM
I see a few people are saying that they will give up their season's if the Argos move in...

I'm telling you that's what will scare the shit out of the city or MLSE more than anything else.

Not much revenue when your building is empty...

That's the petition right there.

Get season ticket holders will to put their name on a list... hard copy... none of this online petition shit.

"If the Toronto Argonauts move into BMO Field, I will not renewal my season tickets and/or will remove my name from the waiting list."

End of story, bottom line.

If you get 12,000 signatures plus a few thousand from the waiting list, the city will shit its pants.

It's easier to fill a stadium with more football games than with pointyball games.


I would be 99.9 % in favour of giving my tickets up if this happened, but I can see anyone caring from th FO, only if they expand to accomodate the waiting list people, hmmmmmm You might be on to something here


If all STH were canvassed and convinced or believed in not renewing ST, STh still out weigh the waiting list. All I know is if this happened, It would not make my experience with TFC any better than it is right now

London
08-13-2008, 05:49 AM
so mr miller


are you playing both sides on this agenda???

MG42
08-13-2008, 06:14 AM
I see anything cfl in bmo field and I'm buring the fucker down to the ground or they can have bmo field and give use a new place and with one free season ticket for all the ticket holders

:lol:

Pyeddo
08-13-2008, 06:27 AM
This the same David Naylor that poorly runs the U of T? If so, me-thinks he should stop shilling on behalf of his friends and trying to influence situations that don't involve him...

OneLoveOneEric
08-13-2008, 06:39 AM
You heard it here first, MLSE will never have any intention of footing the bill for a whole stadium on their own. The sponsorship money and corporate sales simply don't exist in MLS. It won't happen. Ever. There's a reason they had the city build this stadium in the first place.

OneLoveOneEric
08-13-2008, 06:41 AM
This the same David Naylor that poorly runs the U of T? If so, me-thinks he should stop shilling on behalf of his friends and trying to influence situations that don't involve him...


Of course not. He's a university Prez, not a writer. Same name, different guy.

denime
08-13-2008, 06:55 AM
If Argos move in,community will have less time for BMO use,Argos will take time that might me rented to Community ,to youth soccer clubs,TSA,OSA and so on.
I think we can push that agenda too,Federal and provincial money was invested and turf was installed because of community use,with CFL moving in,there will be less time for rent the BMO to community.

And BTW as far this whole discussion about Argos move,if someone is ok with that and don't see any problems get out from this forum and don't come back,I'm sick and tired of all this trolls trying to justifies how CFL move to BMO is not a big deal, stay the fuck away from this boards forever.There is no such a thing as democracy and free speech when it comes to supporters clubs anyway.I will be on the "ban" button from now on and ready to use it too.
So feel free to support CFL move to BMO :mad: on this boards.

:rant: :topic:

Wagner
08-13-2008, 07:29 AM
This is a very good point the pro-groundshare people are forgetting. BMO Field was, during it's preliminary stages, intended as a multi-use stadium. As development progressed, it became soccer-specific. Anyone who would object to the newer plans had plenty of time to contact the city and petition their case at that time. Now that it's all built and we've got one and a half years of use out of the facility, people are saying that they want in?

TFC+Argos4Life, please tell me if you don't find it incredibly stupid to even open this debate up when the Argonauts have had multiple chances in the past to make a move. Simple question: Why now, and why not when the York stadium deal was in the works or at least before BMO Field's current incarnation was designed and approved?

I think the success TFC has had has made the Argo's jealous and they want in on the action.
They don't realize that it's not the stadium that makes the experience, it's having real football fans, not pointyball fans.

rocker
08-13-2008, 07:52 AM
ummmmm when tens of millions of dollars are involved. i don't think this is a problem.

and who is going to pay tens of millions of dollars?

the argos were too cheap before, so they're not going to pay that now. They can't even afford a proper practice facility. Instead they just work out of cheap portables that have been there for 10 years.

If MLSE just says "we don't have the money to pay for expansion" the issue is over. Argos won't pay, and the city won't pay.

the argo guy said:

"Whether we could write a cheque [for stadium expansion] or help secure funds, I'm not sure. But the Toronto Argonauts could be part of making that happen."

this basically says "We're too fuckin cheap to pay for expansion ourselves, but if we could ride somebody else's money, we'd be in there in a second".

ElvistheEvilScotsman
08-13-2008, 08:06 AM
This probably is not realistic but would it not make sense for MLSE to buy the stadium from the city? The city gets a bunch of cash they can invest in pressing issues like infrastructure and making sure hazardous sites dont go boom in the night etc. MLSE owns a valuable asset and is in control of their clubs destiny (adding more seats, real grass, reaping the spoils of the concessions).

Seems like a win win for the two parties involved and it also gets the city out of this bickering between MLSE and the Argos.

As far as the community aspect can't the city use some more of their property inventory to create another footie facility for community use? Im sure we can throw the plastic pitch into the deal.

BuSaPuNk
08-13-2008, 08:07 AM
Why don't they just use Lamport Stadium?? Wasn't that designed for football anyways?

Fort York Redcoat
08-13-2008, 08:12 AM
The Argonauts had nothing to do with U of T deal dying

Yes dude killed talks when he went to Berkley but The Argos were insisting on no track around the field for "atmosphere". I wonder where the Argos think they can find "atmosphere" now...effing parasites.

But wait. This does scream of a business scrambling for attention when they have the least to talk about.

Terrible record.
Bigger game coming to town.
better game down the road.

And it's true that cinnamin investing 30 mil for a headache and an eyesore (forgetting the ridiculous logistics of renovation) sounds laughable.

I feel better now...

BuSaPuNk
08-13-2008, 08:16 AM
This could all end really if MLSE would get off there big chest of money and just buy the remainder of the building from the City of Toronto.

Fort York Redcoat
08-13-2008, 08:19 AM
Then they'd still have to talk with the province and the feds who would have a majority investment in the place.

Roogsy
08-13-2008, 08:24 AM
Let's just put the whole "why doesn't MLSE just buy the stadium" point to rest.

They can't. The city can't and won't sell anything on the Ex grounds. The only option for MLSE if they were to own TFC's stadium is to build one off the Ex grounds themselves and move the team.

So let's stop bringing this one up please.

Moving on...

kitchener-TFC
08-13-2008, 08:29 AM
Argo's, you have a f*cking stadium, so stay out of ours.

JonO
08-13-2008, 08:32 AM
Let's just put the whole "why doesn't MLSE just buy the stadium" point to rest.

They can't. The city can't and won't sell anything on the Ex grounds. The only option for MLSE if they were to own TFC's stadium is to build one off the Ex grounds themselves and move the team.

Could they not work on exclusive 99 year lease for the stadium? Not saying it will happen (in fact I highly, highly doubt it), but perhaps it is possible?

Roogsy
08-13-2008, 08:34 AM
Could they not work on exclusive 99 year lease for the stadium? Not saying it will happen (in fact I highly, highly doubt it), but perhaps it is possible?

I doubt either party would want that kind of lease. It restricts both for far too long and still limits them in particular areas of control.

Red Skies At Night
08-13-2008, 08:34 AM
This issue is a non-starter. City won't pump any more money into that stadium (I can just see council trying to debate that one lol); the Argos do not have the $ and the owners will not invest their own cash as it will take decades for them to see ROI based on the revenue streams a 30,000 seat stadium and an 8 home game schedule can provide... and MLSE aren't going to do it for the Argos, so this is all about the Argos getting leverage for their own stadium issues with Rogers Centre.
Don't let MLSE and the Mayor's office forget that we want BMO to be SSS (meaning real grass and more seating), but don't worry about the Argos, they ain't coming any time soon.

Roogsy
08-13-2008, 08:37 AM
It's these points that keep me in the realm of sanity. The fact that I just can't see this as good business for the Argos and just really bad for the fans.

But stranger and dumber things have happened, which is why every time this issue keeps rearing it's ugly head, I want to punch somebody's face in. Preferably one of the Argos owners.

rocker
08-13-2008, 08:46 AM
i just pray for the day when MLSE expands by putting up a stand right at the Beer Garden and then a second deck on the south end. At that point it's pretty much over as a possibility, unless the Argos get bought by a russian billionaire.

altho Steve's comment in another thread was a good one... about how If MLSE just delays and avoids talking about expansion at all, then the Argos can't do a thing.
The Argos could never force their way into BMO by going around MLSE to the city. They don't have the $$$ and they can't break the management agreement, so they always need MLSE as a partner. If MLSE plays dumb (like Peddie and Anselmi seem to do, saying they haven't even looked at expansion) then what can the Argos do?
They just have to sign on again at Rogers for another 5 year lease term.

gtaguy
08-13-2008, 09:15 AM
what pisses me off is that the argos want to exercise the right to move in and becuase now they see the opportunity to cry and rant about the fact that the bmo building is not up to code to facilitate them... YOU FUCKING WHINERS.... THE CFL SHOULD BURN IN FLAMES CUASE GOD KNOWS NOT MANY PPL EAST OF MANITOBA ARE WATCHING..

You want BMO fucking take it assholes. Well make sure noone goes to the games and you fuckers fold in a jiffy... then well get the stadium back all to ourselves....

100 plus years trying to get a foothold of football in ontario and yet the bills come to town and your relegated to second best.... "suits you right you wankers..."

Let it be known you will never take our field you guys fucked yourselfs up the asss when you didn't come on board right from the very beginning.... go back and ask ted rogers to shrink the skydome for you .. maybe if you offered free blow jobs by the cheerleaders would i consider coming to see a canadian football game..

wheew now that i got that out of my system i can go back to work.....

ARGOS ARE SHITE just like RED BULLS

bangersandmash
08-13-2008, 09:29 AM
Anyone noticed that the city was planning for "converstion to a football format?" NFL is a football format. CFL doesn't bring much money, NFL does. NFL can lay down the cash to pay for conversion, roofs, etc. And with the city getting a cut of all concessions and merchandise sales they might be interested in this. And, oddly, an NFL field already fits without changing anything.

Tintin
08-13-2008, 09:30 AM
[quote=gtaguy;134301]what pisses me off is that the argos want to exercise the right to move in and becuase now they see the opportunity to cry and rant about the fact that the bmo building is not up to code to facilitate them... YOU FUCKING WHINERS.... THE CFL SHOULD BURN IN FLAMES CUASE GOD KNOWS NOT MANY PPL EAST OF MANITOBA ARE WATCHING..

You want BMO fucking take it assholes. Well make sure noone goes to the games and you fuckers fold in a jiffy... then well get the stadium back all to ourselves....

100 plus years trying to get a foothold of football in ontario and yet the bills come to town and your relegated to second best.... "suits you right you wankers..."

WOW. RELAX MAN!!!!

I know it's an emotionnal topic but there are things to consider:

1. BMO is city owned and they will do what they thinlk is best

2. The ARGOS have a long trdition and after a few lean years, they have Great oeners and are doing well at the gate. They are exploring, as any buisness people would do, option sto grow even more.

3. Football (soccer) does not have a tradition in TO. I laugh when people say that we finally have a team. We had a team. The Lynx and nobody showed up. I did. The USL is the second best socer league in Nort America like the CFL is the second best Football league. They draw 20 000-30 00 and the lynx drew 2000!!! So don't disrespect the Argos and their fans. They are more loyal than the Blue Jays fans.

4. We are entering a recession. I don't think we should build new stadiums but instead fins comprimises.
Let it be known you will never take our field you guys fucked yourselfs up the asss when you didn't come on board right from the very beginning.... go back and ask ted rogers to shrink the skydome for you .. maybe if you offered free blow jobs by the cheerleaders would i consider coming to see a canadian football game..

denime
08-13-2008, 09:33 AM
Anyone noticed that the city was planning for "converstion to a football format?" NFL is a football format. CFL doesn't bring much money, NFL does. NFL can lay down the cash to pay for conversion, roofs, etc. And with the city getting a cut of all concessions and merchandise sales they might be interested in this. And, oddly, an NFL field already fits without changing anything.

Very interesting :rolleyes:

mclaren
08-13-2008, 09:35 AM
To be honest, I'm disappointed in the Mayor's actions (or lack of) so far. All of his comments (or that of his communications team) have been far too wishy-washy and noncommittal and if you read between the lines, they're basically saying they'd be OK with the Argos moving in. BMO Field is one of the few (if not only) successes of David Miller's time as Mayor - if he allows the Argos in, it will quite rapidly turn from a success into a failure.

The Mayor is saying that the Argos can move in if it doesn't affect the football (soccer) experience. They're trying to get us to talk about details (lines being removed, moveable stands) but once we give an inch, they'll take a mile. This is a football (the real kind) stadium and always should be. Let's hope the Mayor and MLSE get some guts and don't let this success story die away.

Whoop
08-13-2008, 09:40 AM
Anyone noticed that the city was planning for "converstion to a football format?" NFL is a football format. CFL doesn't bring much money, NFL does. NFL can lay down the cash to pay for conversion, roofs, etc. And with the city getting a cut of all concessions and merchandise sales they might be interested in this. And, oddly, an NFL field already fits without changing anything.

Problem is the current site is WAY TOO SMALL for a NFL stadium.

So that is a pipe dream.

I know Woodbine Entertainment has land set aside by the racetrack "just in case" the NFL ever wants to come to Toronto.

You need a huge area of land to build a good sized NFL stadium.

boban
08-13-2008, 09:40 AM
Why is turf completely fine for pro football but not for soccer?
I don't know how to respond.
Are you even at all a soccer fan in the slightest?

Whoop
08-13-2008, 09:41 AM
Hell, even NFLers hate FieldTurf!

boban
08-13-2008, 09:45 AM
I was thinking tonight about some of the logistics that are needed to make the stadium "CFL" ready. You can't expand "north" because of the Food building, so it all has to be south, which is possibly since there is nothing there but parking space.

Says who you can't?
There is room to expand in the north for about 2,500-3,000 fans.
And the south expansion would not go to the parking lot because there is a street before then.

bangersandmash
08-13-2008, 09:48 AM
Problem is the current site is WAY TOO SMALL for a NFL stadium.

So that is a pipe dream.

Oh, definitely. My point got away from me. What I was originally trying to point out is that BMO is already big enough to support a football format -- American football. There is no need to modify the stadium to fit what city council voted on.

king10
08-13-2008, 09:48 AM
Says who you can't?
There is room to expand in the north for about 2,500-3,000 fans.
And the south expansion would not go to the parking lot because there is a street before then.

you have to add 20 yard endzones on either end.. after that theres no room for stands on the north end

bones
08-13-2008, 09:51 AM
I’d like to make 2 points here:

1) I just love how the Argos say they have a rite to use BMO because it's city owned. They have a rite to attempt to lease time just like everyone else does. If the facility is booked say every Friday night at 8:00pm then how will they get to use it? If a group of people were to lease the field for footy for a long term to say block anyone else from it’s use then who are the City to say no, you can’t do that, we won’t take your money for rent when that was one of the key features of this public owned facility?

2) As citizens of the City of Toronto, we have the rite to protest or support a change to any City owned facility and we should make it very clear as citizens that we don't want to spoil the structure. Talks about expanding the stadium to 30k by adding a second tier to the East side should be commented on by the public that live in that area too as it will obstruct views. Building a North end supporter section would not block the view and bring the capacity to 23-25k depending on the size while at the same time permanently fixing the size of the field (outside of spending crazy $ to change later)

Just wanted to make some points.

Bones…

BuSaPuNk
08-13-2008, 09:56 AM
It doesn't matter because the NFL has requirements for the building i.e. capacity, ownership, funding by goverment...so on.....BMO, Skydome, anywhere in TO doesn't have the minimum capacity for a NFL football team. I believe that i seen that the mininum is 55,000. Here is the guide of capacity for the NFL: http://www.stadiumguide.com/nfl/capacity.htm .

sully
08-13-2008, 10:05 AM
you know this crap is going to go on for months it seems...this is going to be exhausting but there's no other way..

flamehawk
08-13-2008, 10:06 AM
This the same David Naylor that poorly runs the U of T? If so, me-thinks he should stop shilling on behalf of his friends and trying to influence situations that don't involve him...


Yea, when I first saw the name, I blurted out laughing. First he tries get us activists at UofT locked up in jail or kicked out of school and now he's trying to take away my beloved stadium.

Whoop
08-13-2008, 10:12 AM
^^
It's not the same guy.

Stugatzo
08-13-2008, 10:20 AM
For those who have not read it, here's the council approval that was granted in Oct. 2005 which explains a lot and may answer some questions...including the issue of convertibility, community use, artificial turf etc...
Twenty-three pages of detailed analysis and whatnots.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/council/cc051026/pof9rpt/cl036.pdf

Heathen
08-13-2008, 10:35 AM
True, I think TFC will eventually build their own house. City is being a pain in da ass with this turf and Argos issue.

maybe they should just build a new stadium outside Toronto

Heathen
08-13-2008, 10:38 AM
Why is turf completely fine for pro football but not for soccer?

I've never been as anti-turf as most on here but come on, a soccer midfielder runs 10+km a game how much running does a CFL player do?

Whoop
08-13-2008, 10:39 AM
For those who have not read it, here's the council approval that was granted in Oct. 2005 which explains a lot and may answer some questions...including the issue of convertibility, community use, artificial turf etc...
Twenty-three pages of detailed analysis and whatnots.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/council/cc051026/pof9rpt/cl036.pdf

Stu that's just a proposal.

Not the final contract.

Technorgasm
08-13-2008, 11:06 AM
Gerry Dobson_blog


Opportunists, johnny-come-latelys, free loaders. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Then it's a duck.

I've always loved the CFL, lived and died with the Argos growing up, and I've covered a fair share of Grey Cups, but this story is driving me crazy.

In October of 2004, Argos co-owner Howard Sokolowski unveiled grand plans for a new 25,000 seat stadium for his team at York University. "Our feeling is very strong that this is the best place to have a football stadium", he said. It was supposed to cost $70 million with the Argos responsible for about $20 million of that. And oh yes, soccer could be played there as well. This all fell apart of course, similar to University of Toronto's plan a few weeks earlier, and a Lamport Stadium plan a few years earlier. Eventually, as we all know, the Argos bolted from every proposal ever made, either by them, or someone else and signed what they thought was the best deal for them at the Rogers Centre.

Since then, the Argos have endured the rousing success of BMO Field's heart thumping atmosphere and jealousy has apparently set in. Now they want back in the stadium game. They say their interest is only exploratory but their actions speak louder than words. If they weren't serious, they wouldn't bother polling their fans on what stadium they would choose, (as if the choice were theirs). They wouldn't bother sending out curious feelers through the media, and they wouldn't bother trying to declare that BMO Field is not really soccer specific when we all know that's exactly what it is.

Here's a breakdown of what Canada's National SOCCER Stadium cost to build: The city came up with $9.8 million and $10 million in donated land for a soccer stadium. The province of Ontario chipped in $8 million for a soccer stadium. MLSE's share was $8 million with $10 million coming from naming rights for a soccer stadium. The other $27 million, by far the largest contribution, came from the federal government. That money was contingent on Canada's National Soccer Stadium being a year round use facility for soccer.

The Argos can say whatever they want about what exactly BMO Field is, but we know what it is, what it isn't, and what it cannot be. Without someone (the Argos) spending nearly as much as it cost to build the place, BMO Field can't possibly handle the monstrously long CFL Field.

There seems to be a general feeling, I suppose based on the historical significance of the CFL, combined with the acute anti-soccer bias that still exists across this country that the Argos matter and Toronto FC, the Canadian men's National Team, and BMO Field as a soccer stadium don't. Think again. The tide has turned in this city. There exists 16,000 TFC season ticket holders and a waiting list of thousands more tell us this is so. The Argos have just over 13,000 and they're not looking over their shoulder to see if soccer is chasing them. In many ways it's already ahead. How else do you explain that it's a CFL team trying to ride the coattails of a soccer success story and not the other way around?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/blogs/2008/08/13/dobson_blog_argos/?ok=5b635230e4dcf8a771014d03b3015436#comments

Pigfynn
08-13-2008, 11:09 AM
IF this happens it WILL destroy every bit of progress this sport has made and I fear that's exactly what some people want.

BuSaPuNk
08-13-2008, 11:14 AM
well said both of you...couldn't agree more.

kingjerk
08-13-2008, 11:19 AM
There are valid points raised here and we need to bring them to the attention of people outside these boards.
As flush said, register an account (it's free) and join the discussion on the article's page.

Detroit_TFC
08-13-2008, 11:28 AM
Why can't MLSE just buy out the city's interest in the stadium, grass it up and put in a second level on the east and south side? The cost is peanuts for MLSE and the revenue source for the financing is currently languishing on the wait list.

This is not that complicated.

Wolfe
08-13-2008, 11:32 AM
Here is an idea (which I have stated before), MLSE (and maybe the CSA) puts some money in the hands of the City of Toronto, and BUYS THE DAMN STADIUM SO THAT ALL OF THIS BULL SHIT GOES AWAY!!!!!

OR

MLS comes out and takes a hard stance against this and says, if the CFL comes, MLS and TFC leave. They are trying to be come a major sports league and all of their teams are building soccer specific stadiums, so why not mandate that and say if you want a team you have a SSS.

Stugatzo
08-13-2008, 11:34 AM
Stu that's just a proposal.

Not the final contract.

Nothing proposed about it.
This is the final terms of reference for the stadium and the conditions under which the city made its contribution.
Please share if you have other info.

Detroit_TFC
08-13-2008, 11:42 AM
The city resolution was very illuminating. Seems that the financial numbers were built on an anticipated avg. attendance of 14,000. We now know that the avg attendance is around 20,000, some 40% higher. That is a huge (positive) variance from the forecast. They also forecast a fair amount of concert revenue, which hasn't been realized, so that would offset the higher gate revenue a bit.

Despite the one clause regarding "football format" there is nothing regarding additional major tenants that I saw in my very brief skim of the document. I would think that addition of a major tenant would have to go to the city council for approval, since that was not in the scope of the original authorizing document.

Edit:
This isn't the only authorizing document. The Letter of Intent is incorporated into this resolution by reference, as amended by the stuff at the beginning. What does the Letter of Intent say about the Argos, they must be in the LOI as point 6 in App A makes a clarification about them.

flamehawk
08-13-2008, 11:45 AM
^^
It's not the same guy.


Haha, lol, I know. I was tongue in cheek.

flamehawk
08-13-2008, 11:46 AM
Why can't MLSE just buy out the city's interest in the stadium, grass it up and put in a second level on the east and south side? The cost is peanuts for MLSE and the revenue source for the financing is currently languishing on the wait list.

This is not that complicated.

I don't know, I'd actually prefer the stadium under public ownership to ensure that the field will be available for the community.

Whoop
08-13-2008, 11:56 AM
Nothing proposed about it.
This is the final terms of reference for the stadium and the conditions under which the city made its contribution.
Please share if you have other info.

Ok, no problem Stu.

The way I read it though it sounds more like a proposal. Just wondering if items have been "changed" since October 2005.

However, can't find anything on the reasoning on why FieldTurf was chosen (ie. benefits/advantages vs. disadvantages) other than it just stated it's supposed to be a community based facility. Is it under one of the clauses?

Not trying to be a jerk, just want to be pointed in the right direction.

Appendix A Clause 6 is pretty interesting.

BakaGaijin
08-13-2008, 11:59 AM
MLS comes out and takes a hard stance against this and says, if the CFL comes, MLS and TFC leave. They are trying to be come a major sports league and all of their teams are building soccer specific stadiums, so why not mandate that and say if you want a team you have a SSS.

Well, according to that proposal document, MLSEL has agreed that TFC will be a tenant for 20 years, and will be paying rent. So, that's not an option.

Reading through this old article from back when the Argo's owners weaseled out of the York deal and signed on with the Roger's Centre, they mentioned that they signed the deal because they were getting a cut of concessions, parking, and such..........and would also be allowed to have priority in scheduling. I don't think would be afforded anything like this at BMO.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Toronto/2005/05/03/1023523.html

I call bullshit on the Argo's. I believe they are trying to re-negotiate a sweeter deal with Roger's Centre, by threating to leave after 2009.

Unless, they feel the Bills really will be here permantly and will somehow displace them from the Roger's Centre.

vergilg
08-13-2008, 12:03 PM
...and I thought City Council in Ottawa was bad...


Bottom line (as I see it): the Argos won't be able to shell out the 10s of millions of dollars to convert the stadium to CFL specifications.

And I hope to God that the city doesn't use tax payer dollars to help the Argos.

The money the city and federal government provided for BMO was for soccer purposes and that was to build something new and support a new sport at the pro level in Canada - not to support a struggling franchise like the Argos.

TicTacTabarnack
08-13-2008, 12:34 PM
"This is not a soccer-specific stadium," Sokolowski said yesterday. "It was built for soccer, but it clearly had an understanding that it was convertible for football and to be expanded to 30,000 seats. That's what city council voted on."

I don't know about Sokolowski ... But the title of the document the city voted on specifically states at the top "Soccer Stadium at Exhibition Place" Link (http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/council/cc051026/pof9rpt/cl036.pdf)

I know there's a confusion over football (soccer ball form) vs. football (pointy ball form) but I think "Soccer Stadium" is pretty specific.

london_tfc_fan
08-13-2008, 12:41 PM
Why is turf completely fine for pro football but not for soccer?

there is a lot less moving in football and a lot more standing around whereas soccer ppl constantly move on turf, and i think that the real problem is the side to side movement which tends to screw up knees

boban
08-13-2008, 12:53 PM
I don't know, I'd actually prefer the stadium under public ownership to ensure that the field will be available for the community.
You're joking right?

kitchener-TFC
08-13-2008, 12:55 PM
TFC could build their OWN ground somewhere else and the Argos would wanna go there too.. Fuck TFC could be playing at Old Trafford and the Argos would be following right behind like Milhouse saying they have a right to be there too.
LOL, sad but true.
The argos are like a little fucking brother. Whatever big brother does, little brother wants to do also.

FUCK OFF ARGOS!

boban
08-13-2008, 12:58 PM
there is a lot less moving in football and a lot more standing around whereas soccer ppl constantly move on turf, and i think that the real problem is the side to side movement which tends to screw up knees
Its the play of the ball on the fake stuff, whereas in pointy ball it hardly touches the ground. Also, linemen would chew the shit out of a grass field.

DVS
08-13-2008, 01:01 PM
I wonder how the argos woudl make money at BMO anyways considering the naming rights and concessions are all run and/or owned by MLSE

rocker
08-13-2008, 01:04 PM
I wonder how the argos woudl make money at BMO anyways considering the naming rights and concessions are all run and/or owned by MLSE

that's another question that nobody talks about.....

i also wonder about private boxes. a guy I know has a box, and he has a lease on it that allows him to attend any event that's held at the stadium. so the argos couldn't even get access to these boxes. the box revenue is already shared between the city and MLSE.

DVS
08-13-2008, 01:10 PM
that's another question that nobody talks about.....

i also wonder about private boxes. a guy I know has a box, and he has a lease on it that allows him to attend any event that's held at the stadium. so the argos couldn't even get access to these boxes. the box revenue is already shared between the city and MLSE.

Also, I would love to get my hands on that stadium proposal. What it actually says to "accomdate" football.

I'm sure a couple of lawyers can work their way through that.

My observation is that its obvious MLSE don't care about the Argos because they are already making money hand over fist without them. They obviously don't wanna share ANYTHING at all with the argos as they don't own the building so its not like they are going to get lease money from the Argos.

So its all about what the city will want to do with the Argos. This story isn't going away because I just say Nailor do a piece on Sportscentre as well. Looks like he'll be following this story to the bitter end.

flamehawk
08-13-2008, 01:13 PM
You're joking right?

Well, I honestly don't know the current circumstances, but aren't community groups allowed to rent the field? If MLSE bought it, they'd be able to charge exorbitant fees or not allow its use.

Again, I am unfamiliar with the current arrangements so I am only speculating.

boban
08-13-2008, 01:20 PM
My observation is that its obvious MLSE don't care about the Argos because they are already making money hand over fist without them. They obviously don't wanna share ANYTHING at all with the argos as they don't own the building so its not like they are going to get lease money from the Argos.
Add to this is that there is sooo much more growth in the game than what the Argos can provide. With expansion, improvement in the CL fortunes, playoffs, etc. TFC can surpass the games that the Argos would bring. Add grass and you get more soccer games from the CMNT. This is all just makking the Argos fit in the picture a little more tougher.

DVS
08-13-2008, 01:27 PM
Add to this is that there is sooo much more growth in the game than what the Argos can provide. With expansion, improvement in the CL fortunes, playoffs, etc. TFC can surpass the games that the Argos would bring. Add grass and you get more soccer games from the CMNT. This is all just makking the Argos fit in the picture a little more tougher.

It would be nice to have grass then maybe the Canadian national team would be more willing to come to BMO and have some friendlies.

Stugatzo
08-13-2008, 01:34 PM
Ok, no problem Stu.

The way I read it though it sounds more like a proposal. Just wondering if items have been "changed" since October 2005.

However, can't find anything on the reasoning on why FieldTurf was chosen (ie. benefits/advantages vs. disadvantages) other than it just stated it's supposed to be a community based facility. Is it under one of the clauses?

Not trying to be a jerk, just want to be pointed in the right direction.

Appendix A Clause 6 is pretty interesting.

I know you're half joking, but seriously, I don't think anyone who asks legit questions is a jerk.
Best guess is that the discussions around community and year-round use meant maintaining grass at a pro level would have been really (possibly prohibitively) expensive...but that's a guess as I wasn't working in this office in '05.

Stryker
08-13-2008, 01:48 PM
Dear Argos,

Please go the fuck away.

Sincerely,
Stryker

Bars92
08-13-2008, 01:57 PM
Its like Toronto FC is a victim of its own sucess. The fans are being punished because the team is well supported. If TFC never happened the Agros are at Rogers until 2050 and a new stadium for them isn't even thought about.

boban
08-13-2008, 02:02 PM
Its like Toronto FC is a victim of its own sucess. The fans are being punished because the team is well supported. If TFC never happened the Agros are at Rogers until 2050 and a new stadium for them isn't even thought about.
No. The stadium was coming because of the FIFA U20.

Bars92
08-13-2008, 02:10 PM
No. The stadium was coming because of the FIFA U20.

Yeah, but that had nothing to do with the Argos. Two years before they decided they wanted nothing to do with a new stadium. Now its "we're entitled to BMO", why? because TFC has real fans?? and BMO will supposedly have the same effect on the Agros fans all of a sudden.

boban
08-13-2008, 02:11 PM
Well, I honestly don't know the current circumstances, but aren't community groups allowed to rent the field? If MLSE bought it, they'd be able to charge exorbitant fees or not allow its use.

Again, I am unfamiliar with the current arrangements so I am only speculating.
Who cares if the community groups or whoever are not allowed to use the field. That is the most retarded caveat in this whole stadium mess.
Build community fields for communities. Build stadiums for serious athletics and spectators that will fill those seats. If we're to be taken seriously about being a soccer hotbed on this continent, then this field rental nonsense has to stop.

jloome
08-13-2008, 02:59 PM
Some perspectives on some of the important clauses in this deal:



(i) cash investment of $62.8M with contribution of $35.0M from Federal and Provincial
governments; $9.8M from City and $8.0M from MLSE and contribution of an additional
$10.0M from MLSE in anticipation of revenues to be received by MLSE for the sale of
naming rights;

So effectively, MLSE has already kicked in $18-million of the overall $72-million cost.

Can we assume the Argos would also be asked to pony up capital appportionment, given that MLSE was willing to contribute nearly a third of the overall cost? Say, teh cost of the expansion and another$18 million beyond that?



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

This is the only reference to use for football in the entire document, which refers to it as a "soccer stadium" about a dozen times. So Naylor's globe and mail story was disingenuous at best and inaccurate at worst. Having a clause that suggests it COULD be used for football does not suggest that it ever will be, so he could not reasonably conclude that it was not a soccer-specific stadium.

There is NO STATED RATIONALE for the artificial turf in the document, although it can be assumed they're referring to keeping the cost to a level lthe community can afford and winter use, although the latter is covered off by having to have a winter roof.

(iii) project (construction) agreement with MLSE to build the stadium on-time and on-budget
with MLSE responsible for construction cost overruns;
(iv) ownership of the constructed stadium remains with the City;
(v) management Agreement for 20 years between City/Board and MLSE to manage the
stadium on behalf of the Board and City;

In other words, MLSE has the rights to site management for the next 20 years, and the concession rights for the next 20 years. So the control over this situation is effectively in MLSE's hands, regardless of what the city wants. It can simply offer the Argos an untenable deal if it wants to keep the team out. There's nothing in this contract that guarantees access to another professional organization, only to the public.



(vi) requirement for MLSE to purchase a major league soccer franchise to be located in
Toronto;
(viii) use Agreement for 20 years between the City/Board and MLSE for the stadium to be the
home of the MLSE major league soccer franchise subject to payment of rent ;
(ix) participation Agreement for 20 years between the City/Board and CSA for the stadium to
be the home for Canada’s international soccer terms and be used annually to host
international soccer events subject to payment of rent based on seven percent of gate
receipts (less taxes);

It'll be interesting to see how the CSA explains using Saputo Stadium for national team games in light of this clause. I suppose if they want to risk the "bad faith" route they could note that it doesn't stipulate how many games.

(x) right of the City/Board to use the stadium a significant part of any available dates
annually on a cost recovery basis only for the City, CNE, World’s Fair and Olympics
(subject to use for regularly scheduled major league soccer games and FIFA games) and
for other public events;
(xi) right of the CNEA to use the stadium (subject to use for regularly scheduled major league
soccer games and FIFA games) during the 18-day CNE period;
(xii) right of the CNEA to receive 25 percent of gross revenues from stadium food and
beverage concessions during the 18-day CNE period;
(xii) City/Board retains the majority of incremental revenues from parking (except for the
partial payment to the MLSE major league soccer franchise of 33.3 percent of gross
parking revenues related to the 20 soccer games which increases to 40 percent in
Year 11);

(xiv) City/Board shares equally with MLSE any net revenues earned by the stadium;

That last one is important. MLSE has to weigh whether it can make money off the Argos; so perhaps the vehemence should be partly directed towards MLSE, which has A LOT of pull in this agreement. Make it clear they'll kill their own team if they do this, and they'll be less likely to do it.


(xv) contribution of $400,000 annually (increased by CPI annually from Year six onward)
from the stadium revenues to a capital reserve account to be held by the City; and
(xvi) MLSE will fund the first $250,000 of any operating shortfalls and thereafter, the
City/Board and MLSE share equally in funding any annual operating shortfalls or annual
shortfalls in capital expenditures.

So if the Argos cause it to lose money on paper, MLSE and the city would have to share that load. That makes it less likely, I believe, that city council woudl want to take the risk of moving the Argos back to an environment in which is has already failed.

Seems to me MLSE has a lot more pull in this than people here seem to realize. It has all the control over the money.

tfcleeds
08-13-2008, 03:23 PM
Some perspectives on some of the important clauses in this deal:


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

This is the only reference to use for football in the entire document, which refers to it as a "soccer stadium" about a dozen times. So Naylor's globe and mail story was disingenuous at best and inaccurate at worst. Having a clause that suggests it COULD be used for football does not suggest that it ever will be, so he could not reasonably conclude that it was not a soccer-specific stadium

I have read the entire document, and not only is this the only reference to football in it, but there is no mention whatsoever of the Argos being a possible future tenant of BMO. Other than amendment 6 in the appendix, there is no mention of the Argos at all. Hardly proof that BMO was not to be soccer-specific.

Very poor journalism by Naylor, and now the folks on cfl.ca are rallying behind it.

invictusTFC
08-13-2008, 03:26 PM
Some perspectives on some of the important clauses in this deal:



(i) cash investment of $62.8M with contribution of $35.0M from Federal and Provincial
governments; $9.8M from City and $8.0M from MLSE and contribution of an additional
$10.0M from MLSE in anticipation of revenues to be received by MLSE for the sale of
naming rights;

So effectively, MLSE has already kicked in $18-million of the overall $72-million cost.

Can we assume the Argos would also be asked to pony up capital appportionment, given that MLSE was willing to contribute nearly a third of the overall cost? Say, teh cost of the expansion and another$18 million beyond that?



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

This is the only reference to use for football in the entire document, which refers to it as a "soccer stadium" about a dozen times. So Naylor's globe and mail story was disingenuous at best and inaccurate at worst. Having a clause that suggests it COULD be used for football does not suggest that it ever will be, so he could not reasonably conclude that it was not a soccer-specific stadium.

There is NO STATED RATIONALE for the artificial turf in the document, although it can be assumed they're referring to keeping the cost to a level lthe community can afford and winter use, although the latter is covered off by having to have a winter roof.

(iii) project (construction) agreement with MLSE to build the stadium on-time and on-budget
with MLSE responsible for construction cost overruns;
(iv) ownership of the constructed stadium remains with the City;
(v) management Agreement for 20 years between City/Board and MLSE to manage the
stadium on behalf of the Board and City;

In other words, MLSE has the rights to site management for the next 20 years, and the concession rights for the next 20 years. So the control over this situation is effectively in MLSE's hands, regardless of what the city wants. It can simply offer the Argos an untenable deal if it wants to keep the team out. There's nothing in this contract that guarantees access to another professional organization, only to the public.



(vi) requirement for MLSE to purchase a major league soccer franchise to be located in
Toronto;
(viii) use Agreement for 20 years between the City/Board and MLSE for the stadium to be the
home of the MLSE major league soccer franchise subject to payment of rent ;
(ix) participation Agreement for 20 years between the City/Board and CSA for the stadium to
be the home for Canada’s international soccer terms and be used annually to host
international soccer events subject to payment of rent based on seven percent of gate
receipts (less taxes);

It'll be interesting to see how the CSA explains using Saputo Stadium for national team games in light of this clause. I suppose if they want to risk the "bad faith" route they could note that it doesn't stipulate how many games.

(x) right of the City/Board to use the stadium a significant part of any available dates
annually on a cost recovery basis only for the City, CNE, World’s Fair and Olympics
(subject to use for regularly scheduled major league soccer games and FIFA games) and
for other public events;
(xi) right of the CNEA to use the stadium (subject to use for regularly scheduled major league
soccer games and FIFA games) during the 18-day CNE period;
(xii) right of the CNEA to receive 25 percent of gross revenues from stadium food and
beverage concessions during the 18-day CNE period;
(xii) City/Board retains the majority of incremental revenues from parking (except for the
partial payment to the MLSE major league soccer franchise of 33.3 percent of gross
parking revenues related to the 20 soccer games which increases to 40 percent in
Year 11);

(xiv) City/Board shares equally with MLSE any net revenues earned by the stadium;

That last one is important. MLSE has to weigh whether it can make money off the Argos; so perhaps the vehemence should be partly directed towards MLSE, which has A LOT of pull in this agreement. Make it clear they'll kill their own team if they do this, and they'll be less likely to do it.


(xv) contribution of $400,000 annually (increased by CPI annually from Year six onward)
from the stadium revenues to a capital reserve account to be held by the City; and
(xvi) MLSE will fund the first $250,000 of any operating shortfalls and thereafter, the
City/Board and MLSE share equally in funding any annual operating shortfalls or annual
shortfalls in capital expenditures.

So if the Argos cause it to lose money on paper, MLSE and the city would have to share that load. That makes it less likely, I believe, that city council woudl want to take the risk of moving the Argos back to an environment in which is has already failed.

Seems to me MLSE has a lot more pull in this than people here seem to realize. It has all the control over the money.

Once again great work researching all this... Well done!!!

It does seem however, that you have a lot of time on your hands... lol

Bars92
08-13-2008, 03:28 PM
i think that's the point. they look at hamliton being in a smaller stadium and see that it sells out, and that the atmosphere is better than it is at skydome. that's why they want to move to BMO in the first place. did you miss that?

The reality is though that the atmospehere in Hamilton is not better than the Dome. I'd say the Dome is louder than Ivor Wynne, which is like a graveyard. That's why I don't think a move to BMO for the Argos will do anything. CFL fans are CFL fans, in the East anyways, the atmosphere will be exactly the same.

boban
08-13-2008, 03:39 PM
Some perspectives on some of the important clauses in this deal:


(i) cash investment of $62.8M with contribution of $35.0M from Federal and Provincial
governments; $9.8M from City and $8.0M from MLSE and contribution of an additional
$10.0M from MLSE in anticipation of revenues to be received by MLSE for the sale of
naming rights;

So effectively, MLSE has already kicked in $18-million of the overall $72-million cost.
I find this confusing because the cost was $62.8m, which you stated first, not $72m.
Also, MLSE gets more than half of the $18M back that they invested from BMO who bought the naming rights.

Gobi
08-13-2008, 04:06 PM
^ Add $10M for the naming rights.

jloome
08-13-2008, 04:13 PM
Once again great work researching all this... Well done!!!

It does seem however, that you have a lot of time on your hands... lol

I type fast.

jloome
08-13-2008, 04:14 PM
I find this confusing because the cost was $62.8m, which you stated first, not $72m.
Also, MLSE gets more than half of the $18M back that they invested from BMO who bought the naming rights.

That $18 M includes giving back half of the naming rights; 9M is MLSE's first contribution, plus half the naming rights.

Whoop
08-13-2008, 04:18 PM
(xiv) City/Board shares equally with MLSE any net revenues earned by the stadium;

That last one is important. MLSE has to weigh whether it can make money off the Argos; so perhaps the vehemence should be partly directed towards MLSE, which has A LOT of pull in this agreement. Make it clear they'll kill their own team if they do this, and they'll be less likely to do it.



DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner.

If people stop coming to TFC games because of the lines, and the fact that are the Argos using the stadium, and because the seats are moved back, you don't think MLSE and the City wouldn't be worried?

rocker
08-13-2008, 04:28 PM
there is an "Argos clause" near the end of the document, but it's completely about covering their asses. It basically says if the stadium was changed in any way for the Argos to come in, MLSE has no liability for any costs associated with that.

mclaren
08-13-2008, 04:34 PM
Check this thread out on the CFL. There are actually quite a few reasonable posters who sum up the situation quite well: http://www1.cfl.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=28321

boban
08-13-2008, 05:09 PM
^ Add $10M for the naming rights.
That figure is included in my numbers.

MartinUtd
08-13-2008, 05:19 PM
I think the proper party with which to apply pressure to would be Bank of Montreal. As a corporate sponsor they would want to do whatever they can to avoid having their $10 Million naming rights backfire into a PR nightmare.

RPB_Brantford_08
08-13-2008, 09:40 PM
Sokolowski is a piece of crap just like the team he co owns...they had there chance and blew it. BMO needs to stay a soccer Only facility, for the good of the game, the quicker the Bills move to TO on a permanent basis and Kill the Argos and the CFL the better. The Argos are looking to get into a stadium without paying their way in.

RPB_Brantford_08
08-14-2008, 02:57 PM
So why did they pull out of not one but two stadiums negotiations?

I am sure they knew BMO Field plans were proceeding forward, why didn't they step in at that time? Why after the stadium has existed for 18 months do they now start sending out feelers for pushing their way in?

This whole issue is giving me a headache.


They have been looking for a home for the least expence possible. thats why they bailed on the two negotiations. Now they are trying for BMO
and hoping the city and MLSE will foot the bill for expanding the stadium
for the pointy ball cfl. The city and MLSE should tell the Argos to bugger off, as their team is no longer a team that matters.

Jimmy The Saint
08-14-2008, 08:43 PM
Well, check this out: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=football&searchmode=none

Now, it could be argued, the etymological roots of the word football dates back more than 400 years to the current, North American definition.

Fort York Redcoat
08-15-2008, 07:45 AM
1848-Cambridge rules-asocc
1869-Princeton/Rutgers-nfl style rugby
1874-McGill/Harvard-split cfl/nfl style rugby

So a couple decades is what all the fuss is about. Still...what did Princton, Harvard, McGill care what Rugby (yeah the school) and Cambridge were doing? They might as well have been on another planet.:topic:

Dbl_D
08-15-2008, 02:34 PM
I'm still wondering, didn't we pay a f'n billion dollars for the Skydome to be a CFL specific stadium? I wonder what the cost would have been if they didn't have to design the stadium to be football convertible... you got your money for a stadium already ARgo's... stay the f away from mine...

Blizzard
08-15-2008, 02:40 PM
I'm still wondering, didn't we pay a f'n billion dollars for the Skydome to be a CFL specific stadium? I wonder what the cost would have been if they didn't have to design the stadium to be football convertible... you got your money for a stadium already ARgo's... stay the f away from mine...

Ya, let's kick out the Blue Jays. :noidea:

RPB_Brantford_08
08-17-2008, 10:07 AM
Let's just put the whole "why doesn't MLSE just buy the stadium" point to rest.

They can't. The city can't and won't sell anything on the Ex grounds. The only option for MLSE if they were to own TFC's stadium is to build one off the Ex grounds themselves and move the team.

So let's stop bringing this one up please.

Moving on...


Isn't there a hotel project scheduled to be place on the Exhibition grounds,
near the east parking lot across from ontario place, thats suppose to be an MLSE project?