ST package for 2011-update 20 Sep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by It's Called Football

Roogsy

Because of some scheduling issues with Carmine, we had to have Paul on first and didn't get as long as we'd planned. I had a list of things I wanted to get asked and would have asked the appropriate follow up questions if we'd had the full time. We didn't. So, I can understand why people think I was letting him off the hook. Our record and work won't be reflected by one average interview. Sorry to hear 'you're done with ICF.'

Cheers

---

Sorry Ben, your record and your work are measured by those few opportunities to do something meaningful that come our way in our lives. This was one of those opportunities. This was a moment of truth. Sadly you did not come through. If you didn't have enough time, then you should have started with the tough question to begin with rather than setting him up to give his pitch and then said "thanks for joining us". If you didn't already know what Paul B was going to give you, I could have given you the same info without even blinking. In fact, pretty much any supporter who has followed the team closely could have. Nobody came out any more informed about TFC's reasons for hiking the price of seats than they were before. You were used for spin by the team and you let yourself be used. This excuse that you needed to "shit" on PB in order to ask the hard questions is a misdirection of the truth by apologists that want to excuse your interview. You could have asked the hard questions while remaining civil and respectful.

^ I was disappointed too. I understand the circumstances surrounding the interview and sympathize with that but at the end of the day you're right - we didn't learn anything from the interview that we didn't know before hand, Paul delivered the most predictable lines and he wasn't challenged on any of it.

The one major admission (of which most of us had already suspected) about MLSE forcing season ticket holders to buy CC and MLS Cup tickets because they anticipated difficulties in selling them should have been a show-stopper. The club openly admitting shifting its financial burden to the season ticket holders is a revealing example of the kind of abuse that's at the heart of our collective anger and it wasn't pursued.

Personally, I'm not going to hold it against Ben. He was on his own and trying to get as much out of the time that he had while dealing with the choas of juggling his planned line-up for the show. I was disappointed because I wanted more, but I think the interview was a victim of circumstances rather than any short coming of Ben himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CretanBull

^ I was disappointed too. I understand the circumstances surrounding the interview and sympathize with that but at the end of the day you're right - we didn't learn anything from the interview that we didn't know before hand, Paul delivered the most predictable lines and he wasn't challenged on any of it.

The one major admission (of which most of us had already suspected) about MLSE forcing season ticket holders to buy CC and MLS Cup tickets because they anticipated difficulties in selling them should have been a show-stopper. The club openly admitting shifting its financial burden to the season ticket holders is a revealing example of the kind of abuse that's at the heart of our collective anger and it wasn't pursued.

Personally, I'm not going to hold it against Ben. He was on his own and trying to get as much out of the time that he had while dealing with the choas of juggling his planned line-up for the show. I was disappointed because I wanted more, but I think the interview was a victim of circumstances rather than any short coming of Ben himself.

---

I'm glad I tuned in to listen to his thoughts on the Mexico trip though. :rolleyes5:

^If you're conning people into buying tickets at price hikes you have to give them something to justify it...I guess we're supposed to get excited about paying for a computer program that tracks the caloric intake of acedemy players :noidea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadian_bhoy

It's a no win situation for Ben on this one. It's a podcast which makes paul being on there more of a favour than if he were on the fan for example. Ben doesn't have the ability to go off on Paul like Bob Iruschi will next week. But that's not nesessarily a bad thing.

I think Paul did answer the MLS Cup question - he said that MLSE needs to make sure the building is sold out. Pretty honest way of saying that they were tring to cover their butts (I give him credit for that one).

The one that makes me laugh is "We're pricing according to supply and demand". That's just a fancy way of saying "wer're charging as much as we think the demand will buy".

I didn't think Ben asked many hard questions, but it doesn't really matter does it? The answers from MLSE always sound slightly disingenuous and that's because there is only really one answer.

Yes they've upgraded facilities, yes they've brought in a DP...bla bla bla. At the end of the day, they charge more because they think they can. And that's BS.

If people are waiting for MLSE to say "sorry, we didnt' realize we were screwing you so we're lowering prices", it's not going to happen. Their attitude is "we're charging as much as we can, you don't like it, don't renew"....which they are about to get bitten on.

---

It bothers me that TFC continue to bring these points up at all.

They finally bring in grass for the pitch and we're all supposed to be heap praise on them for doing something that should have been done from the very beginning. They have a plan to build to a dedicated practice facility and academy centre and show us how dedicated they are to the development of the sport and local players, yet again, it's something that most pro clubs around the world already do. They will do the same thing when (or if) BMO Field ever gets a roof. Prices will go up and they'll say "well just look at the improvements to the stadium we made." It's kinda hard to take these points from them at all seriously when it's common practise all over the world.

The fanbase is this team’s competitive advantage, not because we cheer on game day but because we enable the club to generate more revenue than almost any team in the league (except Galaxy/Sounders).

I’m renewing for next year and my expectation is that this ownership group will hire a competent GM, who can leverage our absolute economic advantage over the rest of league. They should be signing 3 DP’s and exploiting every salary cap loophole that exists to buy us a winning team. We fund this club with our ticket money, and our funding outpaces most of the league by a wide margin (based on attendance and ticket prices).

Based on what we pay as a collective group, making the playoffs shouldn’t be the goal, the goal should be to win league titles, and lots of them. I’ll pay a premium for a winner, so I see these new prices as an investment in a winning team. The renewal email said, "Football coaches and players come and go, but fans are forever." I agree true fans stick with their teams, but fan isn’t a synonym for season ticketholder.

^There's absolutely no question that's what MLSE should do, but what in their history - in any sport - gives you reason to think that's what they will do? What's the basis for your expectation? They've never done it with the Leafs, they've never done it with the Raptors and they've yet to do it with TFC.

I hope more than anything that you're right, but based on the history of the company a far more realistic expectation is that our raised costs are an investment in their profits and nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flatpicker

Thanks for that info dude.

So, the price of 2011 is $479...
Thus, I am paying $30 more for games ..

---

the $479 includes 2 Voyageurs Cup games and the 4 Concacaf games. The pricing next year is 2 and 2; so if those games are $19 each, then that's an extra $38.

Prices are up $2 a ticket in light grey..

I'm too lazy to check the other 21 pages of this thread, but I'm sure MLSE could have accommodated the expanded schedule without increasing season ticket prices. Here is what the club could have done:

• Include the two extra MLS home games at no extra cost. Cut out the international friendly to balance expenses, even though I still question how much the extra two home games cost.
• Include two vouchers in every season ticket package. One voucher could be used for each Voyageur's Cup game, or both vouchers could be put toward the MLS Cup game.
• For every game that's not included in packages (i.e. CCL games, a third V-Cup game), allow SSHs to opt in as per the norm for CCL group-stage tickets.

I'm sure my points have been debated before, but I thought it was worth noting that MLSE's hands weren't tied with regard to season ticket renewals. The organisation could have avoided a lot of animosity by being more careful when putting together these packages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Ruffrider

Include the two extra MLS home games at no extra cost.

---

This is an interesting point. Are the players going to get paid more to play 4 extra games? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Ruffrider

I'm too lazy to check the other 21 pages of this thread, but I'm sure MLSE could have accommodated the expanded schedule without increasing season ticket prices. Here is what the club could have done:

• Include the two extra MLS home games at no extra cost. Cut out the international friendly to balance expenses, even though I still question how much the extra two home games cost.
• Include two vouchers in every season ticket package. One voucher could be used for each Voyageur's Cup game, or both vouchers could be put toward the MLS Cup game.
• For every game that's not included in packages (i.e. CCL games, a third V-Cup game), allow SSHs to opt in as per the norm for CCL group-stage tickets.

I'm sure my points have been debated before, but I thought it was worth noting that MLSE's hands weren't tied with regard to season ticket renewals. The organisation could have avoided a lot of animosity by being more careful when putting together these packages.

---

I agree. If they had done this I would have hit renew already instead of sitting angrily on the fence as I do now. Give me the 2 extra MLS games and let me opt in or out of the rest.

I still think their motivation for doing something like this is extremely short sited.

If they really want big money, they are going to have to grow the fan base. By making attendance less affordable they are really choking out the only great thing about MLS soccer. I can completely see why our rating suck: the quality is terrible and not enough people have a connection to the club.

We'll see how well "supply and demand" is holding up next season, although i'm sure the egg-heads in management will find some convenient excuse to explain the decline.

Roogsey, I agree - you must do the most with the opportunities that come your way.

And thankfully, over the last couple years, we've had a tonne of great interviews - Carl Robinson on time at TFC, 1st to get Julian DeGuzman on coming to TFC , Bob Lenarduzzi on Canadian quotas, Teal Bunbury on where he'll cap, Mike Petke and Jim Brennan on MLS labour negotiations, Declan Hill on matchfixing, Nana Attakora on his intentions next year, Stephen Hart on everybody from Asmir to JDG2 - just to name a few.

And we'll do more - some good, some really good and some average - that's just the nature when you do 100 + shows a year. It really does bother me to hear you think I was used but I've heard from a variety of others who disagreed, so it's probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't want to needlessly take up any more RPB's board space, so if you want to drop me a personal message I'm happy to hear you out further.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menefreghista

This is an interesting point. Are the players going to get paid more to play 4 extra games? I doubt it.

---

Why wouldn't they?

You'd have to imagine that the MLS Players Union made sure there was a clause in the CBA to cover an increase in games.

Players get small bonuses for CCL matches and other non-league games played, so I fully expect the salary cap to increase slightly to accommodate the increase in the number of games (above and beyond the built-in 5% annual increase).

If that doesn't happen, well then the MLSPU is completely useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by It's Called Football

Roogsey, I agree - you must do the most with the opportunities that come your way.

And thankfully, over the last couple years, we've had a tonne of great interviews - Carl Robinson on time at TFC, 1st to get Julian DeGuzman on coming to TFC , Bob Lenarduzzi on Canadian quotas, Teal Bunbury on where he'll cap, Mike Petke and Jim Brennan on MLS labour negotiations, Declan Hill on matchfixing, Nana Attakora on his intentions next year, Stephen Hart on everybody from Asmir to JDG2 - just to name a few.

And we'll do more - some good, some really good and some average - that's just the nature when you do 100 + shows a year. It really does bother me to hear you think I was used but I've heard from a variety of others who disagreed, so it's probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't want to needlessly take up any more RPB's board space, so if you want to drop me a personal message I'm happy to hear you out further.

Cheers

---

Don't worry about it, everyone is just pissed in general so even if you did land a haymaker we'd be angry.

Ppl just want to see a 'question after the question'. We expect a stock response from an MLSE suit, it's the follow up question ....... he probably would have kept deflecting anyway even if you kept asking. oh well.

I admit I didn't like the interview but I have to say I love the show and listen to each one. Not sure why but I love when you guys have D2 gossip, makes me giddy for no reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudi

Why wouldn't they?

You'd have to imagine that the MLS Players Union made sure there was a clause in the CBA to cover an increase in games.

Players get small bonuses for CCL matches and other non-league games played, so I fully expect the salary cap to increase slightly to accommodate the increase in the number of games (above and beyond the built-in 5% annual increase).

If that doesn't happen, well then the MLSPU is completely useless.

---

Yes, but if so- will they ask to renegotiate?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudi

Why wouldn't they?

You'd have to imagine that the MLS Players Union made sure there was a clause in the CBA to cover an increase in games.

Players get small bonuses for CCL matches and other non-league games played, so I fully expect the salary cap to increase slightly to accommodate the increase in the number of games (above and beyond the built-in 5% annual increase).

If that doesn't happen, well then the MLSPU is completely useless.

---

The last CBA had nothing of the sort, so I doubt there's anything like it in the current CBA. The old one mentioned a certain maximum number of games over the whole season. But nothing about tying league salaries to games played, cuz then Garber could just reduce the number of games (he would have control over that) and thus reduce salaries.

But we'll see when the CBA is finally publicized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menefreghista

This is an interesting point. Are the players going to get paid more to play 4 extra games? I doubt it.

---

Even if they did get paid more, it wouldn't cost the club more to schedule two league games in place of one international friendly. Besides, MLSE would rake in more concession money from two games instead of one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blowing Bubbles

Don't worry about it, everyone is just pissed in general so even if you did land a haymaker we'd be angry.

Ppl just want to see a 'question after the question'. We expect a stock response from an MLSE suit, it's the follow up question ....... he probably would have kept deflecting anyway even if you kept asking. oh well.

---

I have to admit this is true. I just wanted to hear the tough question asked. I am quite sure Paul B would have danced around it like a monkey on hot coals anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudi

If that doesn't happen, well then the MLSPU is completely useless.

---

You'd actually be surprised how useless they are. I've had to deal with the MLSPU on several issue and I just have to say, I am shocked at the level of amateurishness that reeks from that union. No wonder the owners literally pwn them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudi

Why wouldn't they?

You'd have to imagine that the MLS Players Union made sure there was a clause in the CBA to cover an increase in games.

Players get small bonuses for CCL matches and other non-league games played, so I fully expect the salary cap to increase slightly to accommodate the increase in the number of games (above and beyond the built-in 5% annual increase).

If that doesn't happen, well then the MLSPU is completely useless.

---

The players are salaried - they get paid by the year, not the number of games played. Any money that they get from CCL or CC is bonus money (perhaps prize money?) from the tournament and not salary.

In terms of salary, the two extra games next year are expense-free for MLSE.