Yes... They will finanlly get it
No.... They will screw this up royally
hmmm... not sure? how much money will they make from this?
30 years of rent free stadium usage for contributing to development isn't a bail out?Originally Posted by prizby
Anyways, 3 franchises in just over 10 years. You really think that if the Argos folded there would be no team for 20-30years in Toronto?
Possible. Not realistic.
When are we going to see some revised drawings of this?!!
As long as there is a stadium that the city (and other levels of government) spend money on there's always the possibility of the Argos using it. When governments are involved there are political decisions, not business decisions. Behind closed doors, who knows what gets traded for what....
Argo #'s are heavily papered and have been since the John Candy days.
I just read a book called, "End Zones and Border Wars," about the CFL's US expansion. Some good stuff about John Candy, a guy with a lot of integrity.
It's too bad that politics has to be involved. I wish MLSE would just build their own stadium.
Moderator
^ That sounds like a pretty good read. I got into the CFL during the period of US expansion so I'm pretty familiar with the teams and state of the league at the time. May have to pick it up now that it's been mentioned.
Did the USA , of all countries, just fix soccer? - C. Ronaldo, May 27th commenting on the FBI-led investigations into fraud and corruption throughout FIFA.
To be fair, John Candy is who we all remember.
We don't remember the operating shareholder - Bruce McNall.
Thanks for the book suggestion - 6 copies at the Toronto Public Library - going to pick one up.
Last edited by OgtheDim; 07-15-2014 at 11:38 AM.
All I am saying is that it is not realistic that someone will bail them out if they go under to save the franchise
Some thoughts:
I don't see the Argos or CFL putting any money into phase 3. ... Ok, maybe a little for the turf endzones.
The Argos don't want any Kop seating. Look at Tim Hortons Field or TD Place which do not have endzone seating. Football fans like sitting on the sidelines.
Obviously, TFC wants Kop seating, so MLSE wants to put in retractable Kop seating (I assume 10 rows will retract out over the CFL endzone like at BC Place).
Still don't get why they want $10m in federal government money to expand and additional 14,000 bleachers for the Grey Cup Game and Winter Classic. The Grey Cup committee makes over $8-10m profit, this is after paying to put in bleachers in every sub 50,000 seat stadium they have gone into in the past.
Still don't see how they are going to spend $20m in gov't money. Didn't MLSE only spend $2m to put in 2000 seats in the north end 3 years ago.
I can see why MLSE want the Argos at a tenant though, the stadium naming rights come up for renewal in 2016. TV audience the Argos draw 700,000 regular season, 2million East Final, 5-6million Grey Cup adds substantially to stadium naming rights value. I guess this is how MLSE is going to get some of their $90million back for the renos -- so i guess the Argos are in a way contributing $ to the stadium.
Probably a dumb question, but I'm not a hockey guy.
What is the appeal of the Winter Classic? Sitting outside in the freezing cold for a hockey game doesn't sound overly appealing (not because I'm not a hockey guy - but because freezing my ass off outside in the middle of winter doesn't sound appealing)
It's the experience of it all. I was in Michigan for the WinterClassic with line ups stretched back to the gate causing me to miss the entire first period. With my beer turned into slush and frozen to my beard it was a non issue. Even attended the MLS CUP in 2010 and people complained it was to bloody cold but all in all it was a great night. What's so appealing to standing out in the rain during a match?. I get questioned that every time by anyone who's never experienced the rush of a near empty stadium with everyone in their grandmother making their way to the exits to catch the train cause the rains came down and missing a truly amazing last few mins with scoring the tying as we'll go ahead goal putting the handful of us whom remain into a state of euphoria and sounding loader than full capacity. These are all memories captured by the most part from the weather conditions that I would never have changed
It's not a dumb question. I am a hockey guy. Played it, coached it and still play it.
I wouldn't pay a dime for it.
Sight lines aren't terrific. The ice is usually bad making the game itself kind of a gimmick.
Sure the atmosphere, like when the Leafs actually made the playoffs is memorable but for the money, it's a steep price for a few hours of entertainment.
And I am passed caring about atmosphere. I actually get offended when folks call sports a "product" and they want to put an "entertaining product" on the ice. This isn't an ice dance show, it's hockey. It's a competition and in that respect the outdoor game is too much of a gimmick for me to get excited to spend hundreds of dollars to see.
It has been reported somewhere that Argos actually had 9,000 people at their last game despite 16K number being announced at the game. Given that they only have 3500 SSH and play 9-10 games per year (meaning they either need to play in a stadium with 30K attending or jack up prices to a make profit) is reason why their situation isn't same as TFC who play 20 games. Keep in mind that soccer economic is different than CFL since there's other ways to make a profit that CFL simply can't make (for an example, selling players).
that was Mcclown. He is spreading rumours because he can't stand what Braley (current owner) did to the prior owners (his buddies that it turns out had no money). consider the source.
Soccer also gets revenue from expansion fees which are keeping the weaker clubs afloat (except for Chivas which already folded prior to the season).
But to be fair, McClown (lol) has been pretty dead on lately with his sources when talking about Argos (MLSE sale to 3500 SSH amount and possibly with his 9000 number claim).
Yes, MLS expansion fees is playing a big role to keep teams afloat. Also keep in mind that MLS is revenue sharing league (their share everything with each other from TV money to attendance revenue) unlike CFL who only share TV money with each other, but everything else teams don't share their money with each other.
Yes, MLS expansion fees is playing a big role to keep teams afloat. Also keep in mind that MLS is revenue sharing league (their share everything with each other from TV money to attendance revenue) unlike CFL who only share TV money with each other, but everything else teams don't share their money with each other.[/QUOTE]
Wow. didn't realize this. I feel pretty shitty now paying for my season tix thinking that i'm happily helping subsidize Defoe's salary, when i'm really just keeping no-name franchises i care nothing about - like san jose's, DC united and New Englands - afloat. That sucks.
Wow. didn't realize this. I feel pretty shitty now paying for my season tix thinking that i'm happily helping subsidize Defoe's salary, when i'm really just keeping no-name franchises i care nothing about - like san jose's, DC united and New Englands - afloat. That sucks.[/QUOTE]
But at same time, MLS pays players their salary (excluding DP's) not teams though. But yes, it sucks for Canadian teams who profitable (reason why they're needed in MLS) to keep teams like Columbus afloat. Also, all investors in MLS gets piece of SUM money so this is why you see investors willing to spend up $100 million to get into MLS these days.
So comparing CFL to MLS (especially Argos to TFC) is useless.
I sense a bit of irony in knocking the Argos for a "papered number" considering the announced attendance of TFC over the years.
As for the knock on profitability, if MLSE wasn't subsidizing TFCs operations there is no way they afford Defoe and Bradley. Particularly after years of a dwindling season ticket base. Even Tim L suggests that they are losing money at this rate.
I am weary of any private business claims of losing money.
It is amazing to me how well MLS has done in keeping its structure out of the public eye.Wow. didn't realize this. I feel pretty shitty now paying for my season tix thinking that i'm happily helping subsidize Defoe's salary, when i'm really just keeping no-name franchises i care nothing about - like san jose's, DC united and New Englands - afloat. That sucks.
Portions of your ticket money don't help keep teams afloat. It goes into a league pool that keeps the league afloat. Profits and losses (apparently all losses since the league claims to be losing money) are then distributed to each investor who have shares in MLS.
It was weird reading about people wondering about Chivas and how fair it was that the "league took them over". You mean fair as in holding player contracts and paying them? Yeah, it already does that with every team. You main fair as in assisting with budgets? Yeah, it already does that with every team.
The only practical thing that really changed was that Chivas didn't have a local staff to look over the day to day operations, like ticket sales and promos.
MLS is vastly different in terms of structure than any league we are familiar with. By design.
Last edited by Pookie; 07-16-2014 at 06:47 AM.
My issue on the Argos papering lies in what it means for the base. They should have gotten out 10 years ago when they had the chance. I'm not sure there is a 20K market for the Argos right now that would come out to BMO.
Things change quickly though.
Montreal was in the same boat. Then the move to McGill. Became a hot ticket in town, mostly because it was "cool" and the place to be seen. Casual fans rule the day.
TFC was in the same boat. 12k or less season ticket holders. Then the move to get Defoe and Bradley. Became a hot ticket in town (arguably) , mostly because it was "cool" and the place to be seen. Casual fans rule the day.
I think that BMO to the Argos is what they are hoping Defoe was to TFC.
Is it really "vastly" different than the way other leagues in North America operate? The other leagues have changed the way they operate a lot over the decades and certainly since TV money surpassed gate receipts. Those leagues seem to be evolving towards what MLS is. Which is really just the franchise model as it exists in other businesses isn't it?
The Als to McGill stadium is certainly the model. The other thing that happened in Montreal, in all of Quebec really, was the resurgence of minor and university football. Starting in the late 70s football almost completely died out in Quebec but has really come back.Things change quickly though.
Montreal was in the same boat. Then the move to McGill. Became a hot ticket in town, mostly because it was "cool" and the place to be seen. Casual fans rule the day.
TFC was in the same boat. 12k or less season ticket holders. Then the move to get Defoe and Bradley. Became a hot ticket in town (arguably
I think that BMO to the Argos is what they are hoping Defoe was to TFC.
I'm not sure what the state of minor league and university football is in Ontario, is it strong?
It is pretty different in that each team is operated by an investor.
Lots of legal analysts don't think MLS can continue in its current structure. It's hard to think they could pass an antitrust challenge with no free agency and a centrally controlled salary structure and contracts.
It worked to help them get going but I think the trend will be that they will end up more like the other leagues over time.
Which would be a great thing for the players.
I haven't played since high school days so really don't know. Over time, I am less interested in CFL or NFL so don't really keep track. I know peewee football is growing pretty big and we never had that growing up.
I'm not sure there is the CFL football interest in this town anymore to get 20K out.
(I'm a Ti-Cat fan and will be going to the Calgary game (hopefully) in August for that new stadium - that's a football town)
From what I see of the Montreal situation, they had a base of about 20K and an explosion of interest in football at the minor and college level among Francophones. That changed Als games from an Anglais thing to something else.
That's not happening around Ontario (as much as somebody much farther up in this discussion was trying to equate 6K of support at Mac and 3.5K at Laurier to lots of CFL support). A SSH base of 3.5K is pretty bad.
If the Argo to BMO phase is deferred for a while, I cannot help but think that they'll end up at York anyways. York University's stadium will probably be complete by that time and the easy and cheap move would probably be too much of an offer for the Argos to pass up.
Don't you understand economic of Argos/CFL is different than TFC? They need to have 25K paying consumers to come to their games to make a profit. Anything less they're losing money. If you don't believe me, then ask Montreal how much money they're making averaging less than 25K fans to their games? Answer is zero. They're losing $2 million per year despite their great turn around.
University football with exception couple of universities in Ontario is weak. Ontario is more basketball province when comes to popularity in CIS than football.
But the thing is, Toronto is much more competitive market than Montreal, so you can't really use Montreal example and apply that to Toronto which CFL is obviously doing (even though Monreal is still losing money).
I personally believe Argos need their own stadium in 905 region or partner up with University and try to promote and grow football at grassroot level as much as possible.
Right now, peewee football is no where near soccer, hockey and basketball while there isn't a lot of High schools out there that have football programs like they used back in the days.
I agree. York is still the best idea, but it might also work for the Argos to move to London and share a stadium with Western.
Posting Permissions
