Bmo Field Expansion

[TFC07]

If I wasn't a TFC fan, the BMO deal would make complete sense to me as a Toronto resident, and as a taxpayer. You see a single-tenant, city-owned stadium on prime downtown land, and another Toronto team in need of a new home, that draws crowd sizes almost identical to BMO's capacity.

We are hoping that MLSE will defend our interests (and their own), by preserving the soccer experience for their paying soccer fans, but for anyone else, I completely understand why the Argos-BMO talk won't die.

I disagree how this will benefit average tax payer when you're risk losing high profile events by having dying team that is on life support playing 9 to 10 games per year that can potentially damage your asset (grass...which is huge advantage to have if you want be a prime soccer destination)

If Canada wins World Cup bid, you would think CSA would want to use BMO field with torn up turf? How about Canada national teams playing their world cup qualifying games in Montreal instead of Toronto due to turf? How about international friendlies that draw big crowds or got enough people in the city willing to pay stupid money to watch major European clubs play in their own backyard?

Does your average taxpayer in Toronto even care about Argos more than soccer?

I think we all know that answer to these questions.

[Beach_Red]

I disagree how this will benefit average tax payer when you're risk losing high profile events by having dying team that is on life support playing 9 to 10 games per year that can potentially damage your asset (grass...which is huge advantage to have if you want be a prime soccer destination)

If Canada wins World Cup bid, you would think CSA would want to use BMO field with torn up turf? How about Canada national teams playing their world cup qualifying games in Montreal instead of Toronto due to turf? How about international friendlies that draw big crowds or got enough people in the city willing to pay stupid money to watch major European clubs play in their own backyard?

Does your average taxpayer in Toronto even care about Argos more than soccer?

I think we all know that answer to these questions.

The average taxpayer doesn't care about either team. 40,000 out of 3.5 million isn't very much. The fear is that a second stadium will be built with some government money. But that's doubtful.

But MLSE have always made short-term deals and 10 Argo games and some Maple Leafs games are much more likely than any World Cup games. MLSE have no particular love for soccer or football. I just hope they are true to their word that when TFC play we will never know the Argos also use the stadium. Of course, they've been guaranteeing a winning season for a long time now, too.

[TFC07]

The average taxpayer doesn't care about either team. 40,000 out of 3.5 million isn't very much. The fear is that a second stadium will be built with some government money. But that's doubtful.

But MLSE have always made short-term deals and 10 Argo games and some Maple Leafs games are much more likely than any World Cup games. MLSE have no particular love for soccer or football. I just hope they are true to their word that when TFC play we will never know the Argos also use the stadium. Of course, they've been guaranteeing a winning season for a long time now, too.

Your average tax payer doesn't care about sports in general especially if doesn't involve taxpayer money. Also, I will go far and say that most taxpayers don't even know that they own BMO field not MLSE.

I will say this: what's better business decision? Soccer or CFL? Soccer you play a lot more games (TFC alone play like 18 games guarantee and if they're winning team, then more games due to playoffs and CCL) and can host a lot of other soccer events unlike CFL where you can host like 10-13 games per year. So taxpayer POV, you will side with soccer over CFL especially since CFL isn't exactly doing well in Toronto in the last 20 years. There's a reason why no one wants to buy Argos (who have been on sale since last owners run out of money). So why risk losing a lot of revenue over unstable CFL team like Argos? What's business logic of that?

EDIT: Also don't forget taxpayers will have to pay $20 million just to make room for Argos at BMO field. So we will be in hole for $20 million to try to save Argos right off the bat. So how taxpayer benefit from all this?

[Richard]

Have you seen the TV rating for the Argo's? It completely destroys TFC's ratings by a huge margin.

TFC isn't exactly a hot commodity either, the opportunity cost of having the Argo's/Grey Cup/Winter Classic at BMO far out ways and negative losses that impede the operations of TFC. We are most definitely not a super club, this club isn't any more relevant in this city than the Argos.

I do wonder about if this team actually got its shit together in the early years, maybe win a few playoff games or make a final and this maybe would never even be a discussion. The way I see it is that TFC is so far down in the pit its become irrelevant to MLSE, if they piss of TFC fans it wont matter, its not like there are that many left anyway.

[prizby]

Have you seen the TV rating for the Argo's? It completely destroys TFC's ratings by a huge margin.

TFC isn't exactly a hot commodity either, the opportunity cost of having the Argo's/Grey Cup/Winter Classic at BMO far out ways and negative losses that impede the operations of TFC. We are most definitely not a super club, this club isn't any more relevant in this city than the Argos.

I do wonder about if this team actually got its shit together in the early years, maybe win a few playoff games or make a final and this maybe would never even be a discussion. The way I see it is that TFC is so far down in the pit its become irrelevant to MLSE, if they piss of TFC fans it wont matter, its not like there are that many left anyway.

TFC's kit sponsor revenue > than all the Argos players salaries combined

[greatwhitenorf]

Have you seen the TV rating for the Argo's? It completely destroys TFC's ratings by a huge margin.

TFC isn't exactly a hot commodity either, the opportunity cost of having the Argo's/Grey Cup/Winter Classic at BMO far out ways and negative losses that impede the operations of TFC. We are most definitely not a super club, this club isn't any more relevant in this city than the Argos.

I do wonder about if this team actually got its shit together in the early years, maybe win a few playoff games or make a final and this maybe would never even be a discussion. The way I see it is that TFC is so far down in the pit its become irrelevant to MLSE, if they piss of TFC fans it wont matter, its not like there are that many left anyway.

Those CFL ratings are spurred by shut-in prairie folk recuperating from tractor butt and an aging baby boomer population who don't actually attend events.

If those ratings actually translated into paying customers, the Argos wouldn't lose the massive sums of money they have annually lost over many decades. They have less than 4,000 season tickets sold. That's not season ticket holders, that's total season tickets.

Despite the disparity in the ratings, TFC enjoys strong season ticket sales and attendance figures and normally makes money in a typical season. Which fan base would you rather have?

[Shakes McQueen]

I disagree how this will benefit average tax payer when you're risk losing high profile events by having dying team that is on life support playing 9 to 10 games per year that can potentially damage your asset (grass...which is huge advantage to have if you want be a prime soccer destination)

If Canada wins World Cup bid, you would think CSA would want to use BMO field with torn up turf? How about Canada national teams playing their world cup qualifying games in Montreal instead of Toronto due to turf? How about international friendlies that draw big crowds or got enough people in the city willing to pay stupid money to watch major European clubs play in their own backyard?

Does your average taxpayer in Toronto even care about Argos more than soccer?

I think we all know that answer to these questions.

But again, if you're the vast majority of Toronto taxpayers who don't give a flying fuck about soccer, then none of this matters to you. All you see is one of the city's sports teams in need of a new stadium, with the usual overtures to try and get the city to help build them one. TFC and the Argos both don't have very large fanbases, but only one of them has a stadium in which they are the only tenant.

And getting a World Cup would be nice - if you're a soccer fan. If you're not, it's akin to the Olympics: a prestige event that the city will lose millions of dollars on.

I'm trying to remove my own biases from the equation here, and see this from the perspective of your average Toronto resident who probably doesn't care about the Argos or "the Toronto FCs".

[Shakes McQueen]

Those CFL ratings are spurred by shut-in prairie folk recuperating from tractor butt and an aging baby boomer population who don't actually attend events.

If those ratings actually translated into paying customers, the Argos wouldn't lose the massive sums of money they have annually lost over many decades. They have less than 4,000 season tickets sold. That's not season ticket holders, that's total season tickets.

Despite the disparity in the ratings, TFC enjoys strong season ticket sales and attendance figures and normally makes money in a typical season. Which fan base would you rather have?

TFC's healthy season ticket sales numbers, combined with the incredibly weak TV ratings, points to them having a small but passionate fanbase of soccer fans, with almost no secondary tier of "casual" viewers.

[OgtheDim]

...

Despite the disparity in the ratings, TFC enjoys strong season ticket sales and attendance figures and normally makes money in a typical season. Which fan base would you rather have?

An owner would prefer MLS. Which is why MLSE isn't buying the Argos.


The city can't really ignore the rent revenue.

[Pookie]

The assumption that this whole deal is going to kill soccer is based on the idea that the grass will be ruined.

First, they aren't going with turf yet. We probably have about 2-3 years before the issue is either an issue or it's not. By that I mean accumulating significant examples where the surface was "ruined" and they consider turf. Or maybe the hybrid thing works and it isn't an issue. Doubtful from my perspective but not impossible.

Of course, if the Argos are such a losing money proposition, they will fold over that time making the issue moot. Grass will stay. Those arguing against accommodating the Argos for this very reason have nothing to fear.

What if the Argos don't fold and the grass is ruined?

Then we get field turf. The "taxpayer" couldn't care less. Probably makes more sense to them to have turf as it would wager it is less costly to maintain.

Would it kill TFC's fan base? I don't know. I fell in love with the team when they had a plastic pitch. 40,000 Seattle fans don't care. Portland, the loudest and most passionate stadium in MLS doesn't care.

If soccer really is a big deal here with all this potential, I think it can survive if field turf comes back.

[TFC07]

But again, if you're the vast majority of Toronto taxpayers who don't give a flying fuck about soccer, then none of this matters to you. All you see is one of the city's sports teams in need of a new stadium, with the usual overtures to try and get the city to help build them one. TFC and the Argos both don't have very large fanbases, but only one of them has a stadium in which they are the only tenant.

And getting a World Cup would be nice - if you're a soccer fan. If you're not, it's akin to the Olympics: a prestige event that the city will lose millions of dollars on.

I'm trying to remove my own biases from the equation here, and see this from the perspective of your average Toronto resident who probably doesn't care about the Argos or "the Toronto FCs".

Again, what are you basing this on? World Cup says otherwise. Toronto care a lot more about soccer than what you think.

GETTING ARGOS TO BMO FIELD IS GOING TO COST TAXPAYER $20 MILLION! How does that benefit taxpayer, again? World Cup is money maker as long you use stadiums after world cup instead of tearing it out. BMO field is already built and used for soccer, so there's no loss from hosting World Cup from BMO field/Toronto POV.

[TFC07]

The assumption that this whole deal is going to kill soccer is based on the idea that the grass will be ruined.

First, they aren't going with turf yet. We probably have about 2-3 years before the issue is either an issue or it's not. By that I mean accumulating significant examples where the surface was "ruined" and they consider turf. Or maybe the hybrid thing works and it isn't an issue. Doubtful from my perspective but not impossible.

Of course, if the Argos are such a losing money proposition, they will fold over that time making the issue moot. Grass will stay. Those arguing against accommodating the Argos for this very reason have nothing to fear.

What if the Argos don't fold and the grass is ruined?

Then we get field turf. The "taxpayer" couldn't care less. Probably makes more sense to them to have turf as it would wager it is less costly to maintain.

Would it kill TFC's fan base? I don't know. I fell in love with the team when they had a plastic pitch. 40,000 Seattle fans don't care. Portland, the loudest and most passionate stadium in MLS doesn't care.

If soccer really is a big deal here with all this potential, I think it can survive if field turf comes back.

TFC fans don't care about turf? Then explain to me why TFC/MLSE went on their way to get rid of field turf while supporters/fans pressure them? That's because it limited us to sign quality players while host other soccer events. Get rid of turf, you lose fans, DP's (high profile ones) and other soccer events for good.

Toronto isn't Seattle or Portland, Toronto is different market where soccer fans are a lot more "pure" or authentic. If you want soccer to become successful in Toronto, then you can't be bush league about.

[OgtheDim]

Just for discussion's sake:

Seattle has begun the long process of getting out of its current stadium. As has NER.

Part of why this is being discussed is straight turf is a barrier to getting in talent.

I realise we all have a dysfunctional relationship with MLSE. But, are they really that stupid that everybody in that organization would sacrifice future growth for the sake of giving straight turf to a tenant? I know the city doesn't care beyond maximising the rental capacity. But, Rogers and Bell are not usually that dumb when it comes to revenue potential.

[OgtheDim]

Again, what are you basing this on? World Cup says otherwise. Toronto care a lot more about soccer than what you think.

GETTING ARGOS TO BMO FIELD IS GOING TO COST TAXPAYER $20 MILLION! How does that benefit taxpayer, again?....

Its like Arts Funding - the taxes back from the spin off of the Argos in town is more then that $20 million.

[Beach_Red]

TFC fans don't care about turf? Then explain to me why TFC/MLSE went on their way to get rid of field turf while supporters/fans pressure them? That's because it limited us to sign quality players while host other soccer events. Get rid of turf, you lose fans, DP's (high profile ones) and other soccer events for good.

Toronto isn't Seattle or Portland, Toronto is different market where soccer fans are a lot more "pure" or authentic. If you want soccer to become successful in Toronto, then you can't be bush league about.

This is why I think MLSE want to fill BMO with as many events as they can. First of all, of course they don't care about soccer or they would have been in MLS long before they were. But secondly, MLS is going to be bush league for at least another couple of decades and then if it becomes the first pro soccer league in North America not to fail, it might make the next step. It's still a risk, it's not a given.

But the biggest problem here is that Toronto hasn't been able to do what Portland and Seattle have done - attract MLS fans. And there's no sign that they will, or that the "pure" supporters want that any more than they want turf. MLSE's marketing department knows this. They didn't (or weren't able) to develop the market beyond what was already here.

Maybe, if greatwifenorf is right and this generation finally becomes the one to go from participating on kids soccer to paying to watch local pro soccer TFC will do okay. Of course, we've been hearing this since before the Blizzard. MLSE will always take the last risky approach. In the long run that may be a huge problem but in the short term... well, we've what they've been able to do in the short term and that's why we're getting Argos games.

It's really too bad no other owners have ever felt there was enough potential in pro soccer here to invest.

[ManUtd4ever]

The assumption that this whole deal is going to kill soccer is based on the idea that the grass will be ruined.

First, they aren't going with turf yet. We probably have about 2-3 years before the issue is either an issue or it's not. By that I mean accumulating significant examples where the surface was "ruined" and they consider turf. Or maybe the hybrid thing works and it isn't an issue. Doubtful from my perspective but not impossible.

Of course, if the Argos are such a losing money proposition, they will fold over that time making the issue moot. Grass will stay. Those arguing against accommodating the Argos for this very reason have nothing to fear.

What if the Argos don't fold and the grass is ruined?

Then we get field turf. The "taxpayer" couldn't care less. Probably makes more sense to them to have turf as it would wager it is less costly to maintain.

Would it kill TFC's fan base? I don't know. I fell in love with the team when they had a plastic pitch. 40,000 Seattle fans don't care. Portland, the loudest and most passionate stadium in MLS doesn't care.

If soccer really is a big deal here with all this potential, I think it can survive if field turf comes back.

Survive? Yes, if the club is successful. Thrive? No, not under any circumstances.

I just hope the hybrid surface works out as well as promised.

[Pookie]

TFC fans don't care about turf? Then explain to me why TFC/MLSE went on their way to get rid of field turf while supporters/fans pressure them? That's because it limited us to sign quality players while host other soccer events. Get rid of turf, you lose fans, DP's (high profile ones) and other soccer events for good.

Toronto isn't Seattle or Portland, Toronto is different market where soccer fans are a lot more "pure" or authentic. If you want soccer to become successful in Toronto, then you can't be bush league about.

Losing high profile DPs concerns me not. Getting good, young DPs that can contribute to long term success concerns me greatly.

I love natural grass too. Would hate to see it go.

You are making an economic argument though that contradicts itself in places. For example, if the Argos are going to fold then grass isn't an issue. They will be gone before the hybrid turf is barely a few years old.

You also argue that soccer is more sustainable. Yet that isn't what MLSE sees. Given the choice to invest in their own soccer specific stadium or invest in the City's stadium and share in the multi-use aspect of it, they deem it more profitable to go the "renter on a multi-use" plan.

The risk to them is lower. They can put some of their own events in there and make money.

I think the business case on TFC as a franchise has yet to be written. Having a franchise to share in SUM revenue from US/Mexico TV rights is a no brainer. But the profitability and potential of TFC as a club is up in the air after 8 years. TFC's season ticket based has fluctuated over time, highs and lows. It's TV ratings aren't really growing from year 1 despite a massive investment in high profile DPs. In some cases, going on a sports network probably gave them similar numbers to when they were on GolTV. Franchises have folded in Toronto before and right now, they aren't making a profit if you believe Tim L.

You can understand then why they don't see the stadium like you do. Renting the City's building and sharing in revenue allows them to minimize their risk and increase their profit streams.

And the big assumption here is that the hybrid surface won't work. I'm skeptical but that's an outcome we don't know.

I would love a soccer specific stadium… somewhere that was actually convenient (for me) to get to. TFC's owners just don't see it as viable.

[OgtheDim]

Losing high profile DPs concerns me not. ....

Arguably the 4 most effective DP's last season down the stretch were Keane, Henry, Jones and Martins. Note the co relation to semi finalists. Yes, young DP's are necessary. But for a team to be top drawer, talent of a certain status is necessary. Its harder to get those to come to you when you have turf ( another reason why Seattle and NER are beginning the 10 year long move towards a SSS).

[ag futbol]

This market has been conditioned to believe turf is inferior. That message came directly from the franchise at one point (largely as an excuse for poor results, but still).

Seattle doesn't have the number of ex-pats we have or the history of the above. Turf will not fly here.

[Gringo Starr]

Toronto isn't Seattle or Portland, Toronto is different market where soccer fans are a lot more "pure" or authentic. If you want soccer to become successful in Toronto, then you can't be bush league about.

Havn't the Sounders and Timbers been around since the mid 70s, Timbers support seems pretty authentic, if anything this reno seems to be taking TFC the Leafs route with private lounges and clubs to cater to the well healed. Not much in the reno caters to the existing crowd its like MLSE has decided the "supporter" crowd doesn't sell out the building, and is more of a headache so they will pursue the corporate fan route and that fan won't give a shit if its Turf or not.

Anyway drove by BMO and that new stand is massive, seats at the top will feel miles away. They have a funny little trailer done up near the ticket box office as a presentation centre with an advert to book appointments to experience the new BMO field

[Initial B]

this is a valid point ,...shows we need to protect our public playing fields making them accessible to all , for 'street' games . Ironically, organized sports are killing the future stability and growth of the actual sport .

I don't know about that. My son and his friends all play soccer during both recesses. In the sun, rain, and snow. Sometimes they'll play a pick-up game after school. Almost all his friends play FIFA on their game consoles. I don't think soccer is going to stagnate in Canada.

[Blixa]

Wouldn't MLS have something to say about this seeing as having a soccer-specific stadium was one of the conditions of being granted a franchise in the first place? Wouldn't this qualify as a bait-and-switch on part of MLSE?

[Pookie]

Wouldn't MLS have something to say about this seeing as having a soccer-specific stadium was one of the conditions of being granted a franchise in the first place? Wouldn't this qualify as a bait-and-switch on part of MLSE?

I am not sure that was ever a legal condition of buying into MLS.

The Argos were part of the stadium conversation until they pulled out. And the BMO agreement with the City incorporated an "Argos Clause" which spelled out what would happen if they moved in.

With rugby and lacrosse being played there already "soccer specific" sounds more like a marketing term.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Wouldn't MLS have something to say about this seeing as having a soccer-specific stadium was one of the conditions of being granted a franchise in the first place? Wouldn't this qualify as a bait-and-switch on part of MLSE?

I am not sure that was ever a legal condition of buying into MLS.

The Argos were part of the stadium conversation until they pulled out. And the BMO agreement with the City incorporated an "Argos Clause" which spelled out what would happen if they moved in.

With rugby and lacrosse being played there already "soccer specific" sounds more like a marketing term.

Permanent tenants would be the difference between the sporadic other sporting events and one concert that has been in our "SSS".

[barticusz]

Any construction progress updates?

[Canary10]

Any construction progress updates?

Driving into work today, it looked like the frame of the upper deck is pretty much done. Sorry, no pics though!

[cmonyoureds]

I am not sure that was ever a legal condition of buying into MLS.

The Argos were part of the stadium conversation until they pulled out. And the BMO agreement with the City incorporated an "Argos Clause" which spelled out what would happen if they moved in.

With rugby and lacrosse being played there already "soccer specific" sounds more like a marketing term.

Perhaps this is why MLSE has backed out *allegedly* of talks to buy the Argos?

[barticusz]

Driving into work today, it looked like the frame of the upper deck is pretty much done. Sorry, no pics though!

I guess a verbal update is better than nothing! Cheers.

[GabrielHurl]

Driving into work today, it looked like the frame of the upper deck is pretty much done. Sorry, no pics though!

It's not completely done - I'd say it's more like 75% done

[Heepster]

Any construction progress updates?

... drove by BMO and that new stand is massive, seats at the top will feel miles away. They have a funny little trailer done up near the ticket box office as a presentation centre with an advert to book appointments to experience the new BMO field

With BMO not being available for the first 7-8 games of the season, with the international break at the end of March it would been perfect time for them to partner with the CSA and splashed a double header with a Canada game.

I don't think we'll be seeing much soccer at Rogers Centre in the future. We know it won't be TFC, and I don't think CMNT could get anyone else to play there on artificial turf (even if it's new artificial turf) in March or April. I guess a CWNT game could be a slim possibility, but I haven't seen any mention of something like that being considered.