What they are thinking of is doing a joint world cup bid with the US and using the area as the zone.Originally Posted by RealG-TFC
It sounds bizzare....but if FIFA is involved along with dumptrucks full of cash who knows?
Yes... They will finanlly get it
No.... They will screw this up royally
hmmm... not sure? how much money will they make from this?
What they are thinking of is doing a joint world cup bid with the US and using the area as the zone.
It sounds bizzare....but if FIFA is involved along with dumptrucks full of cash who knows?
Road Trips: July 7 2007 Chicago, July 22nd 2007 Columbus, August 11 2007 NY, October 13 2007 LA, March 29 2008 Columbus, May 24th 2008 DC, May 26 2008 Montreal, June 28th 2008 NE, March 7-11-14 2009 Charleston, March 28 2009 Columbus, April 10 2010 New England, May 12 2010 Montreal, April 7 2012 Montreal, March 16 2013 Montreal , June 3 2014 Montreal, March 14 2015 Columbus
Twitter: @RPBPhil
I am not saying its not possible, or even unlikely (though I do think it is unlikely). To me it just seems like something entirely fabricated by members of council. We know that the CSA is considering a Canada-wide bid, and we do not know if USSF is considering a bid (at least not off the top of my head), for 2026. They should be citing that potential bid and not something that, to the public's knowledge, is not a thing that has had any particular considerations thus far.
Why would we even want to be part of a big with the north east USA involved?
We would likely get a few group stage matches out of it and that would be it. We have the CSA considering a bid that would be much better for the city of Toronto if we want to make our mark on an international stage.
In the end BMO has little to do with the world cup as it would be a minor stadium in the grand scheme of things
this lends credence to the world cup bid, BMO and NFL may some how be loosely connected... or at least the some on council seems to think this
CSA on world cup bid and it potential to co-host it with USA:
The CFL's recent trend towards new stadiums and plans to revamp BMO Field in Toronto help the CSA cause although much work would remain, not to mention questions about artificial surfaces.
"There are a lot of requirements from a hosting perspective for a men's World Cup," Montopoli acknowledged. "It's massive."
FIFA, CONCACAF and the federal sport minister are aware of the CSA's intentions, he added.
"We have been trying to get to the prime minister. He's busy. But we will be getting to the prime minister on this file."
CONCACAF seems on board, tweeting its congratulations on the CSA's "ambitious new strategic plan."
A bid to co-host the World Cup was possible, with the subject already having been raised with U.S. Soccer, Montopoli said.
With FIFA yet to issue its 2026 hosting guidelines, Montopoli said talk of a co-hosted bid "might be a little premature but it certainly is possible."
The CSA's 2014-18 blueprint is titled "Leading a Soccer Nation." It is a pithy document divided into four goals with 27 sub-points.
The four major goals are:
- Invest in technical leadership.
- Ensure consistent world-class performances by our national teams.
- Govern the game in Canada professionally.
- Encourage and oversee the grown of the game.
The CSA plan also calls for mandating technical development across the country and establishing a national player database.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/cana...-cup-1.2508176
NOTE: this article was written back in January 2014.
Councillor wants Toronto to consider co-hosting 2026 World Cup
A city councillor is scheduled to discuss the feasibility of bidding to co-host the 2026 World Cup in Toronto in front of council on Wednesday.
Coun. Mark Grimes has recommended that city staff consider a joint bid with neighbouring Canadian or U.S. cities to host the 2026 FIFA men’s World Cup.
The suggestion, posted on the city hall agenda for April 1 and 2, recommends that the city manager, deputy manager, and economic development and culture general manager look at opportunities to host the World Cup by partnering up with cities "within one day's drive of Toronto."
If approved, staffers would meet with regional, national and international organizations to discuss the economic importance, including costs and benefits, of hosting major events like the soccer tournament.
The motion also suggests the city support a live broadcast of the FIFA men’s World Cup finals in July, being played in Brazil, to celebrate the bid.
The live broadcast would also be an "extension of the celebration" to mark the one-year countdown to the 2015 Pan Am Games in Toronto.
In the motion, Grimes wrote that the event would build on Toronto's, Ontario's and Canada's reputations as hosts for major sporting events. He estimates the event would bring 160 million people to the Toronto area.
Grimes' motion was seconded by Coun. Michael Thompson.
Read more: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/councillor...#ixzz2xlLwKZwW
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
I personally hope Canada doesn't co-host World Cup with USA. Keep it all in Canada and spread the games all over country.
That was the World Cup Motion.
The motion about BMO is http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgen...em=2014.EX39.4
Not up yet.
A city does not bid for the World Cup it's a country's soccer association that does the bidding so I don't get this Grimes World Cup motion thing.
Its a setup for the BMO discussion. Now, anybody voting against BMO thing can be accused of not allowing staff to do their jobs and also voting against WC bid. Mind you, given Rob Ford's voting shenanigans today....
I will hold my thoughts for now.
EDIT: No I won't. This World Cup gambit is a pathetic, transparent ploy to get the $30M in public funds into BMO. The creation of a phantom public interest.
Sort of like when AEG got $275M from public sources in Kansas City on the back of a promise to bring an NHL or NBA team there. Anyone wondering who was involved in that from the AEG side?
http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/were...nt?oid=2183027
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...70202/32338775
Why this would be so important to anyone other than MLSE (ie city councillors etc) is an interesting mystery.
No sports journalist will write about or talk about the KC episode here in Toronto, for fear of being cut off from access across the board. They'd lose their livelihood.
Welcome to the Soviet Union.
Last edited by ensco; 04-02-2014 at 04:13 PM.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
I was quoting the WC motion. They still aren't close to BMO.
It seems likely.
And we are back to where we began, with the simple worry that the Argo's turf wear will result in Field turf eventually. Or the North South stands won't be up to snuff.
I'm torn about how I feel. I'd rather have 90 million into a SSS then a multiuse, I just don't know if it could pass council.
I don't think you have the option of getting $90M put into an SSS. I wish someone would ask Leiweke that. It would expose the Leafs as the real driver of the business plan here imho.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Well it makes three options possible.
MLSE is doing it just for the Leafs.
MLSE is doing it with intent to buy the Argos (trying to save money)
The City is forcing this as a condition of any upgrades.
Or some combination there off.
The agenda item states:
"
Summary The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a City capital investment of $10 million towards the cost of making the following changes to BMO Field at Exhibition Place:
- increasing the permanent seating capacity to 30,000 (existing permanent capacity is 21,566) and allowing for an additional 10,000 in temporary seating capacity for special events;
- adding a partial roof that will cover the majority of the seats;
- reconfiguring the field so that the stadium can host Canadian Football League ("CFL") games; and
- improving amenities within the stadium."
Adding a Partial roof to cover the majority of the seats?
In the plans some Temporary seating won't be covered by the roof. Nor would field side tickets perhapes.
It's partial because it's really 4 seperate structures that dosen't cover the field.
And they don't get to the item today. Food trucks taking a long time to work out it seems.
If MLSE are eventually looking to acquire far greater government funding someday for a major, NFL or World Cup capable stadium, then it stands to reason they'd have to be able to show responsibility in handling a smaller amount for a smaller project. In this case, the $10 mill packages provided by each of the three levels of government. Do good business with that, along with their own investment, and it makes it far easier to open the door again for another, larger project down the road. So it seems reasonable to assume that whatever happens with BMO Field, the money will be spent prudently and efficiently.
I'm not sure a joint WC bid is feasible. It would set up an arm wrestling match with the USSF over who gets what. All the back and forth across the border by scores of international visitors would not be a happy circumstance for America's Homeland Security.
It would be much more reassuring to hear one of our councillors make an informed statement about a strictly Canadian World Cup bid. But that hasn't happened yet and no one on council has ever indicated the capability.
Last edited by greatwhitenorf; 04-02-2014 at 09:51 PM.
Moderator
For the life of me, I can't figure out how any opponents to Lieweke's proposal haven't dug that up and mentioned it in council or to the press. It's so damaging and has his fingerprints all over it, but I guess you're right - people don't know because the press doesn't want to report it.
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.
Then we should bring this up and use social media to spread the word.
It's definitely a cautionary tale. But I'm not too sure you get very far bringing that particular AEG failure to the surface.
The scapegoat on that one has always been William Del Biaggio III who's now in jail. He was supposed to be the face of the NHL team's ownership.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/d...o-prison-time/
And to be fair, Bobcat spent days talking about that debacle on The Fan. However, you are right, in that I haven't heard mention of it since TL's arrival.
Either way, two very different situations.
The way I see it, its kinda like what Ensco said. Its a ploy to get coucil involved in proping up MLSE's plan to renovate the stadium with flashy words like 'World Cup'.
The talk and planning going on have nothing to do with a real world cup bid, its just creating a buzz that they are wanting to use for their own needs.
Road Trips: July 7 2007 Chicago, July 22nd 2007 Columbus, August 11 2007 NY, October 13 2007 LA, March 29 2008 Columbus, May 24th 2008 DC, May 26 2008 Montreal, June 28th 2008 NE, March 7-11-14 2009 Charleston, March 28 2009 Columbus, April 10 2010 New England, May 12 2010 Montreal, April 7 2012 Montreal, March 16 2013 Montreal , June 3 2014 Montreal, March 14 2015 Columbus
Twitter: @RPBPhil
Are you saying the politicians and lobbyists are trying to be sneaky?
Sprint Center in KC remains without a team, what is happening with Farmer's Field in LA? The proposed NFL stadium that's awaiting environmental approval to be built for 2016?
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
It does point to the importance of a "face" in these things. AEG=MLSE but who is the face here?
Farmers Field won't be built without an NFL team lined up. Sprint Centre is different, it shows that you shouldn't build a stadium/arena without a team. AEG honestly must have believed they could have got a tenant at that time as there were a number of potential options, none turned out. Kansas City government should not have approved it though. AEG took a hit also on that, they are still trying to get a tenant. Sounds similar to Alamo Dome in San Antonio. They never got their NFL team either.
The lesson is, don't build it first before a tenant team is owned/lined up. I don't think we would end up in that situation in TO.
LA is interesting, but seems muddled. Does the approval of Farmer's Field mean the City of Industry proposal is dead? Also Stan Kroenke, owner of the Rams has bought land in LA - 60 acres. Does he intend to bring the Rams back to LA or is this a ploy to improve the situation in St. Louis? There has always been a New York NFL envy in LA, wanting two teams to share one stadium makes max money.
My view is that any other sport would have expanded and put two franchises in LA long ago. The NFL is unique.
Actually I don't think it makes sense to go in with 2 LA teams at roughly the same time. Just have 1 successful team to start and the owners to get a $250m relocation fee for LA team. There is no need to share a stadium in LA. I think the NFL just say 2 LA teams now to make other cities more worried they could lose their team to LA if they dont get stadium deals done. Jerry was saying 2 teams in LA was close just last year. If 1 team does move to LA then those other cities won't feel that pressure unless the nfl keeps talking of 2 teams.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/20...s-coyotes.htmlHanding over a multi-million dollar subsidy to the new owners is simply too much, said James, considering the Sprint Center is turning a profit each year for the city.
....
According to Pollstar Magazine’s annual report, Sprint Center was the sixth-busiest arena in the United States in 2012 and No. 22 in the world.
Do some research. The Sprint Centre has maintained an operating profit & is the 6th busiest in the US and 26th in the world. Not bad for a stadium that doesn't have a tenant.
If anything, the financial model for the Sprint Centre should be followed and stadiums like that should be build with that model in case a major tenant doesn't come.
http://www.sprintcenter.com/news/det...arena-for-2012
http://www.isitpacked.com/2010/11/04...as-in-america/
http://sprint_center.s3.amazonaws.co...renaVenues.pdf
Posting Permissions
