Argos unlikely to play at BMO Field in 2014

[Tony Santiago]

80K+ for 9 games a year, and all paying? Doubtful. That and no way a government is going to pony up the $1 billion + it would take to build an NFL stadium. And the NFL likes to maximise the marks...ahem....investors.

Why is it doubtful? This is one of the largest and wealthiest cities/regions in North America.

A billion+ is on the upper end of things at the moment. Cowboy Stadium cost the equivalent of 1.4 billion if it were built today. It is absolutely extravagant and seats 80 000, which is 4th most in the NFL. That is not a comparison for Toronto. Heinz Field in Pittsburgh is considered amongst the nicest (despite the poor field) and it cost 270 million or about 400 million if it were built today. The league requires new stadiums to be 65 000. Soldier Field in Chicago has about 63 000 and has the most expensive tickets. That's more MLSE's style.

Anyone wanting an NFL team has to have deep pockets and be willing to pay for much of the cost of a stadium. A community like Vaughn or Milton could possibly offer some incentive to land a massive project like an NFL team. Those who own MLSE have very deep pockets.

Why are people marks? The NFL has grown incredibly and shows no signs of stopping. If you have the money to invest it seems like a sound investment. This isn't opinion or anything. In 1995 expansion teams paid $270 million. In 2002 Houston paid $700 million. The league has grown since then.

[Beach_Red]

Why is it doubtful? This is one of the largest and wealthiest cities/regions in North America.

A billion+ is on the upper end of things at the moment. Cowboy Stadium cost the equivalent of 1.4 billion if it were built today. It is absolutely extravagant and seats 80 000, which is 4th most in the NFL. That is not a comparison for Toronto. Heinz Field in Pittsburgh is considered amongst the nicest (despite the poor field) and it cost 270 million or about 400 million if it were built today. The league requires new stadiums to be 65 000. Soldier Field in Chicago has about 63 000 and has the most expensive tickets. That's more MLSE's style.

Anyone wanting an NFL team has to have deep pockets and be willing to pay for much of the cost of a stadium. A community like Vaughn or Milton could possibly offer some incentive to land a massive project like an NFL team. Those who own MLSE have very deep pockets.

Why are people marks? The NFL has grown incredibly and shows no signs of stopping. If you have the money to invest it seems like a sound investment. This isn't opinion or anything. In 1995 expansion teams paid $270 million. In 2002 Houston paid $700 million. The league has grown since then.

You're right, if someone wanted to put up the money it would be up to them. But people are marks because of this, did you read it when Ensco posted the link yesterday? It's worth a look:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...payers/309448/

Anyway, until a Jerry Jones or a Mark Cuban steps up all this is pointless. The NFL won't allow MLSE to own a team, if they allowed corporate ownership Leiweke would still be in LA and AEG would own a team there.

[OgtheDim]

I use the word marks to indicate governments. NFL loves it when government pay for stadiums. And, no, I don't see 80K of people paying the money MLSE would like to charge to see games.

[Tony Santiago]

You're right, if someone wanted to put up the money it would be up to them. But people are marks because of this, did you read it when Ensco posted the link yesterday? It's worth a look:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...payers/309448/

Anyway, until a Jerry Jones or a Mark Cuban steps up all this is pointless. The NFL won't allow MLSE to own a team, if they allowed corporate ownership Leiweke would still be in LA and AEG would own a team there.

That article points out examples, like Santa Clara, that seemed to want to give these teams the money. So what? All agreements indicate the public will be payed back. Santa Clara is getting the Super Bowl in 2016, which never was possible before. One game could generate 100-300 million dollars for the local economy. Minnesota was faced with losing the team or giving them money. The option of giving them money to keep the team in Minnesota appeared to be the best option because that's what they did. Calling someone a mark implies stupidity. I don't see any of these communities being fleeced.

The Santa Clara County has an economic impact assessment and it estimates a benefit of 250 million dollars annually and 2, 230 full time jobs by having a stadium and the 49ers there. Not too bad.

MLSE is just a name of a company. The Rogers family is worth 7 billion dollars or something.

An NFL team in Toronto is a very real dream and the owners of MLSE have the finances.

I'll leave it now. The only reason it wont happen is the NFL has other ideas. If the NFL decided they wanted to come here you bet your ass a stadium will get built.

[Beach_Red]

The NFL wanted to go to Europe but it failed. Which I thought was too bad because some of those team logos were pretty good. Amd maybe London will even work out, but with the NFL it's all about ownership. They certainly don't want to go through what the NHL is going through with owners.

But I think you're right, if Canadian billionaires like the Rogers family wanted a team here they would have one by now. Which tells us that they don't. Look at how long it took to sell the Leafs and look who the only bidders were.

[TFC07]

Who cares about No Fun League! I can't believe how many fools are willing pay $100 per ticket (on average) for a game where players spend more time on sidelines than on field.

2 downs of rushing, 1 down to pass, then last down to punt the ball. Repeat these steps for every play lol No Fun League is so predictable!

[habstfc]

One thing that no one mentions is NFL wants to be #1 sport in every market but we all know that's not possible in leaf land. They don't like playing second fiddle to any other team or sport. Maybe Yankees or red sox are exception.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Who cares about No Fun League! I can't believe how many fools are willing pay $100 per ticket (on average) for a game where players spend more time on sidelines than on field.

2 downs of rushing, 1 down to pass, then last down to punt the ball. Repeat these steps for every play lol No Fun League is so predictable!

There's not much talk of how much people like it or want it just how realistic the possibility is. I'm no fan myself but I want to know if it's happening since it may indirectly affects me.

[ensco]

That article points out examples, like Santa Clara, that seemed to want to give these teams the money. So what? All agreements indicate the public will be payed back. Santa Clara is getting the Super Bowl in 2016, which never was possible before. One game could generate 100-300 million dollars for the local economy. Minnesota was faced with losing the team or giving them money. The option of giving them money to keep the team in Minnesota appeared to be the best option because that's what they did. Calling someone a mark implies stupidity. I don't see any of these communities being fleeced.

The Santa Clara County has an economic impact assessment and it estimates a benefit of 250 million dollars annually and 2, 230 full time jobs by having a stadium and the 49ers there. Not too bad.

MLSE is just a name of a company. The Rogers family is worth 7 billion dollars or something.

An NFL team in Toronto is a very real dream and the owners of MLSE have the finances.

I'll leave it now. The only reason it wont happen is the NFL has other ideas. If the NFL decided they wanted to come here you bet your ass a stadium will get built.

So .... Billion dollar stadiums are good investments for taxpayers. Rogers family members will pay a billion dollars for an NFL team. The only reason these things haven't happened is because the NFL doesn't want them.

Even a Winston Churchill couldn't have lasted 10 seconds here, with these persuasive powers and mastery of the facts arrayed against him.

[OgtheDim]

..Minnesota was faced with losing the team or giving them money. The option of giving them money to keep the team in Minnesota appeared to be the best option because that's what they did. Calling someone a mark implies stupidity. I don't see any of these communities being fleeced.

....

So the right thing to do is always the thing that politicians do? Might I point out to you to the events of this week?

[jloome]

So the right thing to do is always the thing that politicians do? Might I point out to you to the events of this week?

Read what Seattle fans think of gridiron lines for their playoff game:

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/articl...rtland-timbers

[ensco]

This came up elsewhere, I thought it belonged here.

It's about why the Expos failed. A couple of guys pointed to the 1994 strike. I say Olympic Stadium was a bigger issue than the strike. Nobody would pay for a downtown stadium in Montreal.

DC built the Nationals their park and gave it to them.

This stuff is complicated by design (the enormous cost taxpayers bear is not something politicians want to highlight).

I recommend this website (and this particular story) to those interested in this topic.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2012/1...stadium-op-ed/

[Beach_Red]

^ That's a good article. Years ago a couple of professors from a university in (I think) Indiana published a study that essentially said any economy big enough to support a major sports team was too big to be significantly affected by the team. Maybe Montreal and Vancouver are good examples - most North American cities of their size have MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL teams. Mtl and Van have NHL and CFL (can we count MLS yet?).

I lived in Montreal for 30 years, until 1990. I was a member of the Young Expos Club and went to lots of games, but the Olympic Stadium was definietly a problem (Jarry Park was fun) and being in the east end was a big factor. I have no doubt the Expos would still draw big crowds in a downtown stadium but after the Olympics there was no way the government would finance a stadium and no one else would. If a sports stadium is really a good investment wouldn't someone other than the government invest in it? If only the government is willing to put up the money, doesn't that tell us something?

I just hope that if the Argos do come to BMO people don't walk away. I hope TFC is able to show that they have enough ticket sales to have their concerns dealt with. Because I think Bell would lose TFC to keep the CFL and its ratings and a few Heritage Classics.

[Yohan]

DW Stadium at Wigan, after rugby game

[Haddy]

I just hope that if the Argos do come to BMO people don't walk away. I hope TFC is able to show that they have enough ticket sales to have their concerns dealt with. Because I think Bell would lose TFC to keep the CFL and its ratings and a few Heritage Classics.

There is more potential wealth in soccer than there ever will be in the CFL. That is, and always will be, TFC's saving grace.

Have no fear.

On the CFL...

I'm not surprised the Argos are interested in reconsidering BMO as a place to play. They need a good home, and fast. Other CFL clubs are building GOOD stadiums either now or in the next few years, and in the saturated sports market here, the Argos are losing credibility quick.

The CFL is in a world of trouble in Southern Ontario. Over the past few years, Toronto has owned the worst attendance rating with Hamilton right behind them. Saturated market is culprit #1. But at least, for the Ti-Cats, they have a shiny new stadium to help turn things around starting next year.

The core demographic across the country is males 35-60 with low to middle incomes - despite TSN's efforts to 'make it cool'. The 18-34 demo is growing, but at a much slower rate. What TSN did succeed in doing is doubling viewership of folks who were already CFL fans from days of old.

Read this: CFL Marketing Plan 2013

This document offers strategies to increase the CFL fanbase over time. Key to it, is impressing on the younger generations, who just so happen to be currently gravitating to other sports....like soccer.

I thought it was an interesting read.

[OgtheDim]

A CFL game in Hamilton is a very different beast to a game in Toronto. Hamilton is much younger, and down scale. The passion for defence in Hamilton is huge. And the atmoshphere, although not as intimidating as an MLS crowd can be, is at least mildly visceral.

Argo fans have not had an intimate atmosphere since Varsity back in the 50's. I think their fans, who tend to be from the suburbs and skew older, would like to think they can have the passion of an Als crowd; but, it would take a very different group of fans to get there.

[Tony Santiago]

So the right thing to do is always the thing that politicians do? Might I point out to you to the events of this week?

Yeah, face palm it up. Your Rob Ford comparison makes for a good laugh. Who needs stats that show what the newest 68 000 seat stadium will mean for a city nobody had heard of before they got the 49ers when you have emoticons?

[Tony Santiago]

So .... Billion dollar stadiums are good investments for taxpayers. Rogers family members will pay a billion dollars for an NFL team. The only reason these things haven't happened is because the NFL doesn't want them.

Even a Winston Churchill couldn't have lasted 10 seconds here, with these persuasive powers and mastery of the facts arrayed against him.

Sorry, what was your point? Some of you all just seem like contrarians who look for opportunities for sarcasm.

Someone wants to say that the NFL doesn't let corporations own teams, so I am pointing out that the Rogers Family is part owner of MLSE. The Rogers family is who may end up owning a team (as an example) not MLSE. I am also pointing out that as of right now the NFL is not declaring they want a team here, but that doesn't mean it isn't on the horizon. The NFL could potentially expand by 4 to even out the divisions. Toronto is a very real candidate in that regard.

Anyway, the Argos aren't coming to BMO is my opinion. Carry on with your sarcasm.

[ensco]

Sorry, what was your point? Some of you all just seem like contrarians who look for opportunities for sarcasm.

Someone wants to say that the NFL doesn't let corporations own teams, so I am pointing out that the Rogers Family is part owner of MLSE. The Rogers family is who may end up owning a team (as an example) not MLSE. I am also pointing out that as of right now the NFL is not declaring they want a team here, but that doesn't mean it isn't on the horizon. The NFL could potentially expand by 4 to even out the divisions. Toronto is a very real candidate in that regard.

Anyway, the Argos aren't coming to BMO is my opinion. Carry on with your sarcasm.

Just to be clear, there is no "us" and "them". You are very welcome here as far as I am concerned. All I care about is the post.

Your previous point about the stadium politics/benefit was laughable, that deserved the sarcasm.

It's pretty obvious that Rogers the corporation bought MLSE and the Blue Jays, not the Rogers family. Asserting that the family "might" buy an NFL team is like asserting that it "might" snow in June - theoretically possible, but not supported whatsoever by the facts. Ted's shares sit in a trust with complex governance. He had a wife and four children, none of whom care much about sports, and none of whom individually is worth much outside the trust.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/700MHz_Rogers.pdf/$file/700MHz_Rogers.pdf

I have no big opinion on whether the NFL wants to be here or not. i assume they want to go to any big market where someone can come up with a stadium and a billion dollars.

[OgtheDim]

Yeah, face palm it up. Your Rob Ford comparison makes for a good laugh. Who needs stats that show what the newest 68 000 seat stadium will mean for a city nobody had heard of before they got the 49ers when you have emoticons?

Lets look at what you said.

The option of giving them money to keep the team in Minnesota appeared to be the best option because that's what they did.

If I might paraphrase, you basically said it was a good decision because it was done.

What sort of lamo logic is that?!?! You don't believe that pols make mistakes? Oh, and btw, in a rebuttal, the use of the obvious local pol who makes mistakes is a rhetorical device. It makes my point. Its not for yuks.

Man...you gotta get out more on the internet. Leave the facebook and twitter discussions behind, because the quality of debate on there has just not trained you to handle dealing with critiques on web forums.

BTW, having watched municipal politics for over 40 years, I, for one, am not going to trust 1 study that may or may not have been torqued to get a certain result over the actual experience of dozens of municipalities.

As ensco said, be here, but if you throw out logic that is just lame, expect to get your discussion points critqued.

Happens to all of us on internet forums.

Heck, I got called out at least once every couple of months on here for being massively wrong (see my multi-post defence of the CFL endzones being 35 yards couple with my inability to do basic math and claiming the CFL field was a certain length)

[Beach_Red]

Well, if we're going to get into, "who's wrong the most," that may be something I can finally win!

I did see this today:

"As an extensive 2008 review of the peer-reviewed economic studies published over the past 20 years concludes: "No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer reviewed economic journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy."

Here the link: http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/d...conomic-growth

But specific to Toronto, I would say there is about zero political will to build any sports teams' stadiums. The Ti-Cats will get a reno out of the Pan Am Games but after that it doesn't seem like much will happen.

I do think it's possible that if a Jerry Jones owned the Leafs they might be playing in a billion-dollar publicly-funded gem instead of a postal warehouse renavted for basketball with hockey tossed in at the last minute.

And I do think what TSN has done with the CFL is a big deal in Canadian TV. Every year at license renewal time the Canadian networks go to the CRTC and claim they can't make money producing their own Canadian content and they don't want to make any shows themselves. But TSN has managed to get excellent ratings with the CFL. It's more than just ratings, it's used in all kinds of negotiations.

[Tony Santiago]

Well, if we're going to get into, "who's wrong the most," that may be something I can finally win!

I did see this today:

"As an extensive 2008 review of the peer-reviewed economic studies published over the past 20 years concludes: "No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer reviewed economic journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy."

Here the link: http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/d...conomic-growth

But specific to Toronto, I would say there is about zero political will to build any sports teams' stadiums. The Ti-Cats will get a reno out of the Pan Am Games but after that it doesn't seem like much will happen.

I do think it's possible that if a Jerry Jones owned the Leafs they might be playing in a billion-dollar publicly-funded gem instead of a postal warehouse renavted for basketball with hockey tossed in at the last minute.

And I do think what TSN has done with the CFL is a big deal in Canadian TV. Every year at license renewal time the Canadian networks go to the CRTC and claim they can't make money producing their own Canadian content and they don't want to make any shows themselves. But TSN has managed to get excellent ratings with the CFL. It's more than just ratings, it's used in all kinds of negotiations.

When people were arguing for BMO it was the exact opposite argument. People can debate day and night about the logistics of spending government money on stadiums, but is done repeatedly all over the world. In North America it's very common. I have already said areas surrounding Toronto (Vaughn, Milton) might be possible candidates.

People still want to whine about the Skydome, when 25 years later the amount of economic activity directly related to it's presence far exceeds the cost. Single events like the Grey Cup generate enormous amounts of revenue. I'm not good with computers, but read the following, which breaks down 110+ million in economic activity related to the Grey Cup 2012:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-58473.pdf

[Tony Santiago]

Lets look at what you said.



If I might paraphrase, you basically said it was a good decision because it was done.

What sort of lamo logic is that?!?! You don't believe that pols make mistakes? Oh, and btw, in a rebuttal, the use of the obvious local pol who makes mistakes is a rhetorical device. It makes my point. Its not for yuks.

Man...you gotta get out more on the internet. Leave the facebook and twitter discussions behind, because the quality of debate on there has just not trained you to handle dealing with critiques on web forums.

BTW, having watched municipal politics for over 40 years, I, for one, am not going to trust 1 study that may or may not have been torqued to get a certain result over the actual experience of dozens of municipalities.

As ensco said, be here, but if you throw out logic that is just lame, expect to get your discussion points critqued.

Happens to all of us on internet forums.

Heck, I got called out at least once every couple of months on here for being massively wrong (see my multi-post defence of the CFL endzones being 35 yards couple with my inability to do basic math and claiming the CFL field was a certain length)

I don't consider a face palm a critique, so sorry if you were wrong about CFL endzones, but I'm not sure what that has to do with me.

What I'm saying about Minnesota is an example is that whatever you may think, it happened. Some other community would have worked out a way to make it happen if Minnesota didn't. In the end, the State owns the stadium, not the Vikings. Here is how it is financed:


How is the project being financed?
Of the project’s $975 million upfront capital costs, the Vikings have guaranteed that $477 million, or 49%, will be privately covered. The team will rely on a combination of private financing and equity, as well as NFL financing in the form of a loan repaid by stadium revenues. The Vikings also have the option to use Stadium Builder’s Licenses (SBLs), a financing mechanism used in many stadium projects.

The remaining $498 million public contribution will be split between the City of Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota and will not include new taxes or have a negative impact on the State’s general fund. The City’s $150 million contribution will be paid by redirecting a portion of the current “Convention Center Taxes,” while the State will issue appropriation bonds for $348 million. The appropriation bonds will be repaid through the modernization of State-authorized charitable gaming that includes electronic pull-tabs and bingo.
Who will own and operate the stadium?
The stadium will be owned by the State of Minnesota, specifically under the guidance of the MSFA.


I'm not even sure what you're debating. Minnesota built a stadium, so what?


The Santa Clara example was presented, and voted on. It passed with a yes vote of 58%. Agree or disagree with who is funding the assessment, but in this case it convinced the people who matter, the people of Santa Clara.


The stuff about getting out of facebook discussions and stuff is another weird tangent that means nothing.

[Tony Santiago]

Just to be clear, there is no "us" and "them". You are very welcome here as far as I am concerned. All I care about is the post.

Your previous point about the stadium politics/benefit was laughable, that deserved the sarcasm.

It's pretty obvious that Rogers the corporation bought MLSE and the Blue Jays, not the Rogers family. Asserting that the family "might" buy an NFL team is like asserting that it "might" snow in June - theoretically possible, but not supported whatsoever by the facts. Ted's shares sit in a trust with complex governance. He had a wife and four children, none of whom care much about sports, and none of whom individually is worth much outside the trust.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/700MHz_Rogers.pdf/$file/700MHz_Rogers.pdf

I have no big opinion on whether the NFL wants to be here or not. i assume they want to go to any big market where someone can come up with a stadium and a billion dollars.

Okay, there are no billionaires in Canada interested in joining the hugest pro sports league in North America. You're right. I must be crazy.

If you refer back, I used Rogers as an example. That's all. I said that. I was just pointing out that MLSE isn't who would own an NFL team. Larry Tanenbaum is a billionaire who loves sports and is part owner of MLSE, but whatever.

The idea is that there is clearly enough wealth. You're arguing that it couldn't happen? I'm not even sure why you would argue that. It most definitely could and the interest is growing.

[Beach_Red]

There is plenty of wealth here, no one is saying there isn't. But we've been hearing this, "NFL to Toronto," talk for over twenty years and it never happens. Why not? The longer they wait, the more expensive it becomes. Houston paid a $700 million franchise fee, it'll be more now.

As for the economic impact, on a city as big as Toronto one more sports team doesn't make much of a difference. Here, this is from the article I linked to above:

"One of the main reasons sports teams and the facilities in which they play are not drivers of economic growth is because they don't create new economic activity. Instead, they displace other forms of economic activity.
For example, imagine you were going to spend money on a night out. You could spend it on an expensive dinner or you could spend it on tickets to a sporting event. But because you have a limited amount of money to spend, you wouldn't spend it on both."

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see an NFL team in Toronto but I have zero interest in seeing the city put up any money. If it's really a good investment that private wealth can finance it. I woukd also like to see the Argos build their own stadium but I doubt that will happen. I'm basing what I think will happen here on the history of Toronto. I think the CFL is important to Bell so they will use MLSE to buy the Argos and get them into BMO because it's the closest to what the Als have in Montreal. I don't like it, but I wouldn't bet against it.

[ensco]

Don't hold your breath waiting for Larry Tanenbaum to get involved in the NFL. He doesn't have the jam (or the interest, I believe).

His holding in MLSE is worth around $300-400M, and that is more than all his other interests put together.

[OgtheDim]

I don't consider a face palm a critique,

...

Your issue.

I'd debate the rest, but you are not listening and just going over and over the same points I and others have critiqued already.

[Fort York Redcoat]

There is plenty of wealth here, no one is saying there isn't. But we've been hearing this, "NFL to Toronto," talk for over twenty years and it never happens. Why not? The longer they wait, the more expensive it becomes. Houston paid a $700 million franchise fee, it'll be more now.

As for the economic impact, on a city as big as Toronto one more sports team doesn't make much of a difference. Here, this is from the article I linked to above:

"One of the main reasons sports teams and the facilities in which they play are not drivers of economic growth is because they don't create new economic activity. Instead, they displace other forms of economic activity.
For example, imagine you were going to spend money on a night out. You could spend it on an expensive dinner or you could spend it on tickets to a sporting event. But because you have a limited amount of money to spend, you wouldn't spend it on both."

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see an NFL team in Toronto but I have zero interest in seeing the city put up any money. If it's really a good investment that private wealth can finance it. I woukd also like to see the Argos build their own stadium but I doubt that will happen. I'm basing what I think will happen here on the history of Toronto. I think the CFL is important to Bell so they will use MLSE to buy the Argos and get them into BMO because it's the closest to what the Als have in Montreal. I don't like it, but I wouldn't bet against it.

One point, not the catalyst but something to challenge the above quote is the thousands that go to Rich Stadium instead of spending money in Canada, Ontario, Toronto. It's a unique or at least rare situation from the economic standpoint.

[Huyton]

"One of the main reasons sports teams and the facilities in which they play are not drivers of economic growth is because they don't create new economic activity. Instead, they displace other forms of economic activity.
For example, imagine you were going to spend money on a night out. You could spend it on an expensive dinner or you could spend it on tickets to a sporting event. But because you have a limited amount of money to spend, you wouldn't spend it on both."

The only reason I go to Toronto is for TFC. Well, and todays Rugby game, and the Canadian National soccer teams (mens and womens).

Otherwise, I avoid the city as much as I possibly can.

So, if an NFL stadium (with the Argos in the "lower bowl") was built in Downsview, it might be another reason to go to T.O. I might share a pair of seasons tickets, for instance, depending on the cost.

Otherwise, any disposable funds I have get spent in the 905 area.

I don't know how much money the people on the party buses spend in Buffalo (as opposed to buying their supplies at the LCBO or the Beer Store). I do suspect that if the Bills moved away from Buffalo (to LA, for example), that this money would not be spent on entertainment in Lackawanna, Cheektowaga, or Amherst.

So, yes, on a large scale it's revenue neutral, but on a smaller scale, you're robbing Peter in Oshawa to pay Paul in Downsview.

[Tony Santiago]

Your issue.

I'd debate the rest, but you are not listening and just going over and over the same points I and others have critiqued already.

What's to debate? I'm providing statistics and you make Rob Ford comments and face palm emoticons. Your Rob Ford comment is what is referred to in pro wrestling as a "cheap pop". It's like you're trying to cut a promo and looking for support despite relevance.

Your opinion seems to be contrary to the actual facts in regards to new stadiums that are being built and their impact on the local community. All you have is your opinion, which is that Toronto could never sell out an 80 000 seat stadium and that the stadiums are too costly. There are no stats to back up that claim.

It's all hypothetical, but your opinion seems quite limited in scope.