Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 151 to 177 of 177
  1. #151
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    We The North
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waggy View Post
    The city and province have tried to help the Argos a BUNCH of times. The Argos keep turning them down/fucking it up. The intent from city hall and the province is there though. They could've come into BMO when it was being built if they invested like 10 million bucks only, said no. Could've had the stadium at Varsity for 25-30 million only, said no. Got offered a similar deal at York U, said no. The Argos business side is arguably among the worst in the continent.
    So in other words: Argos have burned too many bridges to get support from government and universities now. This explains why we haven't heard a word from city or provincial government about Argos lately.

  2. #152
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,421
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFC07 View Post
    So in other words: Argos have burned too many bridges to get support from government and universities now. This explains why we haven't heard a word from city or provincial government about Argos lately.

    Aren't we only having this discussion because the city/province said the only way they'd kick in cash to expand BMO is if it housed the Argos too? What are we talking about? In the past 3 years the Feds/Provinces have subsidized CFL stadiums in Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Hamilton and Vancouver. You think for a second they wouldn't in Toronto? Also the owners who turned down those opportunities are long gone and a SITTING CANADIAN SENATOR is the current owner. The only way a stadium being built in Toronto in the near future gets a cent of public money is if it's for either the CFL or the olympics. The questions are how badly does MLSE want that free money and how badly do they want an NFL team. If the answers are they'd like it, and a lot, start painting BMO oxford blue now. But don't be ridiculous. The CFL is the only sport in the country that gets a whiff of public money. If the Argos got taken over by someone other than MLSE and they wanted to build a stadium at Varsity or Downsview, believe me the cost to that owner for a brand new 30 000+ seat stadium would still only be in the 20-30 million range for the owner.

  3. #153
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,456
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFC07 View Post
    Agreed. It's football (as in gridiron) can't be supported in Toronto. Proof is Argos despite being a winning team who have recently won Grey Cup. CFL TV ratings are great, but like MLS, CFL gets most of their revenue from gates not TV money.
    Yep.

    And last year the lowest they drew to a game was 18,211. In total, they drew 297,311 fans through 9 home regular season games and 35,418 to a playoff game.

    MLSE's deal with the city (for soccer) is that they keep 93% of the gate receipts and 7% goes to the "stadium" or a max of $15k per game. Interestingly, MLSE also gets over $200k annually from the city to "manage" the stadium. One could speculate that the Argo deal would be as lucrative.

    Remember this too, the CSA keeps 93% of the gate receipts for games held at BMO.

    Why does this matter?

    To buy the Argos, MLSE would invest less than what it cost to bring Defoe here. And for that, they get at least 9 rental dates and close to 300,000 tickets sold for which they would most likely keep almost all of the revenue.

    To equal that return, TFC would have to draw just under 11,000 additional fans to each of its 19 home games and remember too that the Argos fee would be a one time cost whereas replacing Defoe with the next one is an ongoing premise.

    Regardless, you keep saying the city doesn't support the Argos. This isn't about sentiment, this is about booking high yielding events/dates at a venue that MLSE profits in. CSA games mean squat to MLSE. TFC games are maxed out at 19 dates (plus maybe a playoff game). The main way they grow revenue is to increase ticket prices and I'd bet that starts as soon as next year.

    CFL games matter. New dates. New revenue. For less than they just invested. It's a no brainer.
    Last edited by Pookie; 01-18-2014 at 01:41 PM.

  4. #154
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    We The North
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waggy View Post
    Aren't we only having this discussion because the city/province said the only way they'd kick in cash to expand BMO is if it housed the Argos too? What are we talking about? In the past 3 years the Feds/Provinces have subsidized CFL stadiums in Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Hamilton and Vancouver. You think for a second they wouldn't in Toronto? Also the owners who turned down those opportunities are long gone and a SITTING CANADIAN SENATOR is the current owner. The only way a stadium being built in Toronto in the near future gets a cent of public money is if it's for either the CFL or the olympics. The questions are how badly does MLSE want that free money and how badly do they want an NFL team. If the answers are they'd like it, and a lot, start painting BMO oxford blue now. But don't be ridiculous. The CFL is the only sport in the country that gets a whiff of public money. If the Argos got taken over by someone other than MLSE and they wanted to build a stadium at Varsity or Downsview, believe me the cost to that owner for a brand new 30 000+ seat stadium would still only be in the 20-30 million range for the owner.
    Problem is City isn't going to spend a dime on Argos (especially election coming up end of the year) while Provincial government is broke. Federal government aren't spend a dime since they're hell bent to have a surplus by 2015. There are rumours that some of 905 cities are interested in building a stadium with Argos. So that's only taxpayer money I can see where Argos can cash in.

    End of the day, it's MLSE who control the situation and possibly fate of Argos.

  5. #155
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    We The North
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Yep.

    And last year the lowest they drew to a game was 18,211. In total, they drew 297,311 fans through 9 home regular season games and 35,418 to a playoff game.

    MLSE's deal with the city (for soccer) is that they keep 93% of the gate receipts and 7% goes to the "stadium" or a max of $15k per game. Interestingly, MLSE also gets over $200k annually from the city to "manage" the stadium. One could speculate that the Argo deal would be as lucrative.

    Remember this too, the CSA keeps 93% of the gate receipts for games held at BMO.

    Why does this matter?

    To buy the Argos, MLSE would invest less than what it cost to bring Defoe here. And for that, they get at least 9 rental dates and close to 300,000 tickets sold for which they would most likely keep almost all of the revenue.

    To equal that return, TFC would have to draw just under 11,000 additional fans to each of its 19 home games and remember too that the Argos fee would be a one time cost whereas replacing Defoe with the next one is an ongoing premise.

    Regardless, you keep saying the city doesn't support the Argos. This isn't about sentiment, this is about booking high yielding events/dates at a venue that MLSE profits in. CSA games mean squat to MLSE. TFC games are maxed out at 19 dates (plus maybe a playoff game). The main way they grow revenue is to increase ticket prices and I'd bet that starts as soon as next year.

    CFL games matter. New dates. New revenue. For less than they just invested. It's a no brainer.
    No way Argos had that many people coming to the games. There tons of empty seats in lower bowls for Argos this season! You know (being a TFC fan) they don't always announce right amount of people at games.

    As for their playoff game against Hamilton, half of fans were from Hamilton.

    Argo fanbase isn't that big despite TV numbers say, upside owning CFL team isn't worth it to hurt your other assets in the end. So it's no brainer especially if NFL decides to come to Toronto (which will kill Argos despite NFL not wanting to hurt CFL).

  6. #156
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,421
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Yep.

    And last year the lowest they drew to a game was 18,211. In total, they drew 297,311 fans through 9 home regular season games and 35,418 to a playoff game.

    MLSE's deal with the city (for soccer) is that they keep 93% of the gate receipts and 7% goes to the "stadium" or a max of $15k per game. Interestingly, MLSE also gets over $200k annually from the city to "manage" the stadium. One could speculate that the Argo deal would be as lucrative.

    Remember this too, the CSA keeps 93% of the gate receipts for games held at BMO.

    Why does this matter?

    To buy the Argos, MLSE would invest less than what it cost to bring Defoe here. And for that, they get at least 9 rental dates and close to 300,000 tickets sold for which they would most likely keep almost all of the revenue.

    To equal that return, TFC would have to draw just under 11,000 additional fans to each of its 19 home games and remember too that the Argos fee would be a one time cost whereas replacing Defoe with the next one is an ongoing premise.

    Regardless, you keep saying the city doesn't support the Argos. This isn't about sentiment, this is about booking high yielding events/dates at a venue that MLSE profits in. CSA games mean squat to MLSE. TFC games are maxed out at 19 dates (plus maybe a playoff game). The main way they grow revenue is to increase ticket prices and I'd bet that starts as soon as next year.

    CFL games matter. New dates. New revenue. For less than they just invested. It's a no brainer.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle10053800/

    The new MLS deal in the states is worth what, 70 million?

    "The deal with TSN, which runs from 2014 through 2018, is worth in the neighbourhood of $40 million per season, according to a league source."

    The CFL Salary cap last year was $4.4 million. Next year there will be 10 teams.... the gate/food and drink is pure profit. Let alone the extra ad revenue. These teams are making good money. Even 20 000 people at an average of $35 a ticket plus what, $10 food and drink? $45 a head on 20 000 people is pure profit after the regular employee overhead (and other building costs) for opening a building up on a day it otherwise wouldn't be in use. It ain't chump change. Which is why it's stupid there's any need to combine stadiums. TFC and the Argos can each be very profitable in their own stadiums. The profit margin doesn't really change much from having them share a facility, it's just less initial overhead on purchasing the Argos and saving whatever amounts governments would kick in to upgrade BMO. Which I guess would save MLSE somewhere between 50 and 100 million bucks, depending how much of our money they get. I have a hard time believing that 50-100 mil is worth the kind of potential damage that could be done to both fan bases.

  7. #157
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    We The North
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waggy View Post
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle10053800/

    The new MLS deal in the states is worth what, 70 million?

    "The deal with TSN, which runs from 2014 through 2018, is worth in the neighbourhood of $40 million per season, according to a league source."

    The CFL Salary cap last year was $4.4 million. Next year there will be 10 teams.... the gate/food and drink is pure profit. Let alone the extra ad revenue. These teams are making good money. Even 20 000 people at an average of $35 a ticket plus what, $10 food and drink? $45 a head on 20 000 people is pure profit after the regular employee overhead (and other building costs) for opening a building up on a day it otherwise wouldn't be in use. It ain't chump change. Which is why it's stupid there's any need to combine stadiums. TFC and the Argos can each be very profitable in their own stadiums. The profit margin doesn't really change much from having them share a facility, it's just less initial overhead on purchasing the Argos and saving whatever amounts governments would kick in to upgrade BMO. Which I guess would save MLSE somewhere between 50 and 100 million bucks, depending how much of our money they get. I have a hard time believing that 50-100 mil is worth the kind of potential damage that could be done to both fan bases.
    You're forgetting to add that player salary is going up next season. TV money is going to increase $2 million more, but so CFL players salaries (no one knows how much yet). Argos haven't made a profit despite playing for free in Rogers centre in years. Operating their own stadium is going to be add more costs to Argos which will hurt their bottom line or barely make a profit at most.

    So I can see why being owned by MLSE and sharing with TFC would be a good idea for them.

  8. #158
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14,410
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still don't really understand the why.

    Why is Leiweke so focused on renovating/expanding BMO? What is the big interest? It's not critical to TFC, and why does he care about the Argos problems? It does nothing for the NFL idea (which I consider absurd personally).

    I don't really see how MLSE gets a return on the $100M (or whatever this would cost them) other than, possibly, outdoor hockey. Which only matters if he moves a lot of games outdoors. Which seems unlikely.

    I feel like we are all missing something obvious.
    “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”

  9. #159
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,456
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ I too have a raised eyebrow. I get why the Argos makes sense. I don't get why the stadium investment makes sense.

    BMO was built so that it could be expanded to accommodate the Argos as per the original agreement. I believe there was also agreement around the fact that if the Argos moved in, that MLSE would not be responsible for the renovation costs.

    Particularly since that level of investment would be in a building that they technically do not own and the management agreement ends in 13 years. It would be like renovating a rented apartment.

    Unless.... the investment were to be leveraged for eventual ownership of the building and perhaps the deed to the land around it... and/or enable the construction of a development complex around the stadium (condos, hotels, etc). Then the millions would be seen in the context of other millions that enabled them access to a very large development.

    That's a scenario that could make sense.... couldn't it?
    Last edited by Pookie; 01-18-2014 at 11:00 PM.

  10. #160
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    We The North
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    I still don't really understand the why.

    Why is Leiweke so focused on renovating/expanding BMO? What is the big interest? It's not critical to TFC, and why does he care about the Argos problems? It does nothing for the NFL idea (which I consider absurd personally).

    I don't really see how MLSE gets a return on the $100M (or whatever this would cost them) other than, possibly, outdoor hockey. Which only matters if he moves a lot of games outdoors. Which seems unlikely.

    I feel like we are all missing something obvious.
    Maybe TL wants to host major soccer games (having major clubs and countries playing at BMO field during the summer)? Maple Leafs is obviously another big reason why TL wants spend $100 million on BMO field. Let's face it: ACC is too small and I am sure Maple Leafs are looking to play a game outdoors at least once a year where they can make more money. Argos thing is more about getting government money (which isn't going happened based on current reality) while TFC is all about rewarding current fanbase while attracting suits to come to BMO field to watch TFC play.

  11. #161
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    We The North
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    ^ I too have a raised eyebrow. I get why the Argos makes sense. I don't get why the stadium investment makes sense.

    BMO was built so that it could be expanded to accommodate the Argos as per the original agreement. I believe there was also agreement around the fact that if the Argos moved in, that MLSE would not be responsible for the renovation costs.

    Particularly since that level of investment would be in a building that they technically do not own and the management agreement ends in 13 years. It would be like renovating a rented apartment.

    Unless.... the investment were to be leveraged for eventual ownership of the building and perhaps the deed to the land around it... and/or enable the construction of a development complex around the stadium (condos, hotels, etc). Then the millions would be seen in the context of other millions that enabled them access to a very large development.

    That's a scenario that could make sense.... couldn't it?
    There will a lot of backlash from locals if MLSE or someone else started building condos and hotels on Exhibition grounds and Ontario place. We all know what happened with casino idea when someone wanted to set up a casino there.

  12. #162
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    ^ I too have a raised eyebrow. I get why the Argos makes sense. I don't get why the stadium investment makes sense.

    BMO was built so that it could be expanded to accommodate the Argos as per the original agreement. I believe there was also agreement around the fact that if the Argos moved in, that MLSE would not be responsible for the renovation costs.

    Particularly since that level of investment would be in a building that they technically do not own and the management agreement ends in 13 years. It would be like renovating a rented apartment.

    Unless.... the investment were to be leveraged for eventual ownership of the building and perhaps the deed to the land around it... and/or enable the construction of a development complex around the stadium (condos, hotels, etc). Then the millions would be seen in the context of other millions that enabled them access to a very large development.

    That's a scenario that could make sense.... couldn't it?
    But there is an extra layer of burocracy at the Exhibition isn't there? If the land in question was just city-owned it would be different. This is a lot of government to be dealing with, a lot of levels that just don't like each other.

    It is going to be interesting to see what plays out here.

  13. #163
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Section 119
    Posts
    796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFC07 View Post
    There will a lot of backlash from locals if MLSE or someone else started building condos and hotels on Exhibition grounds and Ontario place. We all know what happened with casino idea when someone wanted to set up a casino there.
    HK Hotels are building a hotel at the CNE right now. It's being built in time for the Pan Am event there.

    There will be a Toronto military exhibit incorporated into the facility. Apparently they found some artifacts digging up the parking lot.

    http://urbantoronto.ca/database/proj...s-hotel-garden

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle5664040/

    http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hal...velopment.html

    Last edited by Haddy; 01-18-2014 at 11:36 PM.

  14. #164
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Section 119
    Posts
    796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    BMO was built so that it could be expanded to accommodate the Argos as per the original agreement.
    I'd love to dispute this, but the south stand was never built to last. If they were 100% committed to a permanent south stand at the current dimensions......the building structure of the west stand would have been wrapped around. But once the Argos dropped out, money became a real issue - too many unsure about a very unfamiliar MLS at the time. So they decided to strip it down to bare-bones and reach their ultimate goal in phases.

    The door might have been closed on the Argos for a bit. But it was never locked.

  15. #165
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Section 119
    Posts
    796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    I still don't really understand the why.

    Why is Leiweke so focused on renovating/expanding BMO? What is the big interest? It's not critical to TFC, and why does he care about the Argos problems? It does nothing for the NFL idea (which I consider absurd personally).

    I don't really see how MLSE gets a return on the $100M (or whatever this would cost them) other than, possibly, outdoor hockey. Which only matters if he moves a lot of games outdoors. Which seems unlikely.

    I feel like we are all missing something obvious.
    I can't remember if I read or heard this from TL - paraphrasing - something about the extra 10,000 seats over the long haul will go a long way to balancing the books for TFC.

    I'm not sure if that helps you.

  16. #166
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14,410
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's definitely a big real estate deal in this somewhere.

    Could they have their eye on something much bigger involving the Ontario Place site as part of this? They're virtually tearing BMO down to make it work for football, could the real game involve moving the stadium? Winning the Ontario Place redevelopment might make all this worth someone's time.
    Last edited by ensco; 01-18-2014 at 11:44 PM.
    “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”

  17. #167
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,456
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    There's definitely a big real estate deal in this somewhere.

    Could they have their eye on something much bigger involving the Ontario Place site as part of this? They're virtually tearing BMO down to make it work for football, could the real game involve moving the stadium? Winning the Ontario Place redevelopment might make all this worth someone's time.
    AEG was involved in casinos. Speculation of course but that was rumoured for the Ontario Place site.

    The value of the redevelopment wouldn't necessitate a casino for it to be mega profitable. Just found it interesting.

  18. #168
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14,410
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haddy View Post
    I can't remember if I read or heard this from TL - paraphrasing - something about the extra 10,000 seats over the long haul will go a long way to balancing the books for TFC.

    I'm not sure if that helps you.
    I don't believe 10K of extra seating for TFC, and the odd hockey game, is worth this kind of money, or political capital. There has to be a bigger objective imho.
    Last edited by ensco; 01-19-2014 at 08:36 AM.
    “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”

  19. #169
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,456
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haddy View Post
    I'd love to dispute this, but the south stand was never built to last. If they were 100% committed to a permanent south stand at the current dimensions......the building structure of the west stand would have been wrapped around. But once the Argos dropped out, money became a real issue - too many unsure about a very unfamiliar MLS at the time. So they decided to strip it down to bare-bones and reach their ultimate goal in phases.

    The door might have been closed on the Argos for a bit. But it was never locked.
    True. It was also included in public documents related to the construction of the stadium. For example, this was from a policy document published by the City of Toronto regarding the project:

    (ii) 20,000-seat stadium (capable of expansion to 30,000 seats and capable of conversion to a
    football format) with luxury viewing suites, premier seating, FIFA specifications
    including artificial field turf, food and beverage concessions and an air supported winter
    field structure

    There was also discussion of an "Argos Clause"

    6. Argos Clause: The “favoured nations clause” restrictions on the Argos shall

    include the stipulation that in no event shall an agreement with the Argos result in
    MLSE having to make additional capital cost contributions or fund capital cost
    shortfalls. The Argos shall not receive a share of parking revenues from their games
    which is as favourable or more favourable than that enjoyed by the Team. The Argos
    may participate in suite or sponsorship revenues where such are incremental
    revenues derived from the Argos’ use of the Stadium, provided that the sharing shall
    not result in an adverse effect on receipts allocated to the Team or Stadium.

    The above is interesting because, as ensco points out, this rumoured investment of $100M doesn't have to happen.

    MLSE does not have to make an investment in the stadium to fit the Argos as long as ownership of the team doesn't change. If MLSE buys them, then presumably they would be responsible for the renovation costs. The issue is that they could do this very inexpensively as the stadium was designed to accommodate them.

    Paying $100M, if that is in fact their intention, would be a choice and businesses don't invest money they don't have to without a return. I've got to think it is going to be used for leverage related to real estate or some share of the intended use of the grounds in or around it. Just pure speculation on my part but there is a puzzle piece missing.


  20. #170
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,421
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The real estate thing would make a lot of sense. And forget a casino, we know what MLSE really wants to do is build an NFL stadium. Which would require a LOT of land. And I'm sure they'd like it to be downtown, as close to real sports/the acc/the dome and BMO as possible. I've heard worse ideas than a huge freaking stadium on the Ontario Place grounds. Then they could build a 'real sports west' for Ricoh/BMO/el grande stadium. Hell. The Dome is getting old, Rogers may even have an eye towards a new baseball stadium in the next decade...

  21. #171
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ Is Bon Jovi a good enough front man to get them into the incredibly private club of the NFL? And why would Bell want a stadium and a team when they already have the rights to the entire league? What would eight home games get a media company? Would NFL ratings be noticeably higher with a last-place Toronto team in the league?

    MLSE used to build condos but that market seems too competitive for them now. Bell also like to be in areas that don't have foreign comoetition, what's left?

  22. #172
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Section 119
    Posts
    796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post


    True. It was also included in public documents related to the construction of the stadium. For example, this was from a policy document published by the City of Toronto regarding the project:

    (ii) 20,000-seat stadium (capable of expansion to 30,000 seats and capable of conversion to a
    football format) with luxury viewing suites, premier seating, FIFA specifications
    including artificial field turf, food and beverage concessions and an air supported winter
    field structure

    There was also discussion of an "Argos Clause"

    6. Argos Clause: The “favoured nations clause” restrictions on the Argos shall

    include the stipulation that in no event shall an agreement with the Argos result in
    MLSE having to make additional capital cost contributions or fund capital cost
    shortfalls. The Argos shall not receive a share of parking revenues from their games
    which is as favourable or more favourable than that enjoyed by the Team. The Argos
    may participate in suite or sponsorship revenues where such are incremental
    revenues derived from the Argos’ use of the Stadium, provided that the sharing shall
    not result in an adverse effect on receipts allocated to the Team or Stadium.

    The above is interesting because, as ensco points out, this rumoured investment of $100M doesn't have to happen.

    MLSE does not have to make an investment in the stadium to fit the Argos as long as ownership of the team doesn't change. If MLSE buys them, then presumably they would be responsible for the renovation costs. The issue is that they could do this very inexpensively as the stadium was designed to accommodate them.

    Paying $100M, if that is in fact their intention, would be a choice and businesses don't invest money they don't have to without a return. I've got to think it is going to be used for leverage related to real estate or some share of the intended use of the grounds in or around it. Just pure speculation on my part but there is a puzzle piece missing.

    Definitely something missing. If I recall correctly, the original CNE stadium plan that included the Argos (before York and Varsity) included a hotel. Perhaps they are still interested along those lines? Condo maybe. Lord knows, Liberty Village is filling up.

    I agree with you and Ensco. What does MLSE get out of this?

  23. #173
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,421
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beach_Red View Post
    ^ Is Bon Jovi a good enough front man to get them into the incredibly private club of the NFL? And why would Bell want a stadium and a team when they already have the rights to the entire league? What would eight home games get a media company? Would NFL ratings be noticeably higher with a last-place Toronto team in the league?

    MLSE used to build condos but that market seems too competitive for them now. Bell also like to be in areas that don't have foreign comoetition, what's left?
    Because allegedly the NFL has been telling people from Toronto if they want an NFL team one of the conditions is taking care of the Argos and keeping them viable. Also why wouldn't Bell want to pay itself to show its own games? That's why Rogers bought the Jays right? And NFL doesnt care about ratings. Their ratings are untouchable. They care about having new stadiums and selling merch. If Toronto builds that stadium, we'll have a team. If LA builds that stadium, they'll have 2 teams. If London builds that stadium etc. etc. How do you think cities like Jacksonville got a team? Build a stadium and the NFL will be there. Stadium becomes outdated and you won't build another one? Ask LA Raiders/Rams or Cleveland Browns fans how that goes.

    Also the thing with Toronto is that the Bills ARE moving. The only question is where they move to. The NFL considers Toronto to be inside the Bills current area, so moving to Toronto wouldn't interfere with any other regional TV deals, national TV deals or infringe on any other teams territory. The only way the Bills dont come to Toronto by the 2022 deadline (or whenever their lease at Ralph Wilson expires) is if we don't build a stadium. So basically if MLSE want the team need to A) get to work taking care of the Argos and b) get to work building that stadium. The ownership group will take care of itself between Bon Jovi, Tannenbaum, Leiweke and a few other big rollers in the GTA (hell, maybe even Drake), the 49% corporate part will be MLSE for sure. To me those are the dots that are connecting if the Argos thing also includes a real estate deal on the Exhibition or Ontario place grounds. Then they could build a high end hotel, lobby for a casino, build another epic sports bar etc. And have 3 of their 5 properties within a few hundred meters, and sharing parking. It all makes sense

  24. #174
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niagara Falls
    Posts
    2,623
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    I don't believe 10K of extra seating for TFC, and the odd hockey game, is worth this kind of money, or political capital. There has to be a bigger objective imho.
    I don't disagree with this at all.. if you spent $100m adding 10,000 new seats each seat would have to generate $10,000 in new business to break even. If you add in 9 Argo games, a winter classic every year and the TFC seats. Average $40 a ticket for a Argos game sold out every year will only net what 10 million. a single Winter Classic game with 40k seating at a $100 average is only 4 million, and the extra 10k seat sold out at a TFC game are lets say at $20-$40 a ticket is $3.7-7.4 million that is 18.2-21.4 million if you sell out every single game that is still 5 years to break even. Though if you add in Merch, and concession maybe they can make it all back in 5 years.

    But at that point you really do need the Argos in the stadium, the money they are talking about just doesn't happen with out them. However TFC will be the ones bringing in much of the gate in that situation. (assuming a winning team)

  25. #175
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Section 119
    Posts
    796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaz View Post
    I don't disagree with this at all.. if you spent $100m adding 10,000 new seats each seat would have to generate $10,000 in new business to break even. If you add in 9 Argo games, a winter classic every year and the TFC seats. Average $40 a ticket for a Argos game sold out every year will only net what 10 million. a single Winter Classic game with 40k seating at a $100 average is only 4 million, and the extra 10k seat sold out at a TFC game are lets say at $20-$40 a ticket is $3.7-7.4 million that is 18.2-21.4 million if you sell out every single game that is still 5 years to break even. Though if you add in Merch, and concession maybe they can make it all back in 5 years.

    But at that point you really do need the Argos in the stadium, the money they are talking about just doesn't happen with out them. However TFC will be the ones bringing in much of the gate in that situation. (assuming a winning team)
    At that math, five years of paying off the debt followed by a couple decades of debt-free gate revenue. Sounds like a good deal to me. Better than any mortgage I've seen.

  26. #176
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Section 119
    Posts
    796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waggy View Post
    Then they could build a high end hotel, lobby for a casino, build another epic sports bar etc. And have 3 of their 5 properties within a few hundred meters, and sharing parking. It all makes sense
    The city's master plan of the CNE calls for another hotel to be built directly east of BMO. This is the second phase, after the boutique HK Hotel is completed (currently under construction) south of the automotive building.

  27. #177
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,421
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beach_Red View Post
    ^ Is Bon Jovi a good enough front man to get them into the incredibly private club of the NFL? And why would Bell want a stadium and a team when they already have the rights to the entire league? What would eight home games get a media company? Would NFL ratings be noticeably higher with a last-place Toronto team in the league?

    MLSE used to build condos but that market seems too competitive for them now. Bell also like to be in areas that don't have foreign comoetition, what's left?
    Bon Jovi is sitting next to Robert Kraft in the Pats owners box at the AFC championship game. So seems like he knows some people

    (Kraft is chairman of the NFL committee whose approval is needed to move a franchise)

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •