Interesting. Or, and this is being sinister, are the numbers actually, you know, accurate?Originally Posted by Pookie
Interesting. Or, and this is being sinister, are the numbers actually, you know, accurate?
I am very interested to see how it goes , it is a very ambitious endeavour for sure. With Union being the more prominent game in this country including having some pretty good crowds at BMO, I wonder how successful they will be in tapping into those who play and follow it? Of the three games, Union, League and 7's no doubt League would be third, but if done right I can see the Wolfpack having some traction. Outside of the occasional National team game at Lamport, how much of a pressence does League really have in this country?
Remember The Man, The Legend, The Goal 5-12-07 and All That #9 Left On The Pitch, Thanks For The Memories !!!
Well that's for an investigative journalist to uncover don't you think?
On a serious front, I would imagine if they are being floated to advertisers to justify sponsorship costs, that they would have to be validated otherwise we are talking fraud.
What's the different between the 3? Which one is played in the big tournaments like rugby world cup? Little confusing.
Union is bigger in general and played in the big World Cup most people talk about. 7's is a version of Union and the one played at the Olympics. League is played mostly in the North West of England and in certain parts of Australia - yes there are pockets in other places but that's the general thing.
League is basically 6 down rugby where you try to make it to the opposing end zone. Tackle, get up run and pass some more. After the 5th tackle, you get rid of it through a kick. Its a game about power and tackling and position.
Union is more about passing and kicking and then the set piece play of line outs and scrums. You can have up to 20 phases where a team gets the ball and bashes against the defence. Eventually, somebody makes a mistake or tries a kick.
I enjoy both. League matches gridiron more then Union, which might lead it to doing well here.
Yup, I view League as closest to Canadian or American football. Before the NFL went pass happy, League & NFL were closer.
Physique of players is also closer to North American football players ex lineman. But since it is somewhat similar but with no forward passing, I can't see it gain traction here. Plus, with sevens in the Olympics, it has fallen to third in terms of North American exposure for rugby.
You have to pay big bucks to see DMA numbers ... leagues and networks have to be very very careful in what they release, its usually averages, reach and thats it.
Last edited by Onyx; 09-12-2016 at 08:25 PM.
move from afternoon to primetime is largely the reason (way more potential viewers), as well as moving away from competing with any blue jays labour day game will have a massive impact
the average also be impacted by how close the game is and high scoring (ie. ablility to hold 4th quarter viewers; blow outs have poor ratings)
Last edited by Onyx; 09-12-2016 at 08:30 PM.
actually i think canadian/american football is our version of League. Basically we went further with rule changes from union. Tap back was replaced with snap, one forward pass introduced, and of course padding. I would say most league players are all linebacker size types, union is where you get massive differences based on position. Agree due to the CFL/NFL, league won't gain much traction here. I like sevens most myself --- good ball movement, running and skill. high-end 15-man union just seems to be a contest of elite kickers now.
Last edited by Onyx; 09-12-2016 at 08:44 PM.
So would u compare the difference between NFL/CFL/Australian rules football? (Different types of American football) similar to the differences between Union/7's /league??? Just trying to grasp why and how so many versions of rugby were created ?
Also, why try to expand an inferior product (in terms of popularity) akin to CFL here in Canada? Why wouldn't they bring the most popular Union version ?
For example, I would be interested in learning and watching more rugby (appreciate the difficulty and skill of the sport) but I don't care for learning 3 different types and that might turn me off.
Last edited by DinamoTFC; 09-12-2016 at 09:52 PM.
Yes - except for the ability to sell 50k tickets when we win consistently.
factually, you are completely wrong that the "Argos clause" had anything to do with the original stadium being built. They dropped out and the city came in with the Argos $ 10 million. I don't have time to check your remaining facts but followed it closely at the time and it was clear that was there simply to save face for the Argos. Nothing to do with building the stadium whatsoever.
look, it's ok to be a CFL fan. The league needs the Argos for all the other teams to cheer against. But it shouldn't come at the risk of the soccer experience. First monsoon and torn up pitch, there will be calls for turf by Argos fans and their cheerleaders. MThat'll be the last we see of players the quality of Seba.
Last edited by MightyDM; 09-12-2016 at 11:05 PM.
Demographics is the killer for the CFL in the big cosmopolitan cities. A combination of immigrants not being interested in the sport & old white people who grew up with the sport fading away. I also think that they have underestimated how soft their core crowd has become sitting indoors..BMO in October and November is going to turn a lot of them off.
putting it better than I did
The point of the Argos Clause is to show that this soccer specific stadium was actually approved as a soccer specific stadium*
* - for as long as the Argos choose not to be there
Historically, the Argos factored into the approval. Absolutely. The stadium was approved as a soccer stadium with primary intent to host FIFA events on an ongoing basis. How the CSA pushed that one through with turf, I have no idea.
But key in approval was the ability to be expanded for football . You see, the city had received a few proposals both from the Argos and CSA in the past. They could not shut them out, nor presumably did they want to... despite their lease at Rogers Centre. This was to be a multiuse facility post FIFA after all. So it was built as a soccer specific stadium with the capability to be expanded for football. Political and economic justifications added to the pile for the project to go ahead. End stop.
This was from the actual original BMO Field agreement (2005)
At its meeting of May 2004, the Board approved of the Exhibition Place Development Plan which, as shown on the attached Appendix "A", provided for a development opportunity on a site immediately east of the Queen Elizabeth Exhibit Hall...
...At its meeting of March 7, 2003, the Board received a presentation about a proposal by the Toronto Argonauts to build a 22,000 seat stadium at Exhibition Place. At its meeting of July 2003, the Board received a report outlining a proposal from the CSA which in discussion with the City were proposing a 30,000 seat soccer stadium at Exhibition Place...
... The construction of this soccer stadium has always been dependent on funding by the various levels of government and the immediate justification for the provision of government funding has been the commitment by FIFA and CSA to hold the FIFA Mens Under 20 World Youth Championship in the Toronto stadium in 2007 followed by subsequent annual FIFA events.
As the Board is aware, since 2003, the proposed location and the partnerships involved in the development of a stadium in Toronto have varied. However, over the summer of 2005 there were discussions between Mayor Miller and Federal and Provincial Ministers about this project. These discussions have culminated in the proposal before the Board ...
...
Some of the essential points of the business arrangement are as follows:
(i) cash investment of $62.8M with contribution of $35.0M from Federal and Provincial governments; $9.8M from City and $8.0M from MLSE and contribution of an additional $10.0M from MLSE in anticipation of revenues to be received by MLSE for the sale of naming rights;
(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;
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/a...9rpt/cl036.pdf
We have to remember that when the National Soccer Stadium was built, the Argos existed and TFC didn't. There was no real soccer crowd like there is today. So the politicians could only justify it with FIFA dates, community use, and the chance for the Argos to move in.
Nobody, and I mean nobody predicted what subsequently happened with TFC and MLS. MLSE based their business model on eventually getting 12000-13000 per game. Many were skeptical that a number like that could happen, especially as the Toronto Lynx only drew a thousand or so per game. In fact, Bruno Hartrell (who co-owned the Lynx with his wife) said that TFC would get 2000-3000 tops.
Then season tickets hit 6000 early on. Then Beckham signed on and seat sales went nuts. Then we brought real supporters culture. Then two Canadian rivals entered the league and cities like Seattle joined. Then world class DPs started playing in games. Now we get 28k per game. It's been quite a ride.
If you do the proposal today, you don't need the Argos. TFC can stand on their own. But a non-existent soccer team in 2005 was a hard sell then.
Last edited by Oldtimer; 09-13-2016 at 08:32 AM.
Agree with your historical assessment and that's why we had the approval that included the Argos. 100%.
Your last point is interesting.
If the proposal was done today, would you need a multiuse stadium? Not based on the interest in the team post Beckham, post Defoe and with Giovinco. Clearly, they can be profitable with the gates they get (and SUM Marketing doesn't hurt)
But the equation isn't the same now. Expansion fees may now approach $200M. Could you pay $200M and finance your own stadium in a gate driven league (that clearly has SUM Marketing revenue tied to it)? Tough question.
I was a day one SSH. The sales person I spoke to, Asif, the first time I spoke with anyone from TFC ( not sure when exactly that was, I think I signed up on the internet), I'll never forget it, he was completely giddy from the interest level. They had absolutely no idea.
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.
Of course Leafs games are viewed in the west. Just like people keep the tv on after one game to stay up for the late game. It's just getting to the pub or tuning in early over there. Same with CFL. If you're up and interested in your game you just put it on. Seriously, how do you watch sports? Even watching TFC they put on a late game afterwards at times.
Sheesh. I won't get into ratings since it doesn't interest me much and there's a whole thread for that.
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
^I know something about this but it is dated, from ~2005. (I was an investor in an advertising business at the time.) I doubt it has changed too much.
Hockey has a huge out-of-market component in Canada.
For a typical HNIC game on Saturday night, a Leafs or Habs game was split 50/50 between the MSA and the rest of the country. There is a regional overlay - ie the Bruins or Habs were a bigger draw in the Maritimes than the Leafs, the Wings are huge in southwestern Ontario and the Sault (I think these ratings implications had a huge impact on Detroit coming back east and the creation of the Atlantic division, btw). At the time the Senators were an elite team but they drew flies, outside of Ottawa nobody cared, and CBC rarely featured them on Saturday night unless they were playing the Leafs or Habs.
All of this tells me that it takes decades (fifty years? a hundred years?) to build an out of market viewer base. Even after all this time, the big national ratings remain all about the Original Six teams. The inability of the Oilers, with all the buzz and success they had, to create a following is telling (even with McDavid, how many people get excited to see the Oilers?)
Last edited by ensco; 09-13-2016 at 08:42 AM.
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.
I don't know that much about television viewership numbers, but newspaper circulation numbers should be take with a massive grain of salt.
I think that was addressed recently in one of the interviews for the 10th anniversary. I remember whoever it was saying that it would be a much harder sell to the MLSE board of directors than $10M, but it would probably still go through. MLSE looks at demographics, and they all favour soccer.
It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if TL hadn't had pushed through the Beckham signing and they hadn't have come up with the DP rule to get cheapskate owners like the Krafts onside. MLS was a budget league at the time that would not have ever garnered the interest that it does today with some very exciting players in the league.
Anyways I don't see any problems with the ground share as it currently happening, with the careful spacing between games. The Argos really should have their own stadium where they control the gate, but some very poor short-sighted decisions by the former owner in the early 2000's mean that it is unlikely at this time.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
Thanks for the numbers, ensco.
I can see why HNIC would have to pick and choose who would be on the slate but there will always be a smaller number that will just tune in early or late because it's the same sport. CFL and TSN maximize this, too.
It's just a case of building the tradition of the back to back MLS match on Canadian tv.
I think we're on the same wavelength when it comes to expectations of Canadians converts tuning into MLS. To use Pooks Argo solve it'll be a LONG term grow to see Canadian clickers putting on the footy in the background instead of *blank*. What's funny is how much we talk about this passionately over a game we're passionate about, hoping that these people will casually watch this instead of casually watch *that*. Baseball, CFL doesn't matter what *that* is.
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
When MLSE sells the game locally, they don't sell the league. They sell the event of watching TFC. This weekend is a good opportunity to throw in a 1st vs 2nd "pennant" sort of curve, just to get people thinking about how this team is heading for the playoffs. Don't think MLSE are going to do that. As others have stated, nobody is going to come to this game to watch BWP etc. But, to watch TFC play the #2 team in the league for first? Maybe....
My point is when the ownership doesn't sell the idea of the league as a whole but focuses on the event, how can we expect their parent companies to suggest to the broadcast division that they sell the league.
Look at the TSN opening sequence for MLS - its the 3 Canadian symbols. Fine and dandy but then all you are selling is a Canadian team playing a game when reality last weekend it was Canadian team playing for its playoff life with another bottom feeder (Vancouver) and Canadian team fighting with a close rival for playoff position (Montreal) and TFC going for points as it rebounds from a tough loss.
The story telling by TSN and Sportsnet is really poor.
thanks for this.
very insightful.
To be fair, caring about the table is pretty new to them.
The big screen on the ACC has a "Take the Bull by the Horns" ad in the screen's rotation (seeing Britney Spears a lot, I'm assuming a concert is coming up), but no mention about the table, just the opponent's name. I'd bet that's the best we'll get until the papers mention it, probably in the Saturday editions.
As a Sens fan, this drove me nuts while living in Toronto. I never got to see those seasons in the way that I'd like, not just because CBC didn't carry them, but also because the regional broadcasts were always blacked out (and still are).
I always hoped CBC would take the long view in trying to build an audience - showing the Sens more often, without linkage to the big two - so that the playoffs would do better ratings-wise when the Sens were a threat to go deep. But by that time they were profit-driven for hockey, with it being their cash cow, and an opportunity was missed.
The regional rights in hockey are a real impediment to diversifying the fan base of the league.
"Diversifying the fan base of the league"- What do you mean by that?
People not supporting their local?
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
Ask Winnipeg.
Pretty accurate as to how this really all came to be.
Posting Permissions
