Argos to BMO decision - Wednesday, May 20th

[mook-life]

guess I shouldn't say army boy's if I don't serve anymore, but I still am stubborn

[mook-life]

Let em come

[mistercorporate]

Wow, just saw this photo of Terralite in action at Wembley Stadium:



This might work out pretty good if they went for it, it would be worth the investment for them to keep both fan bases happy and bring the cash coming in. I found it here:
http://argosadmirals.com/2015/03/24/...-on-the-pitch/

If it works for all those cars driving around that track laid atop the pitch, it can handle a few fat football players. I only wonder why they don't put turf on top of the terralite when the NFL games happen there.

[MightyDM]

You do know you are incorrect right? The 7's are in the Pan Am games happening July 11th and 12th.

It's actually the Pacific Nations Cup that's happening then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Wo...ic_Nations_Cup

I retract my snotty tone over your post - I was wrong. 240 minutes of fifteens rugby will be very tough on the pitch. Recovery by August 5 is doubtful. Love rugby and will go to the matches, but that's crazy from the field perspective.

[Qman]

And in somewhat of an ironic twist the reason the game isn't in Edmonton is because the Womens World Cup is being held there at the same time.

A CFL team being booted out of their stadium for a soccer game.

i wouldn't say "booted". The eskimos getting compensated handsomely renting their stadium. They just spent $97million on a practice facility and $10m to upgrade the seats, so guess they have to earn it back. Also, the Lions are getting paid bigtime by BC Place stadium to give up their preseason game. I guess this all comes out of FIFAs cut.

[mook-life]

We keep comparing our situation to Wembley.... no one plays full seasons in wembley... also how long does it take to go fromt this to a near perfect pitch for footy

[Qman]

The Argos are coming to BMO.
The city doesn't have the money to build them a stadium, and they have no money of their own.
If we hadn't fought so hard for grass, I wou;dn't be as upset about it.
But based on every other CFL team playing on an artificial surface, I really think that after a season or two trying the hybrid approach, that's what we'll revert to.
I hope I am wrong.
Whether or not the Argos are a success at the gate is kinda irrelevant. They've been playing to crowds of friends and family at the Dome lately. Surely they can draw the same at BMO.

The argos have money. There owner has given over $30million to certain ontario universities/colleges for sports facilities over the past few years. He's just a cheap-ass.

This has been said on this forum before, this is just a scam by MLSE & braley to squeeze out as much government $$$ as they can get. MLSE just hasn't been truthful with TFC fans about their true intent over last few years.

[Pookie]

^ I don't believe they have any interest in the Argonauts, other than to be their landlord. I've seen very little that indicates they are interested in buying the team.

I think the exact statement was that the Board indicated they didn't want to pursue a purchase for now. It was put on hold.

That seems to be a business motivated decision by the fact that the owner of the Argos would be responsible for the stadium upgrade costs.

I would expect that once the bill has been paid (by the Argos, CFL, some heritage fund somewhere or through extra Grey Cups that generate the funds) , we will see them move to purchase the team.

[Wagner]

Maybe the question that should be asked is: What situation will be best for the Argos? Where will they be able to survive... is it downtown or maybe a place like Pickering or Oshawa?

Seams like they are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Instead of fighting about a stadium and a situation that is less than ideal for both parties why not try and figure out what is best for both teams.

For me the best situation would be a joint venture with UOIT or another location east of the city. I picked oshawa because they seam the most similar to hamilton where the game is apparently doing well.

I've often thought the exact same thing.

[OgtheDim]

if by " we " you mean the Argos, that is simply false. They were part of the deal and dropped out......

There was no mention of the Argos in the original agreement. There is no opt or opt in. There was an understanding that football, meaning gridiron, would be provided as an option in the original stadium. That option has to be provided according to the agreement.

Ur reaching with the Grimes thing, btw. As seen in the various threads, the Argos to BMO has been on the cards since the beginning of the process of building the stadium.

[Areathrasher]

if by " we " you mean the Argos, that is simply false. They were part of the deal and dropped out. The city stepped in with $10 million and Exhibition Place and rescued the whole thing or it was dead, no stadium. At the very last minute a councillor ( grimes?) Had pity on the Argos and asked that a clause be added like this, but they never tried to use it. Once grass and quality players came, they had missed their chance. Check the facts, everything here is public record. Look it up, I did.

Why the hell would I say we and mean the Argos.

You want to provide me with that public record that backs up your asseretions, like I did with mine?

[Fort York Redcoat]

Wow, just saw this photo of Terralite in action at Wembley Stadium:



This might work out pretty good if they went for it, it would be worth the investment for them to keep both fan bases happy and bring the cash coming in. I found it here:
http://argosadmirals.com/2015/03/24/...-on-the-pitch/

If it works for all those cars driving around that track laid atop the pitch, it can handle a few fat football players. I only wonder why they don't put turf on top of the terralite when the NFL games happen there.

I'd like to know this for a fact but I'll gladly speculate - They make more money from the car cars than the big hawgs. Now if that's so - IF - That would be a pretty expensive process for 9 games a year. I'd like to add the only time I've seen this process in action is the Basketball/Hockey arrangement which has how many games? to make it more profitable?

[Fort York Redcoat]

if Argos come to bmo field we should go to the Argos home opener in all our RPB and TFC gear and sing tfc songs and wave our flags ( just to show them THIS IS OUR HOUSE)

And thereby giving the Argos our money. A form of support for the decision. I wouldn't suggest it.

[MightyDM]

There was no mention of the Argos in the original agreement. There is no opt or opt in. There was an understanding that football, meaning gridiron, would be provided as an option in the original stadium. That option has to be provided according to the agreement.

Ur reaching with the Grimes thing, btw. As seen in the various threads, the Argos to BMO has been on the cards since the beginning of the process of building the stadium.

I followed this closely at the time. The group included the Argos when Varsity was proposed and then when York was proposed after U of T withdrew. When York did not work, the Argos and their $10 million share dropped out. The CSA, MLSE, Feds, etc considered Downsview, and then the City came in and suggested Exhibition Place, and paid the Argos share - at this point it was soccer only for the U20 and the intended MLS team.
At the Council meeting to approve the agreement something vague was added to allow for the Argos possibly to move in in the future. i think Grimes did that but you'd have to check - it was pretty vague as far as I can remember - " construction doesn't prevent, etc"

[MightyDM]

Why the hell would I say we and mean the Argos.

You want to provide me with that public record that backs up your asseretions, like I did with mine?

Dont understand your post then but I just outlined the accurate history of the Argos involvement - they were there, then dropped out, had a door left open at the last minute, didn't use it. See my previous post

[Areathrasher]

There was no mention of the Argos in the original agreement.

You know, you can be a TFC fan, be against the principal of the Argos moving to BMO Field and still be able to acknowledge facts.

They were a part of the plans for BMO Field. Argos decided to take their free rent and MLSE built the stadium in a way to keep them out. Now that MLSE have gone back to the city to redevelop the stadium it's given the City and Argos the gap in the door to get their foot in.

[Areathrasher]

Dont understand your post then but I just outlined the accurate history of the Argos involvement - they were there, then dropped out, had a door left open at the last minute, didn't use it. See my previous post

That doesn't change the fact that they have a legal right to play there as per the city. That door was closed and MLSE doing the current renos has opened it up again.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Confidential Appendix D – made public on October 26, 2005
11
(o) Suite:
Each of the City/Board, MLSE and CSA will have the complimentary use of one Stadium suite during the Management Agreement term.
(p) Future Tenants:
The City/Board shall retain the exclusive right to negotiate and finalize with the Toronto Argonauts football club (the "Argos") the arrangements by which the Argos would use the Stadium and potentially contribute amounts in respect of the expansion/upgrade of the Stadium provided that:
○ the City/Board shall keep MLSE and CSA fully apprised of any negotiations and resulting arrangements;
○ the City/Board shall not agree to any alterations to the Stadium which would materially and adversely affect its use as a soccer stadium;
○ MLSE shall be entitled to "most favoured nation" status with respect to any of the following rights provided to the Argos:
- sharing in food and beverage revenues;
- sharing in merchandise revenues; and
- rental terms,
provided that any Dispute in respect of whether MLSE's "most favoured nation status" should apply in respect of any right given to the Argos shall be referred to the Dispute Resolution Procedure; and
○ the Argos shall not be entitled to any naming rights (or revenue in respect thereof) in respect of the Stadium.

The referred portion of the document linked from Areathrasher to MightyDM

[MightyDM]

You know, you can be a TFC fan, be against the principal of the Argos moving to BMO Field and still be able to acknowledge facts.

They were a part of the plans for BMO Field. Argos decided to take their free rent and MLSE built the stadium in a way to keep them out. Now that MLSE have gone back to the city to redevelop the stadium it's given the City and Argos the gap in the door to get their foot in.

context matters here. The Argos were part of the original proposal but THEN DROPPED OUT and took their money with them. it is true that they were offered a Hail Mary at the very last minute by an amendment offered at City Council but they didn't take it, they took SkyDome. What you are quoting is the Hail Mary. And it contemplates their $$$$$$, as we can see.

[MightyDM]

That doesn't change the fact that they have a legal right to play there as per the city. That door was closed and MLSE doing the current renos has opened it up again.

The city owns the stadium. I hope no one is disputing their right to do it, just the wisdom. And it's stupid to risk something really good that works by forcing incompatible uses.

[GabrielHurl]

context matters here. The Argos were part of the original proposal but THEN DROPPED OUT and took their money with them. it is true that they were offered a Hail Mary at the very last minute by an amendment offered at City Council but they didn't take it, they took SkyDome. What you are quoting is the Hail Mary. And it contemplates their $$$$$$, as we can see.

Are you saying the Argos were offered a spot at BMO and refused and went back to the Rogers Centre?

[Areathrasher]

context matters here. The Argos were part of the original proposal but THEN DROPPED OUT and took their money with them. it is true that they were offered a Hail Mary at the very last minute by an amendment offered at City Council but they didn't take it, they took SkyDome. What you are quoting is the Hail Mary. And it contemplates their $$$$$$, as we can see.

A condition of the city money was that Argos be involved with the stadium. It didn't specify when.

[OgtheDim]

You know, you can be a TFC fan, be against the principal of the Argos moving to BMO Field and still be able to acknowledge facts.

They were a part of the plans for BMO Field. Argos decided to take their free rent and MLSE built the stadium in a way to keep them out. Now that MLSE have gone back to the city to redevelop the stadium it's given the City and Argos the gap in the door to get their foot in.

I stand corrected. Thanks. Was looking through the docs a couple of weeks ago and didn't see that. Good to know.

[greatwhitenorf]

So, let's say a soccer-lovin' lawyer - a litigation specialist would do nicely - is ardently opposed to the Agros playing at BMO Field.

All sorts of malicious fun could be had going to court to prevent it using this clause in the original agreement under Future Tenants:

"the City/Board shall not agree to any alterations to the Stadium which would materially and adversely affect its use as a soccer stadium;"

Oh, yes, it would be fun to hold MLSE's feet to the fire and get them to provide clear, indisputable proof that a football team's presence wouldn't adversely affect the quality of play on the pitch. One wonders whether it would be possible to run this complaint and subsequent appeals long enough and possibly force the Agros to play elsewhere until it cleared the courts.

RPB's first order of business should be to take up a collection to fund this.

[Beach_Red]

So, let's say a soccer-lovin' lawyer - a litigation specialist would do nicely - is ardently opposed to the Agros playing at BMO Field.

All sorts of malicious fun could be had going to court to prevent it using this clause in the original agreement under Future Tenants:

"the City/Board shall not agree to any alterations to the Stadium which would materially and adversely affect its use as a soccer stadium;"

Oh, yes, it would be fun to hold MLSE's feet to the fire and get them to provide clear, indisputable proof that a football team's presence wouldn't adversely affect the quality of play on the pitch. One wonders whether it would be possible to run this complaint and subsequent appeals long enough and possibly force the Agros to play elsewhere until it cleared the courts.

RPB's first order of business should be to take up a collection to fund this.

As long as MLS has other teams playing on turf you may want to make this more specific.

[greatwhitenorf]

Wow, just saw this photo of Terralite in action at Wembley Stadium:



This might work out pretty good if they went for it, it would be worth the investment for them to keep both fan bases happy and bring the cash coming in. I found it here:
http://argosadmirals.com/2015/03/24/...-on-the-pitch/

If it works for all those cars driving around that track laid atop the pitch, it can handle a few fat football players. I only wonder why they don't put turf on top of the terralite when the NFL games happen there.

This did not provide a workable, ongoing solution. The pitch was destroyed doing this and had to be relaid after the event:

"Transforming Wembley Stadium into a proper tarmac race track in five days is a huge and costly project," said Fredrik Johnsson, President of event organisers IMP. "Just to re-lay the famous football pitch after The Race of Champions costs over £150,000, but the result is spectacular!"

[Still Kicking]

So, let's say a soccer-lovin' lawyer - a litigation specialist would do nicely - is ardently opposed to the Agros playing at BMO Field.

All sorts of malicious fun could be had going to court to prevent it using this clause in the original agreement under Future Tenants:

"the City/Board shall not agree to any alterations to the Stadium which would materially and adversely affect its use as a soccer stadium;"

Oh, yes, it would be fun to hold MLSE's feet to the fire and get them to provide clear, indisputable proof that a football team's presence wouldn't adversely affect the quality of play on the pitch. One wonders whether it would be possible to run this complaint and subsequent appeals long enough and possibly force the Agros to play elsewhere until it cleared the courts.

RPB's first order of business should be to take up a collection to fund this.

Oh dear, not a collection I would contribute to....first of all it would have to be a legal forum of soccer snobs and purists to even understand the objection... IF MLSE try a season with natural grass they can claim they were trying to keep the soccer fans happy. If it fails and they put in a hybrid or fieldturf or whatever- the New England Revolution would be the first example used to support the decision. How many times have the Revs been to the MLS CUP? Have they not shared a field with an NFL team all those years? We may hate the decision, but we will be unable to argue that almost any field set up "materially and adversely affects its use as a soccer stadium"...

[greatwhitenorf]

As long as MLS has other teams playing on turf you may want to make this more specific.

It says 'alterations' and 'adversely affect'. The pure and pristine grass pitch we now see TFC playing on would have to be 'altered' to accommodate football.

The Agros would bring in additional games that will stress and rip up the pitch. Quality of play would be affected. It could prove detrimental in attracting new signings to the club. That's adversely affecting the soccer stadium.

It will piss off many soccer fans who will give up their tickets. Lose enough of them and it could make TFC a less attractive commodity for sponsors. Further adversity.

[jloome]

Not really an issue except for keeping the record correct; when the York site was abandoned, the Argos pulled out. It was a council compromise to allow for potential future use, to get a few anti-soccer councillors on side. The football club had no intention of pursuing it, which is why they worded the language carefully, so that MLSE has multiple arguments against it if desired (it can take the lion's share of profit from concessions and parking not owed to the city, it can decide the calendar, and the Argos have no access to naming or sponsorship money. In effect, MLSE would control the venue).

[greatwhitenorf]

Oh dear, not a collection I would contribute to....first of all it would have to be a legal forum of soccer snobs and purists to even understand the objection... IF MLSE try a season with natural grass they can claim they were trying to keep the soccer fans happy. If it fails and they put in a hybrid or fieldturf or whatever- the New England Revolution would be the first example used to support the decision. How many times have the Revs been to the MLS CUP? Have they not shared a field with an NFL team all those years? We may hate the decision, but we will be unable to argue that almost any field set up "materially and adversely affects its use as a soccer stadium"...

And look how well the Revs are being supported. If TFC's level of support dropped to those Argo-like levels, that would be an adverse effect.

The club has already acknowledged the unviability of playing on plastic when they switched to grass.