Go for it. You don't need RPB to organize.Originally Posted by greatwhitenorf
This initiative would be easier after the results were seen, though, and I don't want it to get that far.
Go for it. You don't need RPB to organize.
This initiative would be easier after the results were seen, though, and I don't want it to get that far.
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
It's unbelievable that these idiots could even be considering this. Toronto's soccer market is too Euro-centric to accept anything less than at least the APPEARANCE of professionalism. Pointy ball lines and more distance to the pitch will kill the club slowly but surely. It's not Seattle, where they haven't had better.
If you're referring to BMO they assure that the lines come off and the field distance doesn't have to change with retractable seating. Not sure whether we here introduced that idea or anyone's said anything official about that yet, though. They WOULD be crazy to move back for both sports.
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
Have you noticed the way they run all their businesses? Is this really out of character at all?
Like how they got 32k against us in the last home regular season game with Pats markings on the pitch? Or that they got 32k again in the Eastern Conference final?
They start slowly attendance wise and get big crowds in the summer and end of season.
Gently, Bentley,
Despite the occasional big crowd, the Revs have struggled to average annual crowds beyond the mid-teens for the past 15 years. And this is a team that has played in five MLS finals. The game is an abomination on a football field and Revs fans know it. Discussions about a new stadium for them closer to, or within, Boston have been going on for a few years.
"They" who assure us that real grass can be scrubbed are hardly our greatest source of re-assurance. There are many who have scoured the sports world for even one example of how two such teams can share a stadium without these issues and it doesn't exist. Even plastic turf shows evidence of football lines and on any surface it only get worse over time.
It's unacceptable and the easiest way to make a soccer team look totally bush league.
From the Revs fans I know in Boston - far and away the #1 reason for the low attendances is the location of the stadium.
The Argos were part of a group that wanted to build a new stadium in Toronto for the U20 World Cup which included MLSE, the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, and the CSA. Their share was $10 million. It was originally proposed for U of T but that failed when U of T changed it's mind because some colleges opposed it. The group then reached agreement with York and that also failed. The Argos then left the group and reached agreement with the SkyDome. Subsequently, the group reached agreement with the City and built "The National Soccer Stadium" at Exhibition Place, City owned, run by MLSE. At City Council a last minute motion opened the door for the Argos again but they again declined and remained at the dome. Whether this was for money or other reasons the Argos chose to drop out of the group and chose SkyDome.
Last edited by MightyDM; 03-27-2015 at 03:37 PM.
That's not exactly true. Go back and look at the council minutes. It was a last minute addition and the motion was something like "not preclude use by". It was not a condition at all, the agreement between the city and the Group was about soccer and things like community use - those were Conditions. This was an add on.
Exactly. The Argos were not part of it at their choice.
How about you go find them and put them in here like I did with the "Argos Clause"
Good work by the way.
Heart wrenching, of course, but good.
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
I looked though most of the meeting minutes from 2005 and I couldn't find when the Argo Clause was put in. There is alot of amendments made in the October 2005 meeting minutes ( I think that was the last one before the final agreement ).
Some interesting stuff I did find was that if the Argos do move in, the "favoured nation" clause will be rewriten so that the Argos get a cut from parking/concessions etc.
Naming rights are solely MLSE's though.
The last of the meeting are here
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/m...l/cc051026.pdf
Last edited by Mulder; 03-27-2015 at 04:47 PM.
great work but this appears to be the original LOI that excluded the Argos. There would have a later meeting, I think, for the final final approval.
That's when it was put in no?
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/a...9rpt/cl036.pdf
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.
Thus why MLSE doesn't have to give into the Argos unless it makes financial sense to MLSE.
And or it intends to buy them one day but in delaying that decision the "owner" of the Argos has to fund the Reno. Once the bill is paid, then they can look at buying.
Either way, MLSE clearly want the Argos here. Bob Hunter, Chief Facilities and Live Event Officer said so.
Last edited by Pookie; 03-27-2015 at 08:09 PM.
I see where you are going but pissing off soccer fans isn't adversely affecting "use."
Use would defined as playing on and MLS teams, some very good ones have played and continue to play on turf. Arguably, TFC's best season came on turf.
You nailed it and at the time when no one was paying attention MLSE made a structural change to 1 end of BMO and poured concrete end zones. At the time, I'm sure MLSE thought it was a great play to ensure the Argos stay out, now it will just end up costing MLSE and the government a extra 28 million because of the end zone change
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.
Bollocks. The Argos dropped out and went to the SkyDome. Their choice. Now they want to screw up a good thing by destroying the field? Bugger off.
Here is the council report that shows it is all soccer. Before the amendment, apparently:
That looks pretty bad on those fans then in my opinion for that to be their excuse. Gillette Stadium is about 30 min or so from the downtown if I recall. I drive 45 min at least to BMO every game. Lots of others come from farther. The football lines would be a bigger issue for me. So if I ever can see them at BMO I will be saving that 45+ min trip each way.
Moderator
If I'm reading that Argos clause right, it shouldn't cost the city or MLSE anything - the "capital cost contributions" as a result of an agreement with the Argos, should be fronted by the Argos.
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
Hmmm... is attendance at Pats' games similarily affected by the distance? If not, it's somewhat bogus.
Oops, here it is: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/council/cc051026/pof9rpt/cl036.pdfHere is the council report that shows it is all soccer. Before the amendment, apparently:
As you can see if you open it, it's soccer, soccer, soccer.
The NFL is religion now. But for all of the 70's, the Pat's were woeful and had issues drawing crowds to Foxboro.
More like 60 minutes going out, 90 minutes coming home. The traffic jams coming back from there are legendary: there is only a two lane road that all the parking lots feed in to.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
That is my next road trip in August. Can't wait to see that traffic situation. Sometimes getting to BMO ain't no fun either. Taken up to 2hrs before when some events weere on.
Patriots fans would have the same traffic issue. 15K average Revs attendance. 68K average Pats attendance. I still don't buy the traffic argument as the reason.
Except for the part where it says "20,000-seat stadium (capable of expansion to 30,000 seats and capable of conversion to afootball format)"
On Page 6, ii
Or the attached appendix
Last edited by Mulder; 03-28-2015 at 09:31 AM.
Posting Permissions
