Why can't MLSE just buy out the city's interest in the stadium, grass it up and put in a second level on the east and south side? The cost is peanuts for MLSE and the revenue source for the financing is currently languishing on the wait list.
This is not that complicated.
Here is an idea (which I have stated before), MLSE (and maybe the CSA) puts some money in the hands of the City of Toronto, and BUYS THE DAMN STADIUM SO THAT ALL OF THIS BULL SHIT GOES AWAY!!!!!
OR
MLS comes out and takes a hard stance against this and says, if the CFL comes, MLS and TFC leave. They are trying to be come a major sports league and all of their teams are building soccer specific stadiums, so why not mandate that and say if you want a team you have a SSS.
Nothing proposed about it.Originally Posted by Whoopee
This is the final terms of reference for the stadium and the conditions under which the city made its contribution.
Please share if you have other info.
The city resolution was very illuminating. Seems that the financial numbers were built on an anticipated avg. attendance of 14,000. We now know that the avg attendance is around 20,000, some 40% higher. That is a huge (positive) variance from the forecast. They also forecast a fair amount of concert revenue, which hasn't been realized, so that would offset the higher gate revenue a bit.
Despite the one clause regarding "football format" there is nothing regarding additional major tenants that I saw in my very brief skim of the document. I would think that addition of a major tenant would have to go to the city council for approval, since that was not in the scope of the original authorizing document.
Edit:
This isn't the only authorizing document. The Letter of Intent is incorporated into this resolution by reference, as amended by the stuff at the beginning. What does the Letter of Intent say about the Argos, they must be in the LOI as point 6 in App A makes a clarification about them.
Last edited by Detroit_TFC; 08-13-2008 at 11:54 AM.
Haha, lol, I know. I was tongue in cheek.
I don't know, I'd actually prefer the stadium under public ownership to ensure that the field will be available for the community.
Ok, no problem Stu.
The way I read it though it sounds more like a proposal. Just wondering if items have been "changed" since October 2005.
However, can't find anything on the reasoning on why FieldTurf was chosen (ie. benefits/advantages vs. disadvantages) other than it just stated it's supposed to be a community based facility. Is it under one of the clauses?
Not trying to be a jerk, just want to be pointed in the right direction.
Appendix A Clause 6 is pretty interesting.
Well, according to that proposal document, MLSEL has agreed that TFC will be a tenant for 20 years, and will be paying rent. So, that's not an option.
Reading through this old article from back when the Argo's owners weaseled out of the York deal and signed on with the Roger's Centre, they mentioned that they signed the deal because they were getting a cut of concessions, parking, and such..........and would also be allowed to have priority in scheduling. I don't think would be afforded anything like this at BMO.
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/C...3/1023523.html
I call bullshit on the Argo's. I believe they are trying to re-negotiate a sweeter deal with Roger's Centre, by threating to leave after 2009.
Unless, they feel the Bills really will be here permantly and will somehow displace them from the Roger's Centre.
...and I thought City Council in Ottawa was bad...
Bottom line (as I see it): the Argos won't be able to shell out the 10s of millions of dollars to convert the stadium to CFL specifications.
And I hope to God that the city doesn't use tax payer dollars to help the Argos.
The money the city and federal government provided for BMO was for soccer purposes and that was to build something new and support a new sport at the pro level in Canada - not to support a struggling franchise like the Argos.
I don't know about Sokolowski ... But the title of the document the city voted on specifically states at the top "Soccer Stadium at Exhibition Place" Link
I know there's a confusion over football (soccer ball form) vs. football (pointy ball form) but I think "Soccer Stadium" is pretty specific.
there is a lot less moving in football and a lot more standing around whereas soccer ppl constantly move on turf, and i think that the real problem is the side to side movement which tends to screw up knees
You're joking right?
LOL, sad but true.
The argos are like a little fucking brother. Whatever big brother does, little brother wants to do also.
FUCK OFF ARGOS!
Its the play of the ball on the fake stuff, whereas in pointy ball it hardly touches the ground. Also, linemen would chew the shit out of a grass field.
I wonder how the argos woudl make money at BMO anyways considering the naming rights and concessions are all run and/or owned by MLSE
that's another question that nobody talks about.....
i also wonder about private boxes. a guy I know has a box, and he has a lease on it that allows him to attend any event that's held at the stadium. so the argos couldn't even get access to these boxes. the box revenue is already shared between the city and MLSE.
Also, I would love to get my hands on that stadium proposal. What it actually says to "accomdate" football.
I'm sure a couple of lawyers can work their way through that.
My observation is that its obvious MLSE don't care about the Argos because they are already making money hand over fist without them. They obviously don't wanna share ANYTHING at all with the argos as they don't own the building so its not like they are going to get lease money from the Argos.
So its all about what the city will want to do with the Argos. This story isn't going away because I just say Nailor do a piece on Sportscentre as well. Looks like he'll be following this story to the bitter end.
Well, I honestly don't know the current circumstances, but aren't community groups allowed to rent the field? If MLSE bought it, they'd be able to charge exorbitant fees or not allow its use.
Again, I am unfamiliar with the current arrangements so I am only speculating.
Add to this is that there is sooo much more growth in the game than what the Argos can provide. With expansion, improvement in the CL fortunes, playoffs, etc. TFC can surpass the games that the Argos would bring. Add grass and you get more soccer games from the CMNT. This is all just makking the Argos fit in the picture a little more tougher.
It would be nice to have grass then maybe the Canadian national team would be more willing to come to BMO and have some friendlies.
I know you're half joking, but seriously, I don't think anyone who asks legit questions is a jerk.
Best guess is that the discussions around community and year-round use meant maintaining grass at a pro level would have been really (possibly prohibitively) expensive...but that's a guess as I wasn't working in this office in '05.
Dear Argos,
Please go the fuck away.
Sincerely,
Stryker
Its like Toronto FC is a victim of its own sucess. The fans are being punished because the team is well supported. If TFC never happened the Agros are at Rogers until 2050 and a new stadium for them isn't even thought about.
No. The stadium was coming because of the FIFA U20.
Yeah, but that had nothing to do with the Argos. Two years before they decided they wanted nothing to do with a new stadium. Now its "we're entitled to BMO", why? because TFC has real fans?? and BMO will supposedly have the same effect on the Agros fans all of a sudden.
Who cares if the community groups or whoever are not allowed to use the field. That is the most retarded caveat in this whole stadium mess.
Build community fields for communities. Build stadiums for serious athletics and spectators that will fill those seats. If we're to be taken seriously about being a soccer hotbed on this continent, then this field rental nonsense has to stop.
Some perspectives on some of the important clauses in this deal:
(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;
So effectively, MLSE has already kicked in $18-million of the overall $72-million cost.
Can we assume the Argos would also be asked to pony up capital appportionment, given that MLSE was willing to contribute nearly a third of the overall cost? Say, teh cost of the expansion and another$18 million beyond that?
(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;
This is the only reference to use for football in the entire document, which refers to it as a "soccer stadium" about a dozen times. So Naylor's globe and mail story was disingenuous at best and inaccurate at worst. Having a clause that suggests it COULD be used for football does not suggest that it ever will be, so he could not reasonably conclude that it was not a soccer-specific stadium.
There is NO STATED RATIONALE for the artificial turf in the document, although it can be assumed they're referring to keeping the cost to a level lthe community can afford and winter use, although the latter is covered off by having to have a winter roof.
(iii) project (construction) agreement with MLSE to build the stadium on-time and on-budget
with MLSE responsible for construction cost overruns;
(iv) ownership of the constructed stadium remains with the City;
(v) management Agreement for 20 years between City/Board and MLSE to manage the
stadium on behalf of the Board and City;
In other words, MLSE has the rights to site management for the next 20 years, and the concession rights for the next 20 years. So the control over this situation is effectively in MLSE's hands, regardless of what the city wants. It can simply offer the Argos an untenable deal if it wants to keep the team out. There's nothing in this contract that guarantees access to another professional organization, only to the public.
(vi) requirement for MLSE to purchase a major league soccer franchise to be located in
Toronto;
(viii) use Agreement for 20 years between the City/Board and MLSE for the stadium to be the
home of the MLSE major league soccer franchise subject to payment of rent ;
(ix) participation Agreement for 20 years between the City/Board and CSA for the stadium to
be the home for Canada’s international soccer terms and be used annually to host
international soccer events subject to payment of rent based on seven percent of gate
receipts (less taxes);
It'll be interesting to see how the CSA explains using Saputo Stadium for national team games in light of this clause. I suppose if they want to risk the "bad faith" route they could note that it doesn't stipulate how many games.
(x) right of the City/Board to use the stadium a significant part of any available dates
annually on a cost recovery basis only for the City, CNE, World’s Fair and Olympics
(subject to use for regularly scheduled major league soccer games and FIFA games) and
for other public events;
(xi) right of the CNEA to use the stadium (subject to use for regularly scheduled major league
soccer games and FIFA games) during the 18-day CNE period;
(xii) right of the CNEA to receive 25 percent of gross revenues from stadium food and
beverage concessions during the 18-day CNE period;
(xii) City/Board retains the majority of incremental revenues from parking (except for the
partial payment to the MLSE major league soccer franchise of 33.3 percent of gross
parking revenues related to the 20 soccer games which increases to 40 percent in
Year 11);
(xiv) City/Board shares equally with MLSE any net revenues earned by the stadium;
That last one is important. MLSE has to weigh whether it can make money off the Argos; so perhaps the vehemence should be partly directed towards MLSE, which has A LOT of pull in this agreement. Make it clear they'll kill their own team if they do this, and they'll be less likely to do it.
(xv) contribution of $400,000 annually (increased by CPI annually from Year six onward)
from the stadium revenues to a capital reserve account to be held by the City; and
(xvi) MLSE will fund the first $250,000 of any operating shortfalls and thereafter, the
City/Board and MLSE share equally in funding any annual operating shortfalls or annual
shortfalls in capital expenditures.
So if the Argos cause it to lose money on paper, MLSE and the city would have to share that load. That makes it less likely, I believe, that city council woudl want to take the risk of moving the Argos back to an environment in which is has already failed.
Seems to me MLSE has a lot more pull in this than people here seem to realize. It has all the control over the money.
I have read the entire document, and not only is this the only reference to football in it, but there is no mention whatsoever of the Argos being a possible future tenant of BMO. Other than amendment 6 in the appendix, there is no mention of the Argos at all. Hardly proof that BMO was not to be soccer-specific.
Very poor journalism by Naylor, and now the folks on cfl.ca are rallying behind it.
Once again great work researching all this... Well done!!!
It does seem however, that you have a lot of time on your hands... lol
The reality is though that the atmospehere in Hamilton is not better than the Dome. I'd say the Dome is louder than Ivor Wynne, which is like a graveyard. That's why I don't think a move to BMO for the Argos will do anything. CFL fans are CFL fans, in the East anyways, the atmosphere will be exactly the same.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote