Jump to content

CSA releases proposal for new stadium


Free kick

Recommended Posts

ACC, the excpetion that still proves the rule. And not exactly apples and apples. I don't think there isn't anyone who wouldn't be curious to have a nice closer look at how goverment moneys/subsidies were and still are involved in constuction of that barn.

Think you nailed it though regarding the CSAs contribution. Dought anyone's taking it serious. There'll be lots of give and take yet and it'll be the average joe fee payer who's going to be surcharged by the CSA to make up their portion. Whether it's $5 a head nationwide for the next 5 years, or $10 per player in Ontario who knows? And again Sharpe called it right, those sort of surcharges are going to cause a nasty, bitter, fight. There's plenty of people inside Ontario who won't want to pay it, and no one outside of Ontario.

P.S. Just a little muse on arenas in major citys, which are of course far, far more financialy viable than any stadium anywhere. Remember back in the mid '80s when the latest addition of MSG was build. Totaly paid for with plenty of cash, and I mean plenty of cash, to spare after taxes and all just by selling the property the older MSG stood on. Man, it must be nice.

"Minority of one"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sharpe's comment about the fights that arise if fees are raised are truely indicative of the "illusion" of soccer particiation. The numbers look great, but the CSA operats on a pittance, relatively speaking, and soccer fees are one of the best bargains in town. Compare that to hockey, where fewer participate, yet support a huge infrastructure. Of course, nobody puts their kids in hockey as an activity, and I know many who can't afford to put thier kids in the sport due to cost (Dropped out myself at 11 for reasons of $), and I hate to see that occur for any sport. But to shy away from a $10.00 fee increase says a lot about the state of soccer in this country. Realistically, the CSA is probably going to have to come up with at least 10% of the total cost to have a decent chance at the public funding they are requesting.

The opinions expressed above are just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharpe's comment about the fights that arise if fees are raised are truely indicative of the "illusion" of soccer particiation. The numbers look great, but the CSA operats on a pittance, relatively speaking, and soccer fees are one of the best bargains in town. Compare that to hockey, where fewer participate, yet support a huge infrastructure. Of course, nobody puts their kids in hockey as an activity, and I know many who can't afford to put thier kids in the sport due to cost (Dropped out myself at 11 for reasons of $), and I hate to see that occur for any sport. But to shy away from a $10.00 fee increase says a lot about the state of soccer in this country. Realistically, the CSA is probably going to have to come up with at least 10% of the total cost to have a decent chance at the public funding they are requesting.

The opinions expressed above are just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key here is that obtaining government funding in 2003 is a completely different game from the 80s.

The thing that gets me is that in the Record (local daily tied to the Toronto Star) quoted a provincial government source as saying that they couldn't comment because they haven't been contacted. Not communicating with different levels of government before going public is poor form at best when you expect them to pick up the tab.

Frankly, as a soccer fan, I am embarrassed by that tactic. Remember Jack Warner and FIFA have little or no influence with the Ontario Government or the Canadian Government. The CSA has to be talking with levels of government making presentations and submitting the plans to them at the same time they make this sort of thing public. Not doing so is disrespectful of the taxpayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key here is that obtaining government funding in 2003 is a completely different game from the 80s.

The thing that gets me is that in the Record (local daily tied to the Toronto Star) quoted a provincial government source as saying that they couldn't comment because they haven't been contacted. Not communicating with different levels of government before going public is poor form at best when you expect them to pick up the tab.

Frankly, as a soccer fan, I am embarrassed by that tactic. Remember Jack Warner and FIFA have little or no influence with the Ontario Government or the Canadian Government. The CSA has to be talking with levels of government making presentations and submitting the plans to them at the same time they make this sort of thing public. Not doing so is disrespectful of the taxpayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't take everything officials say in the paper on par. Like I said before, it's all part of the game. As Davidson pointed out in his article, the media conference was an attempt to put pressure on the governments. They're basically shaking the money tree to see what will fall.

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

You are the witness of change

And to counteract

We gotta take the power back

Rage Against The Machine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see.. I saw a number of 800,000 registered players in the newspaper times $10. $8 million annually. Using the 10 times rule of thumb for mortgage servicing, we are up to $80 million. Recognizing the need for operating funds, probably some would need to be set aside to fund an operating budget. But, governments at all levels will be asking this question..

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

Sharpe's comment about the fights that arise if fees are raised are truely indicative of the "illusion" of soccer particiation. The numbers look great, but the CSA operats on a pittance, relatively speaking, and soccer fees are one of the best bargains in town. Compare that to hockey, where fewer participate, yet support a huge infrastructure. Of course, nobody puts their kids in hockey as an activity, and I know many who can't afford to put thier kids in the sport due to cost (Dropped out myself at 11 for reasons of $), and I hate to see that occur for any sport. But to shy away from a $10.00 fee increase says a lot about the state of soccer in this country. Realistically, the CSA is probably going to have to come up with at least 10% of the total cost to have a decent chance at the public funding they are requesting.

The opinions expressed above are just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, that's not how you play the game in 2003... All I will say is... Been there..

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

Don't take everything officials say in the paper on par. Like I said before, it's all part of the game. As Davidson pointed out in his article, the media conference was an attempt to put pressure on the governments. They're basically shaking the money tree to see what will fall.

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

You are the witness of change

And to counteract

We gotta take the power back

Rage Against The Machine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

After having time to think about the CSA's proposal, I think it's a bad idea. The first problem is the artificial turf. If we're going to fork out $80 mil for the thing, we may as well go the distance and put real grass. I will only support this project (as if my support really matters) if they decide to put in real grass. If they are adament about Field Turf, they may as well get together with the people at the SkyDome, and try to convince those people to put it in there. Why do we need two large soccer/football type stadiums close together in T.O., both with artificial turf.

-------------------------

"As soon as you're born you start dying,

So you might as well have a good time."

Sheep Go To Heaven - Cake

Makes alot sense. what happens when the skydome land lords need to replace the surface at the skydome? I suspect that the jays, having seen the how nice the fieldturf at tropicana field is, may want the same type of surface. if they do, then what possible reason will there be for anyone to use the new proposed facility? what possible advanges will this new proposed facility have over the skydome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add my belated two cents to this discussion:

To me, this press conference was always about publicly asking for money from the government and that's it. They tried jazzing it up by inviting Jack Warner and creating some noise about bringing the U-20s to Toronto, but to me, yesterday's conference did not bring us any closer finally getting this stadium built, especially if Canuck Oranje's suspicions are true and the CSA has not yet actively lobbied all levels of government for funding. It was pretty much the same old news soccer fans have been hearing for the past couple of years. Unless this press conference gets people talking which subsequently leads to an increase in public support for this project, there was no point for it.

Regarding the Field Turf/natural grass issue, the reason why the CSA would prefer the artificial stuff is definitely because they believe the stadium might not be able to create enough revenue to maintain the more costly natural grass. The three major tenants that would be invited to play in the stadium, soccer teams, the Argos, rugby teams, all prefer natural grass.

Perhaps they would like to have other tenants in there but what could they be? Field hockey or lacrosse? Surely the CSA does not believe those sports would create enough revenue to make the choice of Fieldturf worthwhile? And Krammerhead has already stated that contrary to what the name of the game suggests, field hockey is played on artificial turf. Concerts? There's no demand in Toronto to build a stadium such as this to host concerts when there are so many other options in the city.

So the decision to go with Field Turf is obviously based on direct cost issues (as is always the case). But, as many have suggested, if soccer and rugby teams refuse to play on the stuff, then the stadium might lose profit as opposed to gain from deciding to go with Field Turf.

The CSA might think that since FIFA has sanctioned Field Turf, all the soccer teams of the world are now lining up to play on this stuff. If that's the case, they should think again. Notwithstanding FIFA's approval of Field Turf, if they had the option of placing one of their tournaments in a country with Field Turf stadiums or another whose stadiums have natural grass, which country do you think they would choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't put FieldTurf in the Skydome! My understanding is that its not practical or possible. Please see my rant on the other board for the reasons, I just don't have the time nor energy to go through it all again over here.

Even the wolf can learn. Even the sheep can turn. Even the frog can become at last the prince. - Peter Hammill, Over (1977)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...