Ben Knight Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Hi, everyone. As much as I appreciate everyone discussing a six-month old column, I thought I'd just up the ante by submitting the REAL one for this week. Happy conflict! // Ben http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/columnist.jsp?content=20040115_141708_3756 'Leaf' us alone Soccer fans may not get what they want if Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment builds Toronto's new stadium. It started back in July, when the Canadian Soccer Association summoned Toronto's ink-stained media hordes to the gray, empty, wind-swept former glory of the Canadian National Exhibition grounds. They unveiled some lovely architectural drawings of "Canada's new national soccer stadium," with FIFA-approved artificial turf, no running track and easy access to the busiest, most important east-west commuter rail line in the entire province. The only problem - and somehow they tried to paint this as a strength - was a total lack of money to make the dream come true. Big-name corporate sponsorship was hinted at, but the three levels of government were, essentially, going to be asked to build the thing. Not too very much later, new captains were found for the Good Ship Argonaut. Toronto's embattled CFL team had been setting a suicide course straight to the bottom under former alleged owner Sherwood Schwarz. But here came local developers David Cynamon and Howard Sokolowski to put things right, and two of the first words out of their mouth were "stadium" and - yes! - "soccer." This makes all kinds of sense. Two organizations desperately need the same stadium. The Argos weren't sold on the Exhibition grounds, but knew darn well they would save a heck of a lot of time and money by working with the CSA's lovely blueprints. And then nothing much happened for a while. We were assured the Argos were doing due diligence, and an affirmative stadium announcement was just a matter of time. Then came the surprise. The biggest fish in the entire Toronto sports pond swam over to take a sniff. Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment is - though they like to deny it for business reasons - one of the world's most financially successful sports conglomerates. They run the Maple Leafs and the Raptors, and give all kinds of corporate encouragement to the Toronto Rock lacrosse team, one of the best-run small sports organizations you're ever likely to encounter. But figuring out their true intentions, at any given moment, is tricky. A bit like trying to decode one of MLSE executive and former Montreal Canadiens goaltending legend Ken Dryden's rambling, four-minute philosophical answers to a simple, bang-bang direct question. All of a sudden, MLSE is interested in building a stadium for the Argos. Now, I don't want to suggest that soccer isn't part of the picture here, but as of the Thursday morning that finds me writing this piece, the word "soccer" has not been uttered on the record in any MLSE quote I can track down. The Argos haven't forgotten, though. Cynamon said on the radio a couple of days ago that soccer is still a big component of the project. But so - apparently - is a running track. We learn this morning that MLSE is cooking up a deal with our old pals the University of Toronto. The Leafs/Raptors/Etc. want to build the facility, and lease it for 35 years and then donate it to the school. This neatly sidesteps the problem of having to buy an enormously expensive chunk of prime real estate across the street from two subway lines in the heart of downtown Toronto. It also alleviates concerns over finding enough event dates to actually make the stadium pay. The Leafs would also get a new practice arena, and I'm sure there are significant tax breaks all over the place, as well. But the UofT will insist on - and MLSE will not disagree with - an eight-lane Olympic-sized running track. From an intimacy point of view, this is the soccer equivalent of trying to get snuggly with your sweetie with a medium-sized elephant in the way. Running tracks automatically move every single seat a good 50 feet backwards. It's literally like watching a game from across the street. The new Argo owners, for their part, are intrigued by MLSE's sudden interest, but it's clear they have concerns, as well. Cynamon is a York University grad, and he wants to build on the grounds of his old school, way, way up in the northern suburbs. He adds that the Argos are continuing to move ahead with their own plans, and insists a fine stadium can be build with no aid whatsoever from the Air Canada Centre. And you know what? I'm with him. As much as I'm a downtown kid and I loved Varsity, the University of Toronto were no friends of Canadian soccer. The complaints came from team after team. They were troublesome, persnickety landlords who charged too much and provided too little. What bothers me most about the MLSE proposal, though, is I don't get why they're doing it. MLSE CEO Richard Peddie told the Globe and Mail this morning that the numbers on the deal are "tight." The overwhelming impression is that MLSE is just kicking this around to see if it can make a decent buck. Nothing wrong with that from a business point of view, but I'll take the deeper sports vision of the Argos and the CSA - providing, of course, that Cynamon and Sokolowski can actually pony up the cash. Meanwhile, the Internet is lighting up with speculation that MLSE might be the oft-rumoured big-bucks sugar daddy who might bring Major League Soccer north to Toronto. If so, they're keeping it very quiet. South of the border, there are no discernable ripples. I'm pro-MLS in general, but that turkey isn't on this table. So, then, from a life-long soccer fan, here's what it comes down to: --- Dear Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment: Thank you for your interest in building a new stadium in Toronto that could maybe be used for soccer sometimes. While I admire your business savvy and certainly respect your resources and connections, I am deeply concerned about being a very low priority at the new facility. Having stared over running tracks at Varsity for years, and being bitterly familiar with the internal agendas of the University of Toronto's admittedly fine athletics department, I prefer to take my chances with the Toronto Argonauts in the 905. Please know you are always welcome as corporate sponsors - or as avid soccer fans. Good luck in your future ventures. Yours sincerely: Ben Knight, soccer columnist, Sportsnet.ca. --- Anyone else feeling it? Discuss it here in the Sportsnet.ca Fan Forums if you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Good article Ben, I am not convinced of the argument the CSA doesn't have any money so it has to accept any old stadium even if its not soccer specific, in fact very soccer unfriendly and built by a Hockey marketing company to boot(Conspiracy theories here?). Tennis Canada didn't have much money when it built its 40 million new tennis facility at York. The bulk of it was government money. There are programs in place to get this funding. The CSA has a trump card of the U20 YWC bid and many friendlies that it could stage. A scaled down version of its stadium plans and in cooperation with Rugby Canada and the Toronto Lynx, I don't see why the CSA shouldn't be able to pull it off. Put it another way a Fieldturf track stadium will do nothing to promote the domestic pro game in Canada. It could provide another locale for WNT friendlies but thats about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 I too am concerned about MLSE's proposal for a new outdoor stadium. They don't seem to have soccer in mind at all. The only ones who appear to keep this idea alive are the Argo owners. Another thing, where's the CSA in all this? Forgive me if I've been asleep at the switch, but have they been heard of regarding the stadium issue ever since MLSE first expressed interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrek Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Well said Ben! Could not agree with you more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 There have been numerous articles which have mentioned the CSA being in favour of the MLSE development. I guess that privately they are not overjoyed about the track, but beggars can't be choosers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca There have been numerous articles which have mentioned the CSA being in favour of the MLSE development. I guess that privately they are not overjoyed about the track, but beggars can't be choosers. The CSA are not beggars. They have made an application for government funding along the same lines as Tennis Canada did in building their 40 million stadium at York. It is not as though the CSA have to settle for any scraps thrown to them. I would imagine there will be some form of government money in the MLSE proposal certainly in terms of loan guarantees and tax breaks. The CSA could refuse to get involved in this project or play at the new stadium. The CSA has some leverage and could have a role to play in swaying the government to have design changes made to the MLSE proposal. I would think that a track fieldturf stadium at 30,000 is not the sort of showcase stadium to win the competitive rights to host the Youth World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 In this instance the CSA are beggars. They asked the Government for 80 million for a stadium, because they stated at the time that they didn't have any money to fund such a venture themselves. You can call them lobbyists if you prefer, but the fact is they don't have the money to do what they want with a stadium in Toronto (or anywhere else for that matter). We hosted in the U17 World Cup in 1987 in far less impressive facilities than what is being suggested here with new stadiums in Vancouver & Toronto (and Edmonton would likely also be used), so I am skeptical that this wouldn't be enough to win the rights to the tourney. And since Finland hosted the U17 tourney with FieldTurf stadiums this past summer, why not us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanKeay Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Because, people on this site like to bitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca In this instance the CSA are beggars. They asked the Government for 80 million for a stadium, because they stated at the time that they didn't have any money to fund such a venture themselves. You can call them lobbyists if you prefer, but the fact is they don't have the money to do what they want with a stadium in Toronto (or anywhere else for that matter). We hosted in the U17 World Cup in 1987 in far less impressive facilities than what is being suggested here with new stadiums in Vancouver & Toronto (and Edmonton would likely also be used), so I am skeptical that this wouldn't be enough to win the rights to the tourney. And since Finland hosted the U17 tourney with FieldTurf stadiums this past summer, why not us? As I soccer fan I would expect more from you than to be calling the CSA beggars. I think they need our support and not be trashing them with language that they are beggars. For one this whole soccer stadium idea was the CSA's from the beginning. They financed the stadium study with their own money. They had a plan to build a soccer specific stadium to get the Womens World Cup in 2007 and a proper stadium that was needed for domestic soccer and our national teams. There requests were reasonable, well thought out and not pie in the sky. I didn't hear anything from the CSA expecting someone to gift them a stadium or that we should have the attitude that they should be grateful for any stadium. So the CSA has a right representing the tax paying soccer community for government support just like Tennis Canada. Unless you a have a philosophical view that anyone who approaches the government is beggar while that is fine, but then you would be against government funding of tennis stadiums and support for the Olympic games or sport in general. Saying that the CSA has no money doesn't make sense to me, they are like the Canadian Olympic Committee who also as an association did not have enough money to fund the Vacouver Olympics bid without government money. I think the attitude that the CSA should accept any old stadium for their U20 world Cup bid is flawed, its like saying that the Vacouver Olympic Bid Committee has no money and they should be satisfied with an outdoor speed skating oval and 30 meter ski jumps. The fact of the matter is the CSA needs a stadium that is good enough to win the bid for U20 MWC or why bother even submitting a bid. You may think that what is being offered is enough to win the bid. However, the U20 MWC is a big deal and cannot be compared to an U17 tournament. I would think a 30,000 seater field turf track stadium with a hockey rink near it or under it would not be enough of a draw to win the FIFA U20 Mens World Cup given the number of soccer passionate countries that will be applying as hosts. I think we should have respect for the CSA and their original proposals for a soccer specific stadium and not get into calling them beggars or ungrateful etc as I don't think one would do the same for hockey or Olympic bid proposals. Somehow, if its soccer we have this attitude that we should be grateful for any crumbs handed our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiankick97 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Wow Ben Knight joined the forum. Long time reader of your stuff, Ben! Nobody seems to know the Canadian game much better than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Beggars was not meant to be insulting nor is it insulting - I am being sympathetic towards the CSA since they do not have the money to achieve what they need to achieve (mind you it really shouldn't but up to them to build Toronto a soccer stadium, but such is life). By calling them beggars I'm not criticizing them at all, nor trashing them and I don't know why it would be interpreted that way (especially when you examine the nature of the original context in which it was used). I'm not calling them cheap, I'm stating that they are poor. Poor means you don't have money, cheap means you have it but don't spend it. Maybe you don't think the CSA has money but I would remind you that they had to receive money from FIFA just to get the architectural work started on this stadium - if they needed FIFA's money just to do that, what makes you think they've got the cash or don't need substantial government assistance for this project? And yes, you can compare the U17 & U20 tournaments - there are differences but they are obviously comparable tournaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 I am going to have a few bottles of beer now that I've read Moosehead's comments. Either that, or I'll surely offend someone on this forum. It's 18 going on 20 years boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Ed I am going to have a few bottles of beer now that I've read Moosehead's comments. Either that, or I'll surely offend someone on this forum. It's 18 going on 20 years boys. Amen, brother. (Sleeman Premium Light. Less filling. Tastes great. Way cheaper than Guinness). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 What could be noted here is that MLSE is the type that is in profession of making money. Add onto that making a good return for the OTPP. In the mind of the MLSE, putting in a track would help them get a return on investments faster. If they were to be that bidder for an MLS franchise, it would also be in their best intrests to stay within league rules when establishing that team. As for the funding issue, it's nearly impossible to get anything done without the support of all levels of government. Having someone like a Kerfoot can count themselves lucky. As for the surface issue, there was a letter that appeared about 'fieldturf' in the G&M today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Ben Knight What bothers me most about the MLSE proposal, though, is I don't get why they're doing it. MLSE CEO Richard Peddie told the Globe and Mail this morning that the numbers on the deal are "tight." The overwhelming impression is that MLSE is just kicking this around to see if it can make a decent buck. Nothing wrong with that from a business point of view, but I'll take the deeper sports vision of the Argos and the CSA - providing, of course, that Cynamon and Sokolowski can actually pony up the cash. MLSE are an extremely, sometimes horribly, greedy organization. Meanwhile they shaft fans left and right. I don't trust them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Ed I am going to have a few bottles of beer now that I've read Moosehead's comments. Either that, or I'll surely offend someone on this forum. It's 18 going on 20 years boys. Oh please, teach me how to indulge and not post away[:I] I was about to go on a rant 'bout a national sports body and a national stadium AGAIN:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Beggars was not meant to be insulting nor is it insulting - I am being sympathetic towards the CSA since they do not have the money to achieve what they need to achieve (mind you it really shouldn't but up to them to build Toronto a soccer stadium, but such is life). By calling them beggars I'm not criticizing them at all, nor trashing them and I don't know why it would be interpreted that way (especially when you examine the nature of the original context in which it was used). I'm not calling them cheap, I'm stating that they are poor. Poor means you don't have money, cheap means you have it but don't spend it. Maybe you don't think the CSA has money but I would remind you that they had to receive money from FIFA just to get the architectural work started on this stadium - if they needed FIFA's money just to do that, what makes you think they've got the cash or don't need substantial government assistance for this project? And yes, you can compare the U17 & U20 tournaments - there are differences but they are obviously comparable tournaments. Good post G-L. Doesn't anyone realize that it is totally embarrassing that the CSA had to ask for FIFA money to get a stadium study done? I think that FIFA should NOT have to be funding the 7th or 8th economy in the world for such things. Add to this the fact that the Canadian government spends money to assist in such things as education and sports in developing countries, and it is totally ridiculous. FIFA was just nice to them, I think FIFA should have told Canada to screw off as they have other priorities in the global picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Just a thought but is it absolutely necessary for a track to be a hinderance? We're talking the new millenium here, I sure it wouldn't take some design revolution to slam together some grandstands which couldn't just be rolled up to (or away) from the field as needs be. It's not as though this park is going to be 100K seater. The main grandstands aren't going to be THAT big. And the more I think about it, the more useless the CSA stadium blueprints are becoming. Design isn't that huge a cost when the project is said and done. Every mil. counts though, I guess. Whatever political allies the CSA can rely on and the payola they can bring to the table, that has to be where the CSA's strengths reside. I wonder if they have any? (by that I mean will more public funds come to this project with the CSA on board than would normaly otherwise be available and is that increased amount enough to pay for what the CSA wants?) P.S. I think when push comes to shove, the U of T has far, far more popular and political power than any other of the parties involved. I'm guessing, though. But expecting to find the end design will favor whatever the U of T wants at the end of the day way more than what the CSA would like to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Beggars was not meant to be insulting nor is it insulting - I am being sympathetic towards the CSA since they do not have the money to achieve what they need to achieve (mind you it really shouldn't but up to them to build Toronto a soccer stadium, but such is life). By calling them beggars I'm not criticizing them at all, nor trashing them and I don't know why it would be interpreted that way (especially when you examine the nature of the original context in which it was used). I'm not calling them cheap, I'm stating that they are poor. Poor means you don't have money, cheap means you have it but don't spend it. Maybe you don't think the CSA has money but I would remind you that they had to receive money from FIFA just to get the architectural work started on this stadium - if they needed FIFA's money just to do that, what makes you think they've got the cash or don't need substantial government assistance for this project? And yes, you can compare the U17 & U20 tournaments - there are differences but they are obviously comparable tournaments. I don't know who else one would expect to build a soccer stadium other than the CSA. I don't think we should rely on the CFL or the Argonauts to build the CSA a stadium. I think when you mention that the CSA doesn't have the money what your are saying is it doesn't have the political influence and backing from its members to get one built, as there are lots of examples of not for profit organizations with similar or less finacial resources of the CSA and they manage to obtain government financing to build similar or larger buildings than what the CSA is proposing. I can think of the new Opera House for Toronto which will receive 60 million in combined Provincial and Federal Aid. There is the new Tennis stadium Tennis Canada is building at York with a substantial amount of government funding. Admittedly these groups probably had done a better job of fundraising and getting its members on board to the proposal. Its seems that the soccer community has more faith in the Argos than the CSA which probably cannot be helped given the years of complancency and lack of success at the CSA. In terms of the stadium one has to see if it is suitable for both Mls and obtaining the u20YWC which should be the goals of the CSA. In my opinion I don't think the stadium propsal at U of T would satisfy the requirements of Mls or the U20 YWC. I don't think 1 grass stadium of any signifance (Commonwealth) will be enough to win the bid. Mls as far as I am aware requires a soccer specific stadium which means grass and no track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.