Gian-Luca Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Dave You can expect Councillor Mike Del Grande to oppose the stadium. It seems he wishes to comment on it... Well he's got an Italian name so he could be in favour , but I've heard from reliable sources that he's notorious for opposing any sort of spending by the City. But we'll just have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayWay Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I just logged on. What's happened so far? Have they started talking about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polish_LYNX_Fan Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I have been logged in for about 15 miutes and no stadium talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Well he's got an Italian name so he could be in favour , but I've heard from reliable sources that he's notorious for opposing any sort of spending by the City. But we'll just have to wait and see. Unfortunately, my info indicates he is opposed. Over an hour in and they are still discussing the agenda (with some personal sniping at the Mayor thrown in). I wonder if they'll even get to the stadium issue today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Just found this article on the Fan 590 website, that Bob McCowan wrote. I know he's not a soccer fan, but I think his beef is with MLSE and the the deal they are making. The Proposed Stadium at the Ex It might be a good deal…but not for us. Let’s make something perfectly clear as we begin. I’ve got problems with this deal from a couple of different, but related, perspectives. 1. Having lived through the fiscal debacles that were the construction of the Olympic Stadium in Montreal and then the Skydome (now Rogers Centre) in Toronto, the mere notion of any government handing out millions more for another stadium, like it was Halloween candy, defies all logic. John Q. Taxpayer was left with a billion dollar bill in the sixties and another half billion in the late eighties. Oh, we have a few memories, but today the Big O stands virtually unused and doubtless would have been bulldozed by now, except the prospect is too embarrassing to contemplate. In Toronto, the Skydome cost more than four times the pre-construction estimate and was spewing red ink at an undamable rate when the government surrendered. The 600 million dollar concrete convertible was sold for about 100 million a few years ago to a group of unsuspecting Americans (who, by the way, lost their shirts on the deal) and then to Ted Rogers for $25 million. At the current rate, Ted will have to pay someone to take it off his hands. But the point is, stadium deals don’t work when taxpayers dollars are in play. 2. Maybe more concerning in the Exhibition Stadium deal is the proposed cuddling of the government and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. In general terms, here is the deal. Your federal taxes are poured into the stadium with no equity, no interest, no payback, no nothing in return. To get a more tangible concept of how this works, take a five dollar bill and a match and go outside. Strike the match and light the bill. When the bill has been reduced to soot and is being dispersed by the wind, the deal has been concluded. The money is gone and you are left standing there with your…well, not your five dollar bill in your hand. Same principle as the stadium deal. Now, repeat above to represent the provincial contribution. By this point you should be getting the message. Now the city of Toronto, being either, a) smarter, or dumber, than their federal and provincial brothers, will also throw about $20 million into this apparent abyss. (I suppose I can’t be sure it is an abyss, but since I know there is going to be a hole, and I’m not convinced there is going to be a bottom to the hole, let’s go with the aforementioned.) If the deal actually makes money (gasp!!!), then the city will realize some return on their investment and therefore the correct answer will be, a) smarter. On the other hand, should the soon to be shoveled hole prove unfillable, no matter how much currency is poured in (based on historical data available at the time of this writing, the more predictable outcome) well then, the correct answer will be, dumber. One other thing is predictable. If a) is true, not only will MLSE stick around, they will find a way to take over the whole damn thing, offering something approximating the value of a Larry Hillman rookie card as fair compensation. However, if becomes the reality and red ink becomes visible, MLSE will close up its “soccer shop” faster than you can say “Teacher’s Pension Fund,” shrug its collective shoulders and return to the hockey machine that has powered MLSE’s profits to date. While the outcome may be uncertain, I know that I, John Q. Taxpayer, upon consideration of this deal as a part of my retirement portfolio, would run…not walk in another direction. Of course, when governments are involved in determining the fate of our funds, they are not inclined to ask our opinion. The Deal Federal Government $27.0M Provincial Government $ 8.0M City of Toronto (cash) $ 9.8M (land) $10.0M MLSE $ 8.0M Naming rights $10.0M Total $72.8M Notes: When the city talks about its contribution, they use the figure $9.8 million, downplaying the value of the land, as if to say, “Well, you have to have land before you can build anything, so that really isn’t part of our investment, so forget about that. And besides, we have spent 20 years and millions of dollars trying to figure out what to do with that land and haven’t manage to come to any conclusions until now, so this really is just another migraine that we won’t have to deal with, so let’s all collectively develop amnesia just concentrate on the $9.8 million.” Oh, by the way, real estate people have all raised a “Spockian” eyebrow when I have suggested that the value of the land in question is 10 mill. They seem to think it is worth more. Lots more! But…what the hell…let’s not nit-pick. And let us examine those naming rights. True enough, MLSE will kick in 10 big ones for that. But if you consider this to be a magnanimous gesture, reconsider. In return, the Leaf guys will be able to sell these rights for the next 20 years and John Q.’s piece of this pie will be…zip! That’s right, MLSE gets every scratched loonie. To get some kind of idea what this little gem might be worth, I made a few phone calls to people who know this stuff. Well, apparently, this is an inexact science, since estimates I received varied from a low of $500,000 per year to a high of $3 million per year. But if you do the math you quickly discover that, at the low end, MLSE breaks even…no pain no gain…and their risk is zero. But on the upside, they could make out like bandits! I suppose it is unrealistic to talk about $60 million over the life of the deal, but would you be surprised if it turned out to be, say, half that? Me neither. Oh, and one other point. If it so happens that the sign for the stadium, for some reason, can’t be big enough or bright enough or gaudy enough to be seen from the Gardiner and, as such, MLSE can’t recoup its ten million, then they get it back and are off the hook. WHO they get it back from isn’t exactly clear, but my guess would be same as your guess…The City!!! And just to put it in perspective, this is kind of like going to the racetrack and walking up to the window and saying, “First race, Woodbine, two dollars to win, on the winner,” and having them hand you the ticket. If the race is actually run, you win. The worst that can happen is that the horses go on strike and you get your money back. This amounts to a wager without risk, which isn’t a wager at all. But there is more. You have doubtless heard it ballyhooed by promoters of this deal, that MLSE will cover any cash shortfalls in the construction of the stadium. Well, that’s pretty good. Except, upon closer examination we discover that the Leaf guys have agreed only to assume the first $250,000 in overruns. Anything over that is split with the city. That’s not so good. MLSE will pay $300,000 in rent for 16-20 MLS soccer games. I’m told that figure is pretty low. They’ll also scoop 33-40% of parking revenues and $200 grand for management services, plus “an undisclosed incentive fee from positive stadium cashflows”, although I can’t figure out what in the name of Turk Broda that might be, except that I’m certain it will be something and probably not an insignificant something. MLSE will run the food and beverage operation, but there is a catch. The stadium itself is responsible for all costs associated with food and beverages and the Leaf guys will scoop 25% off the top, regardless of the profitability of the enterprise. Well…nice deal! MLSE also boasts that 55% of all user fees from the sale of tickets, 20% of team and stadium net sponsorship dollars, 15% of gross merchandise revenues and 55% of premium seat revenues will all be handed over to “the stadium” as part of the deal. Of course, one might want to remember that MLSE will hold 50% of the equity in “the stadium”, so half of their contribution will, effectively be, to themselves. And one more goodie. Should the Toronto Argonaut owners take leave of their senses, as they did last year when they started this whole stadium mess, and decide they want to leave the Rogers Center for “Soccer World,” MLSE will have secured “most favoured nation” status and as such will get a hunk of Argo-related revenues, like rent and food and beverage and merchandise. I guess it’s only reasonable. No point plundering just some of the conquered masses. Get ‘em all! So there is the deal. (Oh, there is plenty more, but I think you have the general landscape.) Yet, if you are still unsure about the wisdom and viability of this proposal, consider the following query... if this was such a good deal, why wouldn’t MLSE just do it themselves? I mean, they could probably fund the whole damn thing with one year of net revenue from the Air Canada Center and not have to share a nickel with anyone. The fact that they aren’t, may tell you and I more about the viability of this deal than any of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 The stadium way down on the agenda list apparently - the council meeting is to go on for three days and the Peter Mallett article suggests they might not get to it until tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Bob McClown quote: "Of course, one might want to remember that MLSE will hold 50% of the equity in “the stadium”, so half of their contribution will, effectively be, to themselves." Read my lips, Bobby-boy: THE STADIUM WILL BE OWNED BY THE CITY. How do these guys get away with printing outright lies? Can they not be sued for libel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 What is the CSA's contribution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer What is the CSA's contribution? Zilch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack Soccer deal is a good one Despite criticism, a new stadium for Toronto will be a winner By KEN FIDLIN -- Toronto Sun - Losses: MLSEL responsible for first $250,000, annually. City and MLSE share equally all losses beyond that. Yes, the Fidlin article is nice to see. But it's not completely accurate. The city will be paying MLSE $200 000 a year to manage the stadium. So in reality, MLSE will only pay for a $50 000 loss. Besides, MLSE could easily put MLS-team expenses (like game day operations) and put them under the stadium operation expenses. MLSE is not a charity. This whole deal seems to good to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Dave Below is the text of a complaint I sent to Bob McClown's employers. I encourage others to do likewise. (email contact@fan590.com) Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my concern regarding a gross factual error in Bob McCown's article on "the proposed stadium at the Ex" which appears on the "noticeboard" section of your website. Mr. McCown states that "Of course, one might want to remember that MLSE will hold 50% of the equity in “the stadium”, so half of their contribution will, effectively be, to themselves." According to the report submitted by Policy and Finance Committee to Toronto City Council, page 4, item iv (link immediately below), "ownership of the constructed stadium remains with the city". http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/council/cc051026/pof9rpt/cl036.pdf Such factual errors are in my opinion evidence of shoddy journalism at best, and at worst of a lack of journalistic integrity, and reflect badly on the overall quality and credibility of your organizatoin. I should add that other local media, such as the Globe and Mail, have been able to report the facts correctly. I take serious issue with Mr. McCown's statement, and I ask that his error of fact be brought to his attention promptly. Good stuff Dave!. But i have just one little concern. Do we know for a fact that MLSE has no ownership position in the stadium? Perhaps the other articles that we had read did not delve into this as deeply and may have overlooked this aspect? Maybe MLSE's additional injection of funds came on the condition that MLSE gets a 50% stake in the stadium. Mccown's position on soccer and soccer related matters is well documented. But I have no reason to dismiss him outright if he says that he had done some research and come up with this information. I'd rather hear that kind of stuff, than the garbage taht Perkins has dished out.. I am not trying to defend Mccown here but rather us Voyagerurs. My view has always been that even if MLSE come out of this looking like bandit, so what, thats Business? The game of soccer still benefits and ultimately, taht is what we care about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Free Kick: re ownership of stadium, I'm simply going by the Finance Committee report (link above), which says "ownership of the constructed stadium remains with the city". Unless I've missed something, that's all that it says about this. I would be very concerned if this report didn't accurately reflect an issue as fundamental as ownership. I suspect that McCown is confusing "revenue sharing" with "equity", since it is true that MLSE and the City/Board each get 50% of net income from the facility, while the City will be sole owner. By the way, I sent a similar complaint to the Star re Perkins' article. I encourage others to do the same. Email is sports@thestar.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrek Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Peter Mallet stole my soccer ball. But I forgive him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Dave Free Kick: re ownership of stadium, I'm simply going by the Finance Committee report (link above), which says "ownership of the constructed stadium remains with the city". Unless I've missed something, that's all that it says about this. I would be very concerned if this report didn't accurately reflect an issue as fundamental as ownership. Thanks.. I wasn't aware of that. The Finance Committee report is as good a source as one can get to refute MCCown's claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 So... when is McCown's show today, and who wants to call in and make him look like a fool on the air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Dave So... when is McCown's show today, and who wants to call in and make him look like a fool on the air? I called yesterday and the guy hung up on me after I told him that I was a soccer fan. But you are welcome to call in Dave. I was very nervous and I guess not ready to attack. I did post the 1-800 number in another thread. The call in portion of the show is from 4-5 EST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zacRWE Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Phone in and say you know Elliot Friedman! Or that your selling sunglasses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack I called yesterday and the guy hung up on me after I told him that I was a soccer fan. You're not being serious...[xx(] Talk about screening your calls. Well, just mention you wish to talk about the stadium issue, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Metro You're not being serious...[xx(] Talk about screening your calls. Well, just mention you wish to talk about the stadium issue, I guess. I was his first caller yesterday, I told him that I read the Policy committe report and that I support the stadium. He asked me if I read his retarted rant, I said no (how could I have, it was up for like 1 minute before he took my call). I said something about the city getting a stadium for only $10 mil. He asked if I was a soccer fan, I said yes, then he basically hung up on me. I was probably on the air for about 30 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 There were other soccer fans who called in to voice their opinions as well MA. Was you being hung up on because your a soccer fan? Or were you trying to be a smartass on the radio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Gentlemen I will try to get on the air as a former PR/marketing director of the Robbie, The Blizzard, the North York Rockets,the St.Andrew soccer club, The Pickering Soccer Club,SSA,Toronto Soccer Show,Adidas/Coca Cola soccer skills contest and many others, you name it have done it all. He will probably have me on for 29 seconds. But I will try, just to promote soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udinese Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG Did he say that before or after the Raptors got be by Maccabi Tel-Aviv? Oilers on 7 game losing streak. Nough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udinese Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG Sun Media Artcle.... ----------- Not everyone happy with Toronto stadium deal. By DEAN MCNULTY, SUN MEDIA TORONTO -- No matter how you do the math, a proposed 20,000-seat soccer stadium to be built on the Canadian National Exhibition grounds still is nearly $2 million shy of its estimated $64-million construction cost. And the starting price of stadiums, no matter how small, rarely bears any resemblance to its final tally. The City of Toronto and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd. - owners of the Maple Leafs and the Raptors - have agreed in principle to build the facility that will house an expansion Major League Soccer team owned by MLSEL and be home to the 2007 FIFA under-17 world championship and possibly affect Edmonton's hopes to host the final of the tournament at Commonwealth Stadium. $27M FROM FEDS City council approved a scheme this week that would see MLSEL ante up $18 million, the city $9.8 million, the province $8 million and the feds $27 million for the project. According to the deal, the city would be the owner and landlord of the stadium, with MLSEL signing a long-term contract for its proposed soccer squad. Construction of the stadium on the site of the Canadian Autosports Hall of Fame in the lakeshore CNE grounds is scheduled to start in January, just enough time for completion by the 2007 season. MLSEL has an Oct. 31 deadline to get approval for the stadium in order to get an MLS franchise. But not everybody is happy that local taxpayers will have to bear the the brunt for almost $10 million of the stadium's building costs, plus a continuing contribution in annual operating costs. MLS FRANCHISE At a meeting yesterday of the Canadian National Exhibition board of governors, Toronto resident Alan Kasperski spoke against the plan. "This is plain and simple an example of taxpayers subsidizing professional sports," Kasperski said. "MLSEL built the Air Canada Centre at a cost of $250 million using all private money," he said. "So why can't those same people pay for their own soccer stadium?" Kasperski said there appears to be a rush to okay this deal so that MLSEL can get its MSL franchise in time for the 2007 season. "Why can't they play in the Rogers Centre?" he said. "There are a number of MLS teams that currently share National Football League stadiums in their cities." MLSEL president Richard Peddie said the negotiations were difficult and he's not calling it done until it has full council approval, but he's convinced this stadium can make money for both sides. "We're a business and we look for a rate of return," Peddie said. Council's finance committee meets today to give its seal of approval to the deal. http://www.edmontonsun.com/Sports/Soccer/2005/10/20/1270753-sun.html Have you ever had a positive thing to say. Oh ya I recall how you said the Aviaters where going to be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Nice to see you petersoccer. Took you a while to realize that your weren't welcome on BigSoccer did ya. Guess they changed their mind on that lynch mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udinese Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG Another example of having the head up the arse. Head up the Arse is your specialty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.