RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W A snippet from Molinaro's column includes the following: The fact MLSE isn't backing up its words with its own money, however, speaks volumes and should tell you all you need to know about MLS's chances in Toronto. That snippet from Molinaro tells me this guy didn't do his homework. $8 million towards the stadium and more than $10 million for the expansion fee and this guy says MLSE isn't putting any money in? Maybe Mr Molinaro thinks $18 million is nothing worth mentioning but that is money to me, and alot of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstackho Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gordon Edit note: Perhaps some techie can tell me why my effort failed? Put the URL in quotes. e.g. url="www.kenn.com/soccer/mls" And then you'll get this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner That snippet from Molinaro tells me this guy didn't do his homework. $8 million towards the stadium and more than $10 million for the expansion fee and this guy says MLSE isn't putting any money in? Maybe Mr Molinaro thinks $18 million is nothing worth mentioning but that is money to me, and alot of it. Not to mention the $10 million to cover the "naming rights" contribution to stadium costs, which if MLSE think they'll recover it from "naming rights", IMHO, they are dreaming in technicolour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W Not to mention the $10 million to cover the "naming rights" contribution to stadium costs, which if MLSE think they'll recover it from "naming rights", IMHO, they are dreaming in technicolour. Right so MLSE is paying at least $28 million UP FRONT. Paul Martin and co. are giving $27 million. And people act like MLSE is raping everyone else involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmolinaro Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 To be fair, the snippet has been taken out of context; it is in reference to costs associated with the buidling of the stadium, NOT to the total cost to MLSE to acqure a team. If you back and read the article, you'll see that I did state who was paying for what with regards to the construction of the stadium. MLSE is paying $8 million of the $62.8 construction costs in hard cash. $8 million to you and me is a lot of money, but I am sure you would agree in the context of the entire cost of the stadium, it's very little. As I wrote, if MLSE is so sure this is going to work, then they should pay for the stadium (or at least a larger portion of it). That said, I hope I am proven wrong and MLS in Toronto is a huge success. John Molinaro quote:Originally posted by RealGooner That snippet from Molinaro tells me this guy didn't do his homework. $8 million towards the stadium and more than $10 million for the expansion fee and this guy says MLSE isn't putting any money in? Maybe Mr Molinaro thinks $18 million is nothing worth mentioning but that is money to me, and alot of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by johnmolinaro To be fair, the snippet has been taken out of context; it is in reference to costs associated with the buidling of the stadium, NOT to the total cost to MLSE to acqure a team. If you back and read the article, you'll see that I did state who was paying for what with regards to the construction of the stadium. MLSE is paying $8 million of the $62.8 construction costs in hard cash. $8 million to you and me is a lot of money, but I am sure you would agree in the context of the entire cost of the stadium, it's very little. As I wrote, if MLSE is so sure this is going to work, then they should pay for the stadium (or at least a larger portion of it). That said, I hope I am proven wrong and MLS in Toronto is a huge success. John Molinaro John, first of all thank-you for taking the time to respond to us! I disagree that MLSE should be required to pay for the bulk of the stadium. Why should they pay for something that they will not own? The CSA wants a stadium for 2007 . They brought $35 million from 2 government levels, and its being built. The city wants a soccer stadium, and bring $9.5 million cash and $10 million value property at the Ex, and they get the keys to the park. MLSE wants an MLS team, so they pay $18 million and get a place to put the team (which also will cost them a further $11 million just to get one. Looking at it from this angle, I think that this is a partnership that benefits everyone. I believe that there is so much focus on MLSE simply because the McCown and Pekins act are making so much noise about it. Why don't you ask why the government doesn't put more money in if they are so big on hosting World Youth Cup 2007? How often are tenants in a rental appartment supposed to pay for most of its construction? Anyway I hope MLS works out and we have a great WYV 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmolinaro Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Regarding: "I disagree that MLSE should be required to pay for the bulk of the stadium. Why should they pay for something that they will not own?" I agree totally with that... they should own it if they were paying for it. No arguement there. But I also think that the feds, province and local government should not fund the stadium with tax funds. If not for the tax money that was already on the table, I am fairly certain MLSE would not be going after an MLS club. In my mind, if MLSE wants a soccer franchise, they should build the stadium themselves (which they would then own) and pay for the franchise themselves (which they already are). That's just my view. Again, I hope MLSE and MLS prove me 100% wrong and the franchise is a success. John Molinaro quote:Originally posted by RealGooner John, first of all thank-you for taking the time to respond to us! I disagree that MLSE should be required to pay for the bulk of the stadium. Why should they pay for something that they will not own? The CSA wants a stadium for 2007 . They brought $35 million from 2 government levels, and its being built. The city wants a soccer stadium, and bring $9.5 million cash and $10 million value property at the Ex, and they get the keys to the park. MLSE wants an MLS team, so they pay $18 million and get a place to put the team (which also will cost them a further $11 million just to get one. Looking at it from this angle, I think that this is a partnership that benefits everyone. I believe that there is so much focus on MLSE simply because the McCown and Pekins act are making so much noise about it. Why don't you ask why the government doesn't put more money in if they are so big on hosting World Youth Cup 2007? How often are tenants in a rental appartment supposed to pay for most of its construction? Anyway I hope MLS works out and we have a great WYV 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 This story gives a different set of numbers, with $53 million as the cost and MLSE's contributions reduced in both construction costs and naming rights. It is out of the US, so it may be inaccurate. Can anyone confirm for sure that the numbers we have been assuming are correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gordon This story gives a different set of numbers, with $53 million as the cost and MLSE's contributions reduced in both construction costs and naming rights. It is out of the US, so it may be inaccurate. Can anyone confirm for sure that the numbers we have been assuming are correct? Err, I think those numbers are in US dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W Err, I think those numbers are in US dollars. D'oh! Of course they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by johnmolinaro Regarding: "I disagree that MLSE should be required to pay for the bulk of the stadium. Why should they pay for something that they will not own?" I agree totally with that... they should own it if they were paying for it. No arguement there. But I also think that the feds, province and local government should not fund the stadium with tax funds. If not for the tax money that was already on the table, I am fairly certain MLSE would not be going after an MLS club. In my mind, if MLSE wants a soccer franchise, they should build the stadium themselves (which they would then own) and pay for the franchise themselves (which they already are). That's just my view. Again, I hope MLSE and MLS prove me 100% wrong and the franchise is a success. I can respect this point of view and always have. I know many good soccer fans I've talked to that do not agree with tax funds for the facility regardless of the premise on which those funds were promised. That's a philosophical difference that some of us have and a fair one. However, the point is now moot as it has been approved. May MLS prosper and the stadium reap enormous profits for manager and owner alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmolinaro Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Totally agree with you. the point is now moot. We should all move on and wish MLSE and MLS the best of success. John That's a philosophical difference that some of us have and a fair one. However, the point is now moot as it has been approved. May MLS prosper and the stadium reap enormous profits for manager and owner alike. quote:Originally posted by Andrew W I can respect this point of view and always have. I know many good soccer fans I've talked to that do not agree with tax funds for the facility regardless of the premise on which those funds were promised. That's a philosophical difference that some of us have and a fair one. However, the point is now moot as it has been approved. May MLS prosper and the stadium reap enormous profits for manager and owner alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 What's wrong with tax dollars being used to pay for soccer stadiums? Tax dollars pay for everything else under the sun. How many stadiums/arenas for the NHL and CFL WERE NOT built using tax dollars? If MLSE tried to fund the team purchase, that would be a different story.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by River City What's wrong with tax dollars being used to pay for soccer stadiums? Tax dollars pay for everything else under the sun. How many stadiums/arenas for the NHL and CFL WERE NOT built using tax dollars? If MLSE tried to fund the team purchase, that would be a different story.... Well, from my point of view, nothing; but to others it is the last thing tax dollars should be paying for. I respect that point of view whether it comes from an anti-soccer psycho or a soccer-loving fiscal conservative. I don't share the same viewpoint, but respect it. Regardless of past precedent, it doesn't necessarily make it "right". It's a philosophical difference, not a matter of right or wrong IMHO. Some may see it otherwise. [8D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 All philosophical arguments aside, I'm looking at this purely from the perspective of a soccer fan. My big worry about the 'no tax dollars for stadiums' angle is that without tax dollars there would be no stadium at all. Soccer is still small fry in Canada so in the absense of a Greg Kerfoot type of investor who will spend $60 million for the love of the game, a Toronto SSS probably wouldn't happen. I don't like baseball, I'm not interested in the Argos, but they both play in a park my dolars helped build. I'm glad that for once some of my tax dollars are going into something that I can enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 I am a fiscal conservative although my stance on arts and sports eliminates me from ever receiving an award from the Fraser Institute. From a business point of view, it makes sense to assist in funding projects that will improve the quality of life. If you're a young, hotshot 20 accountant and you have a choice between Toronto and Vancouver, the final decision may come down to simple things like number of parks, or pro sports teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner The CSA wants a stadium for 2007 . They brought $35 million from 2 government levels, and its being built. The city wants a soccer stadium, and bring $9.5 million cash and $10 million value property at the Ex, and they get the keys to the park. MLSE wants an MLS team, so they pay $18 million and get a place to put the team (which also will cost them a further $11 million just to get one. Looking at it from this angle, I think that this is a partnership that benefits everyone. I believe that there is so much focus on MLSE simply because the McCown and Pekins act are making so much noise about it. Why don't you ask why the government doesn't put more money in if they are so big on hosting World Youth Cup 2007? How often are tenants in a rental appartment supposed to pay for most of its construction? Anyway I hope MLS works out and we have a great WYV 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by River City What's wrong with tax dollars being used to pay for soccer stadiums? Tax dollars pay for everything else under the sun. How many stadiums/arenas for the NHL and CFL WERE NOT built using tax dollars? If MLSE tried to fund the team purchase, that would be a different story.... ACC....for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Forget the Eurosnob market, you can't 'cater' to any market specifically. The Lynx, I feel, tried to cater to the youth market and at times it had disasterous effects. The only Lynx game I ever went to was 'Millenium School Day'. I dragged a friend along and was sitting near some English kids whose club was touring southern Ontario. Thousands of adolescents fighting and screaming for t-shirts and running around. I found it annoying, my friend (who is not really a soccer fan) was totally turned off and the English kids looked horrified. MLS has tried to cater to markets and everytime they allocate a big name to LA it backfires spectacularly. My favourite example of this is Raul Diaz Arce who became a star for DC United and the pride of Salvadorean community there. Then he got shipped off to San Jose (for cap reasons IIRC) and the Salvadoreans still came to RFK en masse - whenever Arce came to town. They made it like an away game for DC United because they were more loyal to RDA than the club. I think for the club to be successful they need to work with clubs and the OSA , they could use a name player who will help them gain attention from serious supporters and also far more importantly, help them win on the pitch. I would go after some homegrown players and use that angle. The most important thing is obviously to win and I think if they do that and play attractive soccer, the fans of Toronto will come out and support them well. I think they'll struggle to play .500 out of the gate the first year and I'm going to enter the crackhead pool with an entry of 13,400. As far as tax dollars go, I'm very happy some of my federal tax dollars are going to help the WYC/stadium in Toronto/MLS team. That's a pretty good use of tax dollars IMO. I live somewhere in desperate need of a new hockey rink and curling rink. There's a lot of talk about a multiplex and the bulk of the money needed for one is already in the City's coffers in the form of a rainy day fund. Council are hesitant to spend the money as most councils are I guess. Call me crazy, but I would like for my tax dollars to actually be spent on something instead of hoarded. There was just an urban renewal conference in Regina with people from all over discussing those issues and one of the main points was that whenever budgets get tight cultural things - theatres, programs, festivals, sporting venues, money to keep downtown vibrant etc. are the first to go. Yet when people talk about what makes them proud of their cities, what makes their cities unique it's the sports/the cultural things that come out first. The things that give a place an identity are the lowest priority for most councils. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote: How are the tenants (in your analogy) puting "most of the construction cost"? Even if they don't sell the naming rights, MLSE is puting in $18MM of a total of over $70MM (I, for one, think you need to include the land in the cost), how is that "most"? To continue your analogy, the tenant in the apartment building does not get to share in the profits of the building. I think what has people wrankled/confused about this whole thing is that it now is two buildings, primarily financed by tax dollars, that MLSE manages and shares in the profit....all with minimal (relative to their size)investment. I have no problem with MLSE, just wonder if they are outsmarting the politicians and their aides. TOareaFan, I think you are misreading my analogy. I was trying to say that to ask MLSE to pay for most of the cost of a stadium that they will not own is like asking future residents of a rental appartment to pay most of the cost of its construction, but not own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan ACC....for one. Is that the norm or the exception? How many total? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W I don't know if anyone has seen this, but CBC has a subsection on MLS coming to Toronto. CBC on MLS Thanks for the link. Great to see the publicity so far, and MLSE has even starting promoting the team yet. Its going to be like night vs. day in the Toronto area with respect to the promotion of pro soccer to what we've had the past 10 years. Case in point - anyone notice this part from the CBC FAQ: "Are there any Canadian teams currently in MLS? Toronto will become the first Canadian club in MLS history. The Vancouver Whitecaps and the Montreal Impact currently compete in the United Soccer League (formerly known as the A-League), which is the soccer equivalent of hockey's American Hockey League. MLS has indicated further expansion in Canada is an option sometime down the road." Notice which USL Div. 1 team isn't even mentioned in the paragraph. I guess I should be ripping apart the author of the FAQ (whoever it is) for shoddy journalism (there is another question in the FAQ which is also poorly answered, re: whether the MLS will "de-classify" Canadian players as internationals), but I think the fact that it was this easy to forget/omit/not even know about (whatever the case may be) the Lynx speaks volumes. Hopefully loud enough to get the point through to those people who think there will be no difference in Toronto between the Hartrell-run USL team and the MLSE run MLS team. As for the point/counter-point article, I strongly disagree with John Molinaro's point of view, but that should come as no surprise. Apart from the dubious tactic of linking the fact that MLSE are not funding the entire stadium when they were presented with $35 million of gov't cash from the get go (what did you expect them to do John, tell the gov't "no thanks, take your money back we've got $35 million of our own to use"?) to the issue of whether people will be interested in the product itself (which is the only factor in the end that will decide whether it succeeds), the biggest mistake of all, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this (if you are reading John, you'll be the 3rd journalist I have had to correct on this in the past week), the NASL Blizzard did not fail. The NASL failed, not the Blizzard. Not the Blizzard's fault, nor the City of Toronto and its soccer supporters, that they had no teams to play against other than the Cosmos after 1984. Not much point in having a two team league. This isn't a bit of soccer fanatic nit-picking on my part, this is a major fact to get correct as it very much undermines the argument that MLS in Toronto will fail because of similar past failures....since there aren't any similar past failures. If you want to argue the MLS in Toronto will fail because the league will fail and fold like the NASL did, that's one thing. But there is no past history of failure of the Blizzard in the NASL on which to base an argument that the same will happen to an equivalent MLS franchise. If there is an argument, it has to be based on actual facts, rather than journalistic myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by River City Is that the norm or the exception? How many total? Well, it's the only one I can see from my office window so it came immediately to mind. Pretty sure the Corel Centre was privately financed (I believe they even had to build the highway interchange to the rink). Let me think on.....oh yeah the Molson/Bell Centre was privately financed (I think) and I can't say how much public (if any) money went into GM Place. Saddledome and Skyreach, I believe, were built by the cities in prep for the "Games" (Olympic and Commonwealth). CFL stadiums, with the exception of Rogers Centre and McGill, are all owned by the cities (again, I am not researching this just digging into my memory bank). McGill, as you know, is owned by the university but they gained big time as it was falling apart and needed fixing or closing. Along came a U2 concert, the Als move into McGill and then fixed the thing up in leiu of rent payments. I think everyone knows the story of the SkyDome/Rogers Centre by now. Although, I do think that people tend to overstate the "drop in value" from $600 million to $25 million. Firstly, one of the factors in the cost increasing to $600 million was, simply, the overtime cost of running a 24 hour a day construction site which was put in place because of some artificial deadline to get it complete (I read somewhere, once a long time ago, that that amounted to +/- $100 million of the increase). The cost also included the construction of the Hotel complex attached to the stadium which was subsequently (1999) severed (legally not physically) from the stadium and sold off separately. I recently read a report that hotels, on average, in Toronto are worth $195,000 per room although the report states that this is above the "historical norm" of $175,000 per room. Even if we use a lower number of, say, $150,000 per room, that hotel (350 rooms) was probably sold for over $50 million....so your adjusted cost is down to $450,000,000. Still a lot more than $25 million you say...well yes but even that purchase price is not totally accurate as the previous owners were committed to paying the Jays something like $45 million (again, just recalling the number it could be a bit more or a bit less) which represented premium tickets (boxes etc) which the stadium would resell to box holders. That amount was forgiven when the stadium was sold to Rogers....so now that sale price is up to $70 million. Then add in the needed repairs (age depreciation meant money had to be spent and it became the new owners not the old that did it) and I think you are close to a $100 million dollar adjusted price!. Now, the stadium has still sold for +/- 25% of its "cost" but it is no where near as alarming as "$650 million to $25 million" as is often reported. Considering that Rogers were the only buyer in the market (likely....I don't know that for fact) and you might see this as more of a "good buy" than anything else. Ah, I digress....but, actually, it is an interesting study to see how much more private money, generally, goes into stadiums/arenas in "left leaning" Canada as opposed to our "right wing/capitalist" neighbours to the south. Another interesting (to me) story goes back to when the ACC was first planned. There was a city owned "strip" of land (if I recall it was a couple of feet wide and quite long) that was needed to complete the site. On its own, the land had no real economic value. As part of the arena site, however, someone pinned a value of +/- $1 million. So afraid of being seen as subsidizing pro sports at that time, the city made the teams exchange a private box that was to be used for fundraising/social purposes (needy kids etc.) rather than just gift the previously worthless piece of land to the project! How times have changed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Were there any land grants made? Tax holidays offered? In Edmonton, Rexall is owned by the city and managed by Northlands. A company that leases all that real estate for $1 a year from the city. Ever since Pocklington left, the Oilers are treated as a renter (a good renter mind you), instead of as masters of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Stadiums may play home to teams and fans, but economically the do nothing for a community. Building this MLS stadium will generate about as much economic activity as opening up a winners on that spot. Lets just leave that soccer and MSLE made out like bandits with the 35 million handed to them...35 million for at best 20 dates with a grand total of 12000 an event...sounds like a waste... http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/07/20/154956.html Bunk. Study after study finds stadiums cost far more than they return. "Assume it did create a thousand jobs," economist Mark Rosentraub, author of "Major League Losers," told me. Then a $170-million stadium costs $170,000 for every single job. "You could have done better just saying to the people who would have been hired, here's $50,000 -- start a business!" and As an analysis of the new Baltimore Ravens football stadium conducted by the State of Maryland shows, the stadium demonstrates particularly well the lackluster economic impact of major entertainment facilities on urban revitalization. An early consultants' report prepared for stadium boosters presented an optimistic scenario, partly assuming that a significant fraction of game attendees would rent a Baltimore hotel room on game night. Yet a subsequent analysis by Maryland's Economic Development Department concluded that the state's then-projected $177 million stadium investment would produce only 1,394 full-time jobs. This implies a staggering cost to taxpayers of $127,000 per job. A more recent study by the Maryland General Assembly's Office of Policy Analysis concludes that the new football stadium would create only 889 jobs, amounting to a cost of $200,000 per job. 5 Dennis Zimmerman, the Congressional Research Service's expert on stadium financing, puts this costly job-generating performance in perspective by noting in a recent report that another Maryland jobs program, the "Sunny Day Fund," cost the government $6,250 for each new job it created. 6 Baltimore's poor return on the public's investment in sports stadiums is typical of the lackluster job-generating experience of such entertainment facilities. Robert Baade, professor of economics at Lake Forest College, studied 48 cities over a 30-year period. In the 32 cities that experienced a change in the number of sports teams, 30 saw no change in per capita income, one improved, and one worsened. Of 30 cities experiencing a change in the number of stadiums or arenas, 27 showed no influence on income, but three experienced significant negative effects. 7 A more recent study published by the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., echoed these findings. It concluded that "A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment." 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.