RS Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 quote:Originally posted by 10 You should really look into things more, or run the risk of losing any legitimacy. It impossible to lose what isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 quote:Originally posted by 10 G-Man, I second the notion that you take a look at economics for dummies. Or better yet a first year accounting book. The gov agreed to cover losses on stadium operations >250k. True. But you are mixing up and terribly oversimplifying some numbers from stadium and team operations. For one, stadium and team operations are completely seperate i.e. the ACC does not include "Leafs Salaries" in its income statement....... You should really look into things more, or run the risk of losing any legitimacy. Maybe G-man is off in his research, I don't know, but you can't be suggesting that this is a good deal for anyone but MLSE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan Maybe G-man is off in his research, I don't know, but you can't be suggesting that this is a good deal for anyone but MLSE? Why can't he be? The City puts in $9 million and gets a $62 million facility. Its obviously a good deal for the CSA who get a stadium, tournament, MLS team and a sports empire involved in soccer. And its a good deal for soccer fans in the city. That's three groups outside of MLSE, and its MLSE that are facing the highest risk as has been pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 quote:Originally posted by 10 G-Man, I second the notion that you take a look at economics for dummies. Or better yet a first year accounting book. The gov agreed to cover losses on stadium operations >250k. True. But you are mixing up and terribly oversimplifying some numbers from stadium and team operations. For one, stadium and team operations are completely seperate i.e. the ACC does not include "Leafs Salaries" in its income statement....... You should really look into things more, or run the risk of losing any legitimacy. At the end of the day, the naming right to the stadium ensures an operating profit on the team if it's run within the MLS cap. And please, MLSE is MLSE at the end of the day. Whether they make a million on the stadium and lose a 300 thousand on the team- MLSE corporating has made 700,000 dollars. This is why the team ownership of the stadiums they play is the main argument behind the rash of SSS contruction. If you can own the venue, you start to make money. And the MLSE just got a 70 Million stadium for 18 million. A sweet ass welfare deal if there ever was one. AND the best part of it--they never have to pay property taxes on it or pay for a plumber to fix an overflowing toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franky Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 oh well Goof-woMAN, tough luck, i guess MLSE has swindled all of you, once and for all. your loss, our gain, nah, nah, nah, nah, you are a sucka. GOD BLESS MLSE!!!! We Have MLS and the rest of Canada can deal with USL, pffff. Heck, we will offer any place in Canada the Hartrells as owners, for nothing, free, ala gratis. we have a stadia for nothing and you guys have.....ermmm....nothing to boot, hahaha. we got a stadia and no one else in Canada got one, hehehe. Toronto is COFU baby. here in T.O., there are ongoing classes on how to get things for free from the government and the rest of Canada, didn't you know that by now, Goof-ball woMAN. GIVE IT A REST!!, you have become an annoying broken record. repeating the same jibberish over and over again. Better yet, send me an address, so i can send you some tissues for all those tears your are shedding, boohoo. PS- have you gathered all your Gay buddies for our home opener next year, we really need all the support we can get from all circles of life, we're not homophobic you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegasAlexandros1555362277 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Well... wasn't that mature.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanKeay Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Thats the only way G-man gets anything u have to stoop to his level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegasAlexandros1555362277 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Well if you stoop to his level, then that doesn't make you any better does it. You guys gotta grow a thicker skin. I'm a member of several different forums, and in any public forum, there will always be people who might rub you the wrong way... and responding to them in kind is not the best to way to go about dealing with them. Now, just so that I'm not accused of hijacking the thread.. are there no updated renderings, models or plans for the stadium... if construction has begun, somebody surely has a blueprint somewhere??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 G-Man is making many valid points. MLSE is not taking much risk. The plan all along has been to lose money on the actual team (which is more of a long-term investment which has huge potential), and to make money on operating the stadium. This deal really is starting to smell. And I'm afraid, if people like Perkins or McCowan get some evidence, it will be soccer that pays the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Someone please correct me if i am wrong but isn't the stadium owned by the city of Toronto...with MLSE being in charge of managing it(for obvious reasons). This is what was said in the orignal media release. Now, without knowing the particulars of the deal this would involve some sort of revenue sharing between the two parties. The major revenue streams for sports facilities are gate, luxury suites and concessions. If the city of Toronto owns the stadium then I can see them getting a large portion of two of those streams...the city's share probably grows when the mls team isnt the tenant using the stadium. Although advertising and naming rights are treated seperately they probably trump all of these. People are saying MLSE has got everything but a first born son out of this deal but I don't think it was a risk-free as some think. Obviously mlse are smart with their investments but they are the ones paying 10 mm in capital to secure naming rights. Who besides mlse would have the leverage to sell naming rights for a sss in an unproven market?? if they make a pretty penny from it - well good for them, they are the ones that paid 10 mm up front! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Observer Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I completely agree with you 10. Most people on this forum just don't understand finance and offsetting risk. If I was a company in the business of providing certain services to certain clients and I had to put $9m to get a $60m asset where the interest on the $9m would be more than covered by the share of revenues from that assets (ie. parking and other concessions), if I was that company I would call that a sweetheart deal. The fact that you can off load the remaining risk of $10m on that $60m asset by selling naming rights to another commercial entity in which you have no expertise is a very good deal. You are essentially entering into an almost riskless deal whereby you get a $60m asset for nothing and some additional revenue both directly through the stadium and indirectly through taxes generated by employment, further commercial activity in the vicinity of the stadium. The idiots would have the city take more risk by retaining the naming rights and trying to flock them thereselves. The core of good business is to do what you know and outsource what you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by MegasAlexandros Well if you stoop to his level, then that doesn't make you any better does it. You guys gotta grow a thicker skin. I'm a member of several different forums, and in any public forum, there will always be people who might rub you the wrong way... and responding to them in kind is not the best to way to go about dealing with them. I think you are probably taking Franky's post a little too seriously, a lot of it was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Don't worry, we have a thick skin, if we didn't we would have left this board several years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by 10 Someone please correct me if i am wrong but isn't the stadium owned by the city of Toronto...with MLSE being in charge of managing it(for obvious reasons). You are correct. quote: Although advertising and naming rights are treated seperately they probably trump all of these. People are saying MLSE has got everything but a first born son out of this deal but I don't think it was a risk-free as some think. Obviously mlse are smart with their investments but they are the ones paying 10 mm in capital to secure naming rights. Who besides mlse would have the leverage to sell naming rights for a sss in an unproven market?? if they make a pretty penny from it - well good for them, they are the ones that paid 10 mm up front! Precisely. Also, MLSE, apart from taking the risk on soccer (which all of the naysayers on the forum have repeatedly told us can't possibly work in Toronto), are also taking risk of running up millions dollars in construction costs in getting the stadium built on time for the 2007 WYC, which it seems people are able to forget very easily. When was the last major construction work of this kind that anybody has seen come in on or under budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I think you are probably taking Franky's post a little too seriously, a lot of it was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Don't worry, we have a thick skin, if we didn't we would have left this board several years ago. Amen, I got the joke, lets not take that post seriously....its all just fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by MegasAlexandros Well... wasn't that mature.... It's what happens when you don't have an educated comeback to someone making valid points. And I doubt that MLSE or the contruction company will be penalized if the stadium isn't ready. If they are, it's hasn't been reported anywhere. And any missed MLS home games can be shifted to the best gosh darn stadium in the world (circa 1988-1996)"the skydome" or they can be played on the road as Dallas did in 2005. lets not forget that a very all together Wembley project, failed to make it's opening date... As for the idiots (I take this is direct at me) who think the stadium should be solely run by the city, I have an idead for those that think that outsourcing of it's management is simply the best way to go: If a private organization wants to start up a business, they run it and own the facility they use for it. They then pay taxes on the property. The city shouldn't be involved in the least bit. They also are respnosible for any loses they may occur and get to keep 100% of profit- save taxes. It sets a bad precident for the city to offer this deal to MLSE- as others will expect the same deal, from Ford to the corner store. Soon the city will have no property tax base- as it'll own evert bussiness property in the city. And you'll end up closing public parks and cutting back on services. Like the TTC and sanitation. But it'll be all worth it if Franky, Sean and G-L get their matching scarves. I said it earlier. The deal only gets better when MLSE buys the Argos and moves them into the new SSS. Maybe then they'll suck the city into adding an upper deck....see that by the end of 2008. So a national soccer stadium with Fieldturf™ and permanent football lines. SWEET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by G-Man It's what happens when you don't have an educated comeback to someone making valid points. So says the guy who yesterday posted a suggestion to me to wipe Kevan Pipe's rear end....... Let us know when you decide to avoid total hypocrisy. We might start paying attention to your posts again at that time. Over and out. [|)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca So says the guy who yesterday posted a suggestion to me to wipe Kevan Pipe's rear end....... Let us know when you decide to avoid total hypocrisy. We might start paying attention to your posts again at that time. Over and out. [|)] I not suggesting it- i telling you you'd do it. You are biggest CSA management booster going. If Kevin called, you get yourself there as quick as you could. Wet nap in hand. No WC berth since 86 and the guy is a god in your eyee, cause he's bringing your hometown a MLS team. It's not hypocrisy- it's simply pointing out the obvious. If you're going to be such a complete CSA company man- be proud of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by G-Man I not suggesting it- i telling you you'd do it. You are biggest CSA management booster going. If Kevin called, you get yourself there as quick as you could. Wet nap in hand. No WC berth since 86 and the guy is a god in your eyee, cause he's bringing your hometown a MLS team. It's not hypocrisy- it's simply pointing out the obvious. If you're going to be such a complete CSA company man- be proud of it. It is hypocrisy and everyone knows it. Of course, what you are alleging about me isn't even true, never mind obvious, and is yet another pathetic and failed attempt to take a shot at me, while also demonstrating an apparent obssession and fascination that you have with male asses (perhaps we were all wrong and the "G" stands for "Gluteus Maximus"). Not that there is anything wrong with that of course - if you are going to be such a complete male ass fan, be proud of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca It is hypocrisy and everyone knows it. Of course, what you are alleging about me isn't even true, never mind obvious, and is yet another pathetic and failed attempt to take a shot at me, while also demonstrating an apparent obssession and fascination that you have with male asses (perhaps we were all wrong and the "G" stands for "Gluteus Maximus"). Not that there is anything wrong with that of course - if you are going to be such a complete male ass fan, be proud of it. This from the guy who said I was talking out of my ass. Which he'd know since his nose has spent so much time up them. Still, I took it as a sort of compliment, as the ass is a decent and much-admired communicative tool. There was a Catalan who went to Paris in the 1890s to work in music hall, I think he called himself Pedo-Man or something like that, and he would make songs with his farts, as a cabaret act. The avant-garde types like Picasso loved it, it was so irreverent, but also fit with the idea that the long, elaborated, rhetorically overblown discourse of bourgeois aesthetics was so conservative and reactionary in the end that the ass was a better tool than most mouths to base a cultural revolution on. Won't even get into how fields such as psychiatry in parallel to this moment began to recover a concept of anal looseness as relatively positive, in contrast to anal retentiveness. Later the surrealists would have a field day with this stuff, as would Bataille. I guess, since I am off topic, then, that this should be taken as a compliment. To all the fellow ass-centred types out there. Including you maybe G-L. But getting back on subject: when are we going to get that Voyaguer webcam set up on the construction site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Domi Rulezz Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 This is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Domi Rulezz Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. But getting back on subject: when are we going to get that Voyaguer webcam set up on the construction site? After you disconnect it from Daniel Fernandes' bathroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 well G-L, I do love men in scarves. What a bunch of homophobes, on top the MLS/CSA lemming aspect. Yup the locals will be signing up for the MLS Ultras on mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Domi Rulezz Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by G-Man What a bunch of homophobes G-Man = The prototype of open-mindedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 quote:Originally posted by G-Man well G-L, I do love men in scarves. Unfortunately Tom Baker doesn't wear his anymore. quote: What a bunch of homophobes, on top the MLS/CSA lemming aspect. Yup the locals will be signing up for the MLS Ultras on mass. You wish we were homophobes. Just admit it - your favourite soccer player is Ed Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. This from the guy who said I was talking out of my ass. "Was"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.