john tv Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 surprise surprise, good old Jerkins pulled a new one this time tying in the upcoming elections and the new proposed stadium.I read it and smiled knowing that this is a last kick at the cat,however this time trying to influence federal elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Brutal article. I'm surprised that the pro-Liberal Star would let him get away with it. http://tinyurl.com/8kheg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Brutal article. I'm surprised that the pro-Liberal Star would let him get away with it. http://tinyurl.com/8kheg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cndsoccer Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 This guy is a joke(jerkins), how does he get away with this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 I have been warning your guys,a very important topic of discussion this Sunday. I don't know what else to call but a defenite smell of ..... fill in the blanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I should congratulate the guy for writing such a hilarious article. The guy is apparently not even aware that the U20 WYC is not a Toronto only event (otherwise why advocated for four upgraded Toronto venues - plus the Skydome - to be use for the event). This is despite the fact that anyone who has been to the four venues in question knows that there is no way you could meaningfully upgrade those four stadiums to get them to the necessary size & quality (before we embarass ourselves in front of the world playing in Esther Shriner stadium) for a lot less than $27 Million. With this article he has really shown his total ignorance of the whole situation. I think a few emails to the Star pointing out the lack of credibility this guy has with the public as a result of these articles might be in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zacRWE Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 A brutal article. I was astonished at the crap tha came out of this prats mouth. Ya, lets have Brazil and Holland, USA and Nigeria, England and Argentina all the other soccer powers play games at Centennial Stadium.... I would be ashamed. As far as upgrading all four, good luck... Lambport is a zestpool and not worth the drive to Acton. As far as tying this into a political mess, what a knob. This deal was placed before any electon was called. And as far as I know, if the Conservatives were to win the election, they have said they would go along with all monies already commited to the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Its a last-ditch desperation try to screw things up, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Its a last-ditch desperation try to screw things up, basically. I have a funny feeling that we may see some sort of retraction in the days to follow. Or some sort of appology from the paper. IMO this really crossing the line. Specifically, So Tannenbaum happens to have some affilalition to a party. Well there are really only 2 or 3 major federal political parties in Ontario. Odds are one in three that it happens to be the one that was in office at the time that the funds were approved. Furthermore, the approval of the funds was contingent on financing from three different levels of Government and approved long before MLSE was ever involved. I hope Tannebaum sues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Free kick I hope Tannebaum sues. In my un-professional opinion (I'm not a libel or defamation lawyer), I think he does have a good case. It doesn't take much to read between the lines as to what Perkins is suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca In my un-professional opinion (I'm not a libel or defamation lawyer), I think he does have a good case. It doesn't take much to read between the lines as to what Perkins is suggesting. Yeah, I was looking forward to your response on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 It is so amazing and so flagrant and was so predictable and yet it seems that he may get away with it. Any lawsuit may also make it worse, whatever happens it will not be nice at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Here's the text of an email I sent to Perkins. Despite the message being entitled "Congratulations on your article" chances are he won't read it, so just to ensure somebody does I thought I'd post it here: Dear Mr. Perkins, Thank you very much for your article published in the Toronto Star today on the soccer stadium and the Federal government’s. It was most amusing. I particularly enjoyed your hysterically funny suggestion that for much less than $27 Million dollars they are spending, four municipal “stadiums” could be upgraded and subsequently used to host the 2007 World Youth Soccer Championships. Apart from the fact that anybody who has ever been to those four “stadiums” (which presumably does not include you) knows that you would need a great deal more than that amount of money to make those “stadiums” serviceable for a prestigious international soccer tournament to be watched by millions around the world that will feature the biggest sporting stars of tomorrow, it is absolutely hilarious that you are giving off the suggestion that the 2007 World Youth Soccer Championships are to be held solely in Toronto, rather than all across Canada, which is actually the case. (Why else would you suggest that Toronto would have FIVE of the venues of this six-venue event?). Nice to see that you are on the ball when it comes to Canadian sporting issues once again. The irony of course is that anti-soccer members of the media constantly are providing us with their opinion that soccer isn’t a popular sport to watch in Toronto or Canada, just for amateurs and little-leaguers to play. To avoid total embarrassment for Canada in front of the entire world, you would need to upgrade all four municipal stadiums to sit at least 10,000 participants minimum. Unfortunately afterwards you wouldn’t have four teams that would be able to regularly fill the stands (according to the North American anti-soccer sports journalist edict). Recreational soccer of course doesn’t need four 10,000 seat stadiums in Toronto. So in order to avoid having a 20,000 seater that will be regularly used, we could instead have four baby white elephants. What a wonderful way to spend taxpayers money – don’t give them something they could use and need, lets give them four things they won’t use or don’t need – which will cost them more! Brilliant stuff!! The tears of laughter have been coming down my eyes with the thought of Argentina playing Germany at Esther Shriner Stadium with capacity expanded to seat 3000. Even better is the thought of a first round match between Italy and Brazil at Birchmount Stadium with several hundred members of the world’s press squished like sardines into a tiny press box that isn’t big enough to hold four Keebler Elves. I can stop giggling at the thought of any two international teams playing at Centennial Stadium, which has a pitch that’s too small for international soccer and is surrounded by a track, as they run down the pitch for the first time and wonder where the rest of the pitch has suddenly gone. I can’t wait to see the expression of the players, coaches, fans and officials from those nations unfortunate enough to be placed at Lamport Stadium when they see that a giant fishing net has to be erected behind one of the goals in order to prevent traffic accidents happening on King St. – such huge meshes are of course common place at soccer stadiums around the world. I smile at the thought of inviting the world to come and sit on a few decrepid wooden benches to watch the stars of tomorrow. Most of all I get a warm hearted glow of the thought of the powers that be taking you up on your suggestion at having these games played in a group of bush-league facilities in one city in Canada and having FIFA, the world soccer authority, take the tournament away from Canada altogether as a result and give it to the US instead. Thank you again for the article – it was the most hilarious piece I’ve read in decades! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Well done Gian-Luca. Of course there is also the hilarious omission of the fact the the money was allocated, what, 1 or 2 years prior to Tannenbaum's or MLSE's involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Have to wonder if this Perkins guy has ever attended a WYC event or even watched one on TV, clearly he knows nothing of what he writes on the subject. The fact that the WYC is second only in size and significance on the world soccer stage to the FIFA World Cup apparently has escaped him. Regrettably there are plenty of Star readers who are equally ignorant who will accept what he writes as gospel because they read it somewhere. I hope somebody sues his pants off and his newspaper. The underlying political message was equally despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard Have to wonder if this Perkins guy has ever attended a WYC event or even watched one on TV, clearly he knows nothing of what he writes on the subject. I don't think there is any question that he hasn't - I just wonder if he's ever attended any soccer match or watched one on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 How the hell you worked in PR I'll never know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Who works in PR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Great article G.L I am delighted to see your comment about the media. I have been practically castrated by some of our board guys and as I said it brought a smile to my face. I did forecast this stuff and I did because it follows a pattern. I can tell you that Jerkins is not respedcted or even liked by his colleauges so maybe it shows this way,trying to get them over to his side,maybe trying to please them other jerks.It is all a mishmash of jerkolian fed with inferiority and downright good old hatred or deep dislikes.They will ignore whatever we throw at them because they know beforehand what the reaction will be. Oh Ja maybe I am gathering some believers on this board and maybe you will realize that our game has to be fought at the media levels, it is that important. GL for prime minister! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 It is funny but when I read the article I didn't get the same level of anger that the rest of you seem to have. I think it is a bit of a stretch to try and make a political scandal out of this but that seems to be the flavour of the day in journalism. As for the concept of renovating rather than building new, I agree. In fact I was all over that (on boards and in letters to politicians) when the CSA was looking for a place to build their new stadium. Only difference is that I was advocating using as much of the $35 million available ($8 million of provincial funds on top of the feds $27 million) to bring Lamport up to snuff and then use the balance to improve facilities in other cities. I think it is unfair to try to imagine these young stars playing at the current Lamport when the proposal would be to spend millions improving it....just not $72 million! I bet that using half of that $35 million on Lamport could have delivered a cozy, comfortable, functional 15,000 seat stadium that would have been good for the tournament and our current needs....it just would not have been sufficient for MLS! I guess that is what bothers some of the critics....if we could have done everything we needed for the tournament for $20 million or so but needed to do more for MLS, then every penny above that figure can be seen as a subsidy to MLSE and MLS. No where in the article does Mr. Perkins suggest that the entire tournament be held in Toronto. He just suggests that you could improve 4 stadiums for the price of one and then slot games into the stadiums according to their drawing power. Since the final is likely to be in Edmonton, what do we need a stadium over, say, 15,000 for anyway? Before you start saying this is a big event with big crowds....I looked at some of the match reports from the 2005 tournament on FIFA.com and this is what I found: Opening match Benin (who?) v Australia 4,500 attendance Match 2 Holland (host nation first matc) v Japan 19,500 Round of 16 Holland (host nation!) v Chile 10,900 Quarter Final Germany v Brazil 10,000 Semi Final Brazil v Argentina 16,500 Semi Final Morocco v Nigeria 17,000 The Final Nigeria v Argentina 24,500 This is a big event....just not one with huge crowds....and this was in a traditional football country. Aside from the scandal aspect, I see nothing wrong with Mr. Perkins view on the stadium choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polish_LYNX_Fan Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 A Brazil_germany game would draw way more thatn 10K here. Hell half the stadium would be waving pork-chop flags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan I think it is unfair to try to imagine these young stars playing at the current Lamport when the proposal would be to spend millions improving it....just not $72 million! I bet that using half of that $35 million on Lamport could have delivered a cozy, comfortable, functional 15,000 seat stadium that would have been good for the tournament and our current needs....it just would not have been sufficient for MLS! In other words, it would then be insufficient for our needs. Apart from MLS, a 15,000 seater greatly undersells the Toronto market for international soccer matches, and not just those for the WYC. The much lower profile U17 tourney got crowds over over that size, including 20,000 seat sell-outs at Varsity back in 1987 when int'l soccer was nowhere near as popular in Toronto as it is today. We should expect Toronto to pull in similar crowds today - top class international tournaments don't come here every year. In fact, it will be 20 years since the last one! quote: No where in the article does Mr. Perkins suggest that the entire tournament be held in Toronto. He just suggests that you could improve 4 stadiums for the price of one and then slot games into the stadiums according to their drawing power. The suggestion is quite clear. What is the point of improving the four stadiums with the funds granted for the U20 tournament (even if you could do it sufficiently with the funds) if you don't use them all? There are 6 groups of four teams - one group per venue. If you are saying that what Perkins meant was for the one Toronto group to each play its matches in a different venue before migrating to the Skydome, that would be extremely silly. You are going to spend millions to upgrade the capacity of 10,000 plus just to play one game? That's a better use of taxpayers money? How do you know (ahead of time) when you start construction upgrades which teams are going to be in which city, when the draw hasn't even been held yet and we don't even know what teams are going to be qualified? The only way you can do it is by ensuring that all of the venues are a large enough size, and with the demand in Toronto that means four venues at the 20,000 seat level. Well we're just trying to get one of those made first. Such a suggestion, if that's what he was making, would make no sense. The only thing that even removes Perkins comments from the realm of insanity is if he believed that Toronto is hosting the entire event. Otherwise its just insane. What would happen to the four stadiums that seat 10,000 after the event? Who will use them, and what happens when you want to stage a match that is too big for a 10,000 seater and too small for a 55,000 seater? quote: Opening match Benin (who?) v Australia 4,500 attendance Match 2 Holland (host nation first matc) v Japan 19,500 Round of 16 Holland (host nation!) v Chile 10,900 Quarter Final Germany v Brazil 10,000 Semi Final Brazil v Argentina 16,500 Semi Final Morocco v Nigeria 17,000 The Final Nigeria v Argentina 24,500 With the exception of the first one, none of those events could be held in any of the four stadiums that are mentioned unless their capacity was expanded considerably, with the exception of Lamport which, apart from the fact that nobody actually wants upgrade it, wouldn't get us very far, and would be insufficient for all our purposes. I don't see why the expectation that Canada, with its larger population than Holland, would not get equal crowds (in venues large enough). Keep in mind the US was not a "traditional football nation" either when they hosted the World Cup in 1994 and they ended up having every match sold out & the most successfully attended World Cup of all time. Partly because of the huge appetite for international soccer there (like it is here), but also the huge immigrant population (like we have in the cities hosting the event). The expectations should be that we will do better than 10,000. I believe FIFA requirement render the point moot anyway. Apart from the fact that you have the international embarassment factor - Toronto is the largest city in Canada, a G8 country, and we're going to put big teams in stadiums that even if they are fixed up, would look mainly like glorified high-schools stadiums? Is it okay if we have a little pride in our nation, just this once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Gian-Luca, I think it would be better if you sent that letter to Letters to the Editor than Perkins himself. It probably won't change Perkins opinions even if he does read it. However, it will be read by the Editorial staff and if they choose to print it will refute the article. It will also point out to Perkin's employers what type of shoddy journalism he is up to. This is my original letter on the subject although I am trying to revise and shorten it so that it has a better chance of being published: Dear Toronto Star Letters to the Editor: I am writing concerning Dave Perkins article: Stadium deal fails sniff test. While this is a free country and Mr. Perkins has every right to express his opinion on the Toronto stadium project, he does have an obligation to have his facts right, present the consequences of cancelling the project in a truthful manner and to refrain from slanderous, unproven accusations. The plans to build a Toronto soccer stadium in relationship to the hosting of the Men's Under 20 Soccer World Cup has been a process that has lasted several years. This has involved a large number of political and financial wrangling that has seen several sites officially chosen and many organizations and universities agreeing to participate in the venture and for various reasons withdrawing. The incompetence shown by the city of Toronto and its politicians is far more deserving of a critical article than the involvement of MLSE. MLSE has also at times been involved in the project and withdrawn before finally to a certain extent saving the project by its involvement in the final stages. This project is so important because Canada has been chosen to host one of the world's major sporting events. This event will bring a significant amount of revenue, media attention and prestige to Canada and all of the host cities. Needless to say, it would be a significant embarrassment for Canada to lose this tournament as well as reducing potential tourism revenues. Mr. Perkins implies that the tournament is being hosted largely in Toronto (it is being held in several Canadian cities) and could be held in four decrepit stadiums which would be renovated. He states that furthermore, youth soccer players would benefit from these renovated stadiums. Mr. Perkins does not provide any sort of cost estimate for renovating four old stadiums. Toronto youth soccer players also have enough fields adequate for practicing, they do not need to play in 10 000 seat stadiums. What would be the cost to the city of Toronto to maintain 4 largely unused 10 000 seat soccer stadiums? Nor does he mention the significant cost to convert the Rogers Centre to FIFA standards in order to play matches there, money that will have no residual benefit as the conversions would be removed after the event. What Toronto is presently lacking is a large world class soccer stadium where it can host both top level soccer events and many other types of event. A professional soccer club in Toronto would also provide a goal for the many youth players to continue to develop their skills. Even more disturbing are Mr. Perkins comments concerning Larry Tanenbaum, chairman of MLSE. I don't have any problem with Mr. Perkins reporting that Mr. Tanenbaum also has ties to the Liberal Party. I do have a problem with him stating this reeks of corruption without proving it with his evidence. The only unusual thing about this project has been the long and on again off again manner of choosing the site and financiers. Without this the stadium would probably be near completion. If Halifax is awarded the less prestigious Commonwealth Games, they will undoubtably also receive public money to build facilities. MLSE re-entered this process after several other parties withdrew at the last moment. MLSE is also risking a significant amount of its own money in the stadium and in bringing an MLS team to Toronto. Mr. Perkins call Larry Tanenbaum a high-end Liberal bagman, a term implying corruption and criminal intent. The only thing that Mr. Perkins proves in his article is that Mr. Tanenbaum is involved in the project and has ties to the Liberal party. He does not prove any corruption or criminal actions. The use of the term bagman is slanderous and in my opinion legally actionable. I expect more from the Toronto Star than unproven, slanderous allegations from someone who was a sworn opponent of the stadium project from the beginning. I would suggest in its own legal interests that the Toronto Star issue a full retraction and apology to Larry Tanenbaum and MLSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 This was the final draft I submitted. Still a bit longer than they like but I removed as much as I could without damaging the content. It will be interesting to see if I have a better experience with the Star than the Ottawa Citizen which has always heavily edited my letters to remove any criticism of the Citizen, CanWest, their editorial policy or their commitment to free speech. Dear Toronto Star Letters to the Editor: I am writing concerning Dave Perkins' article: Stadium deal fails sniff test. Mr. Perkins has every right to express his opinion on the Toronto stadium project but he does have an obligation to state accurate factual information, the consequences of cancelling the project and to refrain from slanderous, unproven accusations. The plans to build a Toronto soccer stadium in relationship to the hosting of the Men's Under 20 Soccer World Cup has been a process that has lasted several years. This is one of the world's major sporting events and will bring a significant amount of revenue, media attention and prestige to Canada and all of the host cities. Needless to say, it would be a significant embarrassment for Canada to lose this tournament as well as reducing potential tourism revenues. Mr. Perkins states the tournament could be held in Rogers Centre and four decrepit Toronto stadiums which would be renovated. Mr. Perkins does not provide any sort of cost estimate for renovating and maintaining four old stadiums nor the cost without residual benefit of a temporary altering of Rogers Centre to meet FIFA standards. Nor does he prove his assertion that Toronto youth soccer players need to play in 10 000 seat stadiums more than they need a professional soccer club that would provide a goal for them to continue to develop their skills? Does Toronto need four small renovated municipal stadiums more than a world class 25 000 seat stadium that could host many types of events including top level soccer? Even more disturbing are Mr. Perkins comments concerning Larry Tanenbaum, chairman of MLSE. The only unusual aspect of this project has been the long and on again off again manner of choosing the site and financiers without which the stadium would probably be near completion. If Halifax is awarded the less prestigious Commonwealth Games, they will undoubtedly also receive public money to build facilities. MLSE re-entered this process after several other parties withdrew at the last moment and is risking a significant amount of its own money in the stadium and in bringing an MLS team to Toronto. Mr. Perkins calls Larry Tanenbaum a high-end Liberal bagman, a term implying corruption and criminal intent. The only thing that Mr. Perkins proves in his article is that Mr. Tanenbaum is involved in the project and has ties to the Liberal party. He does not prove any corruption or criminal action. The use of the term bagman is slanderous and legally actionable. I expect more from the Toronto Star than unproven, slanderous allegations from someone who was a sworn opponent of the stadium project from the beginning. I would suggest in its own legal interests that the Toronto Star issue a full retraction and apology to Larry Tanenbaum and MLSE. Michael Murray 3520 rue St. Dominique Montreal, QC H2X 2X4 (514) 287-0810 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Nice letter Grizzly. There is one gramatical error. "The only unusual aspect of this project has been the long and on again off again manner of choosing the site and financiers without which the stadium would probably be near completion" Hope you didn't send it yet! Also, maybe you should cc: the Star's 'Bureau of Accuracy', publiced@thestar.ca Finally, maybe MLSE's media relations department would like to hear about the complaint as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.