Star at it again

[Grizzly]

What is the grammatical error in this sentence (commas possibly)? I know this sentence is colloquial (ie.not very fine english) but it expresses the idea well. I am, however, very open to suggestions which would improve the sense (and shorten the sentence because from experience editors like short) whether from yourself or the Toronto Star. God knows I spent more time on this than I planned and welcome any suggestions for improvement. I appreciate any constuctive criticism although from experience I know the newspaper will edit it both constuctively but often negatively. However, for my own benefit: how should I express this sentence more effectively and in better English?

[Massive Attack]

Sorry Grizz, upon second reading, the sentence does make sense.

But I think it would be easier to read if the 'and' was changed to a comma instead.

/Mind you, I'm no English major.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

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.

I've no doubts about that, but it wasn't really my intent in sending it to try & change his mind.

If I have time I might send a revised version to the editors (ie. one that isn't addressed to him personally).

[Loud Mouth Soup]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Who works in PR?

He knows.

[Grizzly]

Massive Attack, I have to say I don't agree with changing the and to a comma. On the other hand I think there probably is a better way to word this sentence. The only thing is that I have racked my brain about such things all night and am too close to the writing procedure to be a good editor. Here is the sentence with slight grammatical modifications:

The only unusual aspect of this project has been the long and on-again, off-again manner of choosing the site/financiers without which the stadium would probably be near completion.

Maybe I will just wait for the editors suggestions because if they decide to print it they certainly will have some but if anyone has some other suggestions fire away!

[Massive Attack]

You may as well just leave it the way it is.

[RealGooner]

Great job Grizzly.

[G-Man]

The WYC Toronto games should have been held at the Skydome or whatever they're calling it this week. Change the surface to Fieldturf™ (which is what MLS stadia will be) and presto a venue that can be comfy sitting 22K or enlarged to sit 56 and has seen some of the top club teams in the world use it in the last 4 years. And it could house a MLS team very nicely thank you.

A saving of 80 Million.

That's what he should have wrote about...

AND

Now who wants to bet that MLS Stadia isn't ready by then? Or that in Montreal- Saputo Park isn't ready as well and they end up using Molson or Olympic Stadium?

The construction clock in ticking.....

AND

Toronto isn't ever going to support a local pro team. It hasn't for the last 20 years and until a fan base has beeen built up, as one has in Montreal, the politicians should have passed on the funds for a new white elephant.

[morrison]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

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.

I think that's a fair point... for a european country to consider.

But this was a country that co-hosted the EUROs, gets CL matches every season, and has a top league in Europe.

Canada well...

[Bill Spiers]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

The WYC Toronto games should have been held at the Skydome or whatever they're calling it this week. Change the surface to Fieldturf™ (which is what MLS stadia will be) and presto a venue that can be comfy sitting 22K or enlarged to sit 56 and has seen some of the top club teams in the world use it in the last 4 years. And it could house a MLS team very nicely thank you.

And don't you think this was looked in to? However, there was no way the existing tenants - the Blue Jays and the Argos - were going to be shut out for the 3+ weeks needed for the WYC!

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

The WYC Toronto games should have been held at the Skydome or whatever they're calling it this week. Change the surface to Fieldturf™ (which is what MLS stadia will be) and presto a venue that can be comfy sitting 22K or enlarged to sit 56 and has seen some of the top club teams in the world use it in the last 4 years. And it could house a MLS team very nicely thank you.

A saving of 80 Million.

1. The surface is already FieldTurf. I see you check your facts using the same method as Dave Perkins.

2. Have you been in the SkyDome when there's been less than 30K in the place? Might as well be a library.

3. I suppose MLSE should let its fledgling team sit 4th on the pecking order in terms of booking the facility (behind the Jays, Argos and concerts). Not to mention the fact that there is no way in hell the Jays and Argos will vacate for 3 weeks in the middle of July for a soccer tournament (as Bill Spiers stated in the post above mine).

I have no doubt that Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon games will be a big hit (since those will likely be the only dates available). Hell, it 'works' for the Lynx right?

[john tv]

The whole purpose of Jerkins article was to stick it to soccer by trying to influence and use the elections and to give the soccer haters a way to express themselves.Of course the r centre was booked.

[RealGooner]

Ditto to what Bill Spiers, john tv and Rudi said.

This has been explained ad nauseum before to you G-Man so either you have a memory problem or, more likely, you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Gian-Luca]

Well Mr. Perkins responded to my email with this:

I'm happy you are entertained. I'm thinking more in terms of a legacy than the tournament, which is all I ever hear about from Mr. Tanenbaum and Mr. Miller, how this is being done for the kids of Toronto. So use taxpayers money to fix up existing fields for the local kids. For the tournament (which I understand has not been awarded solely to Toronto; I didn't suggest that), you can erect temporary seating to bring a venue up to whatever seating capacity you feel you need (10,000 would certainly do it for most of the games, 5,000 for some of the games judging by attendance figures from the Netherlands). Use as many venues as you feel you need for the tournament. Get a big game like Italy-Brazil, or any one of several others, and play it at the SkyDome/Rogers Centre, a first-rate facility. We paid enough for the place and with the new turf, it's FIFA-approved. Regarding Birchmount Stadium, I played football there a very long time ago. It could have used a facelift even back then. As for $27 million, it's actually a lilttle more. Another $8 million from the province and $18 million from the city, plus municipal tax-free status, which means a further loss of revenue (while your and my realty taxes go up). Would you care to bet who ends up on the hook for the inevitable cost overruns, too? Remember the SkyDome. Cheers, Dave Perkins

Didn't want to waste too much time with him, so here was a short response:

You may not have meant to suggest that it was a Toronto only event, but unfortunately for you that is exactly how it came across to just about everyone I have spoken to who has read the article. The reason for this is clear – you suggest that the taxpayer money earmarked specifically to host the U20 event could be used instead to upgrade four facilities in Toronto which could then be used for the U20 event. If you meant that only one of the four upgraded venues would be used to host Toronto’s matches, it might for clarity’s sake have helped to explicitly state so, though of course that will then lead people to ask why government money earmarked specifically for this event would go into upgrading venues that wouldn’t be used for the event. If what you meant instead is that all four of the up-graded 10,000 seat venues could be used to host the 6 Toronto group matches, well, I hope I don’t need to explain to you what a pointless and un-feasible logistical nightmare that would be (say good-bye to double-headers just for a start). As such, most people have assumed, absent any mention of the other cities in the article, and any other logical explanation, that you are proposing that all or nearly all of the tourney is being held in Toronto.

Of course, 10,000 is likely not going to be sufficient for attendance at Toronto matches, and the cavernous Skydome is too big for the first round matches (not that the Jays & Argos would ever be able to be kicked out of their home by Rogers for a month to make it a reality). I’m not quite sure why are you basing your prospective Toronto attendance on what Holland got last year – they don’t have as large or as diverse an ethnic population in their cities as they do in Toronto, and more to the point, they don’t have as large a city as we are. I think Amsterdam is the largest at 800,000, and while I was never any good at mathematics I’m pretty sure that’s well under the population of the GTA. Given these factors, where do you think a 1st round match between say, Croatia and Iran will draw more, Holland or Toronto? A few months ago in one of your articles you were chastising the Canadian national soccer team for allegedly being out-supported in the city for international matches and yet now you seem to be conveniently forgetting the great ethnic community which exists in the city which can on occasion cause that to happen. No use bringing up the “traditional soccer nation” argument either – the USA was not a traditional soccer nation and its attendance figures for the World Cup were better than any of the traditional nations that have held it. Like us, they are not a country that gets top-flight soccer matches and tourneys every year the way the Dutch do – when it came, they ate it up.

Unfortunately time too short for me to go into the shortcomings of your financial analysis, or to mention how incredibly contradictory it is to state that you are thinking of a legacy for the city and then scarcely a breath later advocate the use of temporary</u> seating, but unless it is your contention that MLSE is lying through its teeth when it says it will be picking up the construction cost overruns you mention, I think I’ll place my bet with them.

Hope you enjoy the tourney!

--------------------

So not only is the guy wrong, he can't write particularly clearly either!

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

2. Have you been in the SkyDome when there's been less than 30K in the place? Might as well be a library.

So, we have use the goldilocks and the 3 bears method of stadium design? Lamport's too small, Rogers Centre's too big.....ahhhh new $72 million taxpayer funded stadium is just right!

quote:

3. I suppose MLSE should let it's fledgling team sit 4th on the pecking order in terms of booking the facility (behind the Jays, Argos and concerts).

So if the stadium is being built to facilitate a better chance of success for MLSE, shouldn't they pay more of the cost and/or be willing to manage it for free. I guess people are a little concerned about a corporation getting to control a facility for putting in a fairly small amount of the capital cost and also getting paid for managing it.

[Andrew W]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

So, we have use the goldilocks and the 3 bears method of stadium design? Lamport's too small, Rogers Centre's too big.....ahhhh new $72 million taxpayer funded stadium is just right!

So if the stadium is being built to facilitate a better chance of success for MLSE, shouldn't they pay more of the cost and/or be willing to manage it for free. I guess people are a little concerned about a corporation getting to control a facility for putting in a fairly small amount of the capital cost and also getting paid for managing it.

Wow, what a fresh take on the situation. Thanks for that.

[Andrew W]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

So, we have use the goldilocks and the 3 bears method of stadium design? Lamport's too small, Rogers Centre's too big.....ahhhh new $72 million taxpayer funded stadium is just right!

So if the stadium is being built to facilitate a better chance of success for MLSE, shouldn't they pay more of the cost and/or be willing to manage it for free. I guess people are a little concerned about a corporation getting to control a facility for putting in a fairly small amount of the capital cost and also getting paid for managing it.

Wow, what a fresh take on the situation. Thanks for that.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

So, we have use the goldilocks and the 3 bears method of stadium design? Lamport's too small, Rogers Centre's too big.....ahhhh new $72 million taxpayer funded stadium is just right!

Toronto is sorely lacking a mid-sized stadium since Varsity fell to the wrecking ball.

Upgrading Lamport is a non-starter, given the constraints of the plot of land it's sitting on.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

So, we have use the goldilocks and the 3 bears method of stadium design? Lamport's too small, Rogers Centre's too big.....ahhhh new $72 million taxpayer funded stadium is just right!

Toronto is sorely lacking a mid-sized stadium since Varsity fell to the wrecking ball.

Upgrading Lamport is a non-starter, given the constraints of the plot of land it's sitting on.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

So, we have use the goldilocks and the 3 bears method of stadium design? Lamport's too small, Rogers Centre's too big.....ahhhh new $72 million taxpayer funded stadium is just right!

You mean just like the old perfect system we had with Lamport, Varsity and Exhibition Stadium? Sounds good to me!

Also, it would help to gain some sympathy for your point if you didn't add the value of the land as part of the taxpayer funding.

quote:

So if the stadium is being built to facilitate a better chance of success for MLSE, shouldn't they pay more of the cost and/or be willing to manage it for free.

Perhaps they should become a non-profit organization while they are at it as well.

Sorry for the cheekiness of the reply, but do you honestly think any corporation in their position is going to insist that the government take back all or part of their funding that was on the table before the corporation even was invited to contribute the rest of the funding (for a facility they won't actually own)?

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

So, we have use the goldilocks and the 3 bears method of stadium design? Lamport's too small, Rogers Centre's too big.....ahhhh new $72 million taxpayer funded stadium is just right!

You mean just like the old perfect system we had with Lamport, Varsity and Exhibition Stadium? Sounds good to me!

Also, it would help to gain some sympathy for your point if you didn't add the value of the land as part of the taxpayer funding.

quote:

So if the stadium is being built to facilitate a better chance of success for MLSE, shouldn't they pay more of the cost and/or be willing to manage it for free.

Perhaps they should become a non-profit organization while they are at it as well.

Sorry for the cheekiness of the reply, but do you honestly think any corporation in their position is going to insist that the government take back all or part of their funding that was on the table before the corporation even was invited to contribute the rest of the funding (for a facility they won't actually own)?

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

You mean just like the old perfect system we had with Lamport, Varsity and Exhibition Stadium? Sounds good to me!

Also, it would help to gain some sympathy for your point if you didn't add the value of the land as part of the taxpayer funding.

Perhaps they should become a non-profit organization while they are at it as well.

Sorry for the cheekiness of the reply, but do you honestly think any corporation in their position is going to insist that the government take back all or part of their funding that was on the table before the corporation even was invited to contribute the rest of the funding (for a facility they won't actually own)?

Why, should we not include the value of the land? Does land have no value? The government used the value of the land to make the project large enough to qualify for the infrastructure program! (even then they fell short at $72 million and had to fudge/adjust the numbers a bit to make it fit).

The land has a value of $10 million. If the city sold it to someone who wanted, say, to build an apartment building or a hotel or something of that sort, they would ask for money for it...now that they have donate it to this project, it is gone and they can't use it for anything else...so they have given, on top of their cash outlay, something worth $10 million.

Sorry it has to be included.

Not sure what you mean by your no-profit comment. All I am saying is that MLSE seem to some people to be getting a bit of a "have your cake and eat it too" deal here. They don't put out a significant amount of capital, they get to use the stadium, they get to control it for a good portion of the year and get a management fee on top of that. Not a bad deal. It really does look like a subsidy....not saying anything untoward has been done...but just call it what it is.

[Richard]

MLSE also enjoys the privilege of covering operating losses too.

[G-Man]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

MLSE also enjoys the privilege of covering operating losses too.

up to certain point which I can't recall at the moment. I think it anything under 250K per year and then the city is on the hook for anything over that. And going by MLS's 250 million in 10 years, I see the city getting hosed for at least 2 million a year.

Next time the Rangers use the skydome, I'll let them know their fans suck on the noise level. When was a non Rock Toronto crowd ever loud?

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

Why, should we not include the value of the land?

Because it doesn't actually come out of the taxpayers pocket. The concern of people against any government funding of the stadium is that their taxes will be collected (and possibly raised) for something they don't want their taxes going towards.

Well they aren't collecting taxes from local citizens from a barren parking lot that sits empty 99% of the year which they already own. All you are doing by adding the value of the land is making the situation look "worse" than it actually is. Your hypothetical example is a bad one since they weren't ever likely going to put an apartment building in the middle of Exhibition place. The only chance of a hotel going there is if it is connected to the stadium a la the Skydome hotel.

quote:

Not sure what you mean by your no-profit comment.

What I mean is that the way some people are commenting on the deal you'd think MLSE is a charity, not a business. They are in the business of making money. People keep telling us over and over again that soccer can't make it in this city and its not a lucrative or money-making business. Why then do we expect that MLSE will proceed on this deal if they have to fund the entire project themselves and very likely lose money in the process - out of the goodness of their heart, while the city, province and country all will benefit at their expense? I fail to see why MLSE can't be allowed to make money in a venture which benefit the community and soccer as a whole in this country, including the men's and women's programs.

I could understand the objection more if all the people making it(which as far as I can tell is just Bob McCown & Dave Perkins) were members of the Communist Party of Canada, as at least the viewpoint co-incides with anti-capitalist outlook. However I gather from Perkins advocating of a conservative candidate in his column that he isn't a card-carrying commie.

quote:

It really does look like a subsidy....not saying anything untoward has been done...but just call it what it is.

It would be a subsidy if it was an MLSE project initially and they asked the respective governments to come in and fund the rest of the project for them. We all know it didn't happen that way and to portray as such is falling right into the trap set the anti-soccer writers like Perkins who appear intent on re-writing history.

I just don't see what the problem is - the stadium is going to benefit the city, province and nation as well as MLSE. All four are putting in money into the stadium. I'm not sure what the value is in quibbling over whether the financial contributions of each party involved corresponds perfectly to the percentage of benefit each party will receive, especially when there is no magical formula that exists which can ascertain exactly what that benefit will turn out to be.