Star at it again

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

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.

I agree with you here and have to say I was thinking the same thing myself. It is amazing how many communistic viewpoints are put forward on the issues of the stadium, Toronto MLS, Ottawa Fury, Whitecaps youth programs and youth development systems. Yet almost all of these posters are quite right-wing in their political views. I guess free market capitalism is fine until it is their turn to pay for anything.

[john tv]

Commies, racist,jerks,isolationalists,idiots,manipulators,you name it,The Star was used by one of their sports columnist to try to sway our elections. It has nothing to do with our stadium ,locations,MLS etc it is all about stirring up rotten crap for that purpose.Our vindictive man Jerkins.As I told you before he is very much disliked by his colleagues as well,so he has a serious problem.It is a shame that even the Star's legal department allowed this to be published,I guess they may also have some soccer haters there as well,who knows. I am very curious to see if any of these letters to the editor will be published,certainly not before the elections I presume.What a mess!

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I agree with you here and have to say I was thinking the same thing myself. It is amazing how many communistic viewpoints are put forward on the issues of the stadium, Toronto MLS, Ottawa Fury, Whitecaps youth programs and youth development systems. Yet almost all of these posters are quite right-wing in their political views. I guess free market capitalism is fine until it is their turn to pay for anything.

Actually, oposing government involvement/subsidy/interference in businesses is very much in keeping with right wing thoughts of people like McCowan, Perkins and TOareaFan. Communists and other groups mentioned here are very much for state involvement in things that righties do not think are appropriate.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

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.

Except it was not a barren piece of land. It was home to the sports hall of fame which now has to find a new place to call home and will likely result in far more than $10 million of additional government expenditure.....as for the hotel, there is a group actively seeking to put a hotel on the ex grounds, they have been targeting a site near the automotive building and the national trade centre. Just as the soccer team/stadium are businesses, so are the hotel operators....only no one is offering them assistance in building the building which will host their business.

quote:

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

quote:

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.

What you just said, in a nutshell, is that people want to operate a buisness in Toronto (soccer) which has not chance of succeeding and making money for the owner without significant government support. In fact, you just gave a very eloquent argument to prove that the government money in the stadium is a subsidy to MLSE and MLS....as I said before, all I am saying is if it is a subsidy admit it and call it that so that taxpayers can decide if they support it.....you just called it a subsidy so I am satisfied.

[john tv]

Hey guys this discussion is strictly based upon a jerk who is set in his way to fight against soccer and thought to have one more avenue to do so,the federal elections. this whole argument as valid as it may be is not the reason of this article it is all about his fight against soccer in this town.As he stated he played football at Birchmount and i know the attitude of football players against soccer.it's huge and very depressing.These macho guys are totally useless and probably pumped up with steroids.So let us not fall into this trap,it is all about his reasons for the article, so forget it just make the game look beautifull,full of fun,healthy creative and a wonderfull vehicle to better our youth and if it came to the ultimate,yes a stadium is needed,and wait when our girls will play there than this jerk will finally realize what he was trying to do and than he will feel maybe guitlty.Forget the arguments it is not about that stadium it's about soccer.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by john tv

Hey guys this discussion is strictly based upon a jerk who is set in his way to fight against soccer and thought to have one more avenue to do so,the federal elections. this whole argument as valid as it may be is not the reason of this article it is all about his fight against soccer in this town.As he stated he played football at Birchmount and i know the attitude of football players against soccer.it's huge and very depressing.These macho guys are totally useless and probably pumped up with steroids.So let us not fall into this trap,it is all about his reasons for the article, so forget it just make the game look beautifull,full of fun,healthy creative and a wonderfull vehicle to better our youth and if it came to the ultimate,yes a stadium is needed,and wait when our girls will play there than this jerk will finally realize what he was trying to do and than he will feel maybe guitlty.Forget the arguments it is not about that stadium it's about soccer.

Sorry, I am a life long soccer guy...the only time I ever stepped inside Birchmount was to play in Robbie final....and I agree, for the most part, with Mr. Perkins.

Just because we love the game does not mean we should advocate spending, wasting?, massive amounts of taxpayer money on it!

[john tv]

Please this article is not about that stadium it is all about soccer being used for some sinister purposes.That is what this kind of media is all about. The timing is way more than a coincidence it is a deliberate attempt guys.

As I said before I am surprised that the Star board allowed this to happen.

What Robbie final did you play in,I have most of the robbie finals on video tape so maybe if you don't have it,you may get luckey,providing you won I suppose.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

Except it was not a barren piece of land. It was home to the sports hall of fame

...which had been looking to get out of that location for a good 10 years because nobody was attending, therefore whatever costs you want to associate with such a move would have been incurred anyway. The Hockey Hall of Fame made a similar move & was very successful as a result, so you can hardly blame the Canadian hall for wanting to do the same.

quote:

What you just said, in a nutshell, is that people want to operate a buisness in Toronto (soccer) which has not chance of succeeding and making money for the owner without significant government support.

In fact, you just gave a very eloquent argument to prove that the government money in the stadium is a subsidy to MLSE and MLS....as I said before, all I am saying is if it is a subsidy admit it and call it that so that taxpayers can decide if they support it.....you just called it a subsidy so I am satisfied.

That's quite the conclusion you have reached there....you conclude that I have called it a subsidy because explicity I stated in my post that it wasn't a subsidy! Only the true messiah shall deny his existence I guess.

Actually, perhaps it is a subsidy - though not the one you are thinking of. Its actually a corporation subsidizing a government initiative.

You know, just like everyone else, that the whole initiative for a soccer stadium in Toronto didn't come from MLSE - it came from the CSA. They didn't just initiate the stadium project, or the U20 WYC, they were even the ones that asked MLSE to invest in MLS</u>. They aren't a corporation, they are a government association. The government didn't feel it could fund the entire project by itself or with other provincial governments and the association went to the corporate sector to help complete the project.

Of course there has to be some incentive for MLSE to do that. Which is precisely why the suggestion that MLSE should not act like a corporation and expect a chance to make a profit from their business endevour which they have been asked to participate in by government associations is extremely silly & un-realistic in my view. It is tantamount to asking them to act like a charity, which they aren't, hence my initial comments. And yes the suggestion that they shouldn't be allowed to make a profit is contrary to right-wing or capitalist ideology.

Had this been an MLSE initiative from the get-go that would only benefit them and was the sole purpose of it, you would not get an argument on calling the subsidy issue. Unfortunately you should know perfectly well that this was not the case.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

Actually, oposing government involvement/subsidy/interference in businesses is very much in keeping with right wing thoughts of people like McCowan, Perkins and TOareaFan. Communists and other groups mentioned here are very much for state involvement in things that righties do not think are appropriate.

Again you are guilty of incorrectly describing the situation. This isn't the case of a government interfering with a business, its a case of government asking businesses to help them out!

The suggestion that businesses should not expect to profit from helping with government initiatives when invited (or begged) to do so, but should be putting it all back into the state is very much in keeping with leftist political ideology.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by john tv

Please this article is not about that stadium it is all about soccer being used for some sinister purposes.That is what this kind of media is all about. The timing is way more than a coincidence it is a deliberate attempt guys.

As I said before I am surprised that the Star board allowed this to happen.

What Robbie final did you play in,I have most of the robbie finals on video tape so maybe if you don't have it,you may get luckey,providing you won I suppose.

The year, I think, was 1976....Mississauga Spartans (us) lost to East Kilbride of Scotland 4-3

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

...which had been looking to get out of that location for a good 10 years because nobody was attending, therefore whatever costs you want to associate with such a move would have been incurred anyway. The Hockey Hall of Fame made a similar move & was very successful as a result, so you can hardly blame the Canadian hall for wanting to do the same.

Not blaming anyone....just disputing your earlier "barren parking lot" claim. You are right, the Hall of Fame has been looking for a new home for years (roughly since the Hockey Hall moved out or even before {they both started looking after the old stadium was closed}) but had never received the required public and private support (read $$$$$) required for the move. It will be a lot harder to turn them down now when they respond with "but you tore down our old building".

quote:

What you just said, in a nutshell, is that people want to operate a buisness in Toronto (soccer) which has not chance of succeeding and making money for the owner without significant government support.

In fact, you just gave a very eloquent argument to prove that the government money in the stadium is a subsidy to MLSE and MLS....as I said before, all I am saying is if it is a subsidy admit it and call it that so that taxpayers can decide if they support it.....you just called it a subsidy so I am satisfied.

quote:

That's quite the conclusion you have reached there....you conclude that I have called it a subsidy because explicity I stated in my post that it wasn't a subsidy! Only the true messiah shall deny his existence I guess.

My error, you did not call it a subsidy...you just described it as such.

quote:

Actually, perhaps it is a subsidy - though not the one you are thinking of. Its actually a corporation subsidizing a government initiative.

You know, just like everyone else, that the whole initiative for a soccer stadium in Toronto didn't come from MLSE - it came from the CSA. They didn't just initiate the stadium project, or the U20 WYC, they were even the ones that asked MLSE to invest in MLS</u>. They aren't a corporation, they are a government association. The government didn't feel it could fund the entire project by itself or with other provincial governments and the association went to the corporate sector to help complete the project.

Of course there has to be some incentive for MLSE to do that. Which is precisely why the suggestion that MLSE should not act like a corporation and expect a chance to make a profit from their business endevour which they have been asked to participate in by government associations is extremely silly & un-realistic in my view. It is tantamount to asking them to act like a charity, which they aren't, hence my initial comments. And yes the suggestion that they shouldn't be allowed to make a profit is contrary to right-wing or capitalist ideology.

Had this been an MLSE initiative from the get-go that would only benefit them and was the sole purpose of it, you would not get an argument on calling the subsidy issue. Unfortunately you should know perfectly well that this was not the case.

I think all that you and I disagree on is whether it is a subsidy and your belief that it is not seems based on the order of operations. Since the people involved first were government, MLSE is not being subsidized to enter the soccer business. I disagree. Maybe if you thought of it in terms of another buisness. Say, bananas.

The newly elected (tomorrow?) green party might think it is important for Canada to become a major producer of bananas. They ask the departments of agriculture and industry "why aren't we a major producer of bananas?" They are told that the cost of producing bananas in Canada far outweighs the revenues that the banana business produces in Canada.

The new government then says, let it be known that we will, both, pick up the majority of costs involved in getting into the banana business and we will sign a contract to limit the potential losses that a company can face in the banana business. Now find us someone that will invest in the banana business with us!

Clearly a subsidy for the banana business has been created and, clearly, the company that takes the government up on their offer is going to structure the deal so that they can have a shot at making money in an otherwise unprofitable business.

Now substitute "soccer" for "bananas" and you will essentially describe what happened here. I have no fault with MLSE trying to make a profit...that is what they do. I just wonder why people are going out of their way to deny any "subsidy" exists. It is what gives the opponents of soccer in this city (believe me, I am not one of them) the ammunition to say "supporting soccer in this city is purely bananas"!

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

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.

Funny thing about that is that when I asked about the studies showing that Lamport expansion was not feasible I was told there weren't any such studies and that it had not been looked at.

Since the stadium, when built, was designed so that its size could be doubled, I would have thought someone would, at least, look into the idea.

[john tv]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

The year, I think, was 1976....Mississauga Spartans (us) lost to East Kilbride of Scotland 4-3

[john tv]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

The year, I think, was 1976....Mississauga Spartans (us) lost to East Kilbride of Scotland 4-3

If I recall that game was played in 1979,it was on a very rainey day and in fact my first time Robie final.In fact that game and the one before with East Kilbride playing against a team from Denmark was a real eye opener.

At that time no games were being televised.Following that through a variety of contacts we managed to convice the right people to do so.

I think I have probably about close to 100 Robbie finals on tape. One day I should list them and transfer them over to DVD and make sure they do not loose quality.

East Kilbride has made a tremendous difference to the Robbie,they really managed to get the message out with the local media. They even brought over the whole town council including the mayor chain and all.The guy that coached that team was a gem Ian Massie.Great coach and a very great believer in the Robbie and it's cause.

I also remember when Wexford beat the Scots 7-1 in the Robbie final 4 years later.Close to half the Wexford team had players who later played for Canada,both on the youth level and senior level.

[john tv]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

The year, I think, was 1976....Mississauga Spartans (us) lost to East Kilbride of Scotland 4-3

If I recall that game was played in 1979,it was on a very rainey day and in fact my first time Robie final.In fact that game and the one before with East Kilbride playing against a team from Denmark was a real eye opener.

At that time no games were being televised.Following that through a variety of contacts we managed to convice the right people to do so.

I think I have probably about close to 100 Robbie finals on tape. One day I should list them and transfer them over to DVD and make sure they do not loose quality.

East Kilbride has made a tremendous difference to the Robbie,they really managed to get the message out with the local media. They even brought over the whole town council including the mayor chain and all.The guy that coached that team was a gem Ian Massie.Great coach and a very great believer in the Robbie and it's cause.

I also remember when Wexford beat the Scots 7-1 in the Robbie final 4 years later.Close to half the Wexford team had players who later played for Canada,both on the youth level and senior level.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by john tv

If I recall that game was played in 1979,it was on a very rainey day and in fact my first time Robie final.In fact that game and the one before with East Kilbride playing against a team from Denmark was a real eye opener.

At that time no games were being televised.Following that through a variety of contacts we managed to convice the right people to do so.

I think I have probably about close to 100 Robbie finals on tape. One day I should list them and transfer them over to DVD and make sure they do not loose quality.

East Kilbride has made a tremendous difference to the Robbie,they really managed to get the message out with the local media. They even brought over the whole town council including the mayor chain and all.The guy that coached that team was a gem Ian Massie.Great coach and a very great believer in the Robbie and it's cause.

I also remember when Wexford beat the Scots 7-1 in the Robbie final 4 years later.Close to half the Wexford team had players who later played for Canada,both on the youth level and senior level.

Thinking about it later, I agree it probably was not '76 but I would not have thought it was as late as '79 (see the memory fails). I can tell you though it was quite a day.

A fair number of us on the Spartans were, either, born in Scotland or sons of Scots and our coach was a great guy who had been a police officer in Edinburgh. We were thrilled to get to the final and felt like the "home team" right up intil we ran on to the field to a combination of silence and boos. The EK boys were led onto the pitch by a piper and what seemed (at the time) to be thunderous applause and cheers!.

We actually did get a 4th goal which was disallowed and, I remember, someone had the incident on 8mm film which we would watch when ever we got together again and debated if the goal was legal. Great memories.

Sadly, the coach (Ernie Hill) has passed away but the spirit and passion he gave us that summer live on in all of us!!

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

My error, you did not call it a subsidy...you just described it as such.

In your opinion, at least.

quote:

I think all that you and I disagree on is whether it is a subsidy and your belief that it is not seems based on the order of operations. Since the people involved first were government, MLSE is not being subsidized to enter the soccer business. I disagree. Maybe if you thought of it in terms of another buisness. Say, bananas.

It is far more than just the "order of operations" - it comes down to intentions & objectives. Even the business itself (the MLS team) has government/national aspirations to it, which is to improve the quality of Canadian soccer and that of the national team - if MLSE were just interested in a running a sports business there would be no rules providing for the team to have a majority of Canadian players - the Black Squirrels Athletics Club would be like the Jays or the MLSE-owned Raptors, full of forgeign players who happen to play in this city with the result that there is no improvement for the national baseball or basketball team. Having Canadian players is obviously a result of the CSA involvement in starting & brokering the deal, to help achieve the objective of improving the Canadian national soccer team (not to mention providing full-time jobs for Canadian soccer players in Canada). If you disagree that an MLS team in Toronto can help out in this regard that's one thing - but that's what the intention, objective & belief is.

In spite of your elaborate bananas analogy (which doesn't really fit, unless Banana growing is a new Olympic sport that I previously wasn't aware of), a subsidy is generally defined as a govnerment providing financial aid to non-government individuals or groups. This is clearly the opposite of has happened, its the government & government associations having gone to the individuals/groups and asking them to provide financial aid to the government to achieve their own objective, in return for which that group is allowed to make a profit in the business endeavour which is designed to help that government goal.

The main problem I have with calling it a subsidy (outside of it being incorrect) is that it suggests that the party line tossed about by the likes of Perkins & McCown is correct ie. that this is all some dastarly plan by a corporation to "gouge taxpayers" of their money, when taxpayer money was in fact already on the table before MLSE was asked to help out financially with the stadium.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I think all that you and I disagree on is whether it is a subsidy and your belief that it is not seems based on the order of operations. Since the people involved first were government, MLSE is not being subsidized to enter the soccer business. I disagree. Maybe if you thought of it in terms of another buisness. Say, bananas.

It is far more than just the "order of operations" - it comes down to intentions & objectives. Even the business itself (the MLS team) has government/national aspirations to it, which is to improve the quality of Canadian soccer and that of the national team - if MLSE were just interested in a running a sports business there would be no rules providing for the team to have a majority of Canadian players - the Black Squirrels Athletics Club would be like the Jays or the MLSE-owned Raptors, full of forgeign players who happen to play in this city with the result that there is no improvement for the national baseball or basketball team. Having Canadian players is obviously a result of the CSA involvement in starting & brokering the deal, to help achieve the objective of improving the Canadian national soccer team (not to mention providing full-time jobs for Canadian soccer players in Canada). If you disagree that an MLS team in Toronto can help out in this regard that's one thing - but that's what the intention, objective & belief is.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

At the risk of boring everyone else, lets continue this. I believe the reason there are Canadian quotas on the team is a result of the MLS structure/rules.

The only thing the labour laws would have forced the MLS to do is not count a Canadian player as an import, which is not the same as ensuring there is a Canadian quota - if the absense of Canadian quotas is a legal problem for operating pro sports teams in Canada, the Jays & the Raptors wouldn't be able to get away with it (or the Expos & Grizzlies in their day). The fact is there wouldn't even be an MLS team in Canada without the CSA, that's what all the "Bring Me the Head of Kevan "Alfredo Garcia" Pipe" posters are whining about.

quote:

So it is your distaste for the opinions of Perkins & McCowan that is driving you to work so hard to call this subsidy a non-subsidy.

It is the fact that is not a subsidy which causes me to say it is not. It is the distaste that I have for how the situation is being portrayed incorrectly & unfairly in the media by the traditional soccer haters that motivates me to continually post on the subject - that and the fact that I am a somewhat obstinate internet poster once I have decided to take a stand on something.

You are probably correct though that this is just going to go round in circles from this point on.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

The only thing the labour laws would have forced the MLS to do is not count a Canadian player as an import, which is not the same as ensuring there is a Canadian quota - if the absense of Canadian quotas is a legal problem for operating pro sports teams in Canada, the Jays & the Raptors wouldn't be able to get away with it (or the Expos & Grizzlies in their day). The fact is there wouldn't even be an MLS team in Canada without the CSA, that's what all the "Bring Me the Head of Kevan "Alfredo Garcia" Pipe" posters are whining about.

I will leave off any further discussion with regards to subsidy as, I think we agree on this, we are in a circular tug of war between two people who are equally obstinate and firm in their position.

On the labour side, what the law would not have allowed is a rule requiring there to be a certain amount of Americans (just as the CFL rule called for certain amount of Canadians). The other examples you cited (MLB, NBA) do not have any rules about the nationality of players so there is no issue.

So MLS, faced with needing some restriction on the nationality of players for competitive reasons, amended their rules for their first Canadian team to call a Canadian a domestic player here and lump Americans with all other nationalities as imports. My only point here is that I do not for a minute believe that MLS (or MLSE for that matter) did that out of some desire to benefit Canada or the CSA.

[RealGooner]

This really is a boring discussion

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

This really is a boring discussion

Don't read it then.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

My only point here is that I do not for a minute believe that MLS (or MLSE for that matter) did that out of some desire to benefit Canada or the CSA.

That was point as well - I said if it had been up to MLSE or MLS there wouldn't be a largely Canadian roster. The whole thing started as a CSA initiative for CSA goals (not MLSE corporate goals), and MLSE appear happy enough to go along with that. That's (IMO) why its not a case of this being a subsidy by government of a corporate business operation but the corporation coming to the aid of the CSA, at the request of the CSA (an extension of the government, effectively) to help them in those objectives, for which in return the corporation is allowed to make a profit.

Having said that, I doubt MLSE is opposed to Canada improving as a soccer nation or anything like that.

[john tv]

At the last MLS draft were there any Canadians choosen. I don't recall reading a word about it and if not what does that mean, no interest,no players or only US players made the draft?

[Gian-Luca]

There were Canadian players eligible, but no US teams picked them. Part of the problem is that a Canadian player will count as an import on the roster and so they aren't over-eager to draft Canadians as a result (thought there have been exceptions to this in the past).

One of the nice things about the MLS in Toronto is that our kids coming out of the NCAA will have a Canadian team that can draft them in the MLS draft.