Perkins @ it again

[SeanKeay]

Ok, i know i could of posted this anywhere DJT....

But i feel that this needs its own thread so everyone reads it!

Anyways, yesterday i was watching the Rob Babcock firing on the Score, and they went to questions. Well, our boy Dave Perkins was there and he was told he can ask a question.

First, i was like I thought perkins? Why is he at a Toronto Raptors press conference!??! And then he asked his question,

"Richard(Peddie), Was this firing just a way to get the press off your back about the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Wasting of city dollars on the stadium?"

When i heard that i almost cried in laughter, this man is seriously out to get canadian soccer. Sure im not going to say a whole media conspiracy like John TV... but good gawd, it sounds like he was abused as a child by a soccer coach or was cut from a rep soccer team.

Anywho, thought u guys should know that perkins is still and always be a douche!

[Elias]

That would be funny... if it wasn't so pathetic. That has to be one of the stupidist comments. Who else besides Perkins is "on his back" about the stadium?

What did Peddie say?

[SeanKeay]

All peddie said was "I knew you would mention somthing about that stadium, but today is not about that nor the maple leafs, we are here for the Toronto Raptors and us moving forward in the right direction"

[Richard]

MLSE is likely just as ticked off with Perkins' abject stupidity as most of us here.

[Metro]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

MLSE is likely just as ticked off with Perkins' abject stupidity as most of us here.

I'm sure many of his media colleagues at the press conference were looking at him funny when he asked that question.

[juaninho]

I can't believe that Perkins thought that a press-conference regarding the Raptors dismissal of Babcock was the appropriate forum to ask a soccer question. Give the man a clown nose.

His myopic and perverse vision of continually attacking MLSE to 'expose' their corruption is really, really laughable. By going on this one man crusade, does he think that he is a modern day Woodward and Bernstein all rolled into one? Who will be his 'Deep Throat' who will finally help him to crack the story with legitimate facts? Tiger Williams? Peter Ing? Oliver Miller?

[Gian-Luca]

The only member of the media that is on MLSE's back about the stadium is Perkins. Even McCown has shut up about it, as far as I can tell.

[Richard]

On whose payroll is this guy Perkins? He needs to have his reins jerked.

[Elias]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

On whose payroll is this guy Perkins? He needs to have his reins jerked.

Funny enough, Perkin's employer Toronto Star, a couple weeks ago purchased I think 20% in Bell Globemedia which inturn owns I think about 15% or something of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment.

[zacRWE]

I Know Richard Peddie isn't the best guy in the world and that he has made some bone head moves but He has brought MLS and a 20,000 seat stadium to Toronto. He has cemented a legacy in Toronto with this move, a legacy that I will cherish for a long time! Now, for this vigilanty journalist Dave perkins to try and ruin this for me, FIFA, Canada, MLS and sport in Canada just makes me pissed! This is a great opportunity for our city, Perkins should just except that it's here and will be a huge success. I will be the first to point my finger at Perkins when the stadium pays off and were in the WC!!!!

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by zacRWE

I will be the first to point my finger at Perkins when the stadium pays off and were in the WC!!!!

Fair enough, will you also be first in the line to acknowledge he is right if the taxpayer has to write cheques on an annual basis to cover the operating losses?

Like everyone else, I am not in a position to know how this will all play out but I think you should acknowledge that this is a possibility.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by zacRWE

I will be the first to point my finger at Perkins when the stadium pays off and were in the WC!!!!

Fair enough, will you also be first in the line to acknowledge he is right if the taxpayer has to write cheques on an annual basis to cover the operating losses?

Like everyone else, I am not in a position to know how this will all play out but I think you should acknowledge that this is a possibility.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

Fair enough, will you also be first in the line to acknowledge he is right if the taxpayer has to write cheques on an annual basis to cover the operating losses?

I can't imagine any situation that would cause anyone to state to Perkins "Yes Dave you were right to interrupt a Raptors press conference about the firing of their GM to ask a facetious question about a soccer stadium".

Dave Perkins tried to justify the intrusion by writing an article about this in today's paper where he asks if the soccer fans in the city look forward to MLSE running another sports team which they know nothing about. Yeah, as opposed to those soccer geniuses the Hartrells who have given us championship soccer for the past several years.....

When you see comments like that its obvious the writer doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Not sure I'd be so quick to publicly champion what he has to say.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

That wasn't the question, but nice try. Zac said "I will be the first to point my finger at Perkins when the stadium pays off and were in the WC!!!!"

Fair enough....but if Perkins turns out to be right and the stadium ends up continually costing taxpayers money on an annual basis, will people congratulate him on being right? I did not say anything about the press conference.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

That wasn't the question, but nice try. Zac said "I will be the first to point my finger at Perkins when the stadium pays off and were in the WC!!!!"

With the reference to "the sport in Canada" and when Canada makes the World Cup, I think its pretty clear that Zac was referring to that as being the pay off for building the stadium, not whether there is an operating profit. Therefore we could also say "nice try" to you for asking a question that bore no relation to what Zac said, or for that mattter, what Perkins said in the conference (which is actually what this thread is about, as much as you'd like to divorce the thread from that). Perkins has said that it is a waste of taxpayers money in the conference without making any distinction with regards to operating losses either, he would call it a waste of taxpayers money even if the stadium makes money. He is totally opposed to any tax dollars going to this stadium and as such Perkins can never be correct in this matter, in the opinion of myself & many others on this board who believe that it is proper for the government to help fund a stadium to help out the national soccer teams and bring world class events to the country.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Perkins has said that it is a waste of taxpayers money in the conference without making any distinction with regards to operating losses either, he would call it a waste of taxpayers money even if the stadium makes money. He is totally opposed to any tax dollars going to this stadium and as such Perkins can never be correct in this matter,

Sorry, did you just say that anyone who disagrees with you on this can never</u> be correct?

quote:

in the opinion of myself & many others on this board who believe that it is proper for the government to help fund a stadium to help out the national soccer teams and bring world class events to the country.

I don't disagree that government has a role to play in sport, I just don't think this is the right deal in the right sport (and I do love this sport) in the right city.

As I have made it clear in other places, I think a smaller amount of money put into renovating/upgrading existing facilities would have created an acceptable, publicly owned and</u> managed/controlled facility that would have been adequate for the WYC and the ongoing support level that exists in this city. Some money might have been left over to upgrade facilities in other cities, also, that would have given the game a real national boost. Now we will have two soccer specific stadiums 5 minutes apart in a city that has shown absolutely no tendancy to support domestic professional soccer in large numbers.

That is my opinion but, as it differs from yours, I guess I can never be correct.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

Sorry, did you just say that anyone who disagrees with you on this can never</u> be correct?

I said that in my opinion Perkins (and not "anyone") can never be correct in his view that any taxpayer money spent on a stadium to help our national soccer teams is a waste of money. Because I disagree with the concept that any taxapayer money put towards soccer in this country is a waste, its not a principal or a viewpoint that I will ever (or perhaps I should say "likely ever" before anyone throws the unlikely hypotheticals at me) agree with. Therefore its extremely unlikely that I'd ever go up to Perkins and say "yeah, you are right, we shouldn't be funding soccer in this country".

quote:

As I have made it clear in other places, I think a smaller amount of money put into renovating/upgrading existing facilities would have created an acceptable, publicly owned and</u> managed/controlled facility that would have been adequate for the WYC and the ongoing support level that exists in this city. Some money might have been left over to upgrade facilities in other cities, also, that would have given the game a real national boost. Now we will have two soccer specific stadiums 5 minutes apart in a city that has shown absolutely no tendancy to support domestic professional soccer in large numbers.

That is my opinion but, as it differs from yours, I guess I can never be correct.

That isn't of course what I said or was suggesting. Should I add the words "nice try" again?

I don't think you are correct of course, largely because your opinion is based on what I believe to be a series of false premises and assumptions, not to mention that it seems to be predicated on a completely different philosophy to my own. But I think we can spare ourselves going around the respective arguments all over again.

[Gian-Luca]

Latest today from Perkins in the Star is that taxpayers have been coerced out of their money by MLSE for the stadium. That's right, I was walking down the street the other day when a gang of MLSE officials jumped me and forced me to part with $2 to go towards the funding of the stadium.

Thankfully it was a gang of Air Canada Centre usherettes that jumped me so I didn't mind too much.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Latest today from Perkins in the Star is that taxpayers have been coerced out of their money by MLSE for the stadium. That's right, I was walking down the street the other day when a gang of MLSE officials jumped me and forced me to part with $2 to go towards the funding of the stadium.

Thankfully it was a gang of Air Canada Centre usherettes that jumped me so I didn't mind too much.

Ha.

Thanks for the laugh, G-L.

[Richard]

All this debate about what Perkins writes and the Star publishes is of course just what the Star editorial board loves - they are getting out attention. More people are buying the paper or visiting their website and boosting the hit count, ergo increased circulation. In the end it is all about money.

[Daniel]

So lesson here: don't link to the article, copy it here!

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I don't think you are correct of course, largely because your opinion is based on what I believe to be a series of false premises and assumptions, not to mention that it seems to be predicated on a completely different philosophy to my own. But I think we can spare ourselves going around the respective arguments all over again.

Which false premises are those?

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

Which false premises are those?

I'll list them but I'm not going through the whole debating circle again. In my view the following are false premises:

1. That the existing level of on-going support caused by a lack of proper facilities & unbelievably poor ownership will remain at the same level when these two major factors causing the low-level no longer apply.

2. That the WYC or other Canadian national team matches would be served by a facility that holds significantly less than 20,000 when previous attendances for similar tournaments & matches held here for soccer prove as much as anything possibly can that a 20,000 seater is warranted.

3. That a publicly managed facility is likely to be more profitable for taxpayers than one that is managed by a business organization whose full-time job is to make a profit.

I will not include your assumption that Lamport can be turned into a facility adequate for these purposes without the $18 million plus construction cost overruns being provided by MLSE.

I believe the false assumptions are:

1.That regardless of how you quantify the current level of support for soccer in the city, it is impossible for soccer to become popular enough in this city to warrant the size of the facility being for it.

2. That because Toronto wasn't often an attendance leader in the NASL days well over 20 years ago, when they had local competition sufficient enough to warrant the construction of Lamport Stadium in the first place unlike most, if not all other NASL cities, Toronto can't possibly do well at the gate for the MLS in today's (and tomorrow's) Toronto.

3. That we don't need to raise the level of pro soccer in Canada in order to improve the men's national soccer team, hence it is okay to spend millions of taxpayers money on something that will be insufficient for a top-level pro team to succeed in.

And the different philosophy appears to be that you are a pessimist, and I am an optimist. You don't believe that soccer can become successful to even a moderate degree in this city, I am optimistic that it can. You seem to believe we shouldn't try because we are likely to fail, and therefore we should go for the bare minimum and not plan for any growth expectations. My belief is that you can not succeed if you don't try, and that we are certain to fail if we don't try.

[RealGooner]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

And the different philosophy appears to be that you are a pessimist, and I am an optimist. You don't believe that soccer can become successful to even a moderate degree in this city, I am optimistic that it can. You seem to believe we shouldn't try because we are likely to fail, and therefore we should go for the bare minimum and not plan for any growth expectations. My belief is that you can not succeed if you don't try, and that we are certain to fail if we don't try.

I'm sad to say this but compared to the US, Canadians like to think small. I'm no US cheerleader, but too often we act like a nation of penny-pinching We-cants, unlike the We-cans seen south of the border. I am glad that Mayor Miller, MLSE, the government and yes, even the CSA had enough vision to grab this once in a generation opportunity. We will not achieve much of note by always aiming for the minimum. Lamport served us well. Its time to move on from that place.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I'll list them but I'm not going through the whole debating circle again. In my view the following are false premises:

1. That the existing level of on-going support caused by a lack of proper facilities & unbelievably poor ownership will remain at the same level when these two major factors causing the low-level no longer apply.

Sadly, you are right on this interpretation of my thoughts. I have been attending professional soccer matches in this city and region for about 30 years (+/-). I do not knwo how old you are but you are certainly not the first generation to say that things have changed and that soccer is more popular now and it will all be good. I will go back and say, again, the first SSS built in North America (Lamport) has been full for a soccer match exactly one time in its history.

quote:

2. That the WYC or other Canadian national team matches would be served by a facility that holds significantly less than 20,000 when previous attendances for similar tournaments & matches held here for soccer prove as much as anything possibly can that a 20,000 seater is warranted.

While I have, you are right, wondered aloud (and on here) as to the proper sisze of the statement. My conclusion has always been that 15,000 - 20,000 is just about right (anything above that we have Rogers Centre). My point has always been that I think renovating/upgrading Lamport to that size would be much less costly than the $46 million of taxpayer money being spent on the new stadium. No one has even tried to say that that is a false premise because the studies do not exist which is the big sham on the taxpayer.

quote:

3. That a publicly managed facility is likely to be more profitable for taxpayers than one that is managed by a business organization whose full-time job is to make a profit.

I challenge you to find where I said, or even hinted at that. All I said on that subject is that for a small capital contribution MLSE gets to control the stadium and earn a management fee for doing so.

I have never, in my life, said that government is more efficient than the private sector. I do, however, hate when otherwise capitalist/free market organisations (such as MLSE) seem to base their business model for profit on getting significant infusions of public money (Ricoh, Oshawa, SSS at the EX {does that make the new stadium SSSex?}) into their projects.

quote:

I will not include your assumption that Lamport can be turned into a facility adequate for these purposes without the $18 million plus construction cost overruns being provided by MLSE.

Good, cause I never said it. I said that Lamport could be built out to +/20,000. Many others, including the Toronto Argonauts agreed. I guessed that it would cost less but my biggest question was why the keepers of the taxpayers money refused to even look at it.

quote:

I believe the false assumptions are:

1.That regardless of how you quantify the current level of support for soccer in the city, it is impossible for soccer to become popular enough in this city to warrant the size of the facility being for it.

We will see and I hope I am wrong. 30 years of loneliness in a variety of Toronto area soccer facilities makes me tend to think I am right on this. Sure, there will always be big crowds when Man. U, Celtic, Roma, Inter, etc etc come to town. Those games, however, will be so big that they will be played down the road at the Cable Box.

quote:

2. That because Toronto wasn't often an attendance leader in the NASL days well over 20 years ago, when they had local competition sufficient enough to warrant the construction of Lamport Stadium in the first place unlike most, if not all other NASL cities, Toronto can't possibly do well at the gate for the MLS in today's (and tomorrow's) Toronto.

Is that not you just making the same point to make your list look bigger. NASL, CSL, USL.....point to the big crowds? Now that it is called MLS people are going to flock to it and abandon those semi pro allegiences and "back home" loyalties that they did not abandon in the past? I hope you are right...I will buy you many drinks in celebration if you are....but I doubt it strongly and don't mind stating my opinion even if it is contrary to the cheerleading opinion of the majority on here.

quote:

3. That we don't need to raise the level of pro soccer in Canada in order to improve the men's national soccer team, hence it is okay to spend millions of taxpayers money on something that will be insufficient for a top-level pro team to succeed in.

Now you are making stuff up!!!! When have I ever said that we do not need to increase the level of pro soccer here? In fact I am a big proponent of us having our own league. The only legitimate difference between you and I that you have so far highlighted in your Lettermenesque list is that I think Lamport can be brought to a 20,000 seat capacity of FIFA standard for less than $46 million and you don't think it can be done at any price. This could have been avoided if the governments had done their duty and studied all options.

quote:

And the different philosophy appears to be that you are a pessimist, and I am an optimist. You don't believe that soccer can become successful to even a moderate degree in this city, I am optimistic that it can. You seem to believe we shouldn't try because we are likely to fail, and therefore we should go for the bare minimum and not plan for any growth expectations. My belief is that you can not succeed if you don't try, and that we are certain to fail if we don't try.

It is the optimist in me that takes me to pro soccer games in Canada that do not have to involve some foreign based team. I don't think there is a year in the last 25 that I have not paid to see a domestic game in Canada. I do not know how many others can say that?

Experience, however, often leads to realism ruling over blind faith. Another factor, maybe, is that I actually spend my own cash on the game. Some of the posts I see here and on another board I actively post on (I can't say yours do or don't as I do not track the comments of any individual) fall into the category of "if they could just build us a stadium in a good location and make our soccer as good as it is in "(insert country name here)" I would go for sure". I think the sport should be supported by its fans first and then attract government money....not the other way around.

Anyway, g'night.