Jump to content

NSS has sold its naming rights to...


Daniel

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Right, because Toronto isn't in Canada correct......?

Of course it is...but this money goes directly to MLSE not the CSA...that is my point.

quote:

Without being able to recoup their investment MLSE wouln't be involved and we wouldn't have a stadium, wouldn't have an MLS team and probably wouldn't have the WYC either. So CSA gets CIBC's money and it entices MLSE in to get the stadium built and an MLS team landed to boot. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the CSA and Canadian soccer. Who cares if theres two banks involved, the promise of naming-rights money is what got MLSE involved, so BMO money has indirectly contibuted to the advancement of soccer here.

The reason I called this "the other shoe dropping" is that it was the inevitable outcome of needing to get a $62million stadium under construction with only $45 million of capital (feds/province/city)....it left $27million short. So MLSE contribute $27 million and get to control the stadium and the management and get paid to do so. They then sell the naming rights for that same $27 million. So they get control (not ownership, I know) but control of the stadium and all of the ancillary revenues without any capital.

If there had been no shortfall, then the CSA or City (whoever owned/controlled the stadium) would have those revenues....in other words if, in advance, someone had convinced BMO to put in this same $27million before MLSE got involved....a bettter deal could have been cut with MLSE (as a tenant not a controlling manager of the facility).

As for those of you saying "so what if there are two banks"...I think you are being naive. There will not be two banks. If, as I suspect, BMO will have the right to exclude any other bank advertising inside the stadium, then CIBC will not be able to advertise inside the stadium when the national teams play so the value of their sponsorship of the CSA will decline dramatically and they will not contribute funds to the CSA. If they aren't getting to advertise why would they pay the funds.

it is also not the same as Molson having the pouring and signage rights at the ACC during Labatt Hockey Night in Canada.

because both parties (BMO and CIBC) will want ad space in the stadium......BMO will have it and CIBC will not.

So the CSA loses a corporate sponsor while MLSE gets all of their stadium capital back. Great deal for MLSE not so much for the CSA who, IMO, will have to scour the Canadian corporate scene for a new sponsor.

That's what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Elias

I know you're being funny, but the first thing that came to my mind is that our friends McCowan and Perkins are going to come up with some sort of stupidity about the money issue and how the evil robber barons at MLSEL are screwing the innocent tax-payers of Canada again.

No doubt they will, but as local pro soccer starts to become mainstrean in Toronto once again it is becoming abundantly apparent that almost nobody really gives a rats ass what either of those two think. All the whinging that Perkins has done in his articles hasn't done thing, except ruin his own credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

No doubt they will, but as local pro soccer starts to become mainstrean in Toronto once again it is becoming abundantly apparent that almost nobody really gives a rats ass what either of those two think. All the whinging that Perkins has done in his articles hasn't done thing, except ruin his own credibility.

alomost no one ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

it left $27million short. So MLSE contribute $27 million and get to control the stadium and the management and get paid to do so. They then sell the naming rights for that same $27 million. So they get control (not ownership, I know) but control of the stadium and all of the ancillary revenues without any capital.

Thanks for clarifying ToFan, but MLSE still have to pay the expansion fees and build and fund an MLS team from scratch, so we need to stop acting as though all they did was get a stadium for free. It really isn't free for them. They are a business and we shoudn't resent them for behaving like one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Thanks for clarifying ToFan, but MLSE still have to pay the expansion fees and build and fund an MLS team from scratch, so we need to stop acting as though all they did was get a stadium for free. It really isn't free for them. They are a business and we shoudn't resent them for behaving like one.

I acknowledge that they paid expansion fees and now have to build and fund a team. That, however, does not change the economics of the stadium!

They did get control of the stadium for "free" and they will make money from controling the stadium. The fact that they then got an MLS team and put it in as one of the tenants in their "free" stadium is a separate matter.

If the CSA had found BMO before they found MLSE they would have been able to build, own and control the stadium and then rent the stadium to MLSE (or anyone else) for their soccer team. Instead, to get the stadium built, the CSA had to sell to MLSE something of $27 million value for $10 million! MLSE used their financial clout to gain control of the stadium for their advantage....good for them....bad for the CSA...that is all I am saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

I acknowledge that they paid expansion fees and now have to build and fund a team. That, however, does not change the economics of the stadium!

They did get control of the stadium for "free" and they will make money from controling the stadium. The fact that they then got an MLS team and put it in as one of the tenants in their "free" stadium is a separate matter.

If the CSA had found BMO before they found MLSE they would have been able to build, own and control the stadium and then rent the stadium to MLSE (or anyone else) for their soccer team. Instead, to get the stadium built, the CSA had to sell to MLSE something of $27 million value for $10 million! MLSE used their financial clout to gain control of the stadium for their advantage....good for them....bad for the CSA...that is all I am saying.

But this would have put the CSA under tremendous risk. You are under the assumption that if the CSA became the owner of the stadium that they could make a profit running it. This is way too much risk for a non-profit organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that having an MLS franchise as tenant was also probably a big part of getting funding for the stadium. I doubt we would want nor would it be legal to have the CSA running a professional soccer franchise. The CSA needed a partner willing to operate an MLS franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CSA would not (and should not) be the ones looking for sponsorship for the stadium, as that job would fall into the hands of the stadium owner (the City of Toronto).

The City contracted MLSE to run the stadium, which it seems to be doing quite well thus far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Bank of Montreal has been calling themselves BMO for years now, in a similar way that Royal Bank of Canada is RBC, and Toronto-Dominion is TD.

The Canadian banks have spread out internationally, so none of them (except Scotiabank) go by their original 'regional' names any more.

The Vault (I named it first, bettermirror ;)) will officially be known as "BMO ________ (Stadium, Park, Field, etc)", in the same vein as there is an RBC Center in Raleigh, NC, TD Waterhouse Center in Orlando, and TD BankNorth Garden in Boston.

Your history of Canada is obviously poor. Canadian baanks operated under their orginally names on a much bigger long before the name change.

The only reason they shorterned was to bow down to American investors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Your history of Canada is obviously poor. Canadian baanks operated under their orginally names on a much bigger long before the name change.

The only reason they shorterned was to bow down to American investors.

WTF is up your ass? You basically repeat what I just said (much more poorly, though), preceded by the usual DoyleG cheapshot.

How is my Canadian history poor? Idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

WTF is up your ass? You basically repeat what I just said (much more poorly, though), preceded by the usual DoyleG cheapshot.

How is my history of Canadian history poor? Idiot.

Read the post before you open your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Read the post before you open your mouth.

Heed your own advice.

I really have no patience for your crap. You repeat what I wrote (that the banks were operating under their original names before the name chages... well, duh) in some incoherent post, and precede that by saying my history of Canada is poor.

If mine is poor, why are you repeating what I wrote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Heed your own advice.

I really have no patience for your crap. You repeat what I wrote (that the banks were operating under their original names before the name chages... well, duh) in some incoherent post, and precede that by saying my history of Canada is poor.

If mine is poor, why are you repeating what I wrote?

You obviously don't even know what the hell you wrote in the first place.

Don't like being called out, then don't post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

You obviously don't even know what the hell you wrote in the first place.

Don't like being called out, then don't post.

I have no time for your stupidity.

Please go read a book and take an English class before responding to my posts. Or pick a fight with someone else.

Good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Elias

I know you're being funny, but the first thing that came to my mind is that our friends McCowan and Perkins are going to come up with some sort of stupidity about the money issue and how the evil robber barons at MLSEL are screwing the innocent tax-payers of Canada again.

Given that MLSEL got so much money for the naming rights, it only provides more fresh ammo for the critics who feel MLSEL could easily pay for it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Given that MLSEL got so much money for the naming rights, it only provides more fresh ammo for the critics who feel MLSEL could easily pay for it themselves.

Dude they are not a charity, they are a business. They have to get the best deal for themselves. The reality is that Canadian soccer is a poor draw for major Canadian companies, so they have to be enticed to support the game here with the opportunity for profit. All this ntalk of getting companies to pay for stadiums themselves assumes that soccer is enough of a draw that they would wish to spend $60 million on a soccer stadium now. It isn't, so get used to that fact, and the fact that Canadian companies are not putting large sums of money into this sport without very good opportunities being on offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

So the CSA loses a corporate sponsor while MLSE gets all of their stadium capital back. Great deal for MLSE not so much for the CSA who, IMO, will have to scour the Canadian corporate scene for a new sponsor.

That's what I meant.

According to this article, CIBC turned down the opportunity to acquire the naming rights, and then BMO stepped up. So, fair play to MLSE and BMO for they deal they have struck.

http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/story.html?id=1405cfe9-4411-4e70-8c39-5563314c5798&k=57372

CIBC turns down naming rights to Toronto soccer stadium, BMO steps up

Neil Davidson

Canadian Press

Friday, September 01, 2006

TORONTO (CP) - CIBC has long been a marquee sponsor of the Canadian Soccer Association, but the bank apparently has no problems with Toronto's new soccer stadium being named after the rival Bank of Montreal.

The chief operating officer of the CSA said CIBC, by virtue of its relationship with the association, had first crack at the naming rights. That was part of the CSA's deal with Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, which had bought the naming rights.

"CIBC were given first opportunity so we fulfilled all obligations," Kevan Pipe said Thursday from Ottawa. "They were deeply appreciative of that opportunity to be first in line to consider that.

"It (the stadium) has always been identified as a totally separate project, so no conflict, no issues, no story, no nothing."

Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment paid $10 million for naming rights as part of its contribution to the 20,000-seat, $64-million stadium near the Toronto waterfront. MLSE owns Toronto FC, the expansion Major League Soccer team that will be the stadium's major tenant, and will run the venue.

MLSE refused comment on a report Thursday that the BMO naming rights deal could be worth as much as $27 million over 10 years to MLSE. An MLSE spokesman said the company would comment once an agreement was finalized.

The stadium is due to debut May 11, with opening ceremonies and the Canadian under-20 team hosting a "frontline, top-line, world-class opponent," Pipe said. The senior women's team will also probably have a game at the new venue in May.

The World Cup men's team probably won't play there until the fall of 2007 because of the restrictions on available dates in soccer's international calendar.

The stadium will be a key component in the world under-20 championships that Canada is hosting next summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...