Jump to content

CSA docs shows FIFA u20 in the Red


squid2

Recommended Posts

CSA document shows FIFA tournament in red

PETER MALLETT From Saturday's Globe and Mail

October 19, 2007

Full article here:

globesports

exerts:

* tournament suffered losses of more than $1.7-million

* expenses of $23,748,686 exceeded revenues of $22,025,000

* financial projections are only 70-per-cent complete

* we are still opening up invoices

"A FIFA spokesperson said Friday that the sport's world governing body already made a $2-million commitment to the local organizing committee before the tournament began and indicated there was no standard clause for a bailout"

"The CSA financial document says the tournament sites in Ottawa, Montreal, Edmonton, Victoria and Burnaby, B.C., will all post substantial losses — with Burnaby's Swangard Stadium's $1,375,244 shortfall being the largest."

"Toronto's BMO Field was the only site to finish in the black, with earnings of $791,548."

"Despite the projected financial losses, the 2007 tournament was the largest single sport event held in Canada and set an U-20 attendance record of 1,156,187, eclipsing Mexico's mark of 1,155,160 in 1983."

Another nail in the CSA coffin....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Wow. Looks like the jokes I made about the CSA not even being able to fvck this tournament up were not jokes at all....i cannot believe a record attendance still plunged this tourny into the red. What if only half the crowds had shown up!?! [V]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness, its important to note two things:

1) FIFA's point man was Jack Warner. So the CSA was easy pickings, no fault of their own.

2) FIFA controlled and dictated everything about the tournament, if I heard correctly, the CSA's only revenue stream was a percentage of tickets sold IN Canada.

With out seeing the agreement and bid package between FIFA and the CSA, we will never know the facts.

However, in discussions with colleagues in the States who worked on the US 94 World Cup, FIFA will probably bail the CSA out. Losing money on a FIFA property is not what FIFA wants as part of the event's legacy in Canada. Espcially since FIFA sees North America as fertile territory to exploit with future venue placements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it's the case here, but in a lot of sports franchises, overstating a loss is commonplace to receive government retribution, tax breaks, etc. I certainly hope that's what's going on.

But more importantly, who in their right mind would announce it 9 days before the announcement of the winner of the WWC 2011 bid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miscalculation of 1.7 million, Jesus! Considering ticket sales were far more than anticipated it just makes CSA budget a total joke. And we want to host the women WC? better hang on tight, the loss may be 10 times higher. Is anybody really checking their numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Vic

Not sure if it's the case here, but in a lot of sports franchises, overstating a loss is commonplace to receive government retribution, tax breaks, etc. I certainly hope that's what's going on.

But more importantly, who in their right mind would announce it 9 days before the announcement of the winner of the WWC 2011 bid?

They didn't announce it, it was an internal document sent within the CSA in July and Peter Mallett got a hold of it and decided to write an article about it.

I find it interesting that Toronto was the only city to make money.

Frankly, given all the ticket sales & FIFA's control, then I don't know that I'm all that concerned. I'd rather lose money on a tourney that's run well & leaves a solid impact & impression on the game than be cheap about things and show the world and the country a fiasco. And heck, we got a new stadium & MLS in Canada as a result of this tourney. If there's a complaint to be made, it was the suggestion that was announced months back that we just needed 500,000 ticket sales for a profit. Evidently that wasn't true and that shouldn't have been stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

If there's a complaint to be made, it was the suggestion that was announced months back that we just needed 500,000 ticket sales for a profit. Evidently that wasn't true and that shouldn't have been stated.

According to the CBC, it's the reinstallation of new turf at

the Big O, added security expenses (incl. Toronto), and other

unexpected upgrades (lights for TV), that mainly caused the losses.

These are FIFA requirements that came up just before the tourney,

and apparently FIFA is absorbing the costs.

I'm not a fan of the CSA, but can't really blame them for the

new FIFA requirements. Nor for the advantages of hosting the

tournament, as GL suggested.

(This was from a CBC-TV Winnipeg newscast on Thurs Oct 18th.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be the Sport Canada documents, not sure, but the u20 financials etc., are scheduled for an audit in December as final reports including audited financial statements for the u20 event are due to Sport Canada in January as part of the funding argeement.

Prior to the audit, the CSA will review with Jack Warner/FIFA and an "equalization" payment will probably materialize.

My concern about this is how the CSA handles it, not the fact that it lost money. Seems to be old Angus started the ball rolling while he was in China. The CSA didn't control the u20s. The CSA deferred to the six local organizing committees and each did a great job administering what FIFA dictated.

For the most part, the CSA was the passenger, while the locals did all the grunt work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Of course it wasn't used in the U-20 tournament, it was not approved by FIFA and had to be replaced by the CSA at the last minute with FIFA approved FieldTurf. Fortunately for the Montreal Organising Committee FieldTurf is right there in Montreal.

I still don't understand how this happened. How did they end up installing a turf that was NOT Fifa Recommended 2 Star approved? I mean that is a big purchase, how could you make that kind of mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by piltdownman

I still don't understand how this happened. How did they end up installing a turf that was NOT Fifa Recommended 2 Star approved? I mean that is a big purchase, how could you make that kind of mistake?

I quite agree and that was likely the very first question the CSA folks asked when the MOC turned to them for help getting out of the mess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by squid2

CSA document shows FIFA tournament in red

PETER MALLETT From Saturday's Globe and Mail

October 19, 2007

I would love to actually see the real numbers... I have no belief in anything done with money by the CSA and or FIFA in relation to this tournament, if anything calls out for a full independent audit this does... is it not the chartered accountants who use a soccer theme in thier television ads ?

Something very major stinks in the released information and how its presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions to pose regarding ... expenses.

1. How much from actual ticket price is being said to go to TicketMaster to issue tickets..and i am not talking about the surcharge we all paid.

2. Television radio etc.. who was the agency of record in placing the ads and who was hired and paid for advertising production were the charges in line with normal fees ... in the industry ?

3. How many FIFA delegates were funded by revenue from the tournament versus paid for by FIFA headquarters, what were the hospitality bills added to tournament costs for free dinners and drinks to FIFA personal etc.

A true broken down audit for value ... one that is very close to a forensic audit is required, one hopes that Sport Canada will demand it as they invested in the program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no list of standards for the MOC to follow.Or they ignored it or being from Montreal where fieldturf is there was no verifying phone call to insure it was 2 Star approved. The CSA left it in the hands of the MOC carte blanche even though the CSA knew they would be the ones who would have to bail them out. Of course!

What sanctions or penalties were implemented to the people responsible at the MOC and the CSA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Vic

Surely there is someone in the Globe and Mail with half a friggin' brain.

Not the globe and mail's problem whether we get WWC or not. Their job is to report news. If CSA actually disclosed information we wouldn't be in this situation right now.

The fact that we know they can't run an event is a good thing, compared to knowing nothing. I definately wouldn't feel any better if we got the successful bid and that was followed up by "oh ya we lost nearly 2M on the U-20." Pretty sure even if we didn't know FIFA would anyway and so would the feds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There was no list of standards for the MOC to follow.Or they ignored it or being from Montreal where fieldturf is there was no verifying phone call to insure it was 2 Star approved. The CSA left it in the hands of the MOC carte blanche even though "the CSA knew they would be the ones who would have to bail them out. Of course!

What sanctions or penalties were implemented to the people responsible at the MOC and the CSA?"

Cathal Kelly reported this:

"The highest ranking FIFA Field Turf hands out is a "Two-Star" rating each spring and then replacing it with FieldTurf each

winter (approx. cost: $900000)?"

Peter reports:

"tournament suffered losses of more than $1.7-million"

If the CSA does the basic fundamental job of insuring they dont allow MOC to screw up and lose hundreds of thousands of of our dollars then 1.7 million minus lets say its $300000 for the lower class turf. The CSA only blows 1.4 million of our money. And maybe the CSA sold the crappy one star turf to the Alouettes for $200,000, then its only a measly -$1.2 million. Any way you cut this grass it really stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Trillium

I am with you. Their management control seems non-existent and I doubt the Auditors will find anything unless one points them in the right direction. I just wonder if this release of leak of information was designed to divert the attention from the Nykamp lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by fan

"There was no list of standards for the MOC to follow.Or they ignored it or being from Montreal where fieldturf is there was no verifying phone call to insure it was 2 Star approved. The CSA left it in the hands of the MOC carte blanche even though "the CSA knew they would be the ones who would have to bail them out. Of course!

What sanctions or penalties were implemented to the people responsible at the MOC and the CSA?"

Cathal Kelly reported this:

"The highest ranking FIFA Field Turf hands out is a "Two-Star" rating each spring and then replacing it with FieldTurf each

winter (approx. cost: $900000)?"

Peter reports:

"tournament suffered losses of more than $1.7-million"

If the CSA does the basic fundamental job of insuring they dont allow MOC to screw up and lose hundreds of thousands of of our dollars then 1.7 million minus lets say its $300000 for the lower class turf. The CSA only blows 1.4 million of our money. And maybe the CSA sold the crappy one star turf to the Alouettes for $200,000, then its only a measly -$1.2 million. Any way you cut this grass it really stinks.

IIRC, Montreal was getting their surface from an Australian company. It wasn't even an old version of FieldTurf. I believe it was some sort of system that could be easily (relatively speaking) moved and that is why they wanted it. They wanted to be able to use it in different venues and more easily moved than FieldTurf.

But I really do want to know who screwed this up. I find it difficult to believe that the CSA would be in the dark on this and that the LOC wouldn't be keeping them informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info dbailey62 it would be nice to have transparency, clarification and competence coming from the CSA in the first place wouldn't it? We always seem to be doing the work that the CSA is supposed to do or uncovering what they mask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...