AvroArrow Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I know we've all heard the rumours in the past, but on my drive to work this morning one of my local radio stations reported this saying Toronto City council was hoping to make this happen. If I have to watch games with CFL football lines painted on the field, I think I'll freak out...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Toronto city council (for the most part) couldn't find BMO without a city-paid limo or cab ride. /best I could come up with while hungry. //yes, this city's government sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Once again, wouldn't they not be able to fit the CFL endzones into BMO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Take down the ultras stand and move it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdroze Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 This is coming from Mayor Miller himself, so it sounds like it's serious. Though the article here says it would only happen if/when the stadium is expanded to "meet the needs" of TFC: http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Football/article/350819 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 They would ruin BMO if they expand it to accomodate CFL football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodfern2007 Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Don't let that happen. That would be utter sacralige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Yeah, what's next? A plastic pitch? This is MLSE we're talking about. If they can make a buck, they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 ^actually, the talk is that MLSE wants no part of the Argos at BMO. The city does because the more days they can fill the place, the more money the city accrues. They made $900K last year and I guess they figure if you can get another 10-12 games per year in that facility, that will be even more money for them. Nonetheless, it would be horrible. BMO is not perfect (yes, I know the field is not real grass) but the sightlines are outstanding and its cozy. The stadium can be expanded for soccer without ruining the coziness of the facility. I don't believe you can expand it for pointyball without pushing seats back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvroArrow Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 Just thinking out loud, but could this be an attempt by the City to wrangle more money out of MLSE? "You don't want the Argos here? Then make it worth our while to keep them out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyr Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 quote:Originally posted by VPjr ^actually, the talk is that MLSE wants no part of the Argos at BMO. The city does because the more days they can fill the place, the more money the city accrues. They made $900K last year and I guess they figure if you can get another 10-12 games per year in that facility, that will be even more money for them. Shouldn't the CSA be filling the stadium (or attempting to) with those 10 or 12 dates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 ^ 10-12 dates per year might be a slight stretch. However, yes, I think the city would expect a few more national team matches at BMO. I wonder if the city of Toronto is actually worried that they'll be earning less at BMO for 2008 because there won't be a high profile event like the U20s to bring in large crowds so now they are clamouring for the Argos. Just a thought but it strikes me as possible that there will be a drop off in revenue flowing to the city coffers as a result of no major international event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I think you are right VPjr. Also, I think its pretty evident that BMO Field is not a viable concert venue in this city either. The concert estimates they made were way off base. Most of the big outdoor summer concert events have already been announced and not a single one will be at BMO Field. I think the CSA will be lucky to host 2 events/year at BMO Field, inspite of the original agreement (which calls for 6 events, iirc). The next logical/probable tenant is the Argos after all these other avenues have been squeezed dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 ^ you know, I totally forgot about concerts. They've only had 1 at BMO I think. They've got the problem that the Ampatheater across the street is a better venue for concerts. Toronto has so many venues that are suitable for concerts that it's unlikely BMO will get used much. Maybe the Leafs will want to play an outdoor game there...LOL. Too bad the seating capacity is almost identical with ACC. I'm worried that this Argo think might happen but the city will have to fork out a lot of money to make the stadium viable and I dont know if they've got the stomach for a 20 million dollar stadium expansion bill when they can barely afford to fill potholes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpg75 Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Keep in mind that the Argos do not pay rent at the Rogers Centre, so a prospective move to BMO would likely entail another sweetheart-type deal to lure them away from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 What a good deal the city got out of this whole thing. If my memory is correct, their percentage share of the investment in the project was less than what MLSEL ponied up as well as what each of the other two levels of govenernment ( Feds and Prov) contributed. Yet the city, unlike the other levels of government, got ownership of the facility and the revenues that accrue to it. When you look at the $900,000 surplus given that the city's share was something like $10 million, that means roughly a 9% rate of return in the first year. Pretty damn good I say. With the place sold out again this year, they should still come out on the plus side even without the doozen or so dates that the U20 WC presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Free kick What a good deal the city got out of this whole thing. If my memory is correct, their percentage share of the investment in the project was less than what MLSEL ponied up as well as what each of the other two levels of govenernment ( Feds and Prov) contributed. Yet the city, unlike the other levels of government, got ownership of the facility and the revenues that accrue to it. The City gets 1/2 the revenue....MLSE gets the other half and MLSE got the naming/sponsorship rights for their investment. The other levels of government get no direct financial repayment (although they get all of the GST/PST and income taxes that the facility generates). So everyone gets something....if I was ranking them, I would suspect MLSE has earned more then the City....just a guess. quote:When you look at the $900,000 surplus given that the city's share was something like $10 million, that means roughly a 9% rate of return in the first year. Is the $900k the City's share or the total. If it was the total, then the City's share is $450k....so they earned +/- 5%......if you factor in that the City had to borrow the money then they probably +/- break even! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrek Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 The city's share is 450K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 The city didn't put any cash into this did they? Wasn't the $10 million the "value" of the city owned land that BMO was built on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Elias The city didn't put any cash into this did they? Wasn't the $10 million the "value" of the city owned land that BMO was built on? The City definitely put in $10 million. The land value is simply included in the 'cost' of the stadium (or the value of the stadium). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack The City definitely put in $10 million. The land value is simply included in the 'cost' of the stadium (or the value of the stadium). The City contributed +/- $10 million to the construction costs and</u> donated the land which I think they also valued at around the same number. So if you include the "value of the land" their $450k return on a $20 million investment is about 2.25% which would not cover the cost of borrowing the $10 million in cash that they invested. Likely the way they look at it is the land was there anyway not producing income so they are making 4.5% on the cash which would (+/-) cover the cost of the cash so they facilitated the construction of a stadium asset and the development of a new business venture at a zero net cost.....not a bad bit of business for a municipality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Keep the f*ck out of BMO. http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/2008/05/06/cfl_construction/ Sportsnet.ca - Five CFL teams, plus the ownership group of a conditional Ottawa franchise, are aggressively planning on either building new stadiums or refurbishing old ones according to the Globe and Mail. The current franchises looking at construction projects are the Montreal Alouettes, Winnipeg Blue Bombers, Hamilton Tiger-Cats, Saskatchewan Roughriders according to the paper's website. The Lions' B.C. Place stadium is also expected to undergo a makeover, while it is rumoured that a potential redesign of Toronto's BMO Field could make the Argonauts a tenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup Keep the f*ck out of BMO. http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/2008/05/06/cfl_construction/ while it is rumoured that a potential redesign of Toronto's BMO Field could make the Argonauts a tenant. Au contrere mon ami! Let the Argos have BMO AFTER TFC get a larger soccer specific stadium with real grass! TFC could use with a modest expansion and the original reason for sharing the stadium costs are now a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintin Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 City council in Toronto is stupid? You should try life in Vancouver. At least you have a stadium. Anyway, they would have to rip down one end of the stadium to make CFL football fit there. Also, how wide is the pitch at BMO? Ripping out the lakeshore end would be beyond stupid, upsetting their most loyal fans to the nth degree, to say nothing of how much they'd be ticking off everyone for even considering this idea in the first place. Ripping out the other end (élite end? Posh End?)would put the seats at that end in the street from what I've seen, mind you that's only from Youtube and the boobtube, so what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.