Trillium Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I am confused .. why does Vancouver not build a stadium in the Lower East side where they have all the social problems ? Would it not make good renewal project ? This weekend the feds are going to give F1 thirty million dollars, surely that would kick start a stadium in Vancouver.... Who is your federal cabinet minister again with political responsibilty for Vancouver ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownbear Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Trillium I am confused .. why does Vancouver not build a stadium in the Lower East side where they have all the social problems ? Would it not make good renewal project ? This weekend the feds are going to give F1 thirty million dollars, surely that would kick start a stadium in Vancouver.... Who is your federal cabinet minister again with political responsibilty for Vancouver ? First of all, there's nowhere to put it in the DTES and second, a stadium will not renew that blighted area. How will building a stadium help thousands of persons with psychological and/or drug problems live better lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 ^Yeah, this struck me in Seattle at the Gold Cup. The train station and Stadiums are in this industrial slum. You know, you can put up as much fresh paint and fancy structures as you want in a slum, at the end of the day it's still a slum. Sure, come match day the cops will be out in force giving the local bums a hard time and keep-the-peace for the benefit of the sports customers and what not, but a couple of hours after the game is over it'll be business as usual in crack alley. And that's the way it'll be for 300 days of the year. By themselves stadiums are seldom good for reviving "neighbourhoods". (Can you tell I'm not a big fan of certain types of "renewal" projects?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Free kick In short, what I am getting at is that the so called "closing the gap" has more to do with perception than reality. I suspect the poor performance of MLS teams in the CONCACAF Champions League relative to USL teams may be based on the size of bonus payments on offer for progress in the competition. Salary caps and single entity probably makes that problematic in an MLS context, while USL owners can do what they like in that regard. Haven't had time to research this theory in any depth, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Impact Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard I suspect the poor performance of MLS teams in the CONCACAF Champions League relative to USL teams may be based on the size of bonus payments on offer for progress in the competition. Salary caps and single entity probably makes that problematic in an MLS context, while USL owners can do what they like in that regard. Haven't had time to research this theory in any depth, however. MLS is the premier League with respect to ressources and capital, but the USL A-legue might be a better model with regards to structure and player development. Attendance has been going up at a sustainable pace, with a regular season average of 5164. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_First_Division#League_average_attendance MLS has the capital to attract better International players, but you have to worry about the "Beckham" effect with his potential permenent departure from LA Galaxy (TV contracts, Sponserships, Attendance etc). Where does the MLS go from here? Hopefully MLS Hasn't put all their chips on Beckham. The A-league under the USL umbrella, has been around under one form or another since the early 90ies, and has gone the slower but steadier route, and contrary to what some may believe, the level of play has improved Thanks inpart to the MLS lending out or releasing some of thier players to USL teams. The time has come for the MLS to change its ownership policies and allow teams more discretion as to how they want to run their franchises. It wouldn't be a bad idea to look towards some of the more successfull USL franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Mr.Impact The time has come for the MLS to change its ownership policies and allow teams more discretion as to how they want to run their franchises. It wouldn't be a bad idea to look towards some of the more successfull USL franchises. I'm sure issues like bonus payments in CONCACAF Champions League games will be addressed in the next CBA between MLS and its players union. That's up for renewal at the end of 2009 as far as I remember. If the USL's business model was really so attractive I don't think the owners of Montreal, Vancouver and Portland would be keen to drop $40 million on an expansion franchise fee to get into MLS. And the USL-D1 owners in Miami and Atlanta wouldn't be facing the prospect of MLS expansion into their market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Oranje Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Don't think for a second that the Miami USL franchise means all that much to its owners if in fact they are owned by Grupo Traffic (still not clear to me even though the Miami FC site seems to claim that). quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard I'm sure issues like bonus payments in CONCACAF Champions League games will be addressed in the next CBA between MLS and its players union. That's up for renewal at the end of 2009 as far as I remember. If the USL's business model was really so attractive I don't think the owners of Montreal, Vancouver and Portland would be keen to drop $40 million on an expansion franchise fee to get into MLS. And the USL-D1 owners in Miami and Atlanta wouldn't be facing the prospect of MLS expansion into their market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrennanFan Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 found this on big soccer. Here is the chart of Istar Financial, Jay Sugarman's company. Sugarman is the key investor for philly. that ownership group is in serious trouble. no doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 How much for a USL First Division side......1 or 2 million....... MLS is now asking 40 million. Does the product justify the price ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by brownbear First of all, there's nowhere to put it in the DTES and second, a stadium will not renew that blighted area. How will building a stadium help thousands of persons with psychological and/or drug problems live better lives? Yes there are a couple of locations. The top one being flats by terminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I'm so sick and tired of this BS about BC Place being a "deal-breaker". Anyone with any insight at all knows that the BC Place renderings (which are rumoured to be coming out next week) will make BC Place BETTER than Quest Field in Seattle because it has a retractable roof, and because the upper bowl can be draped off. Everybody keeps going on about BC Place because no-one has seen the renderings for a soccer configuration. Secondly, the negotiations with the Port have not ceased...in fact, there has been activity all along, but the parties are not negotiating in the media. Vancouver IN for 2011 GUARANTEED. Stop putting this BS out there about stadium deal breakers. Montreal's could be in for 2010, and that leaves Miami the frontrunner for the second spot in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 MLS is a juggernaut. The things we find frustrating about MLS, and possibly hate the most, are also the things that may be ensuring long term viability. USL is not building 100 million dollar stadiums ect....nor should they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury How much for a USL First Division side......1 or 2 million....... MLS is now asking 40 million. Does the product justify the price ? About 300k and their web site says 1-1.5 million a year in expenses. You could have a team in the USL forever on the 5% interest you would get from just the MLS franchise fee. Hard to say what it is worth. The value of your USL-1 franchise will probably not go up, it will always be looked at as second division, the stadiums will always be smaller (6,000-12,000 seats) so less revenue. You will never get the media coverage that MLS will. MLS seems to be for those who want to take a shot at a potential large value increase down the road where USL seems to be for those focussed on initial outlay. If you are in a large metro area then I'd say go MLS and hope you get a TV deal to show the games. If you are in an area of under 2 million I'd go with USL and aim at inter-league play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury How much for a USL First Division side......1 or 2 million....... MLS is now asking 40 million. Does the product justify the price ? quote:USL Soccer Q: What is the estimated initial investment cost? A: There are variable estimated initial investments for each league. The initial franchise fee range is $75,000 to $750,000 (depending on league). Average operating budgets for the USL First Division range from $2M- $2.5M, USL Second Division range from $600K - $1M, the USL Premier Development League range from $100K - $200K, and the USL W-League from $75K to $150K. League administrative and affiliation fees vary from league to league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer I'm so sick and tired of this BS about BC Place being a "deal-breaker". Anyone with any insight at all knows that the BC Place renderings (which are rumoured to be coming out next week) will make BC Place BETTER than Quest Field in Seattle because it has a retractable roof, and because the upper bowl can be draped off. Everybody keeps going on about BC Place because no-one has seen the renderings for a soccer configuration. It doesn't matter how BC Place will look in comparison to Qwest. Only matters how it compares to the other bids. Qwest is always brought up as a reason why BC place will work but MLS only made a huge exception because of Paul Allen's money, complete stadium ownershp and less expansion competition at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 The following only deals with the stadium situation, and no other element of the bids. Personally I see BC place as a problem. But I see a bigger problems with some of the other bids where the clubs are relying on government money or financing on stadiums that are still on the drawing board. The St Louise fanboys on BigSoccer think that their stadium situation is better than anyone, because the renderings are nice and the have a promise from the city to provide financing. I have made enemies with them by suggesting that a full scale development, including 410 acres of residential and commercial development, on farmland in the outskirts of town, in this economic climate,sounds unlikley. (for reference Stanley park is about 1000 acres). Portland needs a new stadium for the Beavers baseball team and improvements to PGE park, totalling $75m of the Cities money. Ottawa has a (maybe two) stadium proposal(s) needing either approval or city money. Atlanta doesn't seem to have a clue even where they would put a stadium. That would make me believe that would put Montreal in the drivers seat. They simply need to expand Stade Suputo with their own money. Miami has that sweet offer from the University on the outskirts of town, and land to build their own stadium later. That and the fact that their owner has enough money to actually build a stadium would have me putting them in the number two spot. Vancouver, even with BC Place, is a safe third. Sure if St Louise can follow through with their plans they would leapfrog everyone else, but I haven't smoked enough crack in my life to actually believe that will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 quote: It doesn't matter how BC Place will look in comparison to Qwest. Only matters how it compares to the other bids. Qwest is always brought up as a reason why BC place will work but MLS only made a huge exception because of Paul Allen's money, complete stadium ownershp and less expansion competition at the time. So, Greg Kerfoot and his partners don't have that kind of money? And what Quest field shows is PRECEDENCE. So does Gillette Stadium. Everyone knows BC Place is a TEMPORARY solution. So I highly disagree with Piltdown man that it poses a problem and could potentially be a deal breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 The revamped BC Place will be a wonderful venue for an MLS team, second only to Waterfront Stadium and better than many other venues used by MLS clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie Monster Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 There's also been a lot of media buzz in Vancouver over the past few weeks which seems to suggest that the Caps are VERY happy with the yet-to-be-publicized artistic and technical renderings of the new soccer configuration at BC Place (although it was submitted with the MLS bid package)... starting to sound like it will be a permanent home for them, not a temporary one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury How much for a USL First Division side......1 or 2 million....... MLS is now asking 40 million. Does the product justify the price ? The answer to that question would depend on what one defines as "The product". If its just merely the on-field product, then the answer to your question would be: No it doesn't justify the price since clear MLS is nowhere near being 20 times better than USL, of which, a team can be had for the approximately the price you quoted. But if you expand the definition of product to include things like merchandising, branding and brand loyalty, then its a different story. These factors are very much dependent on the amount of exposure and subseqeunt following that each creates. Based on that, I would say that yes, the product does justify the huge differential between USL and MLS. Exposure for MLS is at least 20 times higher than USL. MLS games are on TV on the main networks in canada and the US whereas USL games are mainly on specialized digital channels with very very small subscribership. The print media coverage, there was none in TO in the USL days, whereas for MLS there is almost a daily piece. MLS calls itself the first division, whereas USL does not. All this contributes to the additional ancilliary revenues such as merchandizing (eg.; the vast majority of people at BMO field have purchased a team jersey). Whereas at the USL lynx, I dont know of anyone other than the dozen or so of us in U-sectors who bought a team jersey. In this respect, the USL in Montreal is not that much different than the USL in TO when it comes jerseys that I have seen out in the public. Another important factor is the ability of ownership to further develop the brand and, by extension, the product. Again, MLS is in a much more advantageous position here. Want a perfect example, before, you board or get off a plane at at the airport here, you will likely see a souvenirs shop selling TFC jerseys along side Leafs, raptors and jays jersies. Whereas I have never seen a USL team jersey displayed at such locations in TO or MOntreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer So, Greg Kerfoot and his partners don't have that kind of money? And what Quest field shows is PRECEDENCE. So does Gillette Stadium. Everyone knows BC Place is a TEMPORARY solution. So I highly disagree with Piltdown man that it poses a problem and could potentially be a deal breaker. Once again, Qwest is an exception and not precedence. Paul Allen is worth $16 billion with ownership of his own stadium and therefore controls all revenue streams. Kerfoot is certainly rich but not that rich and without ownership of BC Place it's not enough to justify another "exception". Even Kraft owns Gillette but the Revs are close to completing a deal to build a new SSS in urban Boston and abandon the big stadium. Soccer alignment or not, BC Place is still a 60,000 seater that Kerfoot doesn't own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 ^ Nobody is disputing the facts you quote, just how relevant they will be when MLS considers the bids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Tired old BC Place moot point notwithstanding, there are two other MAJOR factors that will land Vancouver one of the two teams. MLS would love to take the Whitecaps from the USL. USL losing Vancouver, Montreal, Seattle and eventually Portland and Miami, would finally cut them off as a serious competitor at least in the posterity department. The other big factor is geography. MLS needs balance between divisions, and those Western teams in California and Seattle want to have more nearby rivals. The league wants travelling rivalries akin to Europe. They'll get it with Montreal, and they'll get it with Vancouver too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 You would have a point if Portland didn't also satisfy all of the criteria you just stated while still being an American city. Anyway, back to Montreal. George Gillett was on the radio tonight and said the Canadiens new state of the art practice facility also has a FIFA approved full sized indoor soccer pitch. A year round practice facility for the Impact might just be another feather in their cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer Tired old BC Place moot point notwithstanding, there are two other MAJOR factors that will land Vancouver one of the two teams. MLS would love to take the Whitecaps from the USL. USL losing Vancouver, Montreal, Seattle and eventually Portland and Miami, would finally cut them off as a serious competitor at least in the posterity department. The other big factor is geography. MLS needs balance between divisions, and those Western teams in California and Seattle want to have more nearby rivals. The league wants travelling rivalries akin to Europe. They'll get it with Montreal, and they'll get it with Vancouver too. I really don't think the MLS sees USL as a threat. Granting Vancouver or Montreal a franchise, killing USL will not be part of the plan or intention. A healthy USL is good for MLS and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.