BringBackTheBlizzard Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) There are more restrictions than the off-season thing related to the visual impact from the neighbouring streets and the local councillor that moved the amendments has been quoted as saying that what has been approved is not a stadium as there are only going to be bleachers on one side of a sports field. It remains to be seen what will unfold there as the plans for the installation of the bleachers have not been approved yet and there is still time for some fine tuning. Beyond that if 4500 is now seen as being enough by Paul Beirne and co, the amendments are probably not the end of the world even if it does mean only one side and one end are used for anything significant. It very much remains to be seen if they would even need that many seats to satisfy regular spectator demand. http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/halifax-councillor-responds-to-concerns-about-pop-up-soccer-stadium-1.3471903 ...Mason says it's not even technically a stadium, rather bleachers being set up next to a field that is designed for sports... The bleachers will only be used for soccer games. No approval has been given for concerts. They will be set up on the north side of the Wanderers Grounds, away from the Public Gardens. Edited July 12, 2017 by BringBackTheBlizzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Covey Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 I have been present at 1) the info session hosted by the ownership group and Paul Beirne, 2) City Council at the moment the decision was taken and 3) every supporters group meet-up so far, and I can tell you that there will be bleachers on both sides, that there is no difficulty associated with that, and that without seats on one side the stadium would be limited to about 3500 spectators, which would quite simply not be enough seats for a CPL team. so let's drop the idea of a one-sided stadium. not going to happen. there will be bleachers on both sides. Rintaran, Complete Homer, AcadianWanderer and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) There will be whatever your city council ultimately approves and even with the amendments 4500 should be doable as there are limits to what can sensibly be blocked on visual impact from the Botanic Grounds grounds, so what exactly are we arguing about? The point I was making was that PB saying 4500-5500 is OK in budgetary terms should have ended this as a possible concern. Edited July 12, 2017 by BringBackTheBlizzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Covey Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 To clarify: the plan is, roughly, to have 2500-capacity bleachers on each side, with room for perhaps another 500 at each of the ends. A one-sided stadium will quite simply not accommodate enough people (2500+500+500=3500). Thus, you can safely rule out a one-sided stadium as a conceivable scenario. AcadianWanderer and Rintaran 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 At one point 6000-8000 was what tended to be quoted for budget break even on CPL. That would have been problematic without 2 x 2500. 4500-5500 should be reachable with one bigger set of bleachers and smaller partially removable stuff around the rest of the pitch to keep this Wayne Mason guy happy, so think there's nothing much to worry about given this is supposed to only be a stop gap to something more permanent later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Covey Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Minor correction: his name is Waye, not Wayne, Mason; he's the councillor for the district that includes the Wanderers Grounds, and frankly I don't understand why you think he would be "happier" with an asymmetrical stadium than with a symmetrical one. The rationale for the balanced/equal bleachers is to keep the tops of them well below the tree line, minimizing the visual impact across the street at the Public Gardens on the south side as well as from the museum and stables on the north side. Having proportionate bleachers on two sides allows the number of rows of seats to be limited to 15 all around. I think the "stop gap" description gives short shrift to what is intended to be a three-year project; if it succeeds I'm sure there will be something more permanent, as you say, but what shape that may take no one knows yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) The whole visual impact thing is bonkers once you see that the sight lines from the Botanic Gardens are already dominated by an ugly looking 1970s building, so there is no obvious rational reason why any amendments were needed to the 2 x 2500 proposal. The problem is that NIMBY types often simply aren't being rational, but if you take what he has been saying at face value and PB's break even range is what they eventually roll with it should be possible to do it even with the amendments and that can't be a bad thing. Edited July 12, 2017 by BringBackTheBlizzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheo Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 At least now I know what NIMBY means lol. Yeah those people are rarely in touch with reality. But they're loud and persistent with letters to the editors, showing up to meetings and petitions. There's a guy like that at the bar I hang out at. Was trying to get me to sign a petition last night. Really just signed it to get him to stop bugging me since I was trying to watch the game last night. Just part of the joys of governing. Hell I even remember people like that at the campus radio station I volunteered at. Would always have this uncanny ability to take something that should take 5 minutes to go over last 20 at every board meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 I don't know that 6000 vs 7000 matters because the regular attendance will probably be under that. 4500 may not be a cap on seating, but may be a fair estimate for attendance. I imagine that concession, advertising, sponsorship, and merch sales will add up as well, so they're likely not working only with a $1.6m profit budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complete Homer Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 @rob.notenboom's find http://ckom.com/article/1698571/group-plans-bring-pro-soccer-saskatchewan A 15-20 million dollar stadium is certainly upscale of what we've been looking at...I am starting to think that they actually want to copy Brita stadium's design entirely, not just draw inspiration. It fits their cost projection, and apparently has a modular design Greatest Cockney Rip Off, johnyb and ironcub14 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.notenboom Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Complete Homer said: @rob.notenboom's find http://ckom.com/article/1698571/group-plans-bring-pro-soccer-saskatchewan A 15-20 million dollar stadium is certainly upscale of what we've been looking at...I am starting to think that they actually want to copy Brita stadium's design entirely, not just draw inspiration. It fits their cost projection, and apparently has a modular design Brita stadium is a bit larger than they want. But otherwise, it is a great template. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complete Homer Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Just now, rob.notenboom said: Brita stadium is a bit larger than they want. But otherwise, it is a great template. Probably fair, 13 500 is quite large. Personally, I'd be more excited to see a proper, 4 sided stadium with a roof, regardless of capacity Moving to Saskatoon Rob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.notenboom Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Just now, Complete Homer said: Probably fair, 13 500 is quite large. Personally, I'd be more excited to see a proper, 4 sided stadium with a roof, regardless of capacity Moving to Saskatoon Rob? Likely no If the team ends up in S'toon I will try my best to support from afar, travel to as many games as possible, and we will try to join the S'toon Suppoters as POB. If the team ends up in Regina, it's on like Donkey Kong! Complete Homer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheo Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Halifax update http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1485737-halifax-pop-up-soccer-stadium-plan-stalled SEA has tweeted a denial as it being stalled, just "analyzing the impact of requested amendments" Interesting but not surprising really. These things don't happen overnight. Edited July 13, 2017 by Rheo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Think it's a non-story inspired by two big piles of dirt. The final approval on the stadium plans was always going to be after the Soccer Nova Scotia event in September, which city officials were going to monitor for unforeseen problems. Rheo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Initial B Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) On 7/11/2017 at 2:04 PM, BringBackTheBlizzard said: In this podcast from about 45:50 onwards: http://vocalminority.ca/episode-195-170717-bennyballswasmycollegenickname-theonewiththecplprez-sickbeirnebro/ Paul Beirne reveals that only 4 of the 10 interested markets have a stadium in place. Given two are clearly Hamilton and Winnipeg that leaves plenty of room for speculation. Also says the template proposed is a need to sell 4500-5500 tickets at an average price of $25 (tax included). The average ticket price for Ottawa Fury games in their last year of NASL was around $25. They averaged about 5K not including the free Fury Fanatic kids tickets. They were losing money so they dropped to USL and shed the NASL level salaries. If Beirne is saying they only need 5-6K in ticket sales to turn a profit AND have a salary cap in the $1.5-2 million range, then there has to be a TV deal in there somewhere because otherwise the franchises aren't going to last very long. They're going to need at least a $10 million a year deal from the CBC to help subsidize those player salaries for about $800K/yr to 12 teams Edited July 13, 2017 by Initial B Levi Oakey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) He said nothing about a $1.5 - 2 million salary cap and specifically mentioned that their business plan assumes no national TV deal. I think player budgets of below $1 million are the most likely explanation based on what we said. Edited July 13, 2017 by BringBackTheBlizzard Kent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Initial B Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Then there is no way that the CPL will have salaries above the NASL, which precludes the Fury from joining the league since even NASL was too expensive for them even with their 5K paying attendance (not including the Fury Fanatic U14 kids who get in for free). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 I'm not a financial number cruncher, but it's possible the expenses in CPL will be different than NASL. Perhaps travel expenses will be less in CPL, especially for a team like Ottawa which has the possibility of having multiple teams relatively close to them, if not at launch then hopefully in the near future. They could take busses to potential games in Hamilton, KW, London, GTA, Montreal, Quebec City. Also, they wouldn't have to worry about the relative values of the Canadian/American dollars. No more making money in Canadian dollars and renting hotels, booking flights, etc in American dollars. Rintaran and ted 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complete Homer Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Kent said: I'm not a financial number cruncher, but it's possible the expenses in CPL will be different than NASL. Perhaps travel expenses will be less in CPL, especially for a team like Ottawa which has the possibility of having multiple teams relatively close to them, if not at launch then hopefully in the near future. They could take busses to potential games in Hamilton, KW, London, GTA, Montreal, Quebec City. Also, they wouldn't have to worry about the relative values of the Canadian/American dollars. No more making money in Canadian dollars and renting hotels, booking flights, etc in American dollars. And there's still that elusive comment that Montagliani kept making about the league's business model not being based on attendance numbers According to Beirne, it's also not built on TV revenue So... What exactly are they planning? Aside from occasional suggestions of FIFA subsidy (which couldn't be a long term solution), I don't really see anything else that would be the bedrock of league revenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Complete Homer said: And there's still that elusive comment that Montagliani kept making about the league's business model not being based on attendance numbers According to Beirne, it's also not built on TV revenue So... What exactly are they planning? Aside from occasional suggestions of FIFA subsidy (which couldn't be a long term solution), I don't really see anything else that would be the bedrock of league revenue Match fixing maybe? BradMack, ironcub14, Cheeta and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheo Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, Complete Homer said: And there's still that elusive comment that Montagliani kept making about the league's business model not being based on attendance numbers According to Beirne, it's also not built on TV revenue So... What exactly are they planning? Aside from occasional suggestions of FIFA subsidy (which couldn't be a long term solution), I don't really see anything else that would be the bedrock of league revenue Beirne has given numbers though based on attendance so Vic could be out of the loop or those are old comments possibly. Just relistened to the VMP interview -Business plan does not "contemplate" TV, meaning they don't need "a national broadcast deal with stupid money in order to survive. We built our business plan which we believe is really viable and will allow us to be sustainable and grow to 2026 and beyond" They will of course "entertain all comers but at the same time we're building a digital business that will be second to none" Talks of the importance of having "all games available to all supporters" -Talked about CPL has been worked on for 3 1/2 to 4 years and the broadcast landscape has changed "dramatically" since then and by the time they kick off it will be "dramatically" different, stressed the importance to being flexible and ability to be reactionary because of not knowing what the future holds Everything Beirne (and prospective owners) has said recently indicates attendance is important in the revenue stream. ironcub14 and BringBackTheBlizzard 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 6 hours ago, Rheo said: Halifax update http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1485737-halifax-pop-up-soccer-stadium-plan-stalled SEA has tweeted a denial as it being stalled, just "analyzing the impact of requested amendments" Interesting but not surprising really. These things don't happen overnight. Unnamed Trialist and grasshopper1917 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 5 hours ago, Complete Homer said: And there's still that elusive comment that Montagliani kept making about the league's business model not being based on attendance numbers According to Beirne, it's also not built on TV revenue So... What exactly are they planning? Aside from occasional suggestions of FIFA subsidy (which couldn't be a long term solution), I don't really see anything else that would be the bedrock of league revenue Justin droppin' dolla bills yo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Observer Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 On TV, I hope they develop a kick ass digital presence and charge people an annual fee for access including to all the matches, both live and on demand. I don't watch an MLS anymore as the idiots blocked my VPN this year and returned my annual fee when I complained. Its interesting that NHL and the NBA are still happy taking my money even though I don't live in North America. Hopefully, the CPL will follow suit and focus on that medium. I think traditional cable tv is somewhat over rated and will die out. Millennials are driving soccer growth and they are the frontline of the cord cutters so you need to appeal to them through their digital devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now