Jump to content
lazlo_80

CPL new teams speculation

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Obinna said:

General question: is it just me or does Canada always seem to face a big hurdle when it comes to stadiums? 

My feeling is, yes. We have so much regulation and red tape, and everything is super expensive (especially in our three largest metropolitian areas) that it’s a massively uphill battle to build a house let alone a stadium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Obinna said:

General question: is it just me or does Canada always seem to face a big hurdle when it comes to stadiums? 

As it should. It's ridiculous that taxpayers fronts the cost of stadiums for billionaires. The US have that culture...we dont to some extend.

It's not that potential owners can't afford a stadium, it's more about how much taxpayers funds they can get into their project.

It's part of the game of negotiation. Owners won't build a stadium and assume 100% of the cost until they are absolutely sure they got every penny they can get in public funding. Canada resist it more than the US

 

Edited by Ansem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Obinna said:

General question: is it just me orI does Canada always seem to face a big hurdle when it comes to stadiums? 

I love Canada, but to answer your question, yes, absolutely, because Canadians just don't 'get' sports the way people in other countries do.  Professional sports is just not a way of life in Canada the way it is in most other countries.  People don't want public money going to fund stadiums.  Look at the Whitecaps, they don't even want private money going to fund stadiums.  I don't want public money going to fund stadiums for teams owned by private owners, but things are always made so difficult, and there's not a chance of us ever having a national stadium or even a couple of regional stadiums for national teams (to possibly be shared with amateur sports).

The easiest way to compare our situation to others is the NHL since all things should be equal amongst all the teams.  So they're arenas, not stadia, but it's the same principle.  When a team in the US wants to build a new arena, they get help from the local government, and pay very little in taxes because of the jobs they create and the revenue they bring to the immediate area and the local economy in general.  When a Canadian team wants to build an arena, the city tells them to go f*** themselves and you end up with teams like the Habs paying more in taxes than all US teams combined.

People argue that part of the problem is that our population is all spread out, which is true.  However, Australia's population is also along a very thin line along the southern edge of the country, concentrated in one blob towards the east with an isolated city on the west coast and an island of slightly unusual people off the coast on the eastern edge of the country.  If you build a new stadium in Australia, the locals ask, "Why isn't it bigger, and why didn't you build it sooner?  Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch five other teams I follow."

 

Edited by vancanman
Because I get worked up about this and I typed hastily and screwed it all up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ansem said:

As it should. It's ridiculous that taxpayers fronts the cost of stadiums for billionaires. The US have that culture...we dont to some extend.

It's not that potential owners can't afford a stadium, it's more about how much taxpayers funds they can get into their project.

 

You're right.  I don't want public money to fund stadiums for billionaires (not that we have many billionaires in Canada) but the result of the way we do things in Canada is, Saputo's the only stadium with four sides and a roof covering at least the back three rows of the stands.  How do other countries get things done?

Edited by vancanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vancanman said:

You're right.  I don't want public money to fund stadiums for billionaires (not that we have many billionaires in Canada) but the result of the way we do things in Canada is, Saputo's the only stadium with four sides and a roof covering at least the back three rows of the stands.  How do other countries get things done?

Saputo has been fighting the city tax formula and deemed it a condition for improvement of the stadium... they are among Canada's richest...the city gave them some relief though...

I don't know...I dont think the US model makes sense either...

Canada is good as usually you need to throw in lots of perks (great business case) for a city to participate in a stadium project. I will always be against a project where we just write a check with nothing in return

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Saputo has been fighting the city tax formula and deemed it a condition for improvement of the stadium... they are among Canada's richest...the city gave them some relief though...

I don't know...I dont think the US model makes sense either...

Canada is good as usually you need to throw in lots of perks (great business case) for a city to participate in a stadium project. I will always be against a project where we just write a cheque with nothing in return

I know that Saputo had to leave that corridor open in order to not block the view of the incredibly aesthetically pleasing tower at Stade Olympique.  What does Saputo want to do to the stadium?  Do you have any solutions, or do you know how other countries manage to get it done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, vancanman said:

I know that Saputo had to leave that corridor open in order to not block the view of the incredibly aesthetically pleasing tower at Stade Olympique.  What does Saputo want to do to the stadium?  Do you have any solutions, or do you know how other countries manage to get it done?

What can he do? Pay for the upgrades himself. He got some tax relief already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vancanman said:

You're right.  I don't want public money to fund stadiums for billionaires (not that we have many billionaires in Canada) but the result of the way we do things in Canada is, Saputo's the only stadium with four sides and a roof covering at least the back three rows of the stands.  How do other countries get things done?

Every situation should be viewed as an individual case. To say No public money should be used ever to fund a stadium because someone made a funny video is a bit ridiculous. 

Edited by SpursFlu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vancanman said:

Do you have any solutions, or do you know how other countries manage to get it done?

Other countries, particularly in Europe, get it done because of community, open market, and soccer obsession. In Europe, a community will form a sporting / athletic club, grow the business, and build their facilities, including stadiums. If they fail, another local community will succeed, because it’s an open market and there are no franchise territorial restrictions. You are not prevented from starting a new club just because there are already two others in your town. And because your community is (mostly) obsessed with soccer, you’re not competing with hockey, baseball, basketball, etc, for the hearts and Euros of your constituents. 

Imagine Toronto without any territorial restrictions and with a population solely obsessed with hockey? How many NHL teams would be based in Toronto? London has 6 top flight soccer clubs. Madrid and Barcelona have 3 each. All these have their own stadiums, and all (most!) financed, built, and owned by the clubs. No (or very limited) public funding. 

Meantime, in the US, artificial territorial restrictions, which prevents open market competitive growth, and the very diverse interest in sports, prevents smaller communities from getting critical mass on obtaining any franchise in any sport, and rather than being viewed as a ‘loser’ community, civic leaders willingly donate public funds to multi-millionaires, who just finished screwing over another community by moving they franchise to your town  

Canada, stick to your principles! No public money for sporting cathedrals. And this coming from an obsessive soccer fan. It’s not about ‘getting it’ when it comes to sports. It’s about elected officials being responsible and accountable with money that’s not really theirs. If a sports owner really values your community, they’ll make the necessary investment, and you’ll thank them with your season’s tickets.  

 

 

Edited by IAmPappy
Fixed typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rant Alert.

Interesting discussion.

As to getting stadiums built in Europe just ask Norwich how long it took to have improvements made to Carrow Road or up in Aberdeen the decade long (+) plans for the move out of Pittordrie.  Not all smooth sailing in either case, for different reasons but still, there it is. 

Sports are culture and I have no objection to public funds being invested into culture but there are of course limits to the value of any investment.   Here in Winnipeg the NHL only returned because certain incentives were offered which helped justified the private investment which spured that return.  Amongst other things a modern arena was of course part of that.  The "seed money" of those public incentives which included various forms of tax relief, amonst other things, are pretty generous by Canadian standards but I think, wouldn't even be a starting point for our American cousins in negotiations with government authorities.  So I'm going to guess we're getting it about right.  Doing just enough to get the private sector to stick it's neck out a bit.

I'd also just like to point out a reality in my small mixed-income neighbourhood.  At the community level soccer is a profitable venture used to subsidize hockey and baseball.  This is a hard fact.  Tonight I could find you a dozen empty hockey rinks illuminated under floodlights within the same boundries of a community which will have exactly ONE pitch under floodlights this summer which will be shared with field hockey, soccer and grid-iron programs.  

I mention all this to raise the simple point that this experience isn't logical on any level whatsoever. 

I don't think it's generally unreasonable to expect any metro area in Canada to have a venue which could suit CPL needs.  Even if that venue were entirely publically funded.  We're not talking about billion dollar investments here.  It could be a mixed used facility. It doesn't really matter.  A modest venue/facility would have value to that community with or without CPL and we're well past due recognizing that.    

 

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, IAmPappy said:

Other countries, particularly in Europe, get it done because of community, open market, and soccer obsession. In Europe, a community will form a sporting / athletic club, grow the business, and build their facilities, including stadiums. If they fail, another local community will succeed, because it’s an open market and there are no franchise territorial restrictions. You are not prevented from starting a new club just because there are already two others in your town. And because your community is (mostly) obsessed with soccer, you’re not competing with hockey, baseball, basketball, etc, for the hearts and Euros of your constituents. 

Imagine Toronto without any territorial restrictions and with a population solely obsessed with hockey? How many NHL teams would be based in Toronto? London has 6 top flight soccer clubs. Madrid and Barcelona have 3 each. All these have their own stadiums, and all (most!) financed, built, and owned by the clubs. No (or very limited) public funding. 

Meantime, in the US, artificial territorial restrictions, which prevents open market competitive growth, and the very diverse interest in sports, prevents smaller communities from getting critical mass on obtaining any franchise in any sport, and rather than being viewed as a ‘loser’ community, civic leaders willingly donate public funds to multi-millionaires, who just finished screwing over another community by moving they franchise to your town  

Canada, stick to your principles! No public money for sporting cathedrals. And this coming from an obsessive soccer fan. It’s not about ‘getting it’ when it comes to sports. It’s about elected officials being responsible and accountable with money that’s not really theirs. If a sports owner really values your community, they’ll make the necessary investment, and you’ll thank them with your season’s tickets.  

 

 

And that's why there's no stadiums in tbis country. Because it's a chicken and egg theory going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cheeta said:

Rant Alert.

Interesting discussion.

As to getting stadiums built in Europe just ask Norwich how long it took to have improvements made to Carrow Road or up in Aberdeen the decade long (+) plans for the move out of Pittordrie.  Not all smooth sailing in either case, for different reasons but still, there it is. 

Sports are culture and I have no objection to public funds being invested into culture but there are of course limits to the value of any investment.   Here in Winnipeg the NHL only returned because certain incentives were offered which helped justified the private investment which spured that return.  Amongst other things a modern arena was of course part of that.  The "seed money" of those public incentives which included various forms of tax relief, amonst other things, are pretty generous by Canadian standards but I think, wouldn't even be a starting point for our American cousins in negotiations with government authorities.  So I'm going to guess we're getting it about right.  Doing just enough to get the private sector to stick it's neck out a bit.

I'd also just like to point out a reality in my small mixed-income neighbourhood.  At the community level soccer is a profitable venture used to subsidize hockey and baseball.  This is a hard fact.  Tonight I could find you a dozen empty hockey rinks illuminated under floodlights within the same boundries of a community which will have exactly ONE pitch under floodlights this summer which will be shared with field hockey, soccer and grid-iron programs.  

I mention all this to raise the simple point that this experience isn't logical on any level whatsoever. 

I don't think it's generally unreasonable to expect any metro area in Canada to have a venue which could suit CPL needs.  Even if that venue were entirely publically funded.  We're not talking about billion dollar investments here.  It could be a mixed used facility. It doesn't really matter.  A modest venue/facility would have value to that community with or without CPL and we're well past due recognizing that.    

 

 

 

  

Amen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually wrote an economic research paper on the impact of the professional sports on Edmonton's economy. One of the major factors I looked at was the use of public funds for Rogers Place. In most cases, new stadiums don't really affect an economy much, so public funds shouldn't be used. However, in the odd case, new stadiums do add value, in which case it is justified to use public funds. I am of the opinion that each case should be treated individually. The problem is that you can never know the affect on the economy fully untill years after completion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 2:57 PM, IAmPappy said:

A LOT!

It all started out as hushed whispers, then they evolved into rumours, and eventually full-blown speculation about news clubs in Laval, Quebec City, Saskatoon, and lower BC. At one point it was nearly confirmed that Don Cherry would be a coach, or GM, or owner, or something. But the uncertain and completely speculative franchise fee of $9M, along with a completely clueless idea on how CSB actually runs its business, put those speculations to rest. I’m hearing Ottawa might resurrect, unless you have a better rumour. 

Par for the course. Great recap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BFBF said:

I actually wrote an economic research paper on the impact of the professional sports on Edmonton's economy. One of the major factors I looked at was the use of public funds for Rogers Place. In most cases, new stadiums don't really affect an economy much, so public funds shouldn't be used. However, in the odd case, new stadiums do add value, in which case it is justified to use public funds. I am of the opinion that each case should be treated individually. The problem is that you can never know the affect on the economy fully untill years after completion.

I think it's working out well for Langford right now, but they're concentrated on building a rapidly growing community with a huge focus on sports and recreation.  I've already noticed a boon to the local sports scene with the construction of the stadium and the covered training facility (of which I've used for a couple of sports). I'm not sure it makes sense in all circumstances but in this case I think it does. Who better to control the events and revenues the stadium brings in, and make sure they align with other development plans in the area.

Edited by Aird25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BFBF said:

I actually wrote an economic research paper on the impact of the professional sports on Edmonton's economy. One of the major factors I looked at was the use of public funds for Rogers Place. In most cases, new stadiums don't really affect an economy much, so public funds shouldn't be used. However, in the odd case, new stadiums do add value, in which case it is justified to use public funds. I am of the opinion that each case should be treated individually. The problem is that you can never know the affect on the economy fully untill years after completion.

Are you talking about a new stadium to replace an old one?? Or new stadium vs no stadium, no sports team??

I thought I heard that the Raptors NBA championship not only boosted Toronto, but the entire countries economic numbers for that month.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/may-gdp-1.5231370

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Are you talking about a new stadium to replace an old one?? Or new stadium vs no stadium, no sports team??

I thought I heard that the Raptors NBA championship not only boosted Toronto, but the entire countries economic numbers for that month.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/may-gdp-1.5231370

 

Sure, that’s an outstanding month, but what about the 280 or so months before that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bison44 said:

Are you talking about a new stadium to replace an old one?? Or new stadium vs no stadium, no sports team??

I thought I heard that the Raptors NBA championship not only boosted Toronto, but the entire countries economic numbers for that month.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/may-gdp-1.5231370

 

How about intangibles? For instance, here in the lower mainland there are a lot of new people in the area over the past 5 years and it sure is great to create an environment to bring people together for shared experiences. Bring people together to create a commonality that benefits our community by linking people that may feel they don't have much in common. I find that's really lacking in this country. Is that measured in any of these studies?

Edited by SpursFlu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The results I found were that if a new stadium, is being used in conjunction with a new development or revitalization it is more successful. So Langford may be a good example of that. But so much of it actually just comes down to the contract agreement. In Rogers place example, the Katz group promised a minimum of investment in the area around the stadium, which sparked investment from all parties in that area of Edmonton. 

As for the New the vs. old team argument. Some teams add to an economy, and some take away. Lots based on salaries and structure of ownership, etc...

All this said, there are many intangibles as mentioned above. It is highly debated how much these intangibles actually affect anything. Being a general fan of sports I tend to appreciate the intangibles more than the average person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...