Jump to content

Breaking news from Halifax


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

Things to get excited about: Halifax is a go. They will have a 5,000 to 7,000 seat downtown soccer stadium in 2018. There is a stadium being built specifically for a CPL team.

Causes for concern: The amendments are pretty limiting to team growth, unfortunately SEA aren't yet in a position where they could say no to the Counsel's demands. It doesn't seem like Counsel wants the team at the Wanderers Grounds long-term, and can potentially kick them out after the first season. Almost zero potential to expand the stadium beyond its 7,000 seat size limit in the 5 years that the contract is meant to last.

The vote on the stadium plans is the big one by the looks of things as SEA will be able to ask for the amendments they need to make this actually work well for them and it will become clear how rigid these councillors are on issues like taking out the seating on two sides every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply
18 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

GLITCH GLITCH GLITCH

Damn phone

I get this too, I realized that when I post from Chrome on my phone it will not appear right away. I'll hit "Submit Reply" and nothing happens, so I hit it again. Then I realize that every time I hit "Submit Reply" it posted the same thing again. Annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am naive, but if a municipality sees a pro sports team drawing fans (who spend money before and/or after a game) and generally being successful as part of a growing Canadian league, council will probably be flexible on the way it enforces any early limitations.  They are politicians, so pushing back a bit and putting some limits in place lets them point out what a fantastic job they are doing balancing and protecting the public interest.  But if things really start rolling and the Wanderers are a regional attraction that is generating revenue for Halifax generally, I am sure HRM councillors will be on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CPL is a resounding success, that brings in more money in their local economy, revives the downtown scene and help convince people from leaving Halifax, council will support it staying long term or/and permanently.

The entire adventure is new to them and they don't have much to compare it with. I'm not worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Maybe I am naive, but if a municipality sees a pro sports team drawing fans (who spend money before and/or after a game) and generally being successful as part of a growing Canadian league, council will probably be flexible on the way it enforces any early limitations.  They are politicians, so pushing back a bit and putting some limits in place lets them point out what a fantastic job they are doing balancing and protecting the public interest.  But if things really start rolling and the Wanderers are a regional attraction that is generating revenue for Halifax generally, I am sure HRM councillors will be on board.

It's always better to start with restrictions and be in a position to choose if/when they can be peeled back. I think you are right 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, harrycoyster said:

-An annual review of the site will be conducted each year. The city maintains the right to end the agreement at any point should the owners fail to address concerns. This includes limiting the number of "full stadium setup" events to 14 in the first year, after which the Council will reevaluate the agreement.

Playoff games in Moncton confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quotes from the council meeting: https://juneof86.com/2017/06/20/proposed-halifax-cpl-team-has-a-home/

There may still be a legal challenge that the HRC can even do this, so I don't think we should underestimate the opposition of the people who want the Commons to stay exactly how it is. But the key thing is to get this built. Show they can be good neighbours. Show that with good draping and other considerations the Sackville Street side doesn't ruin the Public Gardens. 

I think the reason why it's a three-year deal with a three-year extension is so that it allows SEA time to evaluate what they need to be successful and what will work in the area. And as people get used to it, then 7,000 maybe becomes 9,000 (what's two thousand more seats?), perhaps the main "pop-up stand" becomes a semi-permanent modular stand. 

I remember some of the complaints about BMO. It has fake turf. It looks like a series of bleachers. It looks like a high school stadium. Well the damn thing got built — warts and all — and now 10 years later you can barely recognize the place. Stade Saputo also feels much more significant than it did when it was first built.

This is a great start at a dream location. Congratulations to everyone in Halifax/Dartmouth and area for all of their hard work.

cheers, matthew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1479422-halifax-approves-downtown-soccer-stadium-for-new-professional-league-team

"We're that much closer to being awarded a franchise," Sports Entertainment Atlantic president Derek Martin said. "The league was waiting to see how things would work here for us in Halifax. We had a lot of the details worked out but we just had no where to play." ...Martin called the amendments reasonable and said he looks forward to fine-tuning the agreement with staff.

The opportunity for the "fine-tuning" will be when the actual stadium plans come up for approval prior to installation. Suspect they will need/want a few changes to the amendments regardless of what is said publicly. Is it really reasonable to have a rental agreement that can be terminated at any time when a business with a envisaged seven figure turnover is involved? That's very much a sword of Damocles scenario and would be a deal breaker for a lot of people. Suspect the limits to capacity that may be imposed by the need to lessen the visual impact on two of the sides may be less of an issue, however, when the Fraser valley, Saskatoon, K/W and Trois Rivieres are getting mentioned as potential locations for franchises, given it's not the same scenario as the "original six" of five CFL cities plus Halifax that appears to be emerging now and that may mean an eventual scaling back of the break even point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I interpreted yesterday more of a few members of a city council wanting to feel important, flexing their power by changing some factors in the agreement rather than a possible league wide shift in the business model

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rheo said:

I interpreted yesterday more of a few members of a city council wanting to feel important, flexing their power by changing some factors in the agreement rather than a possible league wide shift in the business model

That was my point above.  They are just politicians being politicians and feeling the need to put their own little stamp on the project.  If things start rolling, the "sword of Damocles" (sigh) will be a total non-issue.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: https://juneof86.com/2017/06/20/proposed-halifax-cpl-team-has-a-home/

"The number of large-scale matches or events in the full-stadium configuration will be limited to 14 (which would accommodate a full CPL season, including playoffs, for an eight-team league) and there would be an annual review to address issues and the impact of the stadium."

How this supposed to work if the league reaches 8 teams beyond the inaugural season?  Doesn't this imply divisions (East/West)?  I could see 2 home matches against East division rivals (6 matches) and 1 home match against West division opponents (4 matches) fitting into the limit of 14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ray said:

RE: https://juneof86.com/2017/06/20/proposed-halifax-cpl-team-has-a-home/

"The number of large-scale matches or events in the full-stadium configuration will be limited to 14 (which would accommodate a full CPL season, including playoffs, for an eight-team league) and there would be an annual review to address issues and the impact of the stadium."

How this supposed to work if the league reaches 8 teams beyond the inaugural season?  Doesn't this imply divisions (East/West)?  I could see 2 home matches against East division rivals (6 matches) and 1 home match against West division opponents (4 matches) fitting into the limit of 14.

It should be single table season. If you look at the CFL schedule, the conferences are more symbolic than anything. As for the match limit, they would just ask city council for more games as the league expands. I don't see Halifax saying no, they are in no position to be "fun killers"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ansem said:

It should be single table season. If you look at the CFL schedule, the conferences are more symbolic than anything. As for the match limit, they would just ask city council for more games as the league expands. I don't see Halifax saying no, they are in no position to be "fun killers"

I also believe the limit only exists for next year, not for 2019 and beyond. I think the ammendments state that beyond 2018 the number of dates is to be decided after or during the 2018 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ray said:

RE: https://juneof86.com/2017/06/20/proposed-halifax-cpl-team-has-a-home/

"The number of large-scale matches or events in the full-stadium configuration will be limited to 14 (which would accommodate a full CPL season, including playoffs, for an eight-team league) and there would be an annual review to address issues and the impact of the stadium."

How this supposed to work if the league reaches 8 teams beyond the inaugural season?  Doesn't this imply divisions (East/West)?  I could see 2 home matches against East division rivals (6 matches) and 1 home match against West division opponents (4 matches) fitting into the limit of 14.

A 28 game regular season is the most obvious format with 8 teams and was the format when the Nova Scotia Clippers played in the original CSL in 1991 (in Dartmouth rather than Halifax from what I remember about it). Even with 6 teams beyond the inaugral season you could easily be looking at 30 game seasons if they want to have a season length that is comparable to that of the USL or NASL that they will be competing with for players, or with the Scandinavian pro leagues that operate through the summer months in similar climates and moved to 30 plus game seasons when they adopted full-time professionalism.

That's one of the things that they will need to "fine tune", because once you factor in playoffs, exhibition games and the Voyageurs Cup you are easily looking at around 20 home fixtures. What difference does it make to the local council whether it is 14 or 20 games in the big scheme of things? That, and the insistence on two stands being removed in the off season (how does having seating there for 12 rather than 8 months make a crucial difference to anything?) could easily be interpreted as a polite way of saying that we don't really want you here long term and are only agreeing to this on an interim basis, so don't get too comfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

A 28 game regular season is the most obvious format with 8 teams and was the format when the Nova Scotia Clippers played in the original CSL in 1991 (in Dartmouth rather than Halifax from what I remember about it). Even with 6 teams beyond the inaugral season you could easily be looking at 30 game seasons if they want to have a season length that is comparable to that of the USL or NASL that they will be competing with for players, or with the Scandinavian pro leagues that operate through the summer months in similar climates and moved to 30 plus game seasons when they adopted full-time professionalism.

That's one of the things that they will need to "fine tune", because once you factor in playoffs, exhibition games and the Voyageurs Cup you are easily looking at around 20 home fixtures. What difference does it make to the local council whether it is 14 or 20 games in the big scheme of things? That, and the insistence on two stands being removed in the off season (how does having seating there for 12 rather than 8 months make a crucial difference to anything?) could easily be interpreted as a polite way of saying that we don't really want you here long term and are only agreeing to this on an interim basis, so don't get too comfortable.

It could.

Or it could be interpreted as council just wanting to given themselves a degree of oversight as this proceeds given that it is using public grounds.

Or it could be interpreted as politicians wanting to seem relevant by not just rubber stamping a private sector proposal.

Or they want to leave themselves some leverage to look for revenue opportunity from SEA if this turns out to be a huge success.

I see no reason to side with your idea that they are unwanted.  If that was the case, why would they vote in favour 16-0.  That doesn't exactly seem like the kind of resistance you are suggesting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

A 28 game regular season is the most obvious format with 8 teams and was the format when the Nova Scotia Clippers played in the original CSL in 1991 (in Dartmouth rather than Halifax from what I remember about it). Even with 6 teams beyond the inaugral season you could easily be looking at 30 game seasons if they want to have a season length that is comparable to that of the USL or NASL that they will be competing with for players, or with the Scandinavian pro leagues that operate through the summer months in similar climates and moved to 30 plus game seasons when they adopted full-time professionalism.

That's one of the things that they will need to "fine tune", because once you factor in playoffs, exhibition games and the Voyageurs Cup you are easily looking at around 20 home fixtures. What difference does it make to the local council whether it is 14 or 20 games in the big scheme of things? That, and the insistence on two stands being removed in the off season (how does having seating there for 12 rather than 8 months make a crucial difference to anything?) could easily be interpreted as a polite way of saying that we don't really want you here long term and are only agreeing to this on an interim basis, so don't get too comfortable.

They want the team there, I assure you of that but they have to look like they also supports the concerns of locals. Once locals gets use to the stadium and sees that it's not the "hell" they thought it would be, they will be less opposed to it and the city will be able to solidify the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I see no reason to side with your idea that they are unwanted.  If that was the case, why would they vote in favour 16-0.  That doesn't exactly seem like the kind of resistance you are suggesting.

The whole idea of the pop-up from SEA's standpoint from what I understand is to use it to demonstrate the need for a more permanent stadium that would probably be built on another site by the looks of things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are saying that both SEA and the city share the view that the long term stadium will be elsewhere, then I have no issue with that.  To be honest, I don't know enough about it to know whether or not that is actually a shared position.  But I haven't heard that this is SEA's long term vision, so I am not sure is that actually is "SEA's standpoint" on it.

I just don't agree with the idea that the caveats in the agreement are Council's "cynical way of making a No look like a Yes" or of  "saying that we don't really want you here long term" (where "here" is understood to mean the City, not the specific site).   Your posts seem to imply - at least to me - that Halifax is not really on board with this, and that the agreement caveats are some kind of passive aggressive way of obstructing the proposal.  I may be misrepresenting things, but that interpretation is being influenced by our past exchanges on this issue.  And while I am trying to be more amicable when disagreeing with someone, I can't totally park what I interpret to be your perspective on many things related to CPL.  In this case, I simply don't see a case for cynicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...