Let's also mention that the Argos do not control their ancillary revenue at the Rogers Centre. Talks between MLSE and Braley broke down last over...you guessed it...which party would control which revenue streams. The Argos might lose less money because of a hypothetical increase in ticket sales but don't forget that their rent is free at the Rogers Centre. If I was MLSE, there's no way the Argos are going to be playing at BMO for free unless I can get all of their ancillary revenue.
I don't see how MLSE gets to decide the lease terms when the city owns the stadium. I get that MLSE is funding the upgrade/renovation - so they need buy in from the Argos for the CFL specific modifications - but I doubt they have any say in what they pay in rent or get in ancillary revenue.
The city owns the stadium, but MLSE is responsible for the operations of it. So I believe that when the CMNT wants to play there, for example, it is still MLSE looking after the stadium. And so it's not like TFC and the Argos are both tennants of the city on equal par with one another, it's more like TFC is subleasing to the Argos. That being said, I'm sure that the city did put pressure on MLSE to allow this sublease to happen (assuming, of course that what Damian Cox is tweeting is true - I haven't heard it anywhere else).
Not that I can find this anywhere but doesn't MLSE have some sort of exclusivity agreement where only they hold most of the available dates at the stadium? EDIT: Here's the document outlining the Community Hours at BMO. On pages 4-5, they outline which non-MLSE organizations can use the stadium and for how many days of the year. The Argos would probably 1) not be covered under "recreational use" for the city and 2) even if they were, MLSE might have already reserved all of the Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays between March-November, so the only way the Argos can get a hold of those dates is to go through MLSE. Hope that helps.
It is getting closer http://www.thestar.com/sports/footb...nbaum-and-bell-in-talks-to-buy-the-argos.html
With Bell pushing for the Argos to BMO, I just called them and told them I will be cancelling my services with them due the negative ramifications for our National Soccer Stadium. I realize it won't make a difference but it still felt good to tell them to eff themselves.
Here is an update. http://www.thestar.com/sports/argos/2015/04/29/argos-and-bmo-field-frequently-asked-questions.html
Those terms aren't valid since the switch to grass, no? Also, with regards to MLSE setting the terms of the lease. The "argos clause" and "favoured nations clause"from the original agreement comes into play( i presume it's still vaild, can't find anything on public record to suggest it's not)
MLSE is not negotiating to buy the Argos. 2 of the owners of MLSE are ....the 3rd wants no part of the discussion.
Kurt Larson had an interesting series of tweets (complete with pics) about them testing washable paint today... ...make of it what you will.
TorontoStar retweeted Curtis Rush @CurtisGRush 19m19 minutes ago One hour to #Argos sale announcement at BMO Field.
Simon Dingley @SimonDingleyCBC 1m1 minute ago #Argos signage all over BMO FIELD. Argos moving here next season.
I'm not too big on this, but if it really doesn't take away from the soccer experience the way they say it won't then I'm not too bothered by it. Maybe, even if they're not saying so, the Argos plan on having this as a short term measure while they figure out a plan to eventually have their own stadium.
I might have bought that if it were, say, current ownership moving Argos to BMO......but it is 62.5% of the MLSE ownership that is doing this....the same guys who put up 62.5% of the $90 million of MLSE money that has gone into the stadium reno.....the same guys who get money from running the stadium profitably......so I can't see these guys turning around and saying "hey, why not build a separate stadium for those 9 Argo games a year".
Yeah, I don't get why we need stadiums for each team here. Melbourne has (I kid you not) 13 top flight professional football clubs in 5 leagues. They share 3 stadia.
I'll counter that with Glasgow....3 teams spread across the top two leagues in Scotland.....4 teams in league system total......4 stadia.....3 of which are over 50k in capacity......city population well under a million. I think the right answer is that no one model is perfect for all places......but in the context of a 30k stadium in Toronto, with two sports and a total of under 30 home dates in a season....more than one stadium seems like overkill. It was nice having our own stadium for on sport (except when other sports used it ) but those days are (more formally) gone.
I'm hearing a lot of people point out that shared stadiums are the norm these days and that they can work out. But clearly the Argos-Blue Jays shared stadium wasn't working out. Ideally, you'd have one stadium per sport (with perhaps the exceptions of basketball and hockey, which seem to work out nicely together. But when you start dealing with sports that have different size playing fields and different needs you end up getting compromises. The biggest problem with the Argos is that their sport is better played on artificial turf, while soccer and baseball are better on grass. And with only 8 home games a year, it's not likely that they'll be able to justify building a pointyball-specific stadium. So some team is going to have to lose out.
The most relevant example of the bunch is Melbourne Rectangular Stadium (AAMI Park) which has two A-League Soccer tenants in the summer, and three rugby teams in the winter (one league, two union) with a season overlap for two months each in spring and fall. Stadium configuration for rugby has seats at the ends removed to accommodate the larger sized pitches. Painted adverts for Super League, NRL and NRC and and especially NRL rugby league line markings were not in any way noticeable/visible for the A-League Grand Final, hosted during the middle of their rugby seasons. I see no reason why this can't be done at BMO.