I heard on the radio today that Pavco rejected Telus' final offer for stadium rights for BC Place. It was something like 2 mil a year for 20 years? Sounds like a pretty long term, low offer. Anyone know what the naming rights on Rogers Arena go for? I can't see BC Place taking any less than that. Things have been pretty screwy with the Bell sponsorship, and you could tell things were tense between Telus and the Government (Pavco) when Telus announced their 3 billion dollar investment in BC and head office with Adrian Dix and several NDP MPs. Can anyone confirm? Any speculation on other deals or naming rights? Any chance Bell will come in name it. Bell Place - Bell Pitch...
The home pitch that the Caps have played on (either Empire or at BC Place last year) has been called Bell Pitch. But it's not called Bell Pitch for Lions, they've got the shirts and soccer configuration sponsorship locked up. Could you have imagined the outrage to PavCo from Bell and VWFC if the games were broadcast "Live to you at Bell Pitch at Telus Optik Park for Whitecaps FC vs XYZ FC"
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cana...berals-b-c-kiss-off-35-million-175932745.html Seems like the BC govt just wanted to keep the name. But $1.75 million a year seems a bit low for such a stadium. According to the below article, The original deal for GM Place was 20 years for 18.5 million which was meant to go to 2015. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=326764 Couldnt find the value though for Rogers communications deal for 10 years but 1 article i read said it would be close to 2 million a year.
Interesting development at BC Place. BC Place naming brings a red card for Whitecaps, Bell Soccer team, sponsor offside in referring to BC Place soccer field as Bell Pitch, Podmore says Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/...itecaps+Bell/6280565/story.html#ixzz1oiEmatOe
I guess if anything we should salute Barber's creativity in coming up with that concept of a "[insert sponsor] pitch". I don't think I've ever heard about that anywhere else. But it doesn't change the fact that it was a dumb stunt that wasn't thought through.
What was dumb about it? Thought it sounded cool. Could have gone for "The Bell pitch at BC Place" to keep Pavco a little happier, but in the article it mentioned both Bell and Caps have not received cease and desist orders. The Telus deal sucked, and this sounds like Pavco was in bed with them to try and get the deal done. I could see Bell paying a little extra once the naming rights are settled to keep "The Bell pitch at the BC (sponsor) place"
http://www.soundersfc.com/Team/Facilities.aspx "The XBOX Pitch at CenturyLink Field is the official home of Major League Soccer's Seattle Sounders FC "
Interesting thing from that article is finding out that the Whitecaps have a 15 year lease with BC Place. Guess that confirms that the Waterfront Stadium attempt is pretty much dead.
Because they wouldn't have to pay rent to BC Place, they would have their own natural grass turf (while that artificial turf is the best one available, some players still complain that they wouldn't to play on it, even though players are not making an informed opinion on the subject), and they wouldn't have to schedule around the Lions or other trade shows.
I think the mention of a 15-year lease at BC Place is down to inferior reporting from the Sun. What I remember reading since the Caps moved downtown is that they have a 5-year lease with an option to extend that to 15. All this Pavco sh*t is just another reason why we need our club to build its own specific stadium(by 2016 please!) where it can control its own revenue and sponsors.
i cant believe that some supporters still want a waterfront stadium after basking in the comfort-- climate, transit convenience, surrounding amenities and otherwise-- at a first class experience at BC Place if u really want the waterfront experience then take your wireless computer and a chair down there, along with the wind, chill and rain for 50 % of the games, and 'enjoy' that experience as for me, i think BC Place is a great experience and should be the home of the Caps for many more years to come- sure i wish it could have natural turf, but it wont happen- a small sacrifice IMO-- while becks might not like the turf, it hasn't stopped him from being in the league and enjoying his fame and salary! the waterfront stadium is a dead issue-- let it rest in peace-- and let the community/City Hall and owners of the land decide what to do with the waterfront site
Oversized Telus sign blamed as BC Place deal breaker Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Oversiz...deal+breaker/6291676/story.html#ixzz1ozMCmsoH
Sportie1, while I get your opinion and feelings on the subject and agree with some of your feelings, your facts are way off. The Waterfront Stadium lands are owned by Kerfoot, the lands are federal, not city. The Feds were fine with Kerfoot developing as long as the easements for rail and port were allowed to stay as is. The City put up a whole pile of hurdles for all kinds of reasons, not all benign. So a land swap was proposed and the Ports Authority then was going to rape Kerfoot, taking any semblance of making it a good business decision out of it. Some serious sleuthing was done at the time by JohnnieMonster and at the end of the day we know that a small amount of developers and businessmen that are already involved in ownership of gastown buildings and businesses started the NIMBY campaign and pressured the CoV Staff and Civic Politicians to wash it up in red tape as they didn't know the lands were available for sale/development and it was a missed opportunity. So instead the Govt's hand was forced to spend over half a billion dollars improving a white elephant with new roof etc otherwise we'd have lost the Whitecaps and Lions. They would have had to move elsewhere (Surrey, Delta, Langley, etc) making acquisition costs for fans too high a price to pay making the feasibility of the teams less than what they are now. I feel like the waterfront stadium deal is a dead issue now, but not for the reasons you mentioned. A waterfront stadium there would have been fantastic imho for the following reasons: 1. BC Place could have been demolished and the land sold off to private developers for an absolute mint, this would have done a lot to mitigate a lot of the holes in the BC Govt budgets 2. imho Gov'ts via taxpayers moneys should never be funding stadia for for-profit sports teams, this would have been an excellent venue built for-profit for the citizens of all of BC to enjoy with Whitecaps, potentially Lions, Rugby Canada, the VSO, concerts, etc. 3. In the not too distant future I can imagine Kerfoot selling the lands he owns on the waterfront, and now we will have more towers and/or commercial things like eateries/shops etc instead of something more useful to the public at large creating tax dollars. You'd have had Whitecaps Stadium as a for-profit paying tax to the CoV and BC, You'd have spinoff revenue from the local businesses for the CoV and BC Govt from windfalls during event/match days and you wouldn't have had the debacle over the spending on the re-development of BC Place. 4. The money that was supposed to pay back the Govt for their loan to PavCo to do the re-development is now also being blocked. The CoV has had the vocal minority get out and protest the Paradigm Gaming groups development of a hotel/casio. The BC Govt and Telus have fizzled on naming rights, and I now know that 4 towers are going up on lands surrounding Rogers Arena through Acquilini's own develpments of his lands, leaving less space and zoning in the area for the re-development of the other surround lands belonging to PavCo that could be sold off or leased off for private sector development. My $0.02.
I didn't mention a waterfront stadium. I feel they need A stadium where they can control their own revenue. Down the road that's surely not an unreasonable thing for this type of business to strive for. Why would I take a wireless computer down to the waterfront to watch games that don't even exist in bad weather conditions? I don't even have a wireless computer, and even if I did I surely wouldn't bring that to an entertainment event. Well he and plenty of other players would prefer to play on the best possible surface. Their complaints are still warranted. And I agree that BC Place has its merits but there's nothing wrong with suggesting the Caps one day get their own digs so they can remedy the negatives in their current situation. Again, no where did I mention anything about a waterfront stadium. It's not out of the realm of possibility, albeit a slim chance, that a stadium can be built elsewhere. Why let any idea of a future stadium for the Whitecaps rest in peace? Why be complacent and what's wrong with wanting the best for the club, players, and fans?
It won't happen, because I believe the City is planning on building a park there, but I always thought that space between cambie bridge and the Olympic village would be a good spot for a stadium.
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/03/14/rogers-arena-bc-place-and-the-canucks-culture-conundrum/ a great article which fully sums up my take on the 2 sporting venues and how each club approaches its role in creating an atmosphere for its fans personally, i cant stand the artificial, slick hype at canucks games-- i find it demeaning and way over-played but the experience at the Caps games is natural and fan-led, the way it should be
Despite the obvious comfort amenities BC Place offers, i feel like leaving Empire was a downgrade. Watching Caps games at BC on TV, the place looks sterile. The southsiders do their thing and do it well, but it doesnt mesh with the blandness of the stadium. The 2nd level is blocked off, which doesnt help things much. Theres really nothing like the awe inspiring view you had from some seats at Empire. Now its just drab orange and grey with a roof thats closed more often than not with a half empty stadium (by force). Playing in a Dome (retractable or not) should be avoided at all costs. I followed the Waterfront project closely and its a damned shame that plan was killed. You guys would have had the best stadium, atmosphere, and views in MLS. Now youre just a few bad seasons (plus ticket price increases) strung together from becoming RFK-lite.
cant let this pass without commenting-- RFK is an old, run-down facility waiting to be torn down; BC Place is a modern, newly-renovated, technically-awesome stadium that offers the best of 2 worlds-- a closed roof on cold, rainy and windy days, and an open roof on the beautiful summer days (1 can only imagine being at the waterfront stadium during the rain, wind and cold coming off burrard inlet in the spring and fall seasons) secondly, BC Place offers seating flexibility from 21 000-55 000, depending on the interest and visiting team-- a great feature not possible at a waterfront stadium which would have been fixed at 25 000-30 000 capacity (do you really think that the Caps could have ever added a second tier to the stadium, thus blocking off the view for surrounding condo buildings and decreasing public access to the waterfront???) and what about the residents in the area who would have seen this 'monstrosity' (in their opinion) built in their backyard?? thirdly, BC Place is a safer location and is not built over train tracks which was would have happened at a waterfront stadium-- dangerous to say the least for chemical mishaps and possible terrorist attacks fourthly, the area surrounding BC Place is a whole lot easier to get in and out of-- the transportation network is first class as far as the caps not being having revenue-control, i could care less- the owners have very deep pockets and the supporters need not feel sorry for them-- they are already turning a decent profit IMO, without having to pay for the building of a stadium facility and then maintaining it;; and they would have had to be paying an on-going fee to the rail company for building the stadium over their land on the waterfront (probably in the millions each year, plus the cost of improving the infrastructure to prepare the land for a over-the-rails stadium) YES- the waterfront stadium would have had a spectacular view on summer nights, and natural grass would have been wonderful... but when all is added up, the BC place site just offers a whole lot more for the Caps-- and obviously, the owners and city managers thought the same i hope DC United get their stadium settled and built in the next 3 years-- they have a terrific fan-base and would easily have average attendances hitting the 18 000-20 000 mark
sportie, the facts should never get in the way of a good story or formed opinion, no? 1. They wouldn't be paying any fee to any port/rail company ever. The lands are OWNED by Kerfoot etc. There is an EASEMENT for rail...which means they have to allow the rail lines to exist. This is akin to having a Fortis BC pipe running through your property beside your house, there would be an easement on your land meaning you cannot build over that line or dig/excavate near that line. You aren't paying a fee to Fortis for building your house or buying a house with that easement. 2. The Chemical Spill/Terrorist stuff is utter nonesense and that's the amount of keystrokes and effort I'll expend on that. 3. There is excellent mass transit near the waterfront with multiple skytrain stations within a few short blocks walk, being Burrard, Granville, and Waterfront. There is as many, or more parking facilities near the waterfront than there is in the Entertainment & Arena Districts, you will also have an easier time dispersing crowds where the blocks instantly scramble, unlike BCP and Rogers arena built by viaducts with elevated platforms etc. 4. The Waterfront Stadium not being able to be flexible for higher demand events is exactly what this team needs, an atrificial cap creating supply/demand issues driving up the cost of seating for premium events. 5. Saying that the owners not having cost control and revenue control over their stadium is perhaps the most ignorant and outlandish thing you said, the terrorist and chemical spill comments notwithstanding.
I am no fan of sportie1, but you really are talking down to him a lot. You wonder why nobody posts here anymore; it isn't cause of guys like me or sportie1 who you seem to blame (I only post once a month these days). It's guys like you who are arrogant, rude, and condescending. Who wants to give an opinion with the great JohnnyRanger talks down to them with this "I have all the answers and am always right". You do not seem to be a nice person, and you certainly do not engage in productive debate with people. If you don't agree, you just run them down. That's all I have to say.