Which is not the extent of the "devastating" that those people were referring to. They basically said (as uclacarlos mentioned above) that there would be many more far-reaching ramifications. Which, as some of us said at the time would happen, turned out to be bollocks. Nope. That's actually the nice way of saying it. Xenophobic would be another nice way, but, at four syllables, might lose some of them. Like most things that people get up in arms here, it was based on equal parts complete lunacy, idiocy, racism, xenophobia, a need to outshout others to feel important and a complete lack of understanding about how things work.
well all this stuff is great and all but i will still never consider Toronto a good franchise until they play on real grass artificial turf COMPLETELY ruins the game, as both a player and a fan this is true, until the MLS has all its team playing on real grass it should not be considered entirely legitimate i don't care whatever kind of excuses (weather, money, caretaking) but it is absolutely ridiculous not to have real grass, its obvious that Toronto is not going to be hurting on money so there is NO EXCUSE but otherwise keep up the good work and i would beg you TFC fans up there to get your FO to install some real grass and keep the game true
You do know why they did artificial turf, right? I mean, you may not care about the explanation, because, in your world, this is just as easy as a subbuteo league, but that ain't the case.
Okay, well, I wasn't here when they gave C-USA a franchise. I am against the whole C-USA concept because it looked like they were just trying to re-make a tradition that existed elsewhere, whereas MLS needs its own indigenous traditions. I also didn't like the idea of putting two teams in one market, the league is too young for that. I am totally against a second New York franchise, for example. It might be fun for creating rivalries, but I think it would've been better to expand the league's footprint and go somehwere else.
Toronto FC doesn't own BMO field. City of Toronto owns the field and they're planning to use it during the winter. Toronto have made a lot of money and they will continue doing so, which is good thing for MLS. Grass shouldn't be the deciding factor to determine if the franchise is good or not. Money & winning are the main factors to determine if the franchise is good. As for Chicago fire, how come they let high school football teams play in their stadium? There is a reason why they call it Soccer Specific Stadium. So IMO, letting football teams playing in your SSS is bush league and that your franchise shouldn't be taken seriously and shouldn't be consider a good franchise.
Fair play. The "sky is falling" types shout loud enough that those who have more moderate but more practical concerns don't tend to get heard.
I know this is a partial thread-jack, but just to put this in context, one of the things I think that is brilliant about C-USA is that it makes it so that lo latino or Hispanicity becomes a part of the "indigenous" traditions of US soccer. Or better yet, it honors ethnic America and its role in the history and growth of the game. I know it's not perfect. And I know that the Chivas brand is actually exclusionary to a large degree (it "alienates" fans of Club America, Pumas, Cruz Azul, Morelia, etc.). And it focuses on only one ethnicity. But I will admit to thinking that I though C-USA would be a bigger success than it has been.
The league "fixed" the expansion draft because they didn't want another expansion team doing as well as you did. I actually don't think that's the primary reason. In the '97 expansion draft, half of the league's players were exposed, whereas in the last two, only a third have been. If they put it back at half, and a team added guys like Nowak (that's the other factor, there were still league-allocated "star players" in that era, sort of like a mini-Beckham rule before there was the real one) and Kubik to that, they could come out of the gate doing fairly well (though perhaps not championship material).
And it has to be that way to one extent or another. It's just another version of the same thing the NBA had to do to hit the big time--mix a core audience (in that case African-Americans) with enough of everyone else to become a billion dollar business.
Congratulations to Toronto. I did some quick calculations and it looks like TFC will gross around $30M on gate receipts next year. Considering sponsorships and broadcast rights, they probably are closer to $32M-$33M gross income. Even if their payroll + operating costs are $8M-$10M, then they still have $22-$25M left to service any debt on the stadium. If TFC were a stand-alone entity and not part of the MLS chaebol, then they'd certainly be profitable since it is unlikely the debt service on the stadium is anywhere near $22M per year. If every team had this type of economics, the league would be extremely healthy. I'm sure for the sake of Revenue Canada, Maple Leaf Sports is not showing a big operating profit.
Let's see here... There have been 3 true expansion clubs: RSL, C-USA and Tronno. Tronno finished ahead of those 2 teams worst year. Apart from that, 4 other teams finished lower than TFC. Relatively speaking, that's not that bad.
And once you convert the price to American dollars, TFC's prices are actually 6.5% higher than the equivalent number in dollars. Ironic considering that exchange rate was one of the many reasons folks gave as to why Canadian cities could never support a franchise in an American league.
If the Kansas City feasibility study document from about 2-3 years ago is still accurate, then they only fork over 30% of the gate receipts to "the chaebol." (I like that. ) And they weren't obligated for $20M on the stadium in total, let alone in annual debt service. (Only $8 Million towards construction, and $10 Million for the right to sell naming rights.) So yeah, we're probably talking about some serious profit here.
Since when does "Soccer Specific" mean "Soccer Only?" I know what you are saying is tongue-in-cheek, but it is a poor example...
True. It is scary how much money MLSE is making espeically the Canadian dollar being worth more than US Dollar now. They don't have to pay as much to the players' salaries (I believe they're paid in US dollars?) like they used to now. I just hope MLSE can use that money to get a DP and convince City of Toronto to replace field turf with grass.
Yeah, I admit it was a poor example, but "Soccer specific" means it only should be used for soccer or at least how a lot of TFC fans defined it especially when the Argos (Canadian football team) were thinking about playing their games at BMO field.
Noooo... 'soccer specific' means the stadium was designed primarily for soccer, and, as we've seen, SSSs can be -- and will be -- used for other sports and events as long as MLS franchises aim to be profitable.
I don't believe high school football has ever been played at Toyota Park, but I could be wrong about that. I know lacrosse has been played there. I know high school soccer has been played there. I know amateur soccer has been played there. I do not know of high school football teams playing at Toyota Park. So is using the term "bush league."