You contradicted yourself. Look, politically, I agree with you, for the most part. Private businesses shouldn’t be able to rely on subsidies. But it’s stupid to point to something that makes it hard to do business in a post saying it’s a great place to do business. It seems like you continually confuse what you THINK the world should be like with what the world IS. I wish you were right about public subsidies of private companies, but I realize that you’re wrong.
You’re mixing up general business climate with one specific sector. Canada is absolutely friendly to big industry, Ottawa hands out subsidies to oil, autos, aerospace, telecom, you name it. That’s why I said it’s a great place to do business except for pro sports. Pro sports is the outlier because governments here don’t hand out stadium subsidies the way US cities do. That’s not a contradiction... it’s the whole point. Canada is pro‑business in most sectors, but not in the “publicly funded stadium” sector. I can write an essay if this wasn't clear enough
As far as I know, all major Canadian stadiums have been government funded. MLS in the US has a mix of private and public funding. Privately funded stadiums include Orlando, Austin, Minnesota, Cincinnati, Columbus, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City and proposed stadiums in Chicago and Boston. Vancouver aren't asking for handouts at BC Place, they're asking for a bigger share of the revenue that THEY generate. Toronto generated $70 million last year in a stadium largely funded by Toronto, Ontario and the Canadian government.
From a political and sociological standpoint, I don’t think I can find fault with this. If I were a citizen of British Columbia, I think I would agree with the government’s prudence. Of course if we’re talking about the soccer franchise, I think this means the club is absolutely likely to move to Las Vegas.
You're reading comprehension is not very good either. I didn't say the ticket tax would subsidize the Caps. I suggested it as a way for PavCo to earn more money....... Also, at one time it was Bell Pitch at BC Place for Whitecaps games......... explain how that happened.
The Whitecaps aren't asking for a handout. If there wasn't a change of the Whitecaps staying I doubt Montagliani would have traveled to BC.
Canadian bureaucracy is needlessly complicated - not a fan myself at a lot of level. I think it's worth diving into each points to understand the broader context Yes, Canadian governments funded stadium construction but that’s irrelevant here. Commonwealth, BMO, IG Field, Mosaic, TD Place ; all had public money. But that was capital funding for public infrastructure. BC Place is already built. This isn’t about construction. This is about changing the revenue split inside a provincial Crown‑owned building, which is a subsidy. In a nutshell, they are indirectly asking for help with their operational budget by obtaining better terms on their lease. This qualifies as a handout. BC Place is owned by the Province and operated by PavCo. Any revenue PavCo gives up is public money. Calling it “their revenue” doesn’t change the math. If a public asset gives a private team a bigger slice, that’s a subsidy even if you rename it. The Toronto example doesn’t apply to BC Place BMO Field is: owned by the City of Toronto (collects rent) operated by MLSE (responsible for O&M) soccer‑specific (limiting the type of events the venue can host) part of a public‑private partnership MLSE controls the building’s operations and revenue model. They should capture the upside since they run the place. BC Place is: owned by the Province (Collects rent) run by a Crown corporation (responsible for O&M costs - not the Whitecaps) multi‑purpose (Can virtually host anything) governed by public‑interest mandates (Manage the venue on behalf of the province and make money for the province to be used for social programs) You can’t compare a municipal PPP to a provincial Crown corporation. Different ownership model, different incentives, different rules.
You’re trying to reframe your own argument after the fact. A ticket tax on Lions/Whitecaps games is, by definition, a mechanism that only exists because of those teams. If the revenue from that tax is then used to justify giving the teams a larger share of stadium income, that is a subsidy even if you route it through PavCo first. Calling it “PavCo earning more money” doesn’t change the underlying structure: A public‑imposed tax used to offset a private team’s revenue demands is a subsidy. You can rename it, but the economics don’t change. Rightfully so, the government would get wrecked by critics and taxpayers. “Bell Pitch at BC Place” was just a temporary naming‑rights overlay purchased by Bell for Whitecaps match days. PavCo allows event‑specific branding for all kinds of events. It wasn’t a revenue concession and it didn’t alter the stadium’s financial model.
Educating politicians on football governance is equally important. Montagliani went to parliament to explain governance to member of parliament during the Canada Soccer/Women's national team dispute involving the CSB deal. All parties need to understand the implications of relocation - there's no coming back from this.
Here is how Vancouver fare against other teams in government owned stadiums: Team (Stadium Owner) - 2025 Revenue Sounders (Washington State PSA) - $83 million Toronto - (City of Toronto) - $70 million Timbers (City of Portland) - $68 million Whitecaps (BC Pavilion Corp) - $40 million
@Robert Borden I just don't understand your logic. Any revenue generated directly by the Whitecaps is not immediately crown money. When does it start becoming public money? Are ticket sales public money? Should Pavco keep the jersey sponsor money, or at least half of it for the home games? Does Pavco get to keep the Whitecaps share of the tv rights revenue? Why are they subsidizing MLS by allowing them to keep those rights fee's to broadcast BC Place matches? The Whitecaps and Pavco are negotiating an agreement to allow the Whitecaps to play soccer games in BC Place and charge people for the pleasure. Any and all revenue generated as a result of this agreement is not public money, it's money generated by the lease agreement, all of which is negotiable. If you (or BC) are going to stand on the principal that splitting the revenue from a Whitecaps fan's beer is a subsidy for billionaires, well, there is no point in continuing a conversation both between you and the sensible people in this thread, or between MLS and Vancouver. If "it's a subsidy/handout of public dollars" to agree to sell the naming rights to a sponsor for $15m a year, and to agree to split a portion of that with the major tenants of the venue which create that value opportunity for the public, then the days of the Whitecaps are over.
I'll try to address all of your points When does it become public money? It becomes public money the moment it is generated inside a publicly owned venue using: PavCo’s staff PavCo’s security PavCo’s concessions PavCo’s maintenance PavCo’s utilities PavCo’s event‑day operations PavCo’s capital upkeep The Whitecaps don’t run BC Place. PavCo does so yes, revenue generated inside BC Place is public revenue unless the lease says otherwise. The difference with BMO Field in Toronto is that it is MLSE providing/managing all the bullet points above and not the city of Toronto so it makes sense that MLSE keeps a bigger piece of the pie. Ticket sales, jersey sponsors, TV rights These are team‑side revenues. They are not public money because PavCo doesn’t provide the product. But: Beer sales Concessions Suites Parking Naming rights In‑stadium advertising Premium hospitality are venue‑side revenues because PavCo provides the infrastructure, staff and operations that make those sales possible. MLSE manage all the above at BMO Field unlike the Whitecaps at BC Place. The restaurant analogy Scenario A: You rent an empty building You pay rent. You hire staff. You buy food. You run the kitchen. You keep all revenue. This is BMO Field / MLSE. Scenario B: You rent a fully staffed restaurant. The landlord provides: cooks servers cleaners utilities equipment maintenance security You just show up and sell food. Obviously the landlord takes a cut of your revenue because they’re providing the infrastructure and labour (part of their own O&M costs) that makes your business possible. This is BC Place / PavCo. The Whitecaps are in Scenario B, not Scenario A. Why doesn’t PavCo take jersey sponsor money? Because PavCo doesn’t: design the jersey sell the jersey market the jersey negotiate the sponsorship produce the product That’s team‑side revenue. But PavCo does provide: the building the staff the concessions the infrastructure the event operations So PavCo gets a share of venue‑side revenue. This is standard everywhere. Why doesn’t PavCo take TV money? Because PavCo doesn’t produce the broadcast. The team and league do. If splitting naming rights is a subsidy, the Whitecaps are dead Naming rights are a venue asset, not a team asset. BC Place is a provincial public building. Naming rights belong to the Province. The “MLSE treatment” was never on the table because BC Place isn’t BMO Field. It’s a multi‑purpose provincial venue that the Whitecaps don’t operate and don’t staff. PavCo handles everything, which is why venue‑side revenue is public revenue. If the Whitecaps want a bigger share, they’d need to take on match day costs first. Until then, they’re a tenant asking for operator‑level benefits.
Just to follow up on this, the Vancouver Ownership Group owns a share in the Corporation that is MLS and also has the rights to operate a team in Vancouver. The Las Vegas Ownership Group would buy the ownership stake in MLS from the Vancouver Group (and would be approved to operate a team in Las Vegas). MLS is not selling, it's what's being sold. Of course the other owners of MLS want the shares to be sold at the highest possible price since it's good for the value of their own shares. Unlike with expansion fees (where MLS is selling itself) MLS doesn't have a minimum price. But they have an interest in the price, and perhaps more importantly, in the quality of the ownership group and the location.
Exactly. The ideal scenario is Vancouver stays and Vegas and Sacramento (or Phoenix or Indy) invest a $1B+ in expansion fees.
For everyone freaking out about what Jeremy Filosa has been saying about the Whitecaps to Vegas, please realise:- all he's done is recycle the news from two weeks ago where we know there needs a major change- he was once taken off air for saying moon landings weren't real!— AFTN (@aftncanada) May 14, 2026
Not a fan of Jeremy Filosa but he did used to be a match commentator for CF Montreal in the pre-Apple deal at his radio station (biggest in the province) and journalist at TVA Sports covering MLS and CF Montreal. He also was calling games in French on Apple TV for MLS. He lost his Apple/MLS deal for his criticism of the club and Joey Saputo management - something that most of you here agree with. I would say that his contacts within the league are legit.
The league owners have to vote on relocation, and it needs a 2/3rds vote. They also have to vote and approve any team sale.
Sure, that's what would happen if talks with the Province goes nowhere. Might be a reason why the province feels the league and owners already made up their minds... Las Vegas bid, now words that the team will move going around - it's not exactly conspiracy theory. Still a chance they find a breakthrough - good luck to all parties
Man…living in Canada sounds like an extremely complicated financial situation. Y’all make sure you save up if you ever have a heart attack and you need to head south for prompt health care!
How would the league and it's owners have made up their mind if: 1.) they havn't voted to accept a sale of the Whitecaps and 2.) Without an approved sale, they couldn't have voted to approve relocation of the Whitecaps Both of which would require a majority approval from the board of governors (owners). MLS has rules that they follow..... kind of like all of the rules you've been copying and pasting google the past dozen pages......
Because all of that happens way before Paul Tenorio is allowed to write up an article in the New York Times about how there is a willing Las Vegas buyer ready to take the team to a more profitable market. Everyone in Vancouver is showing up 25 miles into a marathon with their sad sad indignation. It’s a little embarrassing.
Public votes are often the formal conclusion of a process that ownership circles already decided informally months earlier. The NHL, NBA and MLB all have constitutions and relocation procedures too, yet history repeatedly showed leagues positioning themselves for relocation long before the official votes happened, especially with Canadian franchises. (The Netflix Expos documentary is an example) Nobody is claiming MLS owners secretly held a formal relocation vote already. The point is that leagues and owners absolutely discuss viability, leverage, stadium situations and contingency plans behind closed doors before anything reaches the public approval stage. Once things get to an official vote, the outcome is often already heavily signaled internally. The Coyotes, Expos, Nordiques, Grizzlies etc. all technically had “rules and processes” too. That didn’t stop ownership groups and leagues from maneuvering long before the formalities happened publicly. So citing the absence of an official MLS vote today doesn’t really prove owners haven’t already formed opinions internally about the Whitecaps situation. Like I said, nothing we haven't already seen