Do you honestly think a journalist like Tenorio, who is basically the chosen narration mouthpiece of the league office and holds that privilege responsibly, would ever publish a news-breaking piece of that gravity and detail without the knowledge and consent of the league? How naive could you be?
Deux sources me parlent du fait que les équipes de la @MLS se sont fait dire de s'attendre à un déménagement des @WhitecapsFC . À moins d'un tournant majeur dans cette saga des Caps, l'équipe sera à Vegas l'an prochain. Situation extrêmement triste. https://t.co/VpPChaWgyL— Jeremy Filosa 🎙 (@JeremyFilosa) May 13, 2026 Two sources are telling me that the @MLS teams have been told to expect a relocation of the @ WhitecapsFC Unless there's a major turning point in this Caps saga, the team will be in Vegas next year. Extremely sad situation.
This is correct. My sense is that it’s not any kind of league wide secret meeting with 30 clubs and the league office involved, though. That process is too hard to control. But I can imagine Garber talking on the DL to each club, sure.
Someone said he was an French language Apple announcer last year and a journalist but I couldn't tell you.
How did the big #SaveTheCaps meeting go this afternoon?BC Minister Ravi Kahlon, "It was a very positive meeting.”There was a surprise guest.@DailyHiveVan can confirm that the Federal Minister of Housing and Infrastructure Gregor Robertson was at the big meeting.#VWFC#MLS— Har Journalist (@HarJournalist) May 14, 2026
why would the MLS move the Vancouver franchise and loose well over $500 mill rather than giving an expansion franchise to LV and get the expansion money? MLS will do everything possible to keep the Whitecaps in Vancouver- its nonsense for people to be thinking otherwise just look at what happened to Columbus- kept the franchise with new ownership and gave the owner, Anthony Precourt, an expansion franchise for Austin- i believe MLS received $350 mill what MLS is doing for Vancouver is dealing with the BC Government/PavCO for a better revenue deal for the Whitecaps- more revenue for the Caps (to at least break even), more revenue for MLS- its not rocket science the deal will get done- its good for the future of the Whitecaps in Vancouver, good for the Provincial and City governments, good for local businesses, good for MLS and -most of all- good for the supporters
My response is, what if there isn’t a solution that works both for the Whitecaps’ owners and the politicians? If there isn’t, then that would explain why MLS would move the franchise.
the biggest oddity at yesterday's meeting- Gregor Robertson- Canada's government representative and former Mayor of Vancouver -attended- maybe it has to do with helping to fund a Skytrain link from DT Vancouver to the North Shore with a station stop at Hastings Park North- just speculating
a solution is already underway- we both know that these types of deals are a lot further along than what we get from the news-- every stakeholder that attended will come out a winner
Expect official statement regarding Whitecaps situation moving forward shortly. @GlobalBC Sports has learned ALL parties are onboard to move the #SavetheCaps initiative forward. We’re talking PAVCO, all 3 levels of government and our First Nations.— JAY JANOWER (@JayJanower) May 14, 2026
So are you saying the Caps will stay in Vancouver without a deal to build a new stadium? All they need is just a renegotiated lease on BC Place?
The issue isn’t “will the Caps stay if they get a new BC Place lease?” The real goal is getting to a place where it actually makes sense for a local buyer to purchase the club and keep it in Vancouver which is exactly what the current ownership said from the start. A renegotiated lease might keep the team in Vancouver in the short term, especially if Kerfoot sells during that window. But that doesn’t solve the core problem: A new stadium still isn’t guaranteed A new owner wouldn’t be obligated to stay The team would still lose money at BC Place The Province would be taking all the risk with no long‑term protection If the Province caves and gives the Whitecaps a sweeter deal at BC Place, here’s what happens: MLS buys time, they can stay or relocate later Kerfoot cashes out A new owner inherits a subsidized situation with zero binding commitments The Province and taxpayers carry the risk If the new owner wants out, nothing stops them That’s the exact pattern that led to Expos 2.0 : government concessions, ownership change, relocation anyway. So yes, you can get a deal that keeps the Whitecaps in Vancouver for now. But without a stadium plan and binding guarantees, it’s a short‑term political win that simply pushes the real risk onto the next government. Consider the timing of the World Cup and everyone wants to avoid losing face by moving a club under severe financial difficulties : the city, the province, the league and CONCACAF (Montagliani being present apply pressure with the governance angle - he's also from Vancouver). The biggest risk‑taker in this scenario isn’t MLS, or Kerfoot, or a future owner. It’s the Province and by extension, taxpayers.
That premise assumes two things: - PavCo would find another renter for the 17+ weekends that the Whitecaps half fill BC Place - that there's no wider benefit to the citizens of Vancouver and BC of having a major League team in the city
If everything pans out - good for all parties. If not, taxpayers are the biggest losers who carried all the risks from the onset. Let's hope that this does work out and it isn't another repeat of what the other leagues have done in the past
What risks are being taken by taxpayers? From what I gather, any BC Place lease will not be a money losing agreement, but a splitting of direct revenues between the venue and club. Caps deal=money and jobs for Pavco and related entities, no caps deal=17 less events at the venue and less money and jobs. BC Place being owned by a public entity does not change economics. If it's a money losing deal or something that involves cash payments or other incentives, that's one thing and I can understand your position. Everyone else, here at least, is discussing an arrangement where the Caps get a standard share of revenues directly generated during their events (also any naming rights revenue that get their values boosted by the Caps) which by no realistic means is a subsidy and distribution of taxpayer dollars. Maybe the Caps are demanding something that can only result in a financial loss for Pavco, I'm not sure. You keep coming off like an idiot by insisting that normal and theoretically fair business agreements, like a venue lease that fairly shares gameday revenue like everywhere else, is some type of taxpayer subsidy.
As a Provincial Crown Corporation PavCo does not receive any government funding. The entity is also tax exempt. PavCo is run similarly to a for profit business, only in their case all profits go to funding the venues, the upkeep and renovations of said venues, and any money made on top of those expenses goes to public service funding. So, by negotiating client specific deals they are not giving a government subsidy. Why? Glad you asked, because the money being brought in wouldn't be brought in without the deal in the first place. There's no gameday revenue at BC Place from Whitecaps games, if the Whitecaps aren't playing at BC Place. How many artists are you going to hold concerts for that are as big as Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, or Beyonce on a yearly basis? Also, there's a big difference in revenue generated from hosting a Taylor Swift concert(s) versus hosting a Motocross or Monster Truck event.
A revenue split only helps if the tenant is actually profitable in the building and the Caps aren’t. A nicer lease doesn’t fix that; it just shifts more public revenue over to them. BC Place isn’t relying on the Caps to survive. It fills its calendar with concerts, conventions, international matches and touring events. Losing 17 dates isn’t ideal but it’s not a crisis either. A sweeter deal might keep the team around for a bit but it doesn’t solve their underlying economics. All it really does is have the province give up more public money so MLS and current ownership can hit the valuation they want on a sale. You’re missing the key distinction here and it's not a matter of personal opinion : venue‑side revenue is public revenue because BC Place is publicly owned and publicly operated. It doesn’t matter whether that revenue comes from beer, suites, naming rights or event‑day activity : it flows through a Crown corporation. So yes, changing the split is a transfer of public money, even if you call it “standard revenue sharing". A private landlord can give a tenant whatever deal they want. A public landlord can’t, because every dollar they give up is taxpayer money. That’s the entire point. The Caps getting a bigger slice doesn’t magically make the deal neutral. It just means PavCo and by extension the public gets less. That’s the definition of a subsidy, whether you like the word or not. BC Place’s naming rights are tied to the building’s overall event portfolios. The Caps are one tenant among many, not the anchor that drives the valuation. The issue isn’t whether the Caps bring some value. They do. The issue is that a sweeter lease shifts public revenue to a private club without fixing the underlying economics and without any guarantee the team stays long‑term. You’re treating BC Place like it’s a private landlord cutting a private deal. It isn’t. It’s a Crown corporation, and venue‑side revenue is public revenue. If PavCo gives up a bigger share to the Caps, that’s the public giving up money it would otherwise keep. That’s not an opinion that’s how Crown finances work. If that concept is unfamiliar to you, fine but there’s no need to jump to insults. Sure, BC can give the Caps what they want. Quebec did the same thing for the Expos. The result? The government denied itself revenue to help a private team, the team left anyway and taxpayers never got that money back. That’s exactly why provinces get cautious about these deals, they’ve seen how this story ends. Maybe there should be a relocation block like Glendale did with the Coyotes in the NHL.That protection only existed because the city was subsidizing the team through arena payments. When public money is on the line, governments should demand guarantees or protection. Would MLS agree to this? I have my doubts but maybe that's part of the discussions
PavCo pays for the stadium, the staff, the security, the utilities, the maintenance, the upgrades, the day‑to‑day operations all of it. The Caps don’t own the building, they don’t operate it and they don’t carry the overhead. So when you say they “just want more of their own revenue,” that’s not really how it works. They want a larger cut of revenue that only exists because a publicly owned stadium is providing the infrastructure and absorbing the operating costs. If PavCo gives up more of that revenue, the public is the one taking the hit. Going back to TFC - MLSE absorbs the operating costs and contribute to capital projects so they get a bigger piece of the revenues. The Whitecaps haven't done any of this - ever and there's no evidence that they can handle running BC Place on their own
You’re mixing up two different concepts. PavCo not receiving annual government funding doesn’t mean its revenue isn’t public. It’s a Crown corporation... its operating revenue is public money. If PavCo gives up revenue it would otherwise earn, that’s the public giving up revenue. That’s how Crown finances work. As I keep repeating - the Caps aren’t paying the venue‑side costs that generate that revenue. PavCo pays for the stadium, staff, security, utilities, maintenance, upgrades - all of it. So “their own event revenue” only exists because a publicly owned venue is absorbing the operating costs to make their event even possible. BC Place isn’t sitting empty without them either. It fills its calendar with concerts, conventions, etc... The Caps are one tenant with around 20 dates out of 365 - not the anchor that keeps the building alive - them being kicked out of the stadium for more lucrative events is clear evidence of this.