Private events. Weddings. Corporate buyouts. Fundraisers. Restaurants get rented out fully staffed all the time. It's not because you've never done it that it isn't a thing Glad we cleared up that mystery, maybe one day you'll get to see it for yourself
That's catering. Which isn't the same thing as "renting a fully staffed restaurant", because you aren't creating a menu and then selling it to someone who walks in off the street.
The Whitecaps leaving would be like paying a restaurant staff an annual salary, instead of by the hour, then closing the restaurant on Saturday nights.
I've been in the restaurant business over forty years and never heard of such a thing. No one rents a kitchen and the business takes anything while providing a staff. You can rent a hall and have a private catering company for the event but the building is a flat fee and they might have a list of caterers they can recommend but that's about it.
My analogy isn’t about restaurants. It’s about who pays the overhead. TFC controls its venue and pays the costs. The Whitecaps use a publicly owned venue where PavCo pays for the staff, security, utilities, maintenance, upgrades and operations. Whether you personally like the analogy doesn’t change how Crown corporations work and that's what the Whitecaps are stuck with. They aren't going to change how a Crown Corporation operate - it comes down to if the government agrees to help them via subsidy or not. The rest is fluff
You're not engaging with any argument whatsoever. You just keep bringing up the same ridiculous points and also seem to be under the misunderstanding that BC Place has this unique ownership structure that legitimizes a business model unlike anywhere else (I can think of three venues in my state alone that were built by public funds and are operated by a publicly owned corporation, there is absolutely nothing unique or unusual about the BC Place structure) Every time you expand on it, it gets more ridiculous, such as "one-time events" like motocross and concerts can somehow justify a separate arrangement but it's wrong when that a 17 match tenant can have a similar deal. I'm sorry, but I would really like for you to go back through this thread, read your posts clearly and try to use some unbiased critical thinking and consider this question; "am I the idiot here" and most likely, you will realize that yes, you are.
You’re not actually correcting anything I’ve said , you’re just trying very very hard to argue the Canadian model into whatever US template you’re familiar with and getting frustrated that it doesn’t fit. That’s why you keep announcing that BC Place “isn’t unique,” as if I ever claimed it was. I’m explaining how the model works. You’re trying to de-legitimize it because it’s foreign to you. The more you insist I’m “ridiculous,” the more obvious it becomes that you’re not engaging with the structure at all. You keep circling back to insults because it’s easier than acknowledging the basic principle you keep dodging: venue‑side revenue at BC Place is public revenue and PavCo pays the venue‑side costs. That’s the model. You don’t have to like it but pretending it’s some bizarre invention doesn’t make it go away. If you need to reframe the conversation into “everyone else is wrong but me” to stay comfortable, that’s fine. But don’t confuse that with actually understanding the argument - clearly you don't
Since you like restaurant analogies: Joe own's Joe's Pizza & banquet hall. He owns the building, the ovens, etc. Joe is responsible for everything: overhead, mortgage, food and labor costs, building improvements, bookings, caterings, etc. Joe makes a profit after all of that. Joe can decide what to do with that profit. Crown Pizza is a pizzeria banquet business that is a Provincial Crown Corporation. The Crown Corp owns the pizzerias, pays the labor, mortgage, food costs, building improvements, bookings, caterings, etc. Crown pizza makes a profit. The Crown Corp takes those profits and asks the Provincial government how'd they'd like those profits spent. That's it. That's the only difference between the Caps situation with BC Place, and TFC's situation with BMO Field. The Whitecaps have a signed lease agreement to use BC Place. They can negotiate new terms for that lease. That lease determines how much the Caps pay to use the facility, and also how much money they make from performing at BC Place. The Caps sign a lease agreement for X number of dates (usually 20, but no fewer than 17). This isn't any different than Taylor Swift signing an agreement to perform concerts over a 5 day stretch. At the end of the day it's simply the cost of doing business.
if MLS does that, then they loose $600 mill in an expansion to LV- that wont happen- keeping the Whitecaps in Vancouver and giving an expansion franchise to LV works for the pocket-book Vancouver-Langley of the CPL moving to BC Place Stdaium is a pipe-dream and wont happen
something significant is going to be coming to Hastings Park North- the empty and huge piece of land will be ready for development by 2027- right next to it is the Waututh First Nations casino and they want to expand it (its why the Waututh are at the BC Government-PavCo, MLS, Whitecaps talks this week; the Musqueam First Nations are also at the talks and that is a surprise) and the Waututh have stated they might be willing to invest in the Whitecaps - there is more than enough land to develop an entertainment hub, including a Stadium; the land is owned by the City and would be leased- and Skytrain's next ambitious transportation link is to have a connection from DT to the North Shore with one such crossing being near Hastings Park, followed by a connection from Metrotown and Brentwood Mall Skytrain stations- there already are train tracks across McGill Street from Hastings Park- and Provincial and Federal Government money would be needed- interestingly, a Federal Government person (ex-Vancouver Mayor, Gregor Robertson) was at the meeting on May 14 Scenario 1: - lease BC Place Stadium with a better revenue stream until 2030-2031 - build a Stadium and lease the land at Hastings Park North- surround it with a hotel, a large casino, businesses and possibly residences - complete a Skytrain link from DT to the North Shore with a station stop at Hastings Park Scenarion 2: the Whitecaps make a long-term lease to manage and increase revenue at BC Place Stadium, a 55K world class facility (albeit with turf) whatever scenario is taken, the Whitecaps WILL stay in Vancouver (and LV gets an expansion franchise IF they have a stadium plan and sufficient financing)
That part of your analogy lines up with the TFC/BMO Field situation. TFC (through MLSE) controls its venue and carries the full operational load : staffing, utilities, maintenance, upgrades, day‑to‑day costs and the financial risk. Because they pay for everything, they also keep the venue‑side revenue. This is basically the BC Place side of the comparison : PavCo pays the operating costs, maintains the building, covers upgrades and carries the financial risk. That part matches. The only correction is that Crown corporations don’t “ask the government how to spend profits.” They reinvest revenue into operations and capital needs first then any surplus goes back into the provincial consolidated fund. On the Taylor Swift example, for major concerts at BC Place, it’s the promoter (Live Nation, AEG, etc.) who rents the venue, not the artist. The promoter pays the venue fee, covers most of the event‑side costs and brings in their own staff, production crews, staging, lighting and logistics teams. That actually reduces PavCo’s operational burden for those dates. The key difference: Concerts don’t get a share of venue‑side revenue. They pay to use the building, run their event and leave. The Caps can absolutely renegotiate, that part isn’t in dispute. The issue is what they’re negotiating for. They’re asking for a larger share of venue‑side revenue from a stadium they don’t pay to operate. From the province’s perspective, that ask isn’t proportional to their contribution, because PavCo covers the operating costs, maintenance, utilities, staffing and capital upgrades. Any increase in the Caps’ share of venue‑side revenue means less public revenue flowing back into the provincial coffers. In practical terms, that’s a form of public subsidy and those are generally unpopular in Canada, especially when they benefit private sports teams. Can the province agree to subsidize the Caps? Yes they can. Should they? I'm of the opinion that not without firm guarantees. This might be at the heart of the negotiations as we speak.
You used a horrible analogy and doubled down. I want to find you credible but that wasn't true when you say they give you a staff blah blah blah. . Everyone is intelligent enough to understand the situation in Vancouver, including the team that would like to stay but is losing money at the current stadium. When you say subsidy this and that, all you are doing is stating a view from one political side that you obviously agree with. . This is why they are negotiating because the current policy of the government isn't business friendly for the Whitecaps. It's seems constituents in the region might consider changing the policy and others like yourself can't fathom such a thing. This is why they had a meeting and we will find out if they can come to a workable agreement. Even if they stay or go, I'll guarantee someone won't be happy. That's just politics.
The moral of the story seems to be that idées fixées about the good guys and bad guys will not only block solutions, but will derail one's perception of the contours of the problem. This is true even when the idea-holder is not an otherwise unintelligent person.
Sadly, very little of the infrastructure you’re describing is anywhere close to concrete. Canada moves slowly on major projects because of regulatory and funding requirements, so we’re realistically years if not a decade away from any of this materializing. Scenario 1 assumes everything happens in sequence, but nothing stops an owner from walking away at the end of a favorable lease. By 2030–31, you’re likely still in the planning and design phase, which doesn’t lock anyone into anything. The idea of transferring management of BC Place to the Whitecaps is also extremely unlikely. They don’t have the resources, staffing, or operational expertise to run a 55K seat multipurpose venue. Even if they did, such a change would require legislative amendments, public tendering and union negotiations. It’s not something the province can just hand over. As for the SkyTrain extension, based on recent Canadian transit timelines, you’re looking at a decade or more before a North Shore link opens assuming it even gets approved and funded. The one thing I fully agree with is that the Whitecaps will stay in Vancouver IF MLS wants to stay. If the league wants the market, it will stay, even if ownership changes. The real question and the one the province is asking is : what MLS’s plan is if ownership exits before a concrete stadium plan exists. Will the league take over the club temporarily? Will they secure a local investor? Those answers matter before any public funds are committed to “maybes,” especially when we’re several years away from shovels in the ground.
Constituents can push for policy changes but those changes still have to make sense within the legal and financial framework of a public asset. BC Place isn’t a private arena where the owner can just rewrite the rules. It’s governed by legislation and public accountability and that's the framework everyone is working with in those negotiations with regards to the stadium. I think you’re misunderstanding the point I’m making. This isn’t about political ideology, it’s about how public‑venue economics and Crown corporations actually work in Canada whether you agree with it or not. When I say “subsidy,” I’m not making a political argument. I’m using the literal definition. Everyone wants a workable agreement. Everyone also knows that no matter what happens, someone will be unhappy. But reducing this to “politics” misses the real issue: the province needs clarity from MLS and the club before it commits public funds or revenue concessions. That’s responsible governance not a political stance. You're free to keep believing that the Provincial government don't know what they are saying or doing but somehow you have more insight than they do.
Canada does things different guys. They'd rather lose revenue than make it. May explain why their economy is up the shitter.
You said giving the team a lower rent if they generated outside revenue would be looked at as a subsidy. I doubt that's true at all since they've already changed this years agreement to try and boost revenue for the team. A rental agreement means little if both sides agree to renegotiation. Truthfully, it looks like MLS is just going through the motions right now and the team will be playing somewhere else next year. . It looks like the league is trying to take a leap forward as it gets ready for a new media deal in the future. Sadly the thing that moves the needle for most casual fans are big names from Europe. With Vancouver reporting an estimated 45 million in losses this season for one of the top teams in MLS that's drawing well, that's slow suicide for the league. With new infrastructure opening in Miami, NYCFC & Chicago with a possibility of Boston, you don't want a team losing big before they change roster rules. . If they don't have this settled after the World Cup ends, I think Las Vegas will happen quickly.
A lower rent or revenue concession looks very different depending on who owns the venue. When a municipality owns a stadium, the politics are local and the benefits are local, so cities across Canada are often more flexible with teams. That’s why the perception of a “subsidy” is lower at the municipal level, the same taxpayers who fund the venue are the ones attending the games and witnessing an immediate impact. BC Place is a provincially owned asset. Half the province doesn’t live in Metro Vancouver, so any revenue the province gives up for a private owner in Vancouver is revenue that isn’t going toward people in the capital Victoria, Kelowna, Prince George, etc. That’s where the perception of a subsidy grows not because of ideology but because of how Crown‑corporation finances work. The province simply cannot ignore this and is a factor in their negotiations. The Expos is a valid precedent and it ended up with the province being unwilling to assist past a certain point. Same as BC, half of Quebec live outside Montreal Metropolitain. Ultimately, whether MLS stays or leave Vancouver is up to them. When York United in CPL had difficulties, the league bought out the owner, operated the club until they found a new owner and sold the club with a binding agreement to have a new stadium. Toronto was too valuable to leave. You'd know more than me if MLS and the other owners are willing to do the same for Vancouver. If the answer is "yes" - the province can go much further in what they can do to help. That's what they've been saying the entire time - they don't know what the current owners and the league wants besides better terms on the lease.
Sources: Former Vancouver Canucks and Grizzlies owner Arthur Griffiths has Whitecaps interest https://t.co/gk9LCpKPRc— Gabriel Morency (@sportsrage) May 15, 2026
Las Vegas only has Cashman field for professional soccer and it holds under 10 000- how will that work for MLS? the only way Vegas gets a franchise is through expansion of the league and that would take a new stadium plan, land , City government and wealthy investor(s) to buy into MLS and build the stadium- it wont happen until at least 2029-2030 Vegas isnt ready for the Whitecaps to be moved ... and that wont happen anyways- iMO, the LV promoter is laying the foundation of interest fro the next round of MLS expansion as far as a transportation link from the DT to Hastings Park, there is an existing set of tracks near the shoreline, albeit 150 meters away and owned by the CPR company; the Province/Translink (the planner and developer for buses, LRT and Skytrain) who leases it for people commuting- its a lot cheaper and faster to build at ground level tracks compared to the elevated Skytrain which would take up to 5 years to build after funding is awarded- solutions can be found when people come together with a common goal- keep the Whitecaps in Vancouver we now have the 3 levels of government (federal, provincial, city) discussing how to keep the Whitecaps in the Vancouver market- that in itself is amazing in only 6 months- a solution for the next 4-5 years is in the making and it obviously will be at BC Place Stadium with an adapted lease more favorable for the Whitecaps - after 2030, its anybody's guess, but i think Hastings Park North is the front leader as you can tell, i am not a panicker and i dont buy into all the negativity of the Caps being 'stolen' to LV- i expect some good news hopefully during the WC