He didn’t say that. He asked if sponsorships would help pay the bills. You tenacity for using strawman arguments is weird.
I answered the question directly: yes, more sponsorships would increase revenue. However, irrelevant to the discussion about the Whitecaps viability and MLS economics
They don't own the land but the Tsleil-Waututh Nation reached a deal to become the owners of the slot machine-based casino located in the Hastings and buy the land. They needed approval from the city. Since mid-2024, Great Canadian has agreed to sell six of its nine casinos in the province to First Nations groups. Among the latest is a pending sale of Elements Casino Chilliwack to the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe, a collective of seven Indigenous communities in the Fraser Valley. I wonder if three groups have gotten together to become minority owners with some kind of deal to build the stadium? If they are signing a lease for 4-5 seasons, that sounds like a new stadium being built. One article mentioned they wanted to expand the casino, so developing the area around the stadium could be a thing.
BIG NEWS on the WHITECAPS theprovince.com/sports/soccer/mls/vancouver-whitecaps/whitecaps-bc-government-local-first-nations-set-to-meet and Don Garber will be at the meeting its going to be a World Cup good news story, IMO you might ask why the First Nations are in the picture-- they want to expand their casino building at Hastings Park North, so investing in the Club now makes sense for the future of their casino as i have been saying for months- THE WHITECAPS ARE NOT LEAVING VANCOUVER and there will be a lot more coming beyond settling the BC Place Stadium lease until 2030-- it could be explosively good news and could include other major sports in time--(Hollywood star and locally born anad locally living, Ryan Reynolds, was in the news about a teaming up with a San Francisco 49 owner for MLB) (and Vancouver is in the top 3 cities for the next NBA expansion at the Canucks NHL Rogers Arena)
Seriously? Do you actually read what your write before you post? The Whitecaps have a revenue problem........ PavCo is seemingly leaving revenue on the table........... That's seems to make sponsorship money pretty darn relevant to this discussion........
No one signs a lease for 4-5 years unless there is a stadium being built and still needs approval. Timeline for stadiums are usually about three years depending on the site. So how long would an approval process take and what else might be being built simultaneously (casino expansion) makes this sound like they got a deal on the memorandum they signed and Garber complained about going nowhere before the Las Vegas news. If this happens, makes me think mini save the Crew situation and Vegas is getting an expansion team.... With what other city? Phoenix, Sacramento, Indianapolis & Tampa Bay... I just can't see MLS going into another media deal where they might give up revenue and passing on expansion for Vegas. Besides, Garber isn't showing up with that group for bad news about moving.
How the hell does this make any sense? It’s like saying scoring more goals is irrelevant to winning soccer.
Once again, take it with a grain of salt. A new Vancouver Whitecaps owner is getting access to land worth at least $1.5 Billion from the city for a new stadium/entertainment districtThis includes a possible casino partnership with local First Nations, who own rights at the siteGoldmine for the right localLets go pic.twitter.com/YhlRaFXJ5y— Lord Humungus 🇨🇦 of Vancouver (@RodneyGibson604) May 11, 2026
The Whitecaps’ revenue problem and PavCo’s sponsorship strategy are two separate issues. The Caps are tenants at BC Place, not the stadium owners, so extra stadium sponsorship revenue doesn’t suddenly become Whitecaps operating revenue.
Stadium naming rights are a very big source of revenue. BMO pay $10M per year for LAFC's stadium while RSL are getting $6.6M per year. I believe the median is ~$5M per year.
The issue isn’t whether naming‑rights revenue is valuable, obviously it is. The issue is that BC Place is a provincially owned asset operated by PavCo. Any sponsorship or naming‑rights revenue is public revenue, not team revenue. If PavCo “shared” that money with the Whitecaps, it would be viewed as a taxpayer subsidy to private owners at a time when public services need funding. That’s a political non‑starter and would damage the government. That’s fundamentally different from MLSE’s control of BMO Field, where the operator controls the stadium and keeps the naming‑rights revenue. So even if BC Place generated $10M/year in sponsorships, none of that becomes Whitecaps operating revenue. The minister has already said this option is off the table unless the Province changes its position. If you re‑read what Schuster is saying in the article below, it really sounds like this is exactly what the club would prefer but from the government’s perspective, that’s a massive ask. https://onesoccer.ca/a/vancouver-wh...ng-sale-efforts-we-are-open-for-all-solutions “BC Place is our first option, because it's there, everyone knows we will not play in a different stadium, even if you get there within the next five years,” Schuster said. “We need a significant improvement in all categories that generate revenue for us or that are costing us money right now.” That line is doing a lot of work. It’s basically saying: “We need the BC Place deal to be restructured in ways that materially improve our revenue position.” But PavCo cannot simply hand over public revenue streams to a private club. The asset belongs to the entire province, not just the City of Vancouver which shows how different the situation is from TFC in Toronto who owns the stadium. That’s the structural tension here.
Having stayed in Vegas for a conference with a room that looked right out at the Sphere from next door at the Venetian I have to say it is legitimately impressive. Not an excuse to move the Whitecaps of course, but don't undersell it.
Robert Borden- you have a lot of insight into the Whitecap situation 1. MLS will not allow the Caps to be re-located to Las Vegas- they would loose over $500 mill in expansion money- so MLS will eventually award a new franchise to LV if the right owner(s) and stadium are found (Indianapolis might be the other) 2. the Waututh First Nations have already expressed an interest in being part of the ownership group, mainly to do with their small casino lease at Hastings Park (Vancouver owns the land) - they want larger digs simply because something massive is going to be done on the adjacent land at the Park which is being cleared as we speak- its going to be an entertainment hub with a possible stadium as its anchor- it will need multiple deep-pocketed investors who are willing to be patient in order to capitalize on their investment 3. any ownership group will hopefully-probably include Hollywood star, Ryan Reynolds, born, raised and living with his family in Vancouver- he has a deep passion for soccer and has rescued Clubs before (Wrexham)- he would be a the face of the franchise- there was a rumor that he and a San Francisco 49'er owner (attended the Caps November playoff game vs LAFC- a massive, explosive crowd of 55K was impressive) were interested in a MLB franchise, maybe even an NBA franchise - could we see a sports consortium in Vancouver, much like Toronto has with MLSE? speculation on my part, but its an interesting and seemingly far-fetched possibility 4. things are speeding up quickly and i think the coming World Cup would inspire a deal to be announced- politicians and governments (low in the polls) need some good news 5. The Whitecaps/new and possibly existing owners will lease/manage BC Place Stadium with the potential for more revenue, some of it to be shared with the Province- at least until 2030- socialist governments arent good at making money, capitalists are- the Province could realize more revenue if PAVCO is out of the leadership of the Stadium 5. personally, i wouldnt mind the Caps staying at the domed BC Place Stadium permanently- its a first class, 55K stadium, except for turf i expect some positive news later this week -- steps forward, so to speak
You keep saying this, but it is not true. MLS would just get that $500 million from the next city on the list. You make it sound like they would only expand to 31 teams if the Caps move to Vegas.
They wouldn't have to hand over any money really. If they had naming rights that brought down operating expense they could just lower rent for the tenants, thus becoming a more attractive venue. Once upon a time health care insurance was based on members sharing the expense and if at the end of the year they paid more into than what was needed for the group, they received a rebate. If they brought more revenue into the building, why couldn't they pass on maintenance savings to the core tenants? Is the building for profit or non profit?
There is an absolute inability from anyone from the Vancouver side to sum up the issues concisely. This suggests to me you are simply operating on hope.
The issues are that the current lease agreement to use BC Place is not tenable from a revenue standpoint for the Whitecaps. They lag far behind the rest of league in terms of revenue. They also do not control their schedule either. They would like to build a stadium of their own but there are political hurdles to that happening. Prospective groups kicking the tires about either buying a stake in the team, or buying it outright have not liked the current financials of running the team. Add in the high costs of land, and building a new stadium......... plus the political hurdles, and here we are.
As fans and owners of the league demand more spending to enter MLS 3.0, Vancouver is still a 1.0 market. Teams playing in rented stadiums they share with another team where the owner has no control of the stadium schedule basically.
You need: 1) A new manageable lease agreement for BC place for the next 4-5 years. 2) A new stadium built to open at the end of that lease. 3) An ownership group willing to purchase the franchise and pay for the new stadium with the help of the provincial government. There, I summed it up for you. How many of those things do you have right now? How close are you to having them in place?
Lowering rent is still a subsidy when the landlord is a Crown corporation. (Government owned) PavCo’s mandate is to return revenue to the Province, not redistribute public money to private owners. Those revenues helps to pay for universal healthcare, education etc.., that's why even lowering rent is still perceived as a loss of revenue to the province that could have gone to pay for public services. Even if naming‑rights revenue reduced BC Place’s operating costs, selectively lowering rent for the Whitecaps would still be a transfer of public funds which the minister has already ruled out. My pessimism is grounded on precedents, I've scene the playbook before from MLB and NHL. This is exactly what happened in the province of Québec: the government lowered rent for the Expos and Nordiques but refused to subsidize them directly and both teams still left. That indirect subsidy in lower rent that could have help alleviate drastic public service cuts in the 90s : Gone! That's what the BC government is worry about - making concessions and the owners still bail. That's what the minister meant when he said he's getting the perception they made up their minds and they just want to be told if that's the case. BC can offer minor operational relief but it cannot fix the structural problem: the Whitecaps don’t control the stadium, don’t receive stadium revenue and lose tens of millions per year. Rent relief doesn’t change that.
@Rahbiefowlah is correct - the messaging from the Caps is all over the place and vague. When you read between the lines, it really sounds that they want what TFC has - control of BC Place with the revenue streams that comes with it. MLSE contributed to building and renovations of the venue, not the Whitecaps. https://onesoccer.ca/a/vancouver-wh...ng-sale-efforts-we-are-open-for-all-solutions What makes matter worst, this is a provincial venue not municipal. If BC Place was "Vancouver Place" and owned by the city like BMO Field is in Toronto, the city would have most likely gave them what they want. Same case as the Montreal Expos, there was no way the Quebec Government even entertained the idea of giving managerial rights to the club. Politically, this is a no win scenario for the government. The World Cup timing is extra pressure on them to make concessions
Those three steps don’t address the core financial problem: MLS would logically require a minimum ~$500M sale price. What some people don't seem to appreciate is that the $500M is in USD!!! So to keep the club in Vancouver, a local group would need to pay $685M to $700M CAD for a franchise with negative cash flow, no tangible infrastructure and no control over revenue streams. Even if you got a better BC Place lease, a new stadium plan, and a willing ownership group, a buyer would still be paying half a billion dollars CAD on a new stadium while absorbing losses for 4–5 years. That’s why 100+ local investor meetings went nowhere. The math doesn’t add up. In my opinion, the valuation floor is the real barrier, not the lease or the stadium timeline. Someone with more insight on the league and CSA made this observation following the announcement that Victor Montagliani was joining the discussions. The CSA moratorium isn't going anywhere and this is a real pressure point for MLS. Logically, they could have just called it a day - gone to Vegas and comeback at some point. The league understands that moving the club means Vancouver is lost to them forever. Victor Montagliani presence is an indicator of that angle in those discussions. This information needs to be conveyed to the BC Government that if the Whitecaps leaves, there's no coming back unlike those scenarios about exploring NBA coming back to Vancouver or MLB returning to add clubs in Canada.Makes sense since after watching parliamentary meetings on soccer, politicians here are shockingly under-educated on football governance. Asking people in this thread who knows this league - how realistic would it be for MLS to allow the club to be sold at a lower price? If no, could they opt to buy out ownership and take control the club until the stadium situation is handled if no local ownership raises their hands? We talk about how governments should be more flexible, doesn't that extend to the league as well if they want to stay in Vancouver?