thanks for the info! I would hate to see the sss plan die, it is such a fantastic location. But anything downtown would be cool, and honestly if BC place works then there will be no need for new field. Aside from the grass issue that is. Being a Seattle fan, we will feel your pain on turf issue.
Two possible explanations / interpretations for this: 1) Ages ago, when Kerfoot was hitting red tape on the downtown stadium proposal, Surrey's mayor was quoted as saying they would welcome that kind of a community investment with open arms. That however was three years ago. AFAIK the club has no interest to be anywhere but downtown, as moving to Surrey would be counterproductive to their "MLS = big league" image. 2) The Caps were in long-term negotiations for building a multi-field training facility on land leased from the city of Delta. The provincial gov't also promised to contribute $17 million to the $30 million cost. The project recently collapsed when Delta bailed on their MOU with the club. Surrey is immediately next door to Delta, and it's possible they are courting the Whitecaps for this facility, although I have not heard anything to specifically suggest these talks are taking place.
1. cost of the renovated BC Place Stadium-- paid by the taxpayers of the province; cost to the Caps ownership-- nil-- they save well over $ 100 mill to build their own stadium and buy the land or trade for it using kerfoot's waterfront land 2. kerfoot's land is still valuable property worth millions and will be part of a wider development-- residential, transportation, park, open space on the waterfront-- kerfoot pockets millions through his investment 3. the Caps have already stated they want to make their imprint beyond the Lower Mainland/bc and into other parts of canada-- they will have some part to play int the edmonton soccer club that comes to NASL in 2011; they are looking at building a national training center, along with training fields, in a suburb of vancouver if u had have been staying up-to-date over the past several years rather than talking with your 'sources', u would already know all this
further info: http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature05010802.aspx and kerfoot WILL make a boat-load of $$$$$$$$$ for his property-- and i have nothing against him for being a wise investor-- he has been a great supporter of soccer and the Caps
sportie1, you have posted some info and sources but your opinions cast as facts is a rather dubious attempt at facts... I suspect you might be the poster named 1daddycool over at the Southsiders forum... The work at BC Place is not taxpayer driven, I don't have the time to get into the issues here, but Sportie1 is wrong in saying the taxpayers are on the hook for BC Place, and I bet if you got kerfoot alone and asked which he would prefer: Leasing BC Place or building a SSS with his own cash, he'd opt for the SSS on his own dime on his lands...
JohnnyRanger: Please explain how the BC Place reno's and roof are not taxpayer funded. I know you will go on about "selling and developing land", etc..but that return is over time. The money is being paid by the taxpayer NOW, and may be (or maybe not) recouped in the future by other deals. I just think you should get your facts straight before trying to discredit another poster.
Shiek, BC PavCo is a BC Crown Corp. They are self financed through the lands and buildings they own and operate. Can you read?
Dude, the development revenue from surrounding lands HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. Thus the money they will bring in, HAD NOT BEEN REALIZED. Thus, the government has to float PavCo this money UNTIL the development revenues have been brought into the business. (this stuff has to be paid for this year, it is not waiting until lands are developed). SO, there is always a risk this development revenue will underperform projections, and leave the taxpayers paying something. I am not saying this is a bad thing; I am all for the stadium. I just want the facts to be straight..
So I'm not a Vancouver native but I'm wondering why they don't keep the caps at Empire Field? I know transportation is an issue when compared to BC place and that the amenities are not as nice. But when you compare that to being able to play in a smaller compact environment that's outdoors and could conceivably be converted to a grass surface this just seems like an easy decisions. Looking at the pictures it reminds me a lot of Crew Stadium in Columbus and BMO in Toronto not the greatest venue but the right size and great site lines.
I would ask you to point to one single example where a Crown holdings agency has been unable to find a buyer or investor willing to develop an unused parcel of land, free from municipal zoning restrictions, in the downtown core of a major city. My point is, there was never any question that PavCo was going to secure top dollar for leasing its land around BC Place. It was just a question of who would win the bidding war, and in this case it was Paragon Gaming out of Las Vegas. They're now set to build two hotel towers and a mega casino. There was never any question whatsoever about whether this would be a good deal for taxpayers
The one all important reason is it's a temporary venue not a stadium. It's almost entirely made of scaffolding. Look at pics on page 2 of this thread. This could obviously never be a permanent structure. Now if they wanted to build a permanent stadium there, well you answered it already, the location is not the best.
Neemtree: The location is what kills hopes for anything permanent remaining at Empire. People in the metro Vancouver area are accustomed to getting on the transit system and taking the SkyTrain to the downtown core to watch the Canucks and BC Lions. Empire is well outside of the downtown core, and nowhere near a Skytrain station. That means a lot of people will have to take multiple buses plus a train inbetween in order to get there. Driving is always an option - that is if you enjoy rush hour gridlock and $30 parking fees. My point is that if the Caps were to stay at Empire, getting there will be a massive pain in the ass compared to other pro sports games in this town... and the club will feel it at the box office. They can get through a one full season at Empire without too much fuss due tot he newness of it all.... but continuing beyond that they will be pressing their luck. Our region is accustomed People in this region are accustomed to
i am not sure if this has been addressed already, if so i apologize, but BC Place will not be owned by VWFC like other SSS are owned by their tenant MLS teams. from what i understand the whole point of a SSS isn't only just to have only soccer at the stadium so things like grass, no football lines, intimate close pitch, control of schedule be under the purview of th MLS team but also, and most importantly, because the MLS team controls/keeps 100% of the ticket, concession, parking revenue and so that the MLS team doesn't have to pay rent. what is the situation going to be with VWFC. is it going to be like DCU who pay a high rent and don't control all of the revenue? as beautiful as the place is unless they have some very very sweet rent deal (ideally nothing) and a very very sweet lease agreement that gives them all of the revenue for their games i am not sure this is such a great situation for VWFC. obviously they will likely draw a ton of fans but if they are not able to keep all of the revenue that those fans generate what is the point? obviously they very well might have a great lease agreement with all of the revenue being kept by them. i just haven't heard or seen anything about it so i thought i'd ask. and the other question is, as a shared tenant who gets priority? scheduling priority? pointy-ball lines on the pitch? surface choice (ie is there any chance that eventually they get to go to a modular grass tray system)? the stadium is beautiful i just wonder if VWFC is getting all of the control and revenue it can out of it?
Thanks for the reply Johnnie looking at the map the transportation argument make sense especially since I've been stuck in Vancouver traffic before. It's a shame that is a picturesque setting for a stadium with the views from there and I'm sure the neighborhood could use a draw bringing people back to the area.
Other than the PNE itself there's really nothing in that neighborhood and if anything the residents probably hate the Stadium since they're always complaining about the fairgrounds and parking...etc
NIMBY's are international. Forgive me if I am wrong, but hasn't PNE been at that location forever? I mean if you move next to a fairground, parking and people and noice are the things you have to expect right?
There has been plans for ages to remove the PNE from that area and move it elsewhere, such as Surrey. As such they have been removing most permanent structures and turning the rest into green space. The moving of the fair seems to have stalled though.
Search out my username with "rental rates" and you'll find plenty of info. BC Place is gov't owned and operated. Rental rates are kept extremely low for the express purpose of bringing business to Vancouver. As for conflicts with throwball - Seattle has no problems. Why would we?
I agree it hopefully wont be an issue, but to be fair, the Seahawks only played their first pre-season game at Qwest tonight, whereas the CFL and the Lions usually start their preseason in June. So the 'caps will have to deal with sharing the stadium for a couple more months of the season than the Sounders do.
At BC place though, the BC Lions won't be the main tenant as the Seahawks are at Qwest. The Lions and Whitecaps will average the about the same per game but the Whitecaps will have more games. So if there are conflicts, I doubt the Whitecaps will get the short end of the stick.
Erm...you seem to be implying that the Sounders gets the short end of the stick when it concerns Qwest Field. Just like BC Place, Qwest field is government owned...and it is OPERATED by the group that owns BOTH the Seahawks and Sounders (well partial ownership of the Sounders, but that doesn't weaken my point). Because of that the Sounders and Seahawks are both treated as equal tenants. Have you seen a Sounders game in October? Tell me how many football lines you see on the field and then get back to me.
I wasn't implying anything about the Sounders, the previous poster mentioned Seattle so I went with that as an example. My point I was trying to make still stands. Unlike other soccer teams that have to share a main stadium with a football team the Whitecaps should get a pretty fair shake. Also unlike in Seattle the soccer team in Vancouver will be averaging about the same per game or more per game than the football team, thus improving their importance as a tenant in the stadium. I will not get back to you in October after watching a Sounders home game as I owe you sweet bugger all. My post mentioned nothing about football lines on the pitch. Who thought that an innocuous early morning post before work would get such a snotty reply?
The Lions have been averaging over 30,000 for the last few years, but aren't the Whitecaps setting capacity at around 20,000? I would expect the Lions to get preferential treatment if there was a conflict for 2 reasons... 1) a 30 year relationship with PavCo 2) the Grey Cup is arguably the biggest event held at BC Place Having said that, I would be astonished if the Whitecaps were to get the short end of the stick, but they might end up with only 49% of the stick to the Lions' 51%.