TORONTO 2006 talks esculate

Discussion in 'MLS: Expansion' started by sounderfan, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. sounderfan

    sounderfan New Member

    Apr 6, 2003
    From the Canada Voyaguers Forum:

    http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5332


    ...just to back you up. ;)
     
  2. SC in SF

    SC in SF Member

    Nov 18, 2004
    SF
    It doesn't matter if an investor is interested in having an MLS team in Canada or if Don Garber wants an MLS team in Canada, I think it's up to FIFA to decide whether they would allow Canadian teams to play in MLS.
     
  3. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    MLS is still going to be a money loser.

    Doesn't look well for the owners of MLSE.
     
  4. TopDogg

    TopDogg Member

    Jan 31, 2000
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    God, why do we keep coming back to this?

    Did FIFA not allow Canadian teams in the NASL? Did FIFA not allow teams in the APSL (when in was the US' top tier)?

    What makes people think that FIFA would object in this case, especially when it seems that both governing bodies (the CSA and USSF, by way of MLS) are behind the inclusion of Canadian teams in MLS?
     
  5. TopDogg

    TopDogg Member

    Jan 31, 2000
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    Peddie said in his clip that he fully expects MLS to be a money loser in Toronto for the first few years. He even went so far as to say that there's no guarantee that it'll ever make money, and that's what they're looking into.

    They have done (and are still doing) their homework, despite how it "looks" for MLSE.
     
  6. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    You obviously don't know who owns MLSE. Try Again.
     
  7. Foots

    Foots Member

    Jan 7, 2002
    Ellicott City, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    I thought NASL wasn't sanctioned by FIFA
     
  8. TopDogg

    TopDogg Member

    Jan 31, 2000
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    There you go with the 'obviously' bs. Along with yet another insightful post.

    I know that the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund owns 57% of MLSE, and I also know that they are very scrupulous with their money.

    Another thing I know is that Peddie is a very persuasive individual, and if (a big 'if' at this point) he thinks owning and MLS team would be beneficial to the organization, the Board will follow his recommendations.

    But of course none of that matters to you. You would argue with someone from Toronto if they told you the sky was blue.
     
  9. SYoshonis

    SYoshonis Member+

    Jun 8, 2000
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Club:
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is not correct. NASL was not an outlaw league, although FIFA didn't like some of the things (e.g., the 35-yard offside line) that the league did. Many players were able to play in the NASL on loan, something that would not have been possible had the league not been affiliated with FIFA.
     
  10. budalabutt

    budalabutt Red Card

    Nov 4, 2004
    Chi-town
    I have to disagree with this my man. I mean we are talking about putting a team into Toronto Canada! This isnt like we are putting a team in some rinky dink city.

    Like I said before I relatives in Canada I have spent considerable time in Tornonto. Canada has plenty of wealthy individuals that have the ability to cover the realtively cheap entrance and ongoing expenses (realtive to MLS and the MLB and NHL) of an MLS franchise. If they build this stadium I think that MLS would do just fine in Toronto.
     
  11. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    And we know too much about the plans MLSE had for a stadium of their own at U of T. Of course we know the board knows jack squat about MLS.

    Why don't you try some constructive posts rather than ripping apart anyone who doesn't like the idea of a Canadian team in MLS. Be a man and stop acting like a baby.
     
  12. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    Those rinky dink cities would know more about MLS than Toronto would. There is no footprint of any sorts for MLS here.

    MLS isn't cheap by Canadian standards and would be considered a big ticket item thanks to the expansion fee attached to it. The team budget would also be expensive by Canadian standards.
     
  13. TopDogg

    TopDogg Member

    Jan 31, 2000
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Perhaps you should try to follow your own advice. Whenever I post anything constructive you immeditaly jump in with "try again" or "I'll shoot down everything you have to say" or something else completely dismissive.

    As for MLSE, how do you know how much knowledge they have about MLS? Are you sitting in on their meetings? Neither you nor I know anything about their level of MLS knowledge, but what I do know is that they are actively seeking information on the subject.

    Peddie himself seems to be very informed about the MLS structure, their lawsuit from the late 90's, etc., and he said he had considered MLS when they were starting up as a possible tenant for SkyDome, so obviously he isn't some johnny-come-lately who is just talking out of his ass.
     
  14. voros

    voros Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Parts Unknown
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    People often use the NASL as a counter-example, but they usually use it in the wrong arguments (SEM, spending on top players, salary caps, etc.)

    This is the real attitude that cost the NASL dearly. The attitude that this guy's dollar is just as good as the next guy's dollar is what brought about the epic disaster that was the rapid expansion in the late 70s. Everybody wanted in and the league responded by letting everybody in and the inevitable disaster ensued. Like most businesses, most of the startups were failures and the franchise values collapsed as potential investors in the stronger clubs saw 4 or more teams moving or folding every year and were scared away.

    I'm all for letting everyone have a chance, but that's why I'm such a proponent of promotion and relegation. It is a reasonable and effective way of adding and removing clubs from the league, so that lots of teams (and owners and cities) have a chance of being in the league, but the most deserving will tend to remain at the top of the food chain. This keeps fly by night outfits from creating chaos by forcing them to start in a lower league and work their way up, and it also effectively disposes of poorly run franchises replacing them with better franchises from below. The end result is the protection of the quality of the product while still allowing some level of open participation in the league.

    I'm not against Toronto, per se, but there are some negative aspects. I had read before (forgot where) that this was going to be a fake grass stadium. True or False?
     
  15. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    - The turf at the new stadium will be FieldTurf.
    - Team would be a secondary tennant to the CFL's Argos.
    - Team would be in competition with the Argos and Blue Jays for fans.
    - No real sponsorship potential that would be of a benifit to MLS.
    - No firm chance of a TV sponsorship.
    - Possible CSA involvement in day-to-day operations.
    - Little prospect of support from communities outside of Toronto.
     
  16. petersoccer

    petersoccer Red Card

    Dec 2, 2004
    Mississauga,Ontario
    If memory serves. Peddie and the Skydome group passed on MLS in 1993. They where leary of the Single Entity setup and backed off.
     
  17. petersoccer

    petersoccer Red Card

    Dec 2, 2004
    Mississauga,Ontario
    It really rips your ass that Toronto has everything it takes to get an MLS team.

    Little support from communities outside Torotno. The City of Vaughan population 160000+ is 5 minutes to the North of the New Stadium, is a hot bed of Amatuer soccer is growing leaps and bounds. City of Brampton is 300000 + 15 minutes to the West, City of Mississauga 700000 roughly the size of Edmonton 30 minutes southwest of the new Stadium. Thats over a million people and there are large communites East of the city as well.

    Argos and Blue jays so what, MLS has same issues in almost all it markets . Dumb comment.
     
  18. swedcrip34

    swedcrip34 New Member

    Mar 17, 2004
    actually, MLS has had 2 teams in markets without baseball. Columbus and DC, and they're among the attendance leaders yearly with the big markets of LA, NY/NJ, and Chicago. Salt Lake City looks to benefit from not having baseball competition. it wasn't a dumb comment at all
     
  19. DoyleG

    DoyleG Member+

    CanPL
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    Don't get so worked up by someone who has the worst reputation in the history of BigSoccer.
     
  20. petersoccer

    petersoccer Red Card

    Dec 2, 2004
    Mississauga,Ontario
    Nice comeback. the facts hurt.

    Edmonton cant support A-League and all you can do is make stupid commnets about Toronto.
     
  21. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    As far as MLS and expansion to Canada; it's all about the money and potential ownership groups. If they've got the money, the stadium, and a solid business plan I think they're in. It would be great to have teams in American cities, but until we have solid ownership groups willing to lose money it's all talk.

    We as American soccer fans want what's best for American soccer and the US National Team. MLS has done vey little to show that's their top priority. Their top priority is to become a profitable business and a stable money-making enterprise for their team-owners. If Canada is willing to shell out the big-bucks, what makes you think it won't happen. They've awarded an expansion team to a Mexican outfit, have flirted with Club America for years, have expanded the number of senior internationals from other countries, provided incentives to acquire young non-American internationals, flirted with Toronto, would love to expand to Houston and San Antonio to attract Mexican crowds, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. So it's not about what's best for American soccer, they do what's best for soccer IN America. They could care less if there's an All-Canadian team in MLS, as long as it makes money.
     
  22. Liverpool_SC

    Liverpool_SC Member

    Jun 28, 2002
    Upstate, SC
    If you really want to do this - you need a Canadian first division which competes in CONCACAF club competitions. Not MLS. How is one MLS team going to boost Canadian soccer more than several vibrant USL First Division teams that they already have? In the best scenario - it will poach from teams like Vancouver and Montreal and struggle against US clubs, because most outstanding Canadian players prefer to play in Europe.

    When has a Toronto soccer team ever drawn well at home? Which existing team would be a derby opponent for Toronto? Since when has Toronto had a raging rivalry with Vancouver?

    Plus - don't expect a single Canadian team to get all of Canada excited as soccer-craving supporters of MLS. A Toronto team would hardly register on the sporting calender and would not get prime-time exposure on CSN. There are too many alternatives for the time-slots (golf, CFL, hockey, etc).

    Even with some very healthy USL First-Division sides that compete very well, most Canadian soccer fans shrug off domestic soccer and watch european matches. The Toronto Lynx scarcely matter to anyone. If Toronto can only draw a 1/3 of the fans of Rochester - a "potential" derby opponent - or 1/2 the fans of the failed Syracuse Salty Dogs what makes them a good expansion city?

    That is right. Why should nationalism be important in soccer? Obviously international soccer is stupid and we should get rid of the world cup. There is no value in expanding to Canada for the sake of expanding to Canada. If Rangers and Celtic play in Scotland - a nation with a four tier league structure and 1/8 the population of Canada - and not England, why should Canada get a FIFA exemption and place a team in MLS?

    Comparisons to Luxembourg and Monaco are ludicrous. Most Canadians would cringe if they knew you were making an analogy of Monaco to France with Canada to the US. It is insulting.

    And if you wanted to have a team that compared to Chivas USA - you would have a Canadian-owned team, with many Canadian SIs and TIs (or whatever they call them now) playing in Rochester or Detroit. In case you have not noticed - Chivas USA does not play in Guadalajara or even Tijuana. It plays in USA.

    It can be a huge problem. Canadian tax rates and exchange rates are still significant. And Canada's economy is not looking like a bed of roses in the long-term. With the critical breakdown of the national defense forces, the spiraling costs of health care and other expensive programs - Canada could be facing a recession that is far worse than the one that the US is recovering from. Canadian deficits would likely see a devaluation of their currency. The devaluation of the US dollar (providing consumer/personal debt doesn't increase too much) is beneficial to the US from an export/trade vantage point. It causes Europeans and Canadians to come here to spend all of their money. As our economy picks up steam, the dollar will rebound. Europe is already sweating under the burden of a high euro, because it threatens to make european goods too expensive in the world market.

    Generally - Canadian ownership groups get very disenchanted at the high cost of being involved in US leagues. It is one of the reasons that teams like the Montreal Canadians end up being owned by Americans! Whoever would have believed that could happen! These owners have lower revenue streams, but have to spend at the same level as their US counter-parts. They do not see the same appreciation of the value of their franchises and making money on the operations of a sports franchise is ALWAYS a risky proposition.

    In a SEM environment - this could be even worse. The Canadian owner - even if his team broke even - would have to help pay for the overages for the Metros, DC United, etc. Can you imagine the pain he would go through if the Canadian dollar did drop 15% - 20% against the US dollar in a year? It would be a truly foolish Canadian businessman who would undertake this burden with the risks involved.

    I already alluded to another potential problem above - and that is that Canadians don't by and large identify with a Toronto team as a Pan-Canadian Team. People in Western Canada and Quebec (the traditional soccer "hotbeds" in Canada) could not care less. And while Toronto has a lot of ethnic communities that love soccer and follow leagues from their nations of origin or ancestry - they are more interested in their local leagues and in foreign leagues than they would be in a single Canadian team whose players they could not identify and who played in a league they did not respect. These fans aren't typically huge boosters of Team Canada (or however you refer to the national team). They aren't likely to be huge boosters of a club team.

    It would be much wiser for a wealthy, soccer-crazy Canadian to start four Canadian franchises (at the same cost as one MLS franchise) and coordinate with the existing teams to get an 8 team mini-Canadian league going (East and West conference) - Vancouver (2), Edmonton, Calgary and Toronto (2), Montreal, Quebec or something of the sort. It would instantly be more attractive to CSN, it would create derbies that would encourage better interest, teams could commute to conference opponents by train (to reduce costs). It would set-up a mean Canadian Cup. It would have a better opportunity to compete head-to-head against CFL. It would instantly be able to compete in the CONCACAF Champions Cup and create a new audience for that competition (bolstering its profile to the advantage of the entire regions). It would benefit the national team by providing far more slots for developing Canadian players.

    To all of those who write-off the southeast. Just wait until there is an attractive soccer venue (could even be relatively small and simple with bleachers, open-stands and lots of drums) in downtown Miami - perhaps one with a Caribbean flair. It would be the stuff. Especially if they borrowed Clavijo and some of the Caribbean players from Colorado. It is not like the Caribbean residents of Miami have big-time domestic leagues that they can or would rather follow. They would support the club. Just not in Fort Lauderdale.

    For crying out loud - a very small city like Charleston SC (maybe 1/10 the size of Toronto) outdraws Toronto. And their stadium (which is admittedly very nice) is nowhere near the population center of that town. I will wager that when Atlanta finishes their new stadium, they will immediately outdraw the Lynx as well. Birmingham, Memphis, New Orleans, Tampa or Nashville could all support teams in the same way that Toronto has supported teams.

    I would be hesitant to award a franchise to a Canadian ownership group unless they signed a contract that required them to hold ownership for at least ten years. Unless they had at least 10,000 season ticket deposits. Unless they paid their entire franchise fee upfront. Unless they agreed to answer cash calls up to $2.5m USD for each of the first ten seasons - and proved that they could. And unless they already signed a tentative contract with CSN to broadcast 8 - 10 matches live over the first three seasons.

    I would also force the Canadian team to fill its roster under the same rules as Chivas USA. They can use 4 SI spots and trade for up to 10 youth international slots (start out with 5 or 6) - plus sign Canadians with green cards. But under no circumstances do they get an exclusive player pool of Canadian players that is not avialable to other MLS teams.

    I would still encourage Canadians who were interested to invest funds as partners in an MLS Rochester franchise and make it more viable for the league - reaching an agreement with the current owners in return for placing lots of Canadian players on the team and getting approval from MLS to play four or five games a year in Toronto. There are many Torontons who could ride the fast ferry into Rochester for games and a cash infusion is just what the Rochester team needs to build its stadium to MLS standards and afford the entry fee.
     
  23. Liverpool_SC

    Liverpool_SC Member

    Jun 28, 2002
    Upstate, SC
    Is this the reason why LA has no NFL team? Is this the reason why Philadelphia has no MLS team? Is this the reason why DC has not had a baseball team for 30 years?

    Leading economic indicators do not always project the best market for a sports franchise. If Toronto was such a powerhouse sports market - the Raptors would be among the flagship NBA franchises (like the Lakers or the Knicks), the Blue Jays would be a big-market baseball team and the Maple Leafs would not be out-spent by the St Louis Blues, the Colorado Avalanche or the Detroit Red Wings.
     
  24. Khan

    Khan Member+

    Mar 16, 2000
    On the road
    You proceed from an incorrect point of reference, sir. By your logic, the Chicago White Sox should also be a big spender in MLB. You suggest that a market alone determines the behavior of a franchise, which, as we are already aware, is not the sole determinant factor.

    What you discount is the human factor in the sporting business: Ownership.

    Jerry Reinsdrof here in Chicago is a devout cheapskate. So, despite the White Sox being in the 3rd largest market in MLB, the team behaves as though it were in a small market.

    Philadelphia has no MLS franchise because there is no appropriate venue and no billionaire interested in the prospect of a MLS venture.

    The Chicago Blackhawks, despite being one of the most solvent franchises in the NHL and monopolizing a huge traditional hockey market is outspent by the Blues. Why? The human element of owner Bill Wirtz being more interested in gold than glory.

    LA has no NFL franchise, and the city doesn't seem to miss it. DC didn't have MLB, and that city didn't seem to miss it, either. [The district will regret wasting money on a stadium, BTW.]


    So, perhaps I should have put in a proviso to my prior post: Independent of the ownership factor, Toronto is in every way a better market than anything in the SE.
     

Share This Page