TORONTO 2006 talks esculate

Congratulations. You have proved my point. The size of the market does not determine its suitability to be a big player in a sports league. The only problem is that you are only willing to cite one independant variable - the owner of the team - beyond the size of the market which makes the difference. There are hundreds of other factors that make one town a better market than another for sports.

The only reason that people say that Toronto is a natural choice for a franchise in MLS is that it is such a huge market in terms of population/money, etc. That is the ONLY thing it has going for it as a market.

There are many reasons why Toronto would under-perform as an MLS market:

For instance - what is the true size of the regional market. Or does the team have a national audience? The Chicago Cubs and Boston Red Sox have a disproportionate fan following for all kinds of reasons. The Toronto Blue Jays and every other Toronto team besides (maybe) the Maple Leafs have a disproportionately small fan following. They don't get high ratings. It is a situation similar to what we see with Florida sports teams (apart from the Miami Dolphins).

What about all of the macroeconomic differences between the Canadian market and US markets? People don't seem to acknowledge the real impact that these have. You have to compensate for the difference in purchasing power and the relatively expensive undertaking that an MLS club would be in Canada. Canadian owners struggle to bankroll NHL franchises. NHL franchises are BY FAR the cheapest, least expensive to run sports franchises in the US.

What about the fact that a Toronto team does not add to the US television footprint that determine the ratings that major sponsors are interested in (whether those are regional or national ratings). This is a significant issue to sponsors and the like. Sure there are some companies that cross-market. But national advertisers would by far prefer that MLS adds a team in a substantial US market. Their interests must be considered. Currently, in a ticket-driven revenue structure - the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast are not prudent choices for MLS expansion. But they are better potential markets because of the money that they can offer should a tv contract be forthcoming. Look at what the Superstation did for the Braves and the Braves did for the Superstation. A Toronto team is never going to interest more US fans - much less an entire US region the way that the Atlanta Braves or Washington Redskins did for so many years in the southeast (don't read this to assume that I am advocating an Atlanta expansion team).

Toronto has no natural rivals in any other major sport, save hockey. There is no signficant rivalry evident if they get an MLS team. That is not true of a Philly or a Houston or even a Cleveland. If rivalries drive passion in sport - Toronto is not the market to move into. There are no MLS teams within a couple hundred miles of Toronto. Isolated, expensive to get to and an unnatural rival for every other team.

No one is arguing that Toronto is not a big city/big market (strictly on paper). But being a big city/big market strictly on paper does not make a city the best place for a particular sports franchise. That is what the Rochester Rhinos and Toronto Lynx jointly prove every season.

 

At a certain point, the people like me who trash Toronto as a potential site for a team have to pose alternatives - otherwise we are just being critical.

I for one do not think that MLS MUST expand additionally in 2006. I would put together some kind of criteria scoring system that would measure the strength of a potential bid (based on lessons learned from the business models of other clubs) and reject a bid that did not score very high. The Kansas City situation looks very similar to the Toronto bid to me - a wealthy, committed owner and a happy tenent relationship with a pointyball stadium does not make for a model MLS franchise - even if attendance is growing.

MLS should not feel too pressured to jump the gun and award a franchise just because the minimum criteria (franchise fee, place to play, vague promises about a SSS, "measurable fan interest") are met.

By the same token, MLS still needs to be flexible about building the sport and adding media markets. Especially in growing parts of the US such as the SE and the Pacific NW.

 

I don't think Khan proved your point. But I do think we agree on one point.... sort of.

I think that Toronto would be a stellar choice if they were added in conjunction with other franchises that would make for potential rivals: for example, Detroit or Rochester. Without such a rival they are not necessarily a great choice. But they would be no worse a choice than Salt Lake City or just about any other city in the United States.

That said, other than Houston I don't think a single city in the SE offers as good an opportunity as Toronto.

(Yes, I know, but from the west coast Houston looks like the south east)

No, actually that is not true.

You've quoted my post previously-- so if you were paying attenion, you'd know that money and population are not the only reasons for putting a franchise in Toronto.

 

But this isn't the question at hand. Whether or not all of Canada becomes interested in MLS is immaterial. Whether or not Toronto would be a good place to locate an MLS franchise IS the key question here.

Agreed. But then again, this wasn't the question at hand. The question is, "Is Toronto a good location for an MLS franchise?" The discussion is not, "Would the Canadian FA support multiple MLS franchises in Canada?" You have a big disconnect from the beginning, sir.

Ask Peterhead, Partick Thistle, and any of the clubs outside the Old Firm how their league setup is working for them. Sooner, rather than later, the Old Firm will leave the SPL, and the rest of the Scottish leagues will fail. Many Scottish 1st Division Teams refuse promotion to the SPL, due to monetary concerns, and none outside of Celtic/Rangers ever have aspirations for much more than solvency. But to answer your question here, Rangers/Celtic enjoy the large population base/market of Glasgow [jsut as Toronto would], while the rest of Scotland does not. This market reality will eventually lead these two giants to leave the SPL and enter an English league in the not too distant future.

Perhaps, but the comparison of Scottish or Welsh clubs in English leagues aren't.

This is your best point hereto fore. I do agree with you here. Actually, if DC/metro don't get their @sses in gear and some solutions in terms of stadia, there may not be an MLS for very long...

So what? If the Toronto "market" includes only those communities in and around the city, who gives a rip about the rest of Canada? I don't give a rip about metro, monster doesn't give a rip about SJ, Andy Mead doesn't really care about Dallas. This is entirely immaterial. The only thing that matters is whether or not Toronto residents would care about a Toronto franchise, inasmuch as Chicagoans caring about the Fire, Columbus residents caring about the Crew, etc...

And this is different than Chicago or LA or NY exactly how? In Chicago, the majority of Mexicans could care less about the Fire. But then, the market size allows for an MLS club as well. This statement of yours, too, is immaterial.

Good idea. Maybe you should pitch it to the Canadian FA. But MLS is only concerned with individual franchises contributing to the success of MLS as a whole, not the health/welfare of the game in Canada. You seem to have difficulty separating the two.

You base this on what, exactly? The southeast has a longstanding history of not supporting professional team sports. [Well, if you count SEC football, then maybe southerners support THAT pro league...] How about the abject failure of the Fusion? How about the Braves inability to sell out in the playoffs? How about the Marlins inability to draw flies, despite being a wildly successful franchise in their short existence? The southeast supports, in order: NASCAR, college football, and that's about it...

And a minor league team corresponds to a 1st Division league/team how? The freaking Birmingham Barons routinely outdraw the Joliet Jackhammers, the Gary Railcats, the Schaumburg Fliers, and the Kane County Cougars. [all located in Chicagoland] Does this mean that Birmingham is a better fit for MLB than Chicago? Again, no parallel to the discussion at hand.

And I will wager that this means absolutely nothing as it pertains to a 1st Division team or league.

Perhaps in lower divisions/minor league sports. But when it comes to playing with the big boys, these southeastern backwaters are all solidly small-time.

Great idea! I'd extend this policy to any group that takes over an expansion franchise, be they Canadian, Mexican, Martian, or Plutonian.

Actually, I'd be surprised if very many existing MLS franchises have this level of support; To this end, you're dreaming if you think KC or SJ would regularly meet this goal.

Another worthy idea... Too bad they didn't propose this to the failed/undercapitalized Miami expansion. [Speaking of which, would Checketts meet this?]

A "tenative contract" is what, exactly? In this league, TV dollars don't exist, and won't exist for a long, long time. The league pays money to put the league on TV as it is... If a Toronto franchise had no TV money, they'd be every bit as successful as the majority of the existing 12...

You're dreaming here. There aren't many billionaires of any nationality that would make a deal as dumb as this. Billioinaire businessmen are egotistical, and typically are interested in their own franchises, not being a charitable trust for others'. Billionaires don't [here's where you miss the point, again] care about the state of soccer in Canada as much as having their own professional sporting franchise. I think you assume every Canadian billionaire is concerned with the state of the Canadian FA.

How about this: We pretend to live in reality, and if Toronto has the billionaires to get in, let them into MLS. If Rochester has the money to get in, let them in, too.

Actually, how about this: Let's see if Rochester would rather be a part of a business that is awash in red ink, or continue to be the big fish in the tiny puddle of USL, FIRST, and then work out a means for them to "promote" their club to the 1st Division. [AFAIK, Rochester isn't interested in moving up to MLS at this point...]


Cheers!

 

This is where we disagree. MLS should not be expanding throughout the country, but concentrating frachises in metropolitan areas.

Teams should be added with an eye on building local rivlalries. Prime choices now would be Philadelphia, Cleveland, Houston, and Rochester. These teams would have natural rivals nearby. Additional clubs could then be added as rivals to these clubs-- Detroit, Toronto, a second in New York.

Teams should not be build in isolation from one another -- SLC, KC, anywhere in the SE.

 

Actually, your point seemed to be that Toronto would be a terrible choice for an expansion bid, and I demonstrated where you are wrong. At the same time, your suggestion that ownership alone can make MLS work is similarly faulty: The combined financial might of Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and the Saudi family wouldn't enable MLS in Dothan, Al successful because Dothan, like much of the southeast, is a backwater that is disinterested in soccer and in professional team sports.

Which is a lot more than anything in the southeast. At the same time, Toronto has supported a quality MLB team, their NHL team, and their CFL team. And your mention of MONEY blunts any statement you make about the differences in the economies of the US and Canada.. But [yokel]"we got them there NASCAR down in Dixie, so put that there soccer in Birmingham!" [/yokel] Atlanta fails to support any of their professional sports team, as does Miami, as does Tampa...

This is the only part of your prior posts that have carried any validity hereto fore. And now you've backpedalled somewhat on this, strangely enough...

Actually, you're entirely wrong here. NHL franchises are more expensive than MLS, due in part to the huge salaries in the NHL, and in part due to SEM in MLS.. The relatively [in sporting terms] small salaries in MLS blunt the effects of taxation and differences in currency for both ownership and players. Here, the question of scale makes MLS more doable than other sports. In addition, the "socialized" nature of SEM makes financial competition less of an issue than in MLB or the NHL.

Since no other MLS franchises have TV revenue, this is again, 100% immaterial to the discussion at hand. The only thing that matters to a league such as MLS is @sses in the seats. Toronto, and their millions of residents, has a higher probability of attracting ~15 to 20k of those millions than any hamlet in the Southeast.

Yes, and Canadian firms like US and Canadian dollars alike, inasmuch as the reverse. You're actually promoting a Toronto franchise with this statement.

I agree. And this is why MLS should stay out of the Southeast until it becomes a made-forTV league. And this is why MLB/the NFL stayed out of the Southeast until TV money became a reality. And this is why the NHL [also not TV money-driven] will fail in the Southeast. This is also why Toronto is a no-brainer.

OK, we'll check back with you in ~20 or so years when TV finally decides to throw some money at MLS for the broadcast rights. Until then, Toronto is a no-brainer for an expansion in the "@sses in the seats" revenue era of MLS.

So what? Again, this is not the discussion at hand. A Toronto team may or may not interest some of the milllions of residents of Toronto, just as the Chicago Fire interests some of the millions of Chicagoans, just as metro interests some New Yorkers. MLS, nor ANY sporting league is not concerned with a single franchise sparking the interest of a nation. Professional leagues just don't work that way.

Again, so what?

Good! Now if Philly or Houston or Cleveland have soccer-appropriate or soccer-specific stadia, then they'll have caught up to where Toronto is today. Sad, but true: Toronto is farther along in the process than any of the aforementioned cities.


You're all over the place, Liverpool... First you suggest that economic factors make Toronto a bad choice, then you backpedal.
Next, you suggest a SE location, and then admit that without TV, no one down there would give a rip about MLS.
Lastly, you suggest that rivalries are what MLS needs, despite the reality of KC, Dallas, and SLC who are farther apart than Toronto would be to existing franchises.

I suggest you gather your thoughts, and THEN post, sir. Or are you merely jingoistic as it pertains to your opinons on MLS?

 

I'd like to see a body of work on the part of the Lightning fans. I recall Tampa being one of the poorest-attended NHL franchises for years. One season doesn't necessarily make Tampa a great hockey town.

When Liverpool_SC and others suggested that the "national footprint" and TV revenues were more important than strong individual franchises able to support themselves on ticket revenues.

 

Look - there are two types of MLS franchises that can be successful. First there are Mid-market clubs, like Columbus, where the relatively low-cost to advertise, build infrastructure and operate a team allow for teams to quickly approach operating efficiency. Second, there are big market clubs, like LA, where large initial capital investments in the short term can lead to operating efficiency. The trade-off for the mid-market clubs is that they will not help as much in the future when TV revenues (the ultimate goal) are a reality. The trade-off for the large market clubs is they cost tons of money to operate before you get them in their own digs - where you can control costs.

The 'tweeners, like San Jose and Kansas City (or Seattle - which I would probably classify the same way as Toronto at this point) are so far not showing either of the positive attributes of the two classes of clubs above. It is too expensive or too difficult to get stadium deals finagled in those towns. They do not have the operating efficiencies of the smaller clubs. They do not have the investment potential of a club like LA or even NYC. I believe that a prospective Toronto club would be more like KC or SJ than it would be like NYC or LA.

There are all sorts of reasons - economic, sporting, media, etc why it is necessary for a US league to have teams in the big market towns. So MLS has stuck with those franchises. The smaller town franchises - Columbus, SLC and Dallas (in terms of the niche it has found) provide MLS with stability in the short term.

I think that MLS needs to pursue teams in both the mid-markets (such as SLC) and in the large-markets (LA, Chicago, NY, etc). I think that a team in the Pacific NW or SE would be useful to add within the next 10 years. I am not talking about 2006. I don't think that there are very many viable options for additional teams in 2006. Period. Unless another Dave Checketts comes along.

Like it or not, Columbus and SLC ARE major league sports type cities. Just because they are smaller than Toronto does not mean that they cannot provide adequate markets (given their other advantages) for MLS.

No one is suggesting that MLS move into Dothan Alabama. And I am not arguing for a B'ham, Memphis or Nashville right away. I am just suggesting that they could be just as revenue positive as Toronto in the short-term. And because they would help expand MLS markets to more regional sports networks (where MLS CURRENTLY makes money selling advertising), they could help the league in the long-term.

There is no way you can characterize Toronto as a better major league sports town than Atlanta. The Braves sell more tickets and make more money than the Blue Jays. They are a much better team than the Blue Jays, year-in and year-out. Their franchise is worth more than the Blue Jays franchise. They play in a state-of-the-art stadium. Atlanta has an underperforming basketball team and an underperforming hockey team. Big deal. Atlanta supports the Falcons and the Braves. Just because they don't sell-out every game does not mean that they are not as good a sports town as Toronto. A lot of the criticism of Atlanta is completely over-blown. If Toronto actually made it to the playoffs and fans had to pay $100 for tickets - they would stay home too. Especially if you made the playoffs for 13 straight years. Just shut up about Atlanta.

Sorry for the confusion here. I was not including MLS as a major league in my comparison here. I was only considering the four major sports leagues that are currently operating in the USA and/or Canada. NHL is by far cheaper than MLB, NFL or NBA. That is what I meant. I was suggesting that if Canadian teams struggle to compete with teams in Tampa Bay or Miami in the NHL - then there is little to suggest that they will succeed competing with MLS clubs in the US when/if MLS turns the corner and gets a hockey-type tv contract. I admit this was confusing. But if Canada struggles with NHL franchises - in the sport that Canadians love more than any other sport (and far more than the average American). I don't see how Canada will find investors who can compete with US investors when MLS assumes its inevitable heights in the sports stratosphere.

And SEM actually makes it harder for Canadian investors. Because they lose any economic advantages they can leverage - even if they get lots of fans to attend. There are more US investors that can lose money over the next ten years throwing it at NY, DC, etc. There are some Canadian investors who would probably throw money at their own franchise if they knew it would be revenue neutral soon. But not many would cotton to propping up NY and DC.

This is false, as I have mentioned before. And MLS is planning on making money via TV. The LA teams signed a seven-figure TV deal with their Regional Fox affiliate just this year. Other teams also make money from deals with regional networks.

And MLS is looking forward to a day when TV revenues are more signficant. An analogy is an author writing his first book. He is not making an advance. But if he is not writing the book as a hobby - he is banking on a big payday when the book is complete. In the short-term - he sells a couple self-contained chapters as short stories to give him seed money for the enterprise. MLS is now trying to build its infrastructure and contain its costs - while adding teams to encourage new investment and sporting interest. But there are very few investors like Kroenke who would be satisfied with their investment unless they know that there is a chance for signficant increase in value. That increase in value is predicated on new sources of revenue, such as TV.

Even if there are no more $1bn dollar deals like Hockey got from Fox or ESPN or whatever - MLS may not be that far away from a $100m deal. And that would do a lot to boost the turnover for each team.

It is all about timing. I agree that MLS may need to wait 5 - 10 years before moving into the SE - including my Miami plan. That was not clear before - although I did suggest that I don't think MLS should be compelled to expand so fast. But I have no doubt that SE teams will eventually be more valuable jewels in the MLS crown than a Toronto team. And I do believe that the profiles of towns like Miami or Charlotte are more conducive to long-term success in MLS than Toronto.

Not unless their owners are willing to eat mucho grandes dollars CAN losses that go to other MLS franchises. Do the Toronto Blue Jays receive revenue sharing money or give it up? Where do the Raptors rank in terms of gross revenues (outside of TV money) among NBA teams? I am skeptical that a corporation owned closely by a teacher's pension would be hip with sponsoring a money losing proposition like Toronto MLS. Is that so outrageous?

If Toronto gets a franchise in 2006, I will be happy to eat crow if it is healthy and thriving in eight years.

 

1st Division teams can ground-share (as Inverness Caladonian Thistle is doing this year) if they are ambitious enough to move up. Very few promoted clubs have passed in the last couple of years.

And if Rangers/Celtic move to the EPL - FIFA would be well within its bounds and standard operating procedure to forbid Scotland from fielding a National League team. The "Home Nations" are not a valid comparison for this situation.

They absolutely are. Those relationships are purely based on historical associations. Besides, name one Scottish club that plays in England. There are none. There is one English club (Berwick) that plays in Scotland. How does that support your premise?

Canada has more residents in Montreal than there are in Wales. Toronto metro area has a greater population residents than Scotland. I think that considering that population density - it is realistic to expect Canada to support its own soccer league, don't you?

That is baloney. AEG will not give up on Metros easily. And the credibility of MLS would be destroyed if they killed DC United. There is no better supported team in the league, when one factors in money spent on the club (by that I mean you charge the Home Depot Center to the LA Galaxy account). I don't care how much rent money AEG paid for RFK - I don't think it is as much as the Home Depot Center + Rose Bowl rent. Metros have drawn more fans, but at a higher cost.

Other pro-MLS in Canada posters (in this and the many other threads) talk about Toronto being "Canada's team" and opening up all of Canada as a market. There is no reason to believe that this would be the case. That is the myth that I am trying to dispel. And to suggest that Andy Mead or Monster don't care about what goes on in other cities is false. Everyone but Metros fans cares deeply about the health of other MLS franchises. Metros fans typically want a Cosmos clone, even if it means destroying the rest of the league.

Advertisers, fans and American fans care about Chicago, LA and NY teams. People love to hate NY teams. Advertisers love to have their products hawked in NY. Franchise values in these markets are traditionally high. No one in the US cares about Toronto or its teams.

You keep forgetting that hardly any premiere sports league makes much money via ticket revenues. None of the US teams except LA Galaxy even break even on the basis of ticket revenues (and their return on the investment is not exactly great). The entire MLS experiment is based on the notion that the sport will grow sufficiently popular to earn money via TV and the accompanying endorsements and advertisements. So when you talk about MLS being concerned about success - you need to understand that success = the game being big enough to make its owners wealthy men. The only reason that NBA went to Toronto or Vancouver in the first place is because those markets were bigger than any other available ones in the US. US markets drive the big TV contracts. Not a poor team in Toronto.

The SE is dynamic - not static. Atlanta is spoiled with too many sporting options and too many people who support teams from wherever they move to Atlanta from. The Braves have been a very profitable team for reasons other than straight ticket revenue, anyway. Most MLB owners would kill to be in the Braves situation.

As we often hear from critics of MLS - exactly why would an MLS team rank as "big-time" in Toronto? There is no particular incentive for Torontans or Canadians to accept the premise that MLS is a big league. There is no bigger basketball league than the NBA. There is no bigger hockey league than the NHL. And there is no bigger baseball league than MLB. But I doubt that cosmopolitan Torontan soccer fans would get that much more excited about an MLS club than they are over the Lynx. There is no context for them to accept MLS as a big league. Even if it costs the owners a bunch. Example? Toronto never had a tremendously well-supported NASL franchise, did they? If they did not support top-division soccer then - why would they support it now?

Anyway, places like Birmingham, Nashville and Memphis are getting closer and closer to being major league cities. If Memphis can support (financially) an NBA team - they very well might be able to support a Summer professional sport as well.

Good. But because of various economic factors and the pitiful history of Canadian owners of US sports league franchises - it is even more important for a potential Canadian franchise.

You are right. KC and SJ are not healthy franchises for the long term. They are too expensive for SSS to be realistic in the near future. They are too small to be worth "investing in" for much longer (i.e. Metros, DC United). If owners/stadiums can be had soon - this could all turn around. But given their present situation, MLS should not be adding teams like KC and SJ. They should be adding franchises that have a realistic chance at breaking even (though not necessarily making big operating profits) in the immediate future. And don't suggest that this rules out Metros or DC United. Because teams in those markets will be very attractive to well-heeled owners as soon as stadium deals are secured. And stadium deals are more realistically possible in NJ and DC (currently) then they are in KC and SJ.

Kroenke would. I don't know about Checketts. There really is a different business model for the mid-major markets (SLC, Columbus, etc). Their operating costs are lower and they are the only game in town. Checketts has an impressive background in sports management. He has other investors with him and he has a reasonably optimistic plan for a new stadium in the near future. SLC has also supported professional soccer very well.

Not true. Several teams make money off of regional sports network TV contracts. Evidently, the LA franchises signed one that provides quite a bit of cash. The league gets paid for the rights of FSW to broadcast MLS as well.

This is exactly why the US has MLS (Anschutz, Kraft and Hunt are functioning exactly as this type of billionaire) and Canada does not have many guys who are willing to take the kinds of losses that these three (plus Kroenke) are willing to take.

Look - my Rochester example is simply an effort to make a better analogy to Chivas USA than a Toronto expansion franchise. I don't really think Rochester has the chops to cut it in MLS either. That is why I am saying they would need investment from another source. But a MLS team IN Toronto is not the same as CHIVAS USA in Los Angeles.

Most of the pro-MLS in Toronto posters overlook this point.

 

And look at the 'Jays over the last ten years:

Toronto Blue Jays 1994 59 2,907,933 49,287
Toronto Blue Jays 1995 72 2,826,483 39,257
Toronto Blue Jays 1996 81 2,559,573 31,600
Toronto Blue Jays 1997 81 2,589,297 31,967
Toronto Blue Jays 1998 81 2,454,303 30,300
Toronto Blue Jays 1999 81 2,163,464 26,709
Toronto Blue Jays 2000 81 1,705,712 21,058
Toronto Blue Jays 2001 82 1,915,438 23,359
Toronto Blue Jays 2002 80 1,607,871 20,098
Toronto Blue Jays 2003 81 1,799,458 22,216

Great trend.

Raptors

Toronto Raptors 1995-96 41 950,330 23,179
Toronto Raptors 1996-97 41 748,927 18,267
Toronto Raptors 1997-98 41 675,255 16,470
Toronto Raptors 1998-99 25 439,190 17,568
Toronto Raptors 1999-00 41 756,496 18,451
Toronto Raptors 2000-01 41 793,256 19,348
Toronto Raptors 2001-02 41 810,160 19,760
Toronto Raptors 2002-03 41 777,507 18,963
Toronto Raptors 2003-04 41 750,608 18,308

More great news.

Maple Leafs

Toronto Maple Leafs 1995-96 41 644,930 15,730
Toronto Maple Leafs 1996-97 41 643,884 15,704
Toronto Maple Leafs 1997-98 41 644,098 15,710
Toronto Maple Leafs 1998-99 41 687,372 16,765
Toronto Maple Leafs 1999-00 41 785,484 19,158
Toronto Maple Leafs 2000-01 41 789,567 19,258
Toronto Maple Leafs 2001-02 41 790,457 19,279
Toronto Maple Leafs 2002-03 41 788,847 19,240
Toronto Maple Leafs 2003-04 41 794,439 19,377

Finally - a team that Toronto actually supports.

 

But you forgot Jacksonville....

 

and the bump for the Maple Leafs is getting a bigger arena right? Toronto can sell out hockey, we can all agree. But as the "4th largest market", they haven't added much to the NBA and MLB (I'd bet both would take the franchise back if they could). I'm not decided on the whole Canada issue, but I'm not fully sold Toronto would be a great MLS market and I don't know how so many keep on brushing off the valid oncerns of stadium operation being CFL and FieldTurf/football lines. I'll need to hear a good pitch from a prospective owner before I'd put Toronto in the top 4 of my expansion list.

 

Citing the Atlanta Braves here is specious. The factor you left out of the equation is the biggest factor of all .... TBS.

The Braves success has a lot to do with their building a winning franchise, it also has a hell of a lot to do with the SuperStation.

 

That is exactly what I think. Toronto is not such a great "butts in seats" sports town. And even if they were not, I would expect them if they offered high future revenue potentials via TV revenues, if they could be a "Team Canada" that fans across the country rallied around, etc.

 

I mentioned superstation above in one of my posts. The TV revenues that the Braves generate (throughout the SE and national tv audience) blow away anything that Toronto can put together. That is, incidentally, one of the reasons why a SE soccer team could be a great thing. It could reach a similarly huge number of SE households, sell merchendise and become a regional superteam as the Braves have.

There are tons of soccer fans in South Carolina (just look how big college programs are at Furman, Clemson, South Carolina, etc), Alabama and Northern Florida who would instantly identify with an Atlanta franchise.

I don't know when MLS will be ready to go into the SE, but they would be crazy not to have a plan about how to get there some day.

Here is the earlier clip from my post:

 

Trolls! Trolls! Everywhere there's Trolls!

 

So your sayin that Toronto does not support Basketball or Baseball.

Historical figures show that we have out drawn Atlant in all sports over the 25 Years.

Atlanta has nothing on Toronto.

 

MLB Jays have outdrawn Atlanta in total fans over the last 25 years and have 2 World Series. Good reason to take back thier franchise

NBA, the Raptors outdraw Atlant by about 5k per game over the last 10 years, Another reason to take the Francise away.

New Stadium FIFA Approved and will host U-20 World Cup Of Soccer. WHich is being Played in Canada.




Football lines on field turf are for football games. Soccer games will have Soccer Lines. Is that to hard a concept for some people to grasp.

 

The Hawks are terrible. No one cares about the Hawks. If they left, it would not disappoint to many fans to be sure. They are horribly mismanaged. I don't hold the Expos against Montreal. I wouldn't hold the Hawks against Atlanta.

If you want to go back 25 years - sure Toronto has been better for stretches of years. But let's study which franchise is worth more money. Let's study which franchise is more attractive to investors. Let's study which team generates more revenues. Even ticket revenues (Toronto is rumored to have lots of very cheap seats). Think how many total playoff tickets and playoff money the Braves have generated. Think about how big a national TV audience the Braves can pull.

Sure Toronto has won one more World Series than the Braves, but it is hard to argue against their overall sporting success (thirteen straight division championships). Especially in an era with the pitiful five game wildcard playoff series that nullifies the Braves superior pitching depth compared to a seven game series.

 

you have any proof the football lines are removable?

25 years, long time. the Blue Jays will need a new stadium soon or they'll be in trouble. I think the NBA wants back the Hawks too!

 

The "state-of-the-art" Skydome is so popular that it just got sold to the team for $25million. I don't know whether that was USD or CAN. But I bet some taxpayers or somebody got screwed over it.

 

a lot of folks got screwed on it. and now it probably won't be up to standards pretty soon and we'll have a Montreal type situation all over again. the franchise still has some value leftover from the late 80s/early 90s success but I wouldn't be shocked if baseball starts to consider being out of Canada altogether. I really think the NBA is feeling that way (Vince Carter type situations).

 

Apologies.

But we're not assuming that an Atlanta franchise will have a SuperStation behind it are we? I don't think MLS can expand with an eye on drawing TV viewers.

The focus ought to be on drawing fans to the games ... and expansion ought to be to cities that help the current franchises draw fans. For example, LA Chivas will help both SJ and the LA Galaxy. SLC helps no one.

I don't believe for a second that Atlanta will draw from the SE US any more than I think Toronto would draw from Quebec. And I can't see fans anywhere in US getting excited about Atlanta coming to town.


------
Also, forgive me if I am wrong... but I don't see your point in arguing about the relative success of the Braves vs. Toronto. The success of the Braves hardly backs up your claim that Atlanta is a great sports town. I remember back in the 70s when "Biff" Pocoroba was their best player and they couldn't give away tickets to those games...they were completely inept (very much like the Hawks) and nobody went.

[Yeah, a lot has changed since the 1970s.. TBS, a winning team, a larger city population... but I am not convinced that those fans won't melt away if the team stank]