"The waterfront stadium is still something we’ll pursue, but right now, we’re just focused on making a success of MLS,” he said.” Bob Lenarduzzi in the Vancouver Sun, March 17, 2009 With this said over $350 million will be spent on renovations to BC Place, is it still realistic to say this stadium will go forward or does anyone else believe that it will die on the drawing board?
True but the $350 million in renovations were going to happen with or without the Whitecaps. The only reason it would die on the drawing board is if the government was putting any money towards the Waterfront stadium. They aren't. It is all going to be paid for by Greg Kerfoot.
maybe i'm hoping a little bit too much here and making something from nothing, but if bc place goes over well and doesn't prove to be too problematic, does that give the upper hand to kerfoot, as it would make it seem like he doesn't need the land as badly anymore? it seems like they're getting as much as they can out of him already, would they really throw it all away if kerfoot sees bc place can work (read: lets the port authority think that)?
I guess it could be seen both ways. I feel the Port doesn't give a toss about the stadium and are really only concerned about the proper operation of port, which is good, as that's their job. But you're on to something, maybe they kicked themselves for not taking Kerfoot's offer? Will they take Kerfoot's offer down the road? Cash is better than no cash at all. But, perhaps the Port will be thinking that the Whitecaps are perfectly fine now at BC Place and what's the point of discussing a new stadium any more.
to be honest, i think the port is only concerned with one thing - money. and like you said, some cash is better than no cash at all...hopefully the sight of the whitecaps getting cozy at a stadium and the port authority making no money at all instils a little sense in their head. here's hoping!
When Kerfoot first proposed Waterfront Stadium, BC Place was a 60,000 seat dome. In 2011, BC Place will be able to transform itself from a 60,000 seat dome to a 20,000 seat open air stadium. So Kerfoot will have his 20,000 seat, centrally located, Skytrain accessible stadium. No views of the mountains, but it didn't cost him a dime either. Will the lost revenue streams justify him spending $100 million on a stadium? IMO, probably not.
When Kerfoot first set out to build the waterfront stadium there was no plan by the City to develop the area around Waterfront Station. Lenarduzzi has said their intention was never the ability to develop land adjacent to a stadium. He said, why not build just some developements then, as that would bring more money into Kerfoot's pockets. Their stadium has always been paramount. But.....now that the transportation hub is in the planning stages and they will develop this precinct, I think Kerfoot could supplement his stadium costs with developments. Of course this is depending on the Port wanting to play fair cricket. The whole hub plan and what's going to happen in this area is miles away from completion though. The City has adopted the framework for the plan but the next step, having landowners/developers(Kerfoot hopefully involved ) deciding to proceed is an undetermined time period. After this process the plan is 20 months of zonal applications and public consultations. Then finally 5 years of construction. I think this is why the Whitecaps said they will lease BC Place for 5 years and this is probably the earliest we'll see them play at a new stadium downtown.
Yes it will justify the money spent. Those revenue streams are very important long term. Kerfoot was very smart in pulling off the BC Place deal, but he didn't spend years fighting for the waterfront stadium for nothing.
$100 million can earn $5 million in dividends or interest. Will a $100 million stadium generate $5 million in additional cash flow? IMO, probably not. There are a lot of good reasons to build the stadium anyway. No dealing with a government landlord. Aesthetics. Guaranteed dates. Prestige. Admin and operations HQ'd at the stadium. Most importantly, a grass pitch. I just don't think the additional revenue streams will justify the cost. (I pulled the $100 million number out of my... er... um... But I think the talk was $60 million for 15,000 seats, expandable to 30,000. I don't think that included the land. I estimated that an additional 5,000 seats would be twice as expensive (per seat) as the initial 15,00 seats were because they would be an overhanging second deck. I'm just an accountant, but that doesn't sound like it is cheap to build.)
It can generate that much. Quite easily, in fact. You forget that if the team had its own stadium revenue could be made by charging others for holding events there. Even though we don't have the raw numbers, its quite possible that every MLS owner whose team has an SSS is making money off the stadium, even if the team itself isn't generating revenue. The Waterfront Stadium is in a prime location. So I'm fairly certain many different groups would be lining up to hold events there. That, plus the massive revenue the Whitecaps would make during their own games, would fully justify the new stadium. Also, if the Whitecaps are very successful at BC Place, they might have to go with 30,000 seats for the stadium from the start. So you're $100 million might be close to the truth.
Not to mention, it would easily become one of the hottest outdoor concert venues in all of North America. The Whitecaps will effectively cut into the Aquilini empire at GM Place, which is why he considered an MLS bid.
don't go looking for a waterfront stadium before 2015-- IF EVER!! the renovated bc place stadium with its retractable roof and abilty to reconfigure its seating between 20 000 to 60 000 offers the caps the most flexibility at a great venue for watching soccer -- bc place is going to look great when its finished-- and kerfoot can develop his land for condos, etc-- the caps have signed a lease agreement with the government until 2016
Here we go again! (San Jose, Houston, New England, D.C.) and now Seattle, Vancouver and Portland. Playing in renovated or just covered up football stadiums. St. Louis had 18,500-20,000 seat European Style (covered seats, open grass field), signed, sealed and delivered. It was never about stadiums, or money, or size of market! It was about the elimination of USL1 top teams! Just stay in the converted football field and live with the yard markers on the pitch. And being CFL, there are more beautiful white lines to look at during the match.
First off the cfl lines will be scrubbed for MLS games. Second other than the grass what makes St. Louis stadium “European Style”? It looked pretty “MLS SSS Style” to me. I mean its a small stadium on the outskirts of town, surrounded by youth fields. I was at Qwest last week and it was amazing. Vancouver is using the same formula.
+1 I was at the game in Seattle, too, and there wasn't a trace of NFL lines. In fact, the pitch looked so good that the lady next to me referred to how nice the "grass" looked, and didn't believe me at first when I told her it was artificial. Oddly, I had the opposite happen to me at the U20 World Cup at Swangard. It looked so perfect that I had to get right up close to it to confirm it was grass. From a distance it totally looked artificial. I also wanted to comment on the tarped-over upper bowl at Qwest. It was really tastefully done, and in such a way that it really didn't feel at all like you were in a 60,000 seat stadium. Overall it was fantastic, and cannot be compared at all to the situations at Foxborough or DC. Those are disgraceful.
You are ill informed.There will be no trace of gridiron lines on the field when the Whitecaps take the field in 2011. Bitch all you want about not getting a franchise in St. Louis, but please know it has nothing to do with the stadium, or the market, or any of the conspiracy theories you can come up with. St. Louis did not get a franchise because they were unable to come up with the necessary financial backers with deep enough pockets to make a go of it. Garber confirmed in his most recent media conference call that MLS really wants a team in St. Louis, but only when someone can put together a franchise proposal with all the necessary pieces in place. Cooper thus far has been unable to do that. Personally, I'd love to see St. Louis get franchise #19.
I watched the game on television and as far as I know the Seahawks haven't played a game there in about 3 months and I could still see the lines on my high def. Second, if you would happen to watch an EPL or ever get the chance to go to England and watch a match, a majority of the stadiums (like St. louis' SSS) have covered stands and real grass. Maybe they can learn how to pressure wash a little harder or maybe it will rain a little bit more in the Pacific North West in the next couple of years and the artificial surface won't look tacky. Have you ever seen where Toyota Park is located? I can, I have been there and I can tell you, Collinsville is alot nicer than Cicero at 10pm after a match!!!
1. BC Place stadium was built for soccer first. I have to keep repeating that. It was built when the NASL Whitecaps were to be the primary tenant. 2. Covered up football stadium? I suppose that means you don't like tarped over seats? The roof will lower and raise in the renovated BC Place stadium, you won;t see the upper deck. 3. CFL has more white lines? Oh you mean the extra 10 yards? Even if they left the lines on (and they aren't going to) the soccer pitch is going to be the same length, there wouldn't be any extra lines. 4. If it really bothers you that you can see remnants of the gridiron lines on your high def tv then I suppose you can choose to only watch games from half filled dead stadiums like Columbus etc, or watch the ballet. That looks nice and pretty in High def I hear.
If BC Place has a roof, how will you get those pesky white lines off the pitch. I guess that plastic grass is easier to clean, never gets muddy!! You make my point, why have teams in locations that will not support the world's game and will not build SSS's. At least we agree on this! Fortunately, I can afford to watch matches on my high def and can travel to watch matches in person.
Are you saying that Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland were the top teams in USL1? Well, you are 2 for 3. All joking aside, all three owners have had high aspirations for years now, so you can blame them for wanting to move up to MLS.
Is it really moving up? Yes, there is the ESPN contract and First Kick, but if you look at what team is still playing in the CONCACAF Champions League, I would argue that the USL1 teams play at a higher level collectively. There is no I in TEAM!!
Oh, you're a rich d-bag, that makes all the difference. Now I agree with your whining condescending elitist arguments entirely.
You are free to make the argument. I am proud of the USL-1. It is our (Americans and Canadians) league just as much as MLS. It still doesn't change the fact that the three PNW owners desired to move to MLS and paid a lot of money to do so. There was no poaching. Also, Tim Holt of the USL has made some very gracious statements about the departing clubs, recognizing that what is happening is good for soccer as a whole. These three clubs were incubated in the USL. That is something I am personally proud of. The USL-1 is expanding, as well. Cleveland, Austin, and Tampa Bay are great additions. St. Louis is joining, but they may be in MLS soon. And there is talk of a New York City team, which could really take the USL-1 to another level. I think the league is in good shape. 2011 is going to be a great year for everyone, MLS and USL-1 both.