Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[esquire]

Originally Posted by king10

Yup not likely. But a .000000001% possibility just like the Als back to olympic stadium.

Also since rogers booted them out theyve become part owner of the argos.

If there's one thing I've learned from this forum, it's that people think many things are impossible... Until they actually happen. The status quo is the only way!!

[Coldrsx]

Perhaps the most apropos shot of Rogers Place & ICE District if there ever was.


https://twitter.com/uptown_one/statu...47348970954752
@uptown_one

[esquire]

^ Beautifully icy

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by esquire

If there's one thing I've learned from this forum, it's that people think many things are impossible... Until they actually happen. The status quo is the only way!!

if the city ever really made a big investment into the big O (not just a roof) I would say the als would at least look into it I would say that they would be interested if the seating dropped from 60k to 40k or less. which honestly would suite the city much better. Even then, I would question it. Why would you leave a downtown stadium perfectly sized for your fan base for a half empty stadium with a few more modern luxuries. I think the als need to be more aggressive with the stadium they have. The upgrades made in the past were a good start but that place is still lacking in a major way. They are have quickly fallen behind in the last 5 years or so

[JHikka]

The crux of the issue is that the Als are going to be playing in stadiums not owned by them for essentially the length of time that the franchise will be operating in Montreal. Renting at McGill is probably better for the team than renting at Olympique, which would be better than renting at Saputo or wherever else. What the Als need to hope for is that McGill doesn't kick them out when their lease expires.

At the end of the day they're stuck as tenants and are stuck with tenant problems.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The crux of the issue is that the Als are going to be playing in stadiums not owned by them for essentially the length of time that the franchise will be operating in Montreal. Renting at McGill is probably better for the team than renting at Olympique, which would be better than renting at Saputo or wherever else. What the Als need to hope for is that McGill doesn't kick them out when their lease expires.

At the end of the day they're stuck as tenants and are stuck with tenant problems.

Why would it be an issue if they didn't re-up with McGill? Olympic Stadium would love to have them as they courted them before signing their partnership deal. If they are chosen as a World Cup city in 2021 the Big O will likely receive major renovations (along with a new roof) and the stadium also tied with Edmonton and are ahead of Toronto on FIFA technical evaluation scores. I can also see post WC changes to the Big O to make it more CFL friendly. Just my opinion.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The crux of the issue is that the Als are going to be playing in stadiums not owned by them for essentially the length of time that the franchise will be operating in Montreal. Renting at McGill is probably better for the team than renting at Olympique, which would be better than renting at Saputo or wherever else. What the Als need to hope for is that McGill doesn't kick them out when their lease expires.

At the end of the day they're stuck as tenants and are stuck with tenant problems.

I don't think that McGill would kick the Als out. Why would they? They're a paying tenant and they've turned a pile of rubble into a serviceable if somewhat spartan stadium that is an asset for the university. And they use the stadium so infrequently it's not like they're a huge obstacle to McGill getting to use it for its own purposes.

The only way I could see the Als being evicted is if McGill needed the land for a huge expansion of the university's facilities. But that seems like a remote possibility.

Fortunately for the Als, if it ever comes to that, there's a perfectly good stadium just a short hop away down the green line

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think that McGill would kick the Als out. Why would they? They're a paying tenant and they've turned a pile of rubble into a serviceable if somewhat spartan stadium that is an asset for the university. And they use the stadium so infrequently it's not like they're a huge obstacle to McGill getting to use it for its own purposes.

The only way I could see the Als being evicted is if McGill needed the land for a huge expansion of the university's facilities. But that seems like a remote possibility.

Fortunately for the Als, if it ever comes to that, there's a perfectly good stadium just a short hop away down the green line

That's a bold statement, it would take $500 million to make the Big O a perfectly alright sorta okay i guess stadium.

New seats and a better jumbotron isnt gonna do it. This isn't BC place. They would need to build a new stadium inside that stadium. Change the seating configuration to steeper more vertical stands. Hang a center hung scoreboard. add some clubs,ect do something special to the roof. A fixed dark metal roof isn't the answer. whatever they do i hope they do it right

In any case, don't hold your breath

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ayed-1.5007619

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by elly63

Why would it be an issue if they didn't re-up with McGill? Olympic Stadium would love to have them as they courted them before signing their partnership deal.

For the reasons discussed earlier in this thread, namely being that they'd be drawing less than 20K in a 60K stadium. Small crowds in big stadiums kill any atmosphere a team tries to build. The last season the Als played at Olympic (1997) the Als drew under 10K/game....Olympic is simply too big for the Als.

Originally Posted by elly63

If they are chosen as a World Cup city in 2021 the Big O will likely receive major renovations (along with a new roof) and the stadium also tied with Edmonton and are ahead of Toronto on FIFA technical evaluation scores. I can also see post WC changes to the Big O to make it more CFL friendly. Just my opinion.

The $250M roof reno set for completion in 2023 was just pushed back to 2024...

These are all mostly assumptions at this point. I'm always of the belief that hosting a major sports event in the 21st century should be about cost mitigation where possible. How much $ is enough to bring a stadium like Olympic up to standards in 2026?

Quebec already gave the Als money for Molson expansion and now they're reducing capacity a few years later - would the province give them more money a second time?

There's also the consistent rumours of the MLB returning to Montreal. Would a QC provincial government rather put funding into a new baseball stadium or into further renovations at Olympic?

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think that McGill would kick the Als out. Why would they?

Rowdy football fans, utilization of stadium, complaints from nearby residents...i'm not saying it'll happen, but it's not like McGill needs whatever money the Als pay in rent. A lot can change in ten years I suppose. For the time being the arrangement seems to works for McGill but doesn't seem to be working enough for the Als to be a financially stable team.

Either way, I see Olympic as an inherently worse stadium for the Als to use than Molson. It's too big for them to use on a frequent schedule, cavernous when there's a small crowd, and would be akin to the Argos using Rogers. It's IMO, but it feels like no sport is really meant to fit into Olympic. Everything just seems a bit off both physically and visually. It's basically too multi-purpose.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JHikka

A lot can change in ten years I suppose. For the time being the arrangement seems to works for McGill but doesn't seem to be working enough for the Als to be a financially stable team.

What's your definition of financially stable? Are the bills not getting paid? Impact lost what, 11 million, TFC 8 million but oh yeah Forbes says they're valued by some hocus pocus on the ol' Ponzi scheme at 50 zillion. Seems to me you're making as many assumptions as everyone else here.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by elly63

What's your definition of financially stable? Are the bills not getting paid? Impact lost what, 11 million, TFC 8 million but oh yeah Forbes says they're valued by some hocus pocus on the ol' Ponzi scheme at 50 zillion. Seems to me you're making as many assumptions as everyone else here.

When was this about MLS teams?

Wetenhall has stated that the team doesn't make money and hasn't in years:

Originally Posted by Andrew Wetenhall

«Ça n'a jamais été une entreprise qui nous a fait faire de l'argent depuis que nous en sommes propriétaires, explique-t-il. Nous avons fait d'importants investissements dans les premières années, mais aussi plus récemment, au stade Percival-Molson - avec l'aide de fonds publics. À chaque année ou presque, nous devons réinjecter de l'argent afin d'assumer les frais de l'équipe. Nous n'avons été profitables que lorsque nous avons accueilli un match de la Coupe Grey, alors que l'équipe hôtesse obtient une part des profits générés par cet événement.

«Nous n'avons jamais fait d'argent avec cette équipe. C'est particulièrement vrai de nos jours (récemment), alors que nous perdons des sommes considérables dans cette aventure. Oui, ça doit avoir du sens financièrement. Mais je ne vous dirai pas à partir de quel point ça n'en a plus, car je ne veux pas donner de chiffres. Je dirai par contre que nous voulons ramener cette concession à un point où elle est viable. Cela signifie donc d'avoir beaucoup plus de gens dans les gradins que présentement.»

Originally Posted by Andrew Wetenhall

"It has never been a business that has made us make money since we own it," he says. We have made significant investments in the early years, but also more recently, at Percival Molson Stadium - with the help of public funds. Every year or so, we have to re-inject money to cover the expenses of the team. We were only profitable when we hosted a Gray Cup game, while the host team gets a share of the profits generated by this event.

"We have never made money with this team. This is particularly true nowadays (recently), as we lose considerable sums in this adventure. Yes, it must make sense financially. But I will not tell you from what point it does not, because I do not want to give figures. I will say, though, that we want to bring this concession back to a point where it is viable. So that means having a lot more people in the stands than right now. "

Emphasis added mine. Doesn't sound financially stable to me.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JHikka

When was this about MLS teams?

Wetenhall has stated that the team doesn't make money and hasn't in years:

Emphasis added mine. Doesn't sound financially stable to me.

It became about MLS teams when you started your shenanigans again. It's always nice to see your zest for speed in googling anti CFL news but really how were they not profitable when everyone else save the Argos (and then) the Cats were. You don't think they were profitable during the Calvillo years and had the best sponsorships in the league. Sure they've hit hard times since Calvillo and haven't been able to replace him but that doesn't give you carte blanche to gleefully put out there that it will likely be permanent. Do you honestly think the Wetenhalls have been doing this all these years as foreigners out of the kindness of their heart? If Bob Wetenhall needed the ego boost don't you think he would have been more visible, and not in a French speaking market, strange behaviour for an English speaking American.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by elly63

It became about MLS teams when you started your shenanigans again.

I mean, someone in this thread is bringing up the old CFL v MLS debate and it isn't me...

Originally Posted by elly63

It's always nice to see your zest for speed in googling anti CFL news but really how were they not profitable when everyone else save the Argos (and then) the Cats were.

Googling anti-CFL news? I'm providing primary sources to prove the points i'm making in this thread. You question my point and I give you a quote from the owner himself saying the team hasn't been making money and requires cash injections....

I forgot to attach the article I quoted Wetenhall from, actually:

https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/footb...7_article_POS1

Originally Posted by elly63

You don't think they were profitable during the Calvillo years and had the best sponsorships in the league.

They probably were marginally profitable during those years, but do you have any sourcing to support this? It's not that I don't believe you but some sort of supporting proof goes a long way.

Alouettes CEO Larry Smith was quoted in 2009 saying that the expansion to Molson would ensure financial stability for the team. That apparently hasn't come to pass.

[Source]

Originally Posted by elly63

Sure they've hit hard times since Calvillo and haven't been able to replace him but that doesn't give you carte blanche to gleefully put out there that it will likely be permanent.

This offseason the Alouettes have soft-rebranded and are tarping sections of Molson over for 2019. If things don't work out well for the Als in 2019 how much longer do you genuinely give them?

Originally Posted by elly63

Do you honestly think the Wetenhalls have been doing this all these years as foreigners out of the kindness of their heart? If Bob Wetenhall needed the ego boost don't you think he would have been more visible, and not in a French speaking market, strange behaviour for an English speaking American.

There's a number of theories on this but probably the most likely is that there are no suitors for the team at present. We know that Braley has been trying to sell the Lions for a decent amount of time [Source] with no trigger pulled and they're in a decent market in a fabulous stadium. The Alouettes don't exactly have that cache on the sale market (notwithstanding the language issue you've already mentioned). We know that franchise valuation likely hasn't inched up much in the past decade or so (given that the Halifax expansion fee is rumoured to be the same as what the REDBLACKS paid to enter), meaning that CFL owners are still waiting for an increase in franchise valuation before selling off at a reasonable price.

Here's another quote from the La Presse article I cited earlier:

Originally Posted by La Presse

Tout au long de cet entretien, Wetenhall a parlé des Alouettes comme d'une entreprise. C'est ce que l'équipe représente à ses yeux: un investissement, pas un hobby. Pour les Wetenhall, l'objectif n'a jamais été d'engranger de fortes sommes avec le club, mais l'opération doit avoir du sens d'un point de vue économique.

...

Throughout this interview, Wetenhall spoke of the Alouettes as a business. This is what the team represents for them: an investment, not a hobby. For the Wetenhalls, the goal has never been to reap large sums with the club, but the operation must make sense from an economic point of view.

Nobody owns sports teams to make money but nobody owns them to lose money, either. If the Alouettes are valued between, say, $10M-$15M, how many money-losing seasons are worth it in the long run?

Jack Todd of the Montreal Gazette seems to think along the same lines:

Originally Posted by Montreal Gazette

A little more than 21 years later, the Alouettes have almost come full circle. Unable to draw fans, the Als are closing 5,000 seats. The team is awful. Team management has been inept at best. The fans are fed up. Once again, the Alouettes might be approaching a crossroads as a franchise, this time with Bob Wetenhall’s son, Andrew, directing the club.

If the Wetenhalls having a failing as owners, it’s that they are too loyal to their people. The senior Wetenhall stuck with Jim Popp for at least five years while Popp’s obsession with coaching led him to neglect his day job and the team fell apart. Team president Patrick Boivin has been unable to reignite the franchise, either on the field or in the community.

They need to begin at least begin a turnaround in 2019 because the feeling here is that this franchise cannot survive much more of the kind of aimless drift we’ve seen since quarterback Anthony Calvillo was injured in August 2013, never to return. And if the Wetenhalls decide to walk away, it’s hard to imagine that anyone else would have the patience, the deep pockets or the competitive drive to rebuild the franchise.

https://montrealgazette.com/sports/f...season-in-2019

Emphasis added mine.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ There's not much else going on at Olympic Stadium... they definitely have the dates available.

Higher operational costs for empty seats?

[thurmas]

I could see the Als and Impact teaming up and renovating Stade Saputo before even considering moving to the Big O as it would cost hundreds of millions to bring it into the modern era. They would need to gut the lower bowl of the stadium from its 1970's baseball/football track system that has fans way too far from the field plus the need for a new jumbotron, renovated club seats and suites, removing the dark metal roofing that makes the stadium feel like a tomb, reducing the seating capacity from 60k to maybe between 25 to 35k.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There's a number of theories on this but probably the most likely is that there are no suitors for the team at present. We know that Braley has been trying to sell the Lions for a decent amount of time [Source] with no trigger pulled and they're in a decent market in a fabulous stadium.

Braley is going to do the exact same thing that he did in Toronto, he's going to wait to get the deal he wants. Whether that is financial or altruistic, who knows. He has more bucks than God (likely 4x Wetenhall) so he can sit tight. The unfortunate thing is that the Lions may suffer like the Argos did and wither on the vine, but this latest free agent spending spree may indicate the opposite. I'm hoping he is down with improving the on field fortunes and make the team more attractive.

I don't think any of the haterz thought MLSE would end up owning the Argos so I am expecting a good owner for the Lions as long as he doesn't leave it too late in regards to fan support. There were several prime suitors for the Lions, the Waterboys, the Acquilini Group amongst others, possibly even the Pattison Group but both Braley and Wettenhall have to make way for the next generation.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by thurmas

reducing the seating capacity from 60k to maybe between 25 to 35k.

That part won't be happening before 2026 but I wouldn't discount it.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Higher operational costs for empty seats?

Eh, I'm pretty sure that the government would be pretty flexible as long as their costs were covered to host the event. It's not like Olympic Stadium has a lineup of people willing to pay top dollar for events.

IMO it is just the wrong vibe for football - an outdoor stadium/retractable roof is more associated with 'football game' than Olympic's fixed roof is.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by wave46

IMO it is just the wrong vibe for football - an outdoor stadium/retractable roof is more associated with 'football game' than Olympic's fixed roof is.

Like it or not, the "vibe" is changing, soon the "experience" won't be the same as we might remember. It is getting to be more of a party with a football game breaking out, as the Commish has stated on several occasions.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by elly63

Like it or not, the "vibe" is changing, soon the "experience" won't be the same as we might remember. It is getting to be more of a party with a football game breaking out, as the Commish has stated on several occasions.

That almost reinforces my opinion more. I'd find it hard to imagine a party 'breaking out' among <20k fans scattered in Olympic Stadium than in Molson Stadium.

Unless you're doing something like "Disco Demolition Night" or "Dollar Beer Night". That would be a party.