News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 4.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.1K     0 

wopchop

Building Toronto
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
455
There is a no doubt a clause in their lease that allows them out of it.

Anyone with any common sense would have realized a very long time ago how built up the area would become. There is probably a clause in the lease allowing for termination of the lease if required.
Maybe so.
But termination of the lease means what exactly?
The land is owned by the a crown corporation - Canada Lands Company.
It sounds like people are suggesting that the lease be terminated, and CLC sell the land to Rogers, so that they can in turn have a developer re-develop the site into office/condos/retail.
 

C-mac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
331
Reaction score
413
There is a no doubt a clause in their lease that allows them out of it.

Anyone with any common sense would have realized a very long time ago how built up the area would become. There is probably a clause in the lease allowing for termination of the lease if required.

Get out it? Why would they want to get of it? The idea is they can profit from it.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
30,651
Reaction score
22,321
City:
Toronto
The lease is for a stadium only. Rogers can downsize the stadium (and team/game related retail) and Canada Lands Corporation can profit by putting in office towers/retail/... Renegotiation of the lease would be required for Rogers to profit from non-stadium elements.

Perhaps Rogers will propose the government should pay Rogers to rework the stadium so the government can sell a portion of the land.

That's a defacto public subsidy to a multi-billion conglomerate for a stadium that's already built with close to 1B in public funds (inflation adjusted) and picked up by said conglomerate for 50M (again inflation adjusted). In other words, piling more corporate welfare on top of corporate welfare for a company already notorious for fleecing the public?

AoD
 
Last edited:

C-mac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
331
Reaction score
413
How do they profit from it?
They don't own the land.
How would they redevelop land they don't own into condos that get sold to people?
In this situation, the winner is CLC, not Rogers.

Sort of getting beyond my level of knowledge, but that's how this whole idea of a new stadium started. If they put retail or something in there, even if they don't own the and, but own the buildings on the land, they have another 60 years to make their money off the retail or whatever they put in there.

Again, getting beyond my knowledge, but from what I understand, that's how the whole idea came about.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,894
Reaction score
2,716
That's a defacto public subsidy to a multi-billion conglomerate for a stadium that's already built with close to 1B in public funds (inflation adjusted) and picked up by said conglomerate for 50M (again inflation adjusted). In other words, piling more corporate welfare on top of corporate welfare.

Indeed. Considering the number of nearby office proposals with no large tenants, I'd like to see the government turn-down anything typical.

I would accept something ridiculous like a micro-theme-park with a roller-coaster from the top of the CN tower that winds around the stadium and dives through the largest Ripley aquarium.
 

UrbanOzz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
67
Reaction score
79
As much as I like the idea of a new park and am curious about all these scenarios getting kicked around, I'm inclined to agree that:
a) The current site (close to Union, in the heart of southcore etc.) is preferable to the Portlands (an area that will be infilling for decades), though one must concede that the area around SkyDome was also leaving a lot to be desired back in 1989;
b) It might not be impossible but it would be very challenging to rebuild on-site.

The building does have pluses. The location is ideal. Structurally, as far as I know, it's in great shape. The roof still works, again, without issue, as far as I know.
It has wide concourses and if the style is dated, that's superficial and they've been making improvements inside and outside with banners, signage etc.

So what I'd like to see is sort of a "What's the maximum they can do in a renovation?" scenario.
Let's say, hey, we've got a decent BUILDING here but it can be made a lot better than baseball. I suspect Shapiro and others have already undertaken this exercise and have a wish list but:
-Can they take out the north end, with the hotel, and open it up to the City (even if it's just the space above and around the "Flight Deck" and scoreboard)?
-Is it too hard to reface the concrete exterior with brick or something else warmer?
-Can they redo the seating so it's properly configured/oriented for baseball?
-Can they implement a new roof, either as an entirely new system or something that uses the same tracks but has a more modern (eg transparent/translucent/open) look?
-It sounds like the renos that would be required for grass were deemed too substantial but I guess they'd still be cheaper than a new stadium, so I'd throw that in the mix too; is that impossible or just very hard?

I don't think there's a real appetite for a new stadium, despite the grumbling about its shortcomings. I also don't think there's a really viable scenario for replacing it.

I think we've seen the pros/cons of relocating the team and there are definite downsides but maybe you do a major reno and if the team plays in Buffalo for a few months, that's tolerable?

I actually think there's a huge appetite for a new stadium. Whenever it's teased, it's makes a ton of headlines and people get excited. It has to be private money though. I want a new stadium so bad but not with public funds. I don't think there's any appetite at all for one with public funds and i think Rogers knows that. Rogers has terrible PR but i don't think they're stupid enough to come out and ask for public funds to build the stadium, they know they'll have to foot the bill or use some sort of private investment.
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
2,725
City:
Toronto
Indeed. Considering the number of nearby office proposals with no large tenants, I'd like to see the government turn-down anything typical.

I would accept something ridiculous like a micro-theme-park with a roller-coaster from the top of the CN tower that winds around the stadium.

That would be cool. Though I would prefer a drop zone style ride from top to bottom
 

EddyMCD

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
89
Reaction score
89
It's not as profitable as a condo but Rogers could definitely incorporate some amount of restaurants, retail etc. Which they could draw revenue from, and it would still reasonably qualify as a stadium amenity.
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
2,725
City:
Toronto
It's not as profitable as a condo but Rogers could definitely incorporate some amount of restaurants, retail etc. Which they could draw revenue from, and it would still reasonably qualify as a stadium amenity.

Worlds largest telecom store with a boxing ring in the centre?
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,983
Reaction score
1,345
I actually think there's a huge appetite for a new stadium. Whenever it's teased, it's makes a ton of headlines and people get excited. It has to be private money though. I want a new stadium so bad but not with public funds. I don't think there's any appetite at all for one with public funds and i think Rogers knows that. Rogers has terrible PR but i don't think they're stupid enough to come out and ask for public funds to build the stadium, they know they'll have to foot the bill or use some sort of private investment.

This is a fair framing: People like shiny, new things, no question.
And I'm sure Rogers similarly feels that they would love to build a new stadium if they could build it where the current one is and especially if someone else would pay for it.
If I told you I'd give you a new house right now, of course you'd be excited. But if I told you'd be paying for it, you'd feel different. That's human nature.

This whole thing about public funding of stadiums is always a hot potato (big battle heating up in Buffalo now!) but this particular stadium, as we all know, was built by the public for over $500M and then sold to the current owners for not much more than the cost of Drake's Bridle Path house. If Rogers asked for any public funds for a new project now, people would rightfully break out the pitchforks.

So, given these practical realities, I was trying to wrap my head around, if you went ALL IN on fixing the current stadium, what could you do? And would it be worth it (for fans and for the owners)?
The answer might ultimately be that it's not worth it and you can't quite justify a new stadium, given the financial and political realities, and so they'll keep making incremental improvements (as they have been doing) until something fundamental shifts.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
30,651
Reaction score
22,321
City:
Toronto
This is a fair framing: People like shiny, new things, no question.
And I'm sure Rogers similarly feels that they would love to build a new stadium if they could build it where the current one is and especially if someone else would pay for it.
If I told you I'd give you a new house right now, of course you'd be excited. But if I told you'd be paying for it, you'd feel different. That's human nature.

This whole thing about public funding of stadiums is always a hot potato (big battle heating up in Buffalo now!) but this particular stadium, as we all know, was built by the public for over $500M and then sold to the current owners for not much more than the cost of Drake's Bridle Path house. If Rogers asked for any public funds for a new project now, people would rightfully break out the pitchforks.

So, given these practical realities, I was trying to wrap my head around, if you went ALL IN on fixing the current stadium, what could you do? And would it be worth it (for fans and for the owners)?
The answer might ultimately be that it's not worth it and you can't quite justify a new stadium, given the financial and political realities, and so they'll keep making incremental improvements (as they have been doing) until something fundamental shifts.

Also keep in mind - Rogers had their own land in the GTA (e.g. M City) - if they wanted to build a new baseball only stadium elsewhere, they could have if they truly, badly wanted to do so (understanding there will be an arduous planning process). They chose to develop the land as residential instead. That tells you something.

AoD
 

EddyMCD

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
89
Reaction score
89
The cost of land has gone up drastically in the last few years as well. There will be a massive cost to acquire enough land to build a new stadium. Especially if a place like the Portlands gets zoned for high rise residential.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
30,651
Reaction score
22,321
City:
Toronto
The cost of land has gone up drastically in the last few years as well. There will be a massive cost to acquire enough land to build a new stadium. Especially if a place like the Portlands gets zoned for high rise residential.

Most of the land (especially contiguous land - needed for a something with a large footprint like a baseball stadium) is owned by the public in any event - and I doubt there is much support for a baseball stadium on these lands, which is slated for other things.

AoD
 
Last edited:

wopchop

Building Toronto
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
455
I actually think there's a huge appetite for a new stadium. Whenever it's teased, it's makes a ton of headlines and people get excited. It has to be private money though. I want a new stadium so bad but not with public funds. I don't think there's any appetite at all for one with public funds and i think Rogers knows that. Rogers has terrible PR but i don't think they're stupid enough to come out and ask for public funds to build the stadium, they know they'll have to foot the bill or use some sort of private investment.
And we are talking about a company that has had a billion+ net income for the last five years.
They don't need our subsidies.
At all.
If they want to rebuild the stadium on the current site - OK fine. I disagree with that, as I think it is a waste of resources.
But they aren't entitled to any profits from redevelopment of the existing land.
 

Top