G.L.17
Senior Member
You can see the first 5 rows in the south stand have been completely removed. Kinda looks like a trench.
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
Amare
Senior Member
Fair point indeed, I better keep quiet because we do have it pretty good. We can be thankful we dont have ridiculous American sports stadium financing scheme here; that would be an unmitigated disaster
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
narduch
Senior Member
Not originally though. When the stadium was first built it was paid for mostly with public funds from all 3 levels of government. MLSE only chipped in a minimal amount.
That being said, MLSE should be given full credit for the money they poured in afterwards. But they only did that after the team became a runaway success at the gate.
One does wonder if a much better stadium could have been built if all the funds put into this stadium were done in one shot, from scratch.
Flint
New Member
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
$18million out of $72.8million is hardly a "minimal amount"
narduch
Senior Member
Most of which they recouped right away with the stadium naming rights.
Besides I've seen it reported (don't have time to look) they actually didn't put in as much money as advertised at first. The original stadium was built very cheaply.
It was originally built mostly with government money. That is undeniable.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
narduch
Senior Member
Why are you so hung up on this?
Besides, I stand by the statement. They could have pumped more money into the stadium at first and made it better. They chose to pay the minimal amount needed. That statement is factually correct. In the end it appeared to be a mistake.
Besides, I stand by the statement. They could have pumped more money into the stadium at first and made it better. They chose to pay the minimal amount needed. That statement is factually correct. In the end it appeared to be a mistake.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
This much I can agree with that government funds accounted for the majority of the first phase costs.
However the second phase which was arguably the most important one, given its flexibility and growth of potential future use, and at this point has run the tab on the stadium to something in the ballpark of $200 million the total split is now closer to 50% 50%. And the stadium is still held publicly.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
As a point of reference, in Montreal, where the original $17 million dollar costs was born by Saputo Inc., the Quebec government funded the $23 million dollar expansion. The stadium is owned by Saputo Inc. So here we have an opposite case, granted the total dollar amount is much lower, where the government subsidizes 50% and doesn't have ownership. OFC the details vary between the two stadiums as to how these arrangements came about but it is an interesting comparison.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I thought the original cost of the stadium was $62.5MM + free use of land.
of that, it was something like Feds $27MM...Province $8MM...City $10MM and MLSE $8MM...for about $53MM. That was enough to commence construction with the funding gap to be made up from the sale of naming rights. Shortly thereafter, the city sold the naming rights to MLSE for $10MM and all the funds for construction were available (sure, today, it is easy to criticize that last bit because MLSE resold the naming rights to BMO at a huge profit but at the time it was done to remove uncertainty and guarantee there would be no need for additional public funding).
So, at onset, the cost of the stadium was 72% public funds.....13% MLSE.....and 15% naming rights sale.
Since then, about $5MM of improvements have been made (conversion to grass, north stand built, and improvements to Lamport to accomodate the bubble/public use) which was all MLSE money....so the percentages swung to 67%.....19%.....14%.
A thing oft overlooked is that, unlike most investments of public funds, the city has gotten a pretty decent return on that $10MM they invested....so they may have recovered some of the initial $10MM of cash they put in.
The new $120MM is, what, $100MM MLSE money and $20MM public funds? So the percentages swing to 35% public funds.....60% MLSE...5% naming rights.
Not bad considering the city retains ownership and the revenue that their 50% of stadium profits will generate will increase now with more events/usage.
All in all, it is an example of a partnership that has done well by the taxpayer.
NOTE: Yes, I have excluded the value of the land in my calcs becasue a) it is a bit of a made up number....there was nothing there before and nothing planned for there so it was not generating any revenue and was not going to without the stadium....so, economically, worthless and b) The city still owns the land (it was leased to the stadium development) so nothing was contributed, really.
of that, it was something like Feds $27MM...Province $8MM...City $10MM and MLSE $8MM...for about $53MM. That was enough to commence construction with the funding gap to be made up from the sale of naming rights. Shortly thereafter, the city sold the naming rights to MLSE for $10MM and all the funds for construction were available (sure, today, it is easy to criticize that last bit because MLSE resold the naming rights to BMO at a huge profit but at the time it was done to remove uncertainty and guarantee there would be no need for additional public funding).
So, at onset, the cost of the stadium was 72% public funds.....13% MLSE.....and 15% naming rights sale.
Since then, about $5MM of improvements have been made (conversion to grass, north stand built, and improvements to Lamport to accomodate the bubble/public use) which was all MLSE money....so the percentages swung to 67%.....19%.....14%.
A thing oft overlooked is that, unlike most investments of public funds, the city has gotten a pretty decent return on that $10MM they invested....so they may have recovered some of the initial $10MM of cash they put in.
The new $120MM is, what, $100MM MLSE money and $20MM public funds? So the percentages swing to 35% public funds.....60% MLSE...5% naming rights.
Not bad considering the city retains ownership and the revenue that their 50% of stadium profits will generate will increase now with more events/usage.
All in all, it is an example of a partnership that has done well by the taxpayer.
NOTE: Yes, I have excluded the value of the land in my calcs becasue a) it is a bit of a made up number....there was nothing there before and nothing planned for there so it was not generating any revenue and was not going to without the stadium....so, economically, worthless and b) The city still owns the land (it was leased to the stadium development) so nothing was contributed, really.
gregl
New Member
A few photos from Friday: http://imgur.com/a/xXxtC
TOareaFan
Superstar
On my drive by this morning, noticed the first panel of the roof on the west side is now up!
Michael Ianni
Active Member
Photos please, we need the forum to unite and get a first glimpse of that roof
