I was in Toronto last week and talking to a couple of CFL fans south of the border in the United States traveling through Ontario from the up State New York area and they asked me that they heard on ESPN that the majority of teams in the CFL are privately owned teams but that there are a few teams like Edmonton, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg that are community owned teams and which is better? They thought it was kind of unique considering most pro teams are privately owned? I guess there are positives and negatives to both types of ownership, what do CFL fans think?
Really depends on the ownership, as much as it does on the Board.
A strong owner will typically have a strong team, and there is a certain amount of personal pride and gratification in winning. Sure, that still exists with a board, but you can’t compare the 2…it is like owning a house vs renting. Is it an owner who puts profits first or winning with the attitude that winning = money? Boards can often be places for people to argue and get little done, but if they work well together, really good things can happen…I would say a Saskatchewan has a pretty good board at the moment…I would Say there are some question marks in Winnipeg. Community ownership can be great, because they are not as worried about the bottom dollar.
There is no right or wrong way to look at it, BUT, I think the community is more likely to bye in if they feel like it is “their? team and not some fat cat’s…unless of coarse it is a fat cat who wins. Green Bay Packers are a great example of community ownership south of the boarder.
I think the most unique thing about the ownership in the CFL is that two teams are owned by one person. Not sure that it isn't a conflict but the CFL seems to thinks it is OK.
I personally prefer the Community Ownership but not as much since the league closed the personal services contract loophole. There have also been some owners who were not good for the league including one well heeled guy who bought the team so his son could play. I believe there is a greater support in general for the community owned teams because of that sense of ownership. At least one team sells shares (Saskatchewan) to the supporters which I think is a great idea. Not sure if any other team sells shares but I seem to recall Edmonton floating around the idea at one time.
The XFL teams were basically all owned by one entity.
"Major" league soccer had ownership of a team or two. Not a big deal unless people are looking for reasons to bash.
Selig, the commish of MLB, owned the Brewers. If that isn't a conflict of interest, what is? Sort of puts the Braley Lions/Argos thingy into perspective. Of course I have an acquaintance who pointed out the Braley thing but didn't have a clue about Selig, even though he thinks MLB is the next coming of Christ. What do you do? :?
You're a Toronto hater. Why were you in Toronto? The haters always seem to hate but always seem to have an excuse to keep visiting our great city
There are Toronto haters and there are those inflicted with the belief that Toronto is the centre of the universe. I just am of the firm belief that Toronto is a lousy sports town and their fans prove it in every franchise they have with the exception of the leafs.
It's not unique to the CFL, the Green Bay Packers are community owned as well. I think if the proper people are in place it's got it's advantages for sure. I think it gets more people locally to care about the team, as it's their team so to speak. It also isn't about the money when it's community owned either, there's no 1 person who is making a big profit or big loss.
Community owned teams have an advantage when it comes to getting top-of-the-line new stadiums. Considering the economics of the CFL, no private owner could ever justify spending $200 million for a stadium like Winnipeg's and would have to be a certified loon to spend $300 million like they are doing in Regina. It is a lot easier to just pass those costs on to taxpayers. Private team owners have to wait on a special event (Pan Am Games for Hamilton) or a generous city (Vancouver/Ottawa) before they can get a new stadium. It should be a surprise to no one that the worst stadiums in the league (Calgary, Toronto, Montreal) all host privately owned teams.
Community ownership would never work in Hamilton or Toronto. Community ownership means that the team is owned by people that love football, in other words its the season ticket holders that buy the $80 to $100 tickets and also will pay out another $1,000 a year per person to operate the team. The Western fans do see their teams as an integral part of their city and will pay to operate it.
Private owners are like dictators. They run the team how they want. If you get a benveolent dictator, it's the best form of management (and government) there is. If you get a bad one, you get the Harold Ballard years in Toronto.
Community ownership is more of a bureaucracy. If it all works well they hire a smart football person to run the team, and you get the added benefit of the connections of all the community owners. If it doesn't work, you get a bureaucracy. That's what happened in Winnipeg. They should have acted in the off season, but the board couldn't get it done until the heat got cranked up in the season.
I don't think one is better than the other really, it all depends on the quality of the people in the position.
Being community owned does not mean that the city supports the team. Community owned teams have an expectation of financial stability when they don't either the team folds or the team is sold to private interests. The Eskimos not only have held their own but also have supported other sports franchises. Here in Calgary although not community owned, the Stampeders are owned by the Flames so there is at least a community connection.
The Stamps were a community owned team until the early '90s when the team was sold to Larry Ryckman.
Ottawa was also community owned up to the early '90s but with over a decade of losing teams, the city just walked away and the CFL had to find private ownership (Glibermans/Horn Chen era).
Calgary is going strong (even after one really bad owner who was mentioned already), but Ottawa folded in the mid-nineties, only to be resurrected again under a different name for 4 years and folded again).
Expectations are high that Ottawa will be a strong franchise this time around due to the strong ownership group with community ties.
One thing I find interesting though is the phenomena of the Toronto Blue Jays. This team hasn't made the playoffs in years and isn't that good this year being last place in the division, plays in an obsolete doughnut stadium as one Toronto writer referred to it, and has a corporate owner that not a lot of people like if you look at comments on newspaper articles about Rogers and their services and prices for cable and wireless etc, their main business. But man, you see people wearing Blue Jays hats and shirts everywhere in Toronto and Hamilton while the Argos are doing great and you don't see anyone hardly wearing their stuff. There still seems to be a big Blue Jay buzz but hardly any Argo buzz, weird, but that's the way it seems to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm no big Blue Jay fan, the Tigers are my team in MLB all the way. So I'm not trying to make the Blue Jays bigger than life or anything. CFL football rocks over MLB any day of the week IMHO.
So it's up to the people in a city or area to support their teams, regardless, of course, not saying anything new.
Actually Calgary went through more than one bad owner as the Flutie era was great for football but essentially bankrupted the team. We have been fortunate to have pretty much a decade now of solid responsible ownership.
Having Rogers as an owner and 160 games on Sportsnet gives Rogers a LOT of incentive to put out an aggressive marketing push for the Jays. They've done that the last couple of years. They were also expected to be contenders this year, but that's kind of blown up impressively.
I find thatb70% of jays fans out west hVe never watched a baseball game in their life. I'm a Yankees fan btw lol
I would be interesting to know exactly how much front window space Rogers "asks" and pays for in stores? I think that is one way, as well, of creating a demand for a brand.
The Jays are simply "cool" to the masses. Personally I don't get it but it is what it is. :?
Especially since the team is trash!
It's like people wearing green and putting watermelons on their heads. Nobody knows why, it just happens. :cowboy: :lol: