MLSE continues their remarkable streak of tone-deafness

[Kin]

Maple Leaf Gardens, unused for years, is finally being renovated into a 2500 seat arena for the ryerson rams. MLSE is filing an injunction to prevent the building, known for years by all residents of the city as Maple Leaf Gardens, from being called Maple Leaf Gardens.

MLSE continues fighting for what really matters

 

[Number 5]

Read that earliers....shame it's always about lining your pockets, eh?

 

[The Red Polar Bear]

Everyone knows it'll still be called that by us common folk.

See: Skydome.

 

[Kin]

Everyone knows it'll still be called that by us common folk.

See: Skydome.

Even still, it's about the marquee in front.

 

[Spare Change]

Fan 590 had someone from MLSE call in to clarify this.

He clarified in saying the documents signed by Loblaws for the sale stated that it will remain Maple Leaf Gardens, but they couldn't put in an arena that would compete with any of their investments, or become an entertainment complex.

He said 2500 seats is the largest amount of seats available, but the blueprints they showed easily topped that, and were against the contract they agreed to in the sale.

It'll still be called Maple Leaf Gardens for Ryerson, it's more about the amount of seats and use of the facility.

 

[cw]

They signed a contract. If they're not abiding by the contract, MLSE has a legitimate point. If Ryerson or whoever didn't like the terms, they shouldn't have signed the deal or gone back to MLSE to work something out. If they don't agree on the interpretation of the contract, the court will figure it out and again, it's not unfair of either party to ask the legal question to a court in those circumstances.

The larger debate of what should or should not happen to MLG effectively was ended years ago with that contract.

 

[Kin]

They signed a contract. If they're not abiding by the contract, MLSE has a legitimate point. If Ryerson or whoever didn't like the terms, they shouldn't have signed the deal or gone back to MLSE to work something out. If they don't agree on the interpretation of the contract, the court will figure it out and again, it's not unfair of either party to ask the legal question to a court in those circumstances.

The larger debate of what should or should not happen to MLG effectively was ended years ago with that contract.

I'm saying that what MLSE is asking for is absurd. They clearly had no interest in developing the property and they should let a historical building and Toronto landmark undergo some renovations that will restore it to good, working order as a hockey arena.

Are MLSE within their legal rights to demand that Maple Leaf Gardens continues to rot? They may be. Just like they would be if they jacked up ticket prices. It doesn't make them seem any less ridiculous.

 

[Bender]

They signed a contract. If they're not abiding by the contract, MLSE has a legitimate point. If Ryerson or whoever didn't like the terms, they shouldn't have signed the deal or gone back to MLSE to work something out. If they don't agree on the interpretation of the contract, the court will figure it out and again, it's not unfair of either party to ask the legal question to a court in those circumstances.

The larger debate of what should or should not happen to MLG effectively was ended years ago with that contract.

I'm saying that what MLSE is asking for is absurd. They clearly had no interest in developing the property and they should let a historical building and Toronto landmark undergo some renovations that will restore it to good, working order as a hockey arena.

Are MLSE within their legal rights to demand that Maple Leaf Gardens continues to rot? They may be. Just like they would be if they jacked up ticket prices. It doesn't make them seem any less ridiculous.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I don't think a 2500 seat venue will really be a threat to the ACC as a venue. Maybe I'm missing something here, but the two segments that the venues cater to are very far apart. I would argue there's very little competition from MLG from a direct or indirect perspective in terms of competition.

 

[chestyleroux]

I don't think MLSE is really worried about the "hockey" aspect of the arena. The beef is probably around potential revenue loss due to concerts/events being hosted at MLG instead of the ACC. There have been a few concerts at the ACC that were "half arena", where only a section of the ACC was open for the people. These concerts could potentially be hosted at the new MLG, which would be a big revenue loss for MLSE. From my understanding, that's the crux of the matter.

It doesn't seem to be that ridiculous to me... especially if Loblaw/Ryerson is contractually obligated not to do it.

 

[Bender]

Well, if they're worried about competition then what about the Molson Amphitheatre? Sound Academy? Kool Haus? Sony Centre? I would argue that their argument that MLG would compete with ACC as a venue for concerts or shows is unfounded. If anything MLG would compete with smaller competitors. The ACC and Rogers Centre are the only options for large scale concerts and shows and even at half size the ACC would likely have over 6000 seats.

I really don't see an issue here, and fighting about this is time well wasted. If anything it makes MLSE look more and more like an ugly organization that cares more about lining their pockets and flexing their financial muscle.

 

[chestyleroux]

Well, if they're worried about competition then what about the Molson Amphitheatre? Sound Academy? Kool Haus? Sony Centre? I would argue that their argument that MLG would compete with ACC as a venue for concerts or shows is unfounded. If anything MLG would compete with smaller competitors. The ACC and Rogers Centre are the only options for large scale concerts and shows and even at half size the ACC would likely have over 6000 seats.

The difference is two-fold:
1. Most of those places existed before the ACC was built.
2. MLSE did not previously own any of those locations before selling them off.

I really don't see an issue here, and fighting about this is time well wasted. If anything it makes MLSE look more and more like an ugly organization that cares more about lining their pockets and flexing their financial muscle.

Well, yeah. They're a corporation, they're looking after their best financial interests, just like any other corporation. Why are we surprised by this?

 

[cw]

They signed a contract. If they're not abiding by the contract, MLSE has a legitimate point. If Ryerson or whoever didn't like the terms, they shouldn't have signed the deal or gone back to MLSE to work something out. If they don't agree on the interpretation of the contract, the court will figure it out and again, it's not unfair of either party to ask the legal question to a court in those circumstances.

The larger debate of what should or should not happen to MLG effectively was ended years ago with that contract.

I'm saying that what MLSE is asking for is absurd. They clearly had no interest in developing the property and they should let a historical building and Toronto landmark undergo some renovations that will restore it to good, working order as a hockey arena.

Are MLSE within their legal rights to demand that Maple Leaf Gardens continues to rot? They may be. Just like they would be if they jacked up ticket prices. It doesn't make them seem any less ridiculous.

As a business, from MLSE perspective, it isn't absurd to be concerned about competition. There are finite sports & concert entertainment dollars.  And it couldn't have been that absurd because there are clauses in the contract that describe the arrangement and the other party signed that deal.

Having said that:

One preference I had back when was the HHoF was looking for larger space. Hockey Canada was looking for some space. They could have made a great Hockey Hall of Fame out of MLG, got dollars from Hockey Canada for offices and hooked up with sports equipment and other vendors to put stores around the place to help fund it all.

Or they could have upgraded to put more than one slab of ice in the place for a practice facility rather than building a new one that has gone belly up. Or they could have housed the Marlies and/or an OHL team as a tenant within the HHoF/hockey Canada maybe, making a smaller rink for seats, and continued with MLSE as a partner so MLSE wouldn't have a competition problem.

There seemed to be lots of options better than a grocery store and it's sad they couldn't seem to make one of them come to pass. But that's not really the argument now because they signed a contract to go in a different, less hockey attractive direction.

 

[Kin]

As a business, from MLSE perspective, it isn't absurd to be concerned about competition.

Conceded. Mr. Scrooge, from a business perspective, was well within his rights as an employer to ask Bob Cratchit to work late too.

From a person who cares about the city's landmarks, from a human being's perspective, it strikes me as a terrifically tone-deaf bit of selfishness on their part.

 

[Kin]

The difference is two-fold:
1. Most of those places existed before the ACC was built.
2. MLSE did not previously own any of those locations before selling them off.

But that's my point. They owned the Gardens. They had every possibility to do something with the place. They were content to just sit and let it decay. So they sold it with conditions that didn't really make a lot of sense(requiring Loblaws to turn an aging hockey arena into a supermarket two blocks away from an existing supermarket) and, because Loblaws seems increasingly unwilling or unable to do that they've had to look into other arrangements.

So Ryerson has come along with an idea that makes good sense and would provide a boost for a neighbourhood that's seen better days and MLSE has decided to fight it on the grounds that, maybe, it might provide some very marginal competition to them.

Again, I understand that they're allowed to. It doesn't make them any less scumbaggy.

 

[cw]

As a business, from MLSE perspective, it isn't absurd to be concerned about competition.

Conceded. Mr. Scrooge, from a business perspective, was well within his rights as an employer to ask Bob Cratchit to work late too.

Loblaws hardly strikes me as Bob Cratchit. Neither does Ryerson. They always had the option to walk away from such a deal. ALWAYS. Cratchit needed his job and couldn't easily walk away from it. Ryerson & Loblaws had other options and weren't going to starve to death if they didn't do this deal.

MLSE reportedly walked away from a bunch of dough to obtain this non-compete concession.

On the basis of contract law, I don't have much sympathy for Loblaws/Ryerson if/as long as MLSE's legal point is well taken.

From a person who cares about the city's landmarks, from a human being's perspective, it strikes me as a terrifically tone-deaf bit of selfishness on their part.

Years ago, when they did the deal, I had hoped for more. Now? In this economy, with all that has been done with the building since, it's sucked a bunch of the emotion out of me. If it's going to be a grocery store, they could knock it down for all I care because the heart of the building has been cut out of it.

 

[Bender]

Well, if they're worried about competition then what about the Molson Amphitheatre? Sound Academy? Kool Haus? Sony Centre? I would argue that their argument that MLG would compete with ACC as a venue for concerts or shows is unfounded. If anything MLG would compete with smaller competitors. The ACC and Rogers Centre are the only options for large scale concerts and shows and even at half size the ACC would likely have over 6000 seats.

The difference is two-fold:
1. Most of those places existed before the ACC was built.
2. MLSE did not previously own any of those locations before selling them off.

I really don't see an issue here, and fighting about this is time well wasted. If anything it makes MLSE look more and more like an ugly organization that cares more about lining their pockets and flexing their financial muscle.

Well, yeah. They're a corporation, they're looking after their best financial interests, just like any other corporation. Why are we surprised by this?

Obviously there's no way to argue what was written in a contract unless you can say that there was some sort of a breach of contract (for example if nobody said that the structural integrity was being held up by the seats of the old arena) then maybe you could have a case. Also I think they should've thought about the branding issue before they sold it. They could have said something like "nothing of the image and likeness or the name MLG can be used to sell merchandise."

However, at the same time this, to me, says it all. "It was not entirely clear why MLSE started legal action now, more than a year and a half after Loblaw and Ryerson announced their partnership." They clearly knew for a long time about this. Why create an issue with three months until development? For lack of a better word, this seems like a bitch move to me.

It's not surprising. But to be honest, contract or no contract, it's kind of infuriating that they would hold a historic name of a heritage site (that goes beyond simply "business") hostage.

 

[Kin]

Loblaws hardly strikes me as Bob Cratchit. Neither does Ryerson. They always had the option to walk away from such a deal. ALWAYS. Cratchit needed his job and couldn't easily walk away from it. Ryerson & Loblaws had other options and weren't going to starve to death if they didn't do this deal.

MLSE reportedly walked away from a bunch of dough to obtain this non-compete concession.

Actually, in my Dickensian analogy those of us who love the building and would like to see it stop rotting away are the Bob Cratchits in this situation. It's perhaps the most historic hockey arena in the world that could still be used as a hockey arena in the downtown of the centre of the Hockey universe. It's MLSE who are steadfastly refusing to let it.

My analogy is gangbusters.

 

[Spare Change]

Loblaws hardly strikes me as Bob Cratchit. Neither does Ryerson. They always had the option to walk away from such a deal. ALWAYS. Cratchit needed his job and couldn't easily walk away from it. Ryerson & Loblaws had other options and weren't going to starve to death if they didn't do this deal.

MLSE reportedly walked away from a bunch of dough to obtain this non-compete concession.

Actually, in my Dickensian analogy those of us who love the building and would like to see it stop rotting away are the Bob Cratchits in this situation. It's perhaps the most historic hockey arena in the world that could still be used as a hockey arena in the downtown of the centre of the Hockey universe. It's MLSE who are steadfastly refusing to let it.

My analogy is gangbusters.

Not really, because again,the sports facility is not the part being questioned. They're fine with Ryerson being involved, it's the details.

For example Global Spectrum, an entertainment facility management group is behind Ryerson, and will be running the facility.

Also, Ryerson was advertising using the Leafs brand, which again isn't legal.

Your reference doesn't work because MLSE has decided to let Ryerson turn it into a sports facility, which was not part of the terms of sale, it's Ryerson and Loblaws who are getting too greedy.

 

[Kin]

Not really, because again,the sports facility is not the part being questioned. They're fine with Ryerson being involved, it's the details.

Yes. Details such as letting the building be known as and referred to by the name it's had since it's been built. Which would involve changing the historic facade.

So, yeah, still gangbusters.

 

[hockeyfan1]

The proposed renovation looks like a very well thought out initiative, the arena, seats, ceiling, etc.

I think MLSE has some valid concerns, namely with the  "Leaf"  brand being used.  If they can work it out,  without this being a long drawn-out legal entanglement, would be in the interests of all parties.  Hope they do because what Ryerson wants to build, judging by the above photo, is nothing short of a pleasing venue for a University arena.