I'll say it one more time: This. Is. A. False. Choice. MLSE didn't have to choose one or the other. Regardless of what happened with the tailgate, it is a good business decision to lower the price point of tickets so they at least match that of TFC. How could overpriced tickets, that suppressed the demand, be subsidizing the tailgate?? Lowering the price will probably increase demand and RAISE revenue in the long run. I personally think investing in and growing the tailgate would have raised revenue in the long run too. That would make both lowering prices and supporting the tailgate independent, sound business decisions. No tradeoff between the two!
That also eviscerates PullTogether's sanctimonious "you sure like spending other peoples' money" rebuttal. I don't support the tailgate because I think somebody should be underwriting my good time. I support the tailgate because I think, long term, a well-functioning tailgate is in the team's financial interest. I think the tailgate makes money for the team in the long term. I can hear the "Manning is smarter than you" reply coming, so just bear with me for a couple more paragraphs...
It all comes down to this: why should a casual fan bother going to an Argonauts game? The TO market is so full of near-perfect substitutes that (outside of the diehards like us) that I honestly can't think of a reason that hasn't been tried and failed in the not-too-distant past. I can cheer? I can do that at any pro sports event. I get to watch football? I can watch the game on my TV. I get to support the team? That hasn't been enough to persuade anybody for as long as I've been a fan. The tickets are cheap? Previous owners have tried lowering the price and gotten nowhere. A shipyard or beergarden? They had that at skydome and it's not very different from the pre-game parties that any other team throws. I get to drink at a bar in liberty village? Who cares, I can drink in a bar in my neighborhood. Bottom line, if there's a list of things I could get at an Argo game that I couldn't get literally ANYWHERE ELSE in Toronto, then a well-functioning tailgate is a big item on that list. As near as I can figure, it's a pretty damn short list, so the head office should have taken a serious look at it before crossing it off.
This will get me in trouble, but I want to say it: I carefully followed the TFC supporters groups and all the drama they kicked up with the condition of the field and the Argos moving to BMO. Do you think any of them said "well, they're really smart businessmen in the head office, they must know what they're doing, so let's go along with whatever they think is best"? Anytime something happened that they didn't like, they lost their friggin minds. They had their view of what made the team and the game special, they advocated tirelessly for that viewpoint, and get lost to any of the suits that tried to tell them differently. I completely disagreed with their viewpoint, and I'm not saying their approach was objectively right. All I know, however, is that MLSE blows copious amounts of money keeping that field in immaculate condition and scrubbing all traces of the Argonauts when the field is converted. Squeeky wheels get grease, my friends. Smiling, easy-going wheels get screwed.
Last point: Manning might have a bigger bank account than me, but that doesn't mean he's infallible. He's been a sports executive, but in leagues where the teams have always been cool and popular and not had the same problems the Argos have. Say what you want about Copeland and the execution, be he'd been a CFL executive for a long time and I think he had a better appreciation for what a successful tailgate would do for the team. Manning's been here for a cup of coffee, and I don't think he has nearly the same understanding of what they're getting into. You want to know what makes me worried? You're free to invent your own stories about why you think Manning axed the tailgate (lawsuits? show me the evidence), but all we know for sure is he took a look at it and said "it's forced. not enough people are doing it. it's not popular enough". Didn't we all think MLSE had the ability to MAKE things popular? How long before they decide "not enough people like the Argonauts. they're not popular enough"?
I know Naylor's convinced, but this is a red flag for me. I think
it reflects a lack of thoughtfulness and nuance.
If I'm not already in trouble with you, this will probably clinch it: "He's a successful businessman, he must know what he's talking about," is one of the most common things I heard leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election... How's that working out?
Bookmarks