Talk:Toronto FC

Competitions

Should the Competitions section be expanded a bit? Should there be an section on the various exhibition type cups i.e. Carlsberg Cup? --Coppercanuck (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Team Affiliations

I just stumbled across an article in the Bermuda Sun suggesting the Toronto FC has agreements with Bagatelle FC of Barbados Premier Division and will soon sign with Bermuda Hogges. I don't remember seeing anything about it. --Coppercanuck (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Head coach stats

The table of coach stats is an eye sore. No other team has that from what I can tell. We might want to replace with a basic table like all other teams. Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we add colour in the head coaches table. Where it says coach..etc. Put in the red colour please.

Change in roster format

There was a discussion about the new roster format and we have had a trial at both the Timbers and Whitecaps articles and recently Cascadia Cup rival Sounders have converted. The idea is to move all club articles on Wikipedia to the new format as is discussed in the original discussion and more recently at the football project.

My suggestion is to complete the MLS team articles first, so if you could respond at this discussion, that would be ideal. In short, the new layout is slightly taller and less wide, but it correctly impliments WP:MOSFLAG and is better for visually impared users of Wikipedia and others who use readers. I plan to implement the change to this article by the weekend of January 20-22, however other editors could make the change sooner. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing a few complaints about the new roster design on tfc fan boards. I got to agree...you can no longer look at the full roster on 1 screen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prizby (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Moving forward with the new format on MLS articles not here and be prepared to offer the screen resolution that the fans who are complaining can't view the roster at because at 1600 x 1200 I can see it. In fact, the roster displays when the "viewport" is at 710 pixels high. That means a desktop resolution of about 1024x768 with no extra tool bars or ribbons should be able to display the roster. But in the end, the real issue is that blind viewers could not read the old roster intelligibly while they can now. We could reduce the cell padding to allow for adequate display on lower resolutions, but that will have to be addressed at the footy project. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

i am finding the necessity of this overhaul rather dubious, how exactly does this help a severely visually impaired person, considering the text size remains the same? --Cloak87 —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Dubious? The discussion isn't to be carried here, but since you have asked here, I will respond. Visually impaired readers will often use what's known as a screen reader to convert the words on the screen (and alt text behind images) to speech so that they can tell what's on the page. There were two issues with the old roster format:

1. It was in two columns and wouldn't have good results when read to the reader.
2. the national flag was not being spoken and represented nothing. To be able to tell what the nation was (assuming it wasn't a common one) you have to hover over the text. Try doing that with a touch device. The new format is compliant with WP:MOSFLAG.

In short, the old format is going. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

MLS Ownership

The MLS did not pay the expansion fee for any of the teams. The MLS simply own the contracts that players Of course the MLS would have a say in who the new owners were...just like the NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL do...doesnt mean that the NHL/NFL/MLB/NBA (except for New Orleans Hornets) teams are owned by the league. If the MLS owned the teams, wouldn't they have a say in things such as ticket prices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prizby (talk • contribs) 2012-01-18 00:23:47 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand. MLS is the owner of every team. No team runs independently. Not one. They are not just like the NBA, NHL, MLB, or NFL. The league has a say in everything. Please read Major League Soccer#Ownership and then revert your changes. If you don't, I won't change it again, but I suspect that there about a dozen editors who will. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Single-entity ownership...actually studied that at school...if you do actually read the ownership page on the MLS wiki page, it might need some cleaning up than, to be consistent..."At one time AEG owned six clubs in MLS, and have since sold the Colorado Rapids, the MetroStars, D.C. United and the Chicago Fire to new owners." And in the single-entity ownership model its actually the other way around, the MLS doesn't own the teams, each team has an equal ownership in the MLS. Garber wasn't hired "per se" by the MLS, but he was hired by the teams in the MLS...(Now to figure out how to sign this :S)Prizby (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, no teams can do anything without the approval of the league and the reverse is also true. MLSE doesn't own TFC, they are franchisees and the league (including their opponents) own the team, and MLSE owns a portion of every other team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

So when AEG sold DC United for $33 million...if they weren't selling their ownership stake in DC United, then what exactly were they selling? Prizby (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question. They weren't selling ownership. I suspect that they were selling the value of the team in the league. You may want to discuss this at the MLS article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. I think the point is, it is incorrect to call MLSE just operators of Toronto FC...yesterday in Beckham's news conference, they talked about him potentially "owning" (not operating) a team after his new contract is done...I believe the correct variable would be part owners with the MLS? Prizby (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It does really matter. The point is they're just local operators for ticket sales. Who holds the player contracts? Not MLSE, MLS does. A real team would have the player contracts. What does it matter if reporters said that Beckham would own a team or not. They usually don't know what they're talking about when it comes to football in North America. It's likely that they were making reference to his salary rather than any legal standing anyhow.

If MLSE is the "owner" then the Whitecaps FC, who have a team in Vancouver, would own their team and then there's no need to have two separate articles since the ownership group was the same for the second division team and the MLS team. The same can be said for Montreal, where Joey Saputo is the financial interest, Portland and a few other teams. The primary reason that the MLS teams all have their own articles is because they're not their own companies and can't hire or fire a single person without the approval of the leagues and other teams. So it's what you believe is inconsequential. What's important is information that can be referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Best I got right now is a blog that has ownership of any team at 51% for the MLS, and 49% for the "operator" of the team...but one of these days, i will find something that can be referenced Prizby (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Team records

It's common to distinguish inactive players from active with bold text for the latter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)