It hardly matters, but if you have the energy to still argue with CFL fans about this here’s the facts:
When they say it’s common to share facilities in MLS and that it works for the Whitecaps and Lions:
First off, BC Place is widely viewed as the worst surface in the league. Secondly, the Caps badly wanted to spend their own money to build a soccer only stadium. They spent years trying to do just that. The bizarre NIMBY politics of the Lower Mainland prevented them from doing so. Again, the plan was for a 100 percent PRIVATELY funded stadium. Instead they got stuck in BC Place.
From a league wide MLS stand point only one of 20 stadiums is both grass and also shares football. And the football it shares is college, not pro. The season is shorter; the players are smaller. Football/soccer ground shares are not the norm in MLS. They aren’t close to the norm.
In fact, only five of 20* stadiums in MLS permanently share football and soccer. The move has consistently been away from that model. *Two stadiums -- Citrus Bowl and Yankee Stadium -- are temporarily sharing football and baseball. In both cases the teams are actively looking to build soccer only or mostly facilities. Regular pro or college football will not be a part of any deal in either NYC or Orlando.
As for the "tax payer" argument, as written above, $55-m of public money has been spent ALL-TIME on soccer stadiums. Close to a billion on CFL stadiums since 2010.
Although you can find extreme positions on both sides of this, for most soccer fans (and it's about soccer, not TFC. This is a national issue that reflects national challenges and attitudes that hold the sport back in all parts of the country) this is not about sharing the facility. It's about very real concerns about the integrity of the playing surface. It does not take very much research to debunk the promise of zero impact that Tim Leiweke is making (and that's just one article about one game on a pitch that had a fraction of the football use they are planning at BMO). There is next to no evidence the surface they are talking about will work. And, if it doesn’t what’s the alternative?
So, it comes down to this: Is there a way to share the facility without sharing the pitch?
At least one ARGOS writer thinks so.
Why is no one talking about this? Why is this, not risking the integrity of the soccer surface (and, apparently the CFL surface if you read that link), not the plan?
Speaking as a soccer fan that lives in Toronto, I’m willing to accommodate the changes to the stadium that bringing the Argos in would require so long as the integrity of the playing surface was 100 percent guaranteed.
#2Surfaces1Stadium
That’s a battle that can still be won and that can unite both TFC and Argos fans.