Field Turf

[ted]

Having now finally played a couple of times on the new Field Turf recently installed at UVic I have to say WOW!

It played very nicely (for my limited skills in pick-up games.) The ball bounced less than on the hard dirt (supposedly grass training fields for soccer/rugby) we often play on. I took a long slide on my leg and arm and had no friction burn or scrapes and running on this surface...I can only say that while I may not be a pro athlete running on this stuff felt wonderful on my normally protesting joints in part because it had some give and in part because I did not have to contend with the usual divots and bumps that make our normal pitch a minefield.

Those complaining about the turf choice for the new stadium should try this stuff out before making any more derogatory statements. Now yes there is a perception problem with the turf but the more it gets used the more players will accept it.

Odd that in Victoria, perhaps the best climate in Canada for natural grass, the best pitch in town may be artificial turf. [:0]

Ted

Fort Victoria Voyageurs

http://www.victoriasoccer.net/fort

[DarnCherry]

quote:Originally posted by ted

Having now finally played a couple of times on the new Field Turf recently installed at UVic I have to say WOW!

It played very nicely (for my limited skills in pick-up games.) The ball bounced less than on the hard dirt (supposedly grass training fields for soccer/rugby) we often play on. I took a long slide on my leg and arm and had no friction burn or scrapes and running on this surface...I can only say that while I may not be a pro athlete running on this stuff felt wonderful on my normally protesting joints in part because it had some give and in part because I did not have to contend with the usual divots and bumps that make our normal pitch a minefield.

Those complaining about the turf choice for the new stadium should try this stuff out before making any more derogatory statements. Now yes there is a perception problem with the turf but the more it gets used the more players will accept it.

Odd that in Victoria, perhaps the best climate in Canada for natural grass, the best pitch in town may be artificial turf. [:0]

Ted

Fort Victoria Voyageurs

http://www.victoriasoccer.net/fort

Okay it seems this has to be explained once again. The people complaining about the new turf choice for Toronto's stadium are not complaining because we think it's so horrible. We are complaining because the teams that Canada will be trying to convince to play in this stadium will think it's horrible and won't wan't to play on it.

I've been on fielturf pitches. They are nice and sexy. I just don't think that we should have our national stadium use it. It's just that Canada is too lazy and cheap to actually want to spend the time to upkeep a real grass field.

Besides this proposal is not a national stadium for soccer it's just another multipurpose facility.

"As nothing in this life that I've been trying

could equal or surpass the art of dying"-George Harrison

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead

Besides this proposal is not a national stadium for soccer it's just another multipurpose facility.

And thats the major reason that if it is in Toronto it will have turf of some type. Real grass for a MULTI-PURPOSE stadium just does not make economic sense.

[The Ref]

So why does it have to be Multi-purpose. Isn't the multi-cultural soccer community in Toronto large enough to fill it just with soccer.

[DarnCherry]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Ault

And thats the major reason that if it is in Toronto it will have turf of some type. Real grass for a MULTI-PURPOSE stadium just does not make economic sense.

Thats the point I was making. It's not a national stadium, but a multipurpose stadium for Toronto, so pay for it yourselves.

"As nothing in this life that I've been trying

could equal or surpass the art of dying"-George Harrison

[sstackho]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

So why does it have to be Multi-purpose. Isn't the multi-cultural soccer community in Toronto large enough to fill it just with soccer.

No.

'Shawn' on the old board...

[Moosehead]

To Bill:

Then the CSA should come clean with Canadian people and the City of Toronto and Federal Government and say that it will not be suitable for international soccer or Rugby and inform them of that loss of revenue and prestige for the City and country.

You can also inform an Mls owner that his franchise will likely fail, as the Euro soccer fans would not be happy watching a soccer game with masses of slightly faded CFL lines as the Toronto University Football team just played 10 min ago and they couldn't probably prepare the pitch. Soccer is a tough sell in Toronto and would be an even tougher sell in a Fifa Turf public all purpose use stadium.

[Moosehead]

sorry, that should read Fieldturf and not Fifa Turf. I'm getting to excited.

[Bill Ault]

quote:

Then the CSA should come clean with Canadian people and the City of Toronto and Federal Government and say that it will not be suitable for international soccer or Rugby and inform them of that loss of revenue and prestige for the City and country.

They could - they won't and with over a half dozen internationals now having been played in Ottawa alone on FieldTurf I think the times they may be a changing as far as this goes. I'm willing to peer into the crystal ball and say at least a few of Canada's upcoming World Cup Qualifiers for 2006 will be played at Frank Clair. Is it perfect? No. Is it reality in many countries? Yes. - This is the world's game and surprisingly, to many it seems, natural grass just does not grow well in some places on this planet.

If the artificial surfaces continue to improve (and I've played and trained on almost all different types sinces the 80s) they may in fact one day become the norm. As a player, coach and fan do I ever want to see that - no - there is nothing like playing on a perfect grass field. Having said that, unfortunately in Canada I know of two, no three natural surfaces that qualify for that category.

Soccer in this country needs facilities especially at the grassroots level, I'm not talking 30,000 seat stadiums - I'm talking fields with bleachers for friends and family. My personal belief is that the artificial surface offers the owners and designers of these type of facilities the most bang for the buck. You put lights on a artificial surface you can use it 24h a day - you put lights on a natural grass surface you might get fours hours of use five days a week without destroying it.

Is natural grass the way to go for a national soccer stadium? Yes but I don't think that is the question - IMO the question is do we need an $80 million dollar facility in Toronto or 80 $1 million dollar (the approximate price of a arificial surface)facilities across the country? I think the latter - lets improve the basic infrastructure before building the Taj Mahal.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Moosehead

To Bill:

Then the CSA should come clean with Canadian people and the City of Toronto and Federal Government and say that it will not be suitable for international soccer or Rugby and inform them of that loss of revenue and prestige for the City and country.

You can also inform an Mls owner that his franchise will likely fail, as the Euro soccer fans would not be happy watching a soccer game with masses of slightly faded CFL lines as the Toronto University Football team just played 10 min ago and they couldn't probably prepare the pitch. Soccer is a tough sell in Toronto and would be an even tougher sell in a Fifa Turf public all purpose use stadium.

[?][?][?]

What "loss of prestige for the City & Country"? We are already considered a 3rd world Country by soccer facility standards & Toronto's prestige for having nothing but a crap-hole in the middle of nowhere to play soccer is at an all-time low. You really think the city is in general is going to feel less prestige because a new state-of the art facility is built in the city, all because the surface is fieldturf? Most people in the city are not that hung up over the issue, trust me.

By the way, the Euro-snobs you are referring to in Toronto are the type that likely wouldn't come out to see the MLS in any event - they exist in every US MLS city as well, but those teams still tend to pull in decent crowds of 15,000. That doesn't mean the MLS team in Toronto would fail, or that Euro-Ethnic based fans (who aren't snobs) wouldn't come out to the MLS. They used to all the time in the NASL days & this would be considered by most in the area as the modern-day equivalent of the NASL.

I can also remind you that the Toronto Blizzard's best season attendance-wise was at Exhibition Stadium in 1980, and guess what surface that stadium had?

Even the wolf can learn. Even the sheep can turn. Even the frog can become at last the prince. - Peter Hammill, Over (1977)

[DoyleG]

The had Kevin Pipe of 630 CHED here last night. They did replay part of the interview as a I drove out to the airport today to pick up family.

He stated that being "FIFA Reccomended" does allow for the major competitions to be held on it. So holding WCQ's at Frank Clair is an option. He also stated that Molson Stadium should be getting the same classification soon.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Ault

unfortunately in Canada I know of two, no three natural surfaces that qualify for that category.

IMO the question is do we need an $80 million dollar facility in Toronto or 80 $1 million dollar (the approximate price of a arificial surface)facilities across the country? I think the latter - lets improve the basic infrastructure before building the Taj Mahal.

Only three natural surface fields in Canada? Every single pitch in Canada has grass with maybe three exceptions. Just the opposite of what you say.

You would rather build 80 fieldturf facilites just because you like it and to improve the "basic infrastructure". I am disappointed with your thinking. Or maybe you got shares in the tire industry.

[ted]

Having read all the posts on this topic (and several scattered on this forum and the old one) it seems to me that the concern basically boils down to: will top teams play on Field Turf c. 2006?

The answer for even the most dedicated grass advocate has to be: Yes they will.

MY INFALLIBLE PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE (save to humiliate me in three years): Whether it is the current product or an even better version of today's product, in three years there will not be a top level team that will hesitate to play on the surface proposed.

So I see no reason not to support the stadium if that is the only issue.

BTW I also see no reason why people cannot keep advocating grass be put in. After all, I do not think it would be technologically prohibitive to change to grass closer to the completion date even if it is not in the plans now.

So let us debate the stadium question without wasting any more time on the straw man of grass/field turf please.

Ted

Fort Victoria Voyageurs

http://www.victoriasoccer.net/fort

[Moosehead]

Why do you think that Ted? What are you basing that assumption on that the technology will be there? We have to base it on what we know now and not on speculation. I doubt much will change in 2 years to the technology of Field Turf and its not necessarily the technology thats in issue its whether other nations will play on it and whether it will be acceptable from a marketing and television point of view. I don't think Brazil would be happy beaming pictures of a friendly between Canada and Brazil with all the half washed out CFl lines on the Field Turf.

Imagine if the NHl went and played a friendly in Europe, on some new modern surface and there was visible non hockey lines all over the place. We would be outraged and it would effect the marketability of that television product in Canada.

Its not necessarily about us, its about other countries and what they think and what their culture is. We need to respect it, as soccer is world game.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Moosehead

Why do you think that Ted? What are you basing that assumption on that the technology will be there? We have to base it on what we know now and not on speculation. I doubt much will change in 2 years to the technology of Field Turf and its not necessarily the technology thats in issue its whether other nations will play on it and whether it will be acceptable from a marketing and television point of view. I don't think Brazil would be happy beaming pictures of a friendly between Canada and Brazil with all the half washed out CFl lines on the Field Turf.

Imagine if the NHl went and played a friendly in Europe, on some new modern surface and there was visible non hockey lines all over the place. We would be outraged and it would effect the marketability of that television product in Canada.

Its not necessarily about us, its about other countries and what they think and what their culture is. We need to respect it, as soccer is world game.

The visible lines and Field Turf do not necessarily go hand in hand. You can't judge the surface by the fact that Ottawa didn't have time to do a proper job of it. I tend to agree with Ted that the ball is rolling towards acceptance. And from a fans point of view, a grass field versus a field turf field, provided markings are not an issue, is unnoticable. And really, once FIFA OKs WCQ to be held on the surface, resistence will be gone within a few years. Its like Argentina playing a friendly in Cardiff... they did it to get used to the dome. It'll happen. Now, that doesn't change the fact that I would prefer grass, and I can say the grass in Taylor Field in 1976 was a significantly better playing surface than any of the fake turf they have put in since. But operating costs are operating costs, and at the end of the day, Governments will readily fork out capital dollars but are loathe to commit to ongoing operating costs. And ifthe CSA is to get the funding they want, they will have to show that governements willnot be onthe hook fo rthe annual operating expenses.

The opinions expressed above are just that.

[Bill Ault]

quote:

You would rather build 80 fieldturf facilites just because you like it and to improve the "basic infrastructure". I am disappointed with your thinking. Or maybe you got shares in the tire industry.

What I was saying was that there were only three "perfect" grass surfaces in Canada - I've been around long enough to have seen most of them grass or otherwise in this great country. As for the tire industry no but I do think that for heavy use, quality surface this is the way to go.

[Moosehead]

Again we are making some assumptions that are pretty dangerous to make when we are building a 84 million facility. If the stadium is going to be marketed as 24 hour use then I would say the Fieldturf cannot be guaranteed to not have CFL lines as the same thing that happened in Ottawa will occur again.

What operating costs are we talking about and how significant more would they be? Are we prepared to risk not staging Rugby internationals and top international soccer over a few thousand extra dollars in operating costs?

I would bet that the Fieldturf companies make a lot of promises beforehand and then once the surface is down I am sure there are still a lot of operating costs. I am sure the time and cost in removing Cfl lines properly would be high such that the costs v. grass would not be that significant and once you factor the more professional looking grass from a television perspective, I would say that grass is the way to go. I am assuming that there is a reason for the Mls opting for grass.

I suppose if the stadium will be municipally or Provincial owned and run then somehow the benefits and extra revenue to the City and Province would have to be explained to offset their concers over (likely minimal) operating costs.

[Moosehead]

"And from a fans point of view, a grass field versus a field turf field, provided markings are not an issue, is unnoticable."

I disagree with this. As a fan I found the games at Commonwealth far more professional looking than the friendlies at Frank Clair. The pitch was a big reason in that. The first game in Ottawa the pitch looked like carpet and there was bits of rubber flying all over the place which was distracting. The second game I saw at Frank Clair, there was several Cfl lines all over the place. I hope for our sake that we can still get friendlies with the Brazil Women's National team.

However, maybe I am too picky of a fan, but from my perspective as a fan is that I am less likely to come back as television viewer if the experience is not up to professional standard.

[Bill Ault]

quote:I am assuming that there is a reason for the Mls opting for grass.

Indeed a primary tenant that uses the facility 20 times per season and for the most part a climate that is more conducive to growing grass most of the season. Again would I prefer natural grass - yes - is it practical - IMO no. Obviously some agree some don't - enough said on my part in any case.

[Canuck Oranje]

Reluctantly wading into the natural grass versus field Turf debate, there is trade off here being overlooked.

First if you build an $80 million facility, you need to justify $80 million on one field. If you build a $20 million facility, you need to justify that amount on one field. That means you need 4 times the revenue from the $80 million facility assuming it is scalable in that way. So 4 times the use is required on the $80 million facility to have the two equal.

The requirement for artificial turf in the $80 million facility has not as much to do with field maintenance than it does excessive use to justify the cost. So the question is, what kind of facility can you get for $20 million. From what I have read Nsaliwa's new club Jahn Regensburg is proposing a 10 million Euro facility seating 15,000 with natural grass to be ready in 2006. That also had the ability to be expanded. Construction Labour in Germany is likely to be more expensive than in Canada too.

To the extreme, most if not all youth soccer pitches are natural grass. That in itself suggests that the cost of maintenance is not a problem. Overuse is.

Furthermore, how often, realistically, would a 15,000 seat stadium be sold out if it was soccer only? And if you had the ability to add 5,000-10,000 temporary stands for the odd occasion?

I have seen natural grass pitches that would make you drool in small villages in the Netherlands. All we need to add that they get naturally is irrigation. Heck, we can build some beautiful fairways on golf courses why not a natural soccer pitch.

I guess I am getting the sense that we are being told there is no other option. Personally, I think we are ignoring some very feasible natural grass options. Only they don't involve a 30,000 seat stadium (at least not immediately).

[Moosehead]

Quote:

"First if you build an $80 million facility, you need to justify $80 million on one field. If you build a $20 million facility, you need to justify that amount on one field. That means you need 4 times the revenue from the $80 million facility assuming it is scalable in that way. So 4 times the use is required on the $80 million facility to have the two equal".

4 times the revenue maybe required but that does not equate to needing 4 times the use paticularly if the use is local soccer/football clubs vs. a few international quality friendlies for Soccer and Rugby. More use to not equal more revenue when the more use will eliminate big time international events.

I agree with the rest of your post which has very good points.

[Canuck Oranje]

I recognize it is not that simple but let's be realistic. Big time international events? do we have any in the bag? Like Copps Coliseum, build it and we will have the NHL.. and it never came

Also build a small one that suits our needs now.. when we can justify it 5-10 years down the road, build another.

Besides a 15,000 seat stadium would be suitable for OUAA and Ontario Cup finals as well as Lynx games and other city and provincial championships. Many of these may not be suitable for a larger facility.

quote:Originally posted by Moosehead

Quote:

"First if you build an $80 million facility, you need to justify $80 million on one field. If you build a $20 million facility, you need to justify that amount on one field. That means you need 4 times the revenue from the $80 million facility assuming it is scalable in that way. So 4 times the use is required on the $80 million facility to have the two equal".

4 times the revenue maybe required but that does not equate to needing 4 times the use paticularly if the use is local soccer/football clubs vs. a few international quality friendlies for Soccer and Rugby. More use to not equal more revenue when the more use will eliminate big time international events.

I agree with the rest of your post which has very good points.

[Guest Georgio]

I think what CanuckOrange is saying makes alot of sense or should I say cents (sorry). It should be no problem at all to build a 15,000 capacity soccer specific stadium that can be built apon in the most corporate and highest government funded city in Canada. One that is used solely for Soccer and Rugby Internationals, pro soccer and very elite amateur soccer playoff finals that attract crowds. A respectable looking field turf pitch (with some nice bleachers) could be layed down off to the side and used by all these other sporting organizations and as another option for the National Teams to practice on. All this for at most 1/3 the cost. And we'd have a stadium whose atmosphere (fan per capacity ratio) would be great for whatever current and prospective competion (A-League, Elite amateur playoffs, MLS, International). The stadium would grow with the inevitable growth of soccer in Canada.

Really how hard could it be for an architect to make sure there is available space outside the stadium and a sufficiently solid, well engineered base of seating to accomodate any expansion? And the irrigation bit is a great point as well.

This is the progressive thinking and is what is been lacking in the Canadian soccer world in the past. Someone has a dream of a new League or a new Stadium and they go big without the proper forethought. This is why I like the CPSL West idea as well (without someone like minorsoccer who's reputation is what ruins an otherwise great idea).

It's building from the bottom up, not providing a huge and often unnattainble goal that leaves soccer organizations always trying to fill a void (infrastructure and cost wise) - in this case with every type of sport that uses a fieldlike playing surface.

Do you guys think the CSA could have went more of a corporate route in T.O. with this and it would be successfull??? If all these other stadiums can be built in the U.S. based on this, why not in T.O.?? An already established league (MLS) could be the reason for corporate acceptance in the U.S, but I think Canada's only true international soccer stadium that most sports media would be clammoring over for game coverage sounds pretty prestigious.

[Canuck Oranje]

I don't know if anyone remembers when all the community hockey arenas were being condemned during the 1970s. Many small towns in Ontario were faced with no hockey arena. At that time, the Wintario lottery was established in part because of this issue. If I remember correctly, the Ontario government would cover 75% of the cost of building an arena but the community needed to find the remaining 25%.

As a result of this program, there was a time when you would see a fundraising thermometer at almost every small town post office. Some communities smaller than 2,000 people successfully raised amounts greater than $200,000. Put into that context the proposed stadium and its 100% government financing proposal.

The corporate donation route needs to be explored. Naming rights, corporate employee fund raisers and others all can be used to raise funds.

Further on the field turf vs natural grass debate, one group of stakeholders that has not been considered sufficiently is the fan. If we characterize TO soccer fans as "Old country" centric, would it not also be likely that they are also "old school" soccer fans. That would suggest to me that they are more likely to want to see high quality soccer played on grass. These are not necessarily ethnocentric fans but fans of pure high quality soccer. A good comparison is the trend back to "old school" stadiums in baseball (smaller but natural grass). If our ultimate goal is to attract TO fans to stadiums in Canada, why do we insist on creating barriers, real or imagined?

Of course, the bigger challenge is proving that our soccer is high quality.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Georgio

Do you guys think the CSA could have went more of a corporate route in T.O. with this and it would be successfull??? If all these other stadiums can be built in the U.S. based on this, why not in T.O.?? An already established league (MLS) could be the reason for corporate acceptance in the U.S, but I think Canada's only true international soccer stadium that most sports media would be clammoring over for game coverage sounds pretty prestigious.

No. There are significant differences between corporate culture in Canada and the United States. In Canada the culture is to whine about taxes and put as little back into the community as is possible. In the United States, the culture is to whine about taxes and put something back into the community (Arts, Education, Sports), albeit often targeted towards the sectors that least need it. Tragically, this difference extends also to the uberwealthy, although in Canada, the uberwealthy do pay significantly more taxes. There is absolutely no way that a Stadium in Toronto would attract any significant Corporate interest, and even naming rights will go for a meagre amount. Also, in the United States, for reasons that defy explanation, the public sector is more than willing to subsidize professional sports teams to the tune of millions, simply to have the sports team in their community. Note that one the of MLS Stadiums has a local school board participating to the tune of $10,000,000. Think that would happen in Canada? And thank goodness it doesn't, I say. But there is no excuse for the corporate element.

The opinions expressed above are just that.