Massive Attack Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Jul. 23, 2003. 01:00 AM http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1058911810783&call_pageid=1044529386722&col=1044529386490 Facility would boost game FIFA's Warner pushes high-tech stadium here Bid to host world youth tournament could be scuttled NORMAN DA COSTA SPORTS REPORTER If Trinidad and Tobago with a population of 1.2 million could build five new state-of-the-art facilities for a world junior soccer tournament in 2001, why can't Toronto build just one? That is what Jack Warner, the powerful vice-president of FIFA, asked after the Canadian Soccer Association unveiled plans for an $82 million, 30,000-seat National Sports Stadium on Monday. When asked if Canada was a Third World country when it came to facilities, Warner said, "I wouldn't like to say so, but that has been said.'' Warner, a Trinidadian who doubles as president of the 38-nation CONCACAF region which includes Canada, said he would support Canada's bid to host the 2007 under-20 men's world championship. It's expected the stadium would be open by 2006. Trinidad and Tobago has also bid to host the tournament, but Warner said he would withdraw in favour of Canada. The under-20 tournament is FIFA's second-most watched event after the World Cup and has produced such superstars as Luis Figo of Portugal and Argentina's Diego Maradona and Javier Saviola. Canada's bid, though, will be scuttled if the stadium is not built. The CSA is asking both the federal and provincial governments for $31 million each and nearly $10 million from the City of Toronto in land and tax breaks. Warner added that he would use his influence as president of CONCACAF to get some top-flight matches moved here, including bringing in European teams during the off-season. At the moment, Manchester United, Glasgow Celtic, Juventus, FC Barcelona and Mexico's Club America are playing in the United States. Warner was instrumental in persuading FIFA to give the CSA a grant of $600,000 for the stadium feasibility study. "We believe it is important that Toronto gets this stadium because it is the corporate capital and the media capital of the country,'' added Warner. Toronto has not had a decent soccer stadium since Varsity Stadium was demolished a couple of years ago, resulting in international matches being shifted to Edmonton's Commonwealth Stadium, which can hold 68,000. Locally, Birchmount and Centennial stadiums hold under 3,000 and that isn't big enough for international competition. A week ago Canada's national women's team played before 12,000 at Molson Stadium in Montreal and over 18,000 at Ottawa's Frank Clair Stadium. "We are no longer comfortable playing in stadiums with 3,000 seats,'' said Kevan Pipe, executive officer of the CSA. "Our registration next year will grow to a million, of which more than 300,000 will be playing in the GTA,'' added Pipe. "What we are asking is to give us a place for these youngsters to play in. "There is a gap in the infrastructure of this city and this is what we intend to fill,'' added Pipe. "At the same time we cannot continue to ignore the need of summer sport for the future of international games.'' Canada's national men's team hasn't played at home in two years and this has upset coach Holger Osieck. "Where else in the world would you see this?'' he asked. "Our team has become invisible because we play abroad all the time. "It is imperative that a stadium is built and I see no reason why it shouldn't. We will get the support of the ethnic base in the GTA for our matches.'' Even Pellerud, coach of the women's squad that will play in this year's World Cup, said it was frustrating his team couldn't play more often in Toronto. "It is important to realize that soccer is making huge strides here and a stadium will help.'' If the facility is built, the CSA expects Major League Soccer (MLS) and Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA) teams to use it, along with A-League Toronto Lynx. The national men's and women's teams would schedule about six internationals a year. The stadium would also cater for the CFL's Argos, rugby, lacrosse, field hockey and university sports. ------------------------- "As soon as you're born you start dying, So you might as well have a good time." Sheep Go To Heaven - Cake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Sorry this is getting to be one big laugh or nightmare. Warner, a Trinidadian who doubles as president of the 38-nation CONCACAF region which includes Canada, said he would support Canada's bid to host the 2007 under-20 men's world championship. It's expected the stadium would be open by 2006. -like he was a big supporter of our bid to co-host the Women's World Cup in Edmonton. Probably has no right to vote in any event and probably knows that we don't have a hope in winning it with 1 grass stadium in Edmonton. Field Turf maybe getting better, but no tv executive in Europe is going to buy into it, does show or look good on tv as well as a grass pitch. Our registration next year will grow to a million, of which more than 300,000 will be playing in the GTA,'' added Pipe. "What we are asking is to give us a place for these youngsters to play in. --our youngsters need a league to play in not, not a 30,000 stadium to play in. You would need this size stadium for international matches not local kids games. Canada's national men's team hasn't played at home in two years and this has upset coach Holger Osieck. --the reason given before is that there was no grass stadium in Toronto. If Field Turf is now acceptable why not arrange home games in Ottawa or Montreal which have Field Turf. The stadium would also cater for the CFL's Argos, rugby, lacrosse, field hockey and university sports. -The Stadium will not cater to International Soccer or Rugby or field hockey. Lets mislead people here. It would be highly doubtful that any Rugby international would be played on Field Turf. Yes, it will cater to CFL and MLS and university sports, but do we want this for our National Soccer Stadium, no we want this stadium for hosting international friendlies and to host international tournaments which we will not be able to do if the pitch is on Field Turf. This was a golden opportunity to create a world class stadium that would have been a gem for the soccer community and could have been used for soccer/rugby international matches. Now, it seems we have a general purpose stadium that the CSA wants kids to play in. The CSA has sold out the soccer community, and isn't representing its members across Canada that need a national soccer stadium. It is representing at best the interests of an MLS owner. How can the CSA be representing all of Canadian soccer when international friendlies and matches in this stadium are doubtful. If International friendlies are ok on Field Turf well lets have some top European clubs come to Canada and play next summer in Ottawa and Montreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 You can't build a league without sufficent infastructure in place. That's always been the achilles hell of any league proposal, even with the money behind it. As for Ottawa and Monteal: They may have good upgrades, but they are still old stadiums. Frank Clair was first built in 1908 with Molson Stadium in 1916. It has been mentioned on this board that the last time the MNT played in Frank Clair, the reviews weren't that impressive. Edmonton has the space, but the isolation is the problem. A handful of US destinations is about it. All European or Asian travel is eith seasonal or non-existant. Toronto is the hub of the airline world in Canada. Having a modern stadium only improves the situation. As for the FieldTurf: If there are any complaints, they can do what's been done in Seattle until attitudes change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Doyle there were complaints about Frank Clair by the Dutch because the turf was Field Turf. The CSA does not have the money to put temporary grass down for friendlies or international events at 250,000 a pop. The issue seems to be go with Field Turf sell the stad as 24 hour venue for everyone and University or go with grass and sell the stad as an world class facility for cfl/soccer/rugby matches. What I am saying is the revenue foregone or costs of grass are greatly outweighed by the increased revenue to be generated by being able to stage international events at this stadium. Think of the amount of Sportsnet is willing to pay to televize a women's match against Brazil on grass vs. Field Turf. I don't know about you, but in my mind the match on grass in Edmonton vs. Brazil was much more professional looking same why the match MU v. Celtic was on grass because it more professional from a marketing and television point of view. The same reason all international national stadiums are grass look at New Wembley, Stad du France, National Stadium in Sydney all on grass. Probably why Mls has gone with soccer specific and grass because its more professional looking. We have to look at the big picture when evaluating costs and potential revenues including tv revenue and winning international events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Doyle there were complaints about Frank Clair by the Dutch because the turf was Field Turf. The CSA does not have the money to put temporary grass down for friendlies or international events at 250,000 a pop. The issue seems to be go with Field Turf sell the stad as 24 hour venue for everyone and University or go with grass and sell the stad as an world class facility for cfl/soccer/rugby matches. What I am saying is the revenue foregone or costs of grass are greatly outweighed by the increased revenue to be generated by being able to stage international events at this stadium. Think of the amount of Sportsnet is willing to pay to televize a women's match against Brazil on grass vs. Field Turf. I don't know about you, but in my mind the match on grass in Edmonton vs. Brazil was much more professional looking same why the match MU v. Celtic was on grass because it more professional from a marketing and television point of view. The same reason all international national stadiums are grass look at New Wembley, Stad du France, National Stadium in Sydney all on grass. Probably why Mls has gone with soccer specific and grass because its more professional looking. We have to look at the big picture when evaluating costs and potential revenues including tv revenue and winning international events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Moosehead Doyle there were complaints about Frank Clair by the Dutch because the turf was Field Turf. The CSA does not have the money to put temporary grass down for friendlies or international events at 250,000 a pop. The issue seems to be go with Field Turf sell the stad as 24 hour venue for everyone and University or go with grass and sell the stad as an world class facility for cfl/soccer/rugby matches. What I am saying is the revenue foregone or costs of grass are greatly outweighed by the increased revenue to be generated by being able to stage international events at this stadium. Think of the amount of Sportsnet is willing to pay to televize a women's match against Brazil on grass vs. Field Turf. I don't know about you, but in my mind the match on grass in Edmonton vs. Brazil was much more professional looking same why the match MU v. Celtic was on grass because it more professional from a marketing and television point of view. The same reason all international national stadiums are grass look at New Wembley, Stad du France, National Stadium in Sydney all on grass. Probably why Mls has gone with soccer specific and grass because its more professional looking. We have to look at the big picture when evaluating costs and potential revenues including tv revenue and winning international events. You haven't seen how bad the Commonwealth surface can get. The the '96 Olympic qualifiers were played on it just after a harsh winter. The field looked like what you'd might see in Jamacia or Central America. Complaints also showed up during the Grey Cup. Some people were even suggesting that FieldTurf be put in. New Wembley, Stade de France, and Stadium Australia don't have a long string of tennants that would wear out the field in a short period of time. Unless you have a top notch grounds crew, it's pointless to have grass on a regular basis. The IRB has stated in it's rules book that it's acceptable to have an artifical surface as long it is one that meets it's approval. No doubt FieldTurf is such a surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG You can't build a league without sufficent infastructure in place. What frigging league? There was nothing in this proposal about building a league. You complain that the stadiums that Moosehead quotes are old. So what? They are still going to be old if this proposed new stadium get built, so any league is still going to be filled with old stadiums. "As nothing in this life that I've been trying could equal or surpass the art of dying"-George Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulV Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead What frigging league? MLS, of course. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by PaulV MLS, of course. :-( But Doyle staes "you can't BUILD a league" with these old stadiums? Why are we trying to build the MLS? "As nothing in this life that I've been trying could equal or surpass the art of dying"-George Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead But Doyle staes "you can't BUILD a league" with these old stadiums? Why are we trying to build the MLS? K-Head Try Decaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulV Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead But Doyle staes "you can't BUILD a league" with these old stadiums? Why are we trying to build the MLS? Well, I half meant it tongue-in-cheek but since the CSA has stated that they want an MLS franchise in Toronto it makes sense that if this stadium is going to build any "league", it will be the MLS and not a domestic one. I personally would prefer otherwise, but that seems to be what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.