Free kick Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 quote:Originally posted by jay2008 This is how it mosy likely will shape up. Group A (Toronto/Hamilton) Group B (Ottawa/Montreal) Group c (Calgary/Edmonton) Group D (Victoria/Vancouver) There are six groups of four teams in the U20 WC not four groups. What I cannot understand is how the CSA figures it can manage with just six venues given that the final matches of the group stage in Fifa tournaments have to be played at the same time. This is the result of the "W.Ger-Aut 1982" rule. if teh final group stage matches are played over three days, then you have four games played at time in nearby locations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 While I support the bid by Victoria I am going to have to see if I can make any headway with the bid committee on the issue of Centennial Stadium. [My apologies to those outside Victoria who are tired of one on my favorite "windmill" topics. Please skip ahead.] 'What issue?' you might ask. The fact that Centennial is a s***hole for soccer owned by an organization that will make no good use of the chance to upgrade the facilities as presented by this tournament. I would much rather they redeveloped Royal Athletic Park, an urban, football-friendly stadium that could benefit enormously from ANY investment. CENTENNIAL STADIUM Owner: University of Victoria Capacity: 5,000 (3,000 on wooden benches with no backs, 2,000 bucket seats without cover.) Field: Excellent quality Sightlines: full-size Olympic track around field makes closest spectators in main stand 25-30 yards away Concessions: antiquated, volunteer-run food services in main stand only. Scoreboard: Barely functional, text-only Possible Benefits: UVic has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to allow any upgrades or alterations that may cost them a penny in maintenance or give even an appearance of supporting athletics beyond the bare bones. All seating installed to bring the numbers up to required levels would be temporary. In 1994 they refused to accept an offer to allow extra seating to remain in place FREE OF CHARGE that would have made any additonal seating for 2007 unneccesary. ROYAL ATHLETIC PARK Owner: City of Victoria Capacity: 4,000 (officially 5,000, more realistically: all wooden benches, 2,500 with back under cover, 1,500 without backs or cover.) Field: poor quality from over use and under-maintenance Sightlines: Excellent football specific field with closest seats 5-10 yards away. Concessions: limited city-run food services in main stand only. Scoreboard: ancient, able to display score and time only Possible Benefits: A renovated publicly-owned stadium in the heart of Greater Victoria could provide benefits for a number of minor league sports teams. A modern scoreboard, some addtional permanent seating and upgraded concessions would be well-used in years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 While I support the bid by Victoria I am going to have to see if I can make any headway with the bid committee on the issue of Centennial Stadium. [My apologies to those outside Victoria who are tired of one on my favorite "windmill" topics. Please skip ahead.] 'What issue?' you might ask. The fact that Centennial is a s***hole for soccer owned by an organization that will make no good use of the chance to upgrade the facilities as presented by this tournament. I would much rather they redeveloped Royal Athletic Park, an urban, football-friendly stadium that could benefit enormously from ANY investment. CENTENNIAL STADIUM Owner: University of Victoria Capacity: 5,000 (3,000 on wooden benches with no backs, 2,000 bucket seats without cover.) Field: Excellent quality Sightlines: full-size Olympic track around field makes closest spectators in main stand 25-30 yards away Concessions: antiquated, volunteer-run food services in main stand only. Scoreboard: Barely functional, text-only Possible Benefits: UVic has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to allow any upgrades or alterations that may cost them a penny in maintenance or give even an appearance of supporting athletics beyond the bare bones. All seating installed to bring the numbers up to required levels would be temporary. In 1994 they refused to accept an offer to allow extra seating to remain in place FREE OF CHARGE that would have made any additonal seating for 2007 unneccesary. ROYAL ATHLETIC PARK Owner: City of Victoria Capacity: 4,000 (officially 5,000, more realistically: all wooden benches, 2,500 with back under cover, 1,500 without backs or cover.) Field: poor quality from over use and under-maintenance Sightlines: Excellent football specific field with closest seats 5-10 yards away. Concessions: limited city-run food services in main stand only. Scoreboard: ancient, able to display score and time only Possible Benefits: A renovated publicly-owned stadium in the heart of Greater Victoria could provide benefits for a number of minor league sports teams. A modern scoreboard, some addtional permanent seating and upgraded concessions would be well-used in years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonfan Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 quote:Originally posted by G-Man Building a stadium specificly for a W-league team is INSANE. Montreal last a year. Ottawa draws about 500 a game with probably one of the best run W-league teams. Hopefully the stadium in London won't be a 10,000 seater. Nor should London get a U-20 game when Toronto is a few hours away. G-Man, I think it would be great for Canadian Soccer is a 10 000 seat soccer only stadium is built in London. The stadium could play host to London City aswell plus the chance there will be a PDL team in London in 2006 and other events. In the future, when we have some sort of pro leauge a 10 000 seated soccer stadium will get London a team forsure. Maybe a-league in a few years?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Free kick There are six groups of four teams in the U20 WC not four groups. What I cannot understand is how the CSA figures it can manage with just six venues given that the final matches of the group stage in Fifa tournaments have to be played at the same time. This is the result of the "W.Ger-Aut 1982" rule. if teh final group stage matches are played over three days, then you have four games played at time in nearby locations Example if Ottawa, TO and Montréal each get a group: - Sun: final games in TO and Ottawa - Mon: final games in Ottawa and Montréal - Tue: final games in TO and Montréal Think triangular, people . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Champ Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 quote:Originally posted by jay2008 This is how it mosy likely will shape up. Group A (Toronto/Hamilton) Group B (Ottawa/Montreal) Group c (Calgary/Edmonton) Group D (Victoria/Vancouver) I'll bet a six pack you're wrong about Calgary. NOOOO STAAADIUUUUM!!! AND you got too many cities... it's only six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I have no idea what No. 6 will be. I thought Calgary would be it for sure (and that was what I had heard), but everyone seems to be dismissing their chances. Edmonton, Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal have to be pretty close for locks for the first five. I think the CSA would like an east-west balance so they could have two groups sharing three cities without travel being too big of a burden. Victoria or Winnipeg would both work fine and have done well hosting in the past, but Laval's talk of building new is intruiging. Calgarians, I was at the Stu Peppard Arena and was wondering if the Glenmore Athletic park could be developed for the tourney? It seemed a little out of the way, but there seemed to be a fair bit of space and the one grandstand wasn't a bad start. There's probably a lot of other places to put something together, but I was just wondering. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The information I've heard is that the Calgary bid to be a host city will rely on "refurbishing" a yet-to-be-identified facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 quote:Originally posted by matthew I think the CSA would like an east-west balance so they could have two groups sharing three cities without travel being too big of a burden. Dy'a mean three groups sharing three cities, as there are six groups? On the other hand, Toronto is supposed to get a lions share of the matches ("minumum 11") so that may mean Edmonton and Vancouver sharing 2 Groups, and the others going to the east at 4 venues) ie: Hamilton-Toronto: 3 matches each in one Group (Canada having all 3 Group matches in Toronto) Montreal-Toronto: 5 matches in Montreal, 1 other third in Toronto Ottawa-Toronto: 4 matches Ottawa, 2 Toronto Montreal-Toronto: 3 matches Montreal, 3 matches Toronto 2nd Stage: 1/8's: 1. A1-B3/D3 Vancouver 2. B1-A3/E3/D3 Edmonton 3. B2-A2 Edmonton 4, C1-F3/E3/D3 Toronto 5. C2-E2 Toronto (or in Hamilton if Canada Qulfyng C3) 6. F2-C3/D3 Hamilton ((or in Toronto if Canada Qulfyng C3) 7. E1-F2 Montreal 8.F1-E3/D3 Ottawa Quarters: 9. 1. v. 7 Vancouver 10. 2. v 8 Edmonton 11. 4. v 3 Toronto (or whichever Canada qualifies for, instead of 12.) 12. 5 v. 6 Montreal Semis: 13. 9. v 10. Edmonton 14. 11.. v. 12 Toronto Finals 3/4: Semi losers: Toronto (or in Edmonton if Double-header) 1/2: Edmonton Dream: The CSA convinces FIFA to expand the tournament to 32 teams, and we have 8-12 great venues awarded, including some great new facilities for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Well, 11 games in TO might simply mean they have two 2nd round games, as well as Edmonton. TO: 6 groups, 2 second, 1 quarter, 1 semi, 3rd place = 11 games Edmonton: 6 groups, 2 second, 1 quarter, 1 semi, final = 11 games 2 "prime" venues: 6 groups, 1 second, 1 quarter = 8 games 2 other venues: 6 groups, 1 second = 7 games 2x11 + 2x8 + 2x7 = 22 + 16 + 14 = 52 games I'd be surprised if Toronto gets "a lion's share" of the games, especially with the 6 cities for 6 groups factor. 11 games, maybe 12, unless one Eastern city only gets like 4 or so (Ottawa best candidate because of pre-existing facilities). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 yes I meant three sharing three. As in instead of seeing four teams playing three times in each city, a city would see 16 teams once each. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I for one would like to see the use of Double-headers NOT used this time. It cheapens the importance of the matches. It's better to spread more matches amongst the venues. Having the group matches in close paired cities would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Triangular rotation of group games could be interesting, but I think that for logistic's sake each team will mostly stay in one city. What I'm curious to see is if they'd move Canada's potential 2nd-round games to Edmonton or only have them playing there if they get to the final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 From Hamilton article on previous page: "Adames said the four cities selected will get five dates to cover four doubleheaders and one elimination game." The math is not right, because that means 32 group matches for the 4 awarded "other" cities, leaving only 4 more group matches (one double-header each) for the "main cities" of Toronto and Edmonton. It would be more like two group doubleheaders for each of the "other" four cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel What I'm curious to see is if they'd move Canada's potential 2nd-round games to Edmonton or only have them playing there if they get to the final. What I heard when I was very drunk in a bar from another gentleman who also appeared to be drunk (and this was before Toronto's stadia was on again and off again, etc) was that Canada would open with a game in Toronto (ie the first game of the tourney) and then head to Edmonton where they would stay until the final. I think anything I heard in that conversation has likely been scrapped, but that doesn't mean the basic idea has changed. And yes Toronto and Edmonton possibly sharing a pool makes no sense to me either. Just more idle speculation on my part. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Most possible loops West: Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary Possible Substitue: Victoria East: Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal Possible Substitute: Hamilton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Most possible loops West: Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary Possible Substitue: Victoria East: Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal Possible Substitute: Hamilton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Swangard needs to be upgraded for FIFA By Grant Granger NewsLeader Staff If Swangard Stadium is to be a site for the 2007 FIFA world youth soccer championships the Burnaby facility will need some serious upgrades. The Canadian Soccer Association announced Thursday 11 cities, including Vancouver/Burnaby had submitted letters of intent to bid to become one of four host cities still to be determined for the tournament. Edmonton and Toronto have already been declared sites for two of the six divisional round-robin locations. The B.C. Soccer Association's bid lists four possibilities as locations, including Swangard and Victoria. But FIFA has minimum regulations the Burnaby stadium does not currently meet. Capacity would have to be expanded from 7,000 - which is accomplished with the use of temporary seats - to 10,000. At least three luxury boxes would have to be provided, as would facilities to accommodate at least 100 media members. In the past, when any discussion of expansion of Swangard has been raised, Burnaby, which owns and operates Swangard, has balked because of the impact on Central Park as well as the minimal amount of parking in the area. "It's very difficult for the City of Burnaby to seemingly support professional or international soccer events," said Keith Ryan, executive director of B.C. Soccer. "Even really support any type of event that doesn't directly benefit its citizens because that's their mandate. But they are operators of the best facility the Lower Mainland has at the moment." Other options for B.C. Soccer, said Ryan, were importing grass temporarily into B.C. Place or hoping the Vancouver Whitecaps announce plans to build their own facility, something that has been widely discussed and speculated for the last two years. "At the moment we don't have a stadium that meets the requirements of this bid," said Ryan. "It's a great boon for a city economically that wants to hold it. "We don't have a lot of lead time ... we're going to have to clarify exactly what our stadium intentions would be. The City of Burnaby hasn't had the opportunity to discuss this with us. We'll try and pursue that in the next little while as we will the City of Victoria and potentially the City of Vancouver." Ryan said the championships would be a great festival that would dovetail nicely with organized soccer celebrating 100 years in B.C. Officials bids have to be submitted by April 20 and then presented May 2-3. The CSA will announce the winners May 4. Other cities in the running are Victoria, Calgary, Hamilton, Laval, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec City, Sherbrooke and Winnipeg. sports@burnabynewsleader.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Just to compare the venues for the 2005 WYC in the Netherlands: Doetinchem - capacity 11,000 Vijverberg stadium Emmen - capacity 8,600 Emmen stadium Enschede - capacity 13,500 Enschede stadium Kerkrade - capacity 19,500 The Parkstad Limberg stadium Tilburg - capacity 14,800 The Willem 2 stadium Utrecht - capacity 24,900 Galgenwaard stadium http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/tournament.html?static=20&comp=WYC&year=2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Things have been surprisingly quiet on this front. Last rumour I heard was that Winnipeg may not have enough time to finalize a package for a bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury Things have been surprisingly quiet on this front. Last rumour I heard was that Winnipeg may not have enough time to finalize a package for a bid. This is unfortunate because my preference would be awarding the sites to Montreal, London, Winnipeg and Vancouver. I choose these places because their bids currently involve new soccer facilities (or in the case of Vancouver a new facility or a major upgrade to Swangard. If it's BC Place I don't see the improvement). I'm not keen on places that will provide the tournament good optics (like Ottawa) but no infrastruture improvements in terms of long-term soccer-use for both international and domestic play. However I'm concerned the CSA will want to show the world "big stadiums" (beyond Edmonton and Toronto) rather than being patient and pro-active in helping secure facilities that will grow and nurture the game beyond this tournament. This is an opportunity to partially address one of the country's biggest obstacles in terms of high-level soccer growth: infrastructure. Instead I worry things will be done purely on the basis of impressing an international audience with a shell-game of dressing current facilities up as something they are not: soccer friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay2008 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Part of ottawa's bid is aslo a major upgrade much like vancouvers bid. The plan includes the addtion of 12.000 more seats all of the current seats would be replaced a new press box new suites would be added new dressing rooms would be built.To add in concessons stands would be rebuilt.Aslo the topper is there is plans for a new hotel to be built right on site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by jay2008 Part of ottawa's bid is aslo a major upgrade much like vancouvers bid. The plan includes the addtion of 12.000 more seats all of the current seats would be replaced a new press box new suites would be added new dressing rooms would be built.To add in concessons stands would be rebuilt.Aslo the topper is there is plans for a new hotel to be built right on site. Any links to any of the various cities' plans or proposals would be appreciated:). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Beast Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I can't really believe that Edmonton is going to be a venue, thats all we need the world to see 50,000 empty seats, what a great way to show Canada off. Put the Final in Toronto, the Stadium may be smaller but it will look more impressive filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strobe_z Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Beast.. give it up. Edmonton has proven many times over to be very soccer friendly. They showed up in droves for the u-19 girls, and despite slim chance of the u20 boys going on the same dream run to the final... I feel very sure there will be a huge crowd. Besides the fact Edmonton is a very strong "event" city. If there's a short term event going on, people will show up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.