Jump to content

Why all the fuss? Why do we want a stadium?


Robert

Recommended Posts

All of a sudden getting a stadium built seems to have become the top priority and the most discussed topic on this board. Is it because Canadian soccer fans feel we need a stadium for the WYC? Or is it to gain entry into the MLS? Or maybe Toronto, Hamilton or Vaughan just really need a stadium real bad, right now? The trusty Kevan Pipe and the honourable Jack Warner have both publicly given the Canadian soccer community and the world at large their word that Canada will host the 2007 WYC with or without a new stadium in Toronto. So we don't have to worry if no stadium deal gets done, right? As for Toronto getting an MLS franchise, well, if they aren't awarded one we don't have to worry about it, right? And if they, MLSE, do get a franchise one would assume they have the money to build one, right? As for Ontario communities needing a stadium all of a sudden, well, go build one, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
quote:Originally posted by Robert

All of a sudden getting a stadium built seems to have become the top priority and the most discussed topic on this board. Is it because Canadian soccer fans feel we need a stadium for the WYC? Or is it to gain entry into the MLS? Or maybe Toronto, Hamilton or Vaughan just really need a stadium real bad, right now? The trusty Kevan Pipe and the honourable Jack Warner have both publicly given the Canadian soccer community and the world at large their word that Canada will host the 2007 WYC with or without a new stadium in Toronto. So we don't have to worry if no stadium deal gets done, right? As for Toronto getting an MLS franchise, well, if they aren't awarded one we don't have to worry about it, right? And if they, MLSE, do get a franchise one would assume they have the money to build one, right? As for Ontario communities needing a stadium all of a sudden, well, go build one, right?

I think it's because there is (potentially) 35 million up for grabs and it'd be a real shame to see that go to waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate to stick a reply in this thread that is probably doomed to go nowhere other than to possibly degenerate into some religious debate, but I have to ask. As fans of Canadian soccer, why would we not want a SSS built in the GTA? We could get more national team games (all ages and gender) and it woul;d certainly help the pro situation, be it MLS or USL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the consideration should also be given that the players themselves may also rather have a central location instead of having to play in a different city all the time. Knowing they're going to Toronto for each home game would make travel a lot easier for them than if they had to go to Vancouver one time, Kingston the next, Edmonton after that, back to Vancouver for the next, then on to Montreal, etc., etc., etc.,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by devioustrevor

Perhaps the consideration should also be given that the players themselves may also rather have a central location instead of having to play in a different city all the time. Knowing they're going to Toronto for each home game would make travel a lot easier for them than if they had to go to Vancouver one time, Kingston the next, Edmonton after that, back to Vancouver for the next, then on to Montreal, etc., etc., etc.,

Only that won't happen...

In fact, with Fieldturf, I wouldn't be surprised to see more games at Montreal's natural turf facility than a FT Toronto stdium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

Only that won't happen...

In fact, with Fieldturf, I wouldn't be surprised to see more games at Montreal's natural turf facility than a FT Toronto stdium.

call us when it's built for 15 million. Considering a CONCACAF WC qaulifer has been played on Fieldturf™.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

I think it's because there is (potentially) 35 million up for grabs and it'd be a real shame to see that go to waste.

It wouldn't go to waste if the they were to drop the stadium and turn it into a legacy fund for the host cities to leave something behind when the tournament is over. Especially for proefssional football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That must explain why we saw so many WCQ's at Molson and Frank Claire...

The players want to play on grass. Between no friendly and a friendly in Montréal, where will the CSA go...

Holland refused to play us in Ottawa a few years ago because we didn't have natural grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

That must explain why we saw so many WCQ's at Molson and Frank Claire...

The players want to play on grass. Between no friendly and a friendly in Montréal, where will the CSA go...

Holland refused to play us in Ottawa a few years ago because we didn't have natural grass.

Fieldturf is a great option where it can extend the length of a season in certain parts of Canada, and it also appears to have economic benefits. However, does the choice of having elected to install an artifical surface not preclude such a facility from hosting major international match? The intent of the surface was to extend the local season, not to attract international footballers who are accustomed to playing on real grass. It would be like an african nation hosting the STanley Cup champions to play a game of rollerblade hockey. It just isn't ice hockey anymore. Fieldturf may be acceptable for sports like baseball and gridiron football, but for soccer? Come on, let's get real. Obviously God's intend was not for soccer to be played on real grass in Toronto for twelve months of the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another stadium with fieldturf in the east will be a waste

Frank Clair and Molson are more than adequate should the players decide to play on fieldturf

if a stadium is built in Toronto I doubt it will be of the same calibre as those two that we have in the east already.

the Toronto stadium saga has to come to an end soon it is taking too much focus away from the quality of the product that the CSA has to put on the field

qualifying fgor the u-17 world cup should have been more of a priority for the continious development toward 2007.

the CSA has failed that part of the plan it is definitely a setback

toward providing positive exposure and development.

we cannot afford to have continious setback if we want the sport to be recognised and get the respect it deserves.

should Canada decide to host major Fifa tournaments again this Toronto Stadium fiasco might play against us.

Fifa will think twice now before awarding anything worthwhile just on words from the CSA.

even after the Argos withdrew Pipe insisted that it was not a major setback for the stadium since they are working closing with York university and that a positive agreement to go ahead is imminent even when it was repeatedly denied in the press by York's University.

yes it will be a shame to see that money goes to waste because the CSA dont know what to do with it and also because they promised Fifa that a Stadium will be built in Toronto feeling that should they built it somewhere else even though it would cost less money would meaning that their bid just like anything else that has to do with the CSA was anything but concrete planification and professionalism.

peoples pay money mainly to watch quality football not stadiums and that is a rarety with our various national teams

stadium is a novelty what keep peoples in the stands is the quality of the product being displayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by sj

Another stadium with fieldturf in the east will be a waste

Frank Clair and Molson are more than adequate should the players decide to play on fieldturf

if a stadium is built in Toronto I doubt it will be of the same calibre as those two that we have in the east already.

the Toronto stadium saga has to come to an end soon it is taking too much focus away from the quality of the product that the CSA has to put on the field

qualifying fgor the u-17 world cup should have been more of a priority for the continious development toward 2007.

the CSA has failed that part of the plan it is definitely a setback

toward providing positive exposure and development.

we cannot afford to have continious setback if we want the sport to be recognised and get the respect it deserves.

should Canada decide to host major Fifa tournaments again this Toronto Stadium fiasco might play against us.

Fifa will think twice now before awarding anything worthwhile just on words from the CSA.

even after the Argos withdrew Pipe insisted that it was not a major setback for the stadium since they are working closing with York university and that a positive agreement to go ahead is imminent even when it was repeatedly denied in the press by York's University.

yes it will be a shame to see that money goes to waste because the CSA dont know what to do with it and also because they promised Fifa that a Stadium will be built in Toronto feeling that should they built it somewhere else even though it would cost less money would meaning that their bid just like anything else that has to do with the CSA was anything but concrete planification and professionalism.

peoples pay money mainly to watch quality football not stadiums and that is a rarety with our various national teams

stadium is a novelty what keep peoples in the stands is the quality of the product being displayed.

What is even more alarming is the fact that only a few years ago the CSA was entertaining thoughts of hosting the FIFA World Cup finals. Not the Youth Finals we might be hosting in 2007, but the Big Dance itself.

http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/media/viewArtical.asp?Press_ID=416

Canadian Soccer Association

Thursday, June 07, 2001

CSA Pursues World Cup Soccer Bid

OTTAWA, June 7, 2001 - Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) Denis Coderre and Jim Fleming, President of the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA), today officially announced that Canada will seek the rights to host the next Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup soccer event available to this hemisphere. That opportunity could come as early as 2011.

In support of this announcement, Mr. Coderre and Mr. Fleming released a copy of a feasibility study conducted by Deloitte & Touche LLP. which confirms that a Canadian World Cup bid is viable and would be a financial success. The study, which was supported by a grant from the Government of Canada, indicates that Canada already has many of the required facilities in place. However, some refurbishing would be needed and one additional permanent stadium would have to be built, which the study assumed to be in Halifax so that all geographical regions are represented.

"The World Cup of soccer is the largest single sport event in the world and there would be tremendous financial and social benefits for Canada," said Mr. Coderre. "Moreover, hosting the World Cup in our great country would create an important legacy for our sport system and the generation of athletes to come."

"I have today sent a letter to Mr. J.S. Blatter, President of FIFA announcing our intention to bid for the rights to the next FIFA World Cup available to our Confederation," stated Jim Fleming. "We will mount a bid which will involve all regions of Canada, stretching from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific. We will partner with the Government of Canada, the private sector, stadium authorities and other prospective partners in financing, planning and implementing this Bid."

The Secretary of State and CSA President also confirmed that as part of Canada's strategy to secure a future World Cup bid, Canada will host the Under-19 Women's World Soccer Championship in 2002. Mr. Coderre also announced that the Government of Canada will invest $500 000 for the hosting of the event. The Championship will be held in three locations in Canada (which are still to be determined) from August 17 to September 1, 2002. It will feature teams from 12 countries competing in 26 matches.

Mr. Coderre and Mr. Fleming also used the occasion to announce that the Government of Canada and the CSA were currently exploring ways of setting up a new type of partnership to promote soccer in Canada and to pursue the future World Cup bid. To this effect, Mr. Coderre announced the appointment of Jean Gandubert to his staff as the senior advisor on soccer.

The complete economic feasability study for Canada hosting the FIFA World Cup is available on Soccer Canada's web site at www.canadasoccer.com and the executive summary is available on the Department of Canadian Heritage's web site at www.pch.gc.ca

With the problems we are currently experiencing in trying to get ready to host the WYC in 2007, one can not begin to imagine what this incompetent lot would be capable of in attempting to manage the real deal. I'm sure that FIFA will remember this Kevan Pipe led fiasco for a long time to come. Maybe in the longterm it might be best for CAnada to hand this tournament back to FIFA now, giving another nation some time to properly prepare for staging this tournament, instead of futilely trying to carrying on in the way the CSA has done ever since FIFA awarded the WYC to Canada. If the latter road is taken and anything does go wrong, which with Kevan Pipe at the helm is not all that unlikely to occur, the damage it would do to the image of Canadian soccer could be irreparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

That must explain why we saw so many WCQ's at Molson and Frank Claire...

The players want to play on grass. Between no friendly and a friendly in Montréal, where will the CSA go...

Holland refused to play us in Ottawa a few years ago because we didn't have natural grass.

umm I would say that the CSA has something against Montreal period. I would not count on games in the new Suputo Park, even with grass.

As for the player, who really cares what they think. They should play where they are told and considering that pro clubs in Europe train and some play games on Fieldturf™, the time will come.

The snobs will just have to suck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

umm I would say that the CSA has something against Montreal period. I would not count on games in the new Suputo Park, even with grass.

As for the player, who really cares what they think. They should play where they are told and considering that pro clubs in Europe train and some play games on Fieldturf™, the time will come.

The snobs will just have to suck it up.

I don't think they'll be able to avoid a new, Eastern grass-surface SSS which is slated to host a WYC semi even if they tried.

As for "play where they are told", KNVB listened to their players, who didn't want to play on the fake stuff. We had to play Saprissa because it was WCQ, but we decide for friendlies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

How many people feels that the recent intrest in a stadium is really out of good for soccer or just simply a cash grab?

Well. Considering Montreal and Toronto have stadium large enough in place for big internationals (Skydome and Olympic- add grass). And that Montreal had a wonderful 20,000 seat park right downtown (McGill), If 35 million were spent on the taxpayer dollar I would say that Toronto is in greater need of a 20,000 seat park than Montreal. So I'm glad that the one being built in Montreal claims to have no need for taxpayer cash. What a private citizen does with his money is his bussiness.

Edmonton has Commonwealth. Maybe Vancouver needs something in the 20,000 range.

But I don't think SSS will turn us into a football nation anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

I don't think they'll be able to avoid a new, Eastern grass-surface SSS which is slated to host a WYC semi even if they tried.

As for "play where they are told", KNVB listened to their players, who didn't want to play on the fake stuff. We had to play Saprissa because it was WCQ, but we decide for friendlies.

The dutch didn't want to play on ASTROTURF.

follow the link and see what club in Holland has a Fieldturf™ pitch...

http://www.fieldturf.com/index.cfm?sportPage=soccer&pageView=installs

Something called Ajax. ANd I think if you search under Spain some outfit named FC Barcalona has a training pitch made of the stuff...

So considering that some of the best players train on the stuff...we should cowtow to guys making 20K a year playing USL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, only you're full of crap. Frank Claire is Fieldturf and hasn't been Astroturf since 2001. Also, Ajax don't play on FT, they train on it. Which is a big difference for those "best players". You can train in a gym, doesn't mean you'll play in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

Yeah, only you're full of crap. Frank Claire is Fieldturf and hasn't been Astroturf since 2001. Also, Ajax don't play on FT, they train on it. Which is a big difference for those "best players". You can train in a gym, doesn't mean you'll play in one.

Training 10 times a week, hard, is the same thing as playing a 90 minute game. Ajax see their players as investments that they expect a return on. They would not put the investment that they make into their players, into jepoardy due to a crap surface. That's why they choose feilturf over grass. Have you ever trained with a team? Practices can be stressfull things you know...all that running..tackling for first team spots...

And considering the Impact also train on Fieldturf™, that speaks volumes about the quality of the product. If they had any concerns they wouldn't train on the stuff EVER.

Your distain of fieldturd is out of wack with the modern football culture. It's coming.....But it's cute in a way.

so very FC Nantes...le foot..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HamiltonSteelers

At this stage, it is definitely a cash grab. The governments are stumping up funding to build a stadium. So let's build one...

Arguably Hamilton COULD use a new one, but alot of renovations have gone into Ivor Wynne in the last 5 years, including the new turf. If there was a solution to have either (a) two sets of turf or (B) easily removable paint for the grass/fieldturf/other, then I'd say Hamilton is fine. Watching a game with the gridiron lines is waaaay too difficult to do. The idea of building the ground where the proposed Commonwealth games stadium was to go would be a great location. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. I don't believe building it in outlying areas would work the same way as it would in Toronto.

Toronto would likely need/use one, but I'm not exactly convinced that the ground has to be right downtown. It would be nice, but it isn't necessary. Most MLS grounds that are being built (or planned) are not in the downtown areas (Columbus, MetroStars, LA, SLC, Chicago, Dallas). Build the new ground in Vaughan, Mississauga, Brampton. It doesn't matter to me, as long as I can reasonably travel to the odd nat'l team game within an hour's drive (of Hamilton) would be nice.

I would rather like more smaller stadia build around the country, rather than one big one somewhere in southern Ontario, but that plan wouldn't do anything for the WYC, and I understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by HamiltonSteelers

At this stage, it is definitely a cash grab. The governments are stumping up funding to build a stadium. So let's build one...

Arguably Hamilton COULD use a new one, but alot of renovations have gone into Ivor Wynne in the last 5 years, including the new turf. If there was a solution to have either (a) two sets of turf or (B) easily removable paint for the grass/fieldturf/other, then I'd say Hamilton is fine. Watching a game with the gridiron lines is waaaay too difficult to do. The idea of building the ground where the proposed Commonwealth games stadium was to go would be a great location. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. I don't believe building it in outlying areas would work the same way as it would in Toronto.

Toronto would likely need/use one, but I'm not exactly convinced that the ground has to be right downtown. It would be nice, but it isn't necessary. Most MLS grounds that are being built (or planned) are not in the downtown areas (Columbus, MetroStars, LA, SLC, Chicago, Dallas). Build the new ground in Vaughan, Mississauga, Brampton. It doesn't matter to me, as long as I can reasonably travel to the odd nat'l team game within an hour's drive (of Hamilton) would be nice.

I would rather like more smaller stadia build around the country, rather than one big one somewhere in southern Ontario, but that plan wouldn't do anything for the WYC, and I understand that.

Your response more than likely mirrors that of most Canadian soccer fans, as you disclose that you would only be going to that stadium for the odd Canada game. It doesn't make financial sense to build a 20,000 seat stadium that might sell-out for the odd Canadian game. If the stadium would require an effort to get to, how many sell-outs would a Toronto area based MLS team get if they went on a six or seven game losing streak? I can see why investors aren't lining up for this one. Without a CFL or University partnership, Toronto doesn't need a stadium larger than a 10,000 seat facility until the city proves differently over a prolonged period of time. A one off WYC doesn't prove anything. However, the Lynx attendance record is something any investor would seriously look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

I *LOVE* Fieldturf, but you can't ignore that if given the choice, most top players will choose not to play a game on it if they have the choice. Or can you igore that?

Doesn't anybody like to mow grass anymore? Pretty soon we'll all be buying our lawns at the Future Shop. Fieldturf looks like zhit. It only looks good to those who had an appreciation for Astroturf. Some guys will bang anything, eh? [xx(][:X][xx(] I *F-ing Hate* Fieldturf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.
quote:Originally posted by G-Man

The dutch didn't want to play on ASTROTURF.

follow the link and see what club in Holland has a Fieldturf™ pitch...

http://www.fieldturf.com/index.cfm?sportPage=soccer&pageView=installs

Something called Ajax. ANd I think if you search under Spain some outfit named FC Barcalona has a training pitch made of the stuff...

So considering that some of the best players train on the stuff...we should cowtow to guys making 20K a year playing USL?

Just to clarify, Barça does not train on fieldturf, ever.

But there are training fields youth teams also play on, and many teams in Spain from third tier down play on it in their leagues. Just by chance no team with artificial surface has ever been promoted as high as 2nd, but when it happens, then all top teams will be faced with playing on it.

As is, many teams face it in the King's Cup, when playing lower level teams. Only once recently, in a scandalous show of poor sportsmanship, did a team cite Spanish league regulations and choose not to play on it -this was Deportivo Coruña, who had to play Barcelona suburb Hospitalet in what had been the Olympic baseball venue, converted for football. The locals refused to move, leading to a walkover. Lately all teams are more willing to play in smaller stadiums with it, and as more and more young players have had experience on it in youth team play, there is less reticence than there used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Your distain of fieldturd is out of wack with the modern football culture. It's coming.....But it's cute in a way.

holy condescending...no matter how much you say players do or should love it, the fact is we have three plastic pitch fields in eastern canada, none of which have hosted anything above women's soccer.

your argument is completely defeated, whether you like plastic or not, by the fact that the last international games in canada were played on a brutal community field in kingston, instead of one of the three plastic field stadia in major cities just down the road....

you can make the argument over and over that you personally believe plastic is better, but until international teams agree to play on it regularily (not practice) then it is pointless to build it.

what is the difference if we have 3 stadia with plastic grass that nobody will play on...or fourfields that nobody will play on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...