Blue and White Army Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 How sad you are, Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 quote:Originally posted by beachesl Topic fetajr 37 Posts Posted - 10/28/2005 : 09:58:26 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope to god they don't put in that crap artificial turf. Does anyone know what the plans are gonna be? CanadianSoccerFan 117 Posts Posted - 10/28/2005 : 10:34:44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately it's going to be FieldTurf because the city wants to be able to put a bubble over the field in the winter and still be able to use it for the community. I find it very frustrating but I can understand it somewhat considering the money and land the city has put up for it. The only upside I can see is that there will be no bloody football lines on it fetajr 37 Posts Posted - 10/28/2005 : 10:51:13 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- that sucks, I can't believe they wouldn't go all in on this. Countries with equal/less economic power and with equal weather conditions can manage to maintain a natural grass field. Santiago, Chile - winter is cold as hell, but no crazy snow storms though Moscow, Russia Stokholm, Sweden Olso, Norway - http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/norway/oslo_ullevaal1.jpg Helsinki, Finland ideally, a stadium like the one in Olso would be perfect for Toronto, the semi-roofs are awsome,... the engineers/architects that designed the Toronto stadium made it way too simple ..... i'm so annoyed with the FieldTurf, ... couldn't the bubble be a clear bubble so that it gives a greenhouse type of effect to the natural grass? Joe MacCarthy 325 Posts Posted - 10/28/2005 : 11:21:14 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by fetajr that sucks, I can't believe they wouldn't go all in on this. Countries with equal/less economic power and with equal weather conditions can manage to maintain a natural grass field. Santiago, Chile - winter is cold as hell, but no crazy snow storms though Moscow, Russia Stokholm, Sweden Olso, Norway - http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/norway/oslo_ullevaal1.jpg Helsinki, Finland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't the main stadium in Moscow (Luzhniki?) a Fieldturf installation? Also wasn't Finland the first Fifa test tournament for FieldTurf at the Fifa World U17. Like it or not dude it's the wave of the future according to Fifa. FIFA does have specs for rating surfaces. http://www.fifa.com/development/IATS_info_032004.pdf and other information backing the validity of the "new" artificial surfaces http://www.fifa.com/en/development/pitch/index.html http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/...articleid=74382 FIFA is going full steam ahead on artificial surfaces. It is the only solution for many climatically challenged continents like Asia and Africa. Some quotes: UEFA's head of competitions Rene Eberle told a conference earlier this year (2003): "Artificial turf products are getting better and better and can eliminate some of the serious problems clubs and associations are facing in terms of natural grass. "If all our criteria are met and our research over the next two years is positive, I see no reason why we could not have artificial surfaces in the Champions League by 2005-06." FIFA president Sepp Blatter even hints that some pitches for the 2010 World Cup in Africa will be artificial. Jarrek Mississauga Canada 1814 Posts Posted - 10/28/2005 : 12:11:57 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't the main stadium in Moscow (Luzhniki?) a Fieldturf installation? Also wasn't Finland the first Fifa test tournament for FieldTurf at the Fifa World U17. Like it or not dude it's the wave of the future according to Fifa. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is, and the National team hasn't played there since its installation. So the new stadium has become the 40,000 seat natural grass soccer specific Lokomotiv Stadium. Topic The stadium requires year round use. They will put a bubble over it for Winter. As much as real grass would be prefered. We can live with field turf. All the grass snobs can lay off, its no big deal. If it was FIFA would not have approved field turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 29, 2005 Author Share Posted October 29, 2005 Well, the national team (and especially potential friendly opponents) don't like the surface. A 2001-2002 friendly to be played in Ottawa was cancelled because of this. We played our WCQ in Kingston and went twice to Vancouver because of it, etc. As for the rendering, it was pulled of the CSA main page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Blue and White Army How sad you are, Toronto. What the hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I think the design pictured is rather underwhelming. That being said, I think most of us will be happy as long as it gets built. As far as the FieldTurf goes, I understand the why but I think it will pose a problem regarding bringing teams in for matches. Time will tell. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Glasgow Rangers, Dynamo Zagreb, Santos and Sporting Lisbon seem to have no problem coming to Toronto and playing on artificial turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Well, the national team (and especially potential friendly opponents) don't like the surface. A 2001-2002 friendly to be played in Ottawa was cancelled because of this. We played our WCQ in Kingston and went twice to Vancouver because of it, etc. As for the rendering, it was pulled of the CSA main page. You need to get your facts straight bubba. The field in Ottawa was not field turf. It was 20 year old astro turf. One is not Fifa approved the other one is. But in your case facts would make your argument useless, just like most of your negative cry baby posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 30, 2005 Author Share Posted October 30, 2005 Yeah, sure. Of course, I DIDN'T go to the 2001 Francophone Games and DIDN'T take this picture where there's quite evidently Fieldturf: So what do I know? By the way, here's a riddle: What's Black. And White. And isn't Juventus? [] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel By the way, here's a riddle: What's Black. And White. And isn't Juventus? [] Newcastle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Leafs You need to get your facts straight bubba. The field in Ottawa was not field turf. It was 20 year old astro turf. One is not Fifa approved the other one is. But in your case facts would make your argument useless, just like most of your negative cry baby posts. How many times have the womens national team played friendlies in Ottawa?? you can be sure it wasnt on the 20 year old stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zacRWE Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Rudi Newcastle? Nott's County??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zacRWE Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W MLS teams play on it in New York and in Salt Lake City. Grass would be preferrable, but in order to meet their community hours objective with the winter bubble, it will have to be turf. Now both grass and turf can be done on trays, but I don't know if MLSE or the city would want to pay for both sets of turf, the maintenance of the grass and the installation and removal of both. ok, but if im not mistaken the Metros and RSL are looking to move into new grounds. If they do move, will they still play on this fieldturf? Both cities have similar whether conditions, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Didn't we establish that this stadium was going to be basically useless for the senior men's national team about two years ago? Which isn't to say that this stadium isn't a wonderful thing. You can always lay down sod like Seattle or change the surface down the line, you can't just conjure a 20,000 seat stadium out of nothing. I think most of our players don't like playing on FieldTurf and with Commonwealth exsiting and smaller venues also existing and with Vancouver coming on board (any idea if Stade Saputo will be grass?) why would we need to play on FieldTurf as a national team? We definitely know that most national teams don't like playing on the fake stuff (no matter how much its improved, me personally I didn't mind playing on FieldTurf at all, it was a lot better than most grass pitches I play on) and since we're usually beggars, rather than choosers for national team matches I don't see many teams wanting to even play friendlies on the stuff. Remember how much the Brazilian women bitched about it? If having FieldTurf means there won't be any men's games there then that's a shame, but I think we needed FieldTurf to get the deal done. In that case I'm happy with what we have. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 quote:Originally posted by zacRWE ok, but if im not mistaken the Metros and RSL are looking to move into new grounds. If they do move, will they still play on this fieldturf? Both cities have similar whether conditions, no? Yes, but they aren't signing over 100-plus hours of community usage in the winter months in order to get their deals done. Both those deals (and only one is consumated) seem more contingent on the idea of surrounding retail and commercial development, not the touchy-feely "building it for the community" angle. I don't like the field turf idea at all. I think it devalues the (MLS)product's marketability to the hardcore fans and also to potential players, not to mention it may compromise Toronto's chance to host a serious senior men's international match should the visiting team bitch and moan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 30, 2005 Author Share Posted October 30, 2005 Saputo Stadium will be grass, he's mentionned it many times. There will be adjacent fields which will be Fieldturf, one of which will be covered after 2007. Fieldturf is great for public-use facilities and university/school stadiums, where grass pitches become crap very quickly, but for a pro team that can allow it, nothing beats the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Hadn't seen this. They say there's a sucker born every minute. Based on the rendition of the stadium presented (which surely any ten year old could have drawn) it appears many of these suckers successfully ran for city council in Toronto. I'm overwhelmed by all the detail it shows, and that it was completed in time to meet the MLS's deadline must be considered nothing less than a miracle. Toronto has just surpassed Vancouver to become Canada's #1 s_ckm__ff city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Is that Kevan waving the victory sign at mid field? Where's the Maple Leaf Flag? Was this a drawing from the MLS archives? What kind of gifts did the councilors who voted in favour of this drawing receive? they surely didn't do so for free did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Hurry up Mods. Delete! Lock the thread! Before all hell breaks loose. This can't be allowed in Canada. George Bush might not like it. Keep bending over TV(does that stand for what I think it stands for? You little devil you)John, Richard and Rudi. He's an F-ing Hero John. Please communicate in English so everybody can read and laugh at your stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Okay, just one more, otherwise it might be classified as spamming. I think the Voyageurs have spoken and answered your question JanLul. But keep trying to convert them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Saputo Stadium will be grass, he's mentionned it many times. There will be adjacent fields which will be Fieldturf, one of which will be covered after 2007. Fieldturf is great for public-use facilities and university/school stadiums, where grass pitches become crap very quickly, but for a pro team that can allow it, nothing beats the real thing. Thanks Daniel, I was just too lazy to look it up. I agree about grass going crap real quick. I was in Edmonton and Kingston last year. But nothing beats the real thing. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Robert They say there's a sucker born every minute. Based on the rendition of the stadium presented (which surely any ten year old could have drawn) it appears many of these suckers successfully ran for city council in Toronto. I'm overwhelmed by all the detail it shows, and that it was completed in time to meet the MLS's deadline must be considered nothing less than a miracle. Toronto has just surpassed Vancouver to become Canada's #1 s_ckm__ff city. Robert we all now where that sucker in your mind cums, would it be your mouth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by matthew Are you 100% sure about that Daniel? From a recent Slam Sports Article: "Lenarduzzi said the natural grass field will give Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium an advantage over the artificial turf at the Montreal and Toronto venues in attracting national team games." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 On the right, it says natural grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel On the right, it says natural grass. Just a question. If Toronto and Vancouver will spend 60M +. How does Saputo build this for 15m ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Leafs Just a question. If Toronto and Vancouver will spend 60M +. How does Saputo build this for 15m ? That is something I have wondered from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.