G-Man Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I'm thinking that the deal that the CSA made with the MLS is becoming a deal with the devil. First the CSA does all the leg work in getting a nice welfare package together to build a soccer stadium for a MLS Toronto team, bends down and basically labels that MLS team, the future of Canadian soccer. The next thing we know is that the surface of Canada's national soccer stadium will be plastic to accommodate the profitability of the MLS team and then this. The MLS takes away the CSA national team coach. What next next? Does the MLS run the National team program? Let's not forget that this was done to prop up it's flag ship franchise, the MLS is an enemy of Canadian soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Cheese! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Cheese! Some one had to say it. C-SIDE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I like cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natesta Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 As far as I'm concerned the MLS did us a favour taking Yallop. You should be thanking them. People talk about how Yallop was finally starting to turn things around... well of course he was, when you'v hit rock bottom (during his time as coach we indeed reached it) there is nowhere to go BUT up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 quote:Originally posted by G-Man The next thing we know is that the surface of Canada's national soccer stadium will be plastic to accommodate the profitability of the MLS team and then this. Nice distortion of the facts. The FieldTurf was decided upon to accomodate the profitability of the stadium and the ability to use it year round. You can't put a plastic bubble over a grass pitch in the winter months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Rudi Nice distortion of the facts. The FieldTurf was decided upon to accomodate the profitability of the stadium and the ability to use it year round. You can't put a plastic bubble over a grass pitch in the winter months. It's not a distortion of facts. Who runs the facility? And if it makes a profit where does the money go? I'm pretty sure it's MLSE-- who own the MLs Toronto Franchise. So it is basically putting coin into MLSE pockets to offset the loses of operating a MLS team. I doubt the CSA will see a penny. And how many countries national soccer stadium, besides Costa Rica, has plastic grass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 quote:Originally posted by G-Man It's not a distortion of facts. Who runs the facility? And if it makes a profit where does the money go? I'm pretty sure it's MLSE Well I'm glad you're "pretty sure", even though it's been mentioned here ad nauseum that the stadium will be owned by the City of Toronto and operated by MLSE. The first $200,000 of profits per year go to the City, while anything above and beyone that is split between MLSE and the City. The CSA, while having done a great job lobbying the governments for the money, does not own nor operate the stadium, although it does have a 'sweetheart' deal with MLSE and the City for whatever events it puts on at the stadium (a minimum of 6 per year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Here's a FIFA article about Finland 2003 U-17 WC (played on artificial turf): FIFA U-17 World Championship Finland 2003 Artificial turf taking root Finland get used to the new Töölö artificial turf ahead of their opening match against China PR (FIFA.com) FIFA (FIFA.com) 09 Sep 2003 03:48:17 Except for a carpet-smooth look and a pleasant shade of green, there was nothing apparently remarkable about the grass at Helsinki’s Töölö stadium. But the playing surface for ten matches – including the Final - of the FIFA U-17 World Championship Finland 2003 was, in fact, artificial. We sought the opinion of players and coaches to an experiment that could prove to be one of the most significant in the history of the beautiful game. It was the first time a surface other than natural grass had been used at a FIFA finals tournament. But with football’s ongoing popularity only checked in some countries by extreme weather conditions, Finland 2003 was seen as the ideal location and the perfect opportunity to try out the synthetic turf and assess its performance. The Finnish capital’s 11,000-seat chocolate-box Töölö stadium – a ground that might well have remained empty for large chunks of the year - was chosen as the physical laboratory for the test. The latest of some 20 artificial pitches that have been either fully or partly financed by FIFA’s Goal Programme welcomed Mexico, Colombia, China and hosts Finland to its attractive surroundings for the group stage. On their own turf “I believe this is the solution for the future of football in Finland,” said Finland coach Jyrki Heliskoski. “With our long, hard winters, it could extend our season by two or three months and that could be invaluable for Finnish football.” “We started to play in May and had about 25 training sessions and 12 friendlies,” added the veteran and much-respected coach. “The feedback from the boys was not great at first. One third had negative feelings, a third’s comments were positive, while the final third were neutral. But now, players are either neutral or positive.” A purist’s perspective Those views were certainly shared by Colombia’s players. After finishing top of Group A, the South Americans were the country that played most matches (5) on the artificial turf. Following a draw with Mexico, wins against China PR, Finland 9-1 and Costa Rica in the quarter-finals, Colombia finally bowed out much further afield on Tampere’s natural grass in their best ever finish at a FIFA finals (fourth). P>Colombia’s impressive number 11 José Otalvaro admitted the grass grew on him with each match. “It was tough to get used to at first…we made all our preparation on natural grass but we got better with each game,” the teenager said. His team trainer Rodrigo Larrahondo was sympathetic to the needs of countries who do not have the luxury of Colombia’s climes: “We have a privileged geographical and climatic situation, which allows natural grass all the time but we understand this is not the case for other countries in the world...making these surfaces necessary.” Wet turf or dry turf? Coach Humberto Grondona – whose Mexican side played three matches in Töölö – expressed some concerns following the opening clash with Colombia. “This was the first game we played on the turf and it was quite wet, so the ball moved very quickly,” he said following the only goalless draw of the finals. “I think it took a while for the team to adjust.” Mexico went on to qualify for the knockout stage before being defeated, like Colombia, off the artificial turf in Lahti in the quarter-finals by Argentina. But it was Spain who seemed to perform on the surface best. After their spectacular 3-2 golden-goal semi-final victory against Argentina, coach Juan Santisteban praised the pitch’s performance – its eighth match in two weeks. “The grass is excellent,” he remarked. “In Spain we also suffer from cold and wet conditions that affect the quality of grass. I think it’s something that is definitely necessary.” Medical Matters A significant fear heading into Finland 2003 was the potential for injuries caused by the unfamiliar surface. These and other matters were discussed at a meeting of players, coaches, referees, officials and doctors in Helsinki on 24 August. But studied against the FIFA U-17 World Championship Trinidad & Tobago 2001, the amount of injuries was comparable. And only seven were reported from Helsinki – all of which were run-of-the-mill football-related problems. Ultimately, 31 of the tournament’s record-equalling 117 goals were scored on the artificial grass in a FIFA competition many observers believe to be one of the most exciting in recent times. And though debate will continue over the benefits and drawbacks of using artificial pitches, particularly in high-profile matches, if Finland 2003 is anything to go by, mud-scrapers at the tunnel entrance may not be such a familiar image in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 It's not MLS or MLSE we should be blaming. They are businessses that took what was offered. It's the CSA that sold the Canadian game short to achieve short term short sighted goals. I wish MLS and Toronto FC well and hope they do well in Toronto. I also hope the leadership of the CSA doesn't let the door hit them in the arse. They don't have a clue on how to run national programmes and have shown little national leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 quote:Originally posted by argh1 It's not MLS or MLSE we should be blaming. They are businessses that took what was offered. It's the CSA that sold the Canadian game short to achieve short term short sighted goals. I wish MLS and Toronto FC well and hope they do well in Toronto. I also hope the leadership of the CSA doesn't let the door hit them in the arse. They don't have a clue on how to run national programmes and have shown little national leadership. Ding, ding ding! We have a winner! Although I don't think MLS entering Canada is a 'short-sighted' goal. so long as we can get teams in Vancouver and Montreal within the next 5-10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Sigma Some clubs in the Czech Republic are thinking about going with artifical pitches because so many games were postponed this past Spring. I believe the CMFS (Czech FA) said that they want all first division clubs to have under ground heating or artifical pitches. Personally, I don't think anything will happen with regards to the issue. Again- How many National Team stadiums have plastic? How many Champion League games or even African Cup games are played on fake grass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Rudi Well I'm glad you're "pretty sure", even though it's been mentioned here ad nauseum that the stadium will be owned by the City of Toronto and operated by MLSE. The first $200,000 of profits per year go to the City, while anything above and beyone that is split between MLSE and the City. The CSA, while having done a great job lobbying the governments for the money, does not own nor operate the stadium, although it does have a 'sweetheart' deal with MLSE and the City for whatever events it puts on at the stadium (a minimum of 6 per year). So basically the CSA gets jack out the deal. Another sign of either not having the right people running the CSA or just being plain lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.