New pics: inside Saputo Stadium

[Daniel]

Or as we're calling it from the look, CCR2...

[RS]

Why can't they release real renderings?

What's with the vague outer facade shots and just a peek of the main grandstand?

[Daniel]

I found this by accident on the builder's website.

[Grizzly]

Looks like a University stadium in that picture. I am a bit worried that the only real improvement this stadium is going to have over CCR is not having a track.

[Daniel]

It would still be an 85% improvement. A covered "L" on the other side could make it very interesting.

That fence looks pathetic. This is supposed to be a shrine, put a proper gate in there with a wall.

To situate everyone:

The map is flipped sideways in the "traditional" Montreal read. The Grandstand would be the Western side of the stadium.

[DoyleG]

Ah yes,

When in doubt, use the warmup track.

[Impact supporter]

Daniel, out of curiosity will the track be removed at the new stadium?

[Daniel]

Of course. There's no point in moving if we're going to keep the track.

[DoyleG]

Dig up the track and shift the field closer to the stands.

Everything else will fall into place.

[Grizzly]

It is not a particularly big or attractive lot, I guess I had envisioned something a bit more impressive in the Olympic stadium park. If they build it the current way the field is facing they are very limited in expansion possibilities by the drop for the road leading to the tunnel. They would probably be better to change the direction of the field allowing them to build bigger stands on the sides of the pitch. This does not appear to be the plan though according to the artists rendition. In the artists sketch it also looks like they are going to keep the existing lights. Would be a nice view of the Olympic stadium (much more impressive from outside than inside) and the St. Lawrence from the upper stands. I have to admit that I am still quite sceptical that this stadium is going to be built and that if it is built that it will be significantly better than CCR.

[Daniel]

Anything without a track is significantly better than CCR.

[Grizzly]

Man you are absolutely track obsessed Daniel. I prefer no track as well but I have been to crappy stadiums without a track and some good ones with a track. I just have a feeling this is going to be a crappy stadium without a track and I have a hard time getting excited by that although I hope I am wrong.

[Daniel]

Come on, CCR is ass BECAUSE of the track, everything else is details.

[Blue and White Army]

I have to agree with Daniel about tracks. During the summer of 2002, I watched Toronto Lynx matches when they were playing at York University, where there was no track. A crappy little ground, but I didn't care. It was an intimate venue, where fans were close to the match action. That is the main thing for a good footie experience - most everything else is trivial.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

What people forget is that tracks totally alter the seating plan of a stadium. I know this as I work with people who manage the Olympic Stadium in Barcelona. They say the problem is that if you build stands all around the stadium, at the same height, about fifty percent of all seats are behind the goal lines for soccer. The key problem here, beyond sight lines and distance from the field when on the very ends, or the total lack of visibility on the ends down low, is that you have lower quality seats to sell. Your income then suffers, as you can only sell half the seats as premium, being behind the goal lines usually considered to be an inferior seat. You are forced to do pricing favouring general over better quality seats. And for big or quality events, where people are willing to pay, you lose out on multiple counts, in terms of income and maybe even public, because noone is interested in being behind the high-jump pit some 40 yards from the goal itself.

Of course this can be countered by putting more seats in the main and opposite stand, and no seating on the ends; sure, your stadium is open on either side, and what is worse, the higher up you go in lateral stands around a track, the further away you are from the action. And again, this can only be compensated by building very steep stands, to compensate for the distance the track creates. I have seen this with rugby pitches in the south of France, steep high stands on either side, nothing on the end. A style you get in college football stadiums in NCAA sometimes.

Having said all this, it is worth building a stadium with a bit of space around the pitch, giving you decent space for players to warm up, for press, to let the linesman run properly. And to avoid players flying into the retaining wall on hard plays. You don't have to be able to touch the grass from your seat (was quite surprised to find I could indeed walk down and touch the grass at Anfield this weekend, but I am not sure you have to be THAT tight in to the field).

[Gary Cold]

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

Or as we're calling it from the look, CCR2...

Considering that the Als are struggling to get an upper deck put on McGill, if you used the existing side, removed the track and added 20,000 seat on the other 3 sides, you'd have a nice 25,000 seat stadium. Plus you'd get another 20 million to play with (what the als were going to put into Mcgill)

a link

http://www.norrlimited.com/education5.asp

Keep it grass, and you have a true home for our National team in the east. Now if the Als do get that upper deck on, screw this idea at the Big Owe and have the Impact play there.

Too many stadiums on the go for a city...

[Daniel]

The point of SS is to not be the Als' stadium, to be soccer-specific in the real term (which means a field not 150 yards long) and to be the home of Quebec soccer. It will be grass.

You're missing a huge thing as well: 13k is the capacity the Impact want. 25k is the capacity the Als need.

[Daniel]

Just to add, McGill and the Als have signed an agreement meaning the only activities at the stadium will me McGill, Als' games and amateur sport.

[Calgary Boomer]

A new stadium won't mean diddly squat if the Impact continue to play the most boring soccer the world has ever seen.

[Richard]

The Impact may play what you consider to be the most boring soccer the world has ever seen, but they still continue to draw some of the biggest crowds in the USL.

[Kurosawa1555362267]

And despite all the boring stuff they were regular season champions for the second year in a row.

[Calgary Boomer]

And congrats to them. My point is, eventually, those fans will get sick of it. Call it the Minnesota Wild Syndrome.

[Kurosawa1555362267]

Well that's why they plan to build a 13000 stadium only, even if the team sold more tickets than that 5 times this year. They know that without any promotions their real fan base is more aroud 8000.

[loyola]

They should make good use of mthe money they'll get for Sutton and Braz trying to improve their midfield play. They have already a very capable keeper in Webber so they should try getting a good offensive mid and maybe another forward.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Kurosawa

And despite all the boring stuff they were regular season champions for the second year in a row.

But also got knocked out in the semis for the second year in a row for the same reason, they couldn't score. For all their dominating of the regular season the Impact's playoff record is a poor 14-14-6 and this in a league in which it is relatively easy to advance in the playoffs in comparison to most leagues.

Braz is out of contract so they will no receive any money for him. I doubt they will get that much for Sutton either. Apparently he has some clauses in his contract about changing teams and his market value is not that high anyway. At best I think they will get a small sum and a decent percentage of a transfer fee if Toronto sells him later.