Guest speedmonk42 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Well, I don't think anyone is agruing they want FT. Just about what is possible. I just don't see any reason why we can't have both. FT for the winter bubble, grass during the soccer season. FT today does not mean no grass in the future. In fact any combination seems possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Also, if Brazil, Germany, England ect are here to play, they are NOT going to play in a 20 000 seat stadium, grass or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by trueviking i thought the point of this stadium was that it was to be 'a one trick pony'....doesnt the second S in SSS mean 'specific'? Yes, and the only other groups that will be able to rent it out are soccer groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by speedmonk42 The cost of the grass, installation and maintenance is not the problem. It is the events you can't have in the stadium when you have grass. Then how do you explain other MLS SSSs being used in such ways with concerts, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 As far as I am concerned, those who object to FieldTurf at BMO field needn't go and watch any games there if it bothers them so much, and there will be games there worth watching. Just stay away and cry in your beer or watch EPL on TV or whatever you prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Then how do you explain other MLS SSSs being used in such ways with concerts, etc.? I imagine they cover the field for concerts regardless of whether it is Field Turf or grass. I doubt the other MLS teams with grass fields are renting out their stadiums to community soccer groups. The fact of the matter is that those funding the stadium have decided it needs to be a money making venture. You can criticize that all you want but unless the government puts more of our tax money into the stadium (always a popular move on the Voyageurs) or some private investor is ok with losing money on the venture that is how it is going to be. Don't forget that the other MLS stadiums are all in the US with a lot of different laws as to how losses are written off in taxes and about public money supporting sports franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Richard, you're a dick (or should that be a Dick?). We're supporters of the Canadian team and that's precisely why we see this decision as awful for the national team. I don't care about Toronto or public use, I care as this stadium as what it's supposed to be, a National Soccer Stadium. Once the decision was taken to NOT use natural turf, they changed the vocation of the stadium, people are now using words like "multi-purpose", "winter bubble", "public use" and "alternative events". Look at the other complexes being built around North America: the stadium is for soccer and a few fields around it are for other uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Daniel, people aren't only now using those words, they've been using them for the life of the project. We've all known for a long time now that this is what it was going to be, so what is the point of arguing about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueviking Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 richard, you are the worst debater ever.... wanting the best....or at least the norm, is not whining or crying...it is what we should expect...i fully support a SSS, but i want it to be at least at par with all the others in the league. Toronto will be the only canadian franchise in an american league...we are going to look like idiots with a field made of a surface that the league itself has opposed. doesnt toronto already have a half billion dollar multi purpose stadium?...why does this one need to be as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by trueviking richard, you are the worst debater ever.... wanting the best....or at least the norm, is not whining or crying...it is what we should expect...i fully support a SSS, but i want it to be at least at par with all the others in the league. Toronto will be the only canadian franchise in an american league...we are going to look like idiots with a field made of a surface that the league itself has opposed. doesnt toronto already have a half billion dollar multi purpose stadium?...why does this one need to be as well? I want to sleep with [insert the name of your favourite sex symbol here]. An understandable desire perhaps but I can want all I like because it is just not going to happen except in my dreams. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Richard, you're a dick (or should that be a Dick?). We're supporters of the Canadian team and that's precisely why we see this decision as awful for the national team. I don't care about Toronto or public use, I care as this stadium as what it's supposed to be, a National Soccer Stadium. Once the decision was taken to NOT use natural turf, they changed the vocation of the stadium, people are now using words like "multi-purpose", "winter bubble", "public use" and "alternative events". Look at the other complexes being built around North America: the stadium is for soccer and a few fields around it are for other uses. Yes, Dick is the nickname generally associated with Richard but I have never responded to Dick so count yourself flattered to be the first. Doesn't matter one jot what you or I or anybody else here thinks or cares about FieldTurf - the only thing that matters is what those who are ponying up the money for this whole venture think. For now that means FieldTurf whether we like it or not. Furthermore that the BMO Field pitch would be FieldTurf is not new news by any means. I note with interest that Vancouver Whitecaps today soundly thrashed Rochester 3-0 in the USL Cup Final in the pouring rain on the brand new artificial turf at PAETEC Park. The Whitecaps, who play at home on a beautifully manicured and jealously protected natural grass surface at Swangard, had no difficulty whatsoever making the switch, adapted just fine if adapting was necessary and played on the artificial turf without complaint. But then of course this is just the lowly USL First Division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG Demolishing Frank Clair would mean demolishing the Ottawa Civic Centre as well. No city of Ottawa's size would've gone so long without a new stadium being built so this is a rather chicken little type of response. No the Civic Centre would not have to be demolished nor would it have to be. It is under the grandstand but its structure is not dependent on the stadium. The city had approved a plan to tear down Frank Clair and build luxury condos in its place. This plan was only averted at the last minute by opponents. Had it been torn down I think it would have been decades before a new and probably much smaller stadium was built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 People should protest by calling up the Toronto Football Club and say they will cancel their seasons tickets if the stadium is not a grass pitch surface in support of our National Team athletes. The stadium should be useful for Canadian soccer and our national teams and not fufilling the dreams of FieldTurf and Kevan Pipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 What would cancelling Toronto FC season tickets do? MLSE is not the stadium owner, the City of Toronto is. As such, they decided that the facility would be FieldTurf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Rudi Daniel, people aren't only now using those words, they've been using them for the life of the project. We've all known for a long time now that this is what it was going to be, so what is the point of arguing about it? Isn't that the point of this board? The discussion is in reaction to the player interviews on the matter, which haven't come out before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueviking Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 "Having a natural-turf stadium makes the facility unusable and uneconomical," Gilman said. "You have to use the stadium day in and day out for it to be a multiuse facility." this quote from that article is the most disappointing thing i have read on this forum in a long while (and there are a lot of disappointing things)....so much for our national soccer stadium....it is just a multi use hodge podge, ok for everything, but not great for anything...just like all the other stadia in this country....how long until it has football lines on it. too bad they couldnt have teamed up with rugby canada and made it multi purpose between those two grass sports....both without a proper home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 There already was a multipurpose stadium in Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Then how do you explain other MLS SSSs being used in such ways with concerts, etc.? I am not sure. There are some questions to ask though, geography, climate ect... If the stadium is used in the off season for concerts in California it would be different than having to do everything at the same time in the summer in TO. So how do we get grass in the stadium for national team games? Modular grass is the only solution. What do we know about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Hahah Read this. Victory for grass! LOL http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C1EFF38550C7B8CDDAC0894D0494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fS%2fStadiums%20and%20Arenas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 So do they still bring in a modular grass surface each game for RedBull at Giants stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 speedmonk: that article is about artificial turf, not field turf. note: there is no difficulty transitioning from grass to artificial turf for players. if anything it is easier from grass to artificial turf than from grass to another club's version of grass. for what it's worth, my boys train on one of the best community pitches in canada every single week, we played artificial turf yesterday, won, and played our best game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbailey62 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by speedmonk42 Hahah Read this. Victory for grass! LOL http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C1EFF38550C7B8CDDAC0894D0494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fS%2fStadiums%20and%20Arenas That article is about that old Astroturf carpet crap. It can't be compared to FieldTurf in any way. db Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by speedmonk42 I am not sure. There are some questions to ask though, geography, climate ect... If the stadium is used in the off season for concerts in California it would be different than having to do everything at the same time in the summer in TO. So how do we get grass in the stadium for national team games? Modular grass is the only solution. What do we know about it? Columbus and Chicago both have grass surfaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by bettermirror speedmonk: that article is about artificial turf, not field turf. note: there is no difficulty transitioning from grass to artificial turf for players. if anything it is easier from grass to artificial turf than from grass to another club's version of grass. for what it's worth, my boys train on one of the best community pitches in canada every single week, we played artificial turf yesterday, won, and played our best game. LOL. Chill out guys. I thought it was funny that something from the grass ate it whatever it was. See even mother nature hates artifical turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Columbus and Chicago both have grass surfaces. ---------- Are you saying they are modular, or just grass fields. I wonder what it was like for the Metrostars, cost, quality, ect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.