CanadianSwede Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by boban1 I agree there has been too much of an emphasis on the washrooms. I just used it as an example to draw the point that the standard has to be raised in future expansion. Expanding with the same standard won't due. I agree with you, standards do need to be raised. I just wish Saputo would have put some architectural spice into it. I know there is a budget constraint and all but like a beautiful woman there needs to be some curves in the stadium (connecting the different stands). Heres a small stadium with curves that i think looks good. http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/italy/emiglia_romagna/modena_braglia.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 I'm pretty confident Joey could smash one of his piggy banks and complete the stadium to MLS standards in a relatively short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSwede Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer I'm pretty confident Joey could smash one of his piggy banks and complete the stadium to MLS standards in a relatively short period of time. Agreed. As I posted before though, I don't think the Impact could continue to be non-profit in the MLS. Profit increases competitiveness. I have never been to an Impact game, but do those in montreal believe that upon admission to the MLS, Stade Saputo would be sold out like we have seen in Toronto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Well if the toilets are subpar, we can add some when we expand. And right now, Saputo Stadium already surrounds the jewel of Canada and the crown does not matter.(field) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpenza Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by boban1 I mentioned it a few posts back.... "Saputo needs to think big." Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpenza Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:I agree with you, standards do need to be raised. I do not see the "need". I just don't. If we have enough seats and everybody is happy with what we've got, I do not see and will never see a NEED to upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montreal_FC_fan Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 People complain that Canada doesn't have any SSS. Saputo starts building one and now you got some people who are complaining about the washrooms? First it was the location, then it looked to highschool'ish, then it was the capacity and now the washrooms? "laugh" Well at least we could say that we didn't use any public money to fund this stadium and it beats BMO when you look at the price/quality. Unless off course your obsess with washrooms... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer I'm pretty confident Joey could smash one of his piggy banks and complete the stadium to MLS standards in a relatively short period of time. Yes but Saputo has never smashed one of his piggy banks for the Impact. The team is a non-profit corporation for Christ`s sake, ie. it is owned by the taxpayer and it is not the Saputo`s who are on the hook if it posts losses. I have mixed feelings towards the Saputos in that on the one hand they are running the team and if they weren't there, there possibly wouldn't be a team. On the other hand they definitely run it on the cheap in particular when one sees how wealthy they are. It is the absolute bottom budget team of Montreal sports teams yet it has by far the richest owners of the Montreal sports teams. This stadium is yet another example of the Saputo soccer situation in Montreal. On the one hand they are building a stadium which is better than what we have but on the other hand it is still being built on the cheap. It does seem that so far they are getting good value for their money but for another 10 million or so they might have built something rivalling BMO and not needing significant upgrades. To really upgrade the stadium may require completely replacing some of the stands which in the end may be more expensive than building it right in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSwede Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Mpenza I do not see the "need". I just don't. If we have enough seats and everybody is happy with what we've got, I do not see and will never see a NEED to upgrade. After looking at some of the designs for future MLS stadiums (Red Bull Park, Sandy Stadium) or even possible stadiums for possible new franchises such as Philly or St. Louis, it does seem as though this stadium isn't up to par for where the MLS wants to go. The MLS wants to establish itself as a Premier League, which would involve premier stadiums. Comparing costs with other stadiums, this stadium is cheap. According to Wikipedia for estimated Construction Costs: Red Bull Park: 180 to 200 Million Dollars Sandy Stadium: 115 Millions Dollars According to ESPN: 100 million dollar stadium in Chester, where the new Philly Team would play. You can't compare these stadium with Stade Saputo (15 million dollar cost). The more I look at the facts, this will be a good stadium for the USL, but not really for the MLS (with the direction it wants to go). I know there are budget constraints but if Saputo is serious about the MLS he should look into more than just expanding the capacity but also the quality. If he can't afford it, start talks with Gillette. Correct me if I am wrong but Gillette is footing part of the bill for the new Anfield. I really want to see the Impact in Major League Soccer. But with this stadium, i just don't think its currently possible. Another thing as Grizzly mentioned, the Impact are non-profit. I don't see this non-profit structure working for the Impact if they wanted to get into the MLS. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Mpenza So... first, there was a capacity standard, and now there is a quality standard? Who gives a rat's ass, really? Saputo is proving to everyone that you can build a decent stadium without having to spend tons of money. Ok, it's not Chicago, L.A., Colorado or even Toronto for that matter. But we don't care. We have a stadium, it'll eventually have 18,000 seats, and it'll be perfectly fine. Nobody NEEDS a stadium like the ones you see in MLS. That's just Americans trying to compete with the EPL. We're building a stadium that would be good enough for French Ligue 1 (see Le Mans), and I reallly don't see why it wouldn't be good enough... It really is time to focus on the game rather than on every little detail that surrounds it. Washrooms..... come on... Leagues usually have quality standards and the MLS is no exception. For one thing, decent stadiums give a league a professional image while inadequate ones make it seem amateurish. Image and perception is very important to the MLS in attracting fans and players. Most of the European leagues have standards that their teams have to adhere to. The German football federation is continually telling clubs that promote into the 1st or 2nd Bundesliga that they have to renovate/modify their stadiums (most of which are far above the quality of Saputo stadium) in order to play in the league. Le Mans stadium is still a step up from Saputo stadium. However, if it is so adequate for Ligue 1, why are they currently building a new stadium for the 2009 season even though the current stadium is not that old? If MLS was a goal of the Saputo's (as it should have been for years) then the design of the stadium has shown a remarkable lack of foresight. We may still get an MLS franchise for a variety of other reasons but even with an expansion it will mostly be despite the stadium instead of the stadium being a positive factor. I think this is a very strange situation to be in with a new stadium, ie. a new stadium should always be one of the attractive features about placing a team in a certain city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpenza Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 The bottom line is : it IS a decent stadium. It's not an eye sore, it's not going to make the MLS look unprofessional (unlike that minor league baseball joke they're planning in KC), it would be perfectly fine for many leagues in Europe which are bigger than the MLS. And it's gonna be even better when they expand it, too. And, mark my words, we will be in the MLS by 2010, whether you like the stadium or not, because Saputo Stadium is NOT AN ISSUE, no matter how hard you try to make it a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 With due respect, I don't really care about the look of a stadium. But amenities do count. As a fan, I expect to be able be able to hit the washroom and then grab a beer at halftime and be back in my seat by kickoff. This is not unreasonable. There needs to proper facilities to enable that to happen or the stadium is poorly designed. It does matter, even to "real" fans. And if this is not possible - for example, McMahon Stadium was always a nightmare - then the result is lost revenue. In the case of McMahon, I'd skip the beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSwede Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Mpenza The bottom line is : it IS a decent stadium. It's not an eye sore, it's not going to make the MLS look unprofessional (unlike that minor league baseball joke they're planning in KC), it would be perfectly fine for many leagues in Europe which are bigger than the MLS. And it's gonna be even better when they expand it, too. And, mark my words, we will be in the MLS by 2010, whether you like the stadium or not, because Saputo Stadium is NOT AN ISSUE, no matter how hard you try to make it a problem. Mpenza, whatever the case I like your optimism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 21, 2007 Author Share Posted November 21, 2007 Go back a year and replace "Saputo Stadium" with "BMO Field" and it's the same conversation (then with MLS fans) about the stadium not being up to par. If the stadium is filled, that's all people will see. I'd be curious to actually see pictures of what is so much nicer at BMO. The brick façade? The upper deck? Because the rest of the stadium looks pretty much like SS. You also can't look at a stadium in its incomplete state (x2, since it would also need to be expanded, add a screen, etc.) and judge it to existing completed stadia or renderings. So let's all chill out, wait to see what a game looks like (and feels like, for those who want a beer and a piss), and then we'll talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boban1 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Mpenza I do not see the "need". I just don't. No offense but I'm not interested in what you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boban1 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Mpenza Source? Ity was the video of the state of the league address. He mentioned it when Gerry asked him about Montreal. I think its somewhere on the MLS site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Man I think the stadium looks great. It is perfect for the USL and expandable for the MLS. I am very excited about going to the first game there, which I hope is against Toronto. I will sew together a reversible jersey I can turn inside out depending on who is winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooks Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 I can't believe I'm actually reading the rubbish from nay-sayers. Stade Saputo is a little gem. It is built for the now (and very well built) and can easily be taylor-made for the future. The golden rule of construction is build what you need, fill it, then make it bigger when you need to. It has plenty of facilities. That's obvious to those who know what to look for. Montreal is doing it right. Be proud, Impact fans. You've got a fine stadium that will be rocking this spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Everyone I have shown this stadium to at work with the pics in this thread love it. They all wish we had 5 more of them in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 It's funny how MLS could thumb down Montreal's bid based on a great-looking grass SSS, while Seattle plays in a cavernous Quest Field and their SSS is STILL BEING BUILT. This Saputo Stadium looks great, can easily be expanded, and will be better when filled with Impact fans ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 quote:Originally posted by redhat It's funny how MLS could thumb down Montreal's bid based on a great-looking grass SSS, while Seattle plays in a cavernous Quest Field and their SSS is STILL BEING BUILT. Still being built? Seattle has NO plans to play anywhere other than Quest Field. Supposedly, because they have such a great 'lease' agreement, nobody cares. Well, except me of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 quote:Originally posted by speedmonk42 Everyone I have shown this stadium to at work with the pics in this thread love it. They all wish we had 5 more of them in the country. I wish we had 5 more in the country as well. We could certainly use stadiums like this in Canada. However, if I was MLS commish I wouldn't want 5 stadiums like this in my league. The stadium is easily expandable but much more difficult to upgrade. You can't build a castle on sand. A cheap foundation is difficult to improve upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 quote:Originally posted by boban1 Ity was the video of the state of the league address. He mentioned it when Gerry asked him about Montreal. I think its somewhere on the MLS site. the stadium is fine as it is currently planned for and the configuration that alows for expansion to 18K is Ok with Garber and the MLS. That was what was reported. Specifically, once phase two of the project is completed ( ie.: expansion to 18K) it will meet MLS criteria. I think that you are misinterpreting the facts ( as you have done before ) and public positions to defend your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpenza Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly However, if I was MLS commish I wouldn't want 5 stadiums like this in my league. No, but you wouldn't mind American football lines on the field, field turf and 80,000-seat monsters with 9,000 folks sitting in them. So, frankly, before you even start thinking about telling us that stadiums like Saputo's would make the league look bad, I suggest you take a good look around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegasAlexandros1555362277 Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack Still being built? Seattle has NO plans to play anywhere other than Quest Field. Supposedly, because they have such a great 'lease' agreement, nobody cares. Well, except me of course. It's not a "lease"... the majority owners of the new Seattle franchise are the same guys who own the Seahawks and they also OWN QWest field. That means that they directly control all the revenue that will be generated from the games and don't have to pay rent. This is the same situation which exists in New England and why the MLS has so far accepted that situation and the one in Seattle. What they don't want is a situation like in KC or NY where the teams pay rent and don't get 100% of the revenue. So in that sense, Saputo is more than on the right track and as eluded to above Garber simply stated that the stadium needs to be bigger, he made no reference to any inherent lack of quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.