Guest speedmonk42 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Mpenza What most people don't seem to realize is that the initial plans include the expansion. There's no need to change plans in order to expand. Besides, it's not like they would expand on an existing structure, they'll just add a structure on the open side (which is left open... for expansion, as you might have guessed by now). Expansion is not going to be a painful process, far from it. I wasn't saying expansion would be difficult, that it would be unlikely one would change the plans of a stadium by increasing its capacity by a double digit percentage as you were building it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpenza Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 And I was saying expansion will not force a change of plans as it was in the plans from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Ahhh gentlemen, there seems to be a communication breakdown between you two. Mpenza, when Speedmonk says "change the plans", "change their plans" etc, he doe not mean literal plans(blueprints), he means the plan of expansion, eg: build in year X, expand X years after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaetan Cormier Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Just when you tought that this segment of the forum was dead! NOT!!!! Here's an update for the joy of your eyes! http://www.boutiquemeteo.com/saputo/stadesaputo.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Gaetan, should have used the boardroom picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaetan Cormier Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Trident Gaetan, should have used the boardroom picture. I just edited my last post... is that the pic you were talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 While I credit the Saputos for getting the stadium up and ready in time for 2008 (given that Atlanta's & Rochester's Stadiums have been in a state of flux for almost 3 years) the stadium seems too basic for MLS purposes. Some of the pictures I've seen of Pizza Hut Park in Frisco and Toyota Park in Bridgeview are so deluxe compared with this. I suppose you could always enhance certain aspects but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpenza Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 It's clearly not the same thing. It costs TEN TIMES less too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 All the great football stadia are basic. Good sight lines, no track, and a good pitch is all you can ask for. If you can get a cup of tea and piss in at half time so much the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer Some of the pictures I've seen of Pizza Hut Park in Frisco and Toyota Park in Bridgeview are so deluxe compared with this. I suppose you could always enhance certain aspects but... Well I figure if you can walk from Bouche la Bouche in Le Plateau to the stadia in half and hour... its a perfect location, you get a seat, sun...and poutine Saputo on cold days..and Griffon rouse or Maudite on hot summer nights in Montreal. This stadia will draw a lot of people from outside Montreal to games and the event factor will be large. It could end up being a better venue for fun the Toronto, and will be better then Vancouver the city that fun forgot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Trillium Well I figure if you can walk from Bouche la Bouche in Le Plateau to the stadia in half and hour... its a perfect location, you get a seat, sun...and poutine Saputo on cold days..and Griffon rouse or Maudite on hot summer nights in Montreal. This stadia will draw a lot of people from outside Montreal to games and the event factor will be large. It could end up being a better venue for fun the Toronto, and will be better then Vancouver the city that fun forgot. Not sure how this answer addresses CB's concerns about the quality of the stadium. Yes the stadium is an improvement over CCR and good value for the money spent on it. Yet it still resembles a good USL/university level stadium more than even a middle tier professional soccer stadium. I think if the Saputos were really serious about getting an MLS team they should have done it right the first time, spent 10 million more and built a proper stadium. We may still get into the MLS with this stadium and I hope we do, but even with expansion we will be just barely meeting the MLS stadium standard and even then because they partly don't always adhere to their own standard if there are enough other factors in favour of a city/ownership group. I think the location of the stadium is decent and possibly the best they could have done but it is far from perfect. A perfect location is downtown where the Bell Centre or Old Forum are located. Molson stadium has a very good location as well. The problem with building downtown though was that they were always going to have problems with the land prices and may have also run into trouble with zoning like in Vancouver. The Olympic Park is pretty far from downtown in not the best of neighbourhoods with very little other restaurant/entertainment available in the area though the hope that the stadium may change this was probably a motivating factor in the Olympic authority giving the Saputos the land. What saves the location though is the excellent subway access to the stadium from throughout Montreal and pretty good access by car with sufficient parking available. Not sure why you mention Bouche a Bouche by which I think you mean the restaurant in the eastern part of Le Plateau which is itself far from downtown Montreal and still you would be walking pretty damn fast to make it to Saputo stadium from there in 30 minutes. Bell Centre and Molson stadium get significant walking crowds from people who live or work downtown. Saputo stadium is going to be primarily filled by people using transportation to get there but fortunately the transportation possibilities are good. As I stated I think the stadium can be successful in this location. I know it was too much to ask for them to build an A-level stadium at this point but I would have much preferred they build a B-level stadium like BMO than a C-level stadium like they are building. Even if it gets us in to MLS we will still have one of the poorest stadiums in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpenza Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly I think if the Saputos were really serious about getting an MLS team they should have done it right the first time, spent 10 million more and built a proper stadium . [...] I know it was too much to ask for them to build an A-level stadium at this point but I would have much preferred they build a B-level stadium like BMO than a C-level stadium like they are building. Saputo Stadium = $15 million Saputo Stadium if Saputo had the "vision" and spent 10 million more to build a "B-level stadium like BMO" = $15 million + $10 million = $25 million BMO Field = $70 million You're $45 million short. Where would you get the money? Or... how would you turn 25 million dollars into BMO Field 2? If Saputo had wanted to "do it right the first time" as you say, he couldn't have built anything, because no one is going to help funding a soccer stadium of that level here in Montreal, and you know it. We'd still be talking about where to build it, what it would look like, how much it would cost and whether or not we'd have the Als get on board... Besides we would have inevitably had to ask for public funds and I truly don't know how the Impact could've succeeded where the Expos failed. The thing is: Saputo did it right the first time. We have a real soccer stadium in Montreal about to open its doors for us, and we have nothing to be ashamed of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The last stadium I went to was White Hart Lane. The neighborhood isn't fit for a hooligan, we were lined up at the train for ages just to get back to Seven Sisters which isn't exactly the most central stop in London, you nearly lose a nut getting through the aging turnstiles, if there were ever a fire you'd be dead, the limited toilets aren't fit to vomit in, and try getting a lager at the half. Forget about it. And don't even get me started on old Maine Road, the last English stadium I visited. I bet Iraq has "nicer" stadiums. But, is that the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SthMelbRed Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I think the most important things for the stadium are proximity to the city and capacity. I don't see why the stadium, when fully extended to its highest possible capacity, would be a hindrance to getting into MLS. I really don't think MLS cares how long you have to line up for a piss or a beer at halftime. If the match reports that get to the media can show a good attendance figure, and it looks halfway decent on TV, they'll be satisfied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyr Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone The last stadium I went to was White Hart Lane. The neighborhood isn't fit for a hooligan... When I went to White Hart Lane I learned a very valuable lesson... don't ever wash your hands when you use the loo... the line up is so bad for the toilets that everyone just uses the sinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I think Saputo knows exactly what he is doing. Start a the level you are at, leave room for easy expansion and GET IT DONE NOW! There is something to be said for getting your foot in the door. Now that the stadium is a reality it gets much harder to thwart getting to the next level. I don't really think anyone at MLS has shown an iron set of rules. They seem to be extremely flexible for the right motivation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Martyr When I went to White Hart Lane I learned a very valuable lesson... don't ever wash your hands when you use the loo... the line up is so bad for the toilets that everyone just uses the sinks. Haha. In spite of all this, can White Hart Lane really be called a "B" stadium? I mean, I sat at the end right beside the away supporters corner and the sight lines were perfect. It was late September and the pitch looked flawless. The atmosphere was a little on the dull side, though it was a midweek Carling cup tie against Boro. What can you expect? I can understand Stade Saputo being a "C" stadium in terms of capacity. But what else is wrong with it? Why is BMO a "B" stadium? Again, capacity. But other than the pitch and lack of a roof, I see nothing wrong with BMO, especially given the atmosphere. And I expect the same from Montreal. If you include the grass pitch, can't SS be an "A" stadium with a small capacity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarnado1555362291 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I think it looks pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I never said it doesn't look good. It looks great! The location is solid and Montreal now boasts the second SSS in Canada. And maybe they'll build a deluxe stand at the far end of this picture. Maybe if they go MLS, they'll dismantle the stand to the left, and build something more permanent, that's covered, with luxury boxes. But, you look at what's being spent on the new MLS Stadia like Red Bull Park, and the proposed Kansas City stadium, and the new one in Salt Lake City, and they're all "permanent" looking, if that makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 The reason it resembles a USL stadium is because we are in the USL. No need to gamble when the MLS doesn't enforce its rules. No need for some swanky 70million dollar boundary pushing piece of art with 4 restos, a hotel and a small shopping complex built into it. Oh, and a footie pitch as well. It's a trend that must stop; we get caught up in dressing up something that does not need to be dressed up. Sports stadiums only need to host sports, not entertain thousands of people for the day. Who honestly spends a day at those stadiums? Ideally, I show up 30 mins early, grab some food, hit the stands before the first half, stand and watch for 45 minutes, go to the bathroom at the half, grab a panini, stand for the next 45 and sometimes walk to the resto to discuss the game and grab a bite. Notice how I pay attention to the game and not the fact that I can win so many $$$ at some towel shop, or get my face painted at a kiosk. I wonder how many people actually show up at the stadium, half a fine meal at one of their swanky restos built in, watch the 45 through their 720p jumbotron, go to the masseur stand they have at the half, watch the last 45 from the resto eating beluga caviar until the 90 whistle blows, where they proceed to shop at their stadiums Mezzanine? If I had my way, all the stadiums would be modeled after the Millentor; it's efficient and it serves its purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag futbol Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 ^ my thoughts exactly. TFC tells you everything you need to know about revenue generation for MLS right now. If you can fill the stadium with people paying regular price for tickets, that's enough to succeed. The condition of your stadium means nothing compared to where it's located. Can this stadium be upgraded enough to bring in MLS? yes. Can Montreal fill it with fans to make it viable? all indications seem to suggest it can. Pretty much all you need to know. FCD and Colorado have some nice looking stadiums ... does anybody go to the park or care? nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I honestly hoped they'd build some terribly ugly brick building with rusty aluminum siding, you know, the wavy kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Yank Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 The stadium looks fine to me. It will look a lot more like an MLS venue when it has seats surrounding the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegasAlexandros1555362277 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 ^^^ How do you figure that??? Most of the new MLS stadiums that have been completed have one end that is open. So if anything, it already looks exactly like an MLS stadium should look! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I love the look of this stadium. I applaud the Saputos for doing ALOT with a small budget. Some of Gaetan's photos really make the place look high end. There are some really nice touches. I love the boardroom overlooking the pitch. Thing of beauty. I absolutely can't wait to come to Montreal this spring/summer/fall (whenever) to watch TFC v. Impact battle for the Canada Cup or whatever its called. Congrats Montreal fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.