Ottawa Citizen Article on Player's Want for Saputo

[Duane Rollins1555362254]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Not so simple. Wish it were.

With the way it's largely done now as soon as you lay the sod over artificial turf it's for all intents and purposes dying. In a week, ten days tops, it'll be completely dead depending on the weather and usage.

The CSA is not going to put down sod at BMO for only one match and there is no way what is laid down will last from international to international.

Daniel asked the question as to why a FieldTurf practice pitch wasn't laid down next to BMO and I think that question is still relevant. Bubble over the FieldTurf pitch come winter with a temp. tunnel connecting it to BMO's change rooms and you'd be set.

Never been to BMO so that alternative may not be practical for simple geographic reasons, but it's pretty clear now that ALL the concerns pundits had with Pipe's little dream stadium have been 100% spot on. Or very nearly.

Not saying a solution, even a temporary one can't be found by the time The Hex comes around. A thick earth base between the sod and FieldTurf maybe? Don't know. But a permanent solution would be welcomed by pretty much everyone concerned. That much is clear.

The only way you could put a practice facility next to BMO would be to take more parking away (and space that the CNE uses). That said, there *is* a FieldTurf stadium about 2km away--Lamport Stadium. The turf is brand new, having been replaced earlier this spring.

But, don't hold your breath on grass at BMO. It's a non-issue for 98% of people in the city. More importantly, it's a non-issue for about 100% of MLSE management and city hall politicians.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

Unless this is a new rule, we saw New England Revolution play Metrostars squeezed in between Canada-Costa Rica and USA-El Salvador at the 2003 Gold Cup (has it really been 5 years?)

The Gold Cup is not a "FIFA" event though, but a Concacaf one.

[Mimglow]

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

But, don't hold your breath on grass at BMO. It's a non-issue for 98% of people in the city. More importantly, it's a non-issue for about 100% of MLSE management and city hall politicians.

Would it not become an issue if the Canadian National team snubbed Toronto throughout the World Cup campaign? Especially if we get to the Hex? I imagine the Toronto media would raise quite a stink, and it would become an issue for politicians.

[Mimglow]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

The Gold Cup is not a "FIFA" event though, but a Concacaf one.

My apologies, I wasn't aware there was a distinction. I thought a FIFA-sanctioned match meant FIFA rules were in play.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

My apologies, I wasn't aware there was a distinction. I thought a FIFA-sanctioned match meant FIFA rules were in play.

That's why you have double-header in the Gold Cup, something you can't do under FIFA laws/rules.

[Duane Rollins1555362254]

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

Would it not become an issue if the Canadian National team snubbed Toronto throughout the World Cup campaign? Especially if we get to the Hex? I imagine the Toronto media would raise quite a stink, and it would become an issue for politicians.

I don't think it would, no.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hard for me to imagine NDP-controlled city hall suddenly deciding that real grass at BMO was an issue that would resonate with its lefty base. Especially when the city is closing pools and public hockey rinks to save money....

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

Dunno. The Toronto media never really raised a stink in the past when toronto was snubbed. I think that they look at this from the bigger picture of TFC and all the freindlies. I dont think that the politician would be able to distinguish between a mens WCQ and a U15 womens international friendly versus Guam.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

But, don't hold your breath on grass at BMO. It's a non-issue for 98% of people in the city. More importantly, it's a non-issue for about 100% of MLSE management and city hall politicians.

That's not entirely true.

[Massive Attack]

I don't see the economic incentive for TFC/MLSE/City of Toronto for installing real grass at BMO Field. TFC games are all pretty much sold out. National team games don't generate much money to begin with. If they did, we would play a lot more home friendlies.

If anything, the only real reason to install grass is pride. IE. being embarrassed losing matches to Montreal.

[Mimglow]

I think once we reach the Hex, the team will get the media coverage it deserves. There's a been a slow and steady increase in soccer media coverage in this country, and if(when) Canada performs well and starts getting a sniff of the WC, the coverage will explode.

When that happens, I can see people in T.O. and (to a lesser extent) other CDN cities start looking around and asking: "Hey, why are all the games in Montréal? Isn't BMO Field the "National" stadium?

That's the prism through which I'm seeing this. Media explosion.

[Massive Attack]

I have a much more pessimistic view. I think we would have to make the World Cup at least 2 cycles in a row before the media and the casual soccer fans start to really care and respect Canada.

[italianboy]

i agree with massive most people i talk too think the national team is a joke...

when i tell them they have a decent chance at qualifying they just laugh at me and say yeah a decent chance at getting lucky

sigh

its hard to support your country...

[Mimglow]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

I have a much more pessimistic view. I think we would have to make the World Cup at least 2 cycles in a row before the media and the casual soccer fans start to really care and respect Canada.

That's cool, we can disagree I just get a sense that it's different this time. And like George W. would say: "Who needs facts when you've got your gut."

[Bill Spiers]

Life is full of compromises. I’m sure most fans in Toronto – and the players - would have loved a natural grass stadium. But if the only way we could get government money to build a stadium was to commit to community usage and artificial turf, then surely that is an acceptable compromise. So now we have a stadium, the FIFA U-20 World Cup (2007), an MLS team, the best fans in North America and more media coverage for soccer than we’ve had in a long time.

And I’m sure Stade Saputo was also, in a way, a compromise. Wouldn’t they have liked a 20,000 or 25,000 seat stadium? But with mostly private money – rather than government money – there was only so much they could afford.

Should the players also compromise? They want business class travel across the Atlantic. They want to stay at top class hotels. They want more preparation time for the national team – particularly for World Cup Qualifiers. That all takes money. If a sold-out BMO Field produces twice the revenue (or more) as Stade Saputo, and that money is used for national team purposes, isn’t that also an acceptable compromise?

What about sponsors? If nation-wide exposure of the national team – Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal - helps get the CSA more sponsors, another acceptable compromise?

If the options available are properly explained to the players – you can’t have everything but if you want A, B and C, you need to agree to D, I think they might recognize that playing the occasional game at BMO Field will help them in the long run.

And I know the players prefer the real thing but I haven’t seen anyone explain yet how playing on real grass as opposed to field turf gives us a competitive advantage over the other teams and improves our chances of qualifying for the WC finals in South Africa.

[Trident]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers

And I’m sure Stade Saputo was also, in a way, a compromise. Wouldn’t they have liked a 20,000 or 25,000 seat stadium? But with mostly private money – rather than government money – there was only so much they could afford.

He could afford to build Something 2 times the size of Azteca.

[Duane Rollins1555362254]

quote:Originally posted by Trident

He could afford to build Something 2 times the size of Azteca.

He's a wealthy man, no doubt...but his family is "only" worth about $2.75 billion and a stadium the size of Azteca would cost about $1 billion to build, so...um, sure..the family might have been able to find the money to do so, but not if it wanted, you know, to have any left after they were done.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers

Life is full of compromises. I’m sure most fans in Toronto – and the players - would have loved a natural grass stadium. But if the only way we could get government money to build a stadium was to commit to community usage and artificial turf, then surely that is an acceptable compromise. So now we have a stadium, the FIFA U-20 World Cup (2007), an MLS team, the best fans in North America and more media coverage for soccer than we’ve had in a long time.

And I’m sure Stade Saputo was also, in a way, a compromise. Wouldn’t they have liked a 20,000 or 25,000 seat stadium? But with mostly private money – rather than government money – there was only so much they could afford.

Should the players also compromise? They want business class travel across the Atlantic. They want to stay at top class hotels. They want more preparation time for the national team – particularly for World Cup Qualifiers. That all takes money. If a sold-out BMO Field produces twice the revenue (or more) as Stade Saputo, and that money is used for national team purposes, isn’t that also an acceptable compromise?

What about sponsors? If nation-wide exposure of the national team – Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal - helps get the CSA more sponsors, another acceptable compromise?

If the options available are properly explained to the players – you can’t have everything but if you want A, B and C, you need to agree to D, I think they might recognize that playing the occasional game at BMO Field will help them in the long run.

And I know the players prefer the real thing but I haven’t seen anyone explain yet how playing on real grass as opposed to field turf gives us a competitive advantage over the other teams and improves our chances of qualifying for the WC finals in South Africa.

Good arguments. Fairly sums up the situation. .

[Guest Ed]

Well the players have very clearly said they are more comfortable playing on natural grass. Are you of the opinion that player confidence is NOT a competitive advantage?

[devioustrevor]

quote:He's a wealthy man, no doubt...but his family is "only" worth about $2.75 billion and a stadium the size of Azteca would cost about $1 billion to build, so...um, sure..the family might have been able to find the money to do so, but not if it wanted, you know, to have any left after they were done.

There is such a thing as economy of scale when building a stadium. If it cost $1B to build a 100K stadium, it doesn't mean it would cost $2B to build a 200K stadium. In all honesty, when building a stadium that size if the first 100K seats cost $1B to build I'd be shocked if the second 100K seats cost more than $300M as long as everything was built at the same time.

[beachesl]

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

That's cool, we can disagree I just get a sense that it's different this time. And like George W. would say: "Who needs facts when you've got your gut."

MIMGLOW, WHERE YA BEEN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, BRO?

[Duane Rollins1555362254]

quote:Originally posted by devioustrevor

There is such a thing as economy of scale when building a stadium. If it cost $1B to build a 100K stadium, it doesn't mean it would cost $2B to build a 200K stadium. In all honesty, when building a stadium that size if the first 100K seats cost $1B to build I'd be shocked if the second 100K seats cost more than $300M as long as everything was built at the same time.

But, you don't become worth $2.75B by doing stupid things like building 100k soccer stadiums in Montreal. There is also scales of wealth. As billionaires go, the family isn't that rich--you have to be worth 100B + before you can start throwing around the type of money that we are talking about.

[tmcmurph]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

Well the players have very clearly said they are more comfortable playing on natural grass. Are you of the opinion that player confidence is NOT a competitive advantage?

That and there is always the "take away all excuses" management method. If the players want grass and say it helps then give it to them. They want all the games on a first rate surface of which Canada apparently has only 1 () then give it to them. You would see some upgrades to the other facilities in Canada in a hurry if that happened! Embarrassment and rivalry can be made to work in our favor.

[paul-toronto]

quote:That and there is always the "take away all excuses" management method. If the players want grass and say it helps then give it to them. They want all the games on a first rate surface of which Canada apparently has only 1 () then give it to them. You would see some upgrades to the other facilities in Canada in a hurry if that happened! Embarrassment and rivalry can be made to work in our favor.

I agree with that. We might have grass in Toronto for the next round if Toronto was to lose out on a game because of the turf.

By the way, it is spelled "favour" not "favor".

[Joe MacCarthy]

quote:Originally posted by paul-toronto

I agree with that. We might have grass in Toronto for the next round if Toronto was to lose out on a game because of the turf. By the way, it is spelled "favour" not "favor".

By the way it's artificial turf specifically FieldTurf not turf. Turf is grass.

[Joe MacCarthy]

quote:Originally posted by tmcmurph

That and there is always the "take away all excuses" management method. If the players want grass and say it helps then give it to them. They want all the games on a first rate surface of which Canada apparently has only 1 () then give it to them.

There is much truth to this. The Montreal Canadiens/Edmonton Eskimos employed this effectively for years. They had the best franchises for years where everyone wanted to play.

You take away all excuses from the players to perform well. That shifts the onus on to the players, something which posters here have a neurotic reluctance to do. Blame the CSA, DM, weather, Concacaf refs the list is endless, but the ultimate responsibility is the eleven guys on the field.

One bad break seldom decides the outcome of a game. JDG makes a bad backpass for the game winner for Brazil yet Issey could have had the game winner for Canada. The problem was JDGs was the last mistake of the game and the one people remember.