Final Hex cities

[jagum]

If Canada qualifies to the final hex name the cities where the team would play... Imagine the the other teams are : Mexico-USA-Trinidad/Tobago-Costa Rica-El Salvador.

Here my options

vs Trinidad/Tobago (Montreal)

vs Costa Rica (Victoria)

vs USA (Edmonton)

Vs El Salvador (St.Johns)

vs Mexico (Toronto or Edmonton)

[theaub]

It'll be 3 in Montreal, 1 in Toronto and 1 in Edmonton IMO.

[theaub]

Also:

Mexico: Edmonton (presuming they win)

USA: Montreal

T&T: Toronto

Costa Rica: Montreal

El Salvador: Montreal

[CanadasBest]

If our home game is in February then we will most certainly be seeing a game on the west coast.

[CanadianTraveller]

quote:Originally posted by theaub

Also:

Mexico: Edmonton (presuming they win)

USA: Montreal

T&T: Toronto

Costa Rica: Montreal

El Salvador: Montreal

It's fun to guess, but until the auditions are completed this fall, it's pure speculation. I believe that the CSA is going to get an ear-full from everyone who can spell C-S-and-A, especially the players, after the Toronto match. And, in a big surprise, it might just be a lot of positive feedback! But good or bad, the CSA will hear it, and that will be one factor on Toronto games next year. (The other factor is the number of women's friendlies that could offset their National Stadium commitments, although I don't completely understand that contract. In a non-competition year, don't expect (m)any.)

Edmonton is the logical location for the U.S. game. It is not the logical location for Mexico unless it's Game Day 9 or Game Day 10. Edmonton is (or should be) out for Game Day 1-3 as there is no grass in Commonwealth for those games. Snow, yes. Dead former organic material if the snow is swept away, yes. Edmonton is also going to get killed regarding the quality of the pitch if last night's football game is any indication. But...if there are 35,000 people on a lukewarm night in Commonwealth in October, the lure of a $2,000,000 net payday next year is tough to pass up. Game Day 7 is also excluded as it conflicts with football (barring an absolute miracle). I'd also suggest Game Day 10 would favour Edmonton not because of weather, but because of the potential of a "historic" game being played (and a full stadium and big payday), but I'd be wary of giving it to Edmonton for financial reasons given the quite high probability that the game won't be historic, but will be very cold.

Montreal is the "default" location when the other two locations don't work. I'm glad to have a great place and a great pitch like Montreal as a "fall-back" position, even more if it becomes a first-choice for the CSA. But...can Montreal be ready for March 28? Not likely. Which means that, at a minimum, there's one Canada match that can't go in Montreal. Swangaard? Or Victoria - that'd be great IMHO. March 28 (Game Day 2) in Victoria would be perfect. Or will it be Toronto and hope we freeze the opponents to death! That will be an interesting decision...I'm betting on Toronto, our new all-weather "National" Stadium. {Sigh}

Notice that I didn't refer to opponents except U.S.? It's because opponents are 100% unknown and largely in the hands of the fixer...I mean President of CONCACAF. They might even hold a "draw".

[RS]

I don't want to look past the semi-final round, but I would really, really love to play the Yanks here...

[theaub]

I want the US in Montreal, only because I've been pushing since the US played there in U-20's to have Shawn Michaels lead them onto the field.

[Knobbs]

Originally posted by theaub

I want the US in Montreal, only because I've been pushing since the US played there in U-20's to have Shawn Michaels lead them onto the field.

I hate speculating before we get through the coming rounds. But it would be wicked if whenever the US plays we could chant "You Screwed Bret!" just for fun. Especially seeing that Shawn (and Vince McMahon)are the wrestling equivalents of Benito Archundia.

[Scottie]

Hate to look past this round. But the US game would be in Toronto, no ifs ands or buts.

[SilverSamurai]

quote:Originally posted by Scottie

Hate to look past this round. But the US game would be in Toronto, no ifs ands or buts.

Agreed. I think this is 1 game where it would pretty much sell out on it's own.

I also think that this would be the 1 to wake up the casuals and would end up turning BMO into "the fortress" you see on TV during TFC matches.

I admit I'm selfish when I say I want this match at BMO.

[CanadianTraveller]

I guess I don't understand the logic of Scottie and Silver. If the game sells out with minimal marketing effort (and I agree), does the CSA sell out a 20,000 seat stadium, or a 60,000 seat stadium? If it "wake(s) up the casuals" then which of the three cities is perceived to have the most "casual" fans of top-tier soccer? Which of the three cities is physically located furthest away from the major population centres of Sam's Army? Which opponent would require the least effort to energize fans to have a loud and noticeable presence in support of Canada...and which stadium needs that the most?

I really don't care where the U.S. game ends up, but it seems pretty obvious which stadium would be preferred by the CSA if conditions aren't an issue. Toronto would be by far the worst location; Montreal wouldn't be far behind. All three would support the game well...but Edmonton needs a U.S. matchup far more than the other two cities...and would reward a U.S. matchup far more. Of course, the draw will have a significant impact on which city gets the U.S. game.

As for the Canada game in the U.S., Kansas City (location) and Houston (heat/humidity/travel) are two logical candidates. Reliant Stadium is grass, I believe? (Yup.) Miami/Orlando are options only if Cuba/T&T qualifies and USSF is too cheap to charter aircraft (they aren't).

I'd love to have Mexico back in Edmonton in 2009...might happen if 2008 goes spectacularly well, but I'd doubt it. THAT'S the game where Toronto makes a ton of sense.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by CanadianTraveller

I guess I don't understand the logic of Scottie and Silver. If the game sells out with minimal marketing effort (and I agree), does the CSA sell out a 20,000 seat stadium, or a 60,000 seat stadium? If it "wake(s) up the casuals" then which of the three cities is perceived to have the most "casual" fans of top-tier soccer? Which of the three cities is physically located furthest away from the major population centres of Sam's Army? Which opponent would require the least effort to energize fans to have a loud and noticeable presence in support of Canada...and which stadium needs that the most?

I really don't care where the U.S. game ends up, but it seems pretty obvious which stadium would be preferred by the CSA if conditions aren't an issue. Toronto would be by far the worst location; Montreal wouldn't be far behind. All three would support the game well...but Edmonton needs a U.S. matchup far more than the other two cities...and would reward a U.S. matchup far more. Of course, the draw will have a significant impact on which city gets the U.S. game.

As for the Canada game in the U.S., Kansas City (location) and Houston (heat/humidity/travel) are two logical candidates. Reliant Stadium is grass, I believe? (Yup.) Miami/Orlando are options only if Cuba/T&T qualifies and USSF is too cheap to charter aircraft (they aren't).

I'd love to have Mexico back in Edmonton in 2009...might happen if 2008 goes spectacularly well, but I'd doubt it. THAT'S the game where Toronto makes a ton of sense.

Say again?

Am I reading this wrong, or are you suggesting that a future Mexico game makes the most sense being played in Toronto?

Another thing to consider when trying to make economical sense out of all of this is that the CSA, from what I gather, pays zero rental fees at BMO Field, as opposed to whatever Saputo and the City of Edmonton decides to charge.

On top of that, the CSA gets a very favourable cut of the ancillaries (concessions) in Toronto. I'm not so sure the same could be said elsewhere.

So all of a sudden that 20,000 versus 60,000 debate becomes a little more interesting.

[Scottie]

Another factor to consider is that while there's a large population of pretty much every ethnicity in toronto, most of them would gladly cheer against our opponent for a change.

[italianboy]

hopefully if we get through we'll get the u.s in Montreal, i cant think of a more anti-american city in this country then montreal... not that its a good thing but we might make the ground a little hostile for our yank neighbours

[theaub]

That's why I wouldn't want the game in Edmonton...both Toronto and Montreal have a full population of people who hate America for some dumb reason.

[italianboy]

and we'd want it to be pro-america?

[strobe_z]

This thread is full of bad karma... I cringe just reading it.

We've got PLENTY on the plate without having to peek through the kitchen door...

[CanadianTraveller]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Am I reading this wrong, or are you suggesting that a future Mexico game makes the most sense being played in Toronto?

I can find 20,000 Mexicans to watch a game in Alberta, B.C.,...Manitoba if one tried. If the game is important, you will find Mexicans in a Canadian stadium. Lots of them. So it really doesn't matter which of the potential venues you put this game in, it's an away game. Kinda nice when they're a little fewer (like an irrelevant mid-week game in freezing temperatures as far away from large Mexican-American populations as possible) and far away from the pitch, but still an away game.

Your one saving grace is if you can pre-sell tickets before they become available to the (Mexican-supporting) public. Audition #1 closes one week from tonight....

Unless you're suggesting a Montreal match-up with the smaller, less noisy, fewer Impact-ticket-buying stadium is a better fit for the 10,000 Mexican supporters who would be in a position to attend?

quote:

Another thing to consider when trying to make economical sense out of all of this is that the CSA, from what I gather, pays zero rental fees at BMO Field, as opposed to whatever Saputo and the City of Edmonton decides to charge.

On top of that, the CSA gets a very favourable cut of the ancillaries (concessions) in Toronto. I'm not so sure the same could be said elsewhere.

So all of a sudden that 20,000 versus 60,000 debate becomes a little more interesting.

Not really, although all very good points. Stadium rental is paid with just a few hundred tickets once a price is negotiated, although the larger stadium generates additional costs in security and staffing as well. The use of a "seat tax" has removed much of the posturing around stadium rental pricing here in Edmonton. The concessions could be a significant source of revenue, but of course 20,000 x 100% = 60,000 x 33%, and I am reasonably sure that an event holder gets 33% of the concession revenue in Edmonton (though perhaps not much more after charitable groups staffing the concessions and City of Edmonton get their cut?) If we're debating where to put a Guatemala game based upon revenue, that factor could be significant. Won't be for a U.S. game.

The way to make BMO Field attractive for your #1-drawing game is to price the tickets to the market - a range of $60 - $150 is not unreasonable if the game is significant. After the Costa Rica fiasco I presume that's unlikely to occur. Also skews purchases towards those travelling to the game (since the ticket price is a smaller percentage of the supporter's budget) which skews towards Mexican supporters.

Any chance of putting 15,000 seats worth of bleachers up at either end of BMO Field?

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by CanadianTraveller

I can find 20,000 Mexicans to watch a game in Alberta, B.C.,...Manitoba if one tried. If the game is important, you will find Mexicans in a Canadian stadium. Lots of them. So it really doesn't matter which of the potential venues you put this game in, it's an away game. Kinda nice when they're a little fewer (like an irrelevant mid-week game in freezing temperatures as far away from large Mexican-American populations as possible) and far away from the pitch, but still an away game.

Your one saving grace is if you can pre-sell tickets before they become available to the (Mexican-supporting) public. Audition #1 closes one week from tonight....

Unless you're suggesting a Montreal match-up with the smaller, less noisy, fewer Impact-ticket-buying stadium is a better fit for the 10,000 Mexican supporters who would be in a position to attend?

Huh?

I was asking you if you were serious in suggesting that that Toronto should be the venue, as you seemed to be in an earlier post when you wrote, "I'd love to have Mexico back in Edmonton in 2009...might happen if 2008 goes spectacularly well, but I'd doubt it. THAT'S the game where Toronto makes a ton of sense."

Now you're making it seem like I was arguing for it.

Even though I wasn't, I vehemently disagree with your premise that we should just concede to the Mexican fanbase and consider it an away game no matter where it is played.

It is this kind of defeatist attitude that we need to get away from, if we are going to be taken seriously as the "hardcore" Canadian supporters group. You may end up being right, but if we were to just go into the games thinking that we will be outshouted and outsung, we might as well host all of the games outside of the country.

quote:Originally posted by CanadianTraveller

Not really, although all very good points. Stadium rental is paid with just a few hundred tickets once a price is negotiated, although the larger stadium generates additional costs in security and staffing as well. The use of a "seat tax" has removed much of the posturing around stadium rental pricing here in Edmonton. The concessions could be a significant source of revenue, but of course 20,000 x 100% = 60,000 x 33%, and I am reasonably sure that an event holder gets 33% of the concession revenue in Edmonton (though perhaps not much more after charitable groups staffing the concessions and City of Edmonton get their cut?) If we're debating where to put a Guatemala game based upon revenue, that factor could be significant. Won't be for a U.S. game.

The way to make BMO Field attractive for your #1-drawing game is to price the tickets to the market - a range of $60 - $150 is not unreasonable if the game is significant. After the Costa Rica fiasco I presume that's unlikely to occur. Also skews purchases towards those travelling to the game (since the ticket price is a smaller percentage of the supporter's budget) which skews towards Mexican supporters.

Any chance of putting 15,000 seats worth of bleachers up at either end of BMO Field?

Even though I engaged in the financial side of this debate, I do not believe for a second that World Cup Qualifying should be a time for the CSA to look to make a profit.

It should be completely about getting us to the World Cup, end of. If they make a little cash in the process, fine, but the reality is that the financial gains of actually qualifying for the WC far outweigh a couple of home dates every four years.

Anyways, I think I'm done posting in this thread. As strobe_z suggested, the negative karma is a bit too much.

I want to focus 100% on the Jamaica game.

[BrennanFan]

reminds me of how everyone was talking about going to the olympics few months ago. someone lock this, for the sake of un-jinxing things.