Cost of Turf at BMO

[Mr.Impact]

Just wondering what it would cost to have the turf removed, and replacing it by natural turf? It seems to me that Toronto FC would improve its chances of signing better players, if the pitch was natural turf. Nuno Gomes reportedly refused to sign for Toronto FC because of the artificial turf.

Seems to me that management should do everything possible to make their players happy, and reduce injuries.

As far as maintenance is concerned, is it really that great of an expence? Maybe Toronto should take a closer look at what the Montreal Impact are doing with their pitch. If a USL side is able to do it, there is no reason for an MLS side not to be able to incur the costs.

The MNT would also not hesitate to play at BMO, if they has the right pitch.

[VPjr]

^ the issue is that the city of Toronto wants BMO Field to be available all winter long. A bubble is put over the field as soon as the colder weather hits and stays up until March/April. It's a big money maker for the city (who owns BMO).

MLSE needs to build a soccer complex in Toronto where they can have their training facilities and have numerous real grass and Field Turf pitches put on the property which they can bubble in the winter. They can the offer those fields for winter rental angd give the city a share of those revenues to offset what is lost by converting BMO to a real grass pitch.

That's the only scenario that I can conceive of that will allow BMO to go to real grass, as it should.

[An Observer]

VPjr...interesting idea about building a soccer complex....it might work

[VPjr]

^ it's something they need to do regardles.....the academy should be training at the same facility as the senior squad, especially as they expand the academy in future.

Plus, the city of Toronto needs more top quality soccer surfaces, especially in winter.

[CoachRich]

^VPjr.......great idea!!! They could even move the existing Field Turf into the new complex as a training & community pitch. Most Euro clubs have their playing field, growing playing field, Field Turf trainging field & maybe indoor field to make up their complex.

[Daniel]

How many indoor soccer complexes (+ winter bubbles) are there in the GTA (with a full field)?

I'd say there's probably around 6-10 in and around Montreal.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by VPjr

^ the issue is that the city of Toronto wants BMO Field to be available all winter long. A bubble is put over the field as soon as the colder weather hits and stays up until March/April. It's a big money maker for the city (who owns BMO).

Actually, it's a big money loser.

The City doesn't want to make money off the rentals (or at least, they don't expect to), they just need more field space. Keeping it open year-round has zero to do with revenue, and everything to do with community use.

BMO Field lost a lot of money in the first quarter of this year, which is to be expected.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

How many indoor soccer complexes (+ winter bubbles) are there in the GTA (with a full field)?

I'd say there's probably around 6-10 in and around Montreal.

I dont know the exact number. But from my driving around both cities over the years, it looks to be about an equal amount. There is the one in the soccer centre which I have been in. I have seen one in Mississauga in 403 Hurontario area I believe. I also recall seeing one in Scarborough in 401 Markham rd area I think. I Montreal, there is the one in Lachine ( catalonia sports plex) that you cant miss and I think I saw one in the south shore. Possibly one up on Decarie somewhere.

[marktci]

quote:Originally posted by VPjr

^ the issue is that the city of Toronto wants BMO Field to be available all winter long. A bubble is put over the field as soon as the colder weather hits and stays up until March/April. It's a big money maker for the city (who owns BMO).

MLSE needs to build a soccer complex in Toronto where they can have their training facilities and have numerous real grass and Field Turf pitches put on the property which they can bubble in the winter. They can the offer those fields for winter rental angd give the city a share of those revenues to offset what is lost by converting BMO to a real grass pitch.

That's the only scenario that I can conceive of that will allow BMO to go to real grass, as it should.

Not sure how much land there is available, but one option would be to take the land occupied by the current Lakeshore Lions Arena and put a couple of pitches there. The Leafs and the Lions Club are building a new practice rink for the Leafs and Marlies adjacent to this land and presumably it would have all of the necessary training and physio equipment there. Or if they could somehow work out a deal with the Board of Education and Lakeshore Collegiate to rebuild their current field into a proper traning pitch, that might also be some additional space to work with.

Just a thought.

[youllneverwalkalone]

Has anyone from MLSE addressed the issue of a natural surface at BMO? They must have talked about it amongst themselves. Even MoJo must realise it's a problem. Especially given his love of the over 30 crowd.

[Richard]

Judging from ticket sales, the FieldTurf at BMO does not appear to be something MLSE needs to concern itself about.

[youllneverwalkalone]

Ticket sales in year two. With much momentum behind them for the game right now. But long term, the supporters of TFC want it to be the Man United of MLS (at least the RPB do, so I'm told, pick your favourite dominant team for the analogy). They need to attract top players to reach this level. Top players are turning them down because of the turf (I'm actually aware that Mo doesn't scout any top players -just taking a position for the simplicity of dealing with one sentence sums up the world cliche troller). So, maybe no gate receipts from CONCACAF Champions League. Definitely no gate receipts from Super Liga this year, or Copa Libertadores should MLS get a spot in the future. Limited gate receipts from WCQ, if MLSE get a cut (not sure that they do).

By my count, there's a discounted cash flow analysis in there somewhere that says turf is bad for business long term being that all these matches have zero overhead costs associated with them, unless there are bonuses in the players contracts. Should that be the way you want to look at it. For the rest of us who actually want to watch good football, a natural surface would also help attract good footballers.

[tmcmurph]

The costs of maintaining fieldturf are often missed or overlooked. You need to dispose of the whole thing every 8-10 years according to the manufacturer, you need to do the combing, deep-tining, fluffing, application of herbicide, and sanitation.

http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html

So on to the alternatives.

1) They could have the "grass on blocks" routine and forklift it in for the MLS/MNT season and then take it out for winter and use the bubble & fieldturf for the winter non-pro seaon.

2) Move the fieldturf and bubble somewhere else and make BMO field a pure MLS/MNT soccer center. That would be my personal pick. I'm sure when they planned it they didn't think it would be the massive hit the TFC fans have made it into (kudos boys!).

3) Put in real grass & Desso Grassmaster system so you can use it 3 times as much and in winter use LED growlights for 8 hours a night to grow the grass.

There are alternatives and I'm sure someone can come up with better ideas than I have. I think Saputo Stadia has set the standard for playing surfaces in Canada. It will be interesting to see what BC Place retrofit does. If they go for something like option #1 then that will make Toronto jealous and that could work in favour of them putting in grass.

[Richard]

I doubt very much that BC Place will go for anything other than FieldTurf, especially as the Whitecaps, who are the only tenant likely to be interested in real grass, have made it very clear their regular use of BC Place is strictly temporary and only till they have their own outdoor stadium.

[Richard]

John Carver to the media today:

----------

Toronto FC coach John Carver is sick and tired of players using his club's Field Turf as a reason for either leaving or not signing with the Major League Soccer side.

Two players in particular -- midfielder Ronnie O'Brien, who sought a trade after last season, and striker Darren Huckerby, who cited BMO Field as the reason he didn't want to play in Toronto -- came under fire from Carver yesterday.

"I'll be anxious to see if those two players are on the pitch," Carver said of the pair who now play for the San Jose Earthquakes, TFC's opponent tomorrow afternoon at BMO.

Carver said there is a huge misconception about the carpet at BMO Field that even he fell victim to prior to his arrival as coach this season.

"I'll be honest with you, I was concerned about it when I first arrived," he said. "But I have seen nothing in terms of injury to our players that can be blamed on the pitch."

In fact, Carver said TFC injuries are well behind the league average this season.

O'Brien had complained that a series of knee injuries that led to surgery last season, were exacerbated by the BMO Field turf, and Huckerby, a highly sought after goal scorer from English Premier side Norwich City, was traded to San Jose earlier this week after he said he preferred the grass at Buck Shaw Coliseum.

The turf also could be one reason why Fulham's Brian McBride has so far refused to sign with TFC.

"We had (artificial turf) at the academy (at Newcastle) and a lot of players wouldn't play on it," Carver said. "But I think because (players) have grown up on grass, they automatically think Field Turf is bad. But it isn't."

http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/OtherSports/2008/07/18/6192231-sun.html

----------

My own view is that all the fuss people make about FieldTurf is based on emotion and sentiment, there is no factual basis. Study after study conducted by FIFA and others have shown that there is no measurable difference in injuries or the run of play.

[Cashcleaner]

^ Well to be honest, natural grass is still widely perfered by the players themselves, which as a good a reason as any to stay away from turf. I do agree that the disadvantages of turf are often exaggerated, though.

[Richard]

^ But preferred by players for what reason, actual or sentimental? There is no statistical evidence to support arguments that injuries are greater or that the run of play suffers. If there were some way to disguise the type of pitch I'll wager that most players could not tell the difference.

[Cashcleaner]

^ Well I think its actual. You hear players all the time citing the turf being a bit rougher to play on and managers saying recovery times are affected. Don't get me wrong, I don't think playing on an artificial surface is the end of the world by any stretch, but I can understand the hesitation people have towards it. I don't think potential players would turn down a hefty multi-year contract with a team like Toronto based on sentimentality.

For what its worth, I think we will eventually develop a pitch better than grass.

[Richard]

Earlier versions of Field Turf and especially AstroTurf were poor without doubt but the current generation of FIFA approved AT well maintained does not deserve the bad press some people give it. Some players may well make subjective comments and managers claim recovery times are affected but the statistics do not support them. I suspect a lot of people on this board make judgements about FieldTurf based on cheaply installed, poorly maintained, lower grade product they find on local community fields used by amateur clubs.

My empirical impression is that more often than not it is older players who object the most and that suggests an emotional attachment to natural grass and an unwillingness to accept change. Players turning down contracts to play for TFC supposedly because of the FieldTurf, I suggest they had equal or better offers from elsewhere. If it was TFC/AT or the dole they'd be playing for TFC with little complaint.

[tmcmurph]

Younger players are also quicker to recover from injuries, hungrier for a chance to play and the "I'm indestructible" attitude comes into play as well.

I think the heat island effect Fieldturf has is responsible for the cramps that arise late in a game a lot more on Fieldturf than on natural grass.

I do think some synthetic systems work much better (Desso Grassmaster) than others (Fieldturf). One works to reinforce the natural grass and one tries to replace it entirely. I favour the former approach.

Fieldturf in its current incarnation just doesn't measure up from an economic standpoint. $1 million for a field, $500k to replace it every 8 to 10 years, the maintenance with herbicides and anti-mold/fungal treatments, the combing, thinning and fluffing. You are just trading off one type of maintenance for another.

The replacement cost does not include the cost of disposing of the old rug and/or layers of the gravel/sand/rubber under the carpet nor does it cover the extra drainage.

[Grizzly]

O'Brien's comments on the turf (Whether or not the player's opinions are valid, not having grass is definitely hurting TFC's efforts at recruiting top players):

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Soccer/2008/07/19/6207701-cp.html

Also receiving his share of boos was recently signed San Jose midfielder Darren Huckerby, who rejected Toronto to ink a deal with the Earthquakes. Both O'Brien and Huckerby have cited BMO's turf as the reason they rejected the club.

"It's the training on it that was too much for me," said O"Brien. "If there was grass here to train on, I would have stayed. Why would I leave?"

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by tmcmurph

Younger players are also quicker to recover from injuries, hungrier for a chance to play and the "I'm indestructible" attitude comes into play as well.

I think the heat island effect Fieldturf has is responsible for the cramps that arise late in a game a lot more on Fieldturf than on natural grass.

I do think some synthetic systems work much better (Desso Grassmaster) than others (Fieldturf). One works to reinforce the natural grass and one tries to replace it entirely. I favour the former approach.

Fieldturf in its current incarnation just doesn't measure up from an economic standpoint. $1 million for a field, $500k to replace it every 8 to 10 years, the maintenance with herbicides and anti-mold/fungal treatments, the combing, thinning and fluffing. You are just trading off one type of maintenance for another.

The replacement cost does not include the cost of disposing of the old rug and/or layers of the gravel/sand/rubber under the carpet nor does it cover the extra drainage.

But there is no comparison when it comes to available playing time which is why FieldTurf is favoured almost every time for publicly owned facilities, of which BMO Field is one. Only 'wealthy' clubs that own their own facilities can really afford natural grass and the limitations on playing time and inflexible usage it imposes, and I don't include dinky little stadiums like Swangard in that.

As for civil works required for drainage, properly engineered sand cell natural grass pitches need almost as much in the way of civil works for irrigation, fertilisation and drainage... Basel in Switzerland serves as an excellent example of that last requirement not being adequately considered.

I think those who are so opposed to FieldTurf at BMO Field need to launch a campaign lobbying for MLSE to buy the place off the City of Toronto so that it is no longer publicly owned. MLSE can then instal a natural grass pitch and do what they like with the place. As long as BMO Field is publicly owned it will have a FieldTurf playing surface, get used to the idea.

[Mr.Impact]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Earlier versions of Field Turf and especially AstroTurf were poor without doubt but the current generation of FIFA approved AT well maintained does not deserve the bad press some people give it. Some players may well make subjective comments and managers claim recovery times are affected but the statistics do not support them. I suspect a lot of people on this board make judgements about FieldTurf based on cheaply installed, poorly maintained, lower grade product they find on local community fields used by amateur clubs.

My empirical impression is that more often than not it is older players who object the most and that suggests an emotional attachment to natural grass and an unwillingness to accept change. Players turning down contracts to play for TFC supposedly because of the FieldTurf, I suggest they had equal or better offers from elsewhere. If it was TFC/AT or the dole they'd be playing for TFC with little complaint.

What do you make of our National Teams preference for a natural surface? Players are on the record stating that Stade Saputo should be elected as their home base for all world cup qualifiers, because of the world class natural playing surface.

[tmcmurph]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

But there is no comparison when it comes to available playing time which is why FieldTurf is favoured almost every time for publicly owned facilities, of which BMO Field is one. Only 'wealthy' clubs that own their own facilities can really afford natural grass and the limitations on playing time and inflexible usage it imposes, and I don't include dinky little stadiums like Swangard in that.

As for civil works required for drainage, properly engineered sand cell natural grass pitches need almost as much in the way of civil works for irrigation, fertilisation and drainage... Basel in Switzerland serves as an excellent example of that last requirement not being adequately considered.

I think those who are so opposed to FieldTurf at BMO Field need to launch a campaign lobbying for MLSE to buy the place off the City of Toronto so that it is no longer publicly owned. MLSE can then instal a natural grass pitch and do what they like with the place. As long as BMO Field is publicly owned it will have a FieldTurf playing surface, get used to the idea.

"Only wealthy clubs" : Last time I checked MLSE was one of THE wealthiest (at least in Canada). The fans have been showing up and selling the place out constantly and creating a soccer buzz nation wide.

"drainage... Basel" Yea that was sad. Drainage is always the problem for outdoor fields. Too much water in too short a period of time. Regardless of grass or Fieldturf you will have drainage worries.

"As long as BMO Field is publicly owned it will have a FieldTurf" : You are probably correct there as the requirements of amateurs takes precedence over the requirements of professionals. That too is sad considering it is the pros that are making the place pay!

I think they went with the dual use excuse to get it done. I really don't think they saw the huge success the fans have made TFC happening. Mind you I don't think anyone did. I would love to see their pre-launch estimates (anyone got those?). I bet they were planning on 10k per game average.

The turf will have to be replaced in 6 years anyway so my bet is that they will announce a new amateur facility and real grass for BMO in about 3 years. They will give the winter cover to the amateur facility and buy out BMO field.

[CoachRich]

^Field Turf drainage - FThas less drainage issues than grass. I yet to see puddles & Field Turf being torn up when it rain but grass is doom for high maintainence when it rains.

Getting grass - Yes, someone has to get it accross to MLSE that soccer is here to stay & buy BMO or do a swap w/ a complex so grass can be put in.

Dual use an excuse - IMO tax dollars & other users are paying for BMO. That's why they went w/ FT as they knew no one tenant could pay for all of BMO....same for when it was built. MSLE is one on the fields key tenants but they aren't making $ yet. MLSE will operate like a business don't you think?

Community use - is reality where tax dollars are involved.

6 years - Field Turf is usually good for 10 years & is warrantied for that. Requires some annual maintainence but no where near grass's cost which is why we see a lot of Field Turf.