superbrad Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 De Ro pissed.... http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/645982 TFC's De Rosario irked that squad only gets to play on natural turf due to visit by Spaniards Jun 05, 2009 04:30 AM Daniel Girard Sports Reporter On the surface, the argument for Dwayne De Rosario is one of respect. The Toronto FC star lashed out at the "terrible" artificial playing surface at BMO Field, which the club said yesterday it will spend nearly $250,000 to cover with temporary grass for an Aug. 7 match against European soccer titan Real Madrid. While calling the international friendly "a special moment" for TFC fans and players, De Rosario said he's irked that it takes a visit by the Spanish side to replace, at least temporarily, a field that has long been criticized as troublesome for ball control and too hard on players' bodies. "We don't get that respect," said De Rosario, a Scarborough native and nine-year Major League Soccer veteran who came home to play with TFC after an off-season trade with the Houston Dynamo. "It's one of those things where you look at it as a player and you're disappointed that it takes a team like Real Madrid to come here to get grass," he said. "We work hard everyday here ... day in, day out. "We deserve grass." Though there's general agreement among other players, coaches, club owners Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment and politicians that replacing the Field Turf with grass is a good idea, it's not as simple as it may sound. A key part of the deal to secure government funding for the $63 million facility was providing year-round public access to the playing field. That's why artificial turf was put in and a bubble goes up each winter. Also, the temporary grass can only be left on the artificial field for about a week before it would start to die. If permanent grass was installed, a tab MLSE would pay, there's still the matter of where to accommodate the public use. Both Mayor David Miller and Joe Pantalone, deputy mayor and chairman of the Exhibition Place board, have said that while they like the idea of a natural surface, there needs to be a year-round facility downtown for Torontonians, paid for by TFC's owners. One idea floated by MLSE officials has been to build a TFC practice facility adjacent to the Toronto Maple Leafs' new four-rink complex at Kipling and Lake Shore and offer some public access there. But Pantalone has voiced concerns that it would not be close enough to downtown. Converting Lamport Stadium in the King-Dufferin area to year-round use has also been discussed. De Rosario hopes a permanent solution comes soon. "It's very rare in a professional environment that random clubs could come in and anyone and everyone could just use the facility," said the four-time MLS champion. "So, hopefully we get grass in here. "Not only the players deserve it, but the fans deserve it too." TFC coach Chris Cummins said while "it's not the greatest turf in the world" and everyone would like to see it replaced with permanent grass, it cannot be used as an excuse for poor play. "We're aware of what the turf is," he said. "We have to get on with it." In addition to detailing the cost of the temporary grass field for the Real Madrid game, TFC also announced yesterday that for the match TFC season-ticket holders and members of both gold and red waiting lists will be able to buy tickets at "a special loyalty price" in advance of a public sale. Details, including the cost of tickets to the premium-priced event, will be made public Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Spoiled brat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj22 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 You try playing 90 minutes on that pig-sty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Well, I'm glad the players who benefited from my tax money aren't enjoying it, it's only fair considering I wouldn't pay one cent for a stadium in Toronto if I was asked. Also, hate to beat a dead horse again but, 63,000,000?!? Who embezzled all of that? I'd love to know where some of the millions went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Trident Well, I'm glad the players who benefited from my tax money aren't enjoying it, it's only fair considering I wouldn't pay one cent for a stadium in Toronto if I was asked. Also, hate to beat a dead horse again but, 63,000,000?!? Who embezzled all of that? I'd love to know where some of the millions went. Crew Stadium is very similar in size and like BMO, does not have a roof around the entire stadium... yet, it cost half as much... Cost: $28 million US - Crew Stadium - Private Funding (Hunt Group) $62.5 million CDN - BMO Field - Public Private Partnership (MLSE & Government) The kicker, despite the lower price tag, Crew Stadium has grass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlimus Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I wouldn't call DeRo a spoiled brat. He's manning up as Toronto's most symbolic and public figure to take this thing one. Everyone (mostly) agrees it has to go. I'm all for having a replacement ready to use first so that the people who were told can use the field can have a quality substitue, I just don't see why all of us as Voyaguers (it's our national stadium) as well as TFC fans don't get together and put pressue on the richest sport company in Canada to man up and pay for the replacement field. MLSE owes it to the city of Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by earlimus I wouldn't call DeRo a spoiled brat. He's manning up as Toronto's most symbolic and public figure to take this thing one. Everyone (mostly) agrees it has to go. I'm all for having a replacement ready to use first so that the people who were told can use the field can have a quality substitue, I just don't see why all of us as Voyaguers (it's our national stadium) as well as TFC fans don't get together and put pressue on the richest sport company in Canada to man up and pay for the replacement field. MLSE owes it to the city of Toronto. CSA should threaten to move the National Stadium to Saputo Field unless they replace it with grass. That should be enough incentive to change the field. I'm sure MLSE likes the additional profit of International "home" games, and Toronto Mayor David Miller will do anything for popularity with his poor ratings. In addition, back when De-Ro was in Houston, he suggested that he preferred Saputo over BMO because of the beautiful Grass Field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdroze Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by kyam Cost: $28 million US - Crew Stadium - Private Funding (Hunt Group) $62.5 million CDN - BMO Field - Public Private Partnership (MLSE & Government) For the sake of accuracy, that's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Taking into account the difference in currency values and inflation during the eight-year difference in construction dates, USD $28M in 1999 would be more like CAD $50M in 2007. Still cheaper, but nowhere near "half as much". Compare to other recent comparable MLS stadiums, and I think we got a pretty good deal: Pizza Hut Park (2005): USD $80M Toyoya Park (2006): USD $98M Dick's Sporting Goods Park (2007): USD $131M Rio Tinto Stadium (2008): USD $115M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by kyam Crew Stadium is very similar in size and like BMO, does not have a roof around the entire stadium... yet, it cost half as much... Cost: $28 million US - Crew Stadium - Private Funding (Hunt Group) $62.5 million CDN - BMO Field - Public Private Partnership (MLSE & Government) The kicker, despite the lower price tag, Crew Stadium has grass! And SS is a toned down BMO and only cost 15,000,000. I doubt some extra shitters and 7,000 seats are worth 47.5 million dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlimus Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Given the retarded lines I've encountered at BMO the extra ****ters are worth it ^^^^^. I think that threatening to move the national stadium to the beautiful grass at Saputo would be an amazing idea!!!!! I honestly don't understand why we as the Voyageurs aren't putting the screws to MLSE for this. Even if you hate TFC, it's OUR NATIONAL STADIUM!!! Let's go people!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Trident And SS is a toned down BMO and only cost 15,000,000. I doubt some extra shitters and 7,000 seats are worth 47.5 million dollars. I'd imagine the grass at SS would be more expensive too, but TFC paid a premium for the Fieldturf because it was suppose to last, obviously they got ripped off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by rdroze For the sake of accuracy, that's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Taking into account the difference in currency values and inflation during the eight-year difference in construction dates, USD $28M in 1999 would be more like CAD $50M in 2007. Still cheaper, but nowhere near "half as much". Compare to other recent comparable MLS stadiums, and I think we got a pretty good deal: Pizza Hut Park (2005): USD $80M Toyoya Park (2006): USD $98M Dick's Sporting Goods Park (2007): USD $131M Rio Tinto Stadium (2008): USD $115M Inflation won't bring the price tag up to $50 million in only 4 years... and the US-Can difference was not as wide by 2006-07. Rio Tinto & Dicks Sporting Goods at least has a roof, and they did not have the same early problems with the foundation that BMO Field had. I think Toyota Park also had a roof. I think TFC got ripped off for the product they got. TFC fans deserve better. As Trident pointed out, and I don't always agree with him. $15 million for Saputo Field, other than size, the buildings structure is fairly similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscan Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I was under the impression that they DO want to put grass in at BMO, and that MLSE is NOT the roadblocker, but that the City of Toronto is. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't grass at BMO simply come down to building another artificial surface field that can be used strictly by the public year round (meaning it has to have the ability to function with a dome over it)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlimus Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 That's it in a nutshell. Now why can't MLSE fork over the money for it??? They'll get the sponsorship and advertising commision within the field, and we can finally have grass. It's not like they can't afford to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by earlimus That's it in a nutshell. Now why can't MLSE fork over the money for it??? They'll get the sponsorship and advertising commision within the field, and we can finally have grass. It's not like they can't afford to do it. MLSE is willing to, but they're not going to build a facility only for the City Council to reject the alternate site as acceptable. MLSE is bringing their plans to City Council first. If it gets approved, then an alternate facility and grass will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Rudi MLSE is willing to, but they're not going to build a facility only for the City Council to reject the alternate site as acceptable. MLSE is bringing their plans to City Council first. If it gets approved, then an alternate facility and grass will happen. Once again, City Council drags its feet on this one... Why am Inot surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 quote:Originally posted by kyam Inflation won't bring the price tag up to $50 million in only 4 years... and the US-Can difference was not as wide by 2006-07. Rio Tinto & Dicks Sporting Goods at least has a roof, and they did not have the same early problems with the foundation that BMO Field had. I think Toyota Park also had a roof. I think TFC got ripped off for the product they got. TFC fans deserve better. As Trident pointed out, and I don't always agree with him. $15 million for Saputo Field, other than size, the buildings structure is fairly similar. Couple of things. 1st. If I remember it correctly BMO Field's construction costs don't include the value of the land it sits on, some $10M Canadian, part of the City of Toronto contribution to the enterprise. 2nd. General inflation and construction inflation are two different creatures. I'll bet you my mortgage commercial construction inflation between 2000 and 2007 approached or exceeded 50% in Winnipeg during that same period. What it was in more cosmopolitan locations I can only speculate. That's a hard fact. Constructions costs (labour, material, and land) skyrocketed in the 1st half of this decade. They've since stalled in some regions, but they're not regressing. 3rd. You can't transfer construction costs from one region to the other. Rust Belt Columbus costs mean sweet-dick-all to the costs of construction in New York, metro Paris or lakeshore Toronto. Especially on time sensitive projects. Each location has it's own characteristics which everything else being equal, have huge effects on construction costs. 4th. It boggles my mind how quickly a suitable covered stand can be dismissed as an expensive & unnecessary "amenity" for fans. Car park, food concessions, rest rooms and access to public transportation all seem to trump the need for spending money on covering the grandstands. Yes roofs are expensive. Very much so but if that amenity provides for an improved fan experience, the fans keep coming. Rain, shine or mediocre opponents. If the fans keep coming the other revenue generating amenities, like the car park and the concessions, not to mention the gate, profit from that. The roof holds out the rain. Shields from the sun and wind and holds in the crowd noise. I can't think of a better tool to add to a grandstand to increase the value of the spectator experience, regardless of the on-field product. And it's that positive spectator experience which keeps the dollar spending public coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 ^ If they put a proper roof over the fans, the fans may show up and drink the beer. The beer provides the best profit margins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlimus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Rudi MLSE is willing to, but they're not going to build a facility only for the City Council to reject the alternate site as acceptable. MLSE is bringing their plans to City Council first. If it gets approved, then an alternate facility and grass will happen. Really??? That's awesome! Hopefully Miller can do something good for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Cheeta Couple of things. 1st. If I remember it correctly BMO Field's construction costs don't include the value of the land it sits on, some $10M Canadian, part of the City of Toronto contribution to the enterprise. 2nd. General inflation and construction inflation are two different creatures. I'll bet you my mortgage commercial construction inflation between 2000 and 2007 approached or exceeded 50% in Winnipeg during that same period. What it was in more cosmopolitan locations I can only speculate. That's a hard fact. Constructions costs (labour, material, and land) skyrocketed in the 1st half of this decade. They've since stalled in some regions, but they're not regressing. 3rd. You can't transfer construction costs from one region to the other. Rust Belt Columbus costs mean sweet-dick-all to the costs of construction in New York, metro Paris or lakeshore Toronto. Especially on time sensitive projects. Each location has it's own characteristics which everything else being equal, have huge effects on construction costs. 4th. It boggles my mind how quickly a suitable covered stand can be dismissed as an expensive & unnecessary "amenity" for fans. Car park, food concessions, rest rooms and access to public transportation all seem to trump the need for spending money on covering the grandstands. Yes roofs are expensive. Very much so but if that amenity provides for an improved fan experience, the fans keep coming. Rain, shine or mediocre opponents. If the fans keep coming the other revenue generating amenities, like the car park and the concessions, not to mention the gate, profit from that. The roof holds out the rain. Shields from the sun and wind and holds in the crowd noise. I can't think of a better tool to add to a grandstand to increase the value of the spectator experience, regardless of the on-field product. And it's that positive spectator experience which keeps the dollar spending public coming back. Yeah, I would very much appreciate a roof, not only does it look nice, but its practical and completes the stadium a bit. But yeah, BMO Field is on prime real estate, compared to Crew Stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Rudi MLSE is willing to, but they're not going to build a facility only for the City Council to reject the alternate site as acceptable. MLSE is bringing their plans to City Council first. If it gets approved, then an alternate facility and grass will happen. a very reliable source tells me that the company that installs and maintains the bubble at BMO paid a site visit to Lamport Stadium last week. For those unfamiliar with Toronto, Lamport is an easy 8-10 minute walk due north of BMO Field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottawaguy2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 quote:Originally posted by VPjr a very reliable source tells me that the company that installs and maintains the bubble at BMO paid a site visit to Lamport Stadium last week. For those unfamiliar with Toronto, Lamport is an easy 8-10 minute walk due north of BMO Field. Looks good. Would mean that they are considering laying turf at Lamport so that they can put grass down at BMO. Crappy deal for the CSL teams that play at Lamport. Oh well. There'll have to be a few casualties for the advancement of Canadian soccer. Maybe they can hold the CSL final at BMO Field in future. That game should at least be played on grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 ^ Lamport already has turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Tom Ansalmi was on The Fan last Wednesday and said that they are waiting for City Council to meet again at the end of summer. The plan is to put the bubble on Lamport, and put grass at BMO. MLSE will cover all costs according to Ansalmi. Expansion was looked at, but no plans to expand. He hopes the grass will go in by the fall. BMO will still be a public facility, but will have limited use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer ^ If they put a proper roof over the fans, the fans may show up and drink the beer. The beer provides the best profit margins. LOL... as if they don't do that already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.