2026 WC Bid?

[Roger miller]

I would have agreed with this comment on December 1st 2010. On December 2nd 2010 Qatar was awarded the 2022 World Cup. A country with like 400,000 citizens max and 1.9 million people. Apparently Australia, Japan, South Korea and the US were not the better options.

Can i make a first prediction? Qatar will not host the WC in 2022. The world knows the whole process that awarded the WC to Qatar was a fraud and the corruption stories went full steam ahead after that. Blatter did his best to stamp out the brush fires and made several people the fall guys. He is still around but he wont be around until 2022. The next guy will want come across as clean guy of integrity and will right the wrong. Fifa has already awarded a world cup to a country and then taken it away, they did with Colombia which was to host in 1986. There was no reason to award the two world cups at once. FIFA has never done that and neither have the Olympic people.

The US bid for 2022 and didnt get it. So i would keep an eye out for them. Fifa can make more money in the US than anywhere else in the world. And the soccer is exploding in the US, watch out. So if the US is in the mix in 2022, i dont like our chances in 2026.

[Roger miller]

Soccerpro your Pipe dream comment is bull****.

A few comments. The Big O can't be imploded (proximity to metro etc) it has to be torn down piece by piece at an estimated cost of 700 million so it's not going anywhere soon.

Some Olympic Stadium news. The Big O is looking to downsize to 35,000 seats. The Big O was able to seat 71.617 for the 1976 Olympic final, so structurally it can be done. Regardless of what people here think about it, Septic Bladder called it a "jewel"

As for the comment about stadium age the Berlin Olympiastadion was built in 1936 and it hosted games in the 2006 World Cup.

The proposed new Saskatchewan stadium (33,000 seats) is looking until the end of the month to finalize funding.

Update Video: Exclusive look inside Winnipeg's Investors Group Field. The project manager overseeing construction of Investors Group Field gives an exclusive update on the progress at the future home of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

The new Hamilton Stadium (22,500) could look like this indicative design that was given to the three finalist bidders (winner to be released to the public in September)

All new CFL stadiums: Ottawa, Regina, Winnipeg and Hamilton are required to be expandable to 40,000 seats.

But those are CFL stadiums. The proof, they are building stadiums with the fake surfaces. The world doesnt want that. Even if FIFA says that some three, five or ten star whatever surface is Ok with them. Players hate it and no club or country that's worth A lick plays on it. If mls players dispise (and some even boycott) the fake stuff, what will the multi millionaires of Real Madrid, AC Milan and Man U think about that? I dont want to feel emabarass as proud canadian to have tell the world that they have to play on that garbage. We would come across as soccer neophites, rubes or, worst, laughingstocks. It would certainly become the story.

You might get by with one stadium with that surface for the WC, provided its a band new surface, but not five or six out of eight. If those communities are forward thinking and deserving of something like the WC or club soccer, then do the minimum to show it. And installing natural surfaces would not be asking too much. But i dont think that they care to be honnest.

I dont think that countries or communities should be awarded the WC if they dont show any interest in soccer beyond its economic benefits. The world cup is not a carnival, convention or worlds fair. Its about soccer. So, like the bidding for any sports competition, the minumum criteria you must show is that you like the sport. Building facilities with improvised surfacess doesnt show that. Hell, even when the US hosted in 1994, every facility had natural grass.

[Tuscan]

Let's suppose the US does put a bid in for 2026. Do we concede defeat simply because the US puts in a bid? **** that. We identify FIFA's concerns with hosting it in Canada, and put together a realistic action plan to not only eliminate them, but in fact improve on FIFA's current expectations. You suck some dick if you have to. Now don't get me wrong, you don't bribe people unless the playing floor becomes tainted through bribery by someone else. Hell, you bribe as well, but do it better, then blow the whistle on the original briber. We have everything to lose if we put a bid in, not nothing to lose. **** that **** attitude. You go in like that and you go in a loser.

[killgod]

Can i make a first prediction? Qatar will not host the WC in 2022. The world knows the whole process that awarded the WC to Qatar was a fraud and the corruption stories went full steam ahead after that. Blatter did his best to stamp out the brush fires and made several people the fall guys. He is still around but he wont be around until 2022. The next guy will want come across as clean guy of integrity and will right the wrong. Fifa has already awarded a world cup to a country and then taken it away, they did with COlombia which was to host in 1986. Ther was no reason to award the two world cups at once. FIFA has nver done that and niethe has the Olympic people.

The US bid for 2022 and didnt get it. So i would keep an eye out for them. Fifa can make more money in the US than anywhere else in the world. And the soccer is exploding in the US, watch out. So if the US is in the mix in 2022, i dont like our chances in 2026.

I suppose it really boils down to what the next FIFA president desires. Surely it'll be buckets of money, but what's next? TV exposure? Growth of the game around the world like Blatter desires?

Yes these guys go after the money, but it's the secondary desires that determine these things.

[killgod]

Let's suppose the US does put a bid in for 2026. Do we concede defeat simply because the US puts in a bid? **** that. We identify FIFA's concerns with hosting it in Canada, and put together a realistic action plan to not only eliminate them, but in fact improve on FIFA's current expectations. You suck some dick if you have to. Now don't get me wrong, you don't bribe people unless the playing floor becomes tainted through bribery by someone else. Hell, you bribe as well, but do it better, then blow the whistle on the original briber. We have everything to lose if we put a bribe in, not nothing to lose. **** that **** attitude. You go in like that and you go in a loser.

We hosted the 2009 U20 World Cup well (2nd best attendance ever), gonna do the 2015 Pan Am games and 2015 Women's Cup, did the greatest Winter Olympics in history and the 88 Games in Calgary were good too. Hosted many World Junior Hockey Champs and World Curling Champs. I'm sure there's others.

We are capable of international sporting events and doing very well with them. Why not the grand daddy of them all?

[Tuscan]

Yes these guys go after the money, but it's the secondary desires that determine these things.

Definitely agree, and right now the overall consensus from all involved in FIFA is growth of the game in new frontiers. They knows the score and see the writing on the wall. If you don't remain the giant in the room someone else is going to take that spot and leave you behind. Didn't people see ManUre's IPO document? Hell, even they considered football not being the most popular sport in England as a possibility. You don't think FIFA has considered it's existence as threatened by future conditions? You own the world or dwindle. The next President of FIFA will definitely see new frontiers as being a primary concern, but I think it will be further veiled in the ideal that football can be used as a social mechanism to enhance the lives of the "less fortunate" <-- read as people Europe and North America tend to keep suppressed in order to maintain economic stability.

[beachesl]

As much as I would love for this to happen. I cannot see our country building new stadia to accommodate such an event. The minimum for the Euro cup is 40k, so I'm assuming it's even bigger for the World Cup.

32 teams means that there would need to be potentially 8 locations, though they could do it in less. Turf? No, grass is required.

Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal have stadiums but they would be considered small for the World Cup and would need upgrades to meet the FIFA requirements. I cannot see Canada building new stadiums for soccer to the same extent that all countries do prior to the big tournament.

Actually, the present requirements are 30,000 for the Euros (as some of the one in latest were in the 30 thous) and 40,000 for the WC. Who knows what will be the situation in the future, but FIFA can, and do make exceptions to anything.

[Joe MacCarthy]

We hosted the 2009 U20 World Cup well (2nd best attendance ever), gonna do the 2015 Pan Am games and 2015 Women's Cup, did the greatest Winter Olympics in history and the 88 Games in Calgary were good too. Hosted many World Junior Hockey Champs and World Curling Champs. I'm sure there's others. We are capable of international sporting events and doing very well with them. Why not the grand daddy of them all?

Amen, people forget that aside from the financial and political mismanagement going into the Montreal '76 games, the games themselves were very successful. Some even saying that they saved the Olympic movement after Munich.

Actually, the lessons learned from that financial mismanagement forever changed the Olympic movement and led to the great success of LA 84 and Calgary 88 which many say was the best Winter Olympics ever.

[Joe MacCarthy]

But those are CFL stadiums. The proof, they are building stadiums with the fake surfaces. The world doesnt want that. Even if FIFA says that some three, five or ten star whatever surface is Ok with them. Players hate it and no club or country that's worth A lick plays on it. If mls players dispise (and some even boycott) the fake stuff, what will the multi millionaires of Real Madrid, AC Milan and Man U think about that? I dont want to feel emabarass as proud canadian to have tell the world that they have to play on that garbage. We would come across as soccer neophites, rubes or, worst, laughingstocks. It would certainly become the story.

You might get by with one stadium with that surface for the WC, provided its a band new surface, but not five or six out of eight. If those communities are forward thinking and deserving of something like the WC or club soccer, then do the minimum to show it. And installing natural surfaces would not be asking too much. But i dont think that they care to be honnest.

I dont think that countries or communities should be awarded the WC if they dont show any interest in soccer beyond its economic benefits. The world cup is not a carnival, convention or worlds fair. Its about soccer. So, like the bidding for any sports competition, the minumum criteria you must show is that you like the sport. Building facilities with improvised surfacess doesnt show that. Hell, even when the US hosted in 1994, every facility had natural grass.

Good gravy Dorothy, with that last paragraph do you think soccer is only played in Oz? Nice idealism, but you do know about Qatar, right?

As for the diatribe about artificial playing surfaces, you're way off base. First, several of the stadiums for WC 94 had artificial surfaces that were replaced with turf for the WC (Giants Stadium, the Cotton Bowl, and Foxboro Stadium (three years before). The Pontiac Silverdome had turf placed over the artificial surface overseen by Michigan State U who are recognized as world leaders in turf technology. So it is a moot point what surface a stadium has, it can be changed.

Second, if you go through some of the posts here you will find that all the new stadiums in Canada have consulted with FIFA during the design process.

Third, with all the leaps in technology in fourteen years everybody could be playing on artificial surfaces. The economics of the game could force that. Aside from the obvious examples of the artificial surfaces getting better and better and the high cost of maintenance of turf surfaces, in fourteen years the new artificial surfaces may have some features that FIFA may not be able to resist. Here is an article from six years ago, Field of Screens

It would not surprise me to see artificial surfaces be in widespread use in 20 years as many players will have grown up with it, trained on it and see it as pardon the expression "natural" and have no built in bias.

The problem with a lot of the naysayers here is that they can't see beyond what we have now. They seem to think we'll put up a bid with the artificial surface 50 year old MacMahon Stadium. Even if we went with the bare minimum and by not building any new stadiums and just upgrading and refurbishing a few it would still be pretty good, seeing as there is a stadium building boom going on in Canada right now. FIFA looks at more than just ridiculously over the top stadiums like Japorea. You gotta have infrastructure, travel, hotels, stability etc.

Conversely, after just giving this a little more thought. In 20 years, new types of turf surfaces could be made more durable and able to stand up to the pounding of multiple sport use. They could be less sunlight, water, and fertilizer dependent and thus cheaper to maintain. But I suppose a genetically modified stadium pitch would not go over well with the granola eaters. Do any hoolies eat granola?

[Roger miller]

Good gravy Dorothy, with that last paragraph do you think soccer is only played in Oz? Nice idealism, but you do know about Qatar, right?

As for the diatribe about artificial playing surfaces, you're way off base. First, several of the stadiums for WC 94 had artificial surfaces that were replaced with turf for the WC (Giants Stadium, the Cotton Bowl, and Foxboro Stadium (three years before). The Pontiac Silverdome had turf placed over the artificial surface overseen by Michigan State U who are recognized as world leaders in turf technology. So it is a moot point what surface a stadium has, it can be changed.

Second, if you go through some of the posts here you will find that all the new stadiums in Canada have consulted with FIFA during the design process.

Third, with all the leaps in technology in fourteen years everybody could be playing on artificial surfaces. The economics of the game could force that. Aside from the obvious examples of the artificial surfaces getting better and better and the high cost of maintenance of turf surfaces, in fourteen years the new artificial surfaces may have some features that FIFA may not be able to resist. Here is an article from six years ago, Field of Screens

It would not surprise me to see artificial surfaces be in widespread use in 20 years as many players will have grown up with it, trained on it and see it as pardon the expression "natural" and have no built in bias.

The problem with a lot of the naysayers here is that they can't see beyond what we have now. They seem to think we'll put up a bid with the artificial surface 50 year old MacMahon Stadium. Even if we went with the bare minimum and by not building any new stadiums and just upgrading and refurbishing a few it would still be pretty good, seeing as there is a stadium building boom going on in Canada right now. FIFA looks at more than just ridiculously over the top stadiums like Japorea. You gotta have infrastructure, travel, hotels, stability etc.

Conversely, after just giving this a little more thought. In 20 years, new types of turf surfaces could be made more durable and able to stand up to the pounding of multiple sport use. They could be less sunlight, water, and fertilizer dependent and thus cheaper to maintain. But I suppose a genetically modified stadium pitch would not go over well with the granola eaters. Do any hoolies eat granola?

"they consulted with FIFA". So someone did internet seach in the fifa website and proclaimed "we consulted with FIFA". Do you know what that consultation entails? And what does it matter anyways if we know that players, clubs and club owners hate it. If they liked it even remotely we would see it being used outside of the three MLS clubs (Seattle, New England, and Vancouver). Would would more over time instead of less FT surfaces in MLS. Name me one respectable club or national side anywhere in the world who plays on the garbage? When FIFA first said they were OK with it about eight years ago we saw a very small number creep up like in Costa Rica ( Saprissa), Chile and in Northern Europe. Now they are all gone. Do you see a trend there? So whats this that "in twenty years time" we will all be playing on fieldturf where, if anything fieldturf usage has regressed. That article, by the way, was written six years ago. I could proably dig up an article from six years ago proclaiming that RIM handhelds would rule the world instead of androids or smartphones.

Ask David Ferriera of FC Dallas what he thinks of Field turf. The frmr MLS MVP has been out all last year because of field turf injury. Instead of asking FIFA why dont they ask Don Garber or any of the major clubs who, when visiting North america on summer tours, demand that natural surfaces be installed or they will skip the city and go somewhere else. FIFA will say that the Big O and RFK stadium is fine but what do players, fans, and clubs think of those places? The people who vote WCQ are closer to those people than Sepp Blatter and his bureaucrats who dont have a vote (the bureaucrats that is )..

You ve got to have proper drainage in order to install a natural surface. Thats why those one off matches where they bring in the natural surface is only good for one game. And it costs a ton of money. So instead of these CFL venues telling us that they consulted FIFA, why dont they just install grass instead. That would show me a greater commitment to the growth of the game in Canada than telling us "we consulted FIFA".

[A_Gagne]

I don't care what anyone says about stadiums and infrastructure; these were the last things on the minds of FIFA execs when they let South Africa, Russia, Qatar, and even South Korea host the games. I also don't think our FIFA ranking is much of an encumbrance either... What is Qatar or South Africa ranked these days? What was South Korea ranked pre-world cup? As pointed out here previously, we have a very world class track record when it comes to hosting international events, so as long as the proper people get behind it, I think we could actually put together a very credible bid (who know's maybe John Furlong's got another 13yrs in him... jk).

FIFA's been rotating the World Cup through the regions and if they stay true to current form, realistically there are three CONCACAF countries that have a shot at hosting... USA, Mexico, and Canada. That's a 1-in-3 chance of greasing the right palms or whatever else it takes to getter done. If I was a betting man, I certainly won't bet the house on it, but at the same time those ain't bad odds either.

I think the biggest threat to our bid would be that the US sporting market is the most lucrative in the world, and if it was felt that another world cup there would be the catalyst for a soccer explosion South of the 49th, then I think we'd be in tough; however, at the same time the USA has fewer friends in the world than it once did, so who knows.

Either way though, winning a world cup would undoubtedly be a catalyst for the growth of professional soccer in this country, and for all the crap that gets thrown the CSAs way (including from many if not most posters on this forum, myself included), we should respect their willingness to have a go at what might be a once in a blue moon opportunity to put Canada on the global footballing map - as improbable as that might sound... especially to the severely jaded Canadian footie enthusiast. I say the humble pie's gone past it's best before day, so **** it boys, throw it in the trash, and carpe diem!

[rob.notenboom]

Must say that I was originally dubious but the strong arguments in favour of the bid have won me over. I especially agree with the attitude comments ... if we want it we should make it happen ... very un-Canadian attitude perhaps, but one that could carry the day.

And as for some very logical arguments against the idea, when did FIFA ever determine anything using logic. If a bid can win where there is prohibition in the country and where they will build multiple stadiums, air condition them all, and then deconstruct them and donate them to other countries, a bid from Canada is a no-brainer.

However, I heard a rumour that Vatican City is going to bid for the tournament in 2026. They are going to build 10 stadiums vertically in a giant stadium high rise (because they have no land of course) shaped like a massive cathedral ... we won't stack up against that.

[Joe MacCarthy]

"they consulted with FIFA". So someone did internet seach in the fifa website and proclaimed "we consulted with FIFA". Do you know what that consultation entails?

You ve got to have proper drainage in order to install a natural surface. Thats why those one off matches where they bring in the natural surface is only good for one game. And it costs a ton of money. So instead of these CFL venues telling us that they consulted FIFA, why dont they just install grass instead. That would show me a greater commitment to the growth of the game in Canada than telling us "we consulted FIFA".

Yes, the design teams went to the FIFA website to get info on FIFA's infrastructure, playing surface and media needs and then surfed over to the "Download A Stadium Design and Floorplan" website and pretty much had it wrapped up in five minutes.

Your whole argument is based upon a presumption of no improvement in technology and that makes no sense. Three things can happen in 20 years: better more resilient turf, better artificial turf or no improvement in either. Highly unlikely considering the money involved that option three will be the answer.

And yes, installing one day turf in sod rolls is expensive. What are the other solutions? A removable turf tray system could be used as a temporary measure (used in Reliant Stadium) These are all the questions that will have to be answered in consideration of this project.

[madmonte]

Joe and Roger, your argument is entertaining me greatly, and I mean that in a good way. Nice rebuttals, keep it going for a bit longer, I'm definitely amused here. As for that Vatican City 10 stacked stadiums comment, rob, that one I actually mentally pictured! As soon as you win a game, you have to climb a floor to play a slightly better team. By the time you are finished playing the 10th one, if you have survived all 900+ minutes of soccer, the world cup is secondary is the pope decrees that you may enter heaven immediately.

[Roger miller]

Your whole argument is based upon a presumption of no improvement in technology and that makes no sense. Three things can happen in 20 years: better more resilient turf, better artificial turf or no improvement in either. Highly unlikely considering the money involved that option three will be the answer.

and your argument that they consulted FIFA and that it actually means something, is not presumptuous?

You raised it, i didnt. And i asked what does it mean to consult FIFA? You dont know. Do you think that they called up FIFA to have them come down and take look? Somehow i dont think so. Here is what i think it means, its means that in consultation with supplier, the supplier said that the surface is FIFA approved. Never mind that some supplier might have paid FIFA to get that stamp of approval. That would not be out reach of modern world business practicises would it? Much like suppliers said, when they installed it for the U20 WC in Montreal the BiG O surface was FiFA approved. Well look at what they are saying about the Big O surface in MLS now. Its been widely condemned as the worst in history of the league. And as fans, you can tell the game is affected by it.

And yes, installing one day turf in sod rolls is expensive. What are the other solutions? A removable turf tray system could be used as a temporary measure (used in Reliant Stadium) These are all the questions that will have to be answered in consideration of this project.

Here is an idea. And i mentioned it before. Just install grass instead of FT to begin with. I get a kick out of some of those articles you have been posting in the General interest section. The soccer angle is always a foot note to the article. Like a salesmans pitch, show whats beyond its intended use. But is anybody going to buy something primarily for something other than its intended use? If it doesnt work for its secondary use, who cares right?

Here is the headline that i would like to see: "city to build a soccer stadium, hopes to attract MLS/NASL franchise". And as footnote: "stadium plans have obtained approval for usage by CIS and Or CFL".

[Roger miller]

Yes, the design teams went to the FIFA website to get info on FIFA's infrastructure, playing surface and media needs and then surfed over to the "Download A Stadium Design and Floorplan" website and pretty much had it wrapped up in five minutes.

. Yup. For all we know that may have been all that it took.

[rob.notenboom]

Joe and Roger, your argument is entertaining me greatly, and I mean that in a good way. Nice rebuttals, keep it going for a bit longer, I'm definitely amused here. As for that Vatican City 10 stacked stadiums comment, rob, that one I actually mentally pictured! As soon as you win a game, you have to climb a floor to play a slightly better team. By the time you are finished playing the 10th one, if you have survived all 900+ minutes of soccer, the world cup is secondary is the pope decrees that you may enter heaven immediately.

Chuckle ... perhaps they could theme it around 'Stairway to Heaven' ... better cryogenically freeze Robert Plant now while he's still alive ... they will need him for the opening ceremonies.

[Joe MacCarthy]

And i asked what does it mean to consult FIFA? You dont know. Do you think that they called up FIFA to have them come down and take look? Somehow i dont think so.

Here is an idea. And i mentioned it before. Just install grass instead of FT to begin with.

Here is the headline that i would like to see: "city to build a soccer stadium, hopes to attract MLS/NASL franchise". And as footnote: "stadium plans have obtained approval for usage by CIS and Or CFL".

And you know for a fact they didn't talk to FIFA consultants during the design stage about things other than the playing surface, let's say things like broadcast camera positions or in stadium advertising boards, or doping control areas, etc

Glad you mentioned about installing grass in the first place and sharing soccer and football. I'm interested in finding the Argos a new home. BMO might be a good location. Just knock out one end zone, move 'er back a bit and split the turf maintenance costs and voila, instant Argo Stadium. Only problem would be listening to the soccer people whine about the condition of the pitch but hey you can't have everything.

Noticed a real conspiratorial tone to your posts, you sure it isn't Robert not Roger Miller

And madmonte stop poop disturbing. I don't need the encouragement to debate.

[Roger miller]

Glad you mentioned about installing grass in the first place and sharing soccer and football. I'm interested in finding the Argos a new home. BMO might be a good location. Just knock out one end zone, move 'er back a bit and split the turf maintenance costs and voila, instant Argo Stadium. Only problem would be listening to the soccer people whine about the condition of the pitch but hey you can't have everything..

I too am glad you mentioned BMO field and CFL football. You have just made my case Joe, What that shows you is how lousy a CFL built facility is for soccer. So much so that fans are willing to raise a stink about the possibility that BMO field will be configured for football. And the club will go to great lenghts to keep football out. The sightlines for the hard core fans will become terrible and the facilities is not right sized for the different capacity that is needed. A soccer club plays 15-20 matches per year and a CfL team 8-10. So soccer ends up with the excess inventory which for a business is just as bad as inventory shortages. Thats why they have moved out of those football stadiums in the US and into soccer specific stadiums and that is why (one reason) MLS soccer is thriving ever since.

With fourty to fifty nhl home dates a year, why do you think that they are not building hockey rinks with 25k to 30k seats in (even) hockey mad Canada.

Playing surface, capacity, sightlines are all the reasons you need to know why stadiums for gridiron football do not mix with soccer. So building something for the CFL and telling us the surface is FIFA approved is telling soccer that its a second class citizen. Or its like using that steak knife to cut tin cans or wire. As they do in those infomercials. Is that the message, you want to send to FIFA in a bid?

Let me ask you this Joe, are you a soccer guy or a CFL guy? Because i thought that this was a soccer forum. Usually we like whats best for soccer here. I like both sports.

[baulderdash77]

Realistically this is a long shot, but from a business perspective a Canadian World Cup is probably the 2nd best option for FIFA if it's going to be done in CONCACAF. It's a much better option than Mexico for safety reasons and the timezones and travel will line up well for the US and South American viewers.

Canada has a great history of being able to pull off major competitions and our facilities have lots of time to be ready for the tournament.

There's not a lot of downside to this for us to bid on it and obviously the upside for Canadian soccer is huge.

[Joe MacCarthy]

Let me ask you this Joe, are you a soccer guy or a CFL guy?

Darn good question. Why is it a problem that I am both? And before you lay into me for saying so on a soccer group site that I have been a member of since the beginning. (Don't go by the start date, I've been on and off more times than a light switch) You'll find there are a lot of posters here like me who don't like the soccer zealots who try to denigrate other sports to try and raise soccer. It doesn't work that way. Soccer will rise on its own merits and it only makes people look foolish to criticize other sports when there is plenty of ammo to criticize soccer.

[Joe MacCarthy]

Canada has a great history of being able to pull off major competitions and our facilities have lots of time to be ready for the tournament.

There's not a lot of downside to this for us to bid on it and obviously the upside for Canadian soccer is huge.

It really is as simple as that. Where there is a will there is a way

[Joe MacCarthy]

Let me ask you this Joe, are you a soccer guy or a CFL guy? Because i thought that this was a soccer forum. Usually we like whats best for soccer here. I like both sports.

Hey, nice edit after my post, you like both sports, me too and a lot of others, almost all in fact. "we like whats best for soccer here"... hmm for a new guy that's being awfully familiar to the group. I've been here since the beginning, everybody knows 'ol cantankerous Joe, were you here too under another name. I'd know ya if you were.

[Roger miller]

were you here too under another name. I'd know ya if you were.

No. But thanks for the compliment. Oh and BTW did not see your post after i edited it.

[Joe MacCarthy]

Let me ask you this Joe, are you a soccer guy or a CFL guy?

Further to this is the reason I started the New Canadian stadiums thread. Not because I am a CFL fan (which I am) but because I wanted to let people know about alternative venues where the NTs could play. But we come back to that problem of the playing surfaces.

The women don't care where they play but the men won't play outside of BMO. That might be one small reason that more people across this country can identify with the women than the men.