VWFC Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Clearly you're not tracking the shitstorm over transit in Toronto and Montreal Clearly your not comparing these #1stworldproblems with Brazil?. Its not perfect, but to say we dont have any infrastructure is a bit over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWFC Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 FIFA requires a minimum of eight venues for the World Cup, including one with 80,000-plus seats. So we would have to build or expand dramatically all current stadiums in Canada. No, that means we would have to build 1 stadium. You are looking at 50k min each with one at 80k. Our pro sports infrastructure is nowhere close. Is the minimum size 50,000? Where does it say that? The new 80,000 seat stadium, BC place, Rogers, Olympic and Commonwealth (with a face lift) would all be 50,000 +. In grey cup configuration Hamilton, Winnipeg and Regina would all be 40,000 +. Hardly 'no where close.' The reasons I brought up doing a joint bid with the USA. 1) We don't have the political pull, the USSF does. 2) The financing to build up our stadiums just so they'll be half empty even for the rest of their lives won't go over well. 3) The USA has already had it once and was successful. FIFA would love more exposure in the USA. This gives them the novelty (excuse) of exposing new markets (Canada). 4) If we go up against the USA and Mexico it quickly becomes a coin toss between those 2 for FIFA (whoever pays off the most wins). By doing a joint bid we enhance the USA's chance and ours becomes realistic. Seriously do you really think that the Canadian government is going to shell out the type of money required for the stadium upgrades and possibly new builds? We are talking billions. As I said before, its very Canadian to think we cant do it. As a country we should see a shrink about our inferiority complex. Instead of comparing yourself with 'Merica, why dont you look at who has hosted the world cup and compare yourself to them We've hosted 3 Olympics, many Common wealth games, U-20 world cups, we will host a WWC etc etc. Its always easier to say we can't. Im not sure you have your info right on any of those points. It looks more like a list of assumptions and thoughts than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWFC Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 The CFL season would need to start the day FIFA doesn't control these stadiums, If you want to put grass that lasts for 1 day, it's fine. If you want it to last for 1 month, you would have to install a new grass system and tear down the artificial surface and the CFL would need to wait another month to install turf. How long did it take for FC Edmonton to install their new artificial surface? Around that. In 94, they had the time since the NFL starts regular season in September. It's part of the economics if we use the CFL stadiums, that would be a conpromise that they need to think about. Sure. There would be a lot of issues, planning, and compromise. Goes hand in hand with hosting the biggest sporting event in the world. Im not sure why that means we can't do it though? South Africa, Brazil, Germany, South Korea, Japan etc all dealt and overcame there own issues, why cant we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWFC Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Interesting stuff from an article regarding the bid. 50,000 is not the minimum and FIFA contributed $2 billion to Brazil: Costs of the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Canada Canada’s transportation and hospitality infrastructure is well developed and the cost of hosting the event should instead largely come from stadium, operational and security expenses. The nation’s various levels of government will be responsible for the costs associated with stadiums and security while FIFA is to cover the vast majority of the operational costs of organizing and executing the event. For 2014, FIFA spent $2 billion on organizing the tournament and the local Brazilian organizing committee. The brunt of the costs for a Canadian World Cup will come from stadium construction. But even so, many of the venues required to host the World Cup in the country already exist as CFL stadiums, albeit some new builds and major renovations will be needed to improve aesthetics, seating, lighting, sound, visual displays, accessibility, player and media facilities, and the installation of FIFA required playing fields. FIFA requires a minimum of 8 stadiums to host the World Cup, and for a country the size of Canada an efficient and compact logistical plan with less stadiums and cities would be regarded more positively for the air travel that teams and spectators would have to undertake between competition sites. All of the stadiums must seat at least 40,000 spectators, with exception to the minimum 80,000-seat stadium for the opening match and championship final and the minimum 60,000-seat stadiums required for the semi-final matches. Here are Canada’s existing stadiums by order of largest seating capacity: Olympic Stadium, Montreal Built: 1976 Capacity: 65,255 Commonwealth Stadium, Edmonton Built: 1978 (renovated in 2010) Capacity: 56,302 BC Place Stadium, Vancouver Built: 1983 (renovated in 2011) Capacity: 54,320 Rogers Centre, Toronto Built: 1989 Capacity: 47,568 (soccer mode) Investor Group Field, Winnipeg Built: 2013 Capacity: 33,422 (expandable to 40,000 with temporary seats) Tim Hortons Field, Hamilton Built: 2014 Capacity: 22,500 (expandable to 40,000 with temporary seats) Mosaic Stadium, Regina Built: 2017 (new) Capacity: 33,000 (expandable to 40,000 with temporary seats) BMO Field, Toronto Built: 2007 Capacity: 21,566 (expandable to 40,000 with temporary seats) McMahon Stadium, Calgary Built: 1960 Capacity: 37,317 TD Place Stadium, Ottawa Built: 1908 (renovated in 2014) Capacity: 24,000 FIFA stipulates that major Fan Zones, similar to Vancouver 2010′s Live City festivities at David Lam Park and Larwill Park, are required within close proximity of each stadium venue. Training facilities must also be provided for each of the 32 national teams competing in the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 No I'm not being a "we're Canadian so we can't do it" type. I'm being realistic. The CSA (even in its reformed version) vs the USSF and MSF? Organization strengths: USA/Mexico "We've hosted the WC before very successfully", Canada "We've hosted the WWC & U20 WC successfully". Advantage USA/Mexico. Fake/Real Turf: The USA has shown it will pay to grow real grass in the Pontiac Silverdome in Detroit indoors. They'll do whatever it takes. This has also given them the bragging rights to the fact that they hosted the first indoor WC game. Attendance: The 1994 World Cup broke the average attendance record with nearly 69,000, a feat that still stands today. Mexico will sell lots but hard to beat American marketing of the "event" even when the game is a meaningless first rounder between 2 lesser nations. The USA has delivered average attendance of 69k. No one else is even close. Brazil 2014 54k, Germany 2006 53k, South Africa 2010 50k. The USA still holds the total attendance record with 3.6 million and that was in 52 games!! Brazil and Germany each had 64 games and still came up short with 3.4 million. FIFA must be licking their chops at the $$$$ that the USA could do with 64 games. Intangibles: Corruption, bribes etc. Sorry but the CSA will just not got there. For the USA & Mexico it is familiar stomping grounds, soccer wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 ^ Total speculation but I'd argue that the appetite for a North America WC held in Canada, as opposed to the USA, would be sufficient enough that it would be difficult to counter through the usual channels (bribery). We're cheaper, safer, and I'd dare to say more worldly. No one travelling to Canada on a UK or German passport is going to get special treatment from Homeland Security because they were born in Pakistan. I'd also argue the TV revenue rights for a WC in Canada would be at, best, only marginally effected when compared to a similar event held in the USA. Again, I'm completely out of my realm but I can't help but believe (because that's all I got) that if it came down to an us or them vote that we'd be sitting pretty. And I think the USSF might suspect the same thing to. Long way off though so who knows? Sun could blow up tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I know I am being pedantic here but WTF does Duane still insist on this "1a" nonsense? A league is either div 1 or not. You cannot be "sort-of" div 1 any more than you can be sort-of pregnant. NASL is div 2, has been acknowledged by both the CSA and USSF as such and adding a bunch of second-tier Canadian markets is not going to make it magically a more competitive league. Anyway, back to fantasies of World Cup games in Vancouver when I am nearly 60 years old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Humberlands Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Clearly you're not tracking the shitstorm over transit in Toronto and Montreal Last time I checked, the transit system everywhere else around the city (except for Scarborough) is pretty decent. BMO Field and the Rogers centre are in great areas. Transit is fine around there. Worst case scenario, the city expands more subway or LRT lines. Road work is always done, every summer, everywhere in the world. What's going on NOW (QEW/Gardiner) will be done by 2015, or shortly after. We're talking 2026. Plenty of time. As for Montreal, I'm not keeping track of what's going on there. But I can't imagine given the timelines, SHOULD Canada win a WC hosting bid, that whatever infrastructure and transit issues remained wouldn't be taken care of. And saying that, I don't think there's much work that really needs to be done aside from upgrading current stadiums. HOW money is spent, is the key. Grass or turf. Doesn't matter. That's a cheap and insignificant fix. I believe FIFA wants newcomers to the scene to step it up. USA is doing well with the MLS and their recent WC success. Mexico is never a worry. They're always a perennial fave in CONCACAF. It's time for the only G8 country in the world to never host a WC to stand up. Rest assured, I think we'll be challenged/measured by our hosting efforts for the women next year (2015). The CSA seems to be turning things around slowly, and the WC would be a huge face lift/endorsement to their cause. I think it was VW that said it's our bid to lose. I think he's right. However, it may come down to a joint bid... despite FIFA not liking it, it'll give them the best of both worlds. The only question then would be CONCACAF qualifying... I dunno, I'm just a newbie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Humberlands Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 FIFA requires a minimum of eight venues for the World Cup, including one with 80,000-plus seats. So we would have to build or expand dramatically all current stadiums in Canada. You are looking at 50k min each with one at 80k. Our pro sports infrastructure is nowhere close. The reasons I brought up doing a joint bid with the USA. 1) We don't have the political pull, the USSF does. 2) The financing to build up our stadiums just so they'll be half empty even for the rest of their lives won't go over well. 3) The USA has already had it once and was successful. FIFA would love more exposure in the USA. This gives them the novelty (excuse) of exposing new markets (Canada). 4) If we go up against the USA and Mexico it quickly becomes a coin toss between those 2 for FIFA (whoever pays off the most wins). By doing a joint bid we enhance the USA's chance and ours becomes realistic. Seriously do you really think that the Canadian government is going to shell out the type of money required for the stadium upgrades and possibly new builds? We are talking billions. Check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup This is from the WC in Brazil, just months ago. There's ONE stadium close to 80K, but falls just short. There are a handful that are around 40K. You mean to tell me that upgrading BMO further, or using the Rogers Centre, or uncovering the tarp in the upper bowls of BC place or making Olympic Stadium in Montreal a little prettier, etc, isn't possible? That's not including other stadiums in other cities. And realistically, how expensive are seat upgrades? Only reason BMO Field's upgrades are expensive is because of the addition of a roof, and (retractable seats) to make the pitch longer to fit CFL games. The only things I can see being an issue are: 2) The financing to build up our stadiums just so they'll be half empty even for the rest of their lives won't go over well. - I'd imagine stadiums seeing upgrades (if any) would be the ones with CFL teams. Hard to say if stadiums will sit empty. It's likely, but would be best if there was an honest effort to use these facilities as often as possible for other things later. 3) The USA has already had it once and was successful. FIFA would love more exposure in the USA. This gives them the novelty (excuse) of exposing new markets (Canada). - I agree that FIFA wants more exposure in the USA. Either way you look at it, whether Canada hosts or co-hosts, being our neighbours, Americans will be getting more exposure to the game. Easier if it's in the USA, but as mentioned above, still a benefit for Canada to host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Humberlands Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 The CFL season would need to start the day FIFA doesn't control these stadiums, If you want to put grass that lasts for 1 day, it's fine. If you want it to last for 1 month, you would have to install a new grass system and tear down the artificial surface and the CFL would need to wait another month to install turf. How long did it take for FC Edmonton to install their new artificial surface? Around that. In 94, they had the time since the NFL starts regular season in September. It's part of the economics if we use the CFL stadiums, that would be a conpromise that they need to think about. What about that hybrid grass that's all the rave lately? I'd imagine this is what would be strongly considered. Wembley has it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desso_GrassMaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 ^Could be a good excuse to retrofit all the CFL stadium with a new surface. I can't imagine CFL players actually like falling on the fake stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWFC Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 No I'm not being a "we're Canadian so we can't do it" type. I'm being realistic. The CSA (even in its reformed version) vs the USSF and MSF? Organization strengths: USA/Mexico "We've hosted the WC before very successfully", Canada "We've hosted the WWC & U20 WC successfully". Advantage USA/Mexico. Fake/Real Turf: The USA has shown it will pay to grow real grass in the Pontiac Silverdome in Detroit indoors. They'll do whatever it takes. This has also given them the bragging rights to the fact that they hosted the first indoor WC game. Attendance: The 1994 World Cup broke the average attendance record with nearly 69,000, a feat that still stands today. Mexico will sell lots but hard to beat American marketing of the "event" even when the game is a meaningless first rounder between 2 lesser nations. The USA has delivered average attendance of 69k. No one else is even close. Brazil 2014 54k, Germany 2006 53k, South Africa 2010 50k. The USA still holds the total attendance record with 3.6 million and that was in 52 games!! Brazil and Germany each had 64 games and still came up short with 3.4 million. FIFA must be licking their chops at the $$$$ that the USA could do with 64 games. Intangibles: Corruption, bribes etc. Sorry but the CSA will just not got there. For the USA & Mexico it is familiar stomping grounds, soccer wise. Sorry mate, that's a lot of assumptions, what if's and negative thinking, similar to your thoughts on infrastructure and stadium size. Has USSF 100% confirmed they're going to bid? There are a lot of positives for a Canada bid and I'm glad our CSA is gonna give it a go. We have a better shot than you realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Sorry mate, that's a lot of assumptions, what if's and negative thinking, similar to your thoughts on infrastructure and stadium size. Has USSF 100% confirmed they're going to bid? There are a lot of positives for a Canada bid and I'm glad our CSA is gonna give it a go. We have a better shot than you realize. Everything on this whole topic is assumptions and what if's. I'm not negative, I've said the infrastructure would need upgrading costing billions. That is realistic not negative. Politicians being what they are may or may not want to risk it. Spreading the financial risk around would ease their minds and help gain their support. I just see this as a way to hugely improve our odds. Has USSF said they aren't interested? No. Then assume they will and assume their goal is to outdo the 1994 numbers. Yes we have a shot and I'm glad the CSA is looking at it. It is 2 giants vs us and the things in our favour are that we haven't held it before and we have successfully held U20 WC & WWC. In the end FIFA is ruled by $$$$$ and the USA delivers in spades. Don't underestimate your competition and in a 3 way battle joining forces with one of your opponents wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWFC Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Everything on this whole topic is assumptions and what if's. I'm not negative, I've said the infrastructure would need upgrading costing billions. That is realistic not negative. Politicians being what they are may or may not want to risk it. Spreading the financial risk around would ease their minds and help gain their support. Just because its a risk doesn't mean we cant handle it, we dont need the yanks to hold our hands through this. Every major sporting event costs "billions". Van 2010 cost billions and the investment paid off. The games broke even and the city was left with infrastructure that will last decades and the people were left with amazing memories. The end result was community centres, roads and mass transit for free. Has USSF said they aren't interested? No. Then assume they will and assume their goal is to outdo the 1994 numbers. Why would you assume they will? Im going to assume they see the best chance in Canada because we haven't hosted yet and that they will back our bid and make huge $$ off tv and popularity gains of the sport. MLS wins if its in Canada or the states. In the end FIFA is ruled by $$$$$ and the USA delivers in spades. So do we, in fact Ive read a few thoughts that the tv ratings and contracts would be very similar in Canada because it hits the US time zones. Don't underestimate your competition ... who havent even confirmed they are going to bid. Good advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Gagne Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I thought this was an "increasing the Canadian MLS quota" thread, not a "Canadian WC 2026 bid" thread. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Boy Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 It's now an 'increasing the Canadian quota in the World Cup' thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag futbol Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Last time I checked, the transit system everywhere else around the city (except for Scarborough) is pretty decent. BMO Field and the Rogers centre are in great areas. Transit is fine around there. Worst case scenario, the city expands more subway or LRT lines. Road work is always done, every summer, everywhere in the world. What's going on NOW (QEW/Gardiner) will be done by 2015, or shortly after. We're talking 2026. Plenty of time. Would have do completely disagree with that. Transit west of downtown is a disaster. The area has become hugely dense, but relies mainly on streetcars traveling with traffic to move people. As anyone who commutes west of Bathurst on King in the morning will tell you, street cars often show up late or completely filled to capacity, leaving people stranded on the corner waiting for the next one to arrive. And of all places that need transit you cite Scarborough? Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzx Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Speaking as someone intimately aware of the Toronto's future transit plans, i'm not at all worried. Things might be tight now, but there are multiple plans in the works that will improve movement in many different ways. Forget, 2026, Toronto will be much more efficient by 2020. This is not a WC thread, but who knows when this discussion will pick up again, so i'll add one point. We don't necessarily need a new 80,000 seat stadium (in Toronto or elsewhere) For the 1976 Olympics the BigO held about 76,000 seats, this was reduced to the current ~65,000 (soccer/football) and 45,000(baseball) to accommodate the expos. The point is the facility can easily(if perhaps not cheaply) be retrofitted for a WC final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpg75 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 What happened to the rumour that Garber was going to make an announcement about helping Canadian soccer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzx Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Still there, but I wouldn't expect anything till December at the earliest. It would be part of announcements for next season, of which there are a million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWFC Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I thought this was an "increasing the Canadian MLS quota" thread, not a "Canadian WC 2026 bid" thread. Just saying. Organic discussion is frowned upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Gagne Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Organic discussion is frowned upon. damn right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.