CPL Stadium Thread

[Complete Homer]

7 minutes ago, Kent said:

Has Paul Beirne mentioned those cities? If he has, fine. If he hasn't, I'm not sure why you would bring them up in the context of markets with 200,000 plus populations. Kelowna is close (194,882) but Moncton, while possibly viable, is 144,810, and Penticton seems way off the mark at 43,432.

He mentioned them... In the context of talking about making the league viable for the next hundred years and looking forward to the day that there's 60 teams on the CPL pyramid 

There's always a spin

[Ansem]

4 minutes ago, Rheo said:

"People on this board need to get over themselves" does go both ways. Especially when you're so dogmatic and inflexible insisting that the league can only succeed if they follow what you believe is the only blueprint.

Perhaps I understand that underneath it all, sports is a business and basic business 101 applies to sport as well, hence my insistence on the need for the league and owners to set minimum requirements to sell themselves as a top league. Top leagues put on a "show" and that my friend, stadiums with running track isn't a good place to start for that

If CPL said they wanted to be D2, I wouldn't even bother debating this as they would be expected to look as such

Edited July 27, 2017 by Ansem

[Rheo]

Like I said agree to disagree. I'll live in the real world where things aren't usually black and white and we'll see who's more right in twenty years. Cheers

[Complete Homer]

@Ansem @Rheo Pretty sure you guys actually agree, neither of you seem to have suggested that reconfiguring (ex. Laying down temp stands on the track on the other side of the pitch) is either prohibitive or too low of a standard, while agreeing that a proper SSS is the ideal

[harrycoyster]

Can I just say that I find it hilarious that the US Soccer forums are basically a drum circle and this forum is constantly at odds with itself. Way to break Canadian stereotypes boys! 

[Gopherbashi]

I'm going to start taking a shot every time someone says "200,000".

[Rheo]

Bottom line I think they have to flexible in working towards the ideal stadium situation in the beginning and he thinks they need everything at once from the get go. We do agree in general it's just the timeline and openness to accepting not perfect situations in the beginning 

[Ansem]

Just now, Gopherbashi said:

I'm going to start taking a shot every time someone says "200,000".

Moncton being talked about has a lot to do with the league wanting to be in every province and in some cases (Mainly Moncton), that will trump minimum population.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Nope that's not what I have been picking up from recent PB interviews, listen to what is being said in podcasts and you'll find it's more likely to be because they don't want a league that has a 25,000 break even that limits them to a handful of viable markets. They prefer a business model that can work in markets of 200,000 plus along with the possibility of having multiple teams in the largest metro areas because that gives them scope for future growth.

[Kent]

53 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

He mentioned them... In the context of talking about making the league viable for the next hundred years and looking forward to the day that there's 60 teams on the CPL pyramid 

There's always a spin

Thanks for the clarification.

[Gopherbashi]

God damn it, why do I have to start drinking at 3pm?

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

At least one of the known investor groups is considering two cities with metro areas of 235,000 (Regina) and 295,000 (Saskatoon), so a small market that is not much bigger than Kelowna (195,000) is already going to be involved. Beyond that Halifax has a metro population of only 400,000, K-W weighs in at 525,000 and St John's has 200,000, so five of the eleven metro areas in the 200,000 and 750,000 range are already very much part of the conversation in terms of named investor groups actively considering participation before we even get into others like Victoria and London that often rate a mention on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_census_metropolitan_areas_and_agglomerations_in_Canada

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by BringBackTheBlizzard

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

2 hours ago, Kent said:

Someone should let Italy know they shouldn't let Lazio and Roma play in this terrible stadium that has a running track, let alone the Coppa Italia final. Not sure how FIFA allowed the stadium to be used for the World Cup final too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadio_Olimpico

I am a season ticket holder at a stadium with a track and it is shit. I've also been to the Olympic stadium in Berlin. Another running track and it is bad. They are looking to move to a purpose built stadium.  

[RickC]

Roma is building their own stadium and Lazio (last I read) was also looking at getting out of Stadio Olympico. I've seen a match there (Lazio) and it seemed there were few fans there, even though attendance was about 40k. The track came in useful when the tifosi threw their flares. While track's are unattractive, having an appropriately sized stadium is more important.

[ReedOnTheGrand]

5 hours ago, Ansem said:

Might as well build a modular stadium near downtown and the LRT.

I recall Beirne saying that stadiums with running tracks were none-starters

I've been pushing the idea of using the Field at (now destroyed) centennial stadium. It still has a grass field and is right beside the AUD(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchener_Memorial_Auditorium_Complex) so there's lots of parking and it should be zoned properly already. It's also owned by the city and they've been trying to figure out what to do with it. It's not too far from a LRT station(about 5-10 minute walk), will be on the new Ottawa express bus line starting 2018 and is right off the expressway. Next time there's some sort of meeting it should hopefully be brought up. @Levi Oakey

The city of Kitchener has also really been trying to fix the stiga around the downtown experience so having people organize large events close by the Kitchener downtown centre with be good for foot traffic(hitting a pub downtown then taking transit down to the stadium). It will also be a good advertisement for LRT which with all the controversy the region could really use.   

[ReedOnTheGrand]

44 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

At least one of the known investor groups is considering two cities with metro areas of 235,000 (Regina) and 295,000 (Saskatoon), so a small market that is not much bigger than Kelowna (195,000) is already going to be involved. Beyond that Halifax has a metro population of only 400,000, K-W weighs in at 525,000 and St John's has 200,000, so five of the eleven metro areas in the 200,000 and 750,000 range are already very much part of the conversation in terms of named investor groups actively considering participation before we even get into others like Victoria and London that often rate a mention on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_census_metropolitan_areas_and_agglomerations_in_Canada

 

Saskatchewan has a history of being good at supporting local sports, doesn't it? 

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

18 minutes ago, ReedOnTheGrand said:

Saskatchewan has a history of being good at supporting local sports, doesn't it? 

Yep, and in a southern Ontario context K-W and London feature very prominently when it comes to supporting the OHL:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=OHL1989&sid=2017

and don't need to take a back seat to anybody even when being compared to larger cities like Hamilton, Ottawa, and Mississauga in that sort of regard. You do understand I hope that I am arguing that markets in the 200,000 to 750,000 are not only clearly a big part of what is happening at the moment but very much need to be if this thing is actually going to be able to fly?

[ReedOnTheGrand]

1 minute ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

Yep, and in a southern Ontario context K-W and London feature very prominently when it comes to supporting the OHL:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=OHL1989&sid=2017

and don't need to take a back seat to anybody even when being compared to larger cities like Hamilton, Ottawa, and Mississauga in that sort of regard. You do understand I hope that I am arguing that markets in the 200,000 to 750,000 are not only clearly a big part of what is happening at the moment but very much need to be if this thing is actually going to be able to fly?

I'm on your side, I'm just saying Saskatchewan 200k markets will likely do better than anywhere else around the same size.

The Region of Waterloo(essentially the KW metro area) had an estimated population of 583.5k in 2016(Projection of 592k in 2017) so we're looking at as 600k market for launch(750k-800k if you include guelph which has around 150k and really high growth, around 8%). In my mind KWC is a no brainer market wise. 

London is also around 500k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_Ontario so I see it as a likely later join. 

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Just now, ReedOnTheGrand said:

I'm on your side, I'm just saying Saskatchewan 200k markets will likely do better than anywhere else around the same size.

There's definitely support for that with the CFL and lacrosse but looking at the WHL, Kelowna that is being derided on here to a certain extent is not too far behind Regina on attendance and is ahead of Sasakatoon:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=WHL1979&sid=2017

and a city like Victoria that has a much stronger soccer pedigree also seems to do pretty much as well in junior hockey terms. I think the jury is still out on whether Saskatchewan is uniquely good for small market sports support. It's obviously totally up to Joe Belan what he wants to do with his hard earned loot, but if I was going to guess what market would get behind something like this in a big way I am not sure he picked the best place to go from a soccer standpoint, although I think his other business interests are mainly in Saskatchewan so that angle may not have even entered his thinking.

[Unnamed Trialist]

Wow, talk about helping a thread get back on track. 

Speaking of tracks, let me make my argument against them, and in favour of getting fans as close as possible. 

Reason no 1: kids.

If any of you have kids who like the game and when young wanted to go, you'll know that no kid wants to be far away. Most want to be close, right up close, first row if possible. They want to see faces, hear sounds, watch details, smell the grass. They want to imagine themselves out there. I used to take my son to dozens of lower tier matches just to be on the sideline, leaning on a bar 2 feet from the linesman. Or behind the goal, he loved it right behind the goal, to see the world from the keeper's perspective (I loved it up close and still do so I can heckle).

You'll know that if you want to take them to a big match in a big stadium, it is the shits since you really have to spend more to get them into a lower tier. Then, when they get older and have a sense of tactics, they might enjoy being up high. 

Reason no 2: supporter groups

The entire effect of a supporter group is lost at 25 metres from the pitch. You are not heard, you do not feel you are engaged, you cannot heckle, your overall effect is nullified. Get 10 stadiums with tifos and supporters in close and you have this great atmosphere all across the league that other fans will appreciate (as is in fact the case), as well as tv cameras, scanning chanting and bouncing groups with flags. Distance hurts supporter group culture.

Reason no 3: home support

The best way to make home field an advantage is to accentuate all the positive effects of playing at home. Mostly, fan presence, pressure on the rival, pressure on the ref, adrenalin for the home team. You want rivals to think, oh god, not back to that hell of a stadium. And your players to think: let's use our fans to get inspired. This argument is also one in favour of close in, and of having some roofs, so sound echoes down. I am always shocked at BC Place, for example, how you can sit 2 sections away from Curva or Southside and not hear them, because the acoustics stink (even though they are quite close to the pitch). 

Reason no 4: tv, sponsors, merchandising

It looks way better on tv, so that a casual viewer is not only going to see the game, they are going to see fans. All tv broadcasts done well scan fans and show supporters, as it gives colour and enhances the game's narrative. Celebrations by players, and fans. Sure, that can happen if they are far away, but if you look, when far away fans are more disengaged, less intensely focussed. 

This also relates to sponsors and merchandising, when you see a corner or a play on the sidelines and see rows of fans in team colour and shirts, that is actually a boost for anyone spending money to support the project. What we are talking about is 6 teams, say, or eight, and that many distinct team colour schemes, with stadiums corresponding. In La Liga, last year, they forced all stadiums to get all signage, banners, generic ads, visible concrete surfaces, seats, all in team colours, as they realized that certain markets really respond to that on tv and they'd ignored it for years (EPL pioneered this in tv terms for the Asian market). 

 

I know that plenty of teams with tracks do just fine, have decent home records, and are not affected by the adversity of having fans at a distance. I've seen plenty of games with tracks that I have enjoyed (watched Espanyol at Olympic Stadium for years). Mind you, as an adult I have never minded being up high and far away as I always enjoyed the overall tactical perspective, especially when the team was quality. So I don't want to exagerrate this.

But a new league has to do everything possible to enhance its possibilities for success. And choosing fans in close over stadiums with tracks is one key factor.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Unnamed Trialist

[ReedOnTheGrand]

5 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

There's definitely support for that with the CFL and lacrosse but looking at the WHL, Kelowna that is being derided on here to a certain extent is not too far behind Regina on attendance and is ahead of Sasakatoon:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=WHL1979&sid=2017

and a city like Victoria that has a much stronger soccer pedigree also seems to do pretty much as well in junior hockey terms. I think the jury is still out on whether Saskatchewan is uniquely good for small market sports support. It's obviously totally up to Joe Belan what he wants to do with his hard earned loot, but if I was going to guess what market would get behind something like this in a big way I am not sure he picked the best place to go from a soccer standpoint, although I think his other business interests are mainly in Saskatchewan so that angle may not have even entered his thinking.

I think when looking at things like junior hockey support you've got to look at the team circumstances and such. Kelowna are very successful(if you don't know look up there results, I had to) and they have a good sized barn. Saskatoon blades on the other hand have been pretty meh for the last while which could explain the bad attendance.  

[ReedOnTheGrand]

6 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Wow, talk about helping a thread get back on track. 

Speaking of tracks, let me make my argument against them, and in favour of getting fans as close as possible. 

Reason no 1: kids.

If any of you have kids who like the game and when young wanted to go, you'll know that no kid wants to be far away. Most want to be close, right up close, first row if possible. They want to see faces, here sounds, watch details, smell the grass. They want to imagine themselves out there. I used to take my son to dozens of lower tier matches just to be on the sideline, leaning on a bar 2 feet from the linesman. Or behind the goal, he loved it right behind the goal, to see the world from the keeper's perspective (I loved it and still do so I can heckle).

You'll know that if you want to take them to a big match in a big stadium, it is the shits since you really have to spend more to get them into a lower tier. Then, when they get older and have a sense of tactics, they might enjoy being up high. 

Reason no 2: supporter groups

The entire effect of a supporter group is lost at 25 metres from the pitch. You are not heard, you do not feel you are engaged, you cannot heckle, your overall effect is nullified. Get 10 stadiums with tifos and supporters in close and you have this great atmosphere all across the league that other fans will appreciate (as is in fact the case), as well as tv cameras, scanning chanting and bouncing groups with flags. 

Reason no 3: home support

The best way to make home field an advantage is to accentuate all the positive effects of playing at home. Mostly, fan presence, pressure on the rival, pressure on the ref, adrenalin for the home team. You want rivals to think, oh god, not back to that inferno of a stadium. And your players to think: let's use our fans to get inspired. This argument is also one in favour of close in, and some roofs, so sound echoes. I am always shocked at BC Place, for example, how you can sit 2 sections away from Curva or Southside and not hear them, because the acoustics stink (even though they are quite close to the pitch). 

Reason no 4: tv, sponsors, merchandising

It looks way better on tv, so that a casual viewer is not only going to see the game, they are going to see fans. All tv broadcasts done well scan fans and show supporters, as it gives colour and enhances the game's narrative. Celebrations by players, and fans. Sure, that can happen if they are far away, but if you look, when far away fans are more disengaged, less intensely focussed. 

This also relates to sponsors and merchandising, when you see a corner or a play on the sidelines and see rows of fans in team colour and shirts, that is actually a boost for anyone spending money to support the project. 

 

I know that plenty of teams with tracks do just fine, have decent home records, and are not affected by the adversity of having fans at a distance. I've seen plenty of games with tracks that I have enjoyed (watched Espanyol at Olympic Stadium for years). Mind you, as an adult I have never minded being up high and far away as I always enjoyed the overall tactical perspective, especially when the team was quality. So I don't want to exagerrate this. But a new league has to do everything possible to enhance its possibilities for success. And choosing fans in close over stadiums with tracks is one key factor.

Going with point 1 and 4, more casual fans with come back and maybe become bigger fans just because of gameday experience. It will also give them a sense of being part of something bigger if they're in this tight, loud stadium then sitting in a quiet grandstand looking over a track at a field. For example West Ham fans say moving to the bigger London Stadium with the track has killed the atmosphere and game day experience.     

[Gopherbashi]

There may be an opportunity here for some creative thinking when it comes to fieldside seating and running tracks.

I wonder if it's possible to have some sort of roll-away fieldside seating which would normally sit on top of a running track for athletic matches, but can move (either away from the field or under higher, permanent seating) when the running track is needed.

I've tried to make the drawing below based on what measurements I could find (or what made sense).  Eight-lane running track with 4 feet width per lane, 2 meters between there and the pitch, 36 inch gap between rows, and eight-inch elevation between rows.

Leaving a two-lane walkway in front of the fieldside seating (dark gray), and a yard or two gap between the track and the elevated permanent seating (light gray), you could add nine rows of fieldside seating which could roll away under the permanent seating when not needed.  Your permanent seating would have to start at an elevation of about six feet (nine rows x 8 inches elevation per row), which some universities are already doing to prevent students from rushing the field.

In terms of capacity, going with 24 inches width per seat and a pitch length of 100 yards, you get 150 seats per row, or 1350 seats for the entire nine-row rollaway seating.  If you assume an equal number of elevated permanent seats, and the same setup on both sides of the field, you get 5400 seats in total - not far off what the CPL would be looking for and that's before counting any seating you put along the goal lines.

There would be some downsides - increased costs with maintenance, pre/post-game setup, lack of room under the permanent stands for things like concessions, change rooms, washrooms, etc - but this possibility isn't exactly new or novel - most arenas change up their seating for hockey vs basketball, so the technology and ability already exists in some form.  Could be an interesting way of partnering with universities and other owners of existing fields to keep those areas as multipurpose as possible.

[Unnamed Trialist]

Just to show a small new stadium I've been in, Badalona in 3rd tier Spain, capacity 4100 but you can see it could be expanded as those grassy slopes above two sides (lower right and centre) could be fitted with seats. It is built over a long slope so part is underground and part well above. Cost just over 7 million euros, land from the city.

 

[Ansem]

34 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

I think the jury is still out on whether Saskatchewan is uniquely good for small market sports support.

The jury is still out?????? Ever the skeptic

Let's see shall we?

Hockey (Average attendance/Capacity) 2016-2017

• Moose Jaw Warriors 3,372/4,414
• Prince Albert Raiders 2,133/3,366
• Regina Pats 5,56/6,484
• Saskatoon Blades 3968/15,195
• Swift Current Broncos 2,006/3,239

Lacrosse

• Saskatchewan Rush (2016) 11,736/15,195
• Saskatchewan Rush (2017) 14,921 /15,195

Football

• Saskatchewan Roughriders 31,327/33,427

Saskatchewan as a whole is very solid and has a proven track record for sports. It's not because the NHL is too stupid, idiotic and blind to see that even a 30k arena would sell out every night that Saskatchewan isn't viable for a major league. If anything, they have been overachieving in comparison to bigger markets.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Ansem