CPL Stadium Thread

[BearcatSA]

They could definitely plan to have expansion on a current site, just like LEC, but I think the first step focus would be an anchor facility that a top notch arena would be because there would be more money making events (as the ones I suggested) available year round.  Start there first, then add on.  

[Sohnny Jins]

Is there any plans to add outer cladding to vfc's stadium? Currently it dosent look the most welcoming

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, Sohnny Jins said:

Is there any plans to add outer cladding to vfc's stadium? Currently it dosent look the most welcoming

They could just tarp that west side, and I agree it'd look better. Or do something on that most visible side.

The other sides don't matter as much, one has the high retaining wall for the field above, one endzone has the grassy knoll. 

[SpursFlu]

2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

They could just tarp that west side, and I agree it'd look better. Or do something on that most visible side.

The other sides don't matter as much, one has the high retaining wall for the field above, one endzone has the grassy knoll. 

Branded banners or netting or whatever you would want to call it would pay for itself in visibility and marketing 

Probably more of a league 1 thing but kinda interesting. Smaller stadium built in the heart of Surrey. Looks nice

https://www.cloverdalereporter.com/news/surreys-new-2200-seat-sports-stadium-to-open-in-2024-at-bear-creek-park-7290267

Edited February 17 by SpursFlu

[CDNFootballer]

10 hours ago, Sohnny Jins said:

Is there any plans to add outer cladding to vfc's stadium? Currently it dosent look the most welcoming

I was going to ask Rob Friend at the end of season party but forgot.

Agree West side at least needs some branded tarping as its visible from the main road (200th) running by the stadium.

Ideally it needs cladding/tarping on the whole stadium as this is supposed to be Six Five Stadiums example of a nice small stadium they can provide. Newer mayor apparently nixed the roof so maybe the tarping as well, but the club should just foot the bill if thats the case as its a smaller cost but needed for optics imo.

[SoccMan]

43 minutes ago, CDNFootballer said:

I was going to ask Rob Friend at the end of season party but forgot.

Agree West side at least needs some branded tarping as its visible from the main road (200th) running by the stadium.

Ideally it needs cladding/tarping on the whole stadium as this is supposed to be Six Five Stadiums example of a nice small stadium they can provide. Newer mayor apparently nixed the roof so maybe the tarping as well, but the club should just foot the bill if thats the case as its a smaller cost but needed for optics imo.

Why was the roof nixed ?

[Watchmen]

3 hours ago, SoccMan said:

Why was the roof nixed ?

Langley was already contractually obliged to provide the stadium, but the new mayor/city council wasn't really interested in it. So, they went with the minimum needed to meet the contract.

[Unnamed Trialist]

10 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Langley was already contractually obliged to provide the stadium, but the new mayor/city council wasn't really interested in it. So, they went with the minimum needed to meet the contract.

I am not sure that is the exact sequence, but more or less. After all, who was going to pay for the roof? The city or Friend and co?

You are starting a new club, have expenses, no clear idea of revenue, and you cut back, I understand it. From both sides, not just the municipality. 

Then there is that argument we have seen where they opted to do the scoreclock for this upcoming season instead of investing in a roof, the city agreed, so that investment when to another amenity you could argue does indeed have longer term value.

Now if the owners had the money maybe they would have added the roof, at least on one side, themselves, but they didn't. But think about it: they have a company importing modular stadiums from China, and all the cool images on the web include the roof. That is the stadium they want to sell more of. Meaning if you are serious about the business project on the stadiums, make the first one your model stadium. It is like doing a model home for a subdivision and doing the model on the cheap--worst way to sell the product. Make it premium. 

 

[BearcatSA]

28 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It is like doing a model home for a subdivision and doing the model on the cheap--worst way to sell the product. Make it premium. 

Yes, this flagship, "spec house" stadium has not been the best look for a group that wants to sell this product around the world.

 

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

15 hours ago, CDNFootballer said:

...but the club should just foot the bill if thats the case as its a smaller cost but needed for optics imo.

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that the two SixFive Sports controlled clubs were often travelling without a full complement of subs last summer. That suggests Dean Shillington is counting his pennies and is keen to find ways to save money.

[Unnamed Trialist]

58 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that the two SixFive Sports controlled clubs were often travelling without a full complement of subs last summer. That suggests Dean Shillington is counting his pennies and is keen to find ways to save money.

I spoke to a player who flatly denied this. They said it was to ensure players weren't traveling across the country to not play, missing training along with the rest of players. In any case it's illogical thinking since there's a flight sponsor, you share rooms for a night and could go three instead of 2, there's no evidence that either team suffered away because of it. 

Which match did either clearly lose away because this or that player was left home?

For me it's just one of those shibboleths folks run to when they're looking for excuses. Are both Pacific and Vfc running shorter rosters all season to save on a full salary or two? That'd be a savings policy. But they don't do that. In fact, there's evidence they are far from the clubs spending the least, as seen in precisely what we are talking about, stadium investment.

I'm not surprised you leap at the spurious conspiracy argument as is your habit here.

Edited February 18 by Unnamed Trialist

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

^^^by way of a fact check. It has been reported in the past that although Westjet is a league sponsor they don't actually provide clubs with discounts on flights.

[SpursFlu]

2 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

^^^by way of a fact check. It has been reported in the past that although Westjet is a league sponsor they don't actually provide clubs with discounts on flights.

But do they pay to be sponsors of the league?

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

^^^a couple of posts that serve as useful reminders of why I put these guys on ignore. What on earth did that add to the discussion?

[Big_M]

when you bring four outfield subs in a professional league where youre allowed five the reason cant be that the player wouldnt play...youre putting your team at a disadvantage by allowing yourself to make only four subs with the other team able to make five...can you imagine doing that anywhere else with bigger more engaged fan bases the fans would absolutely lose their minds "why the hell are we bringing four outfield subs when we can make five changes"...if youre short for injury reasons thats one thing but otherwise no thats not how you operate in a pro league

[SpursFlu]

59 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

^^^a couple of posts that serve as useful reminders of why I put these guys on ignore. What on earth did that add to the discussion?

Well because if WestJet pay money to be league sponsor whether agreed upon or not whenever possible CPL uses their service. Instead of creating some complicated discount system that might create more issues than its worth, CPL pays for their flights from the money that has been deposited in to their bank account. Probably would work the same if Greyhound were a league sponsor 

I would never put you on "ignore" in fact I think I stick up for you often on here. I just wish you used your powers for good not evil 

Edited February 18 by SpursFlu

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

47 minutes ago, Big_M said:

...youre putting your team at a disadvantage by allowing yourself to make only four subs with the other team able to make five...

There's also the angle of it limiting the number of tactical adjustments you can make, e.g. your left back gets injured but none of the four guys you brought are comfortable playing there. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Don't worry I have Ozzie on ignore as well, he is always muckraking, living in a mental muck habitat does that.

VFC build an entire stadium, spending millions which did not exist previously, only a pitch and nothing more. But that  fact can't be used to prove they are not going on the cheap, no: proof of them being cheap is the list of things they should have added to the stadium. 

I gave my fiancée a diamond engagement ring and she counted the diamonds that weren't there. That is what a lot of posters are doing with this "topic".

Edited February 18 by Unnamed Trialist

[SpursFlu]

Just the other day I was at Willoughby for the first time in a few months. I took a walk around and the thing that struck me was, you know this is actually a nice little stadium. I think if they replaced the East stand with a permanent covered stands with dressing rooms and a few permanent amenities Improve the lighting. You're pretty set. 

[SthMelbRed]

For a guy who allegedly has most of the board on ignore, the guy sure manages to reply to everyone. Something has probably gone seriously wrong with your life when you have to preface nearly every, single interaction with a claim of persecution.

[shermanator]

^^ Normally wouldn't bother engaging with this guy but I agree wholeheartedly.

[Watchmen]

11 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I spoke to a player who flatly denied this. They said it was to ensure players weren't traveling across the country to not play, missing training along with the rest of players. In any case it's illogical thinking since there's a flight sponsor, you share rooms for a night and could go three instead of 2, there's no evidence that either team suffered away because of it. 

Which match did either clearly lose away because this or that player was left home?

For me it's just one of those shibboleths folks run to when they're looking for excuses. Are both Pacific and Vfc running shorter rosters all season to save on a full salary or two? That'd be a savings policy. But they don't do that. In fact, there's evidence they are far from the clubs spending the least, as seen in precisely what we are talking about, stadium investment.

I'm not surprised you leap at the spurious conspiracy argument as is your habit here.

I'm sure that's the reason the players were given, to "avoid travelling but not playing". But, it's not unheard of at all for players to get injured in training just before a game. It still makes likely makes more sense to travel with a full squad.

And who knows if not having a full squad hurt them. It's impossible to prove one way or the other.

[Watchmen]

8 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

VFC build an entire stadium, spending millions which did not exist previously, only a pitch and nothing more. But that  fact can't be used to prove they are not going on the cheap, no: proof of them being cheap is the list of things they should have added to the stadium. 

But they didn't pay for it. The city paid for it. The millions for the stadium came from the city, not the team. And that's the case for both their stadiums.

[Aird25]

41 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

But they didn't pay for it. The city paid for it. The millions for the stadium came from the city, not the team. And that's the case for both their stadiums.

The club spent millions on infrastructure in Victoria including the largest indoor field house in the province and a mini pitch. They also traveled with a full compliment of subs the vast majority of the time including the entire second half of the season, so I don't really know what we're talking about. The owners literally doubled down on a second team and are actively pushing for further investment in their stadiums. They're the most heavily invested of any of the CPL owners which has been reported numerous times

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

But they didn't pay for it. The city paid for it. The millions for the stadium came from the city, not the team. And that's the case for both their stadiums.

It never went to public tender, that is, it was never in the terms of a publically funded amenity. Which makes me think what you're saying is not entirely correct. 

I don't believe Langley paid Friend for the stadium fully and that was a net benefit to his business. Or at least, I find it odd. 

Edited February 19 by Unnamed Trialist