Future Gold Cup Hosts

[Kent]

52 minutes ago, nazzer said:

I think the double headers make it seem rather hokey. But a game between Curaçao and Jamaica in northern USA won't draw a crowd so doesn't it make it easier to do double headers. 

I guess a thing I hadn't taken into account is the cost overhead of opening up the stadium, running concessions, security, etc. The double header would reduce the costs, even if it doesn't maximize the revenue.

[BuzzAndSting]

13 hours ago, SpecialK said:

According to CBC  they're blaming the Lack of big events being added is one of major causes of the loss. 

Well if you put in a grass system, you can host bigger soccer and rugby events.  Also if you had a grass system it will help  attract star players to come play for ottawa in the new Can PL. If a team in Ottawa doesnt have good players and a winning team, fans won't come to the games. 

Ottawa have had great  attendance levels for national women's soccer games. Ottawa should host more games. 

 

 

13 hours ago, SpecialK said:

OSEG has deep pockets ! 

OSEG owners, which includes: Jeff Hunt, owner of the Ottawa 67's; developer Minto Group's chairman, Roger Greenberg; expatriate property developer billionaire Bill Shenkman; and John Ruddy, president of shopping centre developer, Trinity Development Group

also the city Ottawa put a lot of money into Landsdowne.

No offence, but you don't know much about the situation in Ottawa. The City put little money into the redevelopment of Landsdowne, it was OSEG who did with the opportunity to redevelop the surrounding area. And yes the owners have deep pockets but it is not a passion project where they"re going to throw good money after bad, look how they gutted the NASL finalist team. And the losses are because they went after big events, namely the Grey Cup, combined with empty commercial and retail space in "The Shops" area of Landsdowne.

[SpecialK]

Buzz,  I'm from ottawa and I live in ottawa.  OSEG and the city have  partnership agreement. The city invested about $235 million ( that number could be wrong because I have read on another sites it cost about 290 m and city put in 174 m)  to refurbish TD Place Stadium and the Horticulture Building, and to construct the urban park. Regardless of the numbers, I know the city put in a shit ton of money. 

You are so right about the not a passion project and the  teardown of the ottawa fury. But again that goes with my argument about the  standards and the lobbying of the CFL. The CSA should have came out and said no shit turf but they didn't, they  braced turf.

Oh wait who's on the CSA board of directors part owner of the ottawa fury John Pugh, oh I'm sorry I forgot. Im curious though and it could be nothing and just  coincidence but there have been a few ottawa Fury players that have made the national team. 

[BuzzAndSting]

4 hours ago, SpecialK said:

Buzz,  I'm from ottawa and I live in ottawa.  OSEG and the city have  partnership agreement. The city invested about $235 million ( that number could be wrong because I have read on another sites it cost about 290 m and city put in 174 m)  to refurbish TD Place Stadium and the Horticulture Building, and to construct the urban park. Regardless of the numbers, I know the city put in a shit ton of money. 

You are so right about the not a passion project and the  teardown of the ottawa fury. But again that goes with my argument about the  standards and the lobbying of the CFL. The CSA should have came out and said no shit turf but they didn't, they  braced turf.

Oh wait who's on the CSA board of directors part owner of the ottawa fury John Pugh, oh I'm sorry I forgot. Im curious though and it could be nothing and just  coincidence but there have been a few ottawa Fury players that have made the national team. 

Sorry I should have been more clear, the city did invest in renovations to existing infrastructure and buildings it owned (Horticulture Building, Aberdeen Pavillion, the arena), but it was OSEG who paid for the redevelopment of the area that was empty space in exchange for the commercial opportunities and the right to manage and profit from the stadiums. The City does not have involvement of the management of the stadium, only OSEG does, so their investments in the area are irrelevant.

As for your point about the CSA telling OSEG or the City they can't install turf, on what grounds? The CSA does not have jurisdiction over field types in this country. Even if they tried to deny sanctioning of the Fury they would have been sued or OSEG would have reneged on their plan, neither would be good for soccer in this country.

As for your last paragraph I'm not sure what you're on about, do you think that Pugh has some sort of prevailing influence over the CSA BoD and used that convince the rest of the board to be okay with turf? If so, you're assuming the CSA disapproved of turf in the first place, which we have no evidence of. And you're speculating that Pugh used his influence to get certain Fury players chosen for the NT?! 

I'm sorry, you may live in Ottawa but your understanding of the situation is clearly misinformed and speculative at best, similar to your attitude and understanding of the OH situation.

[SpecialK]

45 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

Sorry I should have been more clear, the city did invest in renovations to existing infrastructure and buildings it owned (Horticulture Building, Aberdeen Pavillion, the arena), but it was OSEG who paid for the redevelopment of the area that was empty space in exchange for the commercial opportunities and the right to manage and profit from the stadiums. The City does not have involvement of the management of the stadium, only OSEG does, so their investments in the area are irrelevant.

As for your point about the CSA telling OSEG or the City they can't install turf, on what grounds? The CSA does not have jurisdiction over field types in this country. Even if they tried to deny sanctioning of the Fury they would have been sued or OSEG would have reneged on their plan, neither would be good for soccer in this country.

As for your last paragraph I'm not sure what you're on about, do you think that Pugh has some sort of prevailing influence over the CSA BoD and used that convince the rest of the board to be okay with turf? If so, you're assuming the CSA disapproved of turf in the first place, which we have no evidence of. And you're speculating that Pugh used his influence to get certain Fury players chosen for the NT?! 

I'm sorry, you may live in Ottawa but your understanding of the situation is clearly misinformed and speculative at best, similar to your attitude and understanding of the OH situation.

Buzz your missing the point, the CSA can lobby for grass systems in  stadiums. The CFL lobbies governments for new Stadiums and they get what they want. For example in the Women's World Cup , they could have said to cities if you want to host some games then put in grass, but they didn't they went with turf. It's the same with MLS playoffs at the Olympic  stadium , they could have put in a temp grass field but they put in shit turf. I don't understand why you defend Turf and the  in favour of CSA for not getting some balls or hold the CSA  accountable. You give them an out every time. 

Also by the way , the city of Ottawa  owns the stadium but it's  operated by OSEG and you should do some more research . I believe the agreement was rent free for 30 years and  revenue share until total investment repaid back to taxpayers. 

Also I was just being cheeky with John Pugh, but do I think he should be part of board NO! Because it's  inappropriate and potential conflict of interest cuz he is a owner of a  professional soccer club in Canada. I do find it funny that what 3-5 players from the Ottawa Fury have made it onto the national team. 

[BuzzAndSting]

2 hours ago, SpecialK said:

Buzz your missing the point, the CSA can lobby for grass systems in  stadiums. The CFL lobbies governments for new Stadiums and they get what they want. For example in the Women's World Cup , they could have said to cities if you want to host some games then put in grass, but they didn't they went with turf. It's the same with MLS playoffs at the Olympic  stadium , they could have put in a temp grass field but they put in shit turf. I don't understand why you defend Turf and the  in favour of CSA for not getting some balls or hold the CSA  accountable. You give them an out every time. 

Also by the way , the city of Ottawa  owns the stadium but it's  operated by OSEG and you should do some more research . I believe the agreement was rent free for 30 years and  revenue share until total investment repaid back to taxpayers. 

Also I was just being cheeky with John Pugh, but do I think he should be part of board NO! Because it's  inappropriate and potential conflict of interest cuz he is a owner of a  professional soccer club in Canada. I do find it funny that what 3-5 players from the Ottawa Fury have made it onto the national team. 

Where did I say otherwise?

And I don't defend the CSA, I just understand the realities of the soccer landscape in this country. You're the one pushing far flung ideas like our national federation confronting one of the few pro soccer teams in our country based on an assumption that to not means "they have no balls," them wasting millions of dollars in valuable funds and resources creating a "B" team and hiring the most hated, villainous character in our collective soccer history to try to convince fence sitters to join our program. 

As for the turf issue, you're missing the point. FIFA and the CSA said real grass wasn't a priority for them at the WWC, that's why they didn't require any host bidders to have natural grass fields. FIFA has approved turf fields so there was no reason for our federation to break protocol and require cities to incur unnecessary costs. Which brings up another point, who would you have pay for the conversion of these turf fields?

[ted]

On 7/18/2017 at 11:13 AM, Kent said:

I have a crazy question. Would the Gold Cup be better or worse off if they did away with the double headers?

Not a crazy question at all. 

IMO double-header games cheapen the "product". It is, in effect, a two-for-one sale on a sporting event. It sends the message that soccer is so bad you should get two games to make it worth one admission.

You would never see the Euro's done as double-headers.

It is simply a cost-saving measure because they cannot or will not sell tickets for most games.

 

[SpecialK]

Ya you do defend the CSA, you give them outs by saying they don't have  resources to get anything done. If they don't have the resources they should get the resources. Canada is one of richest countries in the world! The CSA should do a better job. To host huge tournaments like the gold cup , World Cup etc and to have a great domestic league we need grass fields in stadiums to attract star players. Just like when the CFL owners lobby government to pay for stadiums , that's where CSA should lobby to put on grass fields. I use ottawa an example, but in general they should have done that with all stadiums like in  Winnipeg Saskatchewan and when they renovated BC Place. 

And thank you for proven my point on  standards, you just  said " CSA said real grass wasn't a priority for them at the WWC, that's why they didn't require any host bidders to have natural grass fields. FIFA has approved turf fields so there was no reason for our federation to break protocol and require cities to incur unnecessary costs. I don't know about everyone else and everyone as their view point to me that's just  unacceptable and makes me sick. It just makes our country look like we are 2nd class in the soccer world. The CSA needs to have higher standards and needs be to accountable and We pay for the Stadiums. 

Hey you don't like my idea of a B team, that's your view. I just want more Canadian players to play international soccer so they can get better and get  noticed by clubs and by the fans. We have talent here ! And by the way Mexico and the USA have brought their B teams to the Gold Cup. 

Also the idea of OH joining the CSA to help promote Canadian soccer here in Canada and around the world. Most fans here hate it. Ok fine everyone has the right there opinion and like I said before that's why Canada is so great. What's your ideas Buzz ? I would love to read them. You seem like a smart guy and I love reading and debating you, lots of respect! 

Can't wait for Canada to kick ass tomorrow !

[Blackjack15]

List of Stadiums in Canada: 

1) Commonwealth Stadium - Edmonton, AB ~ 56,302 | Seating Capacity 

2) Olympic Stadium - Montreal, QC ~ 56,040 | Seating Capacity

3) BC Place - Vancouver, BC ~ 54,320 | Seating Capacity

4) BMO Field - Toronto, ON ~ Expandable to 40,000 | Seating Capacity

5) McMahon Stadium - Calgary, AB ~ 35,560 | Seating Capacity  *

6) Investors Group Field - Winnipeg, MB ~ 33,500 | Seating Capacity

7) Mosaic Stadium - Regina, SK ~ 33,000 | Seating Capacity

Then there's also TD Place (24,000) in Ottawa & Tim Hortons Field (22,500) in Hamilton respectively

* = Needs Renovation

Is there anyone who doesn't believe we can do this?

[SpecialK]

17 minutes ago, dsqpr said:

It is a fact that the 2015 Women's World Cup in Canada was a resounding success -- on turf. It would not have been any better on grass.

2015 Women's World Cup in Canada was a resounding success  financially and  attendance numbers  yes totally agree there and I believe if Canada hosts more tournaments it will be the same, but the players had huge issues with the turf. Also look at the MLS some stars won't play on turf. 

There is a reason why the men's World Cup is played on grass.  I'm quite sure that's not going to change anytime soon.  FIFA and the players will force Canada to put in grass into the four cities it's going to play the 10 games in.

football, soccer and rugby and  track and field can play on grass/ hybrid system. Three major sports want grass but the cfl wants turf and they get it. And we pay for it. As Canadian soccer fans why aren't we more pushing hard for this? Why is this ok ? Just watch stars are not going come in and play in the CANPL on turf, it will be an issue mark my words. 

Hey maybe nobody cares but a small few. 

Canada should host more friendlies/ tournaments, BYW I would love to see an Arctic cup created and maybe Canada could be the first to host it. 

[BuzzAndSting]

4 minutes ago, SpecialK said:

2015 Women's World Cup in Canada was a resounding success  financially and  attendance numbers  yes totally agree there and I believe if Canada hosts more tournaments it will be the same, but the players had huge issues with the turf. Also look at the MLS some stars won't play on turf. 

There is a reason why the men's World Cup is played on grass.  I'm quite sure that's not going to change anytime soon.  FIFA and the players will force Canada to put in grass into the four cities it's going to play the 10 games in.

football, soccer and rugby and  track and field can play on grass/ hybrid system. Three major sports want grass but the cfl wants turf and they get it. And we pay for it. As Canadian soccer fans why aren't we more pushing hard for this? Why is this ok ? Just watch stars are not going come in and play in the CANPL on turf, it will be an issue mark my words. 

Hey maybe nobody cares but a small few. 

Canada should host more friendlies/ tournaments, BYW I would love to see an Arctic cup created and maybe Canada could be the first to host it. 

That's all well and good, no ones arguing that one approach is better but there is precedence and standards which our current pro teams and federation follow. You've argued that OSEG should pay for a grass conversion and if they don't the CSA should mandate it in some yet-to-be-determined way when it seems your outage should aimed at FIFA for allowing turf fields to be used in pro leagues and major tournaments. Or at the very least you should be petitioning Paul Bierne and the CPL execs to mandate grass.

[SpecialK]

Don't you think those standards should be better? Don't the our players  deserve better ? At least if you have to put in Turf, put in turf that is high  Quality and FIFA approved. The turf they used for that playoff game in MTL was crap and not the same one used during the World Cup. Again it  boggles my mind that they can put in a temporary Grassfield for the  Milan game but they won't put one in for an huge MLS playoff game that has 61,000 people  attending and being showed on ESPN . That just hurts the image of soccer in Canada. 

If Governments are putting up huge bucks for stadiums, they should put in a field that most sports want to play on. Not just what CFL owners want. The CSA can do more to lobby for this. Why can't the CSA  mandated or negotiate for it ? 

[Club Linesman]

3 hours ago, ted said:

Not a crazy question at all. 

IMO double-header games cheapen the "product". It is, in effect, a two-for-one sale on a sporting event. It sends the message that soccer is so bad you should get two games to make it worth one admission.

You would never see the Euro's done as double-headers.

It is simply a cost-saving measure because they cannot or will not sell tickets for most games.

 

Its hard to cheapen a product when as you point out -  they can't (not wont - tickets still available!) have people buy the ducats.  The quarterfinal right now - Panama vs Costa Rica has about 60 000+ empty seats.  When the US shows up for game 2 it will be interesting to see how many seats are filled.  But there is no financially viable way at this point to run the Gold Cup with anything less than doubleheaders in all stages up to the Final and this is the biggest Concacaf money maker.  The populations of the countries involved and the distance between participants mean the Gold Cup will never be like the Euro's.

[dyslexic nam]

10 minutes ago, Club Linesman said:

Its hard to cheapen a product when as you point out -  they can't (not wont - tickets still available!) have people buy the ducats.  The quarterfinal right now - Panama vs Costa Rica has about 60 000+ empty seats.  When the US shows up for game 2 it will be interesting to see how many seats are filled.  But there is no financially viable way at this point to run the Gold Cup with anything less than doubleheaders in all stages up to the Final and this is the biggest Concacaf money maker.  The populations of the countries involved and the distance between participants mean the Gold Cup will never be like the Euro's.

I was under the impression (assuming, I guess) that the double-headers would be limited to the group games.  The fact that they are still being done at the QF stage is crazy. So any CR or Panama fans have to battle the homer hordes of US fans hoping to see the second game of the evening?  And most of them don't bother o show up for game 1?  That is ludicrous.

[Kent]

17 hours ago, Club Linesman said:

Its hard to cheapen a product when as you point out -  they can't (not wont - tickets still available!) have people buy the ducats.  The quarterfinal right now - Panama vs Costa Rica has about 60 000+ empty seats.  When the US shows up for game 2 it will be interesting to see how many seats are filled.  But there is no financially viable way at this point to run the Gold Cup with anything less than doubleheaders in all stages up to the Final and this is the biggest Concacaf money maker.  The populations of the countries involved and the distance between participants mean the Gold Cup will never be like the Euro's.

Wait, so 60,000 empty seats in the first game of a double header is evidence to support double headers being necessary? Maybe it's evidence that a 6pm game time on a Wednesday is suicide for attendance.

 

[Club Linesman]

Certainly 6 pm doesn't help but if I am from CR or Panama I will be there for the game regardless what time it starts.  And there may have been 10000 of them and nobody else.  Of course joe soccer fan in Philly didn't care until the second game and the crowd was pretty solid for that one.  I am sure Concacaf has done a cost analysis and if they could make more money with single games - they would.  Some of the lesser games could almost be hosted at pitifully small venues like tier 2 stadiums but I doubt they want to do that.  Concacaf should open this up and have Canada, US and Mexico host at the very least and then running double headers in those countries would be much easier to sell. 

[Kent]

So the stadium was empty again for our game, with the exception being a sprinkling of Mexican fans who presumably thought their game was at that time.

I am still curious what the crowds would be like if they used the same places (Phoenix and Philadelphia I think it was) but instead of double headers, have each city host a game at prime time (local time) each night. Instead of having games at times like 6:00, 9:00, and 4:30. The Mexico game was the only one at a decent time.

P.S. Apparently Arizona (or at least Glendale Arizona) is in the mountain time zone, but they don't use daylight savings time, so they are effectively at the same time as the pacific time zone at this time of year. I learned something today.