Saskatoon CanPL

[Kingston]

18 hours ago, Shway said:

Whats the affinity of open-ended stadiums? 
Can't we just have one that is fully closed?

What is the big upside to closing it in?

The extra seats are the poorest ones in the house and open ends leave room for a video screen at one end and a beer garden at the other.

[m-g-williams]

Having TD Place as an open-ended stadium here in Ottawa, I'm honestly a big fan. Being able to have the enormous jumbotron at the one end and peering out at the rest of Lansdowne Park at the other makes the whole experience feel "bigger", somehow - there's less of a feeling of being boxed in. And not that I'd want a ton of people watching matches for free, but the open end does allow for maybe 50-100 people who are curious to peek in and see what the fuss is all about. I wouldn't exactly call it a key marketing tactic, but seeing as Praireland would also be in a re-developed park, it might help convert a few curious passers-by. 

Friends of mine who are more into gridiron have also told me that having the north and south side stands physically separated creates a pretty fun intra-stadium rivalry, with the fans in one stand playfully razzing those in the other. 

[Senorpopps]

1 hour ago, m-g-williams said:

Having TD Place as an open-ended stadium here in Ottawa, I'm honestly a big fan. Being able to have the enormous jumbotron at the one end and peering out at the rest of Lansdowne Park at the other makes the whole experience feel "bigger", somehow - there's less of a feeling of being boxed in. And not that I'd want a ton of people watching matches for free, but the open end does allow for maybe 50-100 people who are curious to peek in and see what the fuss is all about. I wouldn't exactly call it a key marketing tactic, but seeing as Praireland would also be in a re-developed park, it might help convert a few curious passers-by. 

Friends of mine who are more into gridiron have also told me that having the north and south side stands physically separated creates a pretty fun intra-stadium rivalry, with the fans in one stand playfully razzing those in the other. 

Maybe we should re-implement the good ole Mardi Gras theme games like the Renegades did back in the day. Only on the south side of course cause north side sucks after all. 

[m-g-williams]

1 hour ago, Senorpopps said:

Maybe we should re-implement the good ole Mardi Gras theme games like the Renegades did back in the day. Only on the south side of course cause north side sucks after all. 

Damn right, they do. South side for life. 

[Ftduck]

3 hours ago, Kingston said:

What is the big upside to closing it in?

The extra seats are the poorest ones in the house and open ends leave room for a video screen at one end and a beer garden at the other.

It's just the traditional SSS with the supporter section being behind the goal that many footy fans pine for. At least I do anyway. 

[m-g-williams]

1 hour ago, Ftduck said:

It's just the traditional SSS with the supporter section being behind the goal that many footy fans pine for. At least I do anyway. 

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'll throw it out there: 

While I get that the supporter's section behind the goal is the tradition in a lot of places, I honestly prefer having it embedded in a designated spot with the rest of the crowd. Falling back on my TD Place experience, the Fury actually set up a temporary stand behind the east end goal for the supporters section for their last season or two - and it sucked all the atmosphere out of the matches. Instead of having a rowdy, boisterous section that was ostensibly part of the main crowd - and that casuals and curious onlookers could try out for themselves - having the supporters section removed from the main crowd just made them another part of the "show" to watch. Instead of feeding off of their energy and joining in now and then for crowd-wide chants, that disconnection left the supporters section completely separate from the rest of the crowd and the atmosphere was never the same during the Fury's run. 

Putting the supporters section back in Section W (the Dub) of the south side stand was honestly one of the best damn decision that ATO front office could have made. Having that energy and enthusiasm back in the south side reinvigorated the fan experience, and I would argue is a huge part of why support for ATO has been so great in the last two years (though a worst-to-first run obviously helped). Instead of going to a match and feeling that the supporters were a "them", I feel like the crowd has really embraced CCSG and the Bytown Boys as an "us" again. 

This certainly isn't to slag on other teams where the supporters sections are separate from the main stands (thinking of the Wanderers, Cavalry and Pacific in particular) - they've obviously done great things, and in those smaller stadia it might be easier to have that infectious energy carry over. But I'd argue that having the supporters section behind the goal just because that's the tradition/standard isn't a good enough reason. 

[Ftduck]

1 hour ago, m-g-williams said:

But I'd argue that having the supporters section behind the goal just because that's the tradition/standard isn't a good enough reason. 

Agreed. We have to work with what we got. In Hamilton its probably the same. When there is 5000ish people showing up it starts to feel full in the lower east stand and there is a ripple effect from the supporter sections. Hopefully a new team starting from scratch will some day build a covered stadium with wrap around seating that has the acoustics and everything else that makes a footy stadium perfect. Then I can go visit it and be envious. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Ftduck

[Kingston]

2 hours ago, m-g-williams said:

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'll throw it out there: 

While I get that the supporter's section behind the goal is the tradition in a lot of places, I honestly prefer having it embedded in a designated spot with the rest of the crowd. Falling back on my TD Place experience, the Fury actually set up a temporary stand behind the east end goal for the supporters section for their last season or two - and it sucked all the atmosphere out of the matches. Instead of having a rowdy, boisterous section that was ostensibly part of the main crowd - and that casuals and curious onlookers could try out for themselves - having the supporters section removed from the main crowd just made them another part of the "show" to watch. Instead of feeding off of their energy and joining in now and then for crowd-wide chants, that disconnection left the supporters section completely separate from the rest of the crowd and the atmosphere was never the same during the Fury's run. 

Putting the supporters section back in Section W (the Dub) of the south side stand was honestly one of the best damn decision that ATO front office could have made. Having that energy and enthusiasm back in the south side reinvigorated the fan experience, and I would argue is a huge part of why support for ATO has been so great in the last two years (though a worst-to-first run obviously helped). Instead of going to a match and feeling that the supporters were a "them", I feel like the crowd has really embraced CCSG and the Bytown Boys as an "us" again. 

Having been to both Fury and Atletico games, I fully agree with this.

I remember them having something like 50 people off in the end zone.  It simply wasn't a big enough group to generate anything on its own.  Instead of inspiring the rest of the crowd, the supporters ended up looking like they were "special" fans who probably had to be given helmets for their own safety while being kept away from the regular fans.  The current situation is way better.

[Unnamed Trialist]

This special, separate show of fans off to the end who entertained but perhaps did not feel like part of things for those in the main stand: the Southside at Swangard.

Thing is, if you participated in the Southside, you did not feel this at all and felt entirely part of the entire match experience. Having sat in the main stand and spent most matches behind the goal, I don't feel this possible separation between the realities, but I could appreciate many do. 

Re Saskatoon: we are going on that render and it does not show fully that there is in fact a major end stand, the existing stand at the racetrack, which would be on the east side of the proposal, I suppose. East by south-east? The only thing is that the pitch is set back from it. And then main new stands start excessively far from it, you could drive an extra-wide combine harvester through those gaps, totally unnecessary. They look to be adjusting the main side stands to have a centre line that would appease CFL markings, instead of making a soccer layout priority.

[vancanman]

On 11/18/2022 at 5:58 AM, Unnamed Trialist said:

Totally agree. Really bothers me they're not clued in, even after claiming they'd looked at stadium models.

They must have only looked at stadium models in Canada.  I can't think of anywhere else where a horseshoe is considered a stadium.

[vancanman]

20 hours ago, Kingston said:

What is the big upside to closing it in?

The extra seats are the poorest ones in the house and open ends leave room for a video screen at one end and a beer garden at the other.

Making it a real stadium.

There's a reason this almost never done anywhere but in Canada.

[EnigMattic1]

Ok, this is just my opinion but, leaving an end open is actually sensible.

Hear me out. How many teams in the CPL with a complete stadium, actually fill it? I understand that there are teams that use a non soccer specific stadium (Valour) and they only get a certain amount of the capacity for home games (around 6k from 30k in Valour's case).

With an expansion side leaving ends open, it gives the fans a side on view of the pitch (which I personally would prefer to being behind a goal) and also leaves room for expansion should interest in the team/league grow, thus increasing the need for seats. The last thing any team, let alone an expansion team wants, is to have a half empty stadium for home games.

You have to ask, what would be the capacity of a full stadium? Could an expansion team expect to fill that week in, week out? They are looking at the best options in terms of layout for a smaller capacity.

[Bison44]

Cripes, this is the same reason my 8 year old  whines about how baloney tastes different on a bun as opposed to bread.  Some people are difficult and picky to the endth degree.  We have open ended stands, they dont like it.  We are in Canada and there are reasons why most of our stadiums are like that, and they dont like it.  Everything has to be the way they see it in europe/elsewhere.  We cant get a single sport stadium built...so they whine about using existing multisport stadiums.  We dont have enough teams to represent the entire country in CPL, and they complain that we dont have pro/rel ...uggghhhhh.  Nobody can just be happy and eat their damn baloney sandwhich on bread.   

Cue the thread derailment while we all discuss the pros and cons of various deli meats.  

[EnigMattic1]

58 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Cripes, this is the same reason my 8 year old  whines about how baloney tastes different on a bun as opposed to bread.  Some people are difficult and picky to the endth degree.  We have open ended stands, they dont like it.  We are in Canada and there are reasons why most of our stadiums are like that, and they dont like it.  Everything has to be the way they see it in europe/elsewhere.  We cant get a single sport stadium built...so they whine about using existing multisport stadiums.  We dont have enough teams to represent the entire country in CPL, and they complain that we dont have pro/rel ...uggghhhhh.  Nobody can just be happy and eat their damn baloney sandwhich on bread.   

Cue the thread derailment while we all discuss the pros and cons of various deli meats.  

I ain't moaning about anything. Personally, I would be happy with any stadium as long as I got to watch my team play. Sure, the extra lines on multisport stadiums confuse me at times, but I can still live with that. And I think the image that was put together actually looks pretty decent in terms of stadiums.

Bottom line, you can't please everyone, but you can provide them with somewhere to go and watch a match.

[Bison44]

15 minutes ago, EnigMattic1 said:

I ain't moaning about anything. Personally, I would be happy with any stadium as long as I got to watch my team play. Sure, the extra lines on multisport stadiums confuse me at times, but I can still live with that. And I think the image that was put together actually looks pretty decent in terms of stadiums.

Bottom line, you can't please everyone, but you can provide them with somewhere to go and watch a match.

 I know, you werent the one to complain about them, so why do you think that was directed at you? 

It just drives me nuts when people on the board complain that things in canada arent like europe.  Does our soccer experience in canada have to be exactly like theirs? Do we have to have a wrap around stadium with meat pies and bovril drinks?  Like you said, any stadium is better than waiting another 5 years for something that "might" be better to some peoples taste.  

  

[EnigMattic1]

41 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

 I know, you werent the one to complain about them, so why do you think that was directed at you? 

It just drives me nuts when people on the board complain that things in canada arent like europe.  Does our soccer experience in canada have to be exactly like theirs? Do we have to have a wrap around stadium with meat pies and bovril drinks?  Like you said, any stadium is better than waiting another 5 years for something that "might" be better to some peoples taste.  

  

I'm just one of those who thinks that something I've said may be misinterpreted.

The way I see things, Canada and Europe are two totally different styles of the same game. Why try to be what you are, obviously, not? Make it your own and enjoy it.

I never understood the whole "Bovril" thing. I mean, it is described as a "beefy drink". That just screams "gravy" to me.

[Watchmen]

15 hours ago, vancanman said:

Making it a real stadium.

There's a reason this almost never done anywhere but in Canada.

But how many stadiums of this size (5k or so) are even 4 full sides?  Like, looking at a lot of stadiums for lower tiers of Europe, it seems like they're usually just one or two sides and a lot of standing areas, unless they're a bigger club that's been relegated down.

[EnigMattic1]

7 hours ago, Watchmen said:

But how many stadiums of this size (5k or so) are even 4 full sides?  Like, looking at a lot of stadiums for lower tiers of Europe, it seems like they're usually just one or two sides and a lot of standing areas, unless they're a bigger club that's been relegated down.

Exactly this. I can only speak for England, but stadiums there have a minimum requirement with regards to the number of seats and, after a certain disaster back in 1989, you will struggle to find standing at a top level club.

You also need to take into account that European stadiums are used for more than just domestic football and have to meet certain requirements in that respect or the team in question will be denied entry into whichever competition they have qualified for.

Give Canada a chance to build their identity as a footballing (soccer) nation and you will see bigger, "complete" stadiums becoming more and more common.

[Unnamed Trialist]

23 minutes ago, EnigMattic1 said:

Exactly this. I can only speak for England, but stadiums there have a minimum requirement with regards to the number of seats and, after a certain disaster back in 1989, you will struggle to find standing at a top level club.

You also need to take into account that European stadiums are used for more than just domestic football and have to meet certain requirements in that respect or the team in question will be denied entry into whichever competition they have qualified for.

Give Canada a chance to build their identity as a footballing (soccer) nation and you will see bigger, "complete" stadiums becoming more and more common.

None of the above.

Can't think of a single stadium in Spain top tiers used for other things. Except the odd concert, but even then, few.

And yes, in scores of top stadiums fans stand. Especially at the ends. Let's not confuse having benches or similar, which have been replaced by individual seats, with security issues.

An enclosed stadium is more beautiful as a piece of architecture. Besides proving your engineering is capable of designing a curve.  It provides better acoustics, done right. It gives the home team a better pressure cooker atmosphere. It maximizes seating in the given space (wasted otherwise, like at BMO. It enables better crowd control, provision of services, ordering of concessions. 

Then, as we see with newer stadium design, it facilitates a single or unified roof which then allows for weather protection and climate control even.

Going on a fan forum arguing for a worse model, then arguing it's the Canadian way? BC Place has it's defects (acoustics, unfortunately, stands too flat), but it converts no problem between CFL and the other thing.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

On 11/17/2022 at 2:57 AM, toontownman said:

I'm not sure. They mentioned they had found a federal grant they qualified for in the council meeting last spring/summer. From anything I have heard the encouragement has been they will get the other two if the city happens.

If it's anything like the federal infrastructure program that was used for BMO Field the support of the federal minister involved is very important. That was Joe Volpe of the federal Liberals where the U-20 World Cup stadium was concerned but he wanted the stadium at Downsview along with Kevan Pipe and the CSA after York U and the Argos pulled out while Joe Pantalone of the municpal level NDP and MLSE wanted it at Exhibition Place.

The only news outlet that followed that spat was Corriere Canadese and they were doing it in Italian rather than English. I was posting about this stuff regularly over on Bigsoccer about 17 years back in MLS expansion threads. They didn't appear keen on Canadian expansion because they eventually made DoyleG moderator of their Canadian soccer subforum.

The skepticism that appears to surround Saskatoon might be because there is nobody like Joe Volpe and Joe Pantalone from a soccer friendly demographic to champion the project at the federal and municipal level this time because there is no Saskatchewan equivalent of the GTA's Italian community to push something like this through once soccer haters from Stephen Harper's "old stock" demographic start to oppose it as a waste of public money.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[vancanman]

16 hours ago, Bison44 said:

Cripes, this is the same reason my 8 year old  whines about how baloney tastes different on a bun as opposed to bread.  Some people are difficult and picky to the endth degree.  We have open ended stands, they dont like it.  We are in Canada and there are reasons why most of our stadiums are like that, and they dont like it.  Everything has to be the way they see it in europe/elsewhere.  We cant get a single sport stadium built...so they whine about using existing multisport stadiums.  We dont have enough teams to represent the entire country in CPL, and they complain that we dont have pro/rel ...uggghhhhh.  Nobody can just be happy and eat their damn baloney sandwhich on bread.   

Cue the thread derailment while we all discuss the pros and cons of various deli meats.  

I was one of the people who complained about our stadiums, and this is why:

Should I just settle for mediocrity?   We used to not have our own league, but should I have been happy with that?  I'm now thrilled that we have our own league.  It's not the Bundesliga, but so what? It's ours.

If there really is some reason for our stadiums to be open-ended, something went wrong in Regina and Winnipeg.  They were built for throwball, but they both have stands on all four sides, with three and two covered respectively.  Most of our existing stadiums are open-ended or horseshoes, but if a soccer team is starting from scratch, it just makes sense to me to start off right.

I would like all 60 teams in our three divisions to play in sold out, four-sided stadiums with grass pitches, and I look forward to the Tukyotaktuk derby twice a year, but at this point, I'm thrilled that we even have a league.  I would prefer that all of our teams were Canadian-owned, but at this point, Gracias, Atletico.  I'd prefer we didn't have to listen to Wheeler, but he's better than Rauter.  

I accept the things that we have to put up with, but there's no reason we shouldn't want nice things that other countries have.  It's not just a Euro thing, it's everywhere.  Even Canada's heros, our American overlords, are building four-sided stadiums these days, and we're supposed to all love everything they do.

I won't be eating your *baloney because I'm vegetarian, but I wouldn't mind a piece of toast if you've got one.

*"Your baloney" wasn't meant to sound insulting, but it was the word you used, and saying that I don't want to eat your meat sounded even worse.

Cheers

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by vancanman

[vancanman]

On 11/19/2022 at 3:16 AM, m-g-williams said:

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'll throw it out there: 

While I get that the supporter's section behind the goal is the tradition in a lot of places, I honestly prefer having it embedded in a designated spot with the rest of the crowd. Falling back on my TD Place experience, the Fury actually set up a temporary stand behind the east end goal for the supporters section for their last season or two - and it sucked all the atmosphere out of the matches. Instead of having a rowdy, boisterous section that was ostensibly part of the main crowd - and that casuals and curious onlookers could try out for themselves - having the supporters section removed from the main crowd just made them another part of the "show" to watch. Instead of feeding off of their energy and joining in now and then for crowd-wide chants, that disconnection left the supporters section completely separate from the rest of the crowd and the atmosphere was never the same during the Fury's run. 

Putting the supporters section back in Section W (the Dub) of the south side stand was honestly one of the best damn decision that ATO front office could have made. Having that energy and enthusiasm back in the south side reinvigorated the fan experience, and I would argue is a huge part of why support for ATO has been so great in the last two years (though a worst-to-first run obviously helped). Instead of going to a match and feeling that the supporters were a "them", I feel like the crowd has really embraced CCSG and the Bytown Boys as an "us" again. 

This certainly isn't to slag on other teams where the supporters sections are separate from the main stands (thinking of the Wanderers, Cavalry and Pacific in particular) - they've obviously done great things, and in those smaller stadia it might be easier to have that infectious energy carry over. But I'd argue that having the supporters section behind the goal just because that's the tradition/standard isn't a good enough reason. 

Part of the reason that supporter's sections are behind the goal around the world is that it keeps the more vocal people away from the families who don't want smoke in their eyes or don't want their kids to hear what's being chanted.   

Having end stands means you can also have more variety in ticket prices.  Supporters groups tend to be made up of young men with less disposable income.  The main stands provide the cash, and the ends provide the atmosphere.  Win-win.

Another benefit of having four sides is atmosphere.  Football and throw ball are two very different things.  Having a couple of uncovered stands is fine for throw ball, where atmosphere isn't important, but having four covered stands keeps the sound in.  

The following is just my opinion, but enclosed stadiums look...like stadiums.  Tim Hortons looks like a public park with a couple of grandstands.

Edited November 20, 2022 by vancanman

[vancanman]

14 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

I ain't moaning about anything. Personally, I would be happy with any stadium as long as I got to watch my team play. Sure, the extra lines on multisport stadiums confuse me at times, but I can still live with that. And I think the image that was put together actually looks pretty decent in terms of stadiums.

Bottom line, you can't please everyone, but you can provide them with somewhere to go and watch a match.

Back in the days of the 86ers in Vancouver, I would have been ecstatic to have a stadium like the one in the rendering, since Swangard was only a side and a half at the best of time, with a track.  Still, it was the best ground in the league, except for the year or two that Victoria were playing at Royal Athletic Park.  

Things are improving all the time, and we can always hope for more.  My only problem is when we aim low.   

[vancanman]

10 hours ago, Watchmen said:

But how many stadiums of this size (5k or so) are even 4 full sides?  Like, looking at a lot of stadiums for lower tiers of Europe, it seems like they're usually just one or two sides and a lot of standing areas, unless they're a bigger club that's been relegated down.

I just googled 5,000-seat soccer stadium, and the overwhelming majority in google images were four-sided. Maybe google images in Canada's different.  

[SthMelbRed]

12 hours ago, vancanman said:

I was one of the people who complained about our stadiums, and this is why:

Should I just settle for mediocrity?   We used to not have our own league, but should I have been happy with that?  I'm now thrilled that we have our own league.  It's not the Bundesliga, but so what? It's ours.

If there really is some reason for our stadiums to be open-ended, something went wrong in Regina and Winnipeg.  They were built for throwball, but they both have stands on all four sides, with three and two covered respectively.  Most of our existing stadiums are open-ended or horseshoes, but if a soccer team is starting from scratch, it just makes sense to me to start off right.

I would like all 60 teams in our three divisions to play in sold out, four-sided stadiums with grass pitches, and I look forward to the Tukyotaktuk derby twice a year, but at this point, I'm thrilled that we even have a league.  I would prefer that all of our teams were Canadian-owned, but at this point, Gracias, Atletico.  I'd prefer we didn't have to listen to Wheeler, but he's better than Rauter.  

I accept the things that we have to put up with, but there's no reason we shouldn't want nice things that other countries have.  It's not just a Euro thing, it's everywhere.  Even Canada's heros, our American overlords, are building four-sided stadiums these days, and we're supposed to all love everything they do.

I won't be eating your *baloney because I'm vegetarian, but I wouldn't mind a piece of toast if you've got one.

*"Your baloney" wasn't meant to sound insulting, but it was the word you used, and saying that I don't want to eat your meat sounded even worse.

Cheers

 

This is unacceptable slander which cannot be allowed to stand! Rauter, while not necessarily a great football commentator, is a good sports commentator, in general, and seems to be a genuinely pleasant human being. Wheeler is the unwanted double threat of both being atrocious at his job and coming across as a massive cunt of a bloke. Give me Rauter and Leggat over Dobson and Forrest, and without question over Wheeler and Dunfield.