PDA

View Full Version : The Turf



jmorgs88
06-30-2009, 04:46 PM
So i had a chance to play on BMO this afternoon, my team was having a friendly against the u16 academy team; the turf is terrible! ankles and knees were burning and sore before the end of the first 45

im sure this does not come as a surprise but just thought i would give an update

i dont know if this is already a known fact on the boards but it was said that the turf is definitely coming off this fall and making way for a real grass pitch which is some great news


*final score 1-0 to tfc

MG42
06-30-2009, 05:11 PM
So i had a chance to play on BMO this afternoon, my team was having a friendly against the u16 academy team; the turf is terrible! ankles and knees were burning and sore before the end of the first 45

im sure this does not come as a surprise but just thought i would give an update

i dont know if this is already a known fact on the boards but it was said that the turf is definitely coming off this fall and making way for a real grass pitch which is some great news


*final score 1-0 to tfc

Who said?

colman1860
06-30-2009, 05:17 PM
Who said?

and did they mean for real madrid?

boban
06-30-2009, 05:36 PM
and did they mean for real madrid?
OP said in the fall. RM is here in the summer.

jmorgs88
06-30-2009, 05:37 PM
it was through the grapevine but the director of my academy said and he is well connected, i was tellin him about how bad it was after the game and he mentioned that it was out there for its last season, wasnt talking about real madrid so lets hope for next season

I_AM_CANADIAN
06-30-2009, 05:43 PM
I hope you're right, man... Hopefully they aren't just talking about buying a new fake surface.

jmorgs88
06-30-2009, 05:46 PM
i dont think they would be that foolish...there is not way that the people in charge are oblivious to the desire for real grass from the players, the fans, etc.....im sure that turf was the best they could have put in there originally, but over time turf gets ruined....

Redcoe15
06-30-2009, 06:36 PM
Let's fuckin' hope so!

TFC RealDeal RPB
06-30-2009, 06:57 PM
well i work at the X and i was told there workin on it for next year and if Toronto get's the pan am games they will add 10 000 seat's to BMO and real grass for sure.

FluSH
06-30-2009, 07:26 PM
it was through the grapevine but the director of my academy said and he is well connected, i was tellin him about how bad it was after the game and he mentioned that it was out there for its last season, wasnt talking about real madrid so lets hope for next season

Well there are many factors at play including the twisting of arms on this man:


Joe Pantalone
http://www.greenroofs.org/boston/images/jpantalonepre.jpg
Public Enemy Numero Uno against Grass at BMO Field

boban
06-30-2009, 07:46 PM
well i work at the X and i was told there workin on it for next year and if Toronto get's the pan am games they will add 10 000 seat's to BMO and real grass for sure.
This doesn't surprise me in light of Anselmi's recent comments on the Fan regarding expansion.
Guess it's better to have someone else have to pay for it.

RPB_RED_NATION_RPB
06-30-2009, 08:25 PM
well i work at the X and i was told there workin on it for next year and if Toronto get's the pan am games they will add 10 000 seat's to BMO and real grass for sure.

2015

TFC12
06-30-2009, 08:39 PM
lmao! i thought u were kidding with a random name like Joe Pantalone (pants in italian), but ur not! lol...he's real! and a twat!

there needs to be a sign or something! lol....like "Hey Joe! we'll pull your Pantalones if theres no grass"

CretanBull
06-30-2009, 10:23 PM
Well there are many factors at play including the twisting of arms on this man:


Joe Pantalone
http://www.greenroofs.org/boston/images/jpantalonepre.jpg

Public Enemy Numero Uno against Grass at BMO Field



I think that they are just going to go right around him and renovate Lamport Stadium and not expand the Lake Shore plans (which requires Pantalone's support).

billyfly
06-30-2009, 10:38 PM
His nickname has always been Joey Pant(load)s.

rocker
06-30-2009, 10:43 PM
isn't Lamport still in Panty-load's ward?

swan
07-01-2009, 01:03 AM
are you sure grass is coming or new turf

Shakes McQueen
07-01-2009, 01:28 AM
Has there ever been discussion about organizing the supporters groups to march on City Hall, in support of MLSE's ability to put grass in?

Maybe make up some anti-Joey Pants signs.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
07-01-2009, 01:31 AM
Also, from all of the buzz in the past month or so, and statements I've heard from Anselmi & Co., I'd say real grass for next season is probably a pretty good bet. And definitely by 2011.

Anselmu even said on the Fan 590 that they were looking into the logistics of winter contruction, so they can get all of this approved by council in the fall, and get the grass put in immediately during the winter.

- Scott

DichioTFC
07-01-2009, 01:49 AM
Well there are many factors at play including the twisting of arms on this man:


Joe Pantalone
http://www.greenroofs.org/boston/images/jpantalonepre.jpg
Public Enemy Numero Uno against Grass at BMO Field


Is anyone here aware of how political activity gets done in this town? Can someone contact the man's office and notify his staff that as voters and taxpayers, its a priority.

And maybe if the RPB sends down a delegation (because it doesnt look like MLSE has the balls to do it without dragging their feet) informing Mr. Pantalone about 1. the damage to the quality of the game 2. the damage to the players 3. the negative impact on tourist dollars 4. the variable long-term impact of continuing a surface that players do not want to play on (i.e. good players leave, better players do not stay, quality of team drops, fans stop supporting it, revenue drops, TFC becomes the 95 Blue Jays with less fans, the whole Chicken Little shebang), there should at the very least be some encouraging dialogue on the matter.

Plus THE MAYOR OF THE CITY supports the team!! Why hasn't he been sought to advocate on our behalf??

My $0.02

kodiakTFC
07-01-2009, 02:11 AM
are you sure grass is coming or new turf

Wouldn't that be the ultimate slap in the face.

Pookie
07-01-2009, 07:02 AM
are you sure grass is coming or new turf

I'd wager it is grass.

To roll out a new rug is going to cost about $1M... more if they need to repair the base (approx $500k).

This surface was supposed to last upwards of 7 years but it is clear that won't get anywhere near that shelf life (we played there on Sunday, I concur with the "crap" rating).

Ultimately, it's a choice to spend $2-3M on a natural grass surface and then about $50k per year for maintenance... or at least $1M every 2-3 years to repair what you have.

If they are debating between 2010 or 2011 (as they are publicly) it makes no sense to pay $1M now to replace the field turf and then spend another $3M in 2011. That is the most expensive/least profitable option.

greatwhitenorf
07-01-2009, 07:13 AM
That's a harsh assessment of Pantalone. He's the guy that slyly signed off on the deal to pour solid concrete for the playing surface area to be only 130 yards in length.

That made it impossible for the Argos to move straight in to BMO Field without expensive renovations to lengthen the playing area, thus ensuring BMO Field remained a soccer-only facility.

If Joe's hard-nosed in these negotiations, he's just doing his job to get the city the best possible deal from a very profitable company using a city-owned stadium. He's a soccer man through and through.

FluSH
07-01-2009, 08:01 AM
That's a harsh assessment of Pantalone. He's the guy that slyly signed off on the deal to pour solid concrete for the playing surface area to be only 130 yards in length.

That made it impossible for the Argos to move straight in to BMO Field without expensive renovations to lengthen the playing area, thus ensuring BMO Field remained a soccer-only facility.

If Joe's hard-nosed in these negotiations, he's just doing his job to get the city the best possible deal from a very profitable company using a city-owned stadium. He's a soccer man through and through.

I find that estremetly hard to believe... I remember reading reports that he didn't want an MLS soccer team in town... now you're going to get me on looking for these...

Broadview
07-01-2009, 08:18 AM
I heard Pantalone interviewed on the Fan a few months ago and he sounds like a soccer guy. He even called it the beautiful game and said it was meant to be played on a grass surface.

The part he was hung up on regarding grass at BMO was the community access in a downtown location. The question was posed that if MLSE handed over land/facilities over by where the leafs are building their practice complex, would grass be a go...he said no, it's got to be downtown.

Hopefully a bubble at Lamport solves this issue! We'll see in the fall.

ensco
07-01-2009, 08:26 AM
I've wanted grass from the very beginning....that said, if Pantalone's being a hard-ass about this, he's got every right to do that.

There's a fine line here. This can't be just another government handout to a private company.

MLSE has to pay for the exclusive use of a city facility, whether it's by creating a reasonable replacement/alternative facility, or by whatever other means.

Cuchulain
07-01-2009, 09:51 AM
Screw Pantalone; mayor Miller wants grass and he'll make it happen.

rocker
07-01-2009, 10:10 AM
I disagree with Pantalone.
The money was given for a stadium in Toronto. The Leafs practice facility is in Toronto. If that's where the community needs are to be satisfied, then that is fine. The money was not given for community use just in his ward (i think that's what he wants). He's stretching things a bit to say specifically in Toronto where (downtown) that community use must take place. Etobicoke is Toronto, last I heard.

I understand the point that the bubble at Lamport isn't a total solution.. it only satisfies community use requirements for winter, when Lamport isn't normally used.
But putting fields in Etobicoke for community use in spring/summer/fall should satisfy the requirements. the people in that area could certainly use those fields.

If Pantalone is demanding downtown community use fields in spring/summer/fall then it sounds to me like he's doing one of those ward-against-ward power plays. It's not about the principle of it but the power to get something in his area.

If he wants it downtown, then I would think he should propose some sites for it. Find some locations.

mmmikey
07-01-2009, 04:05 PM
pantalone is dreaming. real estate value in downtown toronto is HUGE.

right now bmo field provides two things to the community... 1 playing surface for winter, 1 for summer. if the bubble moves to lamport, the city still gets 1 playing surface for winter. the city is then losing 1 summer playing surface.

pantalone expects MLSE to turn around and build multiple fields downtown in an area of higher real estate value? this makes zero sense. its going to win him votes, but is ultimately not in toronto's best interest.

if he was solely concerned about the loss of community use, he would ask tfc to build ONE field in close proximity to BMO, and go ahead with the plan at lakeshore lions. asking MLSE to build multiple fields is delusional. if more than 5 square yards of real estate is available a condo shoots up like they are going out of style.

Marc"2L"
07-01-2009, 04:25 PM
Build fustal courts.

Toronto gets a downtown multi level soccer complex, and Canada improves it's technical ability.

ensco
07-01-2009, 04:32 PM
I'm not speaking for Pantalone here. I don't know or care about him at all. I'm a TFC supporter but also a citizen and (most importantly) a property taxpayer. For those who don't know, property taxes in Toronto have been skyrocketing.

If I worked for the city, I'd want like-for-like. The community use should be provided in a comparable location to BMO, and if that costs money, that's MLSE's problem.

Pookie
07-01-2009, 06:48 PM
I'm not speaking for Pantalone here. I don't know or care about him at all. I'm a TFC supporter but also a citizen and (most importantly) a property taxpayer. For those who don't know, property taxes in Toronto have been skyrocketing.

If I worked for the city, I'd want like-for-like. The community use should be provided in a comparable location to BMO, and if that costs money, that's MLSE's problem.

What fields were being used for community use prior to 2007?

Further, has the demand for community usage increased, decreased or remained the same since 2007?

We tend to speak of how often the field is used. I'd be curious to know if that is simply a function of people using other fields less and just moving over BMO or is there an explosion of interest in the game?

Quite honestly, if the demand is relatively the same, what would be wrong with asking groups to go back to the fields used prior to 2007? Presumably, people weren't playing on concrete and they had to pay for their usage. It may not have been against a 20,000 seat stadium backdrop but they still played.

ensco
07-01-2009, 07:30 PM
What fields were being used for community use prior to 2007?

Further, has the demand for community usage increased, decreased or remained the same since 2007?

We tend to speak of how often the field is used. I'd be curious to know if that is simply a function of people using other fields less and just moving over BMO or is there an explosion of interest in the game?

Quite honestly, if the demand is relatively the same, what would be wrong with asking groups to go back to the fields used prior to 2007? Presumably, people weren't playing on concrete and they had to pay for their usage. It may not have been against a 20,000 seat stadium backdrop but they still played.

Sorry but all that's irrelevant. Maybe you're unaware of this, but various levels of government spent $30 million or $50 million (or whatever it was) in large part for community use soccer in the BMO location. By asking everyone to skeddadle back to wherever they were before, you're basically handing that dough to MLSE. That's how bureaucrats wind up on the front page of the Star with pictures that look like mug shots. Not happening.

mmmikey
07-01-2009, 07:31 PM
im a toronto tax payer too.. but thats an irrelevant aspect of this discussion. it doesn't make anyones views more reasonable than anothers (if anything being a tax payer makes us less reasonable.. but thats a different conversation ;). toronto property taxes are increasing as a result of a general rise in property value. by percentage, our property taxes are still very low in comparison to surrounding areas. we just keep getting new charges on other items to make up for it (garbage collection, etc).

pantalone is not asking for like-for-like. he is asking for like x3. replacing a single field with multiple fields just isn't like for like. especially given that there is also a new soccer facility down along the waterfront to the east of harbourfront. if anything there are more facilities now, and so a single new field to replace the single field lost would be considered "replacement". he isn't asking for an adequete replacement though, he wants the whole facility placed in his riding.

if you consider the extra fields that would be installed in etobicoke, force MLSE to build 1 downtown, and lamport gets the bubble in the winter then it sounds to me like the CITY of toronto is up on the bargain. unless they want to buy their own MLS or USL squad, there is no reason they need 20,000 seats for a community league game.

pantalone is putting his own political gains in his own riding above that of the collective city. next election he wants to say: "look.. we have 3 great big fields of green in our riding now... im so environmentally sensible!! arent i great!!"

frankly, all of the city of toronto was involved in this deal, not just his riding. his ridings interests should not supercede that of the collective city.

mmmikey
07-01-2009, 07:35 PM
Sorry but all that's irrelevant. Maybe you're unaware of this, but various levels of government spent $30 million or $50 million (or whatever it was) in large part for community use soccer in the BMO location. By asking them to skeddadle, you're basically handing that dough to MLSE. Not happening.

correct. however, MLSE is not stating that they want sole use of BMO Field, as well as a training facility and everyone can buzz off. they are trying to work with the city here and it will result in a net increase in community use. its just not entirely restricted to pantalones riding. hold MLSE to another location for the neighbourhood.. but not all or nothing.


this is actually an interesting point.. how much of the "community" use is really from the local community surrounding BMO, rather than from community groups from all over the city?? anyone have that info?

ensco
07-01-2009, 07:39 PM
^mmmikey, you and I have a different view of the "reasonableness" of the tax increases. I'd venture that you're in a small minority of property tax payers with that view.

mmmikey
07-01-2009, 08:37 PM
^mmmikey, you and I have a different view of the "reasonableness" of the tax increases. I'd venture that you're in a small minority of property tax payers with that view.

thats true. i blame most of toronto's problems on rampant mismanagement of money rather than the funding. who wants to swallow another tax increase when they already see spiraling budgets. i don't mind taxes, if i get what im paying for.

Pookie
07-01-2009, 09:26 PM
Sorry but all that's irrelevant. Maybe you're unaware of this, but various levels of government spent $30 million or $50 million (or whatever it was) in large part for community use soccer in the BMO location. By asking everyone to skeddadle back to wherever they were before, you're basically handing that dough to MLSE. That's how bureaucrats wind up on the front page of the Star with pictures that look like mug shots. Not happening.

Oh, I'm quite aware of the use of taxpayer money used to fund play things for rich folks. I'm not a fan of corporate welfare and I'm certainly not advocating letting MLSE rake in money that was built on the backs of public funding.

That said, if you are suggesting that the primary reason that BMO was built was for community use, I think you are reading a little too much into the PR spin.

The Province and Feds kicked in over $35M and that was in support of the bid for the FIFA U-20. They didn't identify a need for a downtown stadium to service the year round recreation needs of residents in the area. The original site was York University, which fell through. York is at Steeles and Keele.

The $35M handout was sold to the public on the basis of community use but ultimately it is about revenue.

From the Ministry (2007) (http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/news/2007/062907.asp)

"The province invested $8 million in the development of the stadium to attract events such as the World Cup and to build a legacy of sport infrastructure and community resources in Ontario."

Since it is about revenue, the real issue is the amount of revenue that the city (and Province) could lose if there are competing natural grass stadiums that are able to lure events away from Toronto. Events like the Canada World Cup qualifier that went to Saputo. Or other events that could go to Vancouver or an expanded Saputo in 2011.

As a taxpayer, the $150/hour (gross) that the rentals generate are minimal. In fact, if those rentals would occur anyways at other fields, there is no lost revenue. Leagues would still play at other locations and the city would still get their money.

Remember that BMO is still owned by the city. That FIFA event generated over $1M for the city. What will Real Madrid generate? What would other big events generate? If they don't come, that's lost revenue that can't be made up through renting Lamport or some other field.

That's the real concern I would have as a taxpayer.

ensco
07-02-2009, 06:59 AM
We agree to disagree on the degree to which the government authorities were "pretending" that the money was for community use. I think it's not true, I think they meant it. Not saying U 20 wasn't the catalyst.

The York site was never real. The Argos (who had been part of the syndicate, with MLSE, that were putting the NSS together) went off on their own to negotiate that, because they didn't want to share with a soccer team!

The wounds from that are still pretty raw. Larry Tanenbaum never forgave David Cynamon for that, now they hate each other. Did you notice that the Argo owners popped up as a possible buyer for the Coyotes, with a possible move to Toronto? The next day stories came out about how the BC Lions owner actually fronted money for the Argos owners. Funny that...

Pookie
07-02-2009, 07:17 AM
I respect your side of the debate.

From where I sit, I guess I'd just need something tangible to say that the money was given as a result of an identified community need and not simply a PR spin to sell taxpayer funding of another sports stadium in Toronto.

If leagues were clamouring for space, was that identified? How much space was necessary? Were kids being turned away from youth leagues because of lack of playing fields?

If the answer is yes and that the need was significant, then "community use" may hold some water. However, I'd still have some questions.

What the PR group responsible for the communication is asking me to swallow is the following:

That there was a definite need for a community use field in Toronto. While York U was the original site, it really needed to be downtown so we're glad that it didn't get built there.

Now, this need was so overwhelming that it required over $35M in public funds to make it happen. No, a pitch with a couple of steel bleachers and maybe a scoreboard wouldn't be sufficient for people to run around on. We'd need a 20,000 seat stadium.

Of course, as a side benefit, there just happens to be an immediate business opportunity (FIFA U20) and potential MLS expansion but those are just bonuses to the idea. Afterthoughts really. Rest assured that public funds are not going to finance another stadium in Toronto for the rich. It's all for the community... that is, if you can rent it when it isn't being used for corporate partners ;)

If all "community use" fields cost $35M, it's a wonder that we have any fields at all.

ensco
07-02-2009, 08:24 AM
^Much truth to this. They want community use, and they want the tax revenue from its use as a bigtime sports facility. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

But to make this "fiction" work, they have allowed BMO to be used mostly by the community. Which can't go on. Something has to give.