More turf than you can shake a stick at

[Stryker]

While it's nice to see that TFC will be getting grass at some point in the near future, one can't help but be extemely disappointed when you stop and look around the rest of the league. Seattle has just come into the league and plays on a turf pitch. In 2011 league play will begin for expansion teams in Vancouver and Portland. While plans for a new soccer specific stadium in Vancouver are underway, the team will be sharing BC Place with the BC Lions and playing on a turf surface for a minimum four seasons.
Portland however will be home in a renovated baseball park and sharing it's turf surface with both a baseball and university football team.
Speaking of which, the very same will also be sharing the newly announced home for the Houston Dynamo who currently play on grass but will be having to make the switch to turf.
Do these teams not see the problems with turf? Should the league of insisted on grass playing fields before awarding these citys teams and this have taken the first steps to fazing artifical surfaces out of the league?

[flatpicker]

somehow I don't think the league sees real grass as important as expansion fees.

one can only hope that as the league grows in popularity, and financially, that these needed changes will come.

it will take a few years, but I hope eventually all teams will be in soccer specific stadiums that include a real playing surface.

[Waggy]

Some places need to have turf, and all turf isn't created equal. Our turf gets beaten to hell by the elements, as well as by the cheapness of the owners of the building (you expect the city to properly maintain ANYTHING?!). While grass is preferable, it isn't exactly the end of the world here

[djking2]

Maybe the problem we have with the turf is due in large part to the fact that it's designated for community use. While FIFA rates it I wonder if they should when it's in use up to 16 hours a day year round.

[Pookie]

I guess it's a little like buying a house.

Do you go all out and upgrade/renovate everything before you move in? Or do you get in, see if you want to stay, and then start to make it your own?

Turf is cheaper. The ticket demand isn't known yet. Maybe you follow the TFC model and look at establishing yourself first and then talk of expanding/customizing your facility when your revenue streams are known.

No idea why Houston would move but attendance there is down about 2,500 per game from last year (they draw 15,000 or so). Maybe that's a factor?

[rocker]

Seattle's turf actually doesn't look that bad... I've watched their games and sometimes you can't tell a diff between it and grass in look and play.

Portland may have problems putting grass in, cuz their stadium is below the water table or something.

Vancouver's turf will be temporary (5 years) if they can get that grass field stadium built by the waterfront.

Philly's stadium will be grass. montreal (if they get in) will be grass.

[Beach_Red]

The house buying is a good analogy. For the league right now, turf vs. grass is a low priority.

As always the challenge is increasing quality of play (which means raising the salary cap) and hoping that increases the ticket sales (which will have to be more expensive to pay for the higher quality of play).

What you don't want to do is build a multi-million dollar house in a low-rent neighbourhood in the hopes that the neighbourhood will pick-up.

[rocker]

and while I'm sure Garber would love grass in each stadium, it can't be a deal breaker. to get BMO, fieldturf had to be a condition. I just can't see that deal going through on a grass stadium dedicated solely to Toronto FC. Imagine if Garber had said "sorry toronto, no grass no team..." TFC has been a massive contribution to MLS despite this issue.

Secondly, in most cases you need to just get the stadium done.. that's the hard part. Then years down the road you can change things (see the negotiations with the city on BMO and grass). Get the thing built and deal with the turf issue later.