PDA

View Full Version : TFC Today, and bashing the BMO Pitch



Cas87
07-21-2009, 10:00 AM
http://torontofc.neulion.com/tfc/console.jsp?catid=11&id=893

TFC Today from GolTV Canada

Find it interesting that in the begining Lee Godfrey was on the verge of calling out MLSE because of the turf at BMO being "done, atrocious, etc."

Find it interesting that the Analyst for the channel you bought for TFC is calling the pitch crap
Funny as hell
True too
:cool:

Shaughno
07-21-2009, 10:02 AM
It IS crap. Doesn't matter who you are, it's plain to see... nevermind play on.

Cas87
07-21-2009, 10:06 AM
I know it IS true,
its just always fun to post times when others finally agree with the collective opinion

Carts
07-21-2009, 10:10 AM
At the start of the season, I honestly thought we'd have turf for at least another 2-years, now I am changing my mind...

In working with MLSE I know a few things about the company, and one of those things is 'they don't like to look bad' in areas they can control...

How the Leafs do on the ice, well "thats sport" they say. You win you lose. But as for their reputation as a company, which includes the treatment of their staff, athletes, facilites etc - they want to appear 'world class' as Craig Forrest would say...

All this negative talk, from TFC players to opponents, to GOL TV commentators, to fans - it shows MLSE in a negative light, and they don't like that, which might, just might make them do something about it...

God lets hope grass doesn't mean a HUGE increase in season ticket prices... :(

Carts...

Steve
07-21-2009, 10:53 AM
http://torontofc.neulion.com/tfc/console.jsp?catid=11&id=893

TFC Today from GolTV Canada

Find it interesting that in the begining Lee Godfrey was on the verge of calling out MLSE because of the turf at BMO being "done, atrocious, etc."

Find it interesting that the Analyst for the channel you bought for TFC is calling the pitch crap
Funny as hell
True too
:cool:

Haha, I find it interesting that you think Lee Godfrey calling out the BMO turf as crap is AGAINST the interests of MLSE.

Look, the pieces are starting to fall into place. Remember the first season? Remember everyone associated with the team going on record as saying how great the turf is? Remember how if anyone spoke out against it, they seemed to be shut up?

That was MLSE trying to protect their investment. They either didn't want to spend the money on grass, or knew the city would never go for a change so soon, so they used their influence to ensure we were fed the company line (nothing wrong with that in my eyes by the way).

But now, you start hearing players come out complaining about the turf, even the coach has been known to say a thing or two, and people either directly or indirectly under their employ in the media are even slagging it! Did MLSE lose it's touch? Has the great outcry of "the people" finally broken through this corporation's iron shell?

Unfortunately for some people here (who seem to want to lead a revolution against "the man") no. MLSE is now in a position where they want grass, and say so publically whenever they can. The only holdup is the city. So, how do you influence politics? In the court of public opinion. In the first 2 years, MLSE wanted everyone to think turf was just as good as grass, now they want everyone to think it is the worst, because if people still believed it was great, the city would have no incentive to change it.

Oh, and for the record I don't have a problem with anything MLSE is doing here. They are acting in their own best interest to protect their investment, which also happens to be in our best interest. Win/Win.

Belfast_Boy
07-21-2009, 11:11 AM
that field is terrible to play on. it's weirdly lumpy and when it gets wet it sucks even worse.

C.Ronaldo
07-21-2009, 11:21 AM
i wonder is the company that invented it is still around

a Canadian company, wasn't it?

mmmikey
07-21-2009, 11:44 AM
its not rocket science. all u have to do is glance at it for 0.5 seconds and the first thing that pops into your mind is "wtf is wrong with that turf?"

it LOOKS horrible, not just because its turf instead of a lush green pitch (ahh WHL how much i miss u during the summer).

someone in the medical profession needs to cook up some sort of potential health hazard from a substandard community facility endangering the citizens. maybe then the city will get going!

city workers strike isn't exactly helping make this a priority right now though. :(

117
07-21-2009, 12:27 PM
It doesn't appear to be a big deal, but Dichio has 6 goals in 2007, which means DeRo currently shares the record. The mention a couple times in this clip that no one has ever scored 6 for TFC before.

Redpunkfiddle
07-21-2009, 12:32 PM
Also when our coach responds to a question as to whether the upcoming road stretch will be a challenge for the team by saying they prefer playing away on grass, that's something. (Monday comments from Cummins on TFCTV)

Brooker
07-21-2009, 01:25 PM
^^^ terrible, isnt it?

rarely hear coaches say they prefer away games cuz our pitch is so fucking garbage.

everybody in the league is laughing at us.... and rightfully so.

Pookie
07-21-2009, 02:44 PM
^ We rented BMO a few weeks ago. I had parents of my U8 team on the pitch as well.

First reaction, was "wow."

Second reaction? "This turf is pretty pathetic."

This from guys that still play the game on fields that either have no regular watering schedule or are cut like the US Open because of city cutbacks.

Lucky Strike
07-21-2009, 02:59 PM
It made sense to have turf so BMO can be a year-round facility, but it's precisely because of that that the turf now has to go. It's just too bad that it seems that no one thought of this (or that they reached the wrong conclusion if they did think of it).

Pookie
07-21-2009, 03:07 PM
^ well, if you read the rationale behind building BMO... Toronto FC was not the only reason it was built.

It was largely to serve as a stadium and generate revenue for the FIFA U20 championship.

They originally projected an average attendance of 14,000 for the eventual MLS franchise and I suspect figured it would be bit of a sideshow on the Toronto Sports landscape.

I mean do you care what kind of surface that the Toronto Nationals play on? That's where I believe they were pegging support for TFC.

This is a great find. I can't remember who posted it but gives some great insight into the politics behind the stadium:

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/02-24/8-CSS0013-Document%201%20Appendix%20C%20-%20BMO%20Toronto%20Report.pdf

loconet
07-21-2009, 03:29 PM
^ well, if you read the rationale behind building BMO... Toronto FC was not the only reason it was built.

It was largely to serve as a stadium and generate revenue for the FIFA U20 championship.

They originally projected an average attendance of 14,000 for the eventual MLS franchise and I suspect figured it would be bit of a sideshow on the Toronto Sports landscape.

I mean do you care what kind of surface that the Toronto Nationals play on? That's where I believe they were pegging support for TFC.

This is a great find. I can't remember who posted it but gives some great insight into the politics behind the stadium:

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/02-24/8-CSS0013-Document%201%20Appendix%20C%20-%20BMO%20Toronto%20Report.pdf


Very interesting. This is how they fore-casted TFC's attendance in comparison to other teams in 2005. A bit below average. Time to adapt to reality



Los Angeles Galaxy 24,017
Real Salt Lake 18,318
Chicago Fire 17,238
Chivas USA 17,059 (Los Angeles area)
D.C. United 16,277
Metrostars 15,077 (New York/New Jersey)
Toronto (forecast 2007) 14,000
Colorado Rapids 13,638
San Jose Earthquakes 13,037
Columbus Crew 12,916
New England Revolution 12,572 (Boston area)
FC Dallas 10,733
Kansas City Wizards 9,691
Average: 14,967