Grass - hmmmm

[ensco]

This is in today's news but may deserve a wider discussion. There's a lot to ponder in this story.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/soccer/2009/08/06/10376041-sun.html

So grass is now "unlikely" for 2010 because the strike has jammed up City Council. This doesn't make sense. I have experience with City Hall. They can do it in November, or December, or January, or February..... if they want to.. They would only install new grass in the spring anyway.

And we're going to get fieldturf for one year only? Does this make any sense?

Are we being chummed by MLSE? I hope not, but these statements worry me.

[rocker]

This is in today's news but may deserve a wider discussion. There's a lot to ponder in this story.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/soccer/2009/08/06/10376041-sun.html

So grass is now "unlikely" for 2010 because the strike has jammed up City Council. This doesn't make sense. I have experience with City Hall. They can do it in November, or December, or January, or February..... if they want to.. They would only install new grass in the spring anyway.


depends on whether the council vote goes through, I would assume.

what if they say "look, come back to us with a better proposal"?

[Cas87]

One simple phrase will pass this through council in no time ...

"MLSE will pay for everything"

if that isn't said, then we'll have to wait another year

stupid fucking city strike :picard:

[Cas87]

^^
when I say everything, I mean everything

Grass at BMO, truf installation at new location, etc, etc.

[rocker]

i think also one of the things Hunter mentions in the article is getting this set up for the start of the season. not sure you can propose it at a January/ Feb meeting and get it installed for the start of the season in March.

altho what I would propose is schedule a longish road trip (or bye weeks) mid season and install it then.
the Galaxy get their whole field ripped up every summer for X Games and then put new grass in after for the rest of the season.... maybe they should consider that. Summer grass growth will prob be better anyways...

[Cas87]

^^^
replace Mid season friendlies with grass instalation ....

I LIKE IT!!!!!

[Chevy]

One simple phrase will pass this through council in no time ...

"MLSE will pay for everything"

if that isn't said, then we'll have to wait another year

stupid fucking city strike :picard:

+1. Money talks, Bull$hit walks, and the Shite Bulls suck.

[Carts]

This is in today's news but may deserve a wider discussion. There's a lot to ponder in this story.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/soccer/2009/08/06/10376041-sun.html

So grass is now "unlikely" for 2010 because the strike has jammed up City Council. This doesn't make sense. I have experience with City Hall. They can do it in November, or December, or January, or February..... if they want to.. They would only install new grass in the spring anyway.

And we're going to get fieldturf for one year only? Does this make any sense?

Are we being chummed by MLSE? I hope not, but these statements worry me.

Actually, a grass pitch would be involved in the fall...

Carts...

[ensco]

We can argue about the details. The bigger question is, is the effort to get grass at BMO sincere?

Maybe. Maybe not.

[Suds]

If it is pushed out another year I have another worry; we would be going into an election in the fall of 2010. Councilors will mostly be focusing on ramping up their election campaigns next year.

Will Council be looking at this project as a high priority heading in to an election? Could the conversion of BMO become an election issue? (hell, Miller won basing the majority of his campaign on building a small bridge to the Island Airport) there are a number of community groups already complaining about the possible conversion.

Anyone else think this could be an issue?

[Pawel]

We can argue about the details. The bigger question is, is the effort to get grass at BMO sincere?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Uhhhhhhh, seriously? Rethink that, that question shouldn't even be asked.

[Pigfynn]

I think they're saying if there's no grass for next year there will be new "newest technology" field turf installed for next year only.

[Carts]

If it is pushed out another year I have another worry; we would be going into an election in the fall of 2010. Councilors will mostly be focusing on ramping up their election campaigns next year.

Will Council be looking at this project as a high priority heading in to an election? Could the conversion of BMO become an election issue? (hell, Miller won basing the majority of his campaign on building a small bridge to the Island Airport) there are a number of community groups already complaining about the possible conversion.

Anyone else think this could be an issue?

Great point...

In an election year EVERYTHING is an issue - and this would be a major one, as it involves a community use facility being taken away for community use (if grass installed) which several councillors would jump on to block for "the right of their voters" etc...

Carts...

[ensco]

Uhhhhhhh, seriously? Rethink that, that question shouldn't even be asked.

Oh yes it should.

[Blizzard]

Yes, that makes sense, and then that field can be used for the community usage field the following year. Perhaps they can both be used. Bonus for the city. Of course the old one will be crap and the new one will be ok but hey, either way, it works. :)

[Darlofletch]

This is my favourite quote, from Daniel Girard's article in the star.

"They have obviously two or three of the world's best players on their squad," he said of newly acquired talent headlined by Cristiano Ronaldo, Kaka and Karim Benzema, who are part of about $385 million in off-season signings by the club.
"They only play on grass."


So what does that say of his opinion of our players?

[TorontoBlades]

^ not the best in the world. Did you think any different?

[prizby]

the toronto star reported the cost of adding grass to be 3.5M,

reports have it that tfc are making 3M off this game

RM paying for permanent grass...I like :)

[ecospice]

I think they're saying if there's no grass for next year there will be new "newest technology" field turf installed for next year only.

Hopefully not an issue: the City should be able to take up the one-year old field turf at the end of next season and move it to an alternate facility (hopefully Lamport Stadium) so it could be used again. I assume that field turf can be taken up - I think that is what they do at the Skydome during the winter, so it can be used for the autoshow. Still, the better thing to do is for council to vote in grass now, so the existing turf can be taken up and put down somewhere else...

:scarf:

[Stryker]

A new turf surface for just one season huh?
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Beach_Red]

Oh yes it should.

But the question asked is about the degree of sincerity. The history of MLSE is like pretty much every other Canadian business - first they ask the government for the money.

So, yes, they are sincere in asking the government to spend the money to put in grass, just like they were happy to take over operation of a stadium the government paid for. They are far less sincere about spending their own money, because as has been said, if they did put up all the money it would happen tomorrow.

This has been clear from the start, no?

[TFC Tifoso]

the toronto star reported the cost of adding grass to be 3.5M,

reports have it that tfc are making 3M off this game

RM paying for permanent grass...I like :)

I thought the Edu transfer money was supposed to be for that, so we were told....:rolleyes:

[ilikemusic]

Wait one more year for grass?

Where have we heard that before?

[Rudi]

Wait one more year for grass?

Where have we heard that before?
Nowhere?

[Shep]

But the question asked is about the degree of sincerity. The history of MLSE is like pretty much every other Canadian business - first they ask the government for the money.

So, yes, they are sincere in asking the government to spend the money to put in grass, just like they were happy to take over operation of a stadium the government paid for. They are far less sincere about spending their own money, because as has been said, if they did put up all the money it would happen tomorrow.

This has been clear from the start, no?

First I'd heard that. And I don't think it's true. The city owns the field, it's a community use property and that's the issue. Having grass would eliminate it being available for everyone else. It's up to the council to approve and until then MLSE's hands are tied.

I think.

[DOMIN8R]

I, and many others, do not doubt MLSE (file://\\MLSE) sincerity when it comes to grass at BMO.

[Blizzard]

Hopefully not an issue: the City should be able to take up the one-year old field turf at the end of next season and move it to an alternate facility (hopefully Lamport Stadium) so it could be used again. I assume that field turf can be taken up - I think that is what they do at the Skydome during the winter, so it can be used for the autoshow. Still, the better thing to do is for council to vote in grass now, so the existing turf can be taken up and put down somewhere else...

:scarf:

Lamport's artificial grass product is fairly new so I doubt it will need to be replaced quite yet.

They key issue is a non-Lamport alternative for the summer. That is where the disused FieldTurf will have to go.

[Blizzard]

Great point...

In an election year EVERYTHING is an issue - and this would be a major one, as it involves a community use facility being taken away for community use (if grass installed) which several councillors would jump on to block for "the right of their voters" etc...

Carts...

It's only an issue if a suitable replacement facility isn't developed, presumably in the downtown area.

[jloome]

Laying down for a game like this doesn't make grass "permanent". You need an irrigation system and an underground heating system to protect it in winter. IT's very expensive. Without those elemtns, you'd spend in excess of $3M to replace the pitch EVERY YEAR.

So, as ensco points out, this might not be as cut-and-dried as "the players want it, the fans want it, so MLSE must want it." MLSE wants to make as much money as possible and this is a MAJOR capital improvement on infrastructure they don't technically own.

[Antoshka]

can we keep this grass until the end of the season at least? it is summer and its already there?

[mmmikey]

MLSE hating at its best. they are an evil organization out to steal babies from the poor to give to the rich to be served on canapes if u believe some ppl on this board.

mlse and any other for profit organization will try to get govt to foot the bill. we have zero sports teams owned by money bag owners who just want to see their toy do well. i have no idea why ppl think these ownership groups will EVER just throw money at something. your asking a turtle to fly.

are they sincere about wanting it? yes. at all costs? hell no. convince balsille or however u spell his name to buy TFC instead of the coyotes and things might be different.

toronto needs some homegrown billionaires. someone invent something really cool like shamwow. fast.

[mmmikey]

can we keep this grass until the end of the season at least? it is summer and its already there?

from what i have read, this grass dies fairly fast and gets torn up. i imagine the drainage is horrible too so if we get a good rain storm, it will be a mudd pit with little green things floating in it.

[Beach_Red]

MLSE hating at its best. they are an evil organization out to steal babies from the poor to give to the rich to be served on canapes if u believe some ppl on this board.

mlse and any other for profit organization will try to get govt to foot the bill. we have zero sports teams owned by money bag owners who just want to see their toy do well. i have no idea why ppl think these ownership groups will EVER just throw money at something. your asking a turtle to fly.

are they sincere about wanting it? yes. at all costs? hell no. convince balsille or however u spell his name to buy TFC instead of the coyotes and things might be different.

toronto needs some homegrown billionaires. someone invent something really cool like shamwow. fast.

There hasn't been any MLSE "hating" in this thread, people have just said exactly what you just said, "Not at any cost." No one thinks the company is evil, just that they are fully aware that winning won't increase profits enough to make the extra risk worthwhile.

And many other people have suggested Balsillie (I also don't know how to spell his name) or pointed out that teams whose owners treat it as their hobby rather than as a business do much better.

[Pawel]

But the question asked is about the degree of sincerity. The history of MLSE is like pretty much every other Canadian business - first they ask the government for the money.

So, yes, they are sincere in asking the government to spend the money to put in grass, just like they were happy to take over operation of a stadium the government paid for. They are far less sincere about spending their own money, because as has been said, if they did put up all the money it would happen tomorrow.

This has been clear from the start, no?

Really? The only thing clear from the start is people's blind misconceptions about MLSE.....A company that has been in talks with local school boards to provide facilities for them which also creating training centres, now a ocmpany discussing with the city about suitable locations to renovate a existing facility, a company who has gone on record saying they want grass. Do people just suspend all thought when discussing MLSE? This company has been nothing but sincere in attempting to get grass for BMO once they saw turf isn't cutting it. These things don't happen overnight and aren't without complications, but the thought that they aren't sincere, or are some how sincere to a degree which means they really don't want grass is ignorant.

[ensco]

Pawel, before you start labelling people "ignorant", you might want to think a little. The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. Anybody who takes MLSE statements on facilities 100% at face value, beware.

Just to remind everyone, the arc of the Leafs' move from Maple Leaf Gardens to the ACC was as follows:

The Leafs blathered on about locating at Exhibition Place, they briefly looked into blowing out the west side of the Gardens to expand and finally, unveiled grandiose plans to build atop a transformed Union Station. All the while, Anselmi denounced the ACC (then being built by the Raptors previous owners, Alan Slaight and John Bitove) as categorically "unsuitable for hockey".

Until they bought the building, and started talking about it like it was a purpose-built shrine for hockey. The next day.

[Gazza_55]

First I'd heard that. And I don't think it's true. The city owns the field, it's a community use property and that's the issue. Having grass would eliminate it being available for everyone else. It's up to the council to approve and until then MLSE's hands are tied.

I think.

MLSE's hands aren't tied. They should have been dealing with city council about this issue starting in August of 2007. The field has been crap for 2 years now for fuck sake. TFC has made over $30m since they began - MLSE makes $80m a year on the Raptors and Jays - they have a waiting list for season tickets of 10,000 and they are balking at putting grass at BMO for $3.5m!! Unbelieveable.

[Beach_Red]

Really? The only thing clear from the start is people's blind misconceptions about MLSE.....A company that has been in talks with local school boards to provide facilities for them which also creating training centres, now a ocmpany discussing with the city about suitable locations to renovate a existing facility, a company who has gone on record saying they want grass. Do people just suspend all thought when discussing MLSE? This company has been nothing but sincere in attempting to get grass for BMO once they saw turf isn't cutting it. These things don't happen overnight and aren't without complications, but the thought that they aren't sincere, or are some how sincere to a degree which means they really don't want grass is ignorant.


Okay, so they do a lot of talking, I'll give them that.

Ensco didn't even mention the other sites they were looking at for a hockey rink, remember University Avenue and, of course, as everyone does, Downsview. That Union Station design would have been fantastic, the best in the NHL, but why should Toronto have a better place to play hockey than Phoenix or Nashville or some other hockey hotbed?

Look, I'm sorry, I never said MLSE wasn't "sincere," I just said they are like every other Canadian company - from car makers to TV networks to phone companies - they ask the government for money first and only spend their own as a last resort. I'm even beyond critisizing Canadian business for this, it's what this country was built on, from the very first railroad. MLSE is simply doing business as usual in Canada.

[Pawel]

Pawel, before you start labelling people "ignorant", you might want to think a little. The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. Anybody who takes MLSE statements on facilities 100% at face value, beware.

Just to remind everyone, the arc of the Leafs' move from Maple Leaf Gardens to the ACC was as follows:

The Leafs blathered on about locating at Exhibition Place, they briefly looked into blowing out the west side of the Gardens to expand and finally, unveiled grandiose plans to build atop a transformed Union Station. All the while, Anselmi denounced the ACC (then being built by the Raptors previous owners, Alan Slaight and John Bitove) as categorically "unsuitable for hockey".

Until they bought the building, and started talking about it like it was a purpose-built shrine for hockey. The next day.

While it's nice that you base you're opinion on an issue now about a decade old, there is nothing to suggest that they are not sincere about getting grass. The fact that we have four partners in this stadium makes it even more difficult to formulate a solution that appeases everyone, but the evidence I have, the meetings with local councils, school boards, upcoming meetings, and quotes lead me to believe they are sincere. You can't discount the evidence in front of you based on something over a decade old, working under different circumstances and with different intentions.

Edit to the above post:

I doubt any developer looks at a single site and says hey that's it, we're not going to consider anything else even if we can't get the deal lined up. This isn't a simplistic world where MLSE gets whatever it wants, in any development that are hundreds or thousands of issues that must be addressed. So while maybe people should relax about renderings or ideas that come out in public, they shouldn't feel like they aren't sincere when all the evidence points to the contrary.

[ensco]

While it's nice that you base you're opinion on an issue now about a decade old, there is nothing to suggest that they are not sincere about getting grass. The fact that we have four partners in this stadium makes it even more difficult to formulate a solution that appeases everyone, but the evidence I have, the meetings with local councils, school boards, upcoming meetings, and quotes lead me to believe they are sincere. You can't discount the evidence in front of you based on something over a decade old, working under different circumstances and with different intentions.



If you're going to retreat to this form of argument, you're going to have to tell us who you are.

[Pawel]

If you're going to retreat to this form of argument, you're going to have to tell us who you are.

The evidence I have is the same evidence everyone has, meaning it's not insider information, it's news reports of meetings with school boards in etobicoke, with local councils in that area and in Toronto, and in interviews with MLSE employees. Judging by all this it appears like a real sincere attempt to obtain a suitable facility where the community use of BMO can be maintained. The fact that it takes time to accomplish this doesn't make it any less important for MLSE or means they are hiding something. Of course they COULD really be hiding something, but this is alot of wasted time and effort to do all this work only to have other motives, companies don't work like that, they don't throw money away to play some game with people, companies do things that add value to them and benefit them in the long run.

[Limani_Ole]

The evidence I have is the same evidence everyone has, meaning it's not insider information, it's news reports of meetings with school boards in etobicoke, with local councils in that area and in Toronto, and in interviews with MLSE employees. Judging by all this it appears like a real sincere attempt to obtain a suitable facility where the community use of BMO can be maintained. The fact that it takes time to accomplish this doesn't make it any less important for MLSE or means they are hiding something. Of course they COULD really be hiding something, but this is alot of wasted time and effort to do all this work only to have other motives, companies don't work like that, they don't throw money away to play some game with people, companies do things that add value to them and benefit them in the long run.

I have evidence too.. nothing has happened regarding training facilities, grass, etc etc.. so they havent spent a penny.. nevemind the Edu transfer fee they pocketed..

with this logic I declare you and MLSE full of shit.. what are you on the payroll?

[Boris]

I have evidence too.. nothing has happened regarding training facilities, grass, etc etc.. so they havent spent a penny.. nevemind the Edu transfer fee they pocketed..

with this logic I declare you and MLSE full of shit.. what are you on the payroll?

if you claim you have evidence then have it...until then i declare you totally full of shit

[Jay P]

I have evidence too.. nothing has happened regarding training facilities, grass, etc etc.. so they havent spent a penny.. nevemind the Edu transfer fee they pocketed..

with this logic I declare you and MLSE full of shit.. what are you on the payroll?


hahahahahahahhhahhahahahahah

[mmmikey]

There hasn't been any MLSE "hating" in this thread, people have just said exactly what you just said, "Not at any cost." No one thinks the company is evil, just that they are fully aware that winning won't increase profits enough to make the extra risk worthwhile.

And many other people have suggested Balsillie (I also don't know how to spell his name) or pointed out that teams whose owners treat it as their hobby rather than as a business do much better.

the guy who posted this thread (i respect your opinion most times ensco!! <3) judged MLSE to be unsincere since this could take longer than we would all like. that's mlse hating imo, and given that is the OP of this thread, i stand by my statement. it IS refreshing to see so much defense of their position in this thread, although it's hard to read any thread lately without some accusation that MLSE are just stringing us along.

anything involving toronto city hall will take much longer than needed, at a much greater cost than necessary.

[mmmikey]

so let me get this straight, despite everything happening through statements to the press, meetings with councils, research etc, it is really just a giant smoke screen to throw us all off the scent that MLSE doesn't want grass at all? how does that make sense???

if u say "this is stupid GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GET IT DONE" then im with u. to allude to some hidden agenda or question the desire to do so in the first place is just reading into things way too much.

[jloome]

the guy who posted this thread (i respect your opinion most times ensco!! <3) judged MLSE to be unsincere since this could take longer than we would all like. that's mlse hating imo, and given that is the OP of this thread, i stand by my statement. it IS refreshing to see so much defense of their position in this thread, although it's hard to read any thread lately without some accusation that MLSE are just stringing us along.

anything involving toronto city hall will take much longer than needed, at a much greater cost than necessary.


Uh, strawman argument. At the beginning of the thread, Ensco suggested they MIGHT be insincere about grass. He has since said they were insincere about HOCKEY, which would seem both a reasonable conclusion and ample qualification that a company might not always be sincere.

If that's "MLSE hating" in your opinion, you're basing that opinion on magnificently scant information.

Not fair, or bright.

[jloome]

so let me get this straight .. MLSE doesn't want grass at all? how does that make sense??

He didn't say that either. He suggested they might not want to pay for it.

Really dude, issues aren't always one extreme or another, although I understand that's an easy stance to take when backtracking from overreacting. Not exactly standard-bearing for humility, though.

[mmmikey]

i've reread his post that i scanned fast, and ill apologize to ensco for thinking he was making more of an accusation than he was. like i said, its hard not to because there is alot of MLSE hate in this city and this board (hell even i got sick of the leafs merry go round long ago).

if u want to start telling me im stupid though u should read the post from jack about personal attacks. that isn't exactly "bright" either. if u want to act intellectually superior though, u should get off a fucking footie forum.

[mmmikey]

He didn't say that either. He suggested they might not want to pay for it.

Really dude, issues aren't always one extreme or another, although I understand that's an easy stance to take when backtracking from overreacting. Not exactly standard-bearing for humility, though.

did i ever quote ensco there jloome? are u his personal protector or something? now whos overreacting..

edit: p.s. what did i backtrack on? i would honestly like to know. i still stand by my original point that this will happen eventually. the speed is not what we would like. i don't think sincerity is in question, just the priority that they have put on it. they want it by a certain time, but if the parameters for the business deal aren't to their liking, they will delay it. that has ALWAYS been my opinion. not an over reaction, and not back tracking from it in the slightest. but of course, it's easier to seem superior if u accuse me of backtracking from overreacting, etc. u need to take your own advice about things not being one extreme or the other.

[jloome]

did i ever quote ensco there jloome? are u his personal protector or something? now whos overreacting..

edit: p.s. what did i backtrack on? i would honestly like to know. i still stand by my original point that this will happen eventually. the speed is not what we would like. i don't think sincerity is in question, just the priority that they have put on it. they want it by a certain time, but if the parameters for the business deal aren't to their liking, they will delay it. that has ALWAYS been my opinion. not an over reaction, and not back tracking from it in the slightest. but of course, it's easier to seem superior if u accuse me of backtracking from overreacting, etc. u need to take your own advice about things not being one extreme or the other.

Yeah. Now I'm convinced.

[mmmikey]

Yeah. Now I'm convinced.

of what? that u had zero to actually add to the convo in this thread beyond attacking my posts? im certainly convinced of that now.:noidea:

[jloome]

Nope, your towering intellect and obvious grasp on humility. I stand vanquished, sir. Your logic is infallible. For miles around, they will know your name.

[mmmikey]

Nope, your towering intellect and obvious grasp on humility. I stand vanquished, sir. Your logic is infallible. For miles around, they will know your name.

sigh.. look jloome. i don't know how i offended u so much to start attacking me then start making flippant replies.

i took ensco's post wrong and have since stated so and apologized for that. that IS humility when u admit your wrong.

i have also stood by my position on this thread. yet u can not explain yourself when i ask for clarification, except to reply in this manner, and allude to a lack of humility.

i feel no need to defend, or discuss my intellect or anyone elses. your the only one bringing this into the equation. "if u want to act intellectually superior though" <-- this was the closest i came. in no way in any of my posts did i make myself out to be superior to anyone else. ive reread what has been said. is it because i asked how something makes any sense? im at a loss as to how u came to such a conclusion.

your posts snidely denegrate my grasp of humility without ever speaking directly to my reply. i have freely admitted where i was wrong, yet im the one lacking humility?

u can have the last word after this post though. it seems like asking for a real response is a waste of time.

[Rudi]

MLSE's hands aren't tied. They should have been dealing with city council about this issue starting in August of 2007. The field has been crap for 2 years now for fuck sake. TFC has made over $30m since they began - MLSE makes $80m a year on the Raptors and Jays - they have a waiting list for season tickets of 10,000 and they are balking at putting grass at BMO for $3.5m!! Unbelieveable.
How are they "balking" at putting in the grass?

Please explain.

[Rudi]

I have evidence too.. nothing has happened regarding training facilities, grass, etc etc.. so they havent spent a penny.. nevemind the Edu transfer fee they pocketed..

with this logic I declare you and MLSE full of shit.. what are you on the payroll?
I declare you full of shit for claiming they "pocketed" the Edu transfer money.

Learn the MLS transfer rules, and where the money goes, then proceed to call someone full of shit if it's still warranted.

[Detroit_TFC]

^ yes. The league is holding that money. Ben Knight already looked into that.

[Pookie]

This is politics. Angling through the public to improve one's position.

Miller is being criticized for his handling of the strike and to state "we would be cautiously optimistic if we had approval around the first of October. But city council has a lot on their agenda for that meeting. Obviously, the labour strife caused a lot of delay of any activity..." puts pressure squarely on the City to approve the plan.

MLSE is likely setting a public deadline and will leverage that to squeeze whatever financial concession it can.

This statement is another example of a PR spin:

There are four partners in the ownership and the big issue, rightfully so, is that this stadium was built for community use, so we have to provide an alternative if, in fact, the other three will allow us to convert."


That is simply not true.

Community use was an afterthought designed to sell the public on the use of public dollars to fund a sports stadium.

City documents highlight that BMO was built primarily to host the FIFA U20 Championship and on the condition that MLSE secure an MLS team.

There was over $35M contributed by the Feds and Province. The argument that this was done for community use is probably one of the more absurd things I've ever heard.

If soccer teams in Toronto needed a place to play, a simple field and scoreboard satisfies the requirements of virtually any town. Some even throw up their own bubble. This can be done for a lot less than $35M.

Don't get all excited. This is all process stuff.

[rocker]

This is politics. Angling through the public to improve one's position.

Miller is being criticized for his handling of the strike and to state "we would be cautiously optimistic if we had approval around the first of October. But city council has a lot on their agenda for that meeting. Obviously, the labour strife caused a lot of delay of any activity..." puts pressure squarely on the City to approve the plan.

MLSE is likely setting a public deadline and will leverage that to squeeze whatever financial concession it can.

This statement is another example of a PR spin:

There are four partners in the ownership and the big issue, rightfully so, is that this stadium was built for community use, so we have to provide an alternative if, in fact, the other three will allow us to convert."


That is simply not true.

Community use was an afterthought designed to sell the public on the use of public dollars to fund a sports stadium.

City documents highlight that BMO was built primarily to host the FIFA U20 Championship and on the condition that MLSE secure an MLS team.

There was over $35M contributed by the Feds and Province. The argument that this was done for community use is probably one of the more absurd things I've ever heard.

If soccer teams in Toronto needed a place to play, a simple field and scoreboard satisfies the requirements of virtually any town. Some even throw up their own bubble. This can be done for a lot less than $35M.

Don't get all excited. This is all process stuff.

I don't take his comment about "was built for community use" to mean that it was *only* built for community use. That would be absurd, since TFC was an essential part of the group.

It's like saying "my car is built for speed" but it's not *only* built for speed. I can drive it slowly if i want..

BMO Field indeed was built for community use (the copious dressing rooms attest to that). But it was built for other uses too. So I don't think Hunter is being untruthful, just focusing on the problematic element of the original deal, which was community use.

[Pookie]

BMO Field indeed was built for community use (the copious dressing rooms attest to that). But it was built for other uses too. So I don't think Hunter is being untruthful, just focusing on the problematic element of the original deal, which was community use.

Seems that the "problematic element" wasn't such a problem when they cancelled community use to move the Aug 9th game vs the NYRBs into June.

They seemingly were able to cancel a week's worth of activities with relative ease as they installed a natural grass surface to host tomorrow's game.

I wouldn't suggest he is lying. I am suggesting that focusing on community use as a cornerstone to the negotiations is misleading. It is a problem with a very easy solution and has been overcome before.

However, it is a "problem" that deflects from some of the other issues and that makes it very convenient. Issues such as increased share of profits, stadium control, etc. Those issues aren't so easy to articulate to a public that financed $35M.

By taking this stance, MLSE is essentially putting forward the idea that they are wanting to do what is fair for Joe Taxpayer. By raising the issue of an October approval necessary to move forward and that grass could be a casualty of the strike, pressure is being put squarely on the City to push through their "proposal."

I imagine we will likely see some more PR in the weeks ahead about the revenue that natural grass could generate for the city. eg. More events like RM, more national events, need to compete with Vancouver and Montreal, etc.

[ensco]

mmmikey, I understand re you and I. No problem.

re jloome, he and I have never met, we actually disagree on here quite a bit, but he is one of the three most knowledgeable people on this board about MLS soccer, and about the business side, so I have a lot of respect for him.

re MLSE, I plead guilty to ingratitude and distrust. We wouldn't have the team if it wasn't for them, I know that. But I 'm not some vassal pledging lifetime support to my overlords either. TFC is a big league setup (this wasn't a foregone conclusion in 2005) and deserves a big league playing surface now.

Putting in grass will cost a lot of money, each and every year. I'm worried that the beancounters will look for ways to weasel out. Pawel, the people involved with the ACC are the exact same people who are involved in this. That's pretty relevant.

[prizby]

I thought the Edu transfer money was supposed to be for that, so we were told....:rolleyes:

i thought it was for a DP player (remember, we only got 2/3 of the fee, the MLS got the other 1/3)



Wait one more year for grass?

Where have we heard that before?

from what I have been told, the earliest BMO Field could accomadate grass is 2011, although MLSE seems to be working at pushing that up into 2010 now

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

MLSE's hands aren't tied. They should have been dealing with city council about this issue starting in August of 2007. The field has been crap for 2 years now for fuck sake. TFC has made over $30m since they began - MLSE makes $80m a year on the Raptors and Jays - they have a waiting list for season tickets of 10,000 and they are balking at putting grass at BMO for $3.5m!! Unbelieveable.


it is tied, part of the reason is the staidum as to be accessable to the public 12 months of the year for the first 3 seasons, that deal ends this year. But with the city labor strike and change real grass and drainage
system to go with it wont likely happen before 2011...MLSE dont own the stadium the city does..the can say when grass can go in or not..the problem of not owning the stadium out right has come back to bite MLSE
hard on the ass. MLSE has to convince the city of Toronto, the federal and provincal governments that BMO should be a soccer only facility and
moving the BMO buddle to Lamport stadium for community use is the best
option for all concerned. MLSE dont make anything off the Jays...the Raptors they do but put money back into the team..

[Gazza_55]

it is tied, part of the reason is the staidum as to be accessable to the public 12 months of the year for the first 3 seasons, that deal ends this year. But with the city labor strike and change real grass and drainage
system to go with it wont likely happen before 2011...MLSE dont own the stadium the city does..the can say when grass can go in or not..the problem of not owning the stadium out right has come back to bite MLSE
hard on the ass. MLSE has to convince the city of Toronto, the federal and provincal governments that BMO should be a soccer only facility and
moving the BMO buddle to Lamport stadium for community use is the best
option for all concerned. MLSE dont make anything off the Jays...the Raptors they do but put money back into the team..

Sorry I meant the Leafs not Jays. My point is that MLSE should have been trying to convince city council during and after year 1 instead of year 3. Before it cost us Darren Huckerby and who knows who else along with probably 2 or 3 home playoff dates. I know it is not in MLSE's nature to build an alternate facility for community use, buyout the deal with the city, and put grass in at BMO but that is exactly what they should have done 2 minutes after Danny Dichio scored that goal to draw New England October 20th, 2007.

[rocker]

Sorry I meant the Leafs not Jays. My point is that MLSE should have been trying to convince city council during and after year 1 instead of year 3. Before it cost us Darren Huckerby and who knows who else along with probably 2 or 3 home playoff dates. I know it is not in MLSE's nature to build an alternate facility for community use, buyout the deal with the city, and put grass in at BMO but that is exactly what they should have done 2 minutes after Danny Dichio scored that goal to draw New England October 20th, 2007.

you have some high expectations my friend. with expectations like that you're always going to be disappointed.

But going back in time to the beginning NOBODY was talking about grass and practice facilities. The fans weren't clamouring for it, and neither were the players. It only became an issue over the course of time.

And generally you don't renovate a stadium a month after it's built.

[Gazza_55]

you have some high expectations my friend. with expectations like that you're always going to be disappointed.

But going back in time to the beginning NOBODY was talking about grass and practice facilities. The fans weren't clamouring for it, and neither were the players. It only became an issue over the course of time.

And generally you don't renovate a stadium a month after it's built.

Really? Ask Brennan or Edu or Robinson. We stayed in the same hotel with TFC in NY and DC that year and the players were already cursing it.

And guess what when your players are complaining about their home surface and training staff has to deal with ridiculous amount of injuries and players won't come here and the national team won't play here unless forced and you're a professional organization - yes you do something about it. You don't wait for it to become concrete painted green.

[Pookie]

Really? Ask Brennan or Edu or Robinson. We stayed in the same hotel with TFC in NY and DC that year and the players were already cursing it.

And guess what when your players are complaining about their home surface and training staff has to deal with ridiculous amount of injuries and players won't come here and the national team won't play here unless forced and you're a professional organization - yes you do something about it. You don't wait for it to become concrete painted green.

^ just to support rockers' position, the original projection for TFC was to average 14,000 fans per game. The turf was sold on the idea that it was good for 7 years. Grass wasn't on anyone's list of priorities. The stadium was built with the FIFA event as the main reason. FIFA was ok with the turf. Everyone was happy in year 1.

It wasn't until a few factors started to come together that grass started becoming an issue:

- the intention to use Toronto as the home of the National Team was undermined when the National Team chose to play a World Cup Qualifier at Saputo (Montreal) because of grass

- recognizing that the revenue from such events was more significant than public use rentals on an annual basis, the stakeholders got a little concerned about Vancouver's stadium plans along with potential expansion in Montreal and the proposed bid in Ottawa. Now they will be competing with other venues... and they have grass.

- the popularity of TFC and demands of the fan base and players. Stadium expansion is a real possibility but to do so, you need to have strong support. That includes revenue at the gate from TFC but also the ability to host big tournaments, national games, high profile exhibition games, etc.

- Huckerby's rejection of Toronto, Beckham's refusal to play here, and comments from TFC players have added to the pressure

- Real Madrid has demonstrated that Toronto can attract world class teams but need a comparable facility to do it. The revenue generated here is too significant to overlook. To install a $150k temporary surface each time you have an opportunity to host a high profile game is just bad business.

- the overuse of the current turf means that they have to invest in a new surface one way or another

[Blizzard]

MLSE's hands aren't tied. They should have been dealing with city council about this issue starting in August of 2007. The field has been crap for 2 years now for fuck sake. TFC has made over $30m since they began - MLSE makes $80m a year on the Raptors and Jays - they have a waiting list for season tickets of 10,000 and they are balking at putting grass at BMO for $3.5m!! Unbelieveable.

TFC has made over $30 million? Source please???

Since when does MLSE own the Jays??? Edit: I see you've corrected yourself. Cool.

FYI, the waiting list for tickets is 16,000.

As I have said before, and elsewhere on the forum the other day, TFC needs to be as self sufficient as possible within the MLSE umbrella. TFC can't rely on MLSE profits derived from other operations to fund their projects or expansion.

Events such as the Real Madrid match and Edu transfer or how TFC is going to fund the turf and hopefully stadium expansion.

TFC isn't an MLSE charity!

[Beach_Red]

Sorry I meant the Leafs not Jays. My point is that MLSE should have been trying to convince city council during and after year 1 instead of year 3. Before it cost us Darren Huckerby and who knows who else along with probably 2 or 3 home playoff dates. I know it is not in MLSE's nature to build an alternate facility for community use, buyout the deal with the city, and put grass in at BMO but that is exactly what they should have done 2 minutes after Danny Dichio scored that goal to draw New England October 20th, 2007.


But really, you would have thought after the Big Owein Montreal and the SktDome debacle governments would ave stayed far, far away from sports venues.

What MLSE should do is build their own stadium.

[Gazza_55]

TFC has made over $30 million? Source please???

Since when does MLSE own the Jays??? Edit: I see you've corrected yourself. Cool.

FYI, the waiting list for tickets is 16,000.

As I have said before, and elsewhere on the forum the other day, TFC needs to be as self sufficient as possible within the MLSE umbrella. TFC can't rely on MLSE profits derived from other operations to fund their projects or expansion.

Events such as the Real Madrid match and Edu transfer or how TFC is going to fund the turf and hopefully stadium expansion.

TFC isn't an MLSE charity!

The source is my calculator and my eyes. So when KJ of the Score tells me TFC will make $3m plus on the Real Madrid match I take out my calculator and add or multiply.

16,000 tickets sold at the practise at $15
21,500 tickets sold for the match at an average of let's say $125
Merchandise for 2 nights
Concessions for two nights.
Signage. TV rights to GOLTV (which MLSE owns).
Real Madrid paying for the grass.
Subtract RM's fee.
etc

[ensco]

But going back in time to the beginning NOBODY was talking about grass and practice facilities. The fans weren't clamouring for it, and neither were the players. It only became an issue over the course of time.


Yes. This issue is what got me to start posting here in May 2007 (I had been lurking for months). The players weren't talking about it publicly. The only person on here in those days (that I recall) who understood that we had to have grass was ExiledRed. 80-90% of the posts on this topic were strongly supportive of fieldturf because it was the way of the future, and because of our climate. BBtB, one of the most admired of all RPBs, was a stanch, vocal defender of fieldturf.

I remember exactly how the tide turned. Beckham and Staltieri, separately, ripped the turf in public in August 2007. Once that happened, it all began to change. By mid 2008, Mo himself had come out against turf.

[Pookie]

Forbes has TFC on gross revenues of $17M in 2007 with a net operating profit of $2.1M.

[this is joga]

TFC isn't an MLSE charity!

well said!

why do so many people think that TFC/MLSE owns them something?
they gave us a professional soccer club in the top flight in North America for a price that no pro league can beat... and in return we give them our support. thats it! plan and simple - if you decide that TFC/MLSE is doing you wrong, please stop supporting this club and f'off.

ENOJY IT!

[boban]

The evidence I have is the same evidence everyone has, meaning it's not insider information, it's news reports of meetings with school boards in etobicoke, with local councils in that area and in Toronto, and in interviews with MLSE employees. Judging by all this it appears like a real sincere attempt to obtain a suitable facility where the community use of BMO can be maintained. The fact that it takes time to accomplish this doesn't make it any less important for MLSE or means they are hiding something. Of course they COULD really be hiding something, but this is alot of wasted time and effort to do all this work only to have other motives, companies don't work like that, they don't throw money away to play some game with people, companies do things that add value to them and benefit them in the long run.
Then you should sit down.
I have more insider info than that and I am not in the inside. And these guys are crooks. Companies should make money, but not rob you blind.

[mmmikey]

re MLSE, I plead guilty to ingratitude and distrust. We wouldn't have the team if it wasn't for them, I know that. But I 'm not some vassal pledging lifetime support to my overlords either. TFC is a big league setup (this wasn't a foregone conclusion in 2005) and deserves a big league playing surface now.

Putting in grass will cost a lot of money, each and every year. I'm worried that the beancounters will look for ways to weasel out. Pawel, the people involved with the ACC are the exact same people who are involved in this. That's pretty relevant.

I can understand this. Mlse has earned the lack of trust that's for sure. I just can't help but feel that TFC is a bit of a different situation. The relative budgets between tfc and the other franchises is so different. I get the sense that they are much more willing to invest in what is totally a cash cow with so few expenses attached. Attendance is good, stadium expenses are low, salaries are dirt cheap... It makes good business sense for them to keep the ball rolling.

Watch them put in AstroTurf now :p

[Blizzard]

The source is my calculator and my eyes. So when KJ of the Score tells me TFC will make $3m plus on the Real Madrid match I take out my calculator and add or multiply.

16,000 tickets sold at the practise at $15
21,500 tickets sold for the match at an average of let's say $125
Merchandise for 2 nights
Concessions for two nights.
Signage. TV rights to GOLTV (which MLSE owns).
Real Madrid paying for the grass.
Subtract RM's fee.
etc

OK, let's say Kristian Jack is correct. How does this Real Madrid event have any bearing on your presumption that the club has made profits of $27 million over the past three years?

As "pookie" has noted, Forbes has written that the team grossed $17 million in 2007 with an operating profit of $2.1 million.

Those numbers would not have included stadium expenditures or the league franchise fee.

There is no way in Hades :reddevil: that MLSE has profited by $30 million since joining MLS.

B

[Dirk Diggler]

Yes. This issue is what got me to start posting here in May 2007 (I had been lurking for months). The players weren't talking about it publicly. The only person on here in those days (that I recall) who understood that we had to have grass was ExiledRed. 80-90% of the posts on this topic were strongly supportive of fieldturf because it was the way of the future, and because of our climate. BBtB, one of the most admired of all RPBs, was a stanch, vocal defender of fieldturf.

I remember exactly how the tide turned. Beckham and Staltieri, separately, ripped the turf in public in August 2007. Once that happened, it all began to change. By mid 2008, Mo himself had come out against turf.

Yep ... you are correct. I remember I did not mind the turf all that much in the early goings. However, it is only due to the rapidly detoritating state of the pitch that I changed my opinion. Also the fact that many players started complaining about it were factors as well. Initially I thought that players should suck it up but after a while, I realized that it does not matter whether field turf is a good surface or not ... as long as the players have a poor opinion of it, the perception alone will have more negative impact than any positive impact associated with fieldturf could off-set.

[boban]

OK, let's say Kristian Jack is correct. How does this Real Madrid event have any bearing on your presumption that the club has made profits of $27 million over the past three years?

As "pookie" has noted, Forbes has written that the team grossed $17 million in 2007 with an operating profit of $2.1 million.

Those numbers would not have included stadium expenditures or the league franchise fee.

There is no way in Hades :reddevil: that MLSE has profited by $30 million since joining MLS.

B
Numbers are always fudged and expenses made (depreciation) that don't really reflect the true cash profit.
Also keep in mind the Forbes number included was after franchise fee payback ($10 mil) and infrastructure payment payback ($8 mil). After this season both these debts will be paid off.
The Forbes number also only deals with MLS games. Canadian championship games have been added, and money is made off friendlies.
Come 2010 and two seasons after that, regardless of stadium expansion, $30 mill will be chicken shit compared to the profits they will make.

[olegunnar]

I can understand this. Mlse has earned the lack of trust that's for sure. I just can't help but feel that TFC is a bit of a different situation. The relative budgets between tfc and the other franchises is so different. I get the sense that they are much more willing to invest in what is totally a cash cow with so few expenses attached. Attendance is good, stadium expenses are low, salaries are dirt cheap... It makes good business sense for them to keep the ball rolling.

Watch them put in AstroTurf now :p


don't forget the projections were for only 14,000 in year one.
blowing that out of the water made year one a party on both sides...ours and theres. lots of us were fooled into believing we mattered.

now that they've adjusted the budgets...had some successful trial balloons (north end stand, real madrid game and practice at stupid prices) it'll become more and more obvious that we're just account numbers and $$ signs.


how many times will we have to hear...."if you don't like it you don't have to buy it"??? The front office even tells people this.

So no...it's not a different situation.

The only time it'll change is in a couple of years after they've milked this crap show for all it's worth and BMO is like Toyota park...then they'll pretend to like us again

[jloome]

don't forget the projections were for only 14,000 in year one.
blowing that out of the water made year one a party on both sides...ours and theres. lots of us were fooled into believing we mattered.

now that they've adjusted the budgets...had some successful trial balloons (north end stand, real madrid game and practice at stupid prices) it'll become more and more obvious that we're just account numbers and $$ signs.


how many times will we have to hear...."if you don't like it you don't have to buy it"??? The front office even tells people this.

So no...it's not a different situation.

The only time it'll change is in a couple of years after they've milked this crap show for all it's worth and BMO is like Toyota park...then they'll pretend to like us again

Cynical but true.

[boban]

The only time it'll change is in a couple of years after they've milked this crap show for all it's worth and BMO is like Toyota park...then they'll pretend to like us again
Or by doing the fans, and this city, a favour by divesting themselves from the team.

[DowntownTO]

I hope they keep the grass for a little bit atleast.. so that I could have a game or two on it.

[Shakes McQueen]

We need to keep the pressure on MLSE. Remember those statements Anselmi gave a few months back, stating that they were willing to foot the bill to do it, and were looking to install grass hopefully next season? We need to hold him that, and make sure they do everything in their power to get it done.

Ultimately the decision lies with the city too, so we need to put pressure on them too. Get this story in papers - get sports talk shows talking about it. Make some enormous banners, and start bringing them to every home game.

- Scott

[Pawel]

Then you should sit down.
I have more insider info than that and I am not in the inside. And these guys are crooks. Companies should make money, but not rob you blind.
:picard: whatever dude, if you feel you're being robbed blind don't go to a game, give me a break.

[Davenport]

Toronto Star report today quoted some twat from MLSE saying that a permanent grass pitch would cost $3.5 million.
Who the f*** are they trying to kid ?
They must think we've just landed......
I've had enough, the wankers.

[Shakes McQueen]

Toronto Star report today quoted some twat from MLSE saying that a permanent grass pitch would cost $3.5 million.
Who the f*** are they trying to kid ?
They must think we've just landed......
I've had enough, the wankers.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. It's more than the grass. They would need to tear up the centr of the stadium completely, to install things like proper pitch drainage. And knowing MLSE, I wouldn't be surprised to see undersoil heating too.

- Scott

[Rudi]

Wouldn't surprise me at all. It's more than the grass. They would need to tear up the centr of the stadium completely, to install things like proper pitch drainage. And knowing MLSE, I wouldn't be surprised to see undersoil heating too.

- Scott
You mean natural turf would cost more than simply throwing some dirt and grass seed on top of the artificial turf would?

Who knew? :D

[MartinUtd]

And generally you don't renovate a stadium a month after it's built.

Even if the bolts are coming loose and theres torn off sheet metal?

[Shakes McQueen]

You mean natural turf would cost more than simply throwing some dirt and grass seed on top of the artificial turf would?

Who knew? :D

Well, I was explaining it for the benefit of the person who thought it wouldn't cost a lot of money, not myself, haha.

It has to be kept in mind that the expense is more than just installing all of the new equipment too - it also means the expense of tearing out the old infrstructure, probably digging down further, etc.

It's not just like making a big flower box on concrete, and throwing some grass seed around. :D

- Scott

[Blizzard]

Toronto Star report today quoted some twat from MLSE saying that a permanent grass pitch would cost $3.5 million.
Who the f*** are they trying to kid ?
They must think we've just landed......
I've had enough, the wankers.

You don't have a clue do you. :picard:

B

[Rudi]

Well, I was explaining it for the benefit of the person who thought it wouldn't cost a lot of money, not myself, haha.

It has to be kept in mind that the expense is more than just installing all of the new equipment too - it also means the expense of tearing out the old infrstructure, probably digging down further, etc.

It's not just like making a big flower box on concrete, and throwing some grass seed around. :D

- Scott
Indeed.

There are a ton of things to be done in order for a professional grade natural turf to exist at BMO.

$3.5 million sounds entirely reasonable for such a project.

[jloome]

Indeed.

There are a ton of things to be done in order for a professional grade natural turf to exist at BMO.

$3.5 million sounds entirely reasonable for such a project.

I'd say that's low. MY understanding is that a temp pitch can cost $2.5M, so one with permanent underground heating and an irrigation system, clay cap drainage etc. would be well in excess of $3.5 M, I'd think.

[Inswingingwingman]

I saw someone stroking my newly installed sod in front of my house, and as I was baby sitting the grandson, and had read that they steal babies, I hid him in the attic and spun the thing on the end of the leather thong round and round and two wild turkeys showed up and chased the guy up the street. The guy was wearing mlse sunglasses and dark suit, glancing up and down the street to see if they might install beer vendors at 10 bucks for a wee glass. Sad.

[ensco]

^Coffee coming out of nose!

[deltox]

also, dont forget that TFC is owned by MLS.

MLSE owns 49% of the team.

so when we have sellout crowds and we have Real madrid playing here.....we give money to the league so it can be shared around.

all teams do this.


thats why its VERY IMPORTANT for all teams to have high attendance. when Dallas gets 6000 peeps to a game....to hurts us all

[Pookie]

There are two elements to cost.

Cost to install and cost to maintain.

Cost to install seems to be anywhere from $1.5M to $4M depending on the city (using NFL teams as examples). Obviously, teams with warm climates don't need to worry about "heating" systems. So, $3.5M is probably close.

On the maintenance front, have a read:

"Synthetic turfgrass costs more, a lot more, than natural grass to install and maintain, concludes a University of Missouri Extension turfgrass expert.

Brad Fresenburg, an MU Extension turfgrass specialist, recently completed a cost analysis of installing and maintaining natural and synthetic fields. He will present the analysis that includes yearly cost averages on Nov. 30 at the Heartland Green Industry Expo in Overland Park, Kan.

Fresenburg calculated the costs of four field options: a regular native soil-based grass field; a six-inch sand-capped natural grass field; a basic infill synthetic grass field; and a premium infill synthetic grass field.

In a 16-year scenario, Fresenburg came up with an annual average cost for each field type as follows: the natural soil-based field, $33,522; the sand-cap grass field, $49,318; the basic synthetic field, $65,846; and the premium synthetic field, $109,013.

Read More (http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass-costs.php)

[BMO Field]

Just so everyone is comfortable..3.5 M from knowledge is very realistic :)
That system would have top quality sod as well as an irrigating sytem and a glycol heating sytem below so the grass could be prepared well in advance of the season. And of course it would include a great drainage system..Hope that helps. I have been out of there for 4 months now but can assure you it had been on my agenda then. Cheers

PS. Thought it would be ok to resurface..

-Marc

[MG42]

Just so everyone is comfortable..3.5 M from knowledge is very realistic :)
That system would have top quality sod as well as an irrigating sytem and a glycol heating sytem below so the grass could be prepared well in advance of the season. And of course it would include a great drainage system..Hope that helps. I have been out of there for 4 months now but can assure you it had been on my agenda then. Cheers

PS. Thought it would be ok to resurface..

-Marc

sweet

[rocker]

Just so everyone is comfortable..3.5 M from knowledge is very realistic :)
That system would have top quality sod as well as an irrigating sytem and a glycol heating sytem below so the grass could be prepared well in advance of the season. And of course it would include a great drainage system..Hope that helps. I have been out of there for 4 months now but can assure you it had been on my agenda then. Cheers

PS. Thought it would be ok to resurface..

-Marc

ok, from your insider perspective is there any concerns from the CNE board about this conversion?? or are they pretty much on board if the city agrees to any community use proposals elsewhere?

[BMO Field]

Hey Rocker,
Actually an outsiders perspective now :)
The Board of Exhibition Place will be very sensitive to the community usage and will want to see that rectified.
I think that is the hold up right now, where will the relocate the community usage and in what section of the city.
I think it is a councillor issue and the constituents they represent,more than a board issue.

Only my opinion of course..

[Oldtimer]

Just so everyone is comfortable..3.5 M from knowledge is very realistic :)
That system would have top quality sod as well as an irrigating sytem and a glycol heating sytem below so the grass could be prepared well in advance of the season. And of course it would include a great drainage system..Hope that helps. I have been out of there for 4 months now but can assure you it had been on my agenda then. Cheers

PS. Thought it would be ok to resurface..

-Marc

Welcome back!

Hope you're new job is going well. :flare:

[BMO Field]

All is well thanks..
That reminds me..
Back to work

[mmmikey]

don't forget the projections were for only 14,000 in year one.
blowing that out of the water made year one a party on both sides...ours and theres. lots of us were fooled into believing we mattered.

now that they've adjusted the budgets...had some successful trial balloons (north end stand, real madrid game and practice at stupid prices) it'll become more and more obvious that we're just account numbers and $$ signs.


how many times will we have to hear...."if you don't like it you don't have to buy it"??? The front office even tells people this.

So no...it's not a different situation.

The only time it'll change is in a couple of years after they've milked this crap show for all it's worth and BMO is like Toyota park...then they'll pretend to like us again

while i agree with u that MLSE will always try to fleece us for every dollar, im not sure that is reason enough to believe they won't make improvements to the end product. i.e. grass field.

MLSE is an entirely profit driven sports company (to state the obvious :), but it doesn't mean they will pinch EVERY penny along the way. so given the proposals and work they have already put into it, i believe they still see a chance to improve their revenue from the soccer community by plowing in what is a relatively small investment for them (especially given the Edu money being held by MLS). lets face it, if they didn't think they could make money off a grass field, or at the least protect their current investment, we would never hear a peep about grass.

don't get me wrong, i don't believe they want to give the players a grass surface cause it's better for them. i think they want to get the grass surface cause ultimately, it's better for MLSE.

i would love to see someone buy TFC from MLSE. actually, buy all of the teams from MLSE. being owned by what is ultimately an investment fund totally SUCKS as a sports fan, since bottom line will ALWAYS be priorities the most important thing to them (and 2nd most, and 3rd most).

[Tyler Durden]

what a treat it was to see the boys playing on grass....the ball didnt bounce along the field it actually stayed down.....

quality went up in that game by 100%...now its back to university style soccer guys....enjoy

[bertal]

what a treat it was to see the boys playing on grass....the ball didnt bounce along the field it actually stayed down.....

quality went up in that game by 100%...now its back to university style soccer guys....enjoy

i was so happy about that!