PDA

View Full Version : Could it be?



David
06-09-2008, 08:01 PM
I was thinking of a very, VERY flattering yet unlikely scenario as to why were so good at home and so shite on the road. Perhaps our home field advantage counts a hell of a lot more then we'd all think and we actually scare the other team shitless cause they dont know what to expect each time they come play here so theyre always off their game which TFC is able to capatilize on every time. And then when we go on the road we don't necassary play like shite its just that the other teams are actually playing at their normal caliber which makes us look like were playing like shite...

:rolleyes:

shaggingscot
06-09-2008, 08:05 PM
I was thinking of a very, VERY flattering yet unlikely scenario as to why were so good at home and so shite on the road. Perhaps our home field advantage counts a hell of a lot more then we'd all think and we actually scare the other team shitless cause they dont know what to expect each time they come play here so theyre always off their game which TFC is able to capatilize on every time. And then when we go on the road we don't necassary play like shite its just that the other teams are actually playing at their normal caliber which makes us look like were playing like shite...

:rolleyes:

No...there are far too many experienced players in MLS now that have played on far bigger stages than BMO.

I actually however think the pitch favours a team who passes well and we seem to hold the ball a far sight better at home than we do on the natural stuff away from home.

ExiledRed
06-09-2008, 08:15 PM
I was thinking of a very, VERY flattering yet unlikely scenario as to why were so good at home and so shite on the road. Perhaps our home field advantage counts a hell of a lot more then we'd all think and we actually scare the other team shitless cause they dont know what to expect each time they come play here so theyre always off their game which TFC is able to capatilize on every time. And then when we go on the road we don't necassary play like shite its just that the other teams are actually playing at their normal caliber which makes us look like were playing like shite...

:rolleyes:

So you think the pitch alters the integrity of the game significantly?

me too

shaggingscot
06-09-2008, 08:17 PM
So you think the pitch alters the integrity of the game significantly?

me too

I'm fairly sure he meant the support and not the rug itself.

ExiledRed
06-09-2008, 08:28 PM
Oh, cause I think that we play better on BMO-turf than any team in the league, which gives us an advantage when we play on BMO-turf.

We've forgotten how to play on grass maybe?

shaggingscot
06-09-2008, 08:32 PM
Oh, cause I think that we play better on BMO-turf than any team in the league, which gives us an advantage when we play on BMO-turf.

We've forgotten how to play on grass maybe?

There's something to that theory, I know when my indoor season finished and we moved back outside on to the real stuff my passes were off. Granted the pitches I play on are shite with long grass and holes here and there but even the finest manicured pitches still have to be a bit slower than the rug?

noochie
06-09-2008, 11:40 PM
Oh, cause I think that we play better on BMO-turf than any team in the league, which gives us an advantage when we play on BMO-turf.

We've forgotten how to play on grass maybe?

I have been trolling around and I gotta say Red, there is no mistaking where you stand on the turf :) I counted at least 4 threads in the last 24hrs ;)

In this case I agree with you though... they can't play on grass. They have become so accustomed to the speed of the turf from training and gameday that they have forgotten how to play on grass. They should lead up to an away game on grass by doing training sessions outside of BMO on a grass surface for the week and leave the home game training sessions to BMO.

TFCtorcida
06-09-2008, 11:51 PM
i've played on the turf at hershey sportzone which is supposed to be the same turf thats at BMO and its not bad for turf but its completely different than grass. I dont know why FIFA and MLS allow turf. every pro stadium in the world should be grass, no turf.

ExiledRed
06-10-2008, 12:15 AM
i've played on the turf at hershey sportzone which is supposed to be the same turf thats at BMO and its not bad for turf but its completely different than grass. I dont know why FIFA and MLS allow turf. every pro stadium in the world should be grass, no turf.

If this forum used it's 'thankyou' facility I would just thank your post by clicking on 'thankyou'

instead I must quote you and add QFT

bhoybobby
06-10-2008, 08:07 AM
If this forum used it's 'thankyou' facility I would just thank your post by clicking on 'thankyou'

instead I must quote you and add QFT

You're like a dog with a bone of the turf issue, you incorrigible c___t!:D

Yeah the field turf gives them an advantage, but the haven't forgot how to play on grass, BMO's a vary welcoming place for TFC. I'd say the home support truly is a 12th man.

& oh yeah, I like field turf:)

ExiledRed
06-10-2008, 08:12 AM
& oh yeah, I like field turf:)

Probably because you dont have to risk your own fat arse on it any more, you surly twat:D

Shaughno
06-10-2008, 08:19 AM
I've played at BMO in basically the best and worst of conditions. Mind you I don't do it on a daily basis but, I love it.

In the rain, it gets a bit slippy but there is no chunks of grass coming up, no mud puddles and best of it all drains way faster.

In the cold the pitch doesn't get frosty like grass does.

In the extreme heat, it plays much nicer than a solid grass field does because it doesn't harden up as much. My only gripe is the black rubber definitely gets WAY too hot on a sunny day. So much so that your feet feel like they are on fire at times.

That said, I would love to get grass in BMO but I don't see it happening. Why bother keep debating the same thing over and over??

Oldtimer
06-10-2008, 08:25 AM
It's not just the turf, it's us.

ExiledRed
06-10-2008, 08:33 AM
That said, I would love to get grass in BMO but I don't see it happening. Why bother keep debating the same thing over and over??

Because you're bored with the debate, it should stop?

Because you dont see it happening, it wont happen?

The issue is topical and is being debated outside these boards by media, players, coaches, FIFA etc....

Why should we ignore a relevant, topical subject that concerns our team directly? I dont understand.

ExiledRed
06-10-2008, 08:38 AM
You also have to concede, Jay, that you are not an elite player or relatively close to that level so your experience with playing on turf isnt relevant.

When a decent player comes out and repeats what you said, I will take notice.

As it is, players only talk about turf in a negative or neutral fashion, I have yet to read anything from the people who actually have to play on it every week, that is even a quarter as positive as that.

You're the canada fan anyway, wouldnt you rather see your national team play in Toronto?

pat416
06-10-2008, 08:40 AM
When they stop renting out BMO all the time they will put grass on the pitch.

Shaughno
06-10-2008, 08:43 AM
You also have to concede, Jay, that you are not an elite player or relatively close to that level so your experience with playing on turf isnt relevant.

When a decent player comes out and repeats what you said, I will take notice.

As it is, players only talk about turf in a negative or neutral fashion, I have yet to read anything from the people who actually have to play on it every week, that is even a quarter as positive as that.

You're the canada fan anyway, wouldnt you rather see your national team play in Toronto?


Right, I'm not an elite player but I have a hell of a lot more experience on turf than most people that debate the subject.

The media is always going to glorify anything negative that is said. No words about the turf from the majority of players speaks volumes IMO. The players who do speak out against the turf are usually older, injured or whiney players from what I've seen. When a 25 year old player in his prime complains, I'll give it some weight.

Of course I'd rather see the National team play in Toronto, I'd also love to see BMO get grass first to get the ball rolling. Unfortuntely, it doesn't look like it is in the cards in the near future. I have yet to see a valid proposed idea about finding a way to get grass into BMO that would be taken seriously by those that are actually involved in making the decision.

Shaughno
06-10-2008, 08:45 AM
When they stop renting out BMO all the time they will put grass on the pitch.

So when they stop making a shit load of money? Not gonna happen. They (city) make so much money off the rental of that field, there is no valid reason for them to think about real grass. In the winter, they can rent out three 1/3 pitches at something like $75 an hour... all day long, all week long. That's a LOT of money to lose out on.

ExiledRed
06-10-2008, 08:45 AM
When they stop renting out BMO all the time they will put grass on the pitch.

I think the money they make from renting it out is less than a players salary. MLSE could cover the figure easily.

The problem is, alternative facilities have to be made available for all the hugely important things that happen there, like the frisbee league and the pub team league, and the dog shows.

ExiledRed
06-10-2008, 08:52 AM
The media is always going to glorify anything negative that is said. No words about the turf from the majority of players speaks volumes IMO.


It speaks volumes to me as well.

TFC players who've said negative things about the turf = gone.

Ronnie O Brien also pointed out that they're not ALLOWED to say negative things about the turf, because then they will be....gone.

The National team players dont have to worry about pissing off MLSE though, so theyre quite open about it, according to Paul Stalteri, the pitch is shite and it badly affects the integrity of the game.
Radz doesnt like it, DeRo (Hairy goofball twat) doesn't like it.

By the way, were in the market for older, injury prone, whiney players or hadnt you noticed?

Shaughno
06-10-2008, 08:55 AM
I think the money they make from renting it out is less than a players salary. MLSE could cover the figure easily.

The problem is, alternative facilities have to be made available for all the hugely important things that happen there, like the frisbee league and the pub team league, and the dog shows.


Really? I'm just doing some rough math here...

Winter bubble: Open 7 days a week, 8am-12am (I believe) = 16 hours.
Assuming all three thirds are rented the entire time @ $75 an hour, that's $225 an hour for the whole field. Works out to about $3600 per day. $25k per week. $100k per month. Assuming 4-5 months of bubble usage, $400k for the winter. Now obviously that's not taking into account the cost to run the facility, but you get the point. I'm sure it's more than a players salary for the entire year of public usage but that's not inluding any concerts or whatever else get's held there. Not that MLSE couldn't cover the cost regardless, I think for them it's a why the fuck would we?!

Shaughno
06-10-2008, 08:56 AM
It speaks volumes to me as well.

TFC players who've said negative things about the turf = gone.

Ronnie O Brien also pointed out that they're not ALLOWED to say negative things about the turf, because then they will be....gone.

The National team players dont have to worry about pissing off MLSE though, so theyre quite open about it, according to Paul Stalteri, the pitch is shite and it badly affects the integrity of the game.
Radz doesnt like it, DeRo (Hairy goofball twat) doesn't like it.

By the way, were in the market for older, injury prone, whiney players or hadnt you noticed?

Yeah so maybe it's a good thing we have the turf so we can look into younger, healthy players. ;)

Also, I don't just mean in Toronto. Look around the world. Celtic, United, Arsenal, etc. etc. use high grade field turf for their training grounds, so it can't be that hated by players around the world. I'm sure someone would have said something about it if it was that bad.

ExiledRed
06-10-2008, 08:59 AM
Really? I'm just doing some rough math here...

Winter bubble: Open 7 days a week, 8am-12am (I believe) = 16 hours.
Assuming all three thirds are rented the entire time @ $75 an hour, that's $225 an hour for the whole field. Works out to about $3600 per day. $25k per week. $100k per month. Assuming 4-5 months of bubble usage, $400k for the winter. Now obviously that's not taking into account the cost to run the facility, but you get the point. I'm sure it's more than a players salary for the entire year of public usage but that's not inluding any concerts or whatever else get's held there. Not that MLSE couldn't cover the cost regardless, I think for them it's a why the fuck would we?!

The figures last year, put the cities gain from BMO at something like $600,000 - $800,000 if I remember correctly.

Not silly money at all, considering MLSE makes tens of millions due to the BMO sponsorship deal.

rocker
06-10-2008, 09:02 AM
I was thinking of a very, VERY flattering yet unlikely scenario as to why were so good at home and so shite on the road. Perhaps our home field advantage counts a hell of a lot more then we'd all think and we actually scare the other team shitless cause they dont know what to expect each time they come play here so theyre always off their game which TFC is able to capatilize on every time. And then when we go on the road we don't necassary play like shite its just that the other teams are actually playing at their normal caliber which makes us look like were playing like shite...

:rolleyes:

the thing is, TFC is not the only team to do well at home and badly on the road. 11 of 14 MLS teams do better at home than on the road.

Houston, for example, plays on a grass field and is undefeated at home but only 1 win (and three losses) on the road.

DC United has a grass field, and their 3-2 at home and 1-5-1 on the road.

So when you look at the broader league, it's not unusual to perform better at home no matter what your surface is.

Even in the Premiership, the best teams do better at home than on the road.

Shaughno
06-10-2008, 09:02 AM
The figures last year, put the cities gain from BMO at something like $600,000 - $800,000 if I remember correctly.

Not silly money at all, considering MLSE makes tens of millions due to the BMO sponsorship deal.


Like I said, they could cover it if they wanted to but why would they? What's in it for MLSE? They are a business, they want to make money. Would you rather make or give away $600-800k?

bhoybobby
06-10-2008, 09:05 AM
I'm marking exiled as undecided on the field turf, I think he's coming round to being a proponent of the stuff though! lol

ExiledRed
06-10-2008, 09:05 AM
Like I said, they could cover it if they wanted to but why would they? What's in it for MLSE? They are a business, they want to make money. Would you rather make or give away $600-800k?

I would rather develop the product, to make more money in the future, and to prevent diminishing returns. That is a viable business strategy isnt it?

OneLoveOneEric
06-10-2008, 09:10 AM
Not to interrupt the field turf debate, but here are my two thoughts on we we don't win away from home.
1. Tactics, tactics, tactics. Our game works at home. Which seems to be score ASAP, then sit back. Very tough to do this away, and Carver needs to address that.
2. Our players aren't as good as we think (hope?) they are. They are buoyed by home support, and in ideal conditions can put together a solid 90 minutes. Upset the routine in any way -- plane trip, new field, no home fans, any slight tactical shifts, etc. -- and things go tits up. "Growing pains" are definitely part of this too.

OneLoveOneEric
06-10-2008, 09:15 AM
I would rather develop the product, to make more money in the future, and to prevent diminishing returns. That is a viable business strategy isnt it?

Exiled,
you've lost it as soon as you start viewing MLSE as a rational business entity :)

Shaughno
06-10-2008, 10:05 AM
Exiled,
you've lost it as soon as you start viewing MLSE as a rational business entity :)


Profit first, think later. :lol:

ensco
06-10-2008, 10:19 AM
That said, I would love to get grass in BMO but I don't see it happening. Why bother keep debating the same thing over and over??

What is it that you don't see?

That the national team doesn't view the NSS as it's home field?

That fieldturf is affecting the acceptance of MLS in the soccer community, and that MLSE must see that the value of its team will surely be limited in the long-run because of fieldturf?

That, as a very senior member of TFC mgmt said to me at the kickoff party, "we needed a deal with fieldturf in order to get the team, and now we have to figure out how to get rid of the turf"?

That the Argos interest in BMO, and the silence of all the other parties affected (MLSE, BMO Field, the City) indicates that the the size, shape and usage of BMO are all subject to renegotiation/revision?

That the City's ultimate interest is in more facilities, and that if MLSE build a new home for the bubble, everybody wins?

I don't see it not happening. There will be grass. Count on it.

BeachRed
06-10-2008, 10:24 AM
What is it that you don't see?

That the national team doesn't view the NSS as it's home field?

That fieldturf is affecting the acceptance of MLS in the soccer community, and that MLSE must see that the value of its team will surely be limited in the long-run because of fieldturf?

That, as a very senior member of TFC mgmt said to me at the kickoff party, "we needed a deal with fieldturf in order to get the team, and now we have to figure out how to get rid of the turf"?

That the Argos interest in BMO, and the silence of all the other parties affected (MLSE, BMO Field, the City) indicates that the the size, shape and usage of BMO are all subject to renegotiation/revision?

That the City's ultimate interest is in more facilities, and that if MLSE build a new home for the bubble, everybody wins?

I don't see it not happening. There will be grass. Count on it.


Well that's all far too logical and makes far too much sense....