PDA

View Full Version : BMO/TFC Exploring Real Turf Option



Batman
06-15-2008, 07:00 PM
I had an interesting discussion yesterday at BMO with Marc (BMOField).

He was telling me there is a study going on to see if BMO can be retrofitted to real grass of the lions share of the season.

Effectively they would keep field turf down for the off season and possibly the first and last month of the season. This way they don't kill the revenue of the field rentals.

I'm not sure if they would actually pull the field turf or put grass over top of it.

Anyway, this is being looked into. I expect it will be a while until we hear whether they decide its feasible, but its encouraging that it's being explored.

TFC Cityboy
06-15-2008, 07:01 PM
interesting and potentially good developments....

stugautz
06-15-2008, 07:07 PM
Sounds like a recipe for disaster. You guys can harp all you want about about the grass vs. turf issue, but NOTHING is worse than a chewed up field.

I'm all for grass, but if the field is still being rented out to community groups, it'll be in horrible condition for game days.

AL-MO
06-15-2008, 07:10 PM
I had an interesting discussion yesterday at BMO with Marc (BMOField).

He was telling me there is a serious study going on to see if BMO can be retrofitted to real grass of the lions share of the season.

Effectively they would keep field turf down for the off season and possibly the first and last month of the season. This way they don't kill the revenue of the field rentals.

I'm not sure if they would actually pull the field turf or put grass over top of it.

Anyway, this is being looked into. I expect it will be a while until we hear whether they decide its feasible, but its encouraging that it's being explored.


I have been saying this ever since the Grass/Turf arguments came up. It is possible and it would benefit ALL parties.

olegunnar
06-15-2008, 07:20 PM
That usually never works out and ends up being a worse surface. Examples: Gillete for the gold Cup, Moscow for the Champions League, Qwest field for the Brazil/Canada friendly. They're usually crappy and dangerous surfaces.

I guess it would satisfy the players that are anti turf, but it chances are it wouldn't be an upgrade in pitch quality.

OneLoveOneEric
06-15-2008, 07:21 PM
Will never work. Relaying a pitch every year makes for a shit, torn up pitch. They do it at Stamford Bridge twice a year, and it is like a sand lot. Every time you pull up a pitch and re-lay it, it takes ages to really get bedded down again. It will be a disaster, like the pitch n Moscow for the Champion's League final this year.

NF-FC
06-15-2008, 07:24 PM
an example of good grass over turf is Stade de Suisse in Berne. it currently has real grass laid over artificial turf. the difference is that it has had 2 months to bed in as opposed to gillette stadiums couple days

stugautz
06-15-2008, 07:27 PM
an example of good grass over turf is Stade de Suisse in Berne. it currently has real grass laid over artificial turf. the difference is that it has had 2 months to bed in as opposed to gillette stadiums couple days


Should be noted that neither of those fields will be open to community use during the season.

OneLoveOneEric
06-15-2008, 07:37 PM
Typical City of Toronto stupid-assed bandaid solution.

MisterMacphisto
06-15-2008, 07:38 PM
Hey... at least they are exploring options. This can't be a bad thing.
You never know, maybe they discover a brand new method of using both that works.

Cambridge_Red
06-15-2008, 07:52 PM
This was done at Rogers Centre/Skydome for those Euro friends a few years back wasn't it?

rocker
06-15-2008, 08:11 PM
The Galaxy seem to uproot their grass field every season. Last year they had the X-games in there with all the dirt mounds and then they just resodded.
Edmonton re-sods their field every year for the CFL (that's why it looked like shit for the LA/Whitecaps friendly -- they were a few weeks from doing the annual rip up and resod.

If they decided to have grass for the summer and not have community use until the field turf is back on, then it wouldn't be so bad. It all depends on whether they roll away the turf and put down the grass or put the grass on top of the turf. The first option is OK, the second is shit.

greatwhitenorf
06-15-2008, 08:12 PM
MisterMac: Good of you to point out the exploration of options. They could just as easily say 'We love money, the city loves money, screw grass.'

Instead, a natural surface is finally being viewed as important because the long-term viability of TFC and the game of soccer in general, has passed the tipping point. I'll leave it to bigger minds to do the working out of technical details about how to have grass in spring, summer and fall, and turf in winter. But surely it's an achievable goal.

If this club fulfills its potential and meets its achievable goals, we will have somewhere between 25 and 30 TFC games every year at BMO Field. The desire to play them on grass in order to attract the best available players to take TFC to the highest competitive level will be a primary reason to install grass.

Add in the games to be played by national teams re-attracted to playing in the stadium by the natural grass surface and a seven-month playing season with 40 top-flight pro or national-team games is not unrealistic.

The next smart thing to do would be to add in about 7,500 new seats. With added capacity, the CSA could look at lowering ticket prices for national team games to a point where no one who enjoys soccer could resist. Full houses result, atmosphere goes way up, everybody wins.

Except anyone looking to re-locate the Argos to the archetype soccer specific stadium in North America.

Batman
06-15-2008, 08:23 PM
Nicely said GreatWhite North.

I'm pleased the team is looking into it, and hope we have it done for next spring.

denime
06-15-2008, 08:29 PM
This was done at Rogers Centre/Skydome for those Euro friends a few years back wasn't it?
It was for few days and two games only,not the whole summer and everyday use.

SilverSamurai
06-15-2008, 08:34 PM
MisterMac: Good of you to point out the exploration of options. They could just as easily say 'We love money, the city loves money, screw grass.'

Instead, a natural surface is finally being viewed as important because the long-term viability of TFC and the game of soccer in general, has passed the tipping point. I'll leave it to bigger minds to do the working out of technical details about how to have grass in spring, summer and fall, and turf in winter. But surely it's an achievable goal.

If this club fulfills its potential and meets its achievable goals, we will have somewhere between 25 and 30 TFC games every year at BMO Field. The desire to play them on grass in order to attract the best available players to take TFC to the highest competitive level will be a primary reason to install grass.

Add in the games to be played by national teams re-attracted to playing in the stadium by the natural grass surface and a seven-month playing season with 40 top-flight pro or national-team games is not unrealistic.

The next smart thing to do would be to add in about 7,500 new seats. With added capacity, the CSA could look at lowering ticket prices for national team games to a point where no one who enjoys soccer could resist. Full houses result, atmosphere goes way up, everybody wins.

Except anyone looking to re-locate the Argos to the archetype soccer specific stadium in North America.
While I would LOVE for the stadium to be expanded, I think 7,500 is too much for now. Maybe 3-5k.
Anyways, I'm just happy about grass being considered! That's a start!

As for the CSA lowering prices, if they can sell tickets for $10-30 at Saputo w/ a small capacity, why can't the CSA do it here? Hopefully they've learned their lesson from the last game to help ensure a fuller and pro Canuck crowd support.

ExiledRed
06-15-2008, 08:49 PM
While I would LOVE for the stadium to be expanded, I think 7,500 is too much for now. Maybe 3-5k.
Anyways, I'm just happy about grass being considered! That's a start!

As for the CSA lowering prices, if they can sell tickets for $10-30 at Saputo w/ a small capacity, why can't the CSA do it here? Hopefully they've learned their lesson from the last game to help ensure a fuller and pro Canuck crowd support.

Maybe 3-5k?

Is this based on your own personal guesswork or good Research and development, and market study?

I'm just wondering how you came up with this figure.

Dirk Diggler
06-15-2008, 08:50 PM
This sounds intriguing, although I wonder if it would be further ahead to go with a much simpler alternative ala the Lamport Stadium route or something similar. The whole sod-resod process sounds like a recipe for disaster, especially if they plan on taking off and applying the field turf a month into and end of the season respectively. I don't think the feasibility studies will come back positive but atleast this shows that all the parties involved are serious about this issue and that our concerns aren't falling into deaf ears.

SilverSamurai
06-15-2008, 09:33 PM
Maybe 3-5k?

Is this based on your own personal guesswork or good Research and development, and market study?

I'm just wondering how you came up with this figure.


It's a random #. I say fill in the north end. Then worry about filling in the corners.
Better to slowly expand, than to have empty seats.
And yes I am a student by day, researcher by night. ;):hide::party::auto:

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-15-2008, 09:49 PM
It's a random #. I say fill in the north end. Then worry about filling in the corners.
Better to slowly expand, than to have empty seats.
And yes I am a student by day, researcher by night. ;):hide::party::auto:

we'd be like columbus!!!

Denis
06-15-2008, 10:16 PM
We've done not too bad on our FieldTurf so far this season...

Marco2K
06-15-2008, 10:19 PM
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.abola.pt/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Da%2Bbola%26hl%3Den


take a look at that. They played on it today. And looked real damn green.


And they are putting a new one in buy the middle of the week.

And we have to play on rubber grass. It does not make sense.

We have done well at BMO cause its a fortress.

if we have real grass we will attract BIGGER PLAYERS

J .
06-15-2008, 10:22 PM
I like the idea and wouldn't mind seeing a year of that as an experiment. I don't mind the field turf too much anyway. It is there and hasn't ruined my enjoyment at the games.

In terms of stadium expansion. No thanks, there are still too many people there as passengers who don't sing etc. We have not yet hit critical mass in the south end.

LucaGol
06-15-2008, 10:26 PM
We have to get this bloody grass.

I mean...how much revenue can they possibly be making by renting the place out....Who the hell cares...there's plenty of soccer venues to play at.

We're potentially losing World Cup qualifiers, friendlies against big opponents, attracting higher profile players....and all because we play on rubber.

Dont be gay City of Toronto....give us the friggin grass....

The fans are pro...the team is pro...now lets make the stadium pro instead of second rate.


It's absolutely killing me watching the stadiums at EURO 2008 that are straight forward and basic....but first rate in design. BMO could compare with simple, relatively cheap upgrades.

ensco
06-15-2008, 10:33 PM
I do not believe there is a single person in TFC management (I don't know about the locker room, but can't imagine it's any different) who would agree with any of the people who want things to stay as they are.

Grass is coming - the debate is over. MLSE will foot the bill. The only question is where would the replacement facility be for the summer months.

LucaGol
06-15-2008, 10:37 PM
I do not believe there is a single person in TFC management (I don't know about the locker room, but can't imagine it's any different) who would agree with any of the people who want things to stay as they are.

Grass is coming - the debate is over. MLSE will foot the bill. The only question is where would the replacement facility be for the summer months.

I hope your right.

BMO will finally begin the process of becoming a proper ground.

ExiledRed
06-15-2008, 10:42 PM
I do not believe there is a single person in TFC management (I don't know about the locker room, but can't imagine it's any different) who would agree with any of the people who want things to stay as they are.

Grass is coming - the debate is over. MLSE will foot the bill. The only question is where would the replacement facility be for the summer months.

In the soon to be built, 30,000 seater 'national pointyball stadium' which will be the home of the Argos and the flagship stadium for CFL football.

It will also be a showcase for state of the art fieldturf, and another reason to bring the Olympics to TO.

why not?

djking2
06-16-2008, 08:49 AM
Skydome was built and run with public funds but sold to Sportsco when they woke up and realised the government new dick about running a stadium that was home to a pro sports franchise. Now Ted owns both stadium and team. I suspect within a few years MLSE will own the stadium for all of the reasons we've discussed here and we'll have our real grass. A few years will pass and the general public won't be too pissed at the percieved waste of public funds when it's sold

DOMIN8R
06-16-2008, 08:52 AM
Typical City of Toronto stupid-assed bandaid solution.

I'd be willing to bet that it's not the City looking into this. It would be BMO Field and/or TFC.

DOMIN8R
06-16-2008, 08:59 AM
Grass is coming - the debate is over. MLSE will foot the bill. The only question is where would the replacement facility be for the summer months.

The new and improved Lamport.;)

Ossington Mental Youth
06-16-2008, 09:02 AM
Good to hear.
I know there were complications elsewhere with this arrangement but id imagine that MLSE will go the whole hog and make sure that its done properly.

ensco
06-16-2008, 09:17 AM
In the soon to be built, 30,000 seater 'national pointyball stadium' which will be the home of the Argos and the flagship stadium for CFL football.

It will also be a showcase for state of the art fieldturf, and another reason to bring the Olympics to TO.

why not?

You are too scarred by the grass v turf battles on this board, Exiled!

MLSE won't spend a dime if the Argos come to BMO - that's the other major holdup (I forgot to mention it)

Fort York Redcoat
06-16-2008, 10:44 AM
Love ya Bats but this is company line. heard it months ago on the radio. Deflection tactic. BUT if they are getting more serious about it(read: tired of our complaining) it may lead to the right thing. Grass on turf is no better to players coming here. Common opinion is it's to slippery and as mentioned it gets torn up. They need to fully capitulate to grass or keep putting up with our bitching. A practise pitch and miniscule amounts of extra revenue should not counter the argument of attracting more players to our club. If it needs to be translated into $$$ it means more shirt sales MLSE.

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-16-2008, 10:49 AM
cant see all the problems with field turf, its our home advantage. with world cup games now being played on field turf...South africa the first, it might be the field of choice for clubs that can't afford to replace the grass after every season.

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 11:04 AM
cant see all the problems with field turf, its our home advantage. with world cup games now being played on field turf...South africa the first, it might be the field of choice for clubs that can't afford to replace the grass after every season.


We'll see how 2010 pans out.

Players and coaches are going to be verbally pissing all over those pitches, the winner will be suspect, losers will blame it, serious injuries will be highlighted and the whole affair will be a PR disaster for fieldturf.

After that we will never see Fieldturf used in a prestigious tournament, and it's credibility will be severely damaged worldwide.

South Africa was a bad choice, like China for the olympics.

Thats my prediction anyway.

James17930
06-16-2008, 11:14 AM
Okay -- forgive my ignorance, but someone's gonna have to fill in the blanks here.

Don't they use a type of natural/artificial hybrid at Anfield and the Emirates? Would not that be something to look in to? Seems to me it would be one pitch, which wouldn't have to be taken up or have something put down over it, which could be kept growing year-round with the investment in a lighting rig (which could be brought into the bubble in the winter).

Would that be feasible?

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-16-2008, 11:26 AM
Austrai and switzerland have artifical fields with grass layed on Top for Euro and seems to be holding up well, so it might work as BMO, but could MLSE afford the cost
of placing dirt and grass down?

Oldtimer
06-16-2008, 12:33 PM
Skydome was built and run with public funds but sold to Sportsco when they woke up and realised the government new dick about running a stadium that was home to a pro sports franchise. Now Ted owns both stadium and team. I suspect within a few years MLSE will own the stadium for all of the reasons we've discussed here and we'll have our real grass. A few years will pass and the general public won't be too pissed at the percieved waste of public funds when it's sold

The stadium cannot be sold, as the city does not have the right to sell Exhibition land.

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 12:46 PM
Okay -- forgive my ignorance, but someone's gonna have to fill in the blanks here.

Don't they use a type of natural/artificial hybrid at Anfield and the Emirates? Would not that be something to look in to? Seems to me it would be one pitch, which wouldn't have to be taken up or have something put down over it, which could be kept growing year-round with the investment in a lighting rig (which could be brought into the bubble in the winter).

Would that be feasible?

Only if TFC had exclusive use of the pitch.

The heated grass systems (not artificial or hybrid, merely an electric fibre sewn into every blade of grass.) are very expensive and not designed for public use.

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 12:48 PM
The stadium cannot be sold, as the city does not have the right to sell Exhibition land.

It can be rented exclusively, without contravening any legal parameters.

Wagner
06-16-2008, 01:06 PM
A big misconception about Turfgrass is that it's the same as your lawn.
people think that because they can maintain a relatively green lawn, than it can be done at BMO.

I do this stuff for a living.

to bring in a company like Dol Brothers (the guys that did lamport, and one of the top landscape/sportfield companies in the area) do put down a proper pitch, proper slope, specific grass mix etc...

$20,000-$30,000 annually

Irrigation system for the grass (i'm pretty sure BMO doesn't have an irrigation system.

$10,000 to $20,000

Now you're going to need a certified sportsgrounds keeper to maintain the field.
$50,000 to $60,000 (depending on benefits and stuff) per year.

And he'll probably have a student or two
$10,000 per year.

You'll need some equipment to maintain the grass.
Mower, Roller, Aerator, fertilizer spreader, edger.
$50,000 to $80,000 one time capital cost.
and $5000 a year in replacement money/parts/fuel.

Water for the irrigation.
$2,000 per year.

Also, fields have X amount of hours allowed, before the investment is lost.
so you couldn't have nearly as many bookings. You would need to schedule maintenance days. And be very strict with regards to cancellations so they would lose a few thousand in booking revenue.
let's say 12 rain occurences. what do they charge an hour $100? so let's say 6 books per day, 6 x 100 X 12 = -$7,200

Annual Costs
25,000 for turf installation
55,000 in salary
10,000 for students
5,000 for fuel.
2,000 for water.
7,200 in short fall from rain cancellations.
______________________
$104,200 in annual costs

Capital cost (one time equipment investment)
$20,000 for irrigation system.
$65,000 for equipment
______________
$85,000 one time investment.

sooooo.....
who do you think will ultimately pay for this?
when TFC made $1,000,000 in profit....so to appease the grass crowd...they are going to piss away 12% of their profit???

You have a better chance at having a roof built.

Wagner
06-16-2008, 01:42 PM
also,
look at how crappy houston looked.
i believe they play at a university stadium...
so multi-use, public rentals...etc...
and how crappy did it look with the chewed up goal mouths...
if/when we go "real grass"....there will be just as many complaints about how it doesn't look world class.

When we are as big as Arsenal, Bayern Munich, etc....then we can have turf that looks like theirs.

Do you think the fans of the Toledo Mudhens or Syracuse Chiefs are going crazy for a retractable roof, or a huge LCD scoreboard??? They know their roll.

We are lucky, we aren't pigeon holed as minor league, we grow as the league does....so as we grow, it might happen....but realize it's super expensive, and probably won't happen until something drastic happens, like the sale of the stadium to private interests.

Lucky Strike
06-16-2008, 02:04 PM
I've always preferred the FieldTurf anyway. It's much better than that green concrete at Rice-Eccles, it stays perfect, and other teams seem to bitch about it a lot that it gives us an advantage. Finally, it's approved by FIFA and I think people are just making a huge deal about grass. When I think about grass and heavy usage I think of that Vancouver vs. Los Angeles friendly not too long ago at Commonwealth. That was nightmarish.

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 02:14 PM
Wagner,

You arent factoring the sponsorship deals and clothes merchandising into the profits.

Your figure of $1 million is actually insignificant in comparison to the true money being made here, and $104,000 (If only that were the only cost of getting grass) would do FUCKALL to impact club profits negatively.

The final point is an acceptance that the field wiould and should be used publicly were it converted to grass, and ignores the pro grass argument that public use be diverted.

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 02:20 PM
It's not about appeasing the crowd either, it's about the viability and credibility of a professional football team, that needs to develop.

All of the arguments in favour of fieldturf have NOTHING to do with football.

Have you noticed that the game's integrity with respect to BMOturf is all commentators seem to talk about?
"look how the ball zings across that turf, the turf gives them a real advantage, that turf is going to be slippery tonight, They dont want to go down like that on that turf!...etc.. )

It's embarrassing to both TFC and MLS and the longer we have it, the less seriously either will be taken.

Wagner
06-16-2008, 02:23 PM
Wagner,

You arent factoring the sponsorship deals and clothes merchandising into the profits.

Your figure of $1 million is actually insignificant in comparison to the true money being made here, and $104,000 (If only that were the only cost of getting grass) would do FUCKALL to impact club profits negatively.

The final point is an acceptance that the field wiould and should be used publicly were it converted to grass, and ignores the pro grass argument that public use be diverted.

To quote some other RPB, that's the "Crux of the problem" (copyright TiT)...
who would pay for it?? MLSE are just tenants....and their upgrade would be to the detriment of the other tenants.

I 100% agree with you that the field should be mainly TFC's.
but, being that the place is 100% booked within months of opening...it shows the demand is there.
it's too bad that TFC was linked from the beginning to a public stadium/etc.... i guess it was a necessary evil to get the team here.

I'm all for more parks for youth soccer, i just wish it didn't interfere with my FOOTBALL team.

Wagner
06-16-2008, 02:25 PM
It's not about appeasing the crowd either, it's about the viability and credibility of a professional football team, that needs to develop.

All of the arguments in favour of fieldturf have NOTHING to do with football.

Have you noticed that the game's integrity with respect to BMOturf is all commentators seem to talk about?
"look how the ball zings across that turf, the turf gives them a real advantage, that turf is going to be slippery tonight, They dont want to go down like that on that turf!...etc.. )

It's embarrassing to both TFC and MLS and the longer we have it, the less seriously either will be taken.

you're right.
we're just looking at the same thing at different angles.

you are a voicing the side of the passionate fan.

I'm saying what i'd say from someone that does this stuff for a living, and doesn't want to see an increase in my tickets.

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 02:29 PM
Were not just 'tenants'

The stadium was designed for our tenancy and the national team's (who have walked away), without our tenancy it's a great big white elephant. The success of BMO field is dependent on the success of TFC.

This team has positively impacted local culture and economy, have the pub leagues?

The financial cost to losing the facility to public use is negligible, finding somewhere else to play 'ultimate frisbee' and stage rock concerts is the real issue.

The Ultimate Frisbee Tournament doesnt need a stadium like BMO, neither do all the other special interests.

BakaGaijin
06-16-2008, 02:46 PM
Were not just 'tenants'

The stadium was designed for our tenancy and the national team's (who have walked away), without our tenancy it's a great big white elephant. The success of BMO field is dependent on the success of TFC.

This team has positively impacted local culture and economy, have the pub leagues?

The financial cost to losing the facility to public use is negligible, finding somewhere else to play 'ultimate frisbee' and stage rock concerts is the real issue.

The Ultimate Frisbee Tournament doesnt need a stadium like BMO, neither do all the other special interests.

If MLSE is looking at bringing in grass for the warm months, they must be thinking about revenue and profit. BMO Field is not attracting international friendlies (non TFC related) or CMNT matches. The thought must be that if they lay down grass, they can pack a bunch of Brazil v.s Venezuala or Celtic v.s. Roma type of friendlies and make a killing on ticket sales and/or concessions/merch. If spending $300 000 a year on grass makes them $500 000 in profit...........there will be grass.

Azerban
06-16-2008, 02:49 PM
South Africa was a bad choice, like China for the olympics.


Exactly. I mean, we wouldn't have given the Olympics to Nazi Germany, why would we give it to a bunch of fuckin' communists?

BakaGaijin
06-16-2008, 03:45 PM
Exactly. I mean, we wouldn't have given the Olympics to Nazi Germany, why would we give it to a bunch of fuckin' communists?


However, Nazi Germany DID host the Olympics in 1936 :rolleyes:

Draracle
06-16-2008, 05:13 PM
Very interesting! I was talking with Dave Miller after the game and he admitted that the artificial turf has had some troubles. He implied that we would stick with it, but acknowledged that it is imperfect.

NF-FC
06-16-2008, 05:16 PM
However, Nazi Germany DID host the Olympics in 1936 :rolleyes:

im pretty sure that was his point

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 05:20 PM
However, Nazi Germany DID host the Olympics in 1936 :rolleyes:

But they weren't awarded the games, they inherited them.

Azerban
06-16-2008, 05:44 PM
having a country host an international games festival to force the media to highlight human rights abuses within their borders is not a bad thing

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 05:50 PM
Validating human rights abuses by awarding those responsible an international games festival is a bad idea in my book. Internal media in China will be unaffected and the Chinese never gave a fuck about international media perceptions just so long as their people didnt have access to international media.

Internal media can now say "look, we are a good people, be proud, we were awarded the olympic games, so we cant be all that bad, right?"

And back onto fieldturf.

it's shit.

RealG-TFC
06-16-2008, 05:51 PM
Toronto should've had it. Fucking Beijing...

Azerban
06-16-2008, 06:22 PM
And back onto fieldturf.

it's shit.

One day every single football game in the world will be played on fieldturf.

Does that blow your mind?

Dirk Diggler
06-16-2008, 06:28 PM
One day every single football game in the world will be played on fieldturf.

Does that blow your mind?

Do you work for FieldTurf?

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 06:33 PM
Do you work for FieldTurf?

Yes, he grows it on his head :D

TFC07
06-16-2008, 06:34 PM
Toronto should've had it. Fucking Beijing...

QFT.

MisterMacphisto
06-16-2008, 08:31 PM
also,
look at how crappy houston looked.
i believe they play at a university stadium...
so multi-use, public rentals...etc...
and how crappy did it look with the chewed up goal mouths...
if/when we go "real grass"....there will be just as many complaints about how it doesn't look world class.

When we are as big as Arsenal, Bayern Munich, etc....then we can have turf that looks like theirs.

Do you think the fans of the Toledo Mudhens or Syracuse Chiefs are going crazy for a retractable roof, or a huge LCD scoreboard??? They know their roll.

We are lucky, we aren't pigeon holed as minor league, we grow as the league does....so as we grow, it might happen....but realize it's super expensive, and probably won't happen until something drastic happens, like the sale of the stadium to private interests.

And somehow Saputo has grass.

Wagner
06-16-2008, 08:33 PM
And somehow Saputo has grass.

Is saputo entirely privately owned?
I don't think the stadium is rented out 16 hours per day.

the problem with Houston, is the same problem that BMO has....public access.

Edit:
i went to http://www.stadesaputo.com/Home/
it doesn't look like you can rent it.

if BMO was TFC only, i'm sure it would be grass.

TFC are just tenants.
To use public dollars to build the stadium, they had to make it accessible to the public.
too bad a local billionaire didn't step up....
is there a Mark Cuban of toronto....that could offer the city an amount they couldn't refuse for the stadium....

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-16-2008, 08:33 PM
However, Nazi Germany DID host the Olympics in 1936 :rolleyes:


don't forget Russia 1980..communists...Torontos olympic killer was no main transportation from Pearson and until they get that worked on
forget any TO Olympic bid.

nascarguy
06-16-2008, 08:39 PM
I'd be willing to bet that it's not the City looking into this. It would be BMO Field and/or TFC.
you forgot that csa wants it to and that if then find the right grass that we could get a team good to to come play for us, & we could get the big name player on our team to sign bmo field had a good look at my new banner at the last game

Roogsy
06-16-2008, 08:39 PM
But they weren't awarded the games, they inherited them.

I do believe that is partly correct.

While the Nazis may not have been in power when the Olympics were awarded to Germany, they did come to power during the debate as to whether they should keep them because of the shocking policies they were beginning to implement. (I learned this during an exhibition at the Holocaust museum a few weeks ago.)

ExiledRed
06-16-2008, 08:56 PM
nascars banners speak the truth, take heed.

ensco
06-16-2008, 09:37 PM
wow...an intelligent fieldturf v grass thread, with only good-humoured name calling, and actual facts and arguments...

Wagner: thank you for that data on the costs of maintenance for grass. You should know that the team made at least $4 million in 2007. The real question is what's the team worth, with or without grass. The danger for MLSE is that (notwithstanding the amazing success TFC have had in 2008 with guys who had no options), in the long run, better players just won't come. This seems particularly true for Canadians playing abroad. Will this impair long-term franchise value - if yes, then your figures are a pittance in comparison.

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-16-2008, 10:08 PM
wow...an intelligent fieldturf v grass thread, with only good-humoured name calling, and actual facts and arguments...

Wagner: thank you for that data on the costs of maintenance for grass. You should know that the team made at least $4 million in 2007. The real question is what's the team worth, with or without grass. The danger for MLSE is that (notwithstanding the amazing success TFC have had in 2008 with guys who had no options), in the long run, better players just won't come. This seems particularly true for Canadians playing abroad. Will this impair long-term franchise value - if yes, then your figures are a pittance in comparison.


wasn't it one million the team made, im sure thats what was quoted not 4million. if players won't play on field turf we don't want them, thats our
field for the moment and won't likely change anytime soon.

stugautz
06-16-2008, 10:25 PM
QFT.


Toronto should've had it. Fucking Beijing...

I doubt there would have been a TFC if we won the games.

denime
06-16-2008, 10:49 PM
don't forget Russia 1980..communists...Torontos olympic killer was no main transportation from Pearson and until they get that worked on
forget any TO Olympic bid.
Communists or not we can only dream to have subway stations decorated like Moskau:

http://beeflowers.com/Metro/

http://beeflowers.com/Metro/pages/01.htm


Moskau

http://i32.tinypic.com/mcwv14.jpg


;)Toronto

Blizzard
06-16-2008, 11:35 PM
wasn't it one million the team made, im sure thats what was quoted not 4million. if players won't play on field turf we don't want them, thats our
field for the moment and won't likely change anytime soon.

Neither. The stadium made $1 million.

As TFC is part of MLSE, a private company (not publicly traded), they are not obligated to announce earnings and such.

In otherwords, we have no idea if TFC made money or not. I'm not sure where the $4 million figure came from as I've never seen it before now.

Blizzard
06-16-2008, 11:36 PM
They are wonderful of course but remember that much of the fancy decor and art came from the torn down palaces of the rich upper class.


Communists or not we can only dream to have subway stations decorated like Moskau:

http://beeflowers.com/Metro/

http://beeflowers.com/Metro/pages/01.htm


Moskau

http://i32.tinypic.com/mcwv14.jpg


;)Toronto

egoodwin
06-17-2008, 12:14 AM
having a country host an international games festival to force the media to highlight human rights abuses within their borders is not a bad thing
the Olympics isn't about human rights and politics... it's about Sporting achievement...

or at least it should be..

Wagner
06-17-2008, 08:19 AM
wow...an intelligent fieldturf v grass thread, with only good-humoured name calling, and actual facts and arguments...

Wagner: thank you for that data on the costs of maintenance for grass. You should know that the team made at least $4 million in 2007. The real question is what's the team worth, with or without grass. The danger for MLSE is that (notwithstanding the amazing success TFC have had in 2008 with guys who had no options), in the long run, better players just won't come. This seems particularly true for Canadians playing abroad. Will this impair long-term franchise value - if yes, then your figures are a pittance in comparison.

I think BMO field made 1 million.
and maybe TFC made 4 million.

It's important to remember they are seperate entities.

That's why I'm saying, who will pay?
the City/BMO? or TFC?
BMO is the landlord, and made $1 million.

The tenant, TFC, maybe made $4million....

if you rent a condo, you can't just do a massive reno....as it will effect the other tenants....(the multiple users that rent the stadium)
Even though TFC is the most important, the policy behind the use of public money to build the stadium, is that TFC and the public users are virtually equal stakeholders.

The Kingpin
06-17-2008, 08:27 AM
I think BMO field made 1 million.
and maybe TFC made 4 million.

It's important to remember they are seperate entities.

That's why I'm saying, who will pay?
the City/BMO? or TFC?
BMO is the landlord, and made $1 million.

The tenant, TFC, maybe made $4million....

if you rent a condo, you can't just do a massive reno....as it will effect the other tenants....(the multiple users that rent the stadium)
Even though TFC is the most important, the policy behind the use of public money to build the stadium, is that TFC and the public users are virtually equal stakeholders.

But I can put in new floors.... Preferably ones that don't shred my ACL... ;)

Wagner
06-17-2008, 08:39 AM
But I can put in new floors.... Preferably ones that don't shred my ACL... ;)

FIFA spent millions on testing field turf.
there is no proof that fieldturf causes knee injuries.
The reality is, Fieldturf is here to stay....we may get real turfgrass one day at BMO...
but the Demand for soccer pitches around the GTA and other major urban areas, and future water scarcity, and the limitations on the use of pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers....
all cities are building field turf facilities.
Toronto, Oakville, Mississauga, Hamilton, Brampton....

Again, I'd love real grass, but it's not the decision makers in the municipalities and those that built BMO field, just picked field turf in a "willy nilly" nature.

The anecdotal astroturf related injuries are completely something different.
Old first generation turf, was really just carpet on concrete.

http://www.fieldturf.com/product/images/Ambient-vs-Cryo.jpg
22 NFL teams use it.
Jays, Argos, TFC all use it.

Arsenal, Man City, Leeds, Liverpool all train on it.

http://www.fieldturf.com/index.cfm
check the "high profile installations"
it's not going anywhere.

DigzTFC!
06-17-2008, 08:59 AM
Uefa will have to spend £157,000 to replace the turf at St Jakob-Park in Basle following last Wednesday's torrential downpour during the Switzerland-Turkey match. (Daily Star)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/default.stm

I thought you guys might find this interesting.

profit89
06-17-2008, 09:04 AM
Uefa will have to spend £157,000 to replace the turf at St Jakob-Park in Basle following last Wednesday's torrential downpour during the Switzerland-Turkey match. (Daily Star)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/default.stm

I thought you guys might find this interesting.

FieldTurf... playable ten minutes after a rainstorm as if nothing happened.

Benefits of FT are amazing. It's much better than grass, trust me. I believe tho that research should still continue on improving it even further.

profit89
06-17-2008, 09:07 AM
I hate chewed up grass fields.. so unsafe and looks horrible.

profit89
06-17-2008, 09:09 AM
Those soggy pitches, particularly in the Swiss-Turkey match, horrible!

Wagner
06-17-2008, 09:13 AM
Uefa will have to spend £157,000 to replace the turf at St Jakob-Park in Basle following last Wednesday's torrential downpour during the Switzerland-Turkey match. (Daily Star)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/default.stm

I thought you guys might find this interesting.

That shoots my $104K number out of the water...
That's about what I would pay for a mid tier field.
I wonder what drives the costs up so much?

MisterMacphisto
06-17-2008, 09:18 AM
FieldTurf... playable ten minutes after a rainstorm as if nothing happened.

Benefits of FT are amazing. It's much better than grass, trust me. I believe tho that research should still continue on improving it even further.

There's just one very important benefit that its missing. The majority of topflight players HATE playing on it. That kind of makes all other benefits kind of meaningless doesn't it?

profit89
06-17-2008, 11:51 AM
There's just one very important benefit that its missing. The majority of topflight players HATE playing on it. That kind of makes all other benefits kind of meaningless doesn't it?

No. Psychological advantage over opponents. Yet another benefit. :)

ExiledRed
06-17-2008, 12:11 PM
That shoots my $104K number out of the water...
That's about what I would pay for a mid tier field.
I wonder what drives the costs up so much?

The fact that it's in Switzerland, costs vary from location to location.

ExiledRed
06-17-2008, 12:12 PM
Processed cheese is here to stay, but you dont get in on your food in fine dining restaurants.

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-17-2008, 12:19 PM
Neither. The stadium made $1 million.

As TFC is part of MLSE, a private company (not publicly traded), they are not obligated to announce earnings and such.

In otherwords, we have no idea if TFC made money or not. I'm not sure where the $4 million figure came from as I've never seen it before now.


a fellow posted the 4 million figure a few posts back. ok the stadium made money from TFC rent, rent to public useage,concert. who gets the food beverages money TFC, the city or both?

OneLoveOneEric
06-17-2008, 12:25 PM
I would love to see grass at the BMO. But one small point I disagree with. I think that non-MLS players who say they won't come because of field turf are a red herring. I think it is easier for them to say this, rather than saying they don't give a shit about a brand new team in a half-assed league with a ridiculous wage structure, in a city they've never heard of.
Get rid of the turf, and they'll find another excuse to give.
But this does not detract from the fact that we should have grass.

Fort York Redcoat
06-17-2008, 12:35 PM
No player I'm aware of has pointed to field turf as the only reason preventing them from coming over. It's us saying it one of the main reasons they do not. Players turn the league down for many the reasons discussed. Turf, stadium sharing, poor money, little exposure and separation from the schedule of the most successful leagues in the world. But one thing at a time...:)

Blizzard
06-17-2008, 04:25 PM
a fellow posted the 4 million figure a few posts back. ok the stadium made money from TFC rent, rent to public useage,concert. who gets the food beverages money TFC, the city or both?

Good question. It's probably split percentages depending on the deal MLSE signed with the city.

Dirk Diggler
06-17-2008, 05:31 PM
I would love to see grass at the BMO. But one small point I disagree with. I think that non-MLS players who say they won't come because of field turf are a red herring. I think it is easier for them to say this, rather than saying they don't give a shit about a brand new team in a half-assed league with a ridiculous wage structure, in a city they've never heard of.
Get rid of the turf, and they'll find another excuse to give.
But this does not detract from the fact that we should have grass.

I'm quite certain that players like Stalteri and Radzinkski have heard of Toronto.

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-17-2008, 07:49 PM
I'm quite certain that players like Stalteri and Radzinkski have heard of Toronto.


but they are past it, lets get players who can help the cause not hinder it/

katatonic
06-17-2008, 08:08 PM
why not create a fieldturf practice ground beside BMO field

http://ci.carson.ca.us/content/imagegallery/images/homedepot_2.jpg

romburgundy
06-17-2008, 08:23 PM
Grass is coming - the debate is over. MLSE will foot the bill. The only question is where would the replacement facility be for the summer months.

I'd be happy to see Grass. What I don't want to see is an extra added watering surcharge on my ticket price.

brando
06-18-2008, 12:03 PM
Would love to see grass, but I just don't know if it's at all a reality.
It's great to see the FO at least doing a study and looking into it. It's more than I thought they would be willing to do as it seems to work out just fine for the stadium revenues.

OneLoveOneEric
06-18-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm quite certain that players like Stalteri and Radzinkski have heard of Toronto.



Any GOOD players heard of it????

James17930
06-18-2008, 12:08 PM
What if the City relinquishes their public use rights to BMO and fills that void with Lamport, or, as part of some deal, MLSE agrees to kick in some funds to renovate some of the other city owned stadiums (Esther Shiner, Centennial etc) . . . that should leave us free to put down turf.

Dirk Diggler
06-18-2008, 12:11 PM
Any GOOD players heard of it????

So Canada's top players aren't even considered good anymore?

Besides, if you are referring to world class players like Ronaldo, Gerrard, Torres etc...they would have to be extremely ignorant to not have heard about Toronto. Toronto is quite a relevant city on the world stage.

SilverSamurai
06-18-2008, 12:16 PM
why not create a fieldturf practice ground beside BMO field

http://ci.carson.ca.us/content/imagegallery/images/homedepot_2.jpg
Probably because you'd have to move the Food building, Molson Amphitheatre or cram the CNE elsewhere.
But an off site practice pitch in say Mississauga or maybe the east end docks might be doable. Indoor would be nicer thoguh. They could rent that out during the off season too. Or atleast a portion of it.

tovan
06-22-2008, 09:48 PM
http://www.greentechitm.com/pdf/AthleticMU.pdf
http://www.greentechitm.com/systems/multiuse.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenTech_ITM

MLSE/TFC should install a modular system such as the one developed by Greentch ITM (currently used in Millenium Stadium - Cardiff, Olympic Stadium - Athens, and for Wimbledon tennis). If its good enough for Greek and Welsh national teams, Olympics, and a Grand Slam tennis tournament surely it can work for TFC/CSA.

Benefits:
- Real grass that can be removed/installed w/o needing time to lay the turf and allow it to set into the soil
- Can be removed in winter months to allow for year-round use of BMO field, bubble can still be used
- Can be grown off-site and installed for events when needed
- Modular design allows for easy replacement of high use/dead areas

Solves the problem of having real grass and having the stadium available during winter months under the bubble. Conclusion - everyone can be happy. Enough discussion, just get it done.