PDA

View Full Version : Argos at BMO update.



king dave
08-24-2008, 08:32 PM
My golf buddy had dinner with Peddie Sunday and Peddie said,
1. The Argos are not going to spend $20 million plus to retro-fit BMO
without some kinda of in depth study, which they do not want to
pay for anyways.
2. The Argos will only make a move if the money comes from private
sources = good luck boatmen.

Deal is as good as dead he believes.
KD.

RPB_RED_NATION_RPB
08-24-2008, 08:34 PM
My golf buddy had dinner with Peddie Sunday and Peddie said,
1. The Argos are not going to spend $20 million plus to retro-fit BMO
without some kinda of in depth study, which they do not want to
pay for anyways.
2. The Argos will only make a move if the money comes from private
sources = good luck boatmen.

Deal is as good as dead he believes.
KD.


start layin SOD!!;)

SilverSamurai
08-24-2008, 08:42 PM
My golf buddy had dinner with Peddie Sunday and Peddie said,
1. The Argos are not going to spend $20 million plus to retro-fit BMO
without some kinda of in depth study, which they do not want to
pay for anyways.
2. The Argos will only make a move if the money comes from private
sources = good luck boatmen.

Deal is as good as dead he believes.
KD.

Hope this deal stays dead.
I do not want the Argos at our house. "STAY THE F*CK OUT!"

profit89
08-24-2008, 10:15 PM
yeah... stay the f*** out

BuSaPuNk
08-24-2008, 10:17 PM
Get the sod out boys!!!

ensco
08-24-2008, 10:21 PM
I know some of the principals in this story.

The Argos want what MLSE got - public funding. It just bugs them that MLSE played the politics so perfectly on getting BMO built.

The Argo owners are seriously wealthy. David Cynamon netted at least $50 million when his private label bleach manufacturing company was sold last year, and Howard Sokolowski owns one of the biggest developer of suburbs in the GTA, Tribute Communities, and when I say "one of the biggest", I'm talking about billions in property developed over the last 10 years. These guys could build themselves a "Stade Saputo" style purpose-built CFL stadium at York anytime they wanted for $15-20 million.

But MLSE got their stadium from the public purse, so that's what they want too.

Anything less won't play at the RCYC.

If they have to spend their own dough, they'll spend it on their own purpose-built field, not on making BMO a second-rate stadium for CFL football, which is all it could ever be as a multi-sport venue. The compromises required for any venue to accomodate multiple sports are significant - it's a big part of why Skydome is a failure.

Ancillary benefit of all this agitation - maybe they'll get a better deal out of Rogers, just by making a lot of noise about moving (that's what happened in 2004).

SilverSamurai
08-24-2008, 10:33 PM
I know some of the principals in this story.

The Argos want what MLSE got - public funding. It just bugs them that MLSE played the politics so perfectly on getting BMO built.

The Argo owners are seriously wealthy. David Cynamon netted at least $50 million when his bleach company was sold last year, Sokolowski owns one of the biggest developer of suburbs in the GTA, and that's saying something. These guys could build themselves a "Stade Saputo" style field at York anytime they wanted for $15-20 million, but because MLSE got their stadium from the public purse, that's what they want too.

Anything less won't play at the RCYC.

If they have to spend their own dough, they'll spend it on their own purpose-built field, not on making BMO a second-rate stadium for CFL football, which is all it could ever be as a multi-sport venue. The compromises required to accomodate multiple sports are a big part of why Skydome is a failure.

Ancillary benefit of all this agitation - maybe they'll get a better deal out of Rogers, just by making a lot of noise about moving (that's what happened in 2004).
Hope you're right but this doesn't mean the supporters should back off yet.

Strikers
08-24-2008, 10:40 PM
I know some of the principals in this story.

The Argos want what MLSE got - public funding. It just bugs them that MLSE played the politics so perfectly on getting BMO built.


MLSE did not have to play politics.

The Argos had the chance to get public funding twice. The rebuilt varsity stadium, and the proposed stadium at York would have had public funding. The CSA was trying to get a stadium built for the U-20. The Argos backed out twice.

DVS
08-24-2008, 10:41 PM
Does this mean TFC can go ahead with the Mo Edu for Grass Trade :D

I_AM_CANADIAN
08-24-2008, 10:42 PM
My golf buddy had dinner with Peddie Sunday and Peddie said,
1. The Argos are not going to spend $20 million plus to retro-fit BMO
without some kinda of in depth study, which they do not want to
pay for anyways.
2. The Argos will only make a move if the money comes from private
sources = good luck boatmen.

Deal is as good as dead he believes.
KD.I really hope this is the end of it, thanks a lot for the news. :cool:

And commenting on what someone said above, the Argos really should be looking to build a CFL version of BMO Field. It will make the experience so much better for their fans, and really, we're always talking about cleaning up the waterfront and nothing ever gets done about it, why not knock down some dilapidated abandoned factory sitting down there and build a new stadium?

Toronto Ruffrider
08-25-2008, 12:05 AM
MLSE did not have to play politics.

The Argos had the chance to get public funding twice. The rebuilt varsity stadium, and the proposed stadium at York would have had public funding. The CSA was trying to get a stadium built for the U-20. The Argos backed out twice.

When it comes to public money, you have to seize the day. Government spending on stadia such as BMO doesn't happen very often. YorkU wasn't the ideal place for a stadium, but sometimes you have to take whatever deal you can get.

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 01:10 AM
I really hope this is the end of it, thanks a lot for the news. :cool:

And commenting on what someone said above, the Argos really should be looking to build a CFL version of BMO Field. It will make the experience so much better for their fans, and really, we're always talking about cleaning up the waterfront and nothing ever gets done about it, why not knock down some dilapidated abandoned factory sitting down there and build a new stadium?

I don't know about that. I really hate the idea of a multitude of stadiums built all across the city for individual pro sports clubs. The problem with groundsharing at BMO has always really been (or at least SHOULD have been) about the complicated logisitics and costs involved in accomodating the playing surface. The very idea still makes little sense no matter how I try to wrap my head around it, but there you go. Anyways, I don't see anything wrong with the Argos staying at Rogers Centre - in fact I much prefer it that way.

ensco
08-25-2008, 06:39 AM
MLSE did not have to play politics.



You're kidding, right?

ensco
08-25-2008, 06:41 AM
Hope you're right but this doesn't mean the supporters should back off yet.

Absolutely agree. Cynamon and Sokolowski have powerful friends and they wield influence. They could succeed in getting government money to convert BMO.

redcard
08-25-2008, 07:18 AM
Absolutely agree. Cynamon and Sokolowski have powerful friends and they wield influence. They could succeed in getting government money to convert BMO.

The city has no money, they wont put anymore into BMO...who else would give them money province/feds, they no longer have an interest in put more money into...its already been done.

ensco
08-25-2008, 07:23 AM
The city has no money, they wont put anymore into BMO.

I agree with that too. I said that they could succeed, not that they would or should succeed.

Mikey
08-25-2008, 08:54 AM
The city has no money, they wont put anymore into BMO...who else would give them money province/feds, they no longer have an interest in put more money into...its already been done.

This is the weak spot we should hit hard if this Argos shennigans doesnt go away.
Massive email / letter campaign to city hall, call out all the councillors and demand public statements justifying spending more of OUR tax money on messing with a stadium that is already profitable.

A few digs about them trying to turn BMO from a profit making venture into another Skydome white elephant....

Fort York Redcoat
08-25-2008, 08:56 AM
As rich as the Argos owners are they do not want to act rash but cautious. I think this posturing from the Argos was just attention grabbing from a poorly followed team from a media standpoint. When it comes to the business side of the Argos I think the owners will wait to see the result of the Bills 5 yr experiment. It gives them time to get in on another possible stadium on the cheap if they partner with the NFL or this Pan Am games in Toronto. The Argos are not hurting yet and these owners want to be the best long term owners in the teams long history.

Hail to the King and his insider scoop.

boban
08-25-2008, 09:38 AM
I don't know about that. I really hate the idea of a multitude of stadiums built all across the city for individual pro sports clubs.
Why would you care?

boban
08-25-2008, 09:46 AM
My golf buddy had dinner with Peddie Sunday and Peddie said,
1. The Argos are not going to spend $20 million plus to retro-fit BMO
without some kinda of in depth study, which they do not want to
pay for anyways.
2. The Argos will only make a move if the money comes from private
sources = good luck boatmen.

Deal is as good as dead he believes.
KD.
Just a couple of things that don't make this thing dead.
The $20M needed to convert the stadium to fit the Argos is just about the top end that the Argos have to spend. So while the money needed may seem high, this is about the top, or near the top, amount of money that Cynamon and Sokolowski have and would spend. They had that much earmarked a few years ago for the York stadium. Only construction cost overruns scared them away.
And this is coming from Peddie. In my books he's not the most astute forecaster. His numbers didn't add up for the Marlies on one end and on the other he heavily underestimated the success of TFC.

ensco
08-25-2008, 10:01 AM
Why would you care?

I agree with this.

Cashcleaner, you are in a small minority on this anyway. There are only four MLB teams that still share their stadium with football - three are planning to move.

Anyone care to guess which MLB team will be last one playing in a multi-use stadium?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-purpose_stadium

Wagner
08-25-2008, 10:11 AM
I agree with this.

Cashcleaner, you are in a small minority on this anyway. There are only four MLB teams that still share their stadium with football - three are planning to move.

Anyone care to guess which MLB team will be last one playing in a multi-use stadium?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-purpose_stadium

Too funny....
i just looked it up...it's the jays.

Twins are moving.
Marlins are looking for a new stadium.
Oakland is looking to move too...
that leaves Uncle Ted's Blue jays.
:canada:

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 10:21 AM
Why would you care?

Because as history has shown more often than not, it's the taxpayers who get the short end of the stick. To put it bluntly, I care because I'm likely gonna pay for it in some way.

And it's really just wasteful to have a stadium or arena used only, say 3 or 4 days out of a week when you could have people using it for 5, 6, or 7 days.

giambac
08-25-2008, 10:23 AM
These threads are total Bullshit.

There must have been about 100 threads on the CFL/Argos's coming to BMO.

Everyone here keeps saying they won't come and give updates. It almost like you feel the need to reasure yourselves that they won't come and that the deal is dead. If the deal is dead why is everyone concerned?

If the deal is close to being dead why is everyone still always talking about it and creating new threads?

If the deal is next to dead why all the protests?

I don't belive the deal is next to dead and I think you guys don't believe it is either. You all have fear that the Argo's will come to BMO and find the need to reassure yourselves on this forum.

Stop fooling yourselves. There is a real threat that they will be coming to our house. I'd say it is probaly a 50/50 chance if not greater.

boban
08-25-2008, 11:05 AM
Because as history has shown more often than not, it's the taxpayers who get the short end of the stick. To put it bluntly, I care because I'm likely gonna pay for it in some way.

And it's really just wasteful to have a stadium or arena used only, say 3 or 4 days out of a week when you could have people using it for 5, 6, or 7 days.
First off your statement said nothing of public funding.
And this attitude of not funding stadia because you're a tax payer is total bullshit. Now I am not saying let's go fund ludicrous amounts, but allocating $10-$20 million is not cause for alarm. And second, the fans who go use that stadium to watch the particular sport are taxpayers also. You shouldn't feel guilty for that.

If you can get use out of a stadium 3 days out of a week good luck with that. I don't think even ACC gets that much use. A stadium is built for a particular use, not to cater to everyone. And if the Argo can go build one for themselves good for them and good for the city because we will be better off for it. I mean look at cities around the world, esp Europe. A city our size would have at least 5 stadiums of at least 20,000 each. You think the clubs that use them couldn't better economize by sharing? Of course, but they think of use for their own purpose not how they will cater to another team.

Toronto_Bhoy
08-25-2008, 11:07 AM
Because as history has shown more often than not, it's the taxpayers who get the short end of the stick. To put it bluntly, I care because I'm likely gonna pay for it in some way.

And it's really just wasteful to have a stadium or arena used only, say 3 or 4 days out of a week when you could have people using it for 5, 6, or 7 days.


I tend to agree with Cash…SkyDome, being the best example. If your gonna use public funds it must be accessible to the public, which is a double edged sword as we all know.

BMO/TFC would not exist without taxpayers money but because of this, we have a plastic pitch and everyone and their brother wanting a piece of it.

If anything, this city needs a couple of small "BMOs", 3,500 to 10,000 to be publicly used for amateur/school sports, concerts and festivals. Facilities like Ester Shriner, Birchmount and Lamport, even with the new turf are ridiculous for a city this size.

Shakes McQueen
08-25-2008, 11:09 AM
I'd say it is probaly a 50/50 chance if not greater.

Based on what information?

Whle I do think people are trying to reassure themselves with all of these threads, I also think the optimism is warranted.

- Scott

boban
08-25-2008, 11:10 AM
I tend to agree with Cash…SkyDome, being the best example. If your gonna use public funds it must be accessible to the public, which is a double edged sword as we all know.

Move to Cuba or China then.
SkyDome was a failure because of the excesses.
Also, the government never should have ran the stadium.




If anything, this city needs a couple of small "BMOs", 3,500 to 10,000 to be publicly used for amateur/school sports, concerts and festivals. Facilities like Ester Shriner, Birchmount and Lamport, even with the new turf are ridiculous for a city this size.
:confused:

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 11:29 AM
First off your statement said nothing of public funding.
And this attitude of not funding stadia because you're a tax payer is total bullshit. Now I am not saying let's go fund ludicrous amounts, but allocating $10-$20 million is not cause for alarm. And second, the fans who go use that stadium to watch the particular sport are taxpayers also. You shouldn't feel guilty for that.

Ummm, you're right. My first post didn't say anything about public funding. That's very astute of you. ????


If you can get use out of a stadium 3 days out of a week good luck with that. I don't think even ACC gets that much use. I'm pretty sure BMO Field does with all it's public use factored in.


A stadium is built for a particular use, not to cater to everyone. And if the Argo can go build one for themselves good for them and good for the city because we will be better off for it. I mean look at cities around the world, esp Europe. A city our size would have at least 5 stadiums of at least 20,000 each. You think the clubs that use them couldn't better economize by sharing? Of course, but they think of use for their own purpose not how they will cater to another team.Plenty of clubs in Europe groundshare. AC Milan/Inter Milan, Bayern Munich/TSV Munich, Roma/Lazio, etc.

Now, I'm no expert, but those are some pretty recognisable clubs, aren't they? Not just some 2nd division sides that need the money, right? And if you want to consider intrasport groundsharing, just look at Wigan FC (EPL) and Wigan Warriors (Rugby League).

Shakes McQueen
08-25-2008, 11:33 AM
Ummm, you're right. My first post didn't say anything about public funding. That's very astute of you. ????


I'm pretty sure BMO Field does with all it's public use factored in.


Plenty of clubs in Europe groundshare. AC Milan/Inter Milan, Bayern Munich/TSV Munich, Roma/Lazio, etc.

Now, I'm no expert, but those are some pretty recognisable clubs, aren't they? Not just some 2nd division sides that need the money, right?

If the Argos were a USL1 team, I wouldn't have a problem with them using BMO.

Unfortunately the Argos issue goes beyond mere sharing of the stadium.

- Scott

Sonny Cheeba
08-25-2008, 11:37 AM
yeah and JJB is shit because the rugby rips the hell out of the pitch. this is why we probably couldn't share the same playing surface. unless it is fieldturf

rocker
08-25-2008, 11:38 AM
but groundsharing is irrelevant because the stadium was already predicted to make a profit based simply on 14000 attendance and 16 games per year. based on the fact that TFC fans are blowing all predictions out of the water, the city is already reaping the benefit of that beyond their wildest expectations. The added benefit of groundsharing 9 home games with the Argos is actually not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. it's something like an extra 5-6 million bucks for the city -- OVER TWENTY YEARS.

I could understand groundsharing if it was to prop up a stadium losing money.
But the stadium does not lose money. Taxpayers are in no way hurt by not having the Argos there. Toronto CFL fans are in no way disadvantaged either because the Argos already have a stadium. We will not lose the Argos.

I wouldn't mind groundsharing if it was Toronto FC and Toronto City (the next MLS expansion team) ;) But nobody in Europe groundshares with a CFL/NFL style team.

No Euro teams go and radically alter their stadium to bring in a sharing partner.

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 11:40 AM
^ Again, Wigan FC and Wigan Warriors.

All I'm saying is that people with the idea that groundsharing just isn't done in "proper" leagues are wrong. There are plenty of stadia around the globe that accomodate both football and other sports and the world hasn't ended for them.

Sonny Cheeba
08-25-2008, 11:40 AM
oh and who remembers the miami dolphins and (i can't remember) last year at Wembley was it? they tore the hell out of that place. i know it was raining, but still.

Sonny Cheeba
08-25-2008, 11:41 AM
^ Again, Wigan FC and Wigan Warriors.



read my post above.... the JJB where they play is a terrible surface as the result of Rugby being played there.

rocker
08-25-2008, 11:41 AM
^ Again, Wigan FC and Wigan Warriors.

what? not sure how your message responds to mine.

boban
08-25-2008, 11:43 AM
I'm pretty sure BMO Field does with all it's public use factored in.
Excuse me, I was not clear enough for some it would appear.
To make a stadium profitable you don't need 4,5 or 6 days of use from it.
And seeing as you reference a socialist model it becomes clear where your interests lie.


Plenty of clubs in Europe groundshare. AC Milan/Inter Milan, Bayern Munich/TSV Munich, Roma/Lazio, etc.
Now, I'm no expert, but those are some pretty recognisable clubs, aren't they? Not just some 2nd division sides that need the money, right?
They are also in ultra expensive stadiums. The NSS isn't. It turns its profit with just TFC games. More stadiums in this city only enhance it, not diminish it.

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 11:46 AM
what? not sure how your message responds to mine.

Sorry Rocker, I missed your post. Is JJB really all that bad? I doesn't look all that terrible on tv.

Fort York Redcoat
08-25-2008, 11:47 AM
^ Again, Wigan FC and Wigan Warriors.

All I'm saying is that people with the idea that groundsharing just isn't done in "proper" leagues are wrong. There are plenty of stadia around the globe that accomodate both football and other sports and the world hasn't ended for them.

Too true Cash but the proof is in the pudding just ask Wigan Managers and Scouts how many possibilities they've lost because of that pitch. Every week some team may have it tough against Wigan if they have to play on that Rugby pitch. It's the joke of the league and they have to make it more appealing for players to go there$$$

rocker
08-25-2008, 11:48 AM
someone explain to me how adding 9 more days (of 365) of use by a completely different sport to BMO field is some massively amazing gesture to the taxpayer.
Would love to hear it.... The moral arguments of the taxpayer and all that make it sound like bringing the Argos in makes some massive difference. Simply put, it doesn't.

The original predictions for BMO (see the Toronto document) were predicated on 16 TFC games. This season that's already been increased by 5. So they already make up more than half of the added games that the Argos bring in.

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 11:48 AM
Excuse me, I was not clear enough for some it would appear.
To make a stadium profitable you don't need 4,5 or 6 days of use from it.
And seeing as you reference a socialist model it becomes clear where your interests lie.

Muhaha! My foul interests, indeed. Little do you fools know, my plan is to force all teams in the world to play in one location!!!! No one can stop me, for I am...DR. GROUNDSHARE!!!


They are also in ultra expensive stadiums. The NSS isn't. It turns its profit with just TFC games. More stadiums in this city only enhance it, not diminish it.

How?

rocker
08-25-2008, 11:49 AM
Sorry Rocker, I missed your post. Is JJB really all that bad? I doesn't look all that terrible on tv.

my post wasn't about JJB. I just said nobody in Europe shares with CFL/NFL style football.

denime
08-25-2008, 11:50 AM
Ummm, you're right. My first post didn't say anything about public funding. That's very astute of you. ????
I'm pretty sure BMO Field does with all it's public use factored in.
Plenty of clubs in Europe groundshare. AC Milan/Inter Milan, Bayern Munich/TSV Munich, Roma/Lazio, etc.

Now, I'm no expert, but those are some pretty recognisable clubs, aren't they? Not just some 2nd division sides that need the money, right? And if you want to consider intrasport groundsharing, just look at Wigan FC (EPL) and Wigan Warriors (Rugby League).

You do realize that all the teams that you mention play on the SAME SIZE FIELD,no gridiron lines,no removable stands,etc.and that is a BIG difference comparing what would happen to BMO if Argos move in
as far this thread goes,good information but if it should be closed,so people can concentrate on the TFC push for playoffs instead of this again.

Sonny Cheeba
08-25-2008, 11:51 AM
Sorry Rocker, I missed your post. Is JJB really all that bad? I doesn't look all that terrible on tv.

i don't think it looks bad for the first few weeks when rugby may or may not be played there. i don't know when the superleague runs. but i've watched games were the ball barely moves accross the surface because a rugby game was played just before. and imagine if it rains too onto that ravaged surface.
i've seen this too and you can actually see the roughness of the field: where the holes are and such. terrible.

it's not a good park from what i've seen on TV.

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 11:55 AM
Yes, and I don't know how often I have to keep saying this, but my argument isn't about Argos to BMO. As anyone could tell you, the cost involved with changing BMO around to accomodate both teams would be huge.

All I'm saying is that the stubborn refusal to write-off groundsharing in general is wrong because there are plenty of clubs around the world that do it with both other teams and other sports.

boban
08-25-2008, 11:56 AM
How?
Well the city has facilities to use for events it wishes to stage (Olympics, Pan-Am, Commonwealth), attracts one of events also, and looks good on the city that people are interested in sport in one capacity or another as the stadiums would be used and filled. Amongst other things.

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 11:56 AM
i don't think it looks bad for the first few weeks when rugby may or may not be played there. i don't know when the superleague runs. but i've watched games were the ball barely moves accross the surface because a rugby game was played just before. and imagine if it rains too onto that ravaged surface.
i've seen this too and you can actually see the roughness of the field: where the holes are and such. terrible.

it's not a good park from what i've seen on TV.


Sorry Cheeba for getting you mixed up with Rocker. :D

Sonny Cheeba
08-25-2008, 11:59 AM
Yes, and I don't know how often I have to keep saying this, but my argument isn't about Argos to BMO. As anyone could tell you, the cost involved with changing BMO around
to accomodate both teams would be huge.

All I'm saying is that the stubborn refusal to write-off groundsharing in general is wrong because there are plenty of clubs around the world that do it with both other teams and other sports.


yeah but the title of the thread is about the Argos at BMO. so we get your point. people groundshare. it works in Milan. doesn't work so well in Wigan. could you imagine Hibs playing at Murrayfield after the Scotland Rugby Union?

the wigan example you gave is prime as to why this type of ground sharing would not work.

LucaGol
08-25-2008, 11:59 AM
Yes, and I don't know how often I have to keep saying this, but my argument isn't about Argos to BMO. As anyone could tell you, the cost involved with changing BMO around to accomodate both teams would be huge.

All I'm saying is that the stubborn refusal to write-off groundsharing in general is wrong because there are plenty of clubs around the world that do it with both other teams and other sports.

Correct me if Im wrong....but I think that these grounds that share between soccer and rugby replace the sod on the field at least once or twice during the season.

Doing this comes at huge costs.

If this has been discussed prior in this thread, I've not read all the posts.

Sonny Cheeba
08-25-2008, 12:00 PM
Sorry Cheeba for getting you mixed up with Rocker. :D


yeah multiple conversations are tough sometimes eh?
i get mixed up too/
i just thought you were repeating yourself to me a bunch! haha

Toronto_Bhoy
08-25-2008, 12:00 PM
Move to Cuba or China then.
SkyDome was a failure because of the excesses.
Also, the government never should have ran the stadium.



:confused:

China or Cuba? Jesus, it doesn’t get more socialist than Canada, does it?

All I'm saying Boban, is a city the size of Toronto should have a number of small, functional stadiums to facilitate public, amateur, high school and university sports.

The current stadia I mentioned are in terrible shape by anyone’s standards. Washrooms and changing areas in these places are disgusting…seating and concessions equally as bad.

And for the record, I'd prefer private money be used for building anything new. Your statement is bang on about SkyDome's excess and government interference.

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 12:03 PM
yeah but the title of the thread is about the Argos at BMO. so we get your point. people groundshare. it works in Milan. doesn't work so well in Wigan. could you imagine Hibs playing at Murrayfield after the Scotland Rugby Union?

the wigan example you gave is prime as to why this type of ground sharing would not work.

Actually, Hibs and Hearts almost ended up groundsharing in an entirely new stadium if you could believe it!


Correct me if Im wrong....but I think that these grounds that share between soccer and rugby replace the sod on the field at least once or twice during the season.

Doing this comes at huge costs.

If this has been discussed prior in this thread, I've not read all the posts.

I don't think it was mentioned, but it doesn't come as too big a surprise to me if its true. I know a bunch of Australia football and rugby teams groundshare as well, but not sure what the logistics are with their playing surface (ie: are they turf? do they re-sod every so often? etc.).

rocker
08-25-2008, 12:04 PM
another thing about groundsharing that the Argo proponents don't seem to realize -- they are groundsharing with baseball (duh). and it's in a stadium built to share between the two.... with public money.... so they like groundsharing, but they don't like groundsharing. hahah

Sonny Cheeba
08-25-2008, 12:04 PM
Actually, Hibs and Hearts almost ended up groundsharing in an entirely new stadium if you could believe it!


yeah "Eastercastle" hahah... but that wouldn't be too bad for the pitch. the fans on the other hand ????

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 12:07 PM
another thing about groundsharing that the Argo proponents don't seem to realize -- they are groundsharing with baseball (duh). and it's in a stadium built to share between the two.... with public money.... so they like groundsharing, but they don't like groundsharing. hahah

Of course Rogers Centre is the one obvious example. :D


yeah "Eastercastle" hahah... but that wouldn't be too bad for the pitch. the fans on the other hand ????I actually thought we should have Hearts come over to Easter Rd. and groundshare there with us. Didn't make me popular, but it would have made the club a load of cash.

And I don't have any problem taking money from a Jambo.

Toronto_Bhoy
08-25-2008, 12:09 PM
Actually, Hibs and Hearts almost ended up groundsharing in an entirely new stadium if you could believe it!



How about both at Murrayfield?

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 12:15 PM
^ Or Meadowbank for that matter.

Or New City Park.

There's a load of stadia in and around the city already built, so you'd be spoiled for choice.

boban
08-25-2008, 12:18 PM
China or Cuba? Jesus, it doesn’t get more socialist than Canada, does it?
Not with what they have done with the NSS use requirement's it doesn't.



All I'm saying Boban, is a city the size of Toronto should have a number of small, functional stadiums to facilitate public, amateur, high school and university sports.

The current stadia I mentioned are in terrible shape by anyone’s standards. Washrooms and changing areas in these places are disgusting…seating and concessions equally as bad.

And for the record, I'd prefer private money be used for building anything new. Your statement is bang on about SkyDome's excess and government interference.
Now I get what you are saying. I agree a city the size of Toronto should have a few 3,000-10,000 stadiums. And yes some of the ones you mentioned are in terrible shape. But we do have a new 5,000 seater at UofT and Birchmount was redone 2/3 years ago. Lamport has a new field but yes the place needs an upgrade. And Esther is a joke. But there are some (as mentioned) so its not as bleak as one thinks. Heck its more than what Mississauga has. Anyhow, yes private sector should get involved more - I am not saying the public foot 100% of the tab to fund stadiums.

boban
08-25-2008, 12:21 PM
Cash, whats with your incessant need to ground share?
I don't get it.

Beach_Red
08-25-2008, 12:37 PM
Not with what they have done with the NSS use requirement's it doesn't.


The whole concept of a "national" stadium is new in North America, though, and with the size of the US and Canada may never really catch on.

There's no "National" hockey stadium and the US is only now sticking its nose into sports played outside the US so up till now there's never been a need for a "national" football or baseball stadium.

These are very early days and we may need some whole new idea for national teams' stadiums.

But I do agree, a city the size of Toronto needs more venues, and more big ones. It's good to have places for people to come together.

Cashcleaner
08-25-2008, 12:56 PM
Cash, whats with your incessant need to ground share?
I don't get it.

Duh! I told you. I am Dr. Groundshare. It's my thing. :rolleyes:

boban
08-25-2008, 01:10 PM
I ask you an honest question and you respond with immaturity. OK.

I_AM_CANADIAN
08-25-2008, 01:23 PM
I don't know about that. I really hate the idea of a multitude of stadiums built all across the city for individual pro sports clubs. The problem with groundsharing at BMO has always really been (or at least SHOULD have been) about the complicated logisitics and costs involved in accomodating the playing surface. The very idea still makes little sense no matter how I try to wrap my head around it, but there you go. Anyways, I don't see anything wrong with the Argos staying at Rogers Centre - in fact I much prefer it that way.
If you go to London or Manchester, there are dozens of football stadiums, and that's not even including the itty bitty ones for non-league clubs. An Argos stadium wouldn't have to be some huge multiplex like we always build over here, just something basic like BMO Field.

denime
08-25-2008, 01:50 PM
^ Again, Wigan FC and Wigan Warriors.

All I'm saying is that people with the idea that groundsharing just isn't done in "proper" leagues are wrong. There are plenty of stadia around the globe that accomodate both football and other sports and the world hasn't ended for them.


Maybe you should go to Wigan FC supporters site and ask them what they think about ground sharing.Honesty,if you get positive feedback than there is no need to lose any time on this.We can move to next topic,like plaoffs yes,or no.

Toronto_Bhoy
08-25-2008, 03:20 PM
Here's something I found over the lunch hour.

Liverpool/Everton supporters discussing ground sharing…granted its from 2003…still valid comments for those who are interest…



A LEADING report into the state of football's finances has revealed a new-found acceptance for stadium sharing among the Premier League elite.

Financing Football 2003, by top accountants Pannell Kerr Forster (PKF), sought the views of the financial directors of Premier League and Division One clubs.

It revealed a startling increase in their acceptance of shared grounds, as football continues to come to terms with new-found financial realities.

And one of the authors of the report last night told the Daily Post the financial case for groundsharing was "overwhelming".


http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=17386.0

boban
08-25-2008, 03:31 PM
Here's something I found over the lunch hour.

Liverpool/Everton supporters discussing ground sharing…granted its from 2003…still valid comments for those who are interest…
End of the day they are going their separate ways.
Its not all about economics always.

mclaren
08-25-2008, 03:52 PM
^ Again, Wigan FC and Wigan Warriors.

All I'm saying is that people with the idea that groundsharing just isn't done in "proper" leagues are wrong. There are plenty of stadia around the globe that accomodate both football and other sports and the world hasn't ended for them.

But have you seen Wigan's pitch??!

Toronto_Bhoy
08-25-2008, 04:05 PM
End of the day they are going their separate ways.
Its not all about economics always.

True Boban, but if the massive TV deal had not been signed by the EPL, I think you would have seen more clubs [not necessarily Liverpool] but others look to ground share…debt in professional football would crush teams without TV money and it much easier to save a buck then earn one.

Its not an issue for Italian giants in Torino, Milan and Rome to ground share…Juve had their chance to build a new park a few years back and said, "Why would we?"

boban
08-25-2008, 04:37 PM
True Boban, but if the massive TV deal had not been signed by the EPL, I think you would have seen more clubs [not necessarily Liverpool] but others look to ground share…debt in professional football would crush teams without TV money and it much easier to save a buck then earn one.

Its not an issue for Italian giants in Torino, Milan and Rome to ground share…Juve had their chance to build a new park a few years back and said, "Why would we?"
A problem solver without the wads of cash from the TV is signing and transferring players for cheaper. The TV deal would be league wide so the Man U's and Arsenals would also have less to spend.
Also, Juve is building their own stadium - resizing Del Alpi.

RPB_Brantford_08
08-25-2008, 08:28 PM
back to the topic of the argos at BMO, it was on mc clowns show tonight that the argos are still looking at the stadium so its not dead yet.

T_Mizz
08-25-2008, 08:30 PM
That's crappy because that'll mean no grass because Football is way to tough on the grass. It won't be worth it.

RPB_Brantford_08
08-25-2008, 08:34 PM
That's crappy because that'll mean no grass because Football is way to tough on the grass. It won't be worth it.

if only the cfl and argos would die that would solve everything.;)

T_Mizz
08-25-2008, 08:38 PM
yeah and we could get an NFL team (don't respond to this it's a whole new discussion topic) with it's own 70,000-80,000 seater and this groundsharing nonsense would be over.

denime
08-25-2008, 09:27 PM
:topic: please

T_Mizz
08-25-2008, 09:32 PM
so back to the point i made the grass field can't support the football and still be good enough to play soccer on

T_Mizz
08-25-2008, 09:33 PM
That wasn't the topic, the topic was Argos at BMO Field.
I meant back to topic after england was more talented sorry

JDG
08-25-2008, 09:36 PM
I meant back to topic after england was more talented sorry


One more post in this thread about Croatia or England & you're getting an infraction.

Your posts have been moved to a more appropriate venue: http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=5197
Fill yer boots!

T_Mizz
08-25-2008, 09:43 PM
Cool good news so does anyone wanna talk about the thread or just chastice us and argue? if what Mo and Carver have been feeding us is true we're getting grass so would they cancel that or would they actually try to have their cake and eat it too so to speak?

RPB_Brantford_08
08-25-2008, 09:43 PM
Couldn't the Argos buy lamport and turn it into a cfl coozy field or is that not practical?

T_Mizz
08-25-2008, 09:52 PM
That's actually a good Idea but for some reason good Ideas on the boards never translate to reality and I'm hoping that if all goes well that will be purchased by TFC and turned into that Practice facility that they need in order to get real grass.

RPB_Brantford_08
08-25-2008, 10:02 PM
That's actually a good Idea but for some reason good Ideas on the boards never translate to reality and I'm hoping that if all goes well that will be purchased by TFC and turned into that Practice facility that they need in order to get real grass.


put a dome over it in the winter for the cummunity use scheme and were all set...GRASS at BMO.:)

T_Mizz
08-25-2008, 10:04 PM
exactly but the argos need their own stadium and therefore must become so popular that their attendance couldn't fit in BMO or so unpopular that BMO is suddenly too big

boban
08-25-2008, 11:36 PM
That's actually a good Idea but for some reason good Ideas on the boards never translate to reality and I'm hoping that if all goes well that will be purchased by TFC and turned into that Practice facility that they need in order to get real grass.


put a dome over it in the winter for the cummunity use scheme and were all set...GRASS at BMO.:)

not going to happen. More fields have to built by MLSE.

Brooker
08-26-2008, 12:05 AM
Muhaha! My foul interests, indeed. Little do you fools know, my plan is to force all teams in the world to play in one location!!!! No one can stop me, for I am...DR. GROUNDSHARE!!!

i fucking knew it. all this time.

you aren't even a TFC fan, are you?

Cashcleaner
08-26-2008, 12:32 AM
I ask you an honest question and you respond with immaturity. OK.

You actually got my answer much earlier on in the thread.


Maybe you should go to Wigan FC supporters site and ask them what they think about ground sharing. Honesty,if you get positive feedback than there is no need to lose any time on this.We can move to next topic,like plaoffs yes,or no.

Regardless of their thoughts, you can't deny that Wigan is a side playing in the world's most recognisable league. It's not like we've only got some crappy backwater clubs having to do it. Most supporters all over the world will insist that their team have sole possession of a stadium regardless of the cost involved.

Now that I think of it, is there still a frisbee team or something that uses BMO Field as well?

denime
08-26-2008, 06:08 AM
You actually got my answer much earlier on in the thread.



Regardless of their thoughts, you can't deny that Wigan is a side playing in the world's most recognisable league. It's not like we've only got some crappy backwater clubs having to do it. Most supporters all over the world will insist that their team have sole possession of a stadium regardless of the cost involved.

Now that I think of it, is there still a frisbee team or something that uses BMO Field as well?

Well we are supporters,and we want sole possession of stadium,since the same stadium is making money no need for another tenant and I rather have frisbee team playing than CFL,why?Field siz, no removable stands,no lines.It has to do with field size,Rugby has same size as soccer,CFL doesn't and that's the problem.