they have said on Bills gmaes that for Toronto to get an NFL team they need a new stadium. Sky Dome holds 52,000, Toroto would need a 70,000+ stadium to land a NFL franchise. Its more then just 10,000.Originally Posted by Canary Canuck
they have said on Bills gmaes that for Toronto to get an NFL team they need a new stadium. Sky Dome holds 52,000, Toroto would need a 70,000+ stadium to land a NFL franchise. Its more then just 10,000.
personally i dont think a NFL franchise would be that successful in Toronto, i think they thot NFL would be a big hit like the Toronto Maple Leafs and beable to sell tickets at the same price as leaf games, bu they have realized that they cant. Toronto is having a hard time to sell at sky dome when bills play here because tickets are over priced, plus we got the argos and ti-cats just half an hour away.
The reason this has failed is the fact it's not a Toronto team involved. Nobody has any reason to care about two random teams playing a neutral site game nor do they have any sufficient emotional attachment driving them to pay high ticket prices. On top of that, the people who actually do care just drive to Buffalo where the tickets are cheap as dirt. They played neutral site NBA games at the skydome before toronto ever got the raps and nobody gave a crap about those games either. Until it's a Toronto team, nobody will care.
The Bills commentators are not the be all and end all. With respect to capacity, The most recent stadiums built in the NFL (Ford Field, Heinz Field, Lucas Oil stadium, Soldier Field, Phoenix) are all 61,000 to 64,000 seats. The key is not capacity but revenue generation. Bigger capacity stadia don't always make more money because any seats beyond 60,000 are just nosebleeds that can't be sold for much anyway. The added revenue from the extra capacity has to be able to offset the added construction cost to build it larger. Only teams with massive demand can charge enough for their nosebleeds to make it worthwhile (Dallas, New York, Washington, Houston).they have said on Bills gmaes that for Toronto to get an NFL team they need a new stadium. Sky Dome holds 52,000, Toroto would need a 70,000+ stadium to land a NFL franchise. Its more then just 10,000.
There's room to add more capacity in the endzones at Rogers Centre to get it to 55/56k and even at that number the revenue that can be generated out of the stadium (with an actual Toronto team that people care about) would far outstrip anything Buffalo can get at the Ralph. Having 20,000 more capacity doesn't mean squat when tickets are dirt cheap and the only people with any money to buy suites are the local ambulance chasers (Cellino & Barnes lol) and car dealerships
man this is really gonna make our stadium look like the cramped, half ass piece of shit it actually is.
i'm so jealous.
It's a gorgeous stadium.
Good place for the US to hold friendlies.
The NFL could work in TO. However not with the prices that they have had with the Bills in TO series. The most expensive seat in Buffalo is the lowest ticket at the Dome. Just another example of Toronto sports fans getting flogged by the big man.
That Kills Bmo By A Mile !!!!!!!
Who said anything about Skydome hosting the final??
A Canadian World Cup FInals does not happen without a brand new stadium in Toronto (80,000+). Period.
boban, it was mentioned before my post. I was replying to it.
I also made the point in my next post that some people seem to assume that a WC final will automatically go to Toronto if the WC is hosted in Canada. There's a chance it might but it doesn't necessarily have to. It isn't Toronto's by right, Toronto would have to prove itself worthy like any other city. It would either have to have existing infrastructure in place or demonstrate that the political will is there to get an 80,000+ stadium built.
To host the final that would be a no brainer.
And like I said before, there would be no WC FInal in Canada if there is no final game in Toronto. In other words this means a 80,000 seater stadium.
80k plus? What the hell would we do with it after the event? The Dome is a giant waste of space at 50,000. No way would I want to see something like that built here - what a waste!
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
Found the CSA Feasibility Study from 2000.
http://dss2.princeton.edu/data/3087/...cstudy-eng.pdf
"Semi-finals will be played in Edmonton and Montreal and both the final and the third / fourth place play-off will be played in Montreal."
"The quality of the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, which is currently proposed to be the primary venue, is particularly important."
Though the study is almost 10 years old and many of the numbers are ridiculously low, it does try to make the most of existing infrastructure while trying to keep costs at a minimum. It also gives an idea of how the CSA would've approached bidding for a WC even though it won't happen any time soon. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2001/...ter011210.html. This actually shows how little things have changed in 10 years...
Anyways, to keep the thread on topic you can check the status of Red Bull Arena on their live webcam:
http://www.earthcam.com/clients/redbullarena/?cam=2
Last edited by tovan; 12-15-2009 at 09:03 PM.
Twice, for failed Olympic bids, Toronto was willing to build a stadium for 100,000. There would be political will for a 80,000 stadium no problem. The SkyDome is used for baseball, among other things, hardly a waste.
You find uses for the new stadium, other cities do.
Thanksfor coming out and quoting a 2000 study.The landscape has changed since then.
Also, its not the CSA who awards the World Cup, FIFA does.
Last edited by boban; 12-16-2009 at 11:34 AM.
Oh come on dude. The Skydome is used for baseball? How often does that even come close to selling out? If we cannot make full use of a 50,000 seat venue then what the hell would we do with an additional 80,000 seat venue on top?! You say "find uses". I say come up with some that will draw up to 80,000 people on a regular basis.
The only way I could see somethign like this happening is to build a stadium that had temporary stands and could be reduced to around 30,000 after the event. But then you've got a hybrid stadium that looks like shit both before and after the main event. Either the Argos or TFC might be interested in taking it over, but would they want to? And who would pay for the reduction? And where would you fit an 80,000 seat stadium with enough aprking to accommodate all the people it would draw if full? Even with transit links you'll need at least 20,000 parking spaces for a full stadium.
Anyway, one 80,000 seat stadium doesn't make a world cup. England will be lucky to get the 2018 event event with its array of PL grounds. Canada would need 40,000+ seat SOCCER stadia in places likes Vancouver, Calgary, the Maritimes etc. Aint gonna happen. Ever.
Last edited by Hitcho; 12-16-2009 at 01:48 PM.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
??!!?Thanksfor coming out and quoting a 2000 study.
Try reading the post before you slap it down. The poster acknowledges that the study is out of date and specifically says "IT GIVES AN IDEA".
The post also says "HOW THE CSA WOULD'VE APPROACHED BIDDING FOR A WC".Also, its not the CSA who awards the World Cup, FIFA does.
Bidding. Not awarding itself.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
FIFA does award the WC but CSA would have to play an integral part of any bid. A CSA bid could NOT proceed without FIFA's backing and vice-versa. That being said, a WC in Canada is a pipe dream, at least for now. Though I hope to live long enough to see the day when it does happen but I'm not getting my hopes up on that one...
The Olympic bids were in the late 1990's and early 2000's, the political landscape has changed since then and the urban landscape will be drastically changing soon. With the Port Lands and West/Lower Donlands being proposed for redevelopment, central locations for such a stadium are fast disappearing. IMO the opportunity has come and gone... a new stadium is probably the last thing on anyone's mind at the moment, with the exception of a very small minority.
Last edited by tovan; 12-16-2009 at 01:47 PM.
Another video update, on Red Bull Park. Looking nice, I like there grass.
http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.js...3&team_id=t107
I read it. Try reading my post again. It gives no idea because the study is old and the landscape of soccer has changed dramatically in this country.??!!?
Try reading the post before you slap it down. The poster acknowledges that the study is out of date and specifically says "IT GIVES AN IDEA".
The post also says "HOW THE CSA WOULD'VE APPROACHED BIDDING FOR A WC".
Bidding. Not awarding itself.
Yes, the study is about bidding. To WIN the bid it has to be better. That study would never fly, and the news article quoted (2001) pretty much sums that up. A WINNING bid would require nothing less than a 80,000 seat stadium in Toronto.
There are countless of stadiums in the world that are used not at capacity. Capacity is something that north americans seem to be transfixed on for some reason. To pay the bills for the upkeep of a venue capacity is not required. Further to that, you think 8 or 9 dates makes a $600 million NFL stadium financially sustainable?? Think again.
Sydney built a 110,000 seat stadium for the Olympics in 2000. After the Olympics they reduced it to 80,000 and put roofs over the two ends. Hardly looked like shit before and after.
You seem to be more of a problem seeker than a solutions seeker.
The SkyDome is a waste. It was celebrated for 5 yrs and then considered stale before a fraction of it was paid for.
NA or NAmericans have choice. That is why we're fixated on full capacity to enhance our experience.
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
The skyDome is not a waste. It's a great stadium, that doesn't appear worn down or dated.
Wrong. North Americans don't know how to sell tickets to less than capacity events.
Moderator
Building an 80k seat soccer stadium in Toronto would be a financial disaster.
It would get used a couple of times a year when a band like U2 decides to come to town, and that's literally it.
- Scott
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
Comparing attendance of 81 home dates to an NFL season of 8 is hardly fair. The Jays might not sell out every game, but have some dates with big crowds.
The Blue Jays draw 2 million, or just under, in a horrible year for attendance. Hardly a waste.
What about other bands/concerts? Real international track meets instead of the schmooze fest at Varsity last year? Also an opportunity would present itself to alternate hosting the Gold Cup with the US, which goes nothing to say of a new home for the Argos. There are lots of options.
Put it this way for all the naysayers: Go sit and watch a movie in your house with the personal movie theatre for 30. Oh you can't because you don't have one you say? Exactly my point. If you have the facility, you will use it and find new ways to use it.
Look, I don't want to turn this itno a tit for tat but Tovan actually said in his postandThough the study is almost 10 years old and many of the numbers are ridiculously lowso he knew what he was posting and its limitations and actually pointed that out, hence no need to call the poster out on that.This actually shows how little things have changed in 10 years...
Again, the OP pointed this out and it would be clear to anyone anyway, but yes I completely agree with what you're saying.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
The cost of upkeep depends entirely on the typre of structure and where it is located. If you've got an old school 100,000 seat concrete bowl with no mod cons in ti located outside of a city centre, then chances are you won't need capacity crowds on a regulara basis (or even any regular crowds) to maintain it. But if you build an 80,000 seat high end stadium in the middle of Toronto in 2010 that's up to WC Finals standards then you better believe you will need to sell it out for years and decades to come to pay it off. Look at the Millennium Dome in London. It's not a stadium, but because of its size and location it cost the British taxpayers literally billions of pounds even including the money the government got for eventually selling it off. The same would happen here, albeit to a slightly lesser financial degree, if we built an 80k seat stadium and then didn't have a use for it afterwards.
And my point still stands - if we cannot sell out a 50,000 seat venue (not even close these days) then what would we do with an 80,000 seat venue on top of that? If nothing else it's a chronic waste of valuable and useful land space and it would cripple the city financially to build and then not use it.
You seem to be more of a dreamer than a realist.
Last edited by Hitcho; 12-18-2009 at 09:55 AM.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
You're right, we'd use a stadium a lot. We just don't want to pay for it twice - once in taxes and once at the gate.
There is nothing stopping any private company from building such a venue - in fact they'd get huge tax breaks and probably free land if anyone wanted to.
But no one wants to.
You quoted the OP as saying 'how little things have changed' in ten years.
I am saying things have changed dramatically. Hence, the study is worth nothing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote