Leiweke & All MLSE GM's on Primetime Sports at 5pm!

[Fort York Redcoat]

It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that MLSE (Larry) would take the hit for a struggling Argos team to make up for it with an NFL team.


See Leafs to Marlies relationship. How long were the roadrunners here? Marlies are here for more than being a successful AHL franchise. It benefits the bigger team.

[ag futbol]

I think you're being overly critical of Leiweke considering the unprecedented transformation that has taken place this off season. It's completely unjustified.

I was a skeptic when he was initially hired, but he has made bold promises and over delivered in my opinion.

I agree, but it's irrelevant. The NFL only cares about public perception.

Let me tie this all together.

I drew the comparison in some other thread, but I’ll use it again: This is the equivalent of telling your kids on Christmas morning you’re getting a divorce, sandwiched right between the new PS4 and X-Box.
He knew this was coming, he just held onto it until the fan base became completely tone-deaf. If he had dropped this prior to the DPs coming, people would have fallen off a cliff.

So to draw the comparison to the NFL, I would say they are concerned about the "perception", but perception is not reality. So if they want come in - not so sure they are, but beside the point - they'll sell you on the fact it doesn't matter even if it does. It will impact the Argos on some level no matter what.

[molenshtain]

Whitecaps and Lions play on artificial turf.

So like the Sounders and Seahawks.

I meant in terms of lines on the field. I don't think I've ever seen the whitecaps play with lines on the field. although maybe I'm just watching wrong games.

[notthesun]

Do you see any Italian DP on our roster? Not that I care, but it's one example of many.

What? He went after Gilardino. He said they were looking for an Italian DP and they did.

[Areathrasher]

The markings can be removed, it just takes them time to basically power wash the stuff off and repaint. But that's only the case for pure turf, grass doesn't respond as well, which is where the green paint comes it.

Regarding the condition of the surface: to clarify, I'm talking about a situation where the solution has worked and the environment is comparable (football, overlapping schedule, lots of games). If you can think of one, please fire away.

There isn’t a direct comparison of a ground share between Soccer and NFL/CFL that has worked. We know that. It’s not a point of contention. What is the point of contention is if a solution that has worked in another situation could be used as the basis of making TFC/Argos in BMO viable.

TL said yesterday that rugby is tougher on a surface than CFL. That comment was laughed at by various people on various platforms. I showed in a previous post a couple of pages back that rugby can do quite the damage to a playing surface and in my opinion a game of rugby will do more damage to a surface than a CFL game would as rugby covers more ground.

So if you looked at the pictures you can see the damage a ground share between soccer and rugby can cause to a pitch. Now, what about a stadium that is shared by rugby and soccer and never has any issues?

Dan Duffy about the Desso reinforced natural grass pitch: “We average 54 games a season here on our Desso GrassMaster pitch, plus training sessions, accommodating a mixture of domestic rugby and football, Eurioopean Cup and International fixtures in addition to County league and cup games, IRB Youth World rugby fixtures, corporate events and music concerts

The ground in question there is Swansea’s Liberty Stadium. The Ospreys and Swansea FC play home games during the same time period during the same wet and dull Welsh Winters and haven’t had issues with quality of the playing surfaces.

http://www.dessosports.com/sports/football/football-projects/swansea-fc-uk


They achieved this by using a hybrid surface, appropriate scheduling and a world class ground staff. If TFC can follow the Swansea’s best practice, I think a BMO ground share has the potential to work or at the very least not be the disaster everyone seems to think it would be. I talked to a few Swansea fans on another soccer forum and they said there has never been an issue.

I’m strictly talking quality of playing surface. Not markings and not retractable stands or sightlines.

That’s my longwinded 2 cents.

[Fort York Redcoat]

I meant in terms of lines on the field. I don't think I've ever seen the whitecaps play with lines on the field. although maybe I'm just watching wrong games.

But you've must of seen or heard commentators complain of missed balls, passes, shots because of the turf...

[Fort York Redcoat]

If the NFL comes, you can kiss the Argos goodbye.

If you kiss the Argos goodbye, you can kiss the national TV contract goodbye.

You kiss the national TV contract goodbye, you can kiss the CFL goodbye.

But I honestly think they they would prop the Argos up for a long time if it meant getting an NFL team.

Free Argos tix coming to a season near you...

[Mulder]

Tim can say whatever he wants. I want to see a example of this. And there isn't any.

Not only will lines be an issue but on field advertising that is all over the field in the CFL.

Advertising is another non-issue. See Edmonton with real grass.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ugust_2005.jpg

[Fort York Redcoat]

So hey...

how is this going to help the 2026 World Cup bid?

Done deal. We GOT IT! I'm making shirts for it as I type!

[molenshtain]

But you've must of seen or heard commentators complain of missed balls, passes, shots because of the turf...

truthfully I turn off the commentary for lions and whitecaps games, TSN commentary is fairly pitiful. But I played on turf for years and I don't recall having many of those problems

[ag futbol]

What? He went after Gilardino. He said they were looking for an Italian DP and they did.

Look at the statement and answer from the press conference with Anthony Totera. I'm not talking about the overall saga, I'm talking about that day in the press room. Totera literally responded "that's it??" to the Leiweke's answer it was so affirmative. Leiweke said nothing, no conditionals, not a thing. Left you with the absolute impression they were 100% committed to doing it.

Trying to get an Italian DP and actually committing to getting one is different. Would they have liked an Italian DP? Sure. Were they committed to that above other things? no. But that's not the perception you took away from hearing that interaction. So it's spin, pure and simple. He starts with something, shapes it, spins it, turns it to whatever suits his needs.

He gave an unconditional answer and passed on an opportunity to clarify.

[BuSaPuNk]

Advertising is another non-issue. See Edmonton with real grass.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ugust_2005.jpg

Even FC Edmonton seems to have a problem hiding just lines at Clarke Stadium. And the term experiment to remove the lines is used. So not sure if the technology that Tim L speaks of is even available.

http://www.fcedmonton.com/news/Exper...rway-at-Clarke

News that will get supporters of FC Edmonton very excited: Experiments are underway to see if there’s a way to get rid of the football lines on the Clarke Stadium turf for soccer matches.News that will disappoint FC Edmonton supporters: So far, the experiments aren’t going that well.
At training on Tuesday, the “00” yard markings on one of the goal lines were taken out by green paint. Because the football lines are sewn into the turf, they can’t be erased — but, theoretically, they could be painted over. Then, that paint can be removed when a football game is played on the surface.
On Monday, a patch of the turf was painted over in a special green paint to see if there’s a way that the white football lines can be hidden during NASL games and other soccer matches held at Clarke.
But, the reviews from FC Edmonton’s coach Colin Miller and the players weren’t all that positive. A day after the paint was applied to the test patch, the turf had matted down and become very hard — and sticky, too. There were definite ridges where the painted turf met the non-treated areas.
“It’s dangerous if it’s that sticky and you have it all over the pitch,” said Miller.
At least it’s a sign that the City of Edmonton, which administers the stadium, understands the clash of white football lines and yellow soccer lines is a problem. It also looks awful on the broadcasts. But, in at least one home game this season, the line confusion has worked to FC Edmonton’s advantage, when Atlanta keeper Joe Nasco was sent off for handling the ball outside the penalty area. The white football lines led him to believe he was still in the area, when in fact he was looking at the 20-yard football line, not the yellow soccer 18-yard limit on his box.
The turf is near the end of its 10-year lifespan. Of course, this move to try and figure out ways to temporarily get rid of the football lines will only make fans worried that the city will try and squeeze more lifespan out of the bad turf.
Miller said there really is only one way to fix the playing surface.
“You drop a hand grenade in the middle of the pitch, then you put down a new surface. That would be ideal.”
Edmonton’s first fall-season NASL home game is Aug. 11, with San Antonio providing the opposition.

[ensco]

General public doesn't care.

That's why the Argos to BMO is done deal and TFC supporters will have to live with it.

Listening to the FAN last night Argos fans are ecstatic at leaving the SkyDome and it's only a handful of TFC fans who care it seems.

So there will be lines, messed up turf, etc.

And there's no NFL team coming so they'll expand the stadium - using taxpayer money - and MLSE will host the "biggest" Winter Classic in 2017 in terms of hype, not size. And then play 3-4 games a year in the Stadium Series - Montreal vs Toronto, Ottawa vs Toronto, Detroit vs Toronto - and make a killing for each game.

That's how they'll recoup the money spent on the signings of Bradley and Defoe. Because at the end of the day if the team wins and makes the playoffs regularly, lines/ads on a pitch, messed up grass or bringing back turf won't matter.

Yup!

[Fort York Redcoat]

truthfully I turn off the commentary for lions and whitecaps games, TSN commentary is fairly pitiful. But I played on turf for years and I don't recall having many of those problems

It's the well documented problem of play off the surface. You shouldn't need commentary to see it. Come watch the opener at Joe's I'll gladly point it out to you.

[Fort York Redcoat]

But look at the statement and answer from the press conference with Anthony Totera.

Totera literally responded "that's it??" to the Leiweke's answer it was so affirmative. Leiweke said nothing, no conditionals, not a thing. Left you with the absolute impression they were committed to doing it.

Trying to get an itialian DP and actually getting one is different. Would they have liked an Italian DP? Sure. Were they committed to that above other things? no. But that's not the perception you took away from hearing that interaction. So it's spin, pure and simple.

He gave an unconditional answer and passed on an opportunity to clarify.

Oooooooo that's not a subject I'd want to talk about either if I cared about what the community that hurt that deal thought.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Even FC Edmonton seems to have a problem hiding just lines at Clarke Stadium. And the term experiment to remove the lines is used. So not sure if the technology that Tim L speaks of is even available.

http://www.fcedmonton.com/news/Exper...rway-at-Clarke

Saw it. Beat me to it.

[molenshtain]

It's the well documented problem of play off the surface. You shouldn't need commentary to see it. Come watch the opener at Joe's I'll gladly point it out to you.

if your talking about balls bouncing and skidding off turf quicker than grass than that's fair. but my original point was that I've never seen the whitecaps play with lines or ads on the field, so either they have a way around it or I'm just not watching closely enough.

[Fort York Redcoat]

if your talking about balls bouncing and skidding off turf quicker than grass than that's fair. but my original point was that I've never seen the whitecaps play with lines or ads on the field, so either they have a way around it or I'm just not watching closely enough.

No because turf is easier for that. But turf is bush league.

[mowe]

There isn’t a direct comparison of a ground share between Soccer and NFL/CFL that has worked. We know that. It’s not a point of contention. What is the point of contention is if a solution that has worked in another situation could be used as the basis of making TFC/Argos in BMO viable.

TL said yesterday that rugby is tougher on a surface than CFL. That comment was laughed at by various people on various platforms. I showed in a previous post a couple of pages back that rugby can do quite the damage to a playing surface and in my opinion a game of rugby will do more damage to a surface than a CFL game would as rugby covers more ground.

So if you looked at the pictures you can see the damage a ground share between soccer and rugby can cause to a pitch. Now, what about a stadium that is shared by rugby and soccer and never has any issues?



The ground in question there is Swansea’s Liberty Stadium. The Ospreys and Swansea FC play home games during the same time period during the same wet and dull Welsh Winters and haven’t had issues with quality of the playing surfaces.

http://www.dessosports.com/sports/football/football-projects/swansea-fc-uk


They achieved this by using a hybrid surface, appropriate scheduling and a world class ground staff. If TFC can follow the Swansea’s best practice, I think a BMO ground share has the potential to work or at the very least not be the disaster everyone seems to think it would be. I talked to a few Swansea fans on another soccer forum and they said there has never been an issue.

I’m strictly talking quality of playing surface. Not markings and not retractable stands or sightlines.

That’s my longwinded 2 cents.

Great post, nice to see some facts involved in the discussion. MLSE will have to invest in a top class groundsman to look over the field. As long as TL shows a commitment to ensuring the pitch quality remains top notch I'm fine with this Argos move.

[notthesun]

Look at the statement and answer from the press conference with Anthony Totera. I'm not talking about the overall saga, I'm talking about that day in the press room. Totera literally responded "that's it??" to the Leiweke's answer it was so affirmative. Leiweke said nothing, no conditionals, not a thing. Left you with the absolute impression they were 100% committed to doing it.

Trying to get an Italian DP and actually committing to getting one is different.

Then we should agree, because he didn't commit to getting one as far as I know.

Totera's question was, quote: "Are you committed to try and look for a quality Italian DP to bring here". To which Leiweke said "Yes."

Leiweke did exactly what he said he would. If Totera asked "are you committed to signing an Italian DP" and he had answered the same, it would be a different story.

He did, however, actually commit to signing two DPs. And he signed three.

Sorry, but in my opinion if you see spin here it's because you're reading it into it.

[BuSaPuNk]

if your talking about balls bouncing and skidding off turf quicker than grass than that's fair. but my original point was that I've never seen the whitecaps play with lines or ads on the field, so either they have a way around it or I'm just not watching closely enough.

Surface	Polytan LigaTurf 240 RS+ (FIFA recommended 2 Star)

Again probably two different turfs being used the same as at Rogers Centre

[molenshtain]

No because turf is easier for that. But turf is bush league.

but Seattle and New England have turf and they don't really take off lines off the field when they don't have too. I'm just wondering what the difference is. what did the 'caps figure out that neither Seattle or New England haven't?

ah. never mind. I see BuSaPunk has answered my question.

[Beach_Red]

Billy articulated it well. The NFL would not want to be perceived as having Argos blood on their hands, and image is everything in the NFL.

Then how come they've never had a problem with their own franchises abandoning cities? Can you give one example of when the NFL turned down money because it might make them look bad? Why would the Argos going out of business being any worse for the NFL than LA losing the Rams? And the Raiders?

I don't think it'll ever be an issue because the NFL is the opposite of the NHL. The NHL for decades was looking at getting more teams in more markets and didn't care who owned them. The NFL is only interested in ownerships, but the teams can play anywhere they want, they can move all over the country. But the ownership matters. The NFL isn't coming to Toronto, not because of the Argos, but because there's no single billionaire putting up 30% of the money. If someone stepped up there'd be a team here tomorrow.

[billyfly]

I agree they are vested in the CFL, but I don't think you can equate the Argos to the CFL as a whole, nor use the health of an Argos franchise as a bellwether of their ability to run a much larger operation.

Argos = TSN TV deal.

No Argos = No Deal (or at a lot less).

[billyfly]

The building is not empty, CSA has its offices in there. I think that is a big wrinkle in the redevelp model.

Agree Phil. The CSA if it has ANY power (or balls) says something or gets something out of this deal.

Canada's Soccer Stadium means nothing obviously.

[Ron Manager]

There isn’t a direct comparison of a ground share between Soccer and NFL/CFL that has worked. We know that. It’s not a point of contention. What is the point of contention is if a solution that has worked in another situation could be used as the basis of making TFC/Argos in BMO viable.

TL said yesterday that rugby is tougher on a surface than CFL. That comment was laughed at by various people on various platforms. I showed in a previous post a couple of pages back that rugby can do quite the damage to a playing surface and in my opinion a game of rugby will do more damage to a surface than a CFL game would as rugby covers more ground.

So if you looked at the pictures you can see the damage a ground share between soccer and rugby can cause to a pitch. Now, what about a stadium that is shared by rugby and soccer and never has any issues?



The ground in question there is Swansea’s Liberty Stadium. The Ospreys and Swansea FC play home games during the same time period during the same wet and dull Welsh Winters and haven’t had issues with quality of the playing surfaces.

http://www.dessosports.com/sports/football/football-projects/swansea-fc-uk


They achieved this by using a hybrid surface, appropriate scheduling and a world class ground staff. If TFC can follow the Swansea’s best practice, I think a BMO ground share has the potential to work or at the very least not be the disaster everyone seems to think it would be. I talked to a few Swansea fans on another soccer forum and they said there has never been an issue.

I’m strictly talking quality of playing surface. Not markings and not retractable stands or sightlines.

That’s my longwinded 2 cents.

This is an interesting and reassuring article. Especially worth noting that Swansea are a keep it on the ground sort of team so pitch quality is essential to them.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Then how come they've never had a problem with their own franchises abandoning cities? Can you give one example of when the NFL turned down money because it might make them look bad? Why would the Argos going out of business being any worse for the NFL than LA losing the Rams? And the Raiders?

I don't think it'll ever be an issue because the NFL is the opposite of the NHL. The NHL for decades was looking at getting more teams in more markets and didn't care who owned them. The NFL is only interested in ownerships, but the teams can play anywhere they want, they can move all over the country. But the ownership matters. The NFL isn't coming to Toronto, not because of the Argos, but because there's no single billionaire putting up 30% of the money. If someone stepped up there'd be a team here tomorrow.

Can someone tell me if the CFL is the same as the NFL in ownership rules insofar as they can't be owned by board? Is that why Larry is so involved with the "possible" Argos deal?

[Waggy]

Can someone tell me if the CFL is the same as the NFL in ownership rules insofar as they can't be owned by board? Is that why Larry is so involved with the "possible" Argos deal?

Put it this way, the same guy owns the Argos and the Lions. You think the CFL is going to turn down any well healed owner who actually wants to invest in the league?

[Fort York Redcoat]

Put it this way, the same guy owns the Argos and the Lions. You think the CFL is going to turn down any well healed owner who actually wants to invest in the league?

Well then why is Larry name dropped in there? Why not buy them outright as MLSE?

[molenshtain]

Larry's talked about buying stuff on his own for years now. maybe he sees it as a stepping stone to later buying a team in England like he always wanted.