Argos to BMO decision - Wednesday, May 20th

[Shakes McQueen]

One of the more interesting points on the irony map is that TSN (Bell) generally gets much higher ratings for MLS soccer than Sportsnet (Rogers).

I kind of wish Larry would buy TFC and leave MLSE out of it.

As for the stadium and frustrations, a lot of this is fuelled by fear. Argos fans won't be in your seat on TFC game days. It's about the grass. And while I wish MLSE would invest in its own soccer specific stadium, I think it can work based on Hull City (Football and Rugby) coexisting with season overlap and games played days apart on hybrid.

As for people being upset over the business deal, just re-read the pages here and it was pretty clear that it would come together. Even the extra grey cups to account for the $10M shortfall were discussed long before the last few days. It's sad but this is where our Club ownership clearly wanted to take us. No surprises. Just disappointment.

Just have to hang on to the idea that the hybrid surface can hold up like it does in Hull.

At least the CFL season doesn't start until September, I think? Not as much schedule overlap as there could be. Of course, it also means our pitch will be exposed in the winter for CFL playoff games or whatever, when it should be covered.

[Areathrasher]

One of the more interesting points on the irony map is that TSN (Bell) generally gets much higher ratings for MLS soccer than Sportsnet (Rogers).

I kind of wish Larry would buy TFC and leave MLSE out of it.

As for the stadium and frustrations, a lot of this is fuelled by fear. Argos fans won't be in your seat on TFC game days. It's about the grass. And while I wish MLSE would invest in its own soccer specific stadium, I think it can work based on Hull City (Football and Rugby) coexisting with season overlap and games played days apart on hybrid.

As for people being upset over the business deal, just re-read the pages here and it was pretty clear that it would come together. Even the extra grey cups to account for the $10M shortfall were discussed long before the last few days. It's sad but this is where our Club ownership clearly wanted to take us. No surprises. Just disappointment.

Just have to hang on to the idea that the hybrid surface can hold up like it does in Hull.

In a previous thread discussing this topic, around this time last year, I got run out of town for suggesting something similar based on another Rugby example. The Liberty Stadium in Swansea.

I hold out similar hope.

[denime]

At least the CFL season doesn't start until September, I think? Not as much schedule overlap as there could be. Of course, it also means our pitch will be exposed in the winter for CFL playoff games or whatever, when it should be covered.

CFL is(NFL House) summer league,starts 1st week in June until end of November,it is 100% overlapping with MLS.

[PAOK17]

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/sport...questions.html

Tempted to stop reading after the caption "the TFC"...

[Jack]

The Toronto Football Club? At least it's better than calling them FC.

[OgtheDim]

I kind of wish Larry would buy TFC and leave MLSE out of it.

.

You like guys like Anselmi?

[Wagner]

CFL Schedule.

They usually kick off Canada Day.
Grey Cup is usually end of November.

MLS is First Weeks of March until End of Nov (MLS Cup).

The Big Concern is Sept/Oct/Nov.
as it gets cooler and possibly wetter.
and the importance of the games grow.

Apart from the Ghost Lines on the field (Don't believe Tim L).
I'm most concerned with a CFL game played during a big rain storm.
If I was assured that they'd have rain delays or a rain out policy, I'd rest easier.

[Shakes McQueen]

CFL Schedule.

They usually kick off Canada Day.
Grey Cup is usually end of November.

MLS is First Weeks of March until End of Nov (MLS Cup).

The Big Concern is Sept/Oct/Nov.
as it gets cooler and possibly wetter.
and the importance of the games grow.

Apart from the Ghost Lines on the field (Don't believe Tim L).
I'm most concerned with a CFL game played during a big rain storm.
If I was assured that they'd have rain delays or a rain out policy, I'd rest easier.

Shows what I know about the CFL, I guess, haha.

[OgtheDim]

CFL Schedule.

If I was assured that they'd have rain delays or a rain out policy, I'd rest easier.

They don't. Lightning stops games. Nothing else, especially snow which is considered part of the fun of the CFL playoffs.

[GabrielHurl]

I'm gonna stick with grass. Kentucky blue and Bermuda-Bent. If not at BMO Field, then I'll enjoy it at Pheasant's Run, Gormley Green, Wooden Sticks, Silver Lakes, The Pinestone, Don Valley and many other fine golf courses in the area.

Playing there tomorrow and Saturday - GWN - will let you know how the early-season conditions are

[Fort York Redcoat]

Ouch! Those are exact comments why people think us TFC and MLS fans are some of the most self-righteous, spoiled, ignorant fans in the sporting world! Total disrespect. I'm not sure how we can claim the CFL and Argo's will die, when we can only drum up 48000 viewers on TV. The Argo's are going to move to BMO, and will become a profitable team. They will have good attendance with strong TV numbers.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If only the Argos could just play on tv.

The argos and most other CFL teams are profitable because of the television contract. I think it's amazing that TSN adopted the league and made it bigger than ever through coverage. The flipside of that of course is a fanbase that doesn't care to be at the games.

The constant comparisons between the 2 leagues successes are becoming cringeworthy. You championing the prospect of the Argos possibly selling out BMO for a year while Torontonians get used to another new thing and get sick of it and the Argos are back the attendance woes they've recently had.

I don't care if you or anyone else enjoys the CFL and wants it to succeed but let's not try and paint a picture that ensures Argos success in attendance with this move. It just not likely past the fad effect in Toronto. Success on the field may stretch it but that is up to the team.

And drop the "holier than though" schtick - That link above alone pointed to CFL fans that said the same derogatory shit we football supporters have heard ad infinitum.

While I don't agree with U&P he's free to show his footy bias here.

Now if he went to a CFL forum and pretended to be a CFL fan that would be a different story....but how would I know about it??

[Ultra & Proud]

You like guys like Anselmi?

Town halls and chicken wings for all!!!

[Fort York Redcoat]

It's about the grass. And while I wish MLSE would invest in its own soccer specific stadium, I think it can work based on Hull City (Football and Rugby) coexisting with season overlap and games played days apart on hybrid.

Just have to hang on to the idea that the hybrid surface can hold up like it does in Hull.

While those 2 are hard on a surface they aren't opposed to one another with there needs from the surface as gridiron (sprint from stop, fall and slide) and footy (dependent on the surface to guide the ball in play)

In a previous thread discussing this topic, around this time last year, I got run out of town for suggesting something similar based on another Rugby example. The Liberty Stadium in Swansea.

I hold out similar hope.

Come on. I hope it was something more than someone pointing out the above that made you feel "run out of town". I mean, that sounds like someone was haranguing you till you left.

My town includes you, Area.

[Areathrasher]

While those 2 are hard on a surface they aren't opposed to one another with there needs from the surface as gridiron (sprint from stop, fall and slide) and footy (dependent on the surface to guide the ball in play)



Come on. I hope it was something more than someone pointing out the above that made you feel "run out of town". I mean, that sounds like someone was haranguing you till you left.

My town includes you, Area.

It was said in jest.

[Fort York Redcoat]

^cool.




Also: 4 days till a possible announcement on this matter...

[Villa TFC]

I hadn't realised that the Argos' average attendance last season was as poor as it was. It makes me wonder if it could be even lower at BMO. Sure, there may be that initial bounce of seeing them in a new venue, but BMO is more difficult to reach than the Dome for anyone travelling by TTC and if the majority of Argos' fans prefer to watch the games from the comfort of their recliner than making the hike to a stadium, BMO may not help at all.

My greatest hostility in this whole debacle lies not with the Argos or even the City, but with MLSE. The support TFC has received since Day One has far outweighed what the on-field product deserves. We consistently sell huge numbers of season tickets, and even when the season is lost and the team is being as miserable as usual, the tickets-sold for any match is always very high. We've bought tons and tons of merchandise and displayed fantastic support and yet MLSE support us by actively pursuing the Argos as a tenant?! Despite what some have said, there is no win for TFC supporters in having the Argos there. I don't know of a single TFC supporter who ever wanted a larger stadium. Not one. Many want a roof, but we still don't have that. I don't know of any current supporters who are crying out for more TFC supporters (not that for a moment I believe the idea that if the Argos play at BMO, more people will support TFC: yeah, right - if I attend a concert at the Ricoh Coliseum I'm not going to pick up Marlies season tickets on the way out).

As for turf, given a choice between what we have now and risking having lines visible on the pitch, having a pitch chewed-up by over-use or by a CFL game played in rain or even simply losing our prime-tenant status, I'd stick with the current turf...forever. Our concerns are not selfish or prima donna-ish as some claim. Soccer is played on the ground. Baseball players all want real grass because it makes their game better and no one has an issue with that even though baseball is not played on the ground like soccer. Yet somehow we're the ones being unreasonable in not wanting to endanger the usually-decent playing surface we currently have.

There is no upside for TFC supporters. This is nothing good for us at all. We can blame the Argos for whining, we can blame politicians for trying to get them to BMO. MLSE might not be able to stop a move if mandated by the city to accept the Argos, but ultimately it's MLSE that actually want this as much or more than anyone else and that is a black-eye for everyone who has supported TFC since day one.

[kwhisperer]

I hadn't realised that the Argos' average attendance last season was as poor as it was. It makes me wonder if it could be even lower at BMO. Sure, there may be that initial bounce of seeing them in a new venue, but BMO is more difficult to reach than the Dome for anyone travelling by TTC and if the majority of Argos' fans prefer to watch the games from the comfort of their recliner than making the hike to a stadium, BMO may not help at all.

My greatest hostility in this whole debacle lies not with the Argos or even the City, but with MLSE. The support TFC has received since Day One has far outweighed what the on-field product deserves. We consistently sell huge numbers of season tickets, and even when the season is lost and the team is being as miserable as usual, the tickets-sold for any match is always very high. We've bought tons and tons of merchandise and displayed fantastic support and yet MLSE support us by actively pursuing the Argos as a tenant?! Despite what some have said, there is no win for TFC supporters in having the Argos there. I don't know of a single TFC supporter who ever wanted a larger stadium. Not one. Many want a roof, but we still don't have that. I don't know of any current supporters who are crying out for more TFC supporters (not that for a moment I believe the idea that if the Argos play at BMO, more people will support TFC: yeah, right - if I attend a concert at the Ricoh Coliseum I'm not going to pick up Marlies season tickets on the way out).

As for turf, given a choice between what we have now and risking having lines visible on the pitch, having a pitch chewed-up by over-use or by a CFL game played in rain or even simply losing our prime-tenant status, I'd stick with the current turf...forever. Our concerns are not selfish or prima donna-ish as some claim. Soccer is played on the ground. Baseball players all want real grass because it makes their game better and no one has an issue with that even though baseball is not played on the ground like soccer. Yet somehow we're the ones being unreasonable in not wanting to endanger the usually-decent playing surface we currently have.

There is no upside for TFC supporters. This is nothing good for us at all. We can blame the Argos for whining, we can blame politicians for trying to get them to BMO. MLSE might not be able to stop a move if mandated by the city to accept the Argos, but ultimately it's MLSE that actually want this as much or more than anyone else and that is a black-eye for everyone who has supported TFC since day one.

Very well put! Visible lines would be the absolute deal-breaker for me, but you've summarized the bigger picture nicely - MLSE doesn't seem to have the slightest regard for TFC supports in this. It feels like one big "Get used to it."

[SenorDingDong]

Very well put! Visible lines would be the absolute deal-breaker for me, but you've summarized the bigger picture nicely - MLSE doesn't seem to have the slightest regard for TFC supports in this. It feels like one big "Get used to it."

Yea there is no way they can think Visible lines on the field are acceptable.

Nobody will want to play here. No European player, or really any player would sign.

[Redcoe15]

^^What the last three said.

What I find the most bothersome in all this is that Tim Lieweke, the so called champion of us supporters, was the one who first told us of all these plans for BMO Field, which included the bringing the Argos in to the refurbished stadium. But Phineas Tim reassured all of us that it would work out spectacularly for both parties. That it would be a stadium that fans of both soccer and the CFL can look at with pride and that neither would think that the other would also be using it, and that the playing surface would be the best of the best world class surface around that both sides can use with no damage done to it and that the lines can be removed without a trace of ghosting anywhere. And that all three levels of government would go along with the plan and pitch in equally to cover the cost of refurbishing BMO Field. He basically said we could have our cake and eat it too. And we kind of went along with it then, because we believed if anyone can make it work it was Tim Lieweke.

Now, PT Lieweke is just two months away from leaving Toronto for good after just two years as MLSE president, if not sooner. And part of his reasons for leaving, allegedly, is that he was butting heads with Larry Tannenbaum who, along with Bell, plan to buy the Argos without the help of their MLSE partner Rogers, and who plan to cover the cost of the renovations because Ottawa and Queen's Park can't or won't do it. With that in mind, nobody should believe that this new arrangement is going to make TFC and soccer the number one priority at the soon to be formerly called National Soccer Stadium.

I can't help but think that this is how we feel like:

[Pookie]

While those 2 are hard on a surface they aren't opposed to one another with there needs from the surface as gridiron (sprint from stop, fall and slide) and footy (dependent on the surface to guide the ball in play)

Don't you think you are reaching a little bit there? Rugby has 15 players a side, in cleats, chewing up the turf.

Again, I'm not saying it will work but I'm saying that they make it work in Hull and having been there twice (Jan and Feb) this year, I can attest that their weather isn't exactly Caribbean like. Rugby was played on a Friday and the turf was in good shape for a Sunday EPL game. Now, there were lines on it but the surface itself was fine.

It's not ideal and I don't understand why MLSE would go this route when they are clearly not hurting for cash. They have talked about a Drake-like ambassador to rebuild the Leafs brand… they should think about their own.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Don't you think you are reaching a little bit there? Rugby has 15 players a side, in cleats, chewing up the turf.

Again, I'm not saying it will work but I'm saying that they make it work in Hull and having been there twice (Jan and Feb) this year, I can attest that their weather isn't exactly Caribbean like. Rugby was played on a Friday and the turf was in good shape for a Sunday EPL game. Now, there were lines on it but the surface itself was fine.

It's not ideal and I don't understand why MLSE would go this route when they are clearly not hurting for cash. They have talked about a Drake-like ambassador to rebuild the Leafs brand… they should think about their own.

So Hull isn't desso but they do inter weave astroturf in there. Not the route that we've heard here but definitely different. So can you tell me when they installed the grasstroturf? I ask because Hull has had the worst reputations in the premier league for their surfaces state in past years.

[Areathrasher]

So Hull isn't desso but they do inter weave astroturf in there. Not the route that we've heard here but definitely different. So can you tell me when they installed the grasstroturf? I ask because Hull has had the worst reputations in the premier league for their surfaces state in past years.

No it's exactly the same. KC Stadium just uses a different company to Desso.

EDIT: Actually it is Desso. Desso's site and the KC Stadium wikipedia page just doesn't specify.

This does http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/a...t-1277195.aspx

[Fort York Redcoat]

No it's exactly the same. KC Stadium just uses a different company to Desso.

EDIT: Actually it is Desso. Desso's site and the KC Stadium wikipedia page just doesn't specify.

This does http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/a...t-1277195.aspx

Great. Thanks for verifying. We should take stock of their pitch state throughout the season.

[Areathrasher]

Great. Thanks for verifying. We should take stock of their pitch state throughout the season.

Just from the last week. Doesn't prove anything one way or another but just for a frame of reference. I'll go search for some pics from the Liberty with Swansea and Ospreys games in close proximity.

April 24th Hull v Huddersfield Rugby Prior to kick off


April 28th Hull v Liverpool EPL End of game

[Areathrasher]

Getting a similar picture comparison as above for the Liberty Stadium is proving tricky. Not many people posting pictures of the pitch prior to the kick off Osprey games on twitter

However this is interesting. Below is a picture from prior to the Swansea Everton Capital Cup game on Tuesday September 23rd.



Looks pretty good eh? Now why is it interesting?

On Saturday 20th September, Swansea hosted Southampton at the Liberty in Premier League action.
On Sunday 21st September, the Ospreys hosted Edinburgh at the Liberty in Pro 12 Rugby action.

So over the course of 4 days. The Liberty hosted 2 soccer games with a rugby game sandwiched in between on hybrid and the surface held up well.

Here is a highlight video of the Capital One Cup game so you can see how the pitch held up as I can't find any decent pics



IMO, given that there are no direct apple to apple comparisons of Soccer/CFL groundshares on hybrid for us to judge. The Liberty Stadium should absolutely be the blueprint that MLSE tries to follow at BMO if/when the Argos move in and if the pitch is switched to hybrid.

Anybody that is thinking of responding with "Rugby isn't CFL it's not the same CFL causes more damage rabble rabble rabble" Don't bother, we've been through it before.

Just let the provided examples sink in. Think about how this example works for Swansea and the Ospreys. Think about how the practices and set up they use could be extrapolated over to BMO Field to provide the basis of a MLS/CFL ground share to work.

I'm going to say no more on the matter.

[GabrielHurl]

Here's the Ospreys vs Edinburgh highlights

[Beach_Red]

^cool.




Also: 4 days till a possible announcement on this matter...

I really like the countdown, by the way, thanks!

[Waggy]

Here's the Ospreys vs Edinburgh highlights

League rugby is the closer comparison to football (that's why Hull's ground is a better one to look at). Union is more free flowing and moves side to side more than forward back. League is more about big guys in the middle of the park lining up 10 yards apart and slamming into each other over and over (it's also just a better sport )




I'll be very curious to see the details of this deal if/when it ever happens (and the details become public).

[Fort York Redcoat]

Looks pretty good eh? Now why is it interesting?

On Saturday 20th September, Swansea hosted Southampton at the Liberty in Premier League action.
On Sunday 21st September, the Ospreys hosted Edinburgh at the Liberty in Pro 12 Rugby action.

So over the course of 4 days. The Liberty hosted 2 soccer games with a rugby game sandwiched in between on hybrid and the surface held up well.

Here is a highlight video of the Capital One Cup game so you can see how the pitch held up as I can't find any decent pics



IMO, given that there are no direct apple to apple comparisons of Soccer/CFL groundshares on hybrid for us to judge. The Liberty Stadium should absolutely be the blueprint that MLSE tries to follow at BMO if/when the Argos move in and if the pitch is switched to hybrid.

Anybody that is thinking of responding with "Rugby isn't CFL it's not the same CFL causes more damage rabble rabble rabble" Don't bother, we've been through it before.

Just let the provided examples sink in. Think about how this example works for Swansea and the Ospreys. Think about how the practices and set up they use could be extrapolated over to BMO Field to provide the basis of a MLS/CFL ground share to work.

I'm going to say no more on the matter.

Area the examples are there and look great this far.

Since we've been over the apples to oranges of Rugby and CFL (I will bother. I don't feel the need to call it rabble) I'll take the example as a stressful week out of 52 in a year.

This decision of groundshare isn't one they have to make and they can't go back once its done.

You are not alone in thinking it a small inconvenience to have a bad surface from time to time as long as they are giving us the best possible outcome.

The best outcome for TFC is no gridiron on the same pitch.

[TheGoodson]

The difference outside of the lines issue which IMO is a major issue is the area of usage...

In the CFL & NFL the majority of the play is in the middle of pitch (between the hasmarks) that is where the damage occurs especially if there is a lot of precipitation. In rugby the action is normally spread out all over the pitch not just in specific areas.

The ideal comparison is looking at Wembly after the NFL match prior to their Euro qualifier. If memory serves me correct Roy Hodgson and the players weren't to thrilled with the damage to the pitch. I think that Wembly is just grass, but the damage is what to be expected if we get Desso and the Argos come into OUR HOME.