Page 23 of 86 FirstFirst ... 131920212223242526273373 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 690 of 2556
  1. #661
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barticusz View Post
    Are any of you fans of the Leafs or Raptors? Did you cancel your Raptor's seasons tickets when you found out that the Leafs were also going to be playing in the ACC? (If I'm not misstaken I believe the ACC was initially being built for the raptors).
    They don't impact the others ability to have a top quality playing surface (occasionally the ice won't be the best and the games quality reflects that). NBA players don't have to play in puddles and hockey players are not forced to play ball hockey.

  2. #662
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But they don't take down all the Leaf stuff at the ACC when the Raptors play and their fans don't get upset about it. I've never heard a complaint from a Manchester United fan whenever you can see rugby lines on the pitch when they play. We don't have a more hallowed past than any of those teams so expecting pristine TFC only conditions at BMO might be a little unrealistic for a team that isn't even 10 years old yet IMO. Let's see what it looks like first. To me, when you front the expansion with over $100,000,000 you should at least get the benefit of the doubt and at least given them a chance before getting tarred and feathered.

  3. #663
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Since when has MLSE ever earned the benefit of the doubt?

  4. #664
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Stoney Creek
    Posts
    2,856
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fort York Redcoat View Post
    Cancelling seasons tickets is not cancelling support of the team. It's not even saying one isn't attending. Only that one won't commit a season to an unguaranteed quality. Not that that's even the only reason to not renewing seasons. There are plenty. Just like there are plenty of ways to support.
    lol ok. Thanks for the lesson.

  5. #665
    RPB Member
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Centre of My Bloody Universe.
    Posts
    19,075
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buddies View Post
    But they don't take down all the Leaf stuff at the ACC when the Raptors play and their fans don't get upset about it. I've never heard a complaint from a Manchester United fan whenever you can see rugby lines on the pitch when they play. We don't have a more hallowed past than any of those teams so expecting pristine TFC only conditions at BMO might be a little unrealistic for a team that isn't even 10 years old yet IMO. Let's see what it looks like first. To me, when you front the expansion with over $100,000,000 you should at least get the benefit of the doubt and at least given them a chance before getting tarred and feathered.
    How many Man United supporters did you interview? How many years before you have the respect reserved for older teams? Technically only the oldest team in the world agreeing to do something warrants every other team in the world doing it, too. I hope they don't jump off a bridge.

    Also - tarred an feathered? Hardly. They had several chances to avoid this and inform and assure us all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    lol ok. Thanks for the lesson.
    S'cool. Gotta do something while we wait for more pics.
    Last edited by Fort York Redcoat; 01-07-2016 at 01:19 PM.
    FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER

  6. #666
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tahrawnah
    Posts
    2,147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buddies View Post
    But they don't take down all the Leaf stuff at the ACC when the Raptors play and their fans don't get upset about it. I've never heard a complaint from a Manchester United fan whenever you can see rugby lines on the pitch when they play. We don't have a more hallowed past than any of those teams so expecting pristine TFC only conditions at BMO might be a little unrealistic for a team that isn't even 10 years old yet IMO. Let's see what it looks like first. To me, when you front the expansion with over $100,000,000 you should at least get the benefit of the doubt and at least given them a chance before getting tarred and feathered.
    No. But the sport of soccer has a far more promising future than the Argos do and TFC have a big role to play in that. Soccer is growing in ways that the CFL can only dream of. The CFL in Toronto has completely faded into irrelevance, particularly with younger generations.

    Given MLSE's long established record for producing dismal results, soccer fans have every right to be cynical about this process and wary of what we hear coming out of both sides of MLSE's corporate mouth. Soccer(TFC, national teams, international and club friendlies, etc.) has the potential to provide 40 or more game dates over the 7 months or so of playing season. The Argos can ensure 10 or 11. Yet that shorter span of games threatens to jeopardize the quality of the core product.

    This is the thanks we're given for staunchly supporting the club through some of MLSE's worst mis-management. They run the risk of turning off those loyal fans and incurring the same apathy the Argos now receive. And no amount of phoney Beatlemania and awesome fan experience is bringing the Argos back. The Grey Cup just isn't a big enough prize anymore.

  7. #667
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pint View Post
    Since when has MLSE ever earned the benefit of the doubt?
    They just laid down ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS of THEIR money on BMO. In the last couple of years they've brought in Defoe, Gilberto, Bradley, Altidore, Giovinco. They didn't come cheap so they had to attempt to crank up the attendance to help pay for it by expanding the seating. That kind of investment comes with a price. If you want to compare the current team to the pre Lieweke era go back on this board and see what we complained about back then. The teams were crap compared to what we're going to field this year. Anyone who thinks they put a roof on BMO to keep people dry has no idea what a real atmosphere at a soccer game is and don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about unless you've stood at a better game than a Scotland v England international at Hampden. I love TFC and always will but if anyone on this board thinks we have a good atmosphere at our games you need to put it in perspective. They put the roof on to make the crowd louder and give us a better home field advantage and a better time at the games. As a die hard I'd have attended anyway. They didn't have to put the roof on and I thank them for it. We asked them to and they dug into their pockets and did it. Rome wasn't built in a day and all I'm saying is that we are headed in the right direction. Give it time. The team I support in Scotland is called St Mirren. They have come close to going bankrupt and no longer existing. The last team I supported in Toronto was the Blizzard in the NASL. The whole league went bankrupt. It's ok to sit on this board and complain but let's be honest. In comparison to this team going the way of the Blizzard or Chivas, personally I'm ok with making some small sacrifices like stadium sharing with the Argos if it helps this team stick around long term. In my book I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they throw down $100M on my team and spend more on the product on the field than pretty near any other team in the league.

  8. #668
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,102
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Pics and construction talk. No Argos stuff please.
    Can we. Please.

  9. #669
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buddies View Post
    They just laid down ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS of THEIR money on BMO. In the last couple of years they've brought in Defoe, Gilberto, Bradley, Altidore, Giovinco. They didn't come cheap so they had to attempt to crank up the attendance to help pay for it by expanding the seating. That kind of investment comes with a price. If you want to compare the current team to the pre Lieweke era go back on this board and see what we complained about back then. The teams were crap compared to what we're going to field this year. Anyone who thinks they put a roof on BMO to keep people dry has no idea what a real atmosphere at a soccer game is and don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about unless you've stood at a better game than a Scotland v England international at Hampden. I love TFC and always will but if anyone on this board thinks we have a good atmosphere at our games you need to put it in perspective. They put the roof on to make the crowd louder and give us a better home field advantage and a better time at the games. As a die hard I'd have attended anyway. They didn't have to put the roof on and I thank them for it. We asked them to and they dug into their pockets and did it. Rome wasn't built in a day and all I'm saying is that we are headed in the right direction. Give it time. The team I support in Scotland is called St Mirren. They have come close to going bankrupt and no longer existing. The last team I supported in Toronto was the Blizzard in the NASL. The whole league went bankrupt. It's ok to sit on this board and complain but let's be honest. In comparison to this team going the way of the Blizzard or Chivas, personally I'm ok with making some small sacrifices like stadium sharing with the Argos if it helps this team stick around long term. In my book I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they throw down $100M on my team and spend more on the product on the field than pretty near any other team in the league.
    They have laid down closer to 150 mil but thanks for the lesson... 140 budget for stadium, got 20mil combined from 2 levels of govt and had to cover overruns themselves.

    They bought players because they needed a splash to keep any sort of light on the franchise in the toronto marketplace, a winner can be built without massive salary players but thats a different story. I'm happy with the gio signing and the entertainment he brought last year.

    The stadium needed to be done as the original stadium was built very cheaply, simply to keep it going an investment was needed. The increase in seating isn't based on us it's based on special events (mainly outdoor hockey, which is what will pay for this expansion in the long run).

    To go along with the stadium they have continuously left everyone hanging with regards to the plans for the stadium (north stand, what is going on with the playing surface, southend etc).

    If the roof in the south if it were for the purpose of atmosphere it would be 50+ ft lower. It will keep in some sound but not nearly as much as it could if it were meant for us.

    I'm in a wait and see mode with the stadium and how things play out this season.

    You also listed 5 DP's they have bought... you are only allowed 3 and if they had done their homework accurately they may not have had to spend money hand over fist to fix the mistakes they made.

    They are more than willing to throw money at problems but they create many of those problems by blindly throwing money at things.

    For those reasons they do not get the benefit of the doubt from me.

  10. #670
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pint View Post
    They have laid down closer to 150 mil but thanks for the lesson... 140 budget for stadium, got 20mil combined from 2 levels of govt and had to cover overruns themselves.

    They bought players because they needed a splash to keep any sort of light on the franchise in the toronto marketplace, a winner can be built without massive salary players but thats a different story. I'm happy with the gio signing and the entertainment he brought last year.

    The stadium needed to be done as the original stadium was built very cheaply, simply to keep it going an investment was needed. The increase in seating isn't based on us it's based on special events (mainly outdoor hockey, which is what will pay for this expansion in the long run).

    To go along with the stadium they have continuously left everyone hanging with regards to the plans for the stadium (north stand, what is going on with the playing surface, southend etc).

    If the roof in the south if it were for the purpose of atmosphere it would be 50+ ft lower. It will keep in some sound but not nearly as much as it could if it were meant for us.

    I'm in a wait and see mode with the stadium and how things play out this season.

    You also listed 5 DP's they have bought... you are only allowed 3 and if they had done their homework accurately they may not have had to spend money hand over fist to fix the mistakes they made.

    They are more than willing to throw money at problems but they create many of those problems by blindly throwing money at things.

    For those reasons they do not get the benefit of the doubt from me.
    .... really?

    They are one of a handful of management groups that have been willing to spend and attract high end talent. And they've succeeded. They weren't forced into doing that. They could've gone the Vancouver route but decided they wanted to become a destination. And they're succeeding.. listen to the players interviews that are coming in so far this offseason.

    The stadium was built in 2007. Cheaply or no it did not NEED to be upgraded. The upgrading is because MLSE see the potential of football and are putting their own money down to try and reap the profits from it. And Thank you to them because if they keep doing this, we'll all get the benefit of it with a successful team. Also, no need to add a roof, other than the desire to create a better atmosphere for this club. They've been mostly up front with everything regarding the stadium. At the time of the initial drawings there was no deal in place with the Argos. Afterwards clearly changes needed to be made. As soon as they were drawings were made available? Just because you don't approve of them doesn't mean they have withheld information.

    Roof height: you're still getting a roof. I didn't talk to the engineers on why they decided to place it the way they did but it's likely for some other reasons.. aka to add additional stands allowing more multi-purpose events.

    DPs: Again one of the few teams to continually make use of the DP rule to try and improve the team. Irregardless of whether it has worked, it shows their intent on trying to buy success. They have had horrible management for the majority of this teams history but that' still hasn't stopped MLSE from doing what they can (spending) to improve the team.

    I don't get it... would you rather be a San Jose or Chicago or New England or DC with an ownership that is unwilling to try and move the team forward through spending? We could have the perfect storm here if we give this team time to get results.. (competant management, plus an owner that is continually willing to spend to improve the team).

    But hey if you want to focus on the glass is half empty all the time feel free. Doesn't it get exhausting though?

  11. #671
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Just out of curiosity, don't take this as an attack...
    why do the faint lines matter? If they were there 3 games of the year... You'd stop supporting TFC?
    What if there are solid not washed football lines on the pitch for 2 games? Out of 17 home games... You'd leave?
    I would yes. I can't watch a game played with grid iron marks on the field like you see in New England exc.. I never watched a single TFC game played on grid iron fields like in New England, I turned them off every time once I saw that, it was to distracting and I felt the game wasn't taken seriously. Its the same reason when I play the game I would go to a Soccer field, not to High School football field, to many lines, to distracting for me. I can't even see the out bound lines. And I don't see why not, I want the sport to be played on the type of pitch with a certain type of markings, why wouldn't we expect anything but the best? why would you want to settle for Grid iron markings on the field?
    Last edited by james; 01-07-2016 at 06:15 PM.

  12. #672
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buddies View Post
    They just laid down ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS of THEIR money on BMO. In the last couple of years they've brought in Defoe, Gilberto, Bradley, Altidore, Giovinco. They didn't come cheap so they had to attempt to crank up the attendance to help pay for it by expanding the seating. That kind of investment comes with a price. If you want to compare the current team to the pre Lieweke era go back on this board and see what we complained about back then. The teams were crap compared to what we're going to field this year. Anyone who thinks they put a roof on BMO to keep people dry has no idea what a real atmosphere at a soccer game is and don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about unless you've stood at a better game than a Scotland v England international at Hampden. I love TFC and always will but if anyone on this board thinks we have a good atmosphere at our games you need to put it in perspective. They put the roof on to make the crowd louder and give us a better home field advantage and a better time at the games. As a die hard I'd have attended anyway. They didn't have to put the roof on and I thank them for it. We asked them to and they dug into their pockets and did it. Rome wasn't built in a day and all I'm saying is that we are headed in the right direction. Give it time. The team I support in Scotland is called St Mirren. They have come close to going bankrupt and no longer existing. The last team I supported in Toronto was the Blizzard in the NASL. The whole league went bankrupt. It's ok to sit on this board and complain but let's be honest. In comparison to this team going the way of the Blizzard or Chivas, personally I'm ok with making some small sacrifices like stadium sharing with the Argos if it helps this team stick around long term. In my book I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they throw down $100M on my team and spend more on the product on the field than pretty near any other team in the league.
    I am excited about the new stadium, I am just worried about the field condition with Argos, they have said it will work, but we all have reasons for doubting them when you look at other stadium situations across the county. The stadium will look awesome when its done tho, grass and field? still wait and see.. But was it renovated all for TFC? I doubt it very much. The roof wasn't built for noise. It was built to keep bums in there seats on rainy days, it had to do with Argos, Winter Classic game and TFC. This was all done for reasons to increase profits of the stadium in the future. Never think this was all done for TFC and the atmosphere because it really wasn't, but it is a bonus if it helps do those things to add to the game experience.
    Last edited by james; 01-07-2016 at 06:34 PM.

  13. #673
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buddies View Post
    But they don't take down all the Leaf stuff at the ACC when the Raptors play and their fans don't get upset about it. I've never heard a complaint from a Manchester United fan whenever you can see rugby lines on the pitch when they play. We don't have a more hallowed past than any of those teams so expecting pristine TFC only conditions at BMO might be a little unrealistic for a team that isn't even 10 years old yet IMO. Let's see what it looks like first. To me, when you front the expansion with over $100,000,000 you should at least get the benefit of the doubt and at least given them a chance before getting tarred and feathered.
    I don't think to many people are worried about Argos posters and advertising, there is a difference tho if you see Argos markings on the field during a TFC game. Those are 2 completely different things.

    Leafs play on Ice, Raptors play on a court, you never see a hockey blue line or something on the basketball court and you don't see a 3 pointer line on a Hockey Ice rink, so no one ever cares if a Basketball team and Hockey team share a stadium. Now seeing a 50 yard line or a touchdown on a soccer field...that has been seen many times in MLS and that is what TFC fans are worried about!

    I also have never seen any lines at Manchester United. However I have seen NFL grid Iron markings at Wembley...and there was a lot of complaints, in fact this year the NFL had to minimize the markings on the Wembley field and use much more faint yard lines because of the up roar from England fans attending and watching England play at Wembley!

  14. #674
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Section 110 Row 24
    Posts
    7,291
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barticusz View Post
    Are any of you fans of the Leafs or Raptors? Did you cancel your Raptor's seasons tickets when you found out that the Leafs were also going to be playing in the ACC? (If I'm not misstaken I believe the ACC was initially being built for the raptors).
    You don't have hockey lines on a basketball court.

  15. #675
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by james View Post
    .... EDIT .... However I have seen NFL grid Iron markings at Wembley...and there was a lot of complaints, in fact this year the NFL had to minimize the markings on the Wembley field and use much more faint yard lines because of the up roar from England fans attending and watching England play at Wembley!
    ... and I think that's something that has to happen here. It will simplify the cleaning process with less wear and tear on the grass during that process. It's the damned numbers that I'm most concerned about.

    I'm not worried about a CFL logo as we have been promised it will not be there ...... and we have to hold MLSE to that promise!

    Even worse though and something only being peripherally touched on in this thread is the condition of the field itself. As we all will agree, anything less than a billiard table smoothness is not acceptable.

    We can't forget this!

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...ed-nfl-4631347

  16. #676
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Pics and construction talk. No Argos stuff please.
    .........

  17. #677
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabbronies View Post
    You don't have hockey lines on a basketball court.
    The point is, there are many multi-use facilities. Shouldn't one of the most Iconic teams in the history of Hockey have it's very own stadium though?

    I get that you don't want the field to be ruined by the Argo's, neither do I. But the truth is that football is still very much in it's infancy in North America and so these types of situations will continue. Are you willing to start paying higher taxes for the City of Toronto to start building a brand new Soccer Specific stadium or CFL stadium for the Argo's? Do you believe the majority of citizens will be willing to fund such a stadium as well?

    This is the current situation and we need to deal with it.

    If instead the Argo's were being forced into this stadium by the City, with no enhancement to the stadium, no roof, and the stands were destroyed on either side just to make room then I'd be more up in arms. In this situation we're still being treated as the primary tenant. Let's just wait and see how it unfolds.

  18. #678
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    399
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    F--ing Argos

  19. #679
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barticusz View Post
    The point is, there are many multi-use facilities. Shouldn't one of the most Iconic teams in the history of Hockey have it's very own stadium though?
    No. With the notable exception of Detroit, NBA and NHL clubs share facilities when located in the same city. Chicago, New York, Boston and Toronto (four of the original six) do this. If Montreal had an NBA club, they'd play at the Molson Centre too!

    It's economics plain and simple .... and, as mentioned elsewhere, the two sports can co-exist whereas CFL at BMO is a destructive element due to field damage (as we all know).

  20. #680
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blizzard View Post
    ... and I think that's something that has to happen here. It will simplify the cleaning process with less wear and tear on the grass during that process. It's the damned numbers that I'm most concerned about.

    I'm not worried about a CFL logo as we have been promised it will not be there ...... and we have to hold MLSE to that promise!

    Even worse though and something only being peripherally touched on in this thread is the condition of the field itself. As we all will agree, anything less than a billiard table smoothness is not acceptable.

    We can't forget this!

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...ed-nfl-4631347
    Early days of NFL in London they used more darker colours on the field




    More recently the lines are much more faint.


    Even so I believe Wembley has still been a struggle to keep the field in good condition. It has been no walk in the park!

  21. #681
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Section 110 Row 24
    Posts
    7,291
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barticusz View Post
    The point is, there are many multi-use facilities. Shouldn't one of the most Iconic teams in the history of Hockey have it's very own stadium though?

    I get that you don't want the field to be ruined by the Argo's, neither do I. But the truth is that football is still very much in it's infancy in North America and so these types of situations will continue. Are you willing to start paying higher taxes for the City of Toronto to start building a brand new Soccer Specific stadium or CFL stadium for the Argo's? Do you believe the majority of citizens will be willing to fund such a stadium as well?

    This is the current situation and we need to deal with it.

    If instead the Argo's were being forced into this stadium by the City, with no enhancement to the stadium, no roof, and the stands were destroyed on either side just to make room then I'd be more up in arms. In this situation we're still being treated as the primary tenant. Let's just wait and see how it unfolds.
    Footy as a local professional sport is in it's infancy - the fan base however, especially in this city, is very mature. We have been very patient with the garbage football being played and passed off as professional for some years now. The local version of the sport is finally starting to show major signs of improvement is now in serious risk of having it's quality of play compromised due to poor surface conditions.

    To have a situation where a local professional footy team is sharing space with a sport that historically has a reputation of causing serious damage, both visually and physically, to the playing surface is very damaging to the reputation of the league locally.

    Until we see actual proof that this stadium relationship will be a seamless experience, which again I say historically has never been the case, I think we should continue to make noise. It pushes the team to spend as much money and explore and develop new avenues to making this possible - which I doubt they will be able to achieve.

  22. #682
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tahrawnah
    Posts
    2,147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ooh, I dunno about that opening line there, Jabba.

    Toronto Falcons, Toronto City, Toronto Metros (later Metros-Croatia), Toronto Blizzard, Toronto Lynx, North York Rockets.

    All played professional soccer in this city over the past half century. But this is the best situation - team, league, stadium, future fan demographics - there's ever been. Deserves to be respected.
    Last edited by greatwhitenorf; 01-07-2016 at 09:22 PM.

  23. #683
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greatwhitenorf View Post
    Ooh, I dunno about that opening line there, Jabba.

    Toronto Falcons, Toronto City, Toronto Metros (later Metros-Croatia), Toronto Blizzard, Toronto Lynx, North York Rockets.

    All played professional soccer in this city over the past half century. But this is the best situation - team, league, stadium, future fan demographics - there's ever been. Deserves to be respected.
    .... and we had some extremely fine players on the rosters of these clubs through the years. Some are better known than others such as Eusabio and Bettega but we've had some peaks (and many valleys). Metros-Croatia won the NA Championship in 1976 and the Blizzard made it to the Cup Final in 1983 and 1984.

    Many of the spectators that attended matches in those days still do (me included). We're not new to this game.

    .... and there would be no BMO Field if not for soccer and for that reason alone I think it is entirely reasonable for individuals to feel possessive about the facility.

    Regarding "deal with it", I think we are. We're resigned to the fact that this is happening but that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to state their views. There's a lot of anger out there.

    My biggest criticisms will come if and when we see logos/advertisements on the pitch and a destroyed surface.

  24. #684
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Section 110 Row 24
    Posts
    7,291
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greatwhitenorf View Post
    Ooh, I dunno about that opening line there, Jabba.

    Toronto Falcons, Toronto City, Toronto Metros (later Metros-Croatia), Toronto Blizzard, Toronto Lynx, North York Rockets.

    All played professional soccer in this city over the past half century. But this is the best situation - team, league, stadium, future fan demographics - there's ever been. Deserves to be respected.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blizzard View Post
    .... and we had some extremely fine players on the rosters of these clubs through the years. Some are better known than others such as Eusabio and Bettega but we've had some peaks (and many valleys). Metros-Croatia won the NA Championship in 1976 and the Blizzard made it to the Cup Final in 1983 and 1984.

    Many of the spectators that attended matches in those days still do (me included). We're not new to this game.

    .... and there would be no BMO Field if not for soccer and for that reason alone I think it is entirely reasonable for individuals to feel possessive about the facility.
    So when I say professional, I'm talking about teams where players are full time athletes. Sponsorships are from big corporations. Games are televised nationally and stadiums are 10K + filled. IMO if you have these ingredients in place, you should be brining in quality players with quality systems being played.

    I'm not trying to diminish what was here in the past and Blizzard brings up some very good points to back up the legitimacy of what was done in the past. Those ingredients I mentioned where all there.

    But for me - it never stuck. It never grew to the size of even the CFL.
    No matter who we brought in to play, the game as a professional sport never grew to size of a viable sustainable professional sports product that was able to survive even the slightest financial burden and still put a half decent product on the field.

    We have had what i call a professional team now for what..10 years? and IMO - it's still in it's infancy. Yes we get TV ratings, but it's not top tier ratings - it's actually bottom of the barrel ratings. Yes the stadium is full, but I don't buy that there's a huge demand for tickets like they made it out to be 5-6 years. Yes our players are full time athletes and we are now getting more international stars coming into the league, but we will see how that plays out - the last time a NA league did this, it folded due to financial burden.

    IMO - anything that brings question to the integrity of the game can be very harmful to the way people view the sport. Even this year - when TFC played NYCFC - I had dozens of people tell me it was very hard to watch. It just didn't feel right watch the game played on that field. I had the same comment come up each time as well - "It felt like the game was being played on a makeshift field". Like they had no where else to play, so they quickly got two nets and put them on whatever field they could find. People were just turning off the match cos they just couldn't bother trying to figure out what was happening.

    Now imagine having to deal with football lines for half of the home games we play. It's a very subtle thing that the brain needs to adjust to to realize that what it perceives is an out of bounds like - isn't really an out of bounds line. Now when this happens 70-80 times a game all over the field - those small, unnoticeable brain farts, become aggravating as fuck. You stop paying attention to the players because you are just trying to figure out where the field they are playing on is.

    I get it, they will not be as bold and visible as the soccer lines, ghosted at best. But from my experience with watching a game like this, and it's only been twice, it's annoying as fuck and distracts from the game.

    And we all know how hard it is for MLS players on our team to make clean passes - Add to the fact that a chewed up field from a football match will make the ball roll even more poorly...
    Last edited by jabbronies; 01-08-2016 at 09:17 AM.

  25. #685
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,619
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GabrielHurl View Post
    .........

  26. #686
    RPB Member
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Centre of My Bloody Universe.
    Posts
    19,075
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another reminder people:

    If you feel the need to talk Argos to BMO talk here

    And if you want to compare arena sharing to groundshare, link roster spending to stadium spending (?) or wax upon the state of the respective sports legacies comparisons, please do so succinctly over there.

    Many people seem to feel this thread destined for pics and comments about said pics.
    FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER

  27. #687
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blizzard View Post
    No. With the notable exception of Detroit, NBA and NHL clubs share facilities when located in the same city. Chicago, New York, Boston and Toronto (four of the original six) do this. If Montreal had an NBA club, they'd play at the Molson Centre too!

    It's economics plain and simple .... and, as mentioned elsewhere, the two sports can co-exist whereas CFL at BMO is a destructive element due to field damage (as we all know).
    "It's economics plain and simple" .. how does that statement not apply to adding another tenant at BMO Field. Does it not just make it more economically viable? You say that the sports don't co-exist because that is your personal opinion. In other stadiums like houston's BBVA Compass, it is a shared use facility that includes a University Football team. <- how can those two teams possibly co-exist when you just declared that they cannot?

  28. #688
    RPB Member
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Centre of My Bloody Universe.
    Posts
    19,075
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barticusz View Post
    "It's economics plain and simple" .. how does that statement not apply to adding another tenant at BMO Field. Does it not just make it more economically viable? You say that the sports don't co-exist because that is your personal opinion. In other stadiums like houston's BBVA Compass, it is a shared use facility that includes a University Football team. <- how can those two teams possibly co-exist when you just declared that they cannot?
    This is answered in the other thread. If you read Bliz he does not say the 2 sports CANNOT co-exist. They do. He said one is destructive. And he is correct. Again, all of this was discussed in the other thread. Have a boo if this subject interests you or anyone else.
    FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER

  29. #689
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    with perpetual hope
    Posts
    3,624
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greatwhitenorf View Post
    No. But the sport of soccer has a far more promising future than the Argos do and TFC have a big role to play in that. Soccer is growing in ways that the CFL can only dream of. The CFL in Toronto has completely faded into irrelevance, particularly with younger generations.

    Given MLSE's long established record for producing dismal results, soccer fans have every right to be cynical about this process and wary of what we hear coming out of both sides of MLSE's corporate mouth. Soccer(TFC, national teams, international and club friendlies, etc.) has the potential to provide 40 or more game dates over the 7 months or so of playing season. The Argos can ensure 10 or 11. Yet that shorter span of games threatens to jeopardize the quality of the core product.

    This is the thanks we're given for staunchly supporting the club through some of MLSE's worst mis-management. They run the risk of turning off those loyal fans and incurring the same apathy the Argos now receive. And no amount of phoney Beatlemania and awesome fan experience is bringing the Argos back. The Grey Cup just isn't a big enough prize anymore.
    we're off topic but.....are there no TFC supporters here that look into the future say 5 years when the Argos fan base drops and they are not making $$ and our bastard field is not to blame . Then what then ? How do we get screwed again ?......north stands return , ever? South stands made permanent ? Are they actually done .
    Last edited by jazzy; 01-08-2016 at 10:54 PM.
    ALL HELL'S BROKEN LOOSEhttp://gfycat.com/SharpKindArrowana

  30. #690
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    5,662
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barticusz View Post
    The point is, there are many multi-use facilities. Shouldn't one of the most Iconic teams in the history of Hockey have it's very own stadium though?

    I get that you don't want the field to be ruined by the Argo's, neither do I. But the truth is that football is still very much in it's infancy in North America and so these types of situations will continue. Are you willing to start paying higher taxes for the City of Toronto to start building a brand new Soccer Specific stadium or CFL stadium for the Argo's? Do you believe the majority of citizens will be willing to fund such a stadium as well?

    This is the current situation and we need to deal with it.
    I did pay for a stadium for the Argos through my taxes. Maybe you are too young to have done so, but the SkyDome was specifically built to accommodate the Argos and it cost about 600 million dollars of public money, mostly from the Province and a bit from the City.

    then our taxes supported the building of a stadium for the U20 World Cup, about 60 million or so from the Federal Gov, province and City. Original name "The National Soccer Stadium." MLSE paid part too in anticipation of an MLS franchise and it was agreed that the City would own it and MLSE operate it.

    For me, the Argos owe the public purse about 300 million dollars plus twenty five years of interest. With that they could build a lovely stadium and leave BMO alone.
    Last edited by MightyDM; 01-10-2016 at 08:58 AM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •