Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NASL' started by STLREF, Dec 5, 2009.
I propose the NASL in absolutely no circumstances allow field turf.
Good luck with that.
That will never happen. Vancouver is working with the city and state to rebuild the BC Place for MLS and it will have turf.
Not going to happen, sorry.
Not with ya, sorry. I want Miami FC at FIU Stadium and we have excellent Field Turf, thank you very much!
Nothing beats playing the game on grass, but I think we're going to have to accept that teams will have field turf. It's not great, but at least it's not astroturf.
FieldTurf is a reality these days. It's good for teams that share stadiums with football teams as it doesn't get worn out and in most cases you can remove the football lines very nicely(if the stadium owner isn't lazy of course). I don't mind it, so long the football lines are gone, but the problem is players and managers don't generally like it, and if it comes down to a guy wanting to sign with 1 of 2 teams, and one has the turf, then it can be a disadvantage to the club.
The goal of getting rid of FieldTurf is attainable through the much more important goal of every team trying to secure their own soccer-only stadium. If the NASL can eventually have every club playing in their own 5-10K seat venue, like Charleston, Carolina, Rochester and Montréal have, it will be a great accomplishment and great for the league.
That has always been, and probably will always be, a complaint that we'll have. New England and Seattle come to mind, as they do play in huge football stadiums that have FieldTurf. Even though the football lines can be removed, you can still see remnants of them, which is just as worse.
I agree here. Using another MLS example, Toronto FC had FieldTurf at BMO Field for three years and will now play on natural grass next year. It can be done.
And now Toronto is going to let the CFL team come in and wreck it! Bad enough the first team on it is the Union (you know those Philly clowns will wreck it!).
Not if their supporters have anything to say on it. The TFC fan base is more vocal and organized than the Are-you-nuts are. They will be heard, and in the end, I believe the city will listen to them and block this.
I love playing on grass. I hate turf. unfortunately it is what it is, and I doubt NASL will change it or be able to.
I can understand that TFC and colder climate areas have turf due to long cold dark winters that makes it hard to keep a nice grass field.
But why at FIU? Only thing I can think of is $$$.
Maybe a stupid question, but the BS members like me that were brought up in Europe and have always played on grass, probably don't know what it is to play on turf
What are the big disadvantages?
The bounce of the ball is shocking on FieldTurf.
From a physiological standpoint, not healthy.
Yes playing on it every once and awhile does little harm other than effect the way the ball rolls/bounces, but if a player plays for a team that has turf for a long time it starts to wear on them. That's what happened to Andre Dawson when he played for the Expos in the 70s and 80s. The astroturf killed his knees(and that was playing baseball, where you're not running all the time like soccer). Of course the turf technology has gotten much better over the years but it's still a problem.
I had a specific "turf clause" put into my contract(s).
Not to mention that the turf gets incredibly hot. In the sumer the grass could easily be over 120˚F. It's terrible.
The way the ball bounces is a bit different. For instance, if the ball is spinning and it hits turf, it will grip much more as opposed to grass where it will skip. The other disadvantage is when you slide for a tackle, it will tear you up. There are little ground up bits of old tires used to fill in the turf, and they can really hurt (plus they get all n your shoes and socks.
Having said that, I like playing on turf. The ball always rolls true and you will not get a crazy hop like most grass fields. The field will always be "fast" because the water will drain off of it when it rains so you will never play in a swampy muddy mess (like I did today). Also, you will never have a rainout if you are an amateur.
I can also say that Atlanta will never lose the field turf. There are 50+ amateur 7 v 7 games played on that field every week and there is no way a grass field would ever hold up. At Silverbacks there are 200+ games per week played on all of the turf fields (there are 2 more full sized fields). Each team pays about $750 for every 9 week season and there is hardly any overhead. The profit for the amateur games is way more that for a professional game and way too much to put a grass field in.
Why would the Argos move out of their current stadium anyway. What's wrong with the Skydome for CFL football?
For one thing, it's too cavernous. It really lacks that home-field appeal that many open-air stadiums have.
You have to remember that when the Skydome (now called the ridiculous Rogers Centre) opened in 1989, it was the last of the newer, enclosed multi-purpose cookie cutter stadiums that more or less plagued the NASL, being that they were not the primary tenant. Other leagues were starting to move toward building stadiums that were specific to that particular sport, making the Skydome dated almost immediately.
It was why MLS wanted their teams to move into soccer-specific stadiums, and many, for the most part, have done so.
Another reason is the lease. I don't have specifics on it, but from what I'm learning, it sucks. Also, BMO Field, in its current configuration, cannot support a regulation CFL field. It's 110 yards long with 20-yard end zones, and the sidelines would be right up against the seats on both sides. It's like what Memphis dealt with back in 1995.
Funny things are, the Are-you-nuts had a chance to build their own stadium on the campus of York University in Toronto before that fell through, and they had two chances to work with Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (TFC's ownership group) to help build a stadium for them and TFC to use, but they declined to take part.
So, screw the Are-you-nuts. They deserve to get screwed over here.
Heck, I'd be happy with no Atlanta Bromwich Albion (or Ham Sandwich Albion, for that matter ), Liverpool FC of Austin, Rochester Bayer Leverkeusen, Racing Pittsburgh, or Manchester United USA. And of course, no Turbo, Smash, Courage, Excite, Effervescence, Flatulent, Vomit, or Splat.
Are the Argos trying to kill the CFL? I am waiting for them to play the 'we are leaving if we dont get what we want' card.
Thus opening up Toronto take the Bills from Buffalo and play at Rogers and then bye-bye CFL.
That's all it is. It's a maneuvering ploy by the Argos for a better lease deal, nothing more. They want more financial concessions than the stadium owners are willing to give them. Happens everywhere, unfortunately. At this point, they don't have enough credibility left within the city to move to BMO, IMO.
Trust me, dude. The CFL will not die if the Argos fold. There will be other markets in Canada to fill the void.
Also, I don't see the NFL going to Toronto anytime soon. They couldn't even get the dome half-filled for the recent Jets-Bills game they had there last week.
BING! Money is the answer, it is cheaper to maintain a plastic field than grass.