Saw this in the Telegraph: "The biggest challenge for the NFL in wanting to use Tottenham’s new stadium would be ensuring the pitch was not damaged as a result. England manager Roy Hodgson complained about the Wembley surface after two NFL games were played on it ahead of the Euro 2016 qualifier against Slovenia. Tottenham would need a design that protects the grass by allowing them to incorporate a sliding artificial pitch for NFL games." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...London-based-American-Football-franchise.html Forget about a single playing surface. This would make a TFC/Argos combo work at BMO.
That would be a concern, indeed. I seem to recall that the England Monarchs of the old World League used White Hart Lane as their home field in 1997 (I believe) because Wembley was being rebuilt. I'm sure Tottenham wasn't too thrilled about that.
Sure, but what that article doesn't state is how are they going to build a sliding pitch at Tottenham? Where are they going to build one here? Here's Tottenham's Northumberland Development Project along with BMO Field: No room at either place without major reworking of the roads, new planning permissions, money, etc.
^Not to mention that sliding pitches are a major undertaking. Aside from designing a moving system of rails or paths sufficient to move the pitch (which includes a complete self-contained drainage and irrigation system) you have to find a way to make the stand at one end of the pitch able to support itself without directly connecting to the ground. Vitesse Arnhem's stadium accomplished this by making the stand at the sliding end effectively a bridge rather than a self contained stand. It was built to be supported by the stands on either side of it....of course the issue is that this is probably not enough support to allow thousands of people in the structure and jump around so they also built hydraulic feet into the bottom of the stand that came down to ground level when the stand/bridge was in use. People talk about these things like they are, both, easy and cheap but when you include the cost of the excess land that you need that can't be used (in the BMO Field case the likely spot would be the paid parking south of the stadium) and the cost of the field system and the cost of that stand/bridge design....they are neither easy or cheap.
I doubt that money is an issue for MLSE. Storage for the artificial turf can be in one of the CNE buildings, most of which are empty for much of the year. When the grass field needs to be removed, it can be stored outside at the bandshell or temporarily in one of the buildings. As to how to do it, look here: http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/atas...cle_a63d47d2-34ff-5887-9a68-b1081c61b43d.html
^the discussion was about a sliding field....not one "comprised of 8-foot square trays, which hold sections of grass that are pieced together for games. " And money is an issue to the extent they will have a target ROI....if that was not the case the whole project would not have been delayed (albeit slightly) while they tried to pry the $30million of public money to go with the $90million of their own they were willing to put in.
Who cares if it slides into place or is put together like a jigsaw. If it works, it doesn't matter what kind it is.
^perhaps.....but that is not the discussion the op was having/looking for when they posted a link to a discussion about a sliding pitch....and when you joined that discussion.
lol so you did....if you want to start a discussion about sliding pitches but then move the goalposts to include all the different types of moveable pitch systems I will bow out.....too many options out there.
Yes it does matter. When you're paying DP's millions of dollars a year, wouldn't you want to do everything you can to protect that investment? Like TOareafan says, the ROI for what it would cost, per year, to implement a retractable field or a tray like system is so low that you probably lose money if you're doing all this for the Argos. As for storing the grass indoors....sorry what? Grass indoors? And the bandshell? Please tell me you're trying to be funny.
The purpose of this thread was not so much to discuss a sliding pitch for BMO as to generate discussion about the possibility of using multiple playing surfaces in order to preserve the natural grass field for use by TFC and the national teams. The current plan for one surface for all events is totally unrealistic. 1. As to the modular field, I said, "if it works." Injury risk should certainly be part of the equation when making the determination of, "if it works." That is just common sense. However, it is already proven technology. It is used in Houston now without problems and was used successfully at the Pontiac Silverdome as far back as 1994, so there is nothing new here. 2. Removing the field and storing it is not a problem. If you have been to the CNE you should be familiar with the bandshell. It has a grass area where audiences sit to listen to concerts. It is easily large enough to accomodate the pallettes that would comprise the BMO playing surface. Place it there and fence it off. In any case, the maximum number of dates when the field would have to be moved for the Argos would not be more than 15 (2 pre-season games, 9 regular season, 2 playoff and 1 Grey Cup if played in Toronto). According to the story about the stadium in Houston, the change over takes less than a day. Move it out on day 1. Play the game on day 2 and move it back into the stadium on day 3. Except for Argo games the natural surface would remain in place in the stadium. Given that each move move would not be more than 3 days at most, storage indoors is also a possibility. During the 1994 World Cup, the Pontiac Silverdome was used for 4 first-round games. The field lasted for several weeks and remained in good condition. You want more info, read this: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/mitgc/article/1993233.pdf So no, I am not trying to be funny. Mine is a serious suggestion using proven technology and techniques.
Not sure how I found my way to this thread this morning, But I thought I would give my thoughts on it this evening. I support the Dynamo, and I live in Houston. I am also a long time Texan fan. 12 years worth of being a Texans fan. We in Houston think our grass sucks. Our field looks like crap all the time It might be due to the fact that we can't grow grass in that stadium. There is no air movement, and sunlight barely gets in there for an extended period of time. I want to say we are the only stadium in the country that uses the square pallet system. Players don't like it because of the seams in between each pallet. Our number 1 pick, Jadaveon Clowney blames the seams in the turf for being injured. Our old punter, Bret Hartman is suing the Texans and NRG stadium. Good ol Bill Billecheck is pissed when his Receiver played in a meaningless game in week 17 and tore his ACL. The tray system isn't it's all cracked up to be. The pitch will look funny with different shades of green. If we could retrofit NRG stadium, I would rather go with what they have in the Phoenix area. I rather have one solid roll out field. The Texans prefer to play on grass, and rather use the carpet for NCAA and High School football. It takes a day or so to change out. How many of you saw the Texas Bowl between Texas and Arkansas? It was played on a Monday Night. The Texans played the afternoon before, and they decided to not change our the grass for the carpet. The Field looked embarrassing. I don't know why they didn't change it. The NFL game ended at 3PM and the Bowl game Started at 8 I think. That's way more than 24 hours.
Hey Kam, thanks for your input even if it is somewhat disappointing. So even with the rug, the grass is still not in good enough shape. That's too bad. It sounds like a great idea.
If you trust Damien Cox, it's happening. Sounds like MLSE set to do a lease deal for Argos at BMO. Sadly, not for this season.— Damien Cox (@DamoSpin) March 23, 2015
Well, if it happens it will need to include the stadium mods to accommodate the CFL field. Would be good to see the details of this.
So let's see if I've got this straight. There are two teams: One team is highly profitable, is likely to continue to be profitable and has great growth prospects. The other team is losing money, is not likely to turn a profit anytime soon and has little, if any growth prospects. And what they want to do is spend a whole lot of money to retrofit the profitable team's stadium so that the non-profitable team can continue to lose money, meanwhile potentially ruining the fan experience for the profitable team and potentially jeopardizing their profitability. From a business perspective, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In fact it doesn't make sense in any perspective that doesn't use the words "100 year history".
Are you willfully ignoring the "Montreal Allouetes to Molson Stadium example of how to improve your franchise" on purpose to make your argument?
There is that argument, but I'll believe it when I see it. Montreal and Toronto are different markets and Canadian football is higher on the sports totem pole in Montreal than it is here. If moving to a smaller stadium is the answer though, are there no other alternatives - expanding one of the university stadiums, for example? The problem that I have is that if this fails and it doesn't save the Argos, they'll have spent tons of money and TFC will be left behind with artificial turf and a stadium that has been built to accommodate a much larger field
Put another way, if you figure that this move will save the Argos, then perhaps it justifies the investment and the downgrade in the TFC fan experience. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I see this more as sending the Argos into a nursing home where they will get the care that they need for their few remaining years. But after that, TFC will be stuck with a converted nursing home.
I'm not a fan of the typical Toronto shitty compromise solution stadium. But I've been an Argo fan way longer than a TFC fan and if this is what's needed to keep the Argos I'll live with it. Yes, ideally the Argos would play at renovated Varsity or York stadia - but since they seem unlikely I'll support what's possible.
I think this simply breaks into two camps where there isn't a lot of room for meaningful discussion. One camp likes the Argos and the CFL. They want to see the Argos with a suitable home. Many in this group genuinely believe a 30 000 seat BMO Field would result in the revitalization of the Argos as they would have a suitable sized venue for the first time since the 1970s. (Think MLS teams moving out of 70 000 seat NFL stadia into properly sized venues.) The other camp cares only for TFC and therefore only wants things done at BMO Field that benefit TFC. They may not harbour any antipathy towards the Argos but they simply don't care what happens to the football team. (Think how fans of many other sports have viewed soccer until recently.)
I actually have a different perspective on this (certainly different than any others I have seen articulated). I don't actually have a concern about the Argos "ruining" BMO Field. I think with smart scheduling, hybrid pitch and retractable seating in the ends the impact on the TFC match day experience will be minimal to nil. My concern is that, from an Argo perspective, far too much faith/hope is being placed on this "it worked in Montreal" idea. I really believe there are some major differences between Als and Argos moves. Montreal was moving to a stadium with some football history.....Toronto would not be Montreal was moving into a stadium that held 20k. Even their then current average crowd of around 15k at the big O created a near full building and some sense of ticket scarcity. Toronto's announced average crowd last year was 17k....moving into a stadium with between 25k and 30k (depending on how the renos work) will not create any sense of scarcity at all....so no incentive (as there was in Montreal) to purchase season tickets to make sure they got in. Montreal was moving from a facility with a bad location to a much better location. As much as I love BMO, it can hardly be described as being a better, more accessible, location than Rogers Centre Football in Quebec was on a real postive growth curve at the time. High schools were adding programs and university programs were growing bigger. The low attendance at Als games was an anomaly within the football scene and was something they thought they could fix. In Toronto/Ontario, football is hardly a growth sport. High schools are closing down programs and university football is outright ignored. Even in Montreal, there are people starting to question the money that was invested in McGill. The expansion to 25k has taken away an element of scarcity and their average attendance in 2014 was 20,675 (with a high of 23,069 and a low of 19,440). I understand that last year was not a great year on the field but even in 2013 their average was barely over 23k and they never once sold out McGill. I would love to see the Argos thrive and survive. I just don't see BMO Field as the magic pill that cures them
All great points - I'd only add that the decline in Argos attendance has coincided with their current stadium situation. To me, Rogers Centre is a terrible football venue, though I haven't checked the stats for the mid to late 80s - I remember they used to sellout a much larger Exhibition stadium in essentially the same spot with a much worse seating configuration than BMO has. IIRC the Argos' TV numbers are still better than TFC's and they should benefit from getting out of the cavernous dome and people seeing a much better fan experience on TV. Agree on the decline of local football at the grass roots levels - but I'm hopeful it's not a harbinger of the Argos demise as the CFL doesn't need to rely on the GTA player pool as much anymore.
Yes they did....but few people buying tickets in the 70s are still with us and buying tickets in the 2100s. yes Argo and, in general, CFL tv numbers are higher than TFC and MLS numbers. That said, there are no "just Toronto" numbers and, by definition, every CFL game on TV has two markets directly contributing to the numbers and 7 other markets that have a secondary interest. That just does not happen in MLS in Canada. I hope so too.....but I was just simply pointing out how simplistic and, potentially, wrong the "it worked in Montreal therefore it will work in Toronto" meme I hear all the time is or could be.