G-Man Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 The Azzurri, Italy's famed national soccer team, will play an international friendly against Serbia Montenegro at the Rogers Centre on June 8, according to the team's website. If the Italian National team can play there why can't this board get it's collective head around the fact that the U-20's should also be played in the joint as well. Common sense. And a TO MLS team as well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydog2006 Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Its allready been set by the fifa that the under 20s can not be played at the rogers centre.And mls won't allow teams to play in domes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted May 16, 2005 Author Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by jaydog2006 Its allready been set by the fifa that the under 20s can not be played at the rogers centre.And mls won't allow teams to play in domes. What's the logic? If a full international can be played there, why not the U-20? Most likely this was an idea pushed by the CSA to get a new stadium built. Lets not forget that the CSA said that a new national team stadium had to be built or the U-20 was going somewhere else, and that hasn't happened. And clearly FIFA has no problem now with the Skydome for internationals, especially, if new turf is put down. It all reeks of a CSA power play when York was on the rails. But now that people are talking about Ivor Wynne???????????? (A 50 year stadium is good enough??)please stop the Anti-Dome rants. The roof does open. And I watched a game from Salt Lake that was played on AstroTurf! (MLS my ass)so, so much for their rules. It's better to love the one you're with than to hate it cause the one you want left you. And will Ottawa have grass? or feildturf? for the U-20? I understand that Terry Fox will get a feildturf surface in connection with event. So why have teams train on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrek Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Its allready been set by the fifa that the under 20s can not be played at the rogers centre.And mls won't allow teams to play in domes. Please back up your statements with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by jaydog2006 Its allready been set by the fifa that the under 20s can not be played at the rogers centre.And mls won't allow teams to play in domes. The only person who has ever stated that FIFA would not allow matches in SkyDome was FC Beast. The CSA, in fact, is now looking at SkyDome as a possible site for the U-20 WYC, but they would obviously prefer to have a legacy stadium in which future internationals could be held. As for MLS not playing in domes, that's a peculiar statement since MLS has alreay agreed to terms with San Antonio to put an expansion team in the Alamodome. quote:Originally posted by G-Man And I watched a game from Salt Lake that was played on AstroTurf! (MLS my ass)so, so much for their rules. The match you were watching was played on FieldTurf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted May 16, 2005 Author Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Rudi The only person who has ever stated that FIFA would not allow matches in SkyDome was FC Beast. The CSA, in fact, is now looking at SkyDome as a possible site for the U-20 WYC, but they would obviously prefer to have a legacy stadium in which future internationals could be held. As for MLS not playing in domes, that's a peculiar statement since MLS has alreay agreed to terms with San Antonio to put an expansion team in the Alamodome. The match you were watching was played on FieldTurf. certainly looked ugly enough to be astroturf.. http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/MountainWest/Utah/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I would hate the thought of the CSA being forced to capitulate and play in the Skydome. Lets review the facts that lead to where we are if I may, It was Rogers ( that same company that holds the broadcast rights from the CSA and won the rights for the WC from FIFA ) that turned around and gave that sweetheart deal to the Argos which eventually lead to the dire situation that we now facing in TO. A situation with no ideal facility for international soccer and virtually killing a much needed infussion of $$$ from and well recognized entriprise like MLSE into pro soccer in TO. And would you be surprised if you were to learn that this was actually the intent of Rogers? I wouldn't. And now some are proposing that we reward Rogers by playing in the Skydome(Rogers Centre)? I am not confortable with this scenario and to be quite honnest, it would be a measure of satisfaction IMHO if the CSA turned around and snubbed the city altogether and told Rogers to "Shove it". They would be well within their rights and would show the politician, sports media, Various NIMBY's, and business community that they do have a "back bone" and that this tournament is to be taken seriously. Speaking for myself only, I would be more than glad at this point if the city was compltetely shut out of the tournament and have games played in Sherbrooke. Personally, It would just mean some travel. If its well in advance, I don't mind planning for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Free kick And now some are proposing that we reward Rogers by playing in the Skydome? I am not confortable with this scenario and to be quite honnest, it would be a measure of satisfaction IMHO if the CSA turned around and snubbed the city altogether and told Rogers to "Shove it". They would be well within their rights and would show the politician, sports media, Various NIMBY's, and business community that they do have a "back bone" and that this tournament is to be taken seriously. Real "back bone" would have been to get the stadium built regardless of the opposition, be it real or imagined. As for not playing in Toronto, you're right, doesn't really make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted May 16, 2005 Author Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Free kick I would hate the thought of the CSA being forced to capitulate and play in the Skydome. Lets review the facts that lead to where we are if I may, It was Rogers ( that same company that holds the broadcast rights from the CSA and won the rights for the WC from FIFA ) that turned around and gave that sweetheart deal to the Argos which eventually lead to the dire situation that we now facing in TO. A situation with no ideal facility for international soccer and virtually killing a much needed infussion of $$$ from and well recognized entriprise like MLSE into pro soccer in TO. And now some are proposing that we reward Rogers by playing in the Skydome? I am not confortable with this scenario and to be quite honnest, it would be a measure of satisfaction IMHO if the CSA turned around and snubbed the city altogether and told Rogers to "Shove it". They would be well within their rights and would show the politician and business community that they do have a "back bone". hold on. Rogers have probably done more for the sport than any other broadcaster. The EPL, WNT, MNT, U-19, etc etc. I don't see Global or the CBC broadcasting as much soccer. And considering they're paying for the broadcast rights to the U-20, what is the problem? If you want to bitch, bitch at the Argos. The CSA couldn't get laid in a whorehouse, that isn't Rogers problem. The Skydome does the job for Internationals. Funny how Italy and Serbia will use it, but not a team ranked 90th in the World. As said before there is still 35 million kicking around. Renovate Lamport stadium with an upper deck to seat 15,000. It's not up to Rogers to build a stadium. They already have own one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by G-Man So your pleased with what Rogers has done broadcast-wise are you? Your Ok with all the important WCQ matches being pre-empted by some meaningless August baseball game? or shown on tape-delay, Or that they failed to broadcast all but one of the last U20 WC matches? I am anxious to know what there really is to be please with over Rogers broadcasting of Canadian soccer. OK, some things like soccer central have been a plus. But YOU say: I don't see Global or the CBC broadcasting as much soccer. Well, Global and THE CBC CANNOT BROADCAST soccer because they do not hold the rights!!! Rogers does. Regarding Lamport, I have to ask: Have you ever seen it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by G-Man hold on. Rogers have probably done more for the sport than any other broadcaster. The EPL, WNT, MNT, U-19, etc etc. I don't see Global or the CBC broadcasting as much soccer. And considering they're paying for the broadcast rights to the U-20, what is the problem? If you want to bitch, bitch at the Argos. As much as I would agree with you on many fronts, Rogers BOUGHT the rights for Canadian soccer and for many EPL broadcasts. It is also because of Rogers that more money has been set aside for England broadcasts than Canadian ones, thereby not showing the Canada-Portugal friendly and the last Canada away game to Guatemala. Pretty ironic that the same company that bought the CSA broadcast rights is the same one the pull the rug underneath the CSA-York U plans, whether or not it was done indirectly. I really don't have a problem with Skydome hosting the games, nor do I have a problem with Ivor Wynne being retrofitted. I just want the issue resolved, whether or not any games are to played at the Dome, Hamilton, Vaughan, or the Ikea parking lot in Vaughan. Maybe more games should be held in Montreal? At least they're doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I've been asking often and never get any results: DOES ANYONE HAVE A GOOD PICTURE OF LAMPORT STADIUM? (Entire stadium, preferably). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel I've been asking often and never get any results: DOES ANYONE HAVE A GOOD PICTURE OF LAMPORT STADIUM? (Entire stadium, preferably). Try those google maps. The ones that show a satelite photos I'll see If I can dig it up. see if this works http://maps.google.ca/maps?ll=43.638611,-79.423337&spn=0.005171,0.008175&t=k&hl=en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanKeay Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Lamport is a hole.... tho with money invested it could definatly be great for the Toronto Soccer Scene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbailey62 Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by SeanKeay Lamport is a hole.... tho with money invested it could definatly be great for the Toronto Soccer Scene It does have some potential but it also has its fair share of problems. That said, some Field Turf, a decent scoreboard, a new sound system, an enlarged press box and some sort of south-end stand and the place wouldn't be too horrible. db Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by G-Man What's the logic? If a full international can be played there, why not the U-20? It's not a full international, it's a friendly. Itayl and Serbia could play in my backyard if they agree to it. That's a whole different story than playing World Cup Qualifying where the rest of CONCACAF have to agree on the venues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Mind you, we played in Saprissa on Field Turf in a World Cup qualifier, so if its good enough for the Ticos it ought to be good enough for us. Lamport with Field Turf would actually be good for the Lynx, especially if the team were sold to real owners who had greater ambitions than having their team play to more than 2000 dis-interested kids a game while having the second coming of the Zit Remedy perform the half-time festivities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel I've been asking often and never get any results: DOES ANYONE HAVE A GOOD PICTURE OF LAMPORT STADIUM? (Entire stadium, preferably). I think Jarrek has some. I remember seeing them. quote:Originally posted by redhat Rogers BOUGHT the rights for Canadian soccer and for many EPL broadcasts. Is that correct? Didn't Sportsnet get those rights while still owned by CTV? This is one of the things I don't get about the Rogers bashing (the other is blaming them for the failed stadium). Rogers are just a parent company of Sportsnet. I would think that Sportsnet make their own decisions about what to broadcast (possibly with the exception of a huge thing like the World Cup, in which the parent company probably had a say and the $$$). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devioustrevor Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 How busy are those roads around Lamport? Are those other large parking areas for public parking? I ask because the earlier suggestion of a South Stand would seriously effect Parking right at the stadium. To me it looks like the stadium would've been better built East-West instead of North-South. Because if televised games were to be played there having the views behind the goals being parks instead of parking lots would've had much greater aesthetic value. I routinely get told I overthink things too much sometimes. Although, come to think of it. Putting up a South Stand at the south end and a large scoreboard (intentionally built oversized with ads and perhaps video scoreboards)at the north end could go a long way in negating the aesthetic issue I brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca more than 2000 dis-interested kids a game while having the second coming of the Zit Remedy perform the half-time festivities. They aren't dis-interested, they are PreInterested. Okay, that was pathetic. As for Lamport, I think it would be perfect for the Lynx with new turf and a paint job. There's no room for it to be expanded. As for the whole York/Rogers thingy, it's really Labatts fault for bringing the Blue Jays to town almost 30 years ago. ACTUALLY, I think Paul Godfrey is behind all of this. He must be the real biggest soccer hater. Not only was he involved in bringing the Jays to town, he was involved with building the SkyDome (he was Metro chair or something no?), the Sun never covered soccer when he was in charge, AND, he has said so many times he wants the NFL to come to Toronto, yet he goes and gives the local CFL side a sweetheart deal that means the end of the soccer stadium. He's really the one behind all of this!! Sorry, I'm bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 It has been mentioned previously, but Lamport isn't wide enough. So, essentially, you'd have to tear down one of the stands (east or west, take your pick) so that the field could be widened to meet FIFA standards. Then you'd have to rebuild it. The location is pretty good. For all the people who keep saying that the old Exhibition site is a good location for a stadium, well, Lamport is slightly north of the Ex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack It has been mentioned previously, but Lamport isn't wide enough. So, essentially, you'd have to tear down one of the stands (east or west, take your pick) so that the field could be widened to meet FIFA standards. Then you'd have to rebuild it. The location is pretty good. For all the people who keep saying that the old Exhibition site is a good location for a stadium, well, Lamport is slightly north of the Ex. There is also the problem that King street ( a fairly busy street ) is very close to one end of the field. Stray balls would very easily end up on the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by DJT Is that correct? Didn't Sportsnet get those rights while still owned by CTV? It was one of the first things CTV got for Sportsnet. TSN had choosen not to cover the last game of the '98 WCQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Free kick There is also the problem that King street ( a fairly busy street ) is very close to one end of the field. Stray balls would very easily end up on the street. Well, can't you just eliminate two/three rows in one stand and put up a net behind that goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury It's not a full international, it's a friendly. Itayl and Serbia could play in my backyard if they agree to it. That's a whole different story than playing World Cup Qualifying where the rest of CONCACAF have to agree on the venues. What would you charge for tickets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.