SR Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Saw something on Sportsnet where they are thinking about taking some money form the Edu sale and putting in natural grass. This was coming from MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbailey62 Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 quote:Originally posted by SR Saw something on Sportsnet where they are thinking about taking some money form the Edu sale and putting in natural grass. This was coming from MO. Mo on Prime Time Sports. http://www.fan590.com/media.jsp?content=20080819_175942_18468 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Yap,this is what I said some time ago.That phony grass is a killer and the good players wisely refuse to play on it.It ain't good for your bones,the recovery time is way to long and it just does not feel right. Read my stuff and you will see my forecasts as well. It's under turf war. Very appropriate as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC07 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Good...Now I hope City lets TFC build a practice facility so that they can put grass in BMO field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 "We'll make a proposal to the (MLS) board in terms of can we put it towards a practice facility. Maybe a grass field, which I think is vital and important in moving forward. Then obviously the academy," Johnston told reporters. Who is running this club? Is this true that they cannot even build there own practice facility without league approval? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 MLS have to approve what happens to the portion of the 66% of the Edu transfer fee retained by TFC over and above the 500k that TFC can use on allocations. This is simply a way to make sure that MLSE doesn't pocket the money rather than reinvesting it in soccer operations in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whither Canada Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 The City will be big hurdle to clear. Unless I'm mistaken the City also gets revenue from BMO Field from things like concerts (see Genesis last year) and MLSE building a new practice field nearby with a bubble over it just won't cut it. A better idea is to have MLSE put the Edu transfer money (plus any extra $$ it might take) into refitting Lamport Stadium to give the City a facility it can accept as a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Thank you Mr Saputo! I knew once Montreal raised the bar that Toronto would not want to be "second best" especially to Montreal!! I agree with Whither Canada about putting the fieldturf and bubble at Lamport to keep the city and amatuers happy and give the pros and MNT grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I think an upgraded and bubbled Lamport and grass at BMO Field would be a good solution to a perceived problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 An upgraded Lamport does not solve the problem, since it is already in the city's roster of available fields. The City would still be one field short. MLSE/TFC would need to build a whole new field, unless the City compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard MLS have to approve what happens to the portion of the 66% of the Edu transfer fee retained by TFC over and above the 500k that TFC can use on allocations. This is simply a way to make sure that MLSE doesn't pocket the money rather than reinvesting it in soccer operations in other words. MLSE owns the team, why can't they pocket the money? Having MLS dictate what they can and cannot do with the cash is micro-management. What if they wanted to spend it on a player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Marc An upgraded Lamport does not solve the problem, since it is already in the city's roster of available fields. The City would still be one field short. MLSE/TFC would need to build a whole new field, unless the City compromised. It would if they can use the dome they cover BMO for the winter! There is no sense keeping it at BMO if the put in grass and no sense not having it at Lamport if they move the turf there. It will give extra playing time unless they already shovel and play there during the winter it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmynow Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by RJB MLSE owns the team, why can't they pocket the money? Having MLS dictate what they can and cannot do with the cash is micro-management. What if they wanted to spend it on a player? MLSE/TFC doesn't pay player contracts, that's why. MLS owns Mo Edu's contract, so when he goes to Rangers, Rangers pay MLS for the contract. MLS then apportions out an amount to the team. This is done so that owners don't just pocket the money as profit. They have to put it back into something to benefit the team. 500K of Edu's deal goes to money to sign players, the rest can be used by MLSE/TFC but only on approval of the league for projects that invest in the team. TFC would make a proposal to MLS, and MLS would cut them a cheque. Anything more would, naturally, put the team at an advantage against other teams, which MLS doesn't like too much. I mean, if TFC could spend that 3.3 million on a player, they'd basically be more than doubling the salary cap in one shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by RJB MLSE owns the team, why can't they pocket the money? Having MLS dictate what they can and cannot do with the cash is micro-management. What if they wanted to spend it on a player? I'm sure any soccer related expendature would be approved. It is a bit of micro-managing but keeps the money growing the game not used to shore up some of the owners other failing businesses (not MLSE but Peter Puck comes to mind). As to ownership the entire MLS is a "single entity ownership" setup so technically no MLSE doesn't own TFC, the MLS does. That may start to change after the next collective bargaining agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by RJB MLSE owns the team, why can't they pocket the money? Having MLS dictate what they can and cannot do with the cash is micro-management. What if they wanted to spend it on a player? Too bad they're in the MLS then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by tmcmurph It would if they can use the dome they cover BMO for the winter! There is no sense keeping it at BMO if the put in grass and no sense not having it at Lamport if they move the turf there. It will give extra playing time unless they already shovel and play there during the winter it would. I believe you can rent BMO Field in the summer too. If I'm not wrong, that still means you're down a field (as real-grass BMO would not be as resilient to community use.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Richard I think an upgraded and bubbled Lamport and grass at BMO Field would be a good solution to a perceived problem. It isn't a perceived problem when the manager is saying that he can't sign 7 or 8 players he wants to because they don't want to play on it. It isn't a perceived problem when the MNT say they would love to play ALL their games at Saputo on the grass. That isn't perception, that is reality and bad publicity. Pro players have choices of where to play and national team players can voice their opinions freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tybalt Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Trident Too bad they're in the MLS then. But if they weren't in MLS they'd never have had Edu in the first place. Edu was only with TFC because of the MLS draft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Marc I believe you can rent BMO Field in the summer too. If I'm not wrong, that still means you're down a field (as real-grass BMO would not be as resilient to community use.) They should check out the Desso Grassmaster reinforced natural grass system. 3 times the use and you still have real grass. Improves root depth, shades the real grass when it gets worn, no heat island effect and helps drainage. I don't own shares but it is the only one of the alternatives I've read up about that actually makes sense. Pro players in some Euro clubs have said they didn't even know they were playing on anything but real grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I think things are building to a critical mass when it comes to resodding BMO. Obviously TFC will have to give the city some reason to change the deal, but I see it happening. Torontoians want things "world class" and right now BMO Field is just one step below that. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by tmcmurph It isn't a perceived problem when the manager is saying that he can't sign 7 or 8 players he wants to because they don't want to play on it. It isn't a perceived problem when the MNT say they would love to play ALL their games at Saputo on the grass. That isn't perception, that is reality and bad publicity. Pro players have choices of where to play and national team players can voice their opinions freely. They - all of those who make a fuss - still have a perception problem with FieldTurf which is approved by FIFA for the highest international competitions, none of which are substantiated by scientific studies, ergo, it is a perception problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 quote:Originally posted by RJB MLSE owns the team, why can't they pocket the money? Having MLS dictate what they can and cannot do with the cash is micro-management. What if they wanted to spend it on a player? MLS rules were in place and operating for 10 years before MLSE got into the business of operating an MLS team. Don't like the rules, then don't join the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 quote:Originally posted by RJB MLSE owns the team, why can't they pocket the money? Having MLS dictate what they can and cannot do with the cash is micro-management. What if they wanted to spend it on a player? MLSE only have a 49% stake in Toronto FC, while the other 51% is held collectively by the other MLS owners. This single entity structure was adopted to avoid some of the pitfalls that the NASL encountered in the late 70s and early 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Richard I don't know your connection to that stuff,but you seem to have the believe that it is acceptable and should not create any problems. My problem is that since I don't know your background while I know those players that have voiced their opinion, you obviously are totally on your own. They feel it,they know that bounce,they know the after effects and they know it stops that ultimate feeling that soccer can bring out. I really don't know of any player who likes it. Those studies, well did they ask these or any reputed players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 ^ It is the way of the future whether we like it or not, especially for publicly owned facilities and no, I don't have any connection to or shares in the company. I respect FIFA's assessement and that of the scientists who have conducted the objective studies more than I do the subjective opinions of overpaid, often uninformed prima donna players who have a sentimental attachment to real grass or need to find some excuse for their performance or lack thereof. If you really want to know more about Football Turf as it is now called and the studies conducted on behalf of FIFA go to www.fifa.com and do a search for 'football turf', there is plenty of reading material available. FIFA has approved Football Turf for games at the highest international level. That's enough for me. Now if the operator of a privately owned facility wishes to install natural grass and limit playing time in order to preserve the quality and integrity of the playing surface or spend millions replacing the turf as the FA does at the new Wembley stadium, that's great and their prerogative. But that's the luxury of the wealthy private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.