Sports in Canadian culture

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Looks like Canada might need to pull up its socks when playing football:

Sepp Blatter Says Canada on its Way to World Cup Bid

It won't happen without a new stadium in Toronto... and a new stadium in Toronto won't happen just to host the World Cup.

Address that issue and the odds of hosting increase dramatically.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Looks like Canada might need to pull up its socks when playing football:

Sepp Blatter Says Canada on its Way to World Cup Bid

As much as I have ridiculed Canada for being lousy at football it would be pretty cool to host the World Cup.

We would probably be only the second host team to fail to advance to the second round and probably the only host team to never score a goal. Twelve years could make a difference, but I've been following the Canadian team since they made the World Cup in 1986 and we have been somewhere from almost passable to downright terrible over those thirty years. Right now we are in the terrible pile again.

We're a relatively wealthy G8 country with a lot of money that FIFA could take from taxpayers. So I guess that makes us an ideal host in FIFA's books. These guys are not even hiding their parasitical nature anymore... they will put the event anywhere they can get a free lunch.

That said, I'm OK with hosting this fun soccer tournament (I'll even buy tickets for a match) as long as FIFA pays for any stadiums that are needed.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Berklon

It won't happen without a new stadium in Toronto... and a new stadium in Toronto won't happen just to host the World Cup.

Address that issue and the odds of hosting increase dramatically.

If Canada is selected in 2019 for the 2026 World Cup, then a stadium can get built in time for MLSE's NFL team to get transferred over (I believe they can hypothetically transfer over the Bills in 2020 if they buy them this year). By then, Toronto FC can give BMO Field to the Argos and begin sharing the new stadium with an NFL team (TFC's attendance should be significantly higher in 10 years).

[HomeInMyShoes]

Almost all major sporting events expect everything out of the hosts for little return.

Canada is certainly not a shoo-in for anything. We are at a huge disadvantage from almost any other proposal for stadiums and football culture. Without a new stadium apperaing in at least two other places before 2020, I would doubt there is any chance we could actually host.

Twelve years is a long time, but stadiums don't build themselves overnight and 40,000 seat FIFA-ready stadiums don't exist in vast numbers in Canada. We aren't a country blessed with cheap labour and construction costs to overcome a definite lack of appropriate infrastructure.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Almost all major sporting events expect everything out of the hosts for little return.

Sort of makes you wonder what the point of hosting is. Apart from a few pockets of dedicated support, soccer is just not that popular in Canada. The WC would inevitably end up costing billions given that our existing stadiums are apparently not up to the task of hosting this event.

So what exactly is the benefit to us here? If we want to bolster Canadian soccer, we'd probably get more mileage from building a couple of dozen good, international-calibre pitches with 5,000 seats each at maybe $10 million a pop, and dumping $10M into amateur soccer programs. We'd probably boost our chances at actually MAKING the WC (and not just as host) and still come out a couple billion dollars ahead.

Let the World Cup gravitate to its natural habitat of corrupt kleptocracies looking for international validation and third-world countries with a point to prove and leave Canada out of this.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Originally Posted by esquire

So what exactly is the benefit to us here? If we want to bolster Canadian soccer, we'd probably get more mileage from building a couple of dozen good, international-calibre pitches with 5,000 seats each at maybe $10 million a pop, and dumping $10M into amateur soccer programs. We'd probably boost our chances at actually MAKING the WC (and not just as host) and still come out a couple billion dollars ahead.

That does not compute - how is a 5,000 seat stadium "international-calibre"?

[HomeInMyShoes]

^I completely agree. Football/soccer culture in Canada is just not there yet. I would be happy if Canada could at least get to the last bit of World Cup qualifying and have a few nice spots to see friendlies across the country. It sounds like the new stadium in Regina might be FIFA-approved so it might be able to host a friendly. I'd love to see a game, especially if Canada was a solid 40-60 in the World so we are at least reasonably competitive on any given night against all but the superpowers.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

That does not compute - how is a 5,000 seat stadium "international-calibre"?

You could have a high quality international calibre playing surface without so much as one seat. It's about the playing surface, not the spectator facilities.

Not many cities have top-quality playing surfaces for high level soccer. Putting in proper fields with irrigation systems and lighting will allow for the establishment of high level regional and national leagues. This will be more important for the development of soccer in Canada than a one-time event.

[Steveston]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^I completely agree. Football/soccer culture in Canada is just not there yet. I would be happy if Canada could at least get to the last bit of World Cup qualifying and have a few nice spots to see friendlies across the country. It sounds like the new stadium in Regina might be FIFA-approved so it might be able to host a friendly. I'd love to see a game, especially if Canada was a solid 40-60 in the World so we are at least reasonably competitive on any given night against all but the superpowers.

Unlike Qatar, which is totally soccer-mad, has a solid national team (#86 in the FIFA rankings), and has a great soccer-playing weather (can you imagine how much water they will have to dump on to those grass fields to keep them alive?)

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Steveston

Unlike Qatar, which is totally soccer-mad, has a solid national team (#86 in the FIFA rankings), and has a great soccer-playing weather (can you imagine how much water they will have to dump on to those grass fields to keep them alive?)

Qatar is aggressively trying to shape international perceptions of their country through sports investments. It helps that it is a wealthy country ruled by a family that can afford to indulge in such whimsical but costly extravagances. Canada is not in the same boat in any way.

The fact that Qatar is hosting a WC in the first place shows you what a racket the whole thing is. Qatar and FIFA are made for each other. So is Russia, for that matter.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

If Canada is selected in 2019 for the 2026 World Cup, then a stadium can get built in time for MLSE's NFL team to get transferred over (I believe they can hypothetically transfer over the Bills in 2020 if they buy them this year). By then, Toronto FC can give BMO Field to the Argos and begin sharing the new stadium with an NFL team (TFC's attendance should be significantly higher in 10 years).

The timeline works, but the stadium would have to come first (either built or a commitment to build) for Canada to be eligible for the World Cup... and a stadium won't come without a major tenant for it first (ie. NFL team).
So basically Toronto needs to land an NFL team first in order to have a real shot at hosting the World Cup.

As it stands, it looks like the Bills have a potential buyer with deep pockets who's determined to keep the team in Buffalo. There may be an issue down the road as the Bills would need a new stadium, but the lease to Ralph Wilson stadium will buy them some time. Of course, this is the US - where a stadium/arena can be built at the drop of a hat. Hell, financially troubled Cleveland and Detroit both got NFL and MLB stadiums built, and after declaring bankruptcy - Detroit will have an NHL arena built as well. I don't see why Buffalo couldn't get a stadium built.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^I completely agree. Football/soccer culture in Canada is just not there yet. I would be happy if Canada could at least get to the last bit of World Cup qualifying and have a few nice spots to see friendlies across the country. It sounds like the new stadium in Regina might be FIFA-approved so it might be able to host a friendly. I'd love to see a game, especially if Canada was a solid 40-60 in the World so we are at least reasonably competitive on any given night against all but the superpowers.

Almost every stadium in Canada is "FIFA approved" There's no great mystery to "FIFA approval", any modern stadium could pass muster.

I read through the UEFA stadium building guide and there's nothing special in there. FIFA looks for areas to be set aside for press, drug testing, etc and the artificial turf must be two star rated. You can play WC qualifiers on two star rated artificial turf and almost every CFL stadium passes that qualification (not sure about Toronto and Regina at this time). Regina will have a two star rated surface with the new stadium.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Good Post. Thanks for the feedback.

A couple of questions...

I recognize the name Les Ferber. You stated that he designed courses from a more recent era of golf course architecture which is regrettable. How are these courses different from older ones and in what ways are they regrettable?

The 80s and 90s saw one of the booms in golf course construction and unfortunately it was an era where there was a lot of copycats (or to be fair to the architects, an era where a lot of developers wanted copycat designs). With so much competition a lot of people wanted either a specific architect's course or a style of course.

However this desire to get a specific style of course meant that a lot of courses started looking the same. What makes most great courses unique is that they are so well built into their landscape. So land moving increased, architects started using more and more templates (stories of developers holding up a calendar and saying "I think this hole would look great here, can you do that?") and then people realized that they would need something to set them apart with all of this competition. So this was the age of "signatures" which more often than not just led to gimmicky golf holes like the canyon Par 3 at pretty much every mountain course in the west (for every 'Cliffhanger' there are a dozen other canyon Par 3s that are at best forgettable and are often the worst holes on their respective golf courses), ridiculous bunkering, blind shots, multiple fairways that force club selection and many other things that created a "wow" in the renderings but in reality fall well short of great design. To cap it all off, this also marks the era of the most expensive to operate and least environmentally sustainable golf courses ever. There are certainly some great courses built in this time, but they are considerably outnumbered by some terrible designs on a scale the other booms just didn't see.

The late 90s and early 2000s saw people come to their senses when the likes of Coore-Crenshaw and Gil Hanse started pumping out sustainable designs with more unique natural layouts (Rod Whitman would be the Canadian equivalent). It is just a shame that the renaissance of a more traditional and sustainable approach to golf course design occurred at a time when there just isn't a demand for new courses.

Also, what exactly is a Parkland course? A course with tree-lined fairways? Something more than that?

In a word, yes. Links style is generally without trees (just think St. Andrews and courses like it), parkland has trees (think most of the classic American courses) and for a while it seemed like these were the only distinctions you would need to make to describe a golf course style.

I mean you can get very picky about it as some will distinguish between courses where the trees were planted to shape and line the golf course while others shaped the golf course through the trees and other little details. Then you've got your mountain courses, "heath" courses (which is technically the correct term for a 'links' course that is inland rather than on the water) etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Berklon

The timeline works, but the stadium would have to come first (either built or a commitment to build) for Canada to be eligible for the World Cup... and a stadium won't come without a major tenant for it first (ie. NFL team).
So basically Toronto needs to land an NFL team first in order to have a real shot at hosting the World Cup.

As it stands, it looks like the Bills have a potential buyer with deep pockets who's determined to keep the team in Buffalo. There may be an issue down the road as the Bills would need a new stadium, but the lease to Ralph Wilson stadium will buy them some time. Of course, this is the US - where a stadium/arena can be built at the drop of a hat. Hell, financially troubled Cleveland and Detroit both got NFL and MLB stadiums built, and after declaring bankruptcy - Detroit will have an NHL arena built as well. I don't see why Buffalo couldn't get a stadium built.

The expansion option would still be open to Toronto if 1) someone in Toronto really wanted to go that route and 2) the NFL was interested in granting an expansion franchise to Toronto.

Assuming everything lined up perfectly (fairly unlikely), would the CFL be willing to go for the trade off of a WC+NFL-in-TO plan that would see an NFL team in Toronto (potentially coexisting with the Argos?) in exchange for a stadium-building and improvement program that might put new stadiums in Halifax and Quebec City, allowing those cities to host CFL expansion teams?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Assuming everything lined up perfectly (fairly unlikely), would the CFL be willing to go for the trade off of a WC+NFL-in-TO plan that would see an NFL team in Toronto (potentially coexisting with the Argos?) in exchange for a stadium-building and improvement program that might put new stadiums in Halifax and Quebec City, allowing those cities to host CFL expansion teams?

That would be a reasonable trade if you're the CFL, especially considering that the NFL doesn't really owe the CFL anything to begin with.

But who's paying for the NFL stadium? I can't see the feds all of a sudden picking up the tab for a new NFL stadium as a gift to MLSE and Jon Bon Jovi just because FIFA decides to bring its graft and corruption roadshow to Canada for a month. Talk about trying to make two wrongs into a right.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The expansion option would still be open to Toronto if 1) someone in Toronto really wanted to go that route and 2) the NFL was interested in granting an expansion franchise to Toronto.

Expansion's kinda tough with the NFL as they already have 32 teams. Relocation is the best option, but the only relocation possibilities have really just been threats for a new stadium. Although the Jaquars always seem to be iffy. It'll be tough regardless.

Assuming everything lined up perfectly (fairly unlikely), would the CFL be willing to go for the trade off of a WC+NFL-in-TO plan that would see an NFL team in Toronto (potentially coexisting with the Argos?) in exchange for a stadium-building and improvement program that might put new stadiums in Halifax and Quebec City, allowing those cities to host CFL expansion teams?

Well I don't think the CFL has any say with regards to the WC or NFL, so they'd really just have to accept whatever's happening. Although in the unlikely even that Toronto would be getting a new stadium (which would really mean they're getting an NFL team), I think it would be wise to have the Argos as a secondary tenant. Stadiums are generally underused as it is - so you may as well maximize it's use wherever possible. The design of a new stadium can be done so you could easily "curtain off" the upper bowl for a more intimate venue for smaller attended games of 20,000 or whatever... for Argos games, concerts, etc.

But this is all a moot point... as I don't see an NFL team coming anytime soon, which means there won't be any new stadium. Nevermind the fact that someone would need to pay for it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Berklon

Well I don't think the CFL has any say with regards to the WC or NFL, so they'd really just have to accept whatever's happening. Although in the unlikely even that Toronto would be getting a new stadium (which would really mean they're getting an NFL team), I think it would be wise to have the Argos as a secondary tenant. Stadiums are generally underused as it is - so you may as well maximize it's use wherever possible. The design of a new stadium can be done so you could easily "curtain off" the upper bowl for a more intimate venue for smaller attended games of 20,000 or whatever... for Argos games, concerts, etc.

But this is all a moot point... as I don't see an NFL team coming anytime soon, which means there won't be any new stadium. Nevermind the fact that someone would need to pay for it.

Even though I kind of like the idea for the reasons you mentioned, I'm not sure that the Argos would be a good fit as a secondary tenant for a NFL stadium. It would not address the complaints that fans have with Skydome, i.e. it is way too big for the Argos and the crowds they typically draw.

I guess a new venue would have the benefit of being designed with adaptability in mind (in much the same way that BC Place curtains off upper level seats for Whitecaps games, or how the MTS Centre had an effective curtaining system for Manitoba Moose AHL games), but I'm not sure that it beats the alternative of just putting the Argos in BMO Field since that venue is more appropriately sized and is going to be overhauled/expanded anyway... the cost of adapting BMO to the larger CFL field would probably be significantly less than fitting out a NFL stadium to accommodate a larger CFL field.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Berklon

Well I don't think the CFL has any say with regards to the WC or NFL, so they'd really just have to accept whatever's happening. .

I am pretty sure the CFL would have a say in the political backrooms where much of this would play out.

Neither the World Cup nor a mega-stadium that would eventually host an NFL team will be happening without significant government involvement. So you can bet the public interest, Canadiana, the CFL, national identity, and all that jazz will be a big part of the discussion.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by esquire

I guess a new venue would have the benefit of being designed with adaptability in mind (in much the same way that BC Place curtains off upper level seats for Whitecaps games, or how the MTS Centre had an effective curtaining system for Manitoba Moose AHL games), but I'm not sure that it beats the alternative of just putting the Argos in BMO Field since that venue is more appropriately sized and is going to be overhauled/expanded anyway... the cost of adapting BMO to the larger CFL field would probably be significantly less than fitting out a NFL stadium to accommodate a larger CFL field.

Yes, that's why I mentioned curtaining off the upper bowl - so you're left with a lower bowl that's more intimate. Either way, it would need to have some sort of adaptability for it. Stadiums are expensive - have to maximize the value of it.
The problem with BMO field it'll have the same problem with weather that Exhibition stadium had. A new stadium would more than likely be domed (retractable?), so that'll be a major bonus.

[mistercorporate]

If the CFL looks at it strategically (instead of taking a scarcity approach as some have recommended), a World Cup and new NFL team could be the biggest stimulants to CFL expansion in its history. The feds and provinces on their own wouldn't invest in new stadiums in smaller markets, but an alliance of the CFL, CSA and MLSE could really pull some strings for a World Cup bid that guarantees dual-use stadiums in markets such as London, Halifax and Waterloo. Perhaps even Victoria and Quebec City. It would be an exercise in nation building that would give the CFL teams more revenue sources (soccer teams) as well as greater advertising revenue (due to larger national footprint). I for one wouldnt mind 5 new bare bones stadiums at $150 million each in those 5 new markets, renovations or construction of a new stadium for Calgary and a World Cup/NFL stadium in Toronto. The Argos would get a renovated BMO Field financed by MLSE. Win-win!

We built a railroad to unite this country logistically and militarily. With dual-use CFL/soccer stadiums, sports could unite this country socially.