Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by craner

Atlanta built a new stadium with some temporary seating for the 1996 Olympics that was reconfigured for the Braves afterward. Maybe this would work for the WC & Expos 2.0 in Montreal.

Of course the Braves are set to move out of that (only) 20 year old stadium for new digs but that is just the Atlanta way.

Question: Did Montreal host any of the womens WC games ?

They hosted a few at Olympic.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by craner

Question: Did Montreal host any of the womens WC games ?

Yes, and it was the perfect opportunity to have done the refurb or at least the roof. It was a blown chance.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by craner

Or is it an ironclad FIFA rule that you must have 10 stadiums?

The only "rule" at FIFA is there are no "rules'. By the time the 2026 WC rolls around there could be 40 or even 48 teams so the more facilities you have the more the flexibility.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by elly63

The only "rule" at FIFA is there are no "rules'. By the time the 2026 WC rolls around there could be 40 or even 48 teams so the more facilities you have the more the flexibility.

well as of right now we have

-8 CFL stadiums (exluded molson, And also assuming Calgary has done somthing by this time)
-The big O
-Saputo (debatable)
-Rogers centre (debatable)
-And as much as I hate to say Mocton (which is Very Very Highly debatable)

I think we Could host Today with expansions and renovations to our current Stadiums. But that's assuming rogers centre would be involved and or saputo could be utilized. I do agree though, A world cup bid from canada would fair far better with a stadium from Halifax or Quebec

[wacko]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think you're overestimating how hard and costly it would be to put a grass field into 8-10 stadiums for a month in mid-summer.

You can do that for 2 million bucks or something. It's peanuts for this magnitude of an event.

It can be laid or rolled onto an artificial field without any problems. Been done before in many places. And then New Mosaic can keep their stiched CFL football lines!

If it's really just as easy as rolling some natural turf over our current artificial fields, then yeah, maybe that could be an option. Especially if the cost would be comparable to, say, temporarily putting in new artificial turf without gridiron markings. Although natural grass still has to be maintained, and I'm wondering how the overlay of grass would affect drainage and such.

I still think FIFA needs to get off of their high horse regarding playing on natural turf. I play recreational soccer on artificial turf, and it's perfectly fine. I've even played on artificial turf with gridiron markings. So I think the elite teams of the world are perfectly capable of adapting to that. After all, there are many countries out there that make do with a lot less in the way of a quality playing surface. I also think FIFA needs to acknowledge that in Canada, we primarily use our stadiums for sports other than soccer, and therefore FIFA should work with that in the interests of reusability and sustainability.

As an aside, new Mosaic Stadium could soon be one of the best places in the world to play on artificial turf. We have new Revolution 360 FieldTurf which supposedly not only is made from a softer fibre, but also holds up much better to the rigors of play and weather than previous generations of artificial turf. And it's placed on a sand and rubber infill, which should be much more forgiving than the asphalt subsurface at Taylor Field.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by wacko

I still think FIFA needs to get off of their high horse regarding playing on natural turf. I play recreational soccer on artificial turf, and it's perfectly fine. I've even played on artificial turf with gridiron markings. So I think the elite teams of the world are perfectly capable of adapting to that. After all, there are many countries out there that make do with a lot less in the way of a quality playing surface. I also think FIFA needs to acknowledge that in Canada, we primarily use our stadiums for sports other than soccer, and therefore FIFA should work with that in the interests of reusability and sustainability.

FIFA cares about what's best for FIFA. To date, what FIFA cares about has been (in order) Money, Power, Soccer.

As long as there are national soccer organizations in countries around the world willing to do everything and anything for the "prestige" of holding the Men's World Cup, FIFA will continue to bilk them out of every last dollar, minute detail, and shred of dignity. Because they can.

FIFA has no reason to care about Canada. FIFA certainly has no reason to care about Canada enough to modify their own "rules" regarding their showcase event. The ONLY way Canada gets a Men's World Cup is by acquiescing to FIFA's demands: paying BILLIONS of dollars and adhering to every detail dictated regarding stadium size and surface.

To even believe that an organization such as FIFA would be willing to bend on details like that is patently ridiculous. Why should they? To grow "the game" in a nation that is a distant 3rd in size in North America? To grow "the game" in a nation in which soccer will never be more than the 2nd most popular sport (even accomplishing that is impossibly optimistic). To recapture "integrity" or "credibility"? Any lack of integrity or credibility hasn't even been put to the test yet. 2026 is the first World Cup to be awarded after the controversial Qatar award, and it's not even been determined which nations are willing to overlook the past and bid top dollar for this event.

I would hope that we'd all agree that Canada should never host the World Cup under the terms of the recent (Brazil, South Africa) and upcoming (Russia, Qatar) editions of that event. To believe that FIFA has fallen so far and is somehow in a state of a karmic self-flagellation that they would accept terms (use of artificial surfaces; smaller, more spartan facilities) or payments far below the established standards is also ridiculous, especially coming from a nation that is presently fielding the world's 103rd best team.

FIFA does not need Canada. The feeling should be mutual

[wacko]

I agree that FIFA does not need Canada, nor does Canada need FIFA. I certainly have no interest in dropping x amount of taxpayer dollars just to satisfy FIFA's every last whim.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

well as of right now we have

-8 CFL stadiums (exluded molson, And also assuming Calgary has done somthing by this time)
-The big O
-Saputo (debatable)
-Rogers centre (debatable)
-And as much as I hate to say Mocton (which is Very Very Highly debatable)

I think the Moncton Stadium would do a fine job hosting a FIFA World Cup game between Cote d'Ivoire and Fiji

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think the Moncton Stadium would do a fine job hosting a FIFA World Cup game between Cote d'Ivoire and Fiji

Very true although I don't think moncton should or would want to be involved. Fifa would want renovations equal to the original cost of the stadium or more. And as much as I don't want to insult your great community stadium, let's be honest it would never ever happen. Canada would be putting on a very bare bones scaled down event with even our most prestigious stadiums. Moncton stadium would be a non starter

[dtown]

According to FIFA's World Cup stadium requirements any stadium hosting a group play match must seat minimum 40,000 people. Quarter finals and further games must seat 60,000. With those numbers in mind even BMO Field would need some sort of temporary seating. Can Moncton's stadium even accommodate that? I'm not so sure it is ideal. It would be like 75% temporary seating. As an east coaster I love that Moncton hosted the women's world cup to truly make it a nationwide event, but the men's world cup is a whole other beast, and I'm not sure it makes sense.

[MonctonRad]

I was joking when I mentioned the Moncton Stadium participating in the men's FIFA World Cup.

When Moncton hosted those three CFL games, they expanded the stadium to slightly over 20,000 seats. I think that's the maximum capacity for the venue without significant renovations.

It's important to remember that the Moncton Stadium was built as an athletic stadium. It's done pretty well since being built in 2010.

- CFL regular season games (three times)
- 2010 IAAF World Junior Track & Field Championships
- Canadian Track & Field Championships (twice)
- 2014 FIFA Junior Women's World Cup
- 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup

I acknowledge that the men's FIFA world cup is an entirely different animal........

[dtown]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I was joking when I mentioned the Moncton Stadium participating in the men's FIFA World Cup.

When Moncton hosted those three CFL games, they expanded the stadium to slightly over 20,000 seats. I think that's the maximum capacity for the venue without significant renovations.

It's important to remember that the Moncton Stadium was built as an athletic stadium. It's done pretty well since being built in 2010.

- CFL regular season games (three times)
- 2010 IAAF World Junior Track & Field Championships
- Canadian Track & Field Championships (twice)
- 2014 FIFA Junior Women's World Cup
- 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup

I acknowledge that the men's FIFA world cup is an entirely different animal........

Fair enough, i guess i should have realized that. I do agree that the Stadium has done great things for the Maritimes.

[king10]

Originally Posted by craner

Regarding a stadium for the WC in Calgary:
Wouldn't the thinking be that hosting in Calgary is unnecessary with Edmonton (i.e. Commonwealth) reasonably close ?
Or is it an ironclad FIFA rule that you must have 10 stadiums ?

The thinking is more like the Feds never give out money for stadiums unless tied to major international games. So this would be one of Calgary's few chances to get 33% federal funding.

[king10]

Originally Posted by dtown

According to FIFA's World Cup stadium requirements any stadium hosting a group play match must seat minimum 40,000 people. Quarter finals and further games must seat 60,000. With those numbers in mind even BMO Field would need some sort of temporary seating. Can Moncton's stadium even accommodate that? I'm not so sure it is ideal. It would be like 75% temporary seating. As an east coaster I love that Moncton hosted the women's world cup to truly make it a nationwide event, but the men's world cup is a whole other beast, and I'm not sure it makes sense.

South Africa had a stadium under 40,000 seats. Brazil had two. And Russia will have 2 stadiums that seat 35,000.
Brazil had a 50,000 seat stadium hosting the QF's.
Russia has FOUR 45,000 seat stadium hosting the QF's.

I believe in the past requirements were more stringent but they have loosened them as evidenced above. As always, FIFA is willing to be flexible on their "rules"

[elly63]

Originally Posted by king10

As always, FIFA is willing to be flexible on their "rules"

Never a truer word has been spoken.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by king10

The thinking is more like the Feds never give out money for stadiums unless tied to major international games. So this would be one of Calgary's few chances to get 33% federal funding.

The only other chance Calgary would have would be if they got the Winter Olympics, but that would be a remote chance at best. I don't think there would be public support for funding both a new arena and a new stadium.

[wacko]

In an ideal world, it would be recognized that McMahon Stadium is near the end of its designed lifetime, while the Saddledome has at least some 15 years to go still. Then construction priorities and public dollars would be allocated accordingly. Unfortunately, the Stampeders have the misfortune to be owned by CSEC, and we all know which sports franchise wags the tail of that dog.

[J.OT13]

Banners at the Palladium/Corel Centre/Scotiabank Place/Canadian Tire Centre.


http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1859171

Missing 1906 and 1910. For total of 11.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by wacko

In an ideal world, it would be recognized that McMahon Stadium is near the end of its designed lifetime, while the Saddledome has at least some 15 years to go still. Then construction priorities and public dollars would be allocated accordingly. Unfortunately, the Stampeders have the misfortune to be owned by CSEC, and we all know which sports franchise wags the tail of that dog.

Both venues needed to be replaced years ago. The initial Calgary Next proposal might not have been perfect but it was a million times better than the joke the city wants them to pursue. Fortunately nothing will happen until we get a new city council and hopefully we'll be electing people who aren't pro sport haters like most of the current council.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Both venues needed to be replaced years ago. The initial Calgary Next proposal might not have been perfect but it was a million times better than the joke the city wants them to pursue. Fortunately nothing will happen until we get a new city council and hopefully we'll be electing people who aren't pro sport haters like most of the current council.

I understand the basic fundamentals of hockey economics and The shelf life of hockey arenas. I can also compare city to city. I've also been to to the saddledome numerous times and I would say It's 20+ years away from replacement.

-It's top 10 biggest buildings in the league (seating) at 19,200
-Structurally its okay
-More premium seating can easily be added. The same way Canadian tire centre, and various other american buildings have added them. Calgary has enough seats to make it happen. It's only got 8 less luxury suites then MTS (which only has 8 less than console energy centre). It's got club seating already albeit not as much as rogers place but again these things can be added.

If the saddeldome drops seating to 18,000 seats to gain another 1500 luxury seats they are on par and most likely ahead of 20 other teams in terms of profitability. Even now, I am willing to bet the flames are top 10 in profit.

If 16 suites at 150K a season is the difference between Red and Black then they have some underlying issues that an arena won't fix.

This is arena envy from Calgary. Especially now playing in the oldest NHL building (looking at MSG as new building) Why should the tax payers of Calgary dish out Millions of dollars for this, When it's not actually needed yet?