Forge FC - Page 2

omro · #21 Posted **Feb 27, 2009, 9:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCTed

The lacrosse idea just does not fly. The indoor component of the proposed stadium is a bubble that would cover only the field, not the stands. NLL play takes place on hockey rinks surrounded by hockey boards --- it does not take place on football fields.

The roof design could change along with the site location, etc.

thistleclub · #22 Posted **Feb 27, 2009, 12:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCTed

The lacrosse idea just does not fly. The indoor component of the proposed stadium is a bubble that would cover only the field, not the stands. NLL play takes place on hockey rinks surrounded by hockey boards --- it does not take place on football fields.

Thanks again for the clarification. Didn't refer to the mockups. Was just blue-skying year-round multi-use based on what might be a misread of this story. If the facility is only able to host events May-October, that definitely changes the picture.

Copps may be a better home for a lacrosse team, true. Seems like it has something to offer. Better numbers than the ABA, anyway.

(And yes, I know that lacrosse is a different sport than basketball.)

About pro rugby I don't know much, frankly. Seems like something that might be limited to one-off events, like university football's Vanier Cup. The lure for amateur teams (secondary/post-secondary included) would be that it's a low-cost or no-cost proposition. I guess it comes down to the business model/facility policies for the stadium.

omro · #23 Posted **Feb 27, 2009, 12:44 PM**

It's funny how different sports are played in different cultures.

Lacrosse in the UK is mainly an outdoor and primarily a girl's sport.

flar · #24 Posted **Feb 27, 2009, 1:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by omro

It's funny how different sports are played in different cultures.

Lacrosse in the UK is mainly an outdoor and primarily a girl's sport.

Are you thinking of field hockey? Lacrosse is the toughest sport I've ever seen, even rougher than rugby.

There are two kinds of lacrosse too. One is played in hockey arenas and the other is field lacrosse, played outdoors.

SteelTown · #25 Posted **Feb 27, 2009, 1:39 PM**

Hamilton could end up with too many sports franchises, CFL, AHL, possibly USL, possibly D-League and hopefully NHL as well.

Idealy I think this would work out.......

CFL and USL for the new stadium
NHL and D-League for Copps.

Therefore two sports franchises for each venue.

omro · #26 Posted **Feb 27, 2009, 2:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

Are you thinking of field hockey? Lacrosse is the toughest sport I've ever seen, even rougher than rugby.

There are two kinds of lacrosse too. One is played in hockey arenas and the other is field lacrosse, played outdoors.

Interesting... I've had a bit of a google and it seems that Lacrosse is played by both sexes here in the UK, however... I did grow up in an all boys school and it was never played there. And I only ever remember Lacrosse as a girl's sport.

However, I stand corrected.

king10 · #27 Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCTed

The lacrosse idea just does not fly. The indoor component of the proposed stadium is a bubble that would cover only the field, not the stands. NLL play takes place on hockey rinks surrounded by hockey boards --- it does not take place on football fields.

it depends which lacrosse league we are talking about.. of course NLL would not work as it is an indoor league.. but MLL (outdoor lacrosee) could be played at the stadium... toronto just recieved a relocated franchise which will play out of bmo field. this is the leagues website..
http://www.majorleaguelacrosse.com/
however i dont think the league would have enough fan support to be successful in hamilton

sofasurfer · #28 Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by omro

And I only ever remember Lacrosse as a girl's sport.

To be fair, I thought that too. And I went to mixed schools in the UK.

Netball and field hockey were considered girls' sports at the schools I went to, and *shrug*. Then again, I don't think I've ever known lacrosse on the curriculum at any English school (Scotland might be different - indeed, their entire education system is. It's actually considered better, overall).

SteelTown · #29 Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 9:46 PM**

You might be surprised to know that lacrosse is Canada's national sport.

omro · #30 Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 9:59 PM**

I was surprised to discover that it was a sport learnt from the native peoples and brought to Europe.

I must admit that I had thought that Ice Hockey was the Canadian sport of choice.

emge · #31 Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 10:15 PM**

hockey the sport of choice.... yes... official national sport... no, until 1994 when it became the 2nd official national sport.

I think it's more about the history of the game that makes it our national sport, though lacrosse has quite a following.

I know I'm watching "Hockey Night in Canada" tonight and that I have no idea when the lacrosse season is

omro · #32 Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 10:36 PM**

So...

Let me get this straight...

Lacrosse - national sport - guys weilding sticks, wearing armour, bashing and hitting each other to get at a ball.

Hockey - national sport - guys weilding sticks, wearing armour, bashing and hitting each other to get at a puck.

Canadian Football - sport - guys wearing armour, bashing and hitting each other to get at a ball.

Lots of armour, bashing and hitting going on generally.

emge · #33 Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 10:46 PM**

Don't forget rugby! It may not be the national sport, but we have all the hard hits... and no padding or armour whatsoever! And it's not just the regular season games... try playing a snow sevens tournament in February hitting the rock-hard frozen mud over and over again... now that's a sport! (It also worked out well for me since I have lousy depth perception -- I can tackle someone and let a fast runner pick up the ball and go with it).

And um, yes.. that was girls' rugby. Guys' rugby is even more insane, just because they're naturally faster/stronger - although perhaps not as naturally vicious

.

omro · #34 Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 11:19 PM**

When I played rugby, I was so little they used to get me and the ball confused, though perhaps accidentally on purpose...

thistleclub · #35 Posted **Mar 1, 2009, 1:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Hamilton could end up with too many sports franchises, CFL, AHL, possibly USL, possibly D-League and hopefully NHL as well.

That's a possibility. We could also end up with too few bookings. Copps was dark for most of its first decade -- a couple of new country, classic rock or metal shows a month, the NHL gave us the cold shoulder and the Bulldogs hadn't shown up yet. Few venues that size are going to be booked solid year-round, but any private operator will want some sort of security, a hedge against the bottom line. I'm interested in all of the above options, but I imagine venue operators and team investors would scrutinize the business arguments for and against before making any decision.

omro · #36 Posted **Mar 1, 2009, 5:19 PM**

Can a successful city have too many sporting franchises?

thistleclub · #37 Posted **Mar 1, 2009, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by omro

Can a successful city have too many sporting franchises?

My guess is that it comes down to ROI. I think the question is more one of whether there's sufficient fan support to justify the investors' outlay, at least when you're talking about ticketed events and pro/semi-pro teams. And if there's variety, the overlap might be minimal: D-League b-ball, for example, might not have significant crossover with the fan base for CFL football, whereas maybe rugby or soccer might. It depends on the price point as well. If tickets are priced to fill seats and make a great game day experience, it might not be a huge hurdle to get buy-in from 15K of the CMA's adult population of almost 570K, to say nothing of those just outside of our borders in Haldimand, Halton and Niagara. But even three teams with 15 home games per would only eat up a small patch of a stadium's calendar. And to float another apples-and-oranges comparison, nobody seems to worry that there are only so many $50+ arena concerts that the city can support. It's supply and demand. And if the facilities go to private sector management, as Terry Cooke recommended yesterday, the business will likely only become more of a business.

SteelTown · #38 Posted **Mar 2, 2009, 1:45 AM**

I think the key to having a successful stadium is having an upper and lower bowl. The lower bowl should not be no more than 10,000 seats like Copps, perhaps even smaller. That way you can close the upper bowl for USL and still make the stadium appear full for USL with 5,000 to 7,000 people and have a good atmosphere.

omro · #39 Posted **Mar 2, 2009, 9:47 AM**

Quote:

nobody seems to worry that there are only so many $50+ arena concerts that the city can support

I'm thinking of stadiums in the UK, such as London and Birmingham, etc. They are in constant use, mostly with things like concerts and so on, though sporting events too obviously. Most of their market isn't people who live in London or Birmingham. They draw in big crowds of people who are willing to commute to the arenas to see that particular act.

A great example would be the 02 in London. The government built it as the Millenium Dome, but then abandoned it after they didn't really know what to do with it. Now it's been redeveloped as the 02, it draws in a lot of people as a major mixed use entertainment venue.

There are plenty of global examples to show that if built correctly, a stadium could be viable. If built purely as an ampitheatre with a field and seats, its chances are lessened. It needs to be well thought out beyond merely those elements.

SteelTown · #40 Posted **Feb 13, 2010, 7:08 PM**

Based on the business case for a new stadium it includes "15 United Soccer League games" annually.