Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by osmo

SkyDome isn't an option. People need to let it die.




Hasn't Mexico hosted twice? Mexico could host this on irs own much more easily than Canada. I just do t think there is an appetite for it there as the economy is rocky and they have some rough spots security wise in some regions of the country.

Mexico is far ahead of Canada with this.

---

Time zones as mentioned are important. Brazil did well on TV as it was right in the middle for USA EST and Euro GMT and their timezones. A USA WC will mean ESPN will overpay for rights and will strong arm FIFA to create a TV friendly schedule.

Also, important is climate and clusters. We forget how diverse the climate is in the USA and this was a complaint during 1994. Travel distances were to spread out and climate variations affected the players. The switch from smoggy Southern California, to muggy swamp DC, to scorching Dallas, were all issues.

This would not be repeated and will likely present USA cities to be clusters with a bias towards EST. So in saying that, Vancouver would not be a slam dunk if it was the only Cascadia city hosting as it would be isolated from the North American rotation. Ideally Sells would host in the USA and you can have both cities cluster, only draw back is that you poach the regional audience as many would cross the border to watch games anyhow. LA-SF-Sea-Van as the PST coastal cluster would make sense, I think direct flights are in place between all those markets as well.

In saying all that, I would be surprised if CSA gets strong armed and Ottawa gets thrown in as it's in the EST.

How is Skydome not an option? Because of the Jays? Reality check: every single US city on the hosting list has a MLB team. The schedules will be juggled to accommodate for both. You have ~ 4-5 days in between WC group matches, so I would guess that MLB games would be played when soccer is done. If I'm not mistaken, didn't some stadiums during the 1994 WC replace the grass for each game? I think that's why the costs were so high.

Re: Mexico. There is no doubt that they have the fan base, but I don't believe they have the $ or infrastructure to host a full WC. Plus, they have massive security concerns. FIFA is not going to invest in a country that is fighting a massive drug war.

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Doesn't canada need to first worry about qualifying for the World Cup? Or is there a free pass for host country?... has that ever happened in the past?

Also, I'd think that real grass is a necessity, yet BC Place, Skydome, and Olympic Stadium don't have it... so the next question is how much it'd cost to install real grass and is it worth it for 3 games... The Blue Jays, working in a Billion + dollar business, came to the conclusion that it isn't worth the cost and they play 81 home games every year, with the risk of not attracting top players for not having real grass. If millions of tax dollars were to be dumped in to these stadiums for 3 measley games each, I'd be pretty f'n ticked... so I'd say that at this point BMO is definitely the most logical stadium.

They would put grass down for the WC. People seem to keep forgetting that the US has done this for years. They did it for the 1994 WC when they hosted. The cost is high, but officials have always spun that the economic spin-off far outweighs the costs.

Canada would get a free pass for hosting. My guess is that each of three host nations would get a pass into the WC. The host nation(s) always do, although this would be the first time for three host nations.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Jammon

How is Skydome not an option? Because of the Jays? Reality check: every single US city on the hosting list has a MLB team.

MLB isn't a factor for those US cities because the stadiums being proposed aren't baseball stadiums - they're football stadiums.

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by Berklon

MLB isn't a factor for those US cities because the stadiums being proposed aren't baseball stadiums - they're football stadiums.

You're right. I had a look at the list again.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Doesn't canada need to first worry about qualifying for the World Cup? Or is there a free pass for host country?... has that ever happened in the past?

The host country is automatically invited.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Jammon

Re: Mexico. There is no doubt that they have the fan base, but I don't believe they have the $ or infrastructure to host a full WC. Plus, they have massive security concerns. FIFA is not going to invest in a country that is fighting a massive drug war.

They hosted in 1970 and 1986. They have the stadiums for it. I can't imagine it would cost them much to get it done - they might even spend less than Canada, as they already have grass turf.

I'd say Mexico is the easiest point in the whole affair.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Jammon

They would put grass down for the WC. People seem to keep forgetting that the US has done this for years. They did it for the 1994 WC when they hosted. The cost is high, but officials have always spun that the economic spin-off far outweighs the costs.

Canada would get a free pass for hosting. My guess is that each of three host nations would get a pass into the WC. The host nation(s) always do, although this would be the first time for three host nations.

I could understand that they laid down real grass in the past as they were the lone host nation with every game played there. But for 3 games per city the economic spin-off would outweigh the cost? Would drainage systems need to be installed, then when the 3 games per city are over go back to the original turf and diamantle the upgrades needed. Doesn't seem logical to me, especially for cities and provinces outside the host cities that would have to help foot the bill. Not to mention the lack of interest in soccer in this country as it is. Maybe it being a decade away will change that... but factoring in all that, I'd agree that BMO remains the most logical stadium.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Originally Posted by wave46

The host country is automatically invited.

Not confirmed yet for 2026 - but they more than likely will be allowed in

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by wave46

They hosted in 1970 and 1986. They have the stadiums for it. I can't imagine it would cost them much to get it done - they might even spend less than Canada, as they already have grass turf.

I'd say Mexico is the easiest point in the whole affair.

Mexico only submitted a list of three cities that could host games. We also are talking about a country that has gone through massive changes since the 1986 WC. I don't see how Mexico is the easiest part of this- I see it as the toughest. Brazil had massive problems hosting the WC and I would argue that economically, they were in a better place than Mexico is now. Security issues were huge down in Brazil and a major concern. Plus, some stadiums were barely completed in time for the WC.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Doesn't canada need to first worry about qualifying for the World Cup? Or is there a free pass for host country?... has that ever happened in the past?

Also, I'd think that real grass is a necessity, yet BC Place, Skydome, and Olympic Stadium don't have it... so the next question is how much it'd cost to install real grass and is it worth it for 3 games... The Blue Jays, working in a Billion + dollar business, came to the conclusion that it isn't worth the cost and they play 81 home games every year, with the risk of not attracting top players for not having real grass. If millions of tax dollars were to be dumped in to these stadiums for 3 measley games each, I'd be pretty f'n ticked... so I'd say that at this point BMO is definitely the most logical stadium.

Host countries have always qualified automatically in the past. With this being a US-led three-country bid, there is a question of whether you allow all three countries to qualify, but it is likely.

The Blue Jays have not abandoned natural grass, it just isn't happening yet. Rogers still wants it. It isn't just because it "isn't worth it" that they don't have it yet. BMO is far from a no-brainer. It might be great for TFC, but the millions put into natural grass aren't much better being put into 15 000 seats for BMO for three games.

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I could understand that they laid down real grass in the past as they were the lone host nation with every game played there. But for 3 games per city the economic spin-off would outweigh the cost? Would drainage systems need to be installed, then when the 3 games per city are over go back to the original turf and diamantle the upgrades needed. Doesn't seem logical to me, especially for cities and provinces outside the host cities that would have to help foot the bill. Not to mention the lack of interest in soccer in this country as it is. Maybe it being a decade away will change that... but factoring in all that, I'd agree that BMO remains the most logical stadium.

I would have to find the article, but I believe that's what happened in 1994. It was a huge cost, but given that this is the biggest sport in the world, I get it.

For men's, it has to be played on grass. There was a huge uproar when Canada hosted the women's WC because they played on artificial turf. There was a huge protest from some of the players saying that the standards should be the same for men and women because they would never make a man play on turf.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Jammon

How is Skydome not an option? Because of the Jays? Reality check: every single US city on the hosting list has a MLB team. The schedules will be juggled to accommodate for both. You have ~ 4-5 days in between WC group matches, so I would guess that MLB games would be played when soccer is done. If I'm not mistaken, didn't some stadiums during the 1994 WC replace the grass for each game? I think that's why the costs were so high.

Re: Mexico. There is no doubt that they have the fan base, but I don't believe they have the $ or infrastructure to host a full WC. Plus, they have massive security concerns. FIFA is not going to invest in a country that is fighting a massive drug war.

None are sharing facilities. In 1994 the USA could not dual host in cities that had shared facilities, Stanford was chosen over Candlestick for this reason.

SkyDome would be the only venue that during the time of a WC would be a shared dual facility. FIFA is not going to tell the Blue Jays to go skip town for a month, it isn't going to happen.

This isn't just laying down sod anymore. Actually heavy work would need to be done to SkyDome to accommodate soccer. During the season, this would present a large break up in home dates for the Jays, it isn't feasible. Which is why I keep saying that people just need to accept SkyDome as a baseball facility now. It isn't doable for this type of thing, especially during baseball season.

If it's Toronto it is BMO Field, people gotta get over it.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Host countries have always qualified automatically in the past. With this being a US-led three-country bid, there is a question of whether you allow all three countries to qualify, but it is likely.

The Blue Jays have not abandoned natural grass, it just isn't happening yet. Rogers still wants it. It isn't just because it "isn't worth it" that they don't have it yet. BMO is far from a no-brainer. It might be great for TFC, but the millions put into natural grass aren't much better being put into 15 000 seats for BMO for three games.

This will be the first world cup with 48 teams vs the historical 32. They have more than enough room to give 3 automatic births.

With a Canadian sitting as President of Concacaf and Vice President of Fifa there is a very very high chance Canada gets an automatic spot.

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by king10

This will be the first world cup with 48 teams vs the historical 32. They have more than enough room to give 3 automatic births.

With a Canadian sitting as President of Concacaf and Vice President of Fifa there is a very very high chance Canada gets an automatic spot.

I would agree. They had joint bids in the past (Japan-South Korea)and both nations got automatic births, so it seems like a no-brainer that all 3 would get a spot.

All I know is that Winnipeg will not be hosting a game and I am already saving my money to go to one of the cities to see Canada play. Lol. I figure it will be about $1000-$2000 per ticket.

[osmo]

With a bloated 48 team field Canada will get an automatic entry most likely. I am not a fan of the expanded format as I have no desire to see New Zealand and Cyprus square off.

Lots of misconception that Mexico is some third world hole. They have hosted twice and have more facilities ranked and rated by FIFA than Canada.

Low oil prices have stalled Mexico just like Canada and yes seceruity issues but these are regionalized. Don't millions of Canadians travel there each year for beaches and sun? Mexico is a huge place with many diverse regions and various economic zones that go beyond Mexico City.

Mexico has been modest in only putting forward 3 cities, Canada is doing the same. This USA centrist bid just has us along for the ride.

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by osmo

With a bloated 48 team field Canada will get an automatic entry most likely. I am not a fan of the expanded format as I have no desire to see New Zealand and Cyprus square off.

Lots of misconception that Mexico is some third world hole. They have hosted twice and have more facilities ranked and rated by FIFA than Canada.

Low oil prices have stalled Mexico just like Canada and yes seceruity issues but these are regionalized. Don't millions of Canadians travel there each year for beaches and sun? Mexico is a huge place with many diverse regions and various economic zones that go beyond Mexico City.

Mexico has been modest in only putting forward 3 cities, Canada is doing the same. This USA centrist bid just has us along for the ride.

Of course. Like I said before, it's a chance for Canadians to see Canada play on their home soil as it is for the Mexicans. I would have preferred to see a joint Canada-US bid with a few more games in Canada, but this really was about the US saying that we are doing this with or without you, so at least we will give you some scraps. And I agree, I'm not happy with more teams either.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Jammon

Of course. Like I said before, it's a chance for Canadians to see Canada play on their home soil as it is for the Mexicans. I would have preferred to see a joint Canada-US bid with a few more games in Canada, but this really was about the US saying that we are doing this with or without you, so at least we will give you some scraps. And I agree, I'm not happy with more teams either.

Yes, for sure. The expanded format will water down the play. All FIFA had to do was to do a new weight of the federations to account for stronger play in some of the federations. This may of impacted UEFA of course so FIFA will always bend to it's European masters.

The other blowback from this is that qualification tournaments will take a hit. For any hardcore soccer fans out there no full well that the Africa CAF qualifications is high quality and a death match as CAF does not get that many allotments in the WC, many upsets and tight games during that process

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by osmo

Yes, for sure. The expanded format will water down the play. All FIFA had to do was to do a new weight of the federations to account for stronger play in some of the federations. This may of impacted UEFA of course so FIFA will always bend to it's European masters.

The other blowback from this is that qualification tournaments will take a hit. For any hardcore soccer fans out there no full well that the Africa CAF qualifications is high quality and a death match as CAF does not get that many allotments in the WC, many upsets and tight games during that process

It's interesting you say that, because I always thought that CAF got too many births. I always felt they should have 4 + a playoff with the other spot going to CONCACAF. As far as I'm concerned, CONCACAF is the third strongest region behind UEFA and CONMEBOL and I never felt that our region was given enough credit for how strong our teams perform at the WC.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Jammon

It is for the WC. It seats 60,000 for soccer games. When you are showcasing Canada to the world and have a huge soccer following in Montreal, there is no chance that stadium won't be used. I've been to BMO field and am inclined to agree with some of the other posters that it's not a great stadium. If you had a choice between BMO and Skydome, what would you pick?

The fascination with capacity and stadium sizes is a bit concerning. Even if Canada has Olympic and Rogers hosting for maximum crowd they're still dwarfed by many of the American stadia. Canada should be focusing its efforts on stadiums tailor-made for the event/sport, not ones that are simply large for the sake of being large.

The thing with Montreal is that they've been a bit lacklustre in supporting past FIFA events. Their capacity% was below that of a number of other host cities for the WWC, including Ottawa. Montreal's a big event town but I'm not sold on Olympic being the best venue for a multitude of reasons. Having it host just because isn't good enough.

I still stand by my assertion that BMO is the best soccer stadium in Canada with the best current situation for expansion. BMO today isn't ready but nothing is stopping it from being upgraded within reach. It's going to be the primary soccer stadium in Canada for decades to come...neglecting it for 2026 would be a foolish mistake.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by wave46

The host country is automatically invited.

Canada is a minor co-host in this arrangement. You really think host country being automatically invited implies to this?