Natural Grass in the Rogers Centre/Possibility of a New Baseball Stadium in Toronto

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

This is a bit of a tangent but it's a great piece from Spacing on the history of baseball and ballparks in the city; lots of great shots I've never seen before of the old Hanlan's Point and Maple Leaf stadiums. Both were pretty nice looking parks and it would have been cool, if the dome had been built a few years later, if they emulated those facades in the new stadium (kind of the way the Mets' new stadium emulates Ebbet's Field).

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2015/04/14/illustrated-history-baseball-toronto/

 

[GenerationW]

Your comment was that gridiron football has a longer history in Canada than the US. And dating Canada to 1860 and the USA in 1869.

However, as Canadian football was rugby in the 1860s, then how does that have a longer history than the USA? There are reports of rugby clubs in some Universities as early as the 1840s; didn't Yale ban Rugby in 1862?

Given the origins of both Canadian and American Football being Rugby Football, and the origins in the US of Rugby Football long predating 1869, then I'm not sure your comment was correct.

That was my point ... as irrelevant as it may be ...

No one argues that North American gridiron football in the 1860s looked anything like it does now, only that both games originated from that era. According to most accounts, the first recognized American football game in 1869 between Rutgers and Princeton looked more like modern soccer than any other game. It wasn't until McGill took its rules from Montreal to Yale University in 1874 that gridiron football truly began to distinguish itself from other sports.

 

[wopchop]

It's Canadian football. Gridiron football has a longer history in Canada (1860-61) than the U.S. (1869).

Who cares? Did you understand the point that I was trying to make? Do you disagree with the fact that Canadian Football is harder on grass than Football/Soccer is?

This board can be so bloody pedantic at times, god.

 

[GenerationW]

Who cares? Did you understand the point that I was trying to make? Do you disagree with the fact that Canadian Football is harder on grass than Football/Soccer is?

This board can be so bloody pedantic at times, god.

They play rugby at BMO. Can't see rugby being considerably harder on grass than football.

 

[TOareaFan]

They play rugby at BMO. Can't see rugby being considerably harder on grass than football.

I attended a rugby match on a Sunday at BMO....on the following wednesday TFC had a match.......a guy sitting near me was ranting about how nothing else should take place on the pitch....the lines would still be there....the field would be torn up.....look at our beautiful pitch ..it won't stay that way....when I asked him if he could tell there was an international rugby match played on it 3 days earlier....he got real quiet real fast.

 

[nfitz]

I attended a rugby match on a Sunday at BMO....on the following wednesday TFC had a match.......a guy sitting near me was ranting about how nothing else should take place on the pitch....the lines would still be there....the field would be torn up.....look at our beautiful pitch ..it won't stay that way....when I asked him if he could tell there was an international rugby match played on it 3 days earlier....he got real quiet real fast.

I was at the Wednesday match. if you looked really closely, you could see where the rugby lines had been. But with the mowing pattern, most people wouldn't have spotted it if they weren't looking to spot it.

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned about the plan to remove the BMO Field north stand, and modify the south stand to fit in the CFL pithc, than I am about the playing surface.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'm not urging anyone to get back on thread.
I do think it's amusing people are quibbling about whether rugby or football is a more damaging sport, from the grass's point of view.

 

[TOareaFan]

I was at the Wednesday match. if you looked really closely, you could see where the rugby lines had been. But with the mowing pattern, most people wouldn't have spotted it if they weren't looking to spot it.

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned about the plan to remove the BMO Field north stand, and modify the south stand to fit in the CFL pithc, than I am about the playing surface.

Agree...and yes i could see the vague remnants of the lines (but wondered how much of that was because I had been at the rugby and my mind's eyes could see where they were)....certainly the guy I was "chatting" with could not tell and, as for the actual surface, it played very well.

Of course weather comes into it....but that is the case even if all that is on the pitch is soccer (think back to the first few home matches last year).......there is no guarantee that every switchover will work as well as the one that you and I are recalling....but, on the other hand, the oft talked about wembley disaster was equally a weather related issue.....a short turnover (3 days) after an NFL game to an international and I think it rained solidly for a week before the NFL game and also every day between the NFL and the international. That is not going to happen every time either....but if you listen to some folks that is exactly the "norm" we should expect.

I think the stands work out ok to. The lower rows will just telescope in and out and the support for TFC will be as close to the action as they are now......and there will be less rows for Argo games...but that is ok because end zone seats for gridiron football should start farther back/higher up anyway.

 

[nfitz]

Of course weather comes into it....but that is the case even if all that is on the pitch is soccer (think back to the first few home matches last year).......there is no guarantee that every switchover will work as well as the one that you and I are recalling....but, on the other hand, the oft talked about wembley disaster was equally a weather related issue.....a short turnover (3 days) after an NFL game to an international and I think it rained solidly for a week before the NFL game and also every day between the NFL and the international. That is not going to happen every time either....but if you listen to some folks that is exactly the "norm" we should expect.

Oh, there might be a game or two with a rough pitch, if they play football in the pouring rain. It won't be as bad as many pitches if it's just wet weather, with the underpitch air system.

On the other hand, with the grass reinforcement that is planned, there should be some improvement for some games where they've already had a poor pitch, like the 2-3 early games last year.

I think the stands work out ok to. The lower rows will just telescope in and out and the support for TFC will be as close to the action as they are now......and there will be less rows for Argo games...but that is ok because end zone seats for gridiron football should start farther back/higher up anyway.

That might work on the south. But the current plan is to completely eliminate the north stands. Though the plans seem to keep changing ...

 

[wopchop]

That might work on the south. But the current plan is to completely eliminate the north stands. Though the plans seem to keep changing ...

Indeed. This is the primary reason why I oppose the proposed move of the Argos into BMO Field.

I'm still not convinced about them being able to maintain a quality pitch either, but I'll admit that it is potentially manageable.

Anyway, at this point, I have no idea what is going to happen. I know that PCL is working on an estimate for the Phase 3 renovations, but that doesn't really mean anything one way or the other. I've also heard that MLSE is extremely split on a potential buyout. It also definitely seems like the Argos will not be able to come up with the money themselves to fund the Phase 3 renovations (which I'm told are to be higher than originally anticipated ~$15m).

 

[nfitz]

Anyway, at this point, I have no idea what is going to happen. I know that PCL is working on an estimate for the Phase 3 renovations, but that doesn't really mean anything one way or the other. I've also heard that MLSE is extremely split on a potential buyout. It also definitely seems like the Argos will not be able to come up with the money themselves to fund the Phase 3 renovations (which I'm told are to be higher than originally anticipated ~$15m).

It does seem crazy that after MLSE has dropped about $150 million of their own money on upgrading BMO field for soccer in the last few years, that the Argos can't even find $20 million or so to give themselves a home. Just add a $10 surcharge to their tickets for 10 years. Or how about a sponsorship deal. TFC gets about $5 million for BMO for the shirt sponsorship a year. Given how much a bigger sport I keep being told CFL is on TV in Canada than soccer, presumably the Argos are getting some huge sponsorship deals.

 

[TOareaFan]

It does seem crazy that after MLSE has dropped about $150 million of their own money on upgrading BMO field for soccer in the last few years, that the Argos can't even find $20 million or so to give themselves a home. Just add a $10 surcharge to their tickets for 10 years. Or how about a sponsorship deal. TFC gets about $5 million for BMO for the shirt sponsorship a year. Given how much a bigger sport I keep being told CFL is on TV in Canada than soccer, presumably the Argos are getting some huge sponsorship deals.

Assuming Argos averaged 20k that would take them, what, 12.5 years to pay the $20 million off (also assuming they could raise the inital capital interest free)....last year they averaged 17k or so.....so can they bump their tickets by $10 a seat, pay rent (they play rent free now), generate enough income to pay for themselves and get a bump of 3k a game.....sounds aggressive.

 

[nfitz]

Assuming Argos averaged 20k that would take them, what, 12.5 years to pay the $20 million off (also assuming they could raise the inital capital interest free)....last year they averaged 17k or so...

17K I hadn't realised things had gotten so dire. They didn't have a game that low in 2013, let alone an average. It looks like they were averaging 30,000 or so in 2007, and even in 2012 looks like about 25,000. I assume 25,000 a year

..so can they bump their tickets by $10 a seat, pay rent (they play rent free now), generate enough income to pay for themselves and get a bump of 3k a game.....sounds aggressive.

They still pull large TV audiences - much larger than soccer.

If they can't even find a relatively small amount of money to modify a stadium so that they can play there, then I really don't see much future for the team. We spent $100s of millions of public money to build them the Skydome (which would have been a far cheaper stadium if it had been just for baseball). Maybe the city just needs to insist that Skydome be available for CFL. And why not? If the Yankees can share their grass pitch at Yankee Stadium with a soccer team that plays 20 games a year, then I'm sure they can find a way they can still play CFL at Skydome after the grass goes in. And I'm sure many Argos fans would prefer to stay in Skydome rather than, in the name of one Argos fan "a dinkified little sh!thole in the middle of nowhere".

 

[TOareaFan]

17K I hadn't realised things had gotten so dire. They didn't have a game that low in 2013, let alone an average. It looks like they were averaging 30,000 or so in 2007, and even in 2012 looks like about 25,000. I assume 25,000 a year

Well, what I have heard is that prior to last year the numbers were very much "padded"/made up and that last year's seemingly large decline was more a reflection of a reality that had existed for a while. But who knows. The reported/announced average last year was in teh 17k range.

They still pull large TV audiences - much larger than soccer.

Yes, CFL does pull much larger tv numbers than MLS in Canada....hard to know how much of that is the Argos though....every game has two cities contributing to the ratings and other markets that are affected by the outcome so might have an interest. Outside of the 3 MLS cities, there is no real reason to be interested in watching MLS.....there are few games with two Canadian markets involved...when those happen the ratings do get a bump.

If they can't even find a relatively small amount of money to modify a stadium so that they can play there, then I really don't see much future for the team. We spent $100s of millions of public money to build them the Skydome (which would have been a far cheaper stadium if it had been just for baseball). Maybe the city just needs to insist that Skydome be available for CFL.

BMO Field is owned by the city so I can see them having some influence there....but SkyDome was a provincial thing and was never owned by the city (not sure the city put any money in at all). Even then, Rogers are the 3rd private sector owner since the province first put it up for sale....so any public influence on how it gets used is long since passed.

And I'm sure many Argos fans would prefer to stay in Skydome rather than, in the name of one Argos fan "a dinkified little sh!thole in the middle of nowhere".

As they should.....I am far from convinced that moving to BMO is a move that will "save" the Argos. I think far too many are thinking what happened in Montreal proves that BMO is the answer....I think there are reasons to doubt that.

 

[themarc]

MLSE wants to own the Argos without having to pay for them - that IS the deal. Similar way Rogers bought the Skydome. "We are the only game in town that can SAVE this situation". Just watch...