Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026 .... Canada


Recommended Posts

Clearly as an American your attitude is biggest is the only consideration - maybe that explains your sucess in 2012, 2016 and FIFA 2022

Look at all those 70,000 seat stadiums the USA served up for WC 2022 ... how did that work out? - oh well they got beaten by a country offering lots of 45,000 seat capacities.

As the MLS is and continues to be the 5th rank sport, the USA is a footballing backwater.

You mean kinda like how England, who hasn't hosted since 1966, lost out to Russia? How'd that work out for you guys. Or that this footballing backwater has hosted as many World Cups as the birthplace of the sport and might be in line to get a 2nd one before England gets another, despite having hosted 28 years after England had their 1?

Larger capacity stadiums aren't the only consideration, but it certainly gives you an edge. FIFA chose Russia for 2018 because they're trying to expand the reach of the sport. They chose Qatar for 2022 because.. well, I can't wait for that decision to come back and haunt them. I don't think there's any sane person that would think what Qatar was offering was that superior to that of the United States. But the favorite in these things doesn't always win.

So, as I was saying earlier, put Canada up against the United States and whose bid is going to look better? Doesn't mean that Canada can't win, especially if the folks at FIFA have an agenda, as if that would be a first. Contesting the World Cup in the United States in 1994 was huge for the sport of soccer football in this country. Would they get the same effect from a tournament in Canada? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what they expect to get out of Qatar. Either way, they're hardly the exception that disproves the rules.

And just as a side note.. I find it very amusing that your plan for Olympic Stadium is to remove the track after all you've told me about sliding stands and how an American stadium should be built with that provision.

Your earlier post using Sheep's EXISTING stadiums to judge Canada's ability is off course wrong. If Canada is going to bid and win they will have to build a 80-90,000 seat stadium in Toronto to have any chance. If FIFA is keen on growing the game off course Canada should host. And unlike the USA Canada has been building up and pleasing FIFA for the last couple of years by bidding on other tournaments and showing their ability. Setting an attendance record for the 2007 FIFA world u20 cup and likely the 2015 WWC will help the bid more then hurt it.

With that being said I don't think Canada should focus on bidding, but rather qualifying a team into the WC

Yes, this I agree with. It's going to take some new construction, not merely the upgrading and retrofitting of Olympic Stadium in Montreal, a building that has very literally been falling apart for decades now and probably would have been torn down already if it wasn't so expensive to do so rather than to keep it standing. Even still, while hosting the U20 tournament and eventually the Women's World Cup are notable, that's small potatoes compared to the big prize. It would be a little like saying a country that hosts a Youth Olympics is prepared to host a Summer Olympics. That's not to say Canada couldn't host a World Cup, but they need to beat out the competition for that. And if that competition is the United States, I don't like their odds, in spite of the 2022 loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Canada could only win the World Cup if they offered at least 7 new stadiums (Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton) and significant improvements to stadiums in Hamilton and Winnipeg.

Ideally you would have

Halifax, Quebec City (a new stadium for Laval), Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver.

It would take significant infrastructure improvements to Hamilton, Quebec City, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton airports and overall would take billions upon billions of dollars. And further highway/civic infrastructure improvements to Halifax, Quebec City and Montreal. I just cannot see the provinces (of which 7 of 10 would be involved) and the federal government would be willing to contribute the amount of money necessary to win.

If Canada was willing to throw 12 billion or so dollars at hosting the tournament we could win and I am sure FIFA would pick us over the Americans and Mexicans, especially because we have been a good partner to FIFA over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought occurs to me here and again, someone correct me if I'm wrong (although I just looked it up and it looks like I did remember this correctly).. doesn't FIFA have regulations in place saying that no other sporting events can take place at the WC venues for the duration of the tournament? I know that was a sticking point for Australia in their bid since the World Cup would conflict with the AFL and NRL. So, it seems as though that would be an issue for a Canadian bid, especially since CFL season usually begins in June. Not to mention getting Rogers Centre away from the Blue Jays for 8 weeks. Not a problem for a United States bid since most if not all of the stadiums used would be available for the entire timeframe needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The effect Qatar 2022 and two years of almost non-stop corruption revelations is likely to have is to leave FIFA with pretty sparse fields going into their next bidding processes.

There's certainly little appetite in this country for us to go back to FIFA and nor do we need a world cup - it's always been true that FIFA needs the big European powerhouses more than the other way around and I look forward to them approaching us with their begging bowl when they realise nobody is interested. I don't suppose Australia will be massively interested either given the way they were brushed aside and the US will probably tell FIFA where to go too.

This will be Blatter's legacy to whoever (Platini?) takes over from him in a few years' time.

Back on topic then....Canada wouldn't fancy their chances in a normal bidding process given all the factors Faster has pointed out. Why would they chance their luck with FIFA after witnessing Australia's and the US' fate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought occurs to me here and again, someone correct me if I'm wrong (although I just looked it up and it looks like I did remember this correctly).. doesn't FIFA have regulations in place saying that no other sporting events can take place at the WC venues for the duration of the tournament? I know that was a sticking point for Australia in their bid since the World Cup would conflict with the AFL and NRL. So, it seems as though that would be an issue for a Canadian bid, especially since CFL season usually begins in June. Not to mention getting Rogers Centre away from the Blue Jays for 8 weeks. Not a problem for a United States bid since most if not all of the stadiums used would be available for the entire timeframe needed.

If Toronto gets a new stadium Rogers Centre won't be used. The CFL might be an issue but if Canada were to bid (which it has indicated interest) something must be planned.

"because they're trying to expand the reach of the sport."

- Then Canada has the advantage of over the USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"because they're trying to expand the reach of the sport."

- Then Canada has the advantage of over the USA.

I still think the US has the advantage, because there's so much room to grow in the US.

FIFA royally fucked up for 2022. Australia would've been nice, but if FIFA had gone to the US, that could've done wonders to cement soccer in America, and by extension, Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the US has the advantage, because there's so much room to grow in the US.

FIFA royally fucked up for 2022. Australia would've been nice, but if FIFA had gone to the US, that could've done wonders to cement soccer in America, and by extension, Canada.

Canada needs more help then the USA is what I mean. The 1994 WC left a legacy which Canada still needs. However, you are probably right considering the potential of the USA getting the WC indirectly helping Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada needs more help then the USA is what I mean. The 1994 WC left a legacy which Canada still needs. However, you are probably right considering the potential of the USA getting the WC indirectly helping Canada.

That's the question though.. what does more to grow the sport.. giving that legacy to Canada or growing upon what the United States already has? That's why Qatar 2022 seems like the most irrational decision ever. Russia 2018 I get. Football is already as big as it gets in England, Spain, and Netherlands. So as much as those countries deserve to be rewarded by hosting a World Cup, they get passed over for a new frontier. That's fine, totally understandable. But what does FIFA think they're going to get out of Qatar other than a nation with more money to burn than they know what to do with building a bunch of stadiums they don't need and what's likely to be a terrible legacy. They could have put it in Australia and brought the sport to a new corner of the world. They could have put it in the United States and built upon team USA's success in the 2010 World Cup and have more than a decade to get this enormous advertising market fully on board. But no, instead they think Qatar is the answer. And I think they have all of the next decade to realize what a poor decision that is.

So we come to 2026. It has to be either North America, South America, or Africa. Which probably means North America. In spite of the 2022 loss, I have to presume the United States will go all out once again to land another World Cup. Canada will probably be there as well. Maybe Mexico if they can get their act together. Looking at those 3, I still think the sport has the most to gain from coming here. Obviously I'm biased and we know soccer may never be on the level of football or baseball or basketball in this country. But as has been proven, there's a lot of advertising/sponsorship money that can come from this country. FIFA passed that up once. I don't know that they'd want to pass it up again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Toronto gets a new stadium Rogers Centre won't be used. The CFL might be an issue but if Canada were to bid (which it has indicated interest) something must be planned.

"because they're trying to expand the reach of the sport."

- Then Canada has the advantage of over the USA.

I think the Rogers would be used irrespective as the country doesn't have that many 50,000+ stadiums. When France hosted in 1998 they used the Parc des Princes and Stade de France

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Rogers would be used irrespective as the country doesn't have that many 50,000+ stadiums. When France hosted in 1998 they used the Parc des Princes and Stade de France

And where would the Blue Jays during the month of June? If FIFA wants control of the stadium before and during the World Cup, that likely means the Blue Jays would have to play on the road for at least 6 weeks. I can't see that happening. So unless FIFA wants to relax their rules on grounds sharing (which was a big cause for concern for the Australia bid), it's less than automatic that Rogers Centre gets used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And since you brought up 1998.. Parc des Princes is owned by the city of Paris. Stade de France (unless Wikipedia is leading me astray here) doesn't really have a regular tenant. Rogers Centre, OTOH, is owned and operated by Rogers Communications. Who owns the Blue Jays? Rogers Communications. So unless the owner and operator of the stadium wants to kick its primary team out of the building in the middle of their season, Rogers Centre is a no go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And since you brought up 1998.. Parc des Princes is owned by the city of Paris. Stade de France (unless Wikipedia is leading me astray here) doesn't really have a regular tenant. Rogers Centre, OTOH, is owned and operated by Rogers Communications. Who owns the Blue Jays? Rogers Communications. So unless the owner and operator of the stadium wants to kick its primary team out of the building in the middle of their season, Rogers Centre is a no go.

The owner of the Stade de France is the French State.

But as for Parc des Princes or Roland Garros Stadium (French Tennis Open) there is a private operator managing the stadium (Respectively Consortium Stade de France, SESE & French Tennis Federation). And in the case of Parc des Princes, there is also a resident team, the PSG. (that will be resident during 2 years at Stade de France, because of the Parc des Princes' renovations).

So, even if the contracts between the owners and the operators are already including some specific lines regarding hosting main events (olympics, world cups, t&f world champs), there will be a specific agreement signed to solve all issues related to such events and allowing the free use of the venues.

And during the period of the events some exceptions could appear... in 1988 during the Soccer World Cup at Parc des Princes, there was no games between the 1/8 final and the 3rd place final... so the operator SESE and the City of Paris asked the World Cup organizers to be allowed to organize a mega concert during that time...

So still possible to find period to organize other events between 2 games.... and also some stadiums could be only be used in a certain phase of the events (only preliminaries for average stadium, only finals rounds for main stadium) in order to reduce the occupancy of the stadiums

Link to post
Share on other sites

And since you brought up 1998.. Parc des Princes is owned by the city of Paris. Stade de France (unless Wikipedia is leading me astray here) doesn't really have a regular tenant. Rogers Centre, OTOH, is owned and operated by Rogers Communications. Who owns the Blue Jays? Rogers Communications. So unless the owner and operator of the stadium wants to kick its primary team out of the building in the middle of their season, Rogers Centre is a no go.

and who will likely have significiant broadcasting rights as well as investments in other Toronto Sports Teams such as the Raptors and the Maple Leafs? ..... Rogers Communications.

You are aware that the Rogers Centre is a multi-purpose stadium able to convert to one sport to another within about 24hrs?

Any schedule would afford the Rogers Centre 3-4 days between fixtures to change configurations.

And if the stadium is used only for the Group games - this stage as highlighted in 2010, lasts for 2 weeks. Frequently the Jays on the road for at least a week and for two weeks in a month.

Your excuses are somewhat risible if not deluded ... and becoming increasingly Shrek-like

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your excuses are somewhat risible if not deluded ... and becoming increasingly Shrek-like

Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. No, looking at negatives of a bid and brushing them aside is shrek-like. Actually, I can't think of anything that's more shrek-like. These aren't excuses. These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed because this World Cup bid does not live in a vacuum. You seem to want to brush everything else aside as if it's meaningless. I don't think it is. Are they obstacles that can't be overcome? Probably not, but as the Australia bid pointed out, grounds sharing issues are a concern. And there was at least 1 stadium that the AFL and NRL insisted could not be a part of a World Cup bid. So to bring these up with regard to Rogers Centre.. well, let's take a closer look...

and who will likely have significiant broadcasting rights as well as investments in other Toronto Sports Teams such as the Raptors and the Maple Leafs? ..... Rogers Communications.

What do the Raptors and Maple Leafs have to do with anything? They're out of season by the time the World Cup begins and neither plays at Rogers Centre. The Blue Jays (and the Argonauts, keep forgetting about them) do. Rogers may be invested in a Canadian World Cup, but there's a price to pay if Rogers Centre is used as a venue. They may not be so keen on asking MLB to plan around them, especially if it's a month or more that comes into play.

You are aware that the Rogers Centre is a multi-purpose stadium able to convert to one sport to another within about 24hrs?

Any schedule would afford the Rogers Centre 3-4 days between fixtures to change configurations.

Yes, I'm well aware, I know baseball pretty well. Are you aware that most baseball series are 3-4 games? And that generally they'll want to put series together to limit travel? You're not talking about a game or 2 here and there, it's probably at least 3 days, if not a week. Again, what if FIFA wants full control of the venue and doesn't want to worry about converting it back and forth for baseball. And here's the big sticking point.. what about the playing surface? What if they're insistent on using something other than what the Blue Jays and Argonauts normally play on? How's that 24 hour conversion going to work out then? Wasn't an issue with the Silverdome in `94 because they didn't have to swap out the playing surface for something else. Again, this isn't an impossible problem, but it's something that needs to be address before you can say "Rogers Centre would be used irrespective.."

And if the stadium is used only for the Group games - this stage as highlighted in 2010, lasts for 2 weeks. Frequently the Jays on the road for at least a week and for two weeks in a month.

I see.. so you're including Rogers Centre on the premise that it's 1 of the larger existing stadiums in the country, but now you'd consider only using it for group stage matches? Yea, that makes a lot of sense. And you're still kicking the Blue Jays out of the building for at least 2 weeks (if not more, depending on FIFA's requirements). No impossible for them to be on a long road trip, but the Dodgers in `84 and the Braves in `96 only had to leave their stadiums for 2 to 2 1/2 weeks. Anything more than 3 weeks could be an issue. But of course, you continue to view this bid in a vacuum, so such things don't matter, do they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. No, looking at negatives of a bid and brushing them aside is shrek-like. Actually, I can't think of anything that's more shrek-like. These aren't excuses. These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed because this World Cup bid does not live in a vacuum. You seem to want to brush everything else aside as if it's meaningless. I don't think it is. Are they obstacles that can't be overcome? Probably not, but as the Australia bid pointed out, grounds sharing issues are a concern. And there was at least 1 stadium that the AFL and NRL insisted could not be a part of a World Cup bid. So to bring these up with regard to Rogers Centre.. well, let's take a closer look...

What do the Raptors and Maple Leafs have to do with anything? They're out of season by the time the World Cup begins and neither plays at Rogers Centre. The Blue Jays (and the Argonauts, keep forgetting about them) do. Rogers may be invested in a Canadian World Cup, but there's a price to pay if Rogers Centre is used as a venue. They may not be so keen on asking MLB to plan around them, especially if it's a month or more that comes into play.

Yes, I'm well aware, I know baseball pretty well. Are you aware that most baseball series are 3-4 games? And that generally they'll want to put series together to limit travel? You're not talking about a game or 2 here and there, it's probably at least 3 days, if not a week. Again, what if FIFA wants full control of the venue and doesn't want to worry about converting it back and forth for baseball. And here's the big sticking point.. what about the playing surface? What if they're insistent on using something other than what the Blue Jays and Argonauts normally play on? How's that 24 hour conversion going to work out then? Wasn't an issue with the Silverdome in `94 because they didn't have to swap out the playing surface for something else. Again, this isn't an impossible problem, but it's something that needs to be address before you can say "Rogers Centre would be used irrespective.."

I see.. so you're including Rogers Centre on the premise that it's 1 of the larger existing stadiums in the country, but now you'd consider only using it for group stage matches? Yea, that makes a lot of sense. And you're still kicking the Blue Jays out of the building for at least 2 weeks (if not more, depending on FIFA's requirements). No impossible for them to be on a long road trip, but the Dodgers in `84 and the Braves in `96 only had to leave their stadiums for 2 to 2 1/2 weeks. Anything more than 3 weeks could be an issue. But of course, you continue to view this bid in a vacuum, so such things don't matter, do they?

Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. No, looking at negatives of a bid and brushing them aside is shrek-like. Actually, I can't think of anything that's more shrek-like. These aren't excuses. These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed because this World Cup bid does not live in a vacuum. You seem to want to brush everything else aside as if it's meaningless. I don't think it is. Are they obstacles that can't be overcome? Probably not, but as the Australia bid pointed out, grounds sharing issues are a concern. And there was at least 1 stadium that the AFL and NRL insisted could not be a part of a World Cup bid. So to bring these up with regard to Rogers Centre.. well, let's take a closer look...

What do the Raptors and Maple Leafs have to do with anything? They're out of season by the time the World Cup begins and neither plays at Rogers Centre. The Blue Jays (and the Argonauts, keep forgetting about them) do. Rogers may be invested in a Canadian World Cup, but there's a price to pay if Rogers Centre is used as a venue. They may not be so keen on asking MLB to plan around them, especially if it's a month or more that comes into play.

Yes, I'm well aware, I know baseball pretty well. Are you aware that most baseball series are 3-4 games? And that generally they'll want to put series together to limit travel? You're not talking about a game or 2 here and there, it's probably at least 3 days, if not a week. Again, what if FIFA wants full control of the venue and doesn't want to worry about converting it back and forth for baseball. And here's the big sticking point.. what about the playing surface? What if they're insistent on using something other than what the Blue Jays and Argonauts normally play on? How's that 24 hour conversion going to work out then? Wasn't an issue with the Silverdome in `94 because they didn't have to swap out the playing surface for something else. Again, this isn't an impossible problem, but it's something that needs to be address before you can say "Rogers Centre would be used irrespective.."

I see.. so you're including Rogers Centre on the premise that it's 1 of the larger existing stadiums in the country, but now you'd consider only using it for group stage matches? Yea, that makes a lot of sense. And you're still kicking the Blue Jays out of the building for at least 2 weeks (if not more, depending on FIFA's requirements). No impossible for them to be on a long road trip, but the Dodgers in `84 and the Braves in `96 only had to leave their stadiums for 2 to 2 1/2 weeks. Anything more than 3 weeks could be an issue. But of course, you continue to view this bid in a vacuum, so such things don't matter, do they?

Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. No, looking at negatives of a bid and brushing them aside is shrek-like. Actually, I can't think of anything that's more shrek-like. These aren't excuses. These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed because this World Cup bid does not live in a vacuum. You seem to want to brush everything else aside as if it's meaningless. I don't think it is. Are they obstacles that can't be overcome? Probably not, but as the Australia bid pointed out, grounds sharing issues are a concern. And there was at least 1 stadium that the AFL and NRL insisted could not be a part of a World Cup bid. So to bring these up with regard to Rogers Centre.. well, let's take a closer look...

What do the Raptors and Maple Leafs have to do with anything? They're out of season by the time the World Cup begins and neither plays at Rogers Centre. The Blue Jays (and the Argonauts, keep forgetting about them) do. Rogers may be invested in a Canadian World Cup, but there's a price to pay if Rogers Centre is used as a venue. They may not be so keen on asking MLB to plan around them, especially if it's a month or more that comes into play.

Yes, I'm well aware, I know baseball pretty well. Are you aware that most baseball series are 3-4 games? And that generally they'll want to put series together to limit travel? You're not talking about a game or 2 here and there, it's probably at least 3 days, if not a week. Again, what if FIFA wants full control of the venue and doesn't want to worry about converting it back and forth for baseball. And here's the big sticking point.. what about the playing surface? What if they're insistent on using something other than what the Blue Jays and Argonauts normally play on? How's that 24 hour conversion going to work out then? Wasn't an issue with the Silverdome in `94 because they didn't have to swap out the playing surface for something else. Again, this isn't an impossible problem, but it's something that needs to be address before you can say "Rogers Centre would be used irrespective.."

I see.. so you're including Rogers Centre on the premise that it's 1 of the larger existing stadiums in the country, but now you'd consider only using it for group stage matches? Yea, that makes a lot of sense. And you're still kicking the Blue Jays out of the building for at least 2 weeks (if not more, depending on FIFA's requirements). No impossible for them to be on a long road trip, but the Dodgers in `84 and the Braves in `96 only had to leave their stadiums for 2 to 2 1/2 weeks. Anything more than 3 weeks could be an issue. But of course, you continue to view this bid in a vacuum, so such things don't matter, do they?

1) So in your opinion FIFA have no idea what they are talking about then?

The stadium you mention in Melbourne is the Etihad. Not only is that home to FOUR AFL teams, but under FIFA rules of no more than two stadiums in any one stadium, FIFA were covered anyway. Only one team is likely to be playing in the near future at the Rogers Centre

2) You may not be aware of this but the Rogers Centre is being covered to a natural grass surface. And the Argonauts are planning to move out in the next few seasons to a new facility. If the Skydome is used for the group games only, then that means only TWO weeks and therefore, two back to back roadtrips. And then their involvement in the World Cup is done. You seem to want to ignore what Swiss told you regarding use of the Parc des Princes in 1998..

So its going, I'll remind you a NATURAL GRASS SURFACE planned for the Rogers Centre

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/article/1125840--toronto-blue-jays-search-for-supergrass-to-replace-artificial-turf-in-rogers-centre

3) Of course the Rogers Centre will be used but once it gets to the Last 16, it is likely that only ONE stadium will be used for the FIFA tournament. There is no need therefore to include the Rogers Centre as a new Toronto Stadium will be used

L16 venues would likely include Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto New Stadium, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax, to spread the games around, instead of having two stadiums at this stage in Toronto.

It is hardly rocket science

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) So in your opinion FIFA have no idea what they are talking about then?

The stadium you mention in Melbourne is the Etihad. Not only is that home to FOUR AFL teams, but under FIFA rules of no more than two stadiums in any one stadium, FIFA were covered anyway. Only one team is likely to be playing in the near future at the Rogers Centre

No, they know what they're doing. But maybe it tells you something that relatively large and otherwise suitable stadium basically said we're not participating because we have too much going on to give up our stadium. Especially when most stadiums in Australia are less than ideal for soccer. Oh, and with regard to those 4 AFL teams.. I looked at the calendar for Etihad stadium. They have 8 events there in June and 10 events in July. Rogers Centre has 14 events in June and 17 events in July. And that you mention teams playing at Rogers Centre..

2) You may not be aware of this but the Rogers Centre is being covered to a natural grass surface. And the Argonauts are planning to move out in the next few seasons to a new facility. If the Skydome is used for the group games only, then that means only TWO weeks and therefore, two back to back roadtrips. And then their involvement in the World Cup is done. You seem to want to ignore what Swiss told you regarding use of the Parc des Princes in 1998..

So its going, I'll remind you a NATURAL GRASS SURFACE planned for the Rogers Centre

http://www.thestar.c...n-rogers-centre

Did you even bother to READ the article? Grass at Rogers Centre is by no means a done deal. It's something they're researching, but it sounds like they haven't found the solution for it yet. And do you know why the Argos would have to move? It's because having a grass surface would prevent those nice relatively simple conversions from baseball to football...

As referenced here.. http://toronto.bluej...ws_tor&c_id=tor

And here.. http://www.sportsnet...rscentre_grass/

Beeston added that in order to sustain the grass, it would mean the stadium’s seats could not be reconfigured during the baseball season. In other words, a grass field would turn the Roges Centre into a baseball only facility from April through October, leaving the Toronto Argonauts in need of a new home.

So what's your solution for that one? The Bills can still play their annual game there in November or December because that's after baseball season ends. If natural grass gets installed at Rogers, it sounds like that prohibits other events from taking place there during the season. And I read what SwissO posted. I can't speak to the concert he's referring to, but that sounds a lot simpler than having to convert a field between 2 seating configurations. Easier said than done, especially if FIFA wants to set up the venue in advance of the first game there. Again, not something that can't be addressed in the next 14 years should Canada win the 2026 bid, but this is not nearly as simple as you seem to want to make it.

3) Of course the Rogers Centre will be used but once it gets to the Last 16, it is likely that only ONE stadium will be used for the FIFA tournament. There is no need therefore to include the Rogers Centre as a new Toronto Stadium will be used

I still don't get this idea that the Rogers Centre will definitely be used. If Toronto has some sort of new stadium, use that, and then maybe figure a way to expand BMO Field and there's your 2 (or use a 2nd stadium in another city). And remind me again how many cities hosted round of 16 games in 2010 in South Africa? I'll give you a hint.. it's not 8. Johannesburg even hosted 2 quarterfinal matches, 1 each at Ellis Park and Soccer City.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I read what SwissO posted. I can't speak to the concert he's referring to, but that sounds a lot simpler than having to convert a field between 2 seating configurations.

I have to disagree, but switching seating configuration in a venue such the Rogers' stadium is much more easy and with low risk for the field of play than organizing a concert... with building a huge stage and having to protect the entire grass !

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they know what they're doing. But maybe it tells you something that relatively large and otherwise suitable stadium basically said we're not participating because we have too much going on to give up our stadium. Especially when most stadiums in Australia are less than ideal for soccer. Oh, and with regard to those 4 AFL teams.. I looked at the calendar for Etihad stadium. They have 8 events there in June and 10 events in July. Rogers Centre has 14 events in June and 17 events in July. And that you mention teams playing at Rogers Centre..

Did you even bother to READ the article? Grass at Rogers Centre is by no means a done deal. It's something they're researching, but it sounds like they haven't found the solution for it yet. And do you know why the Argos would have to move? It's because having a grass surface would prevent those nice relatively simple conversions from baseball to football...

As referenced here.. http://toronto.bluej...ws_tor&c_id=tor

And here.. http://www.sportsnet...rscentre_grass/

Beeston added that in order to sustain the grass, it would mean the stadium’s seats could not be reconfigured during the baseball season. In other words, a grass field would turn the Roges Centre into a baseball only facility from April through October, leaving the Toronto Argonauts in need of a new home.

So what's your solution for that one? The Bills can still play their annual game there in November or December because that's after baseball season ends. If natural grass gets installed at Rogers, it sounds like that prohibits other events from taking place there during the season. And I read what SwissO posted. I can't speak to the concert he's referring to, but that sounds a lot simpler than having to convert a field between 2 seating configurations. Easier said than done, especially if FIFA wants to set up the venue in advance of the first game there. Again, not something that can't be addressed in the next 14 years should Canada win the 2026 bid, but this is not nearly as simple as you seem to want to make it.

I still don't get this idea that the Rogers Centre will definitely be used. If Toronto has some sort of new stadium, use that, and then maybe figure a way to expand BMO Field and there's your 2 (or use a 2nd stadium in another city). And remind me again how many cities hosted round of 16 games in 2010 in South Africa? I'll give you a hint.. it's not 8. Johannesburg even hosted 2 quarterfinal matches, 1 each at Ellis Park and Soccer City.

1. The Etihad is unsuitable because it is also an OVAL. Apparently it is also rubbish for watching a lot of sports.

So you have the owners of the Etihad and 4 seperate teams who have existing contracts to deal with.

Compare this to the Rogers Centre, where you are dealing with one organisation who owns both the stadium and the principle tenant, who will also want to be involved in any TV rights for the biggest ever sporting event in Canada.

Maybe Americans have difficulty in organising their schedules but the rest of the world doesn't

2. I am aware they haven't settled on their ideal solution but it is clear they want to change the surface, not a case of if but when. And only an idiot would not be aware that a sport like Canadian Football/Rugby tears up a grass surface far more than soccer does, hence the desire for the Argonauts to move out.

3. As Canada is a far larger country than South Africa, they want to have all the country involved. 2007 and the upcoming 2015 have already proven that.

There is the possibilty they could take the BMO up to 44,000 seats but then they could also simply use the Rogers Centre.

8 different venues were used for the Last 16 - no stadium doubled up and held two.

but as you are an anti-everything you don't originally think of Troll, don't waste the time of others who liked to have a positive conversation about a potential Canadian bid.

At least it would be better than any crass in your face Yank offering

Link to post
Share on other sites

"hence the desire for the Argonauts to move out"

There is the possibilty they could take the BMO up to 44,000 seats but then they could also simply use the Rogers Centre.

I don't think the argos are moving out anytime soon especially with no stadium available.

BMO Field's maximum expansion is 28,000 and nothing more because of space and stuff like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but as you are an anti-everything you don't originally think of Troll, don't waste the time of others who liked to have a positive conversation about a potential Canadian bid.

At least it would be better than any crass in your face Yank offering

Don't let that anti-Americanism blind you too much when this country has hosted 2 World Cups to your country's 1. Remind again who won group C in the 2010 Cup?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm not anti-everything, I'm a realist. If you want to call me names, go right ahead. At least I'm not the guy who came back to the board under a new user name and thinks no one here noticed that. You can have all the positive conversations about a Canadian bid that you want. I'm entitled to my opinion. And in case you hadn't noticed, the resident Canadian and Toronto resident here has offered his opinion that Rogers Centre need not be a part of the bid even though you insist it will be and even he's admitting that it's an uphill battle.

Compare this to the Rogers Centre, where you are dealing with one organisation who owns both the stadium and the principle tenant, who will also want to be involved in any TV rights for the biggest ever sporting event in Canada.

Maybe Americans have difficulty in organising their schedules but the rest of the world doesn't

Again, which venue hosts more events? Not even close there. Major League Baseball plays 6-7 games a week, not 1. So even with multiple teams, that's a heavier load the Rogers Centre has to deal with. And MLB probably isn't going to change their entire calendar up to accommodate 1 stadium in use for the World Cup. Of course, it could be a moot point because..

2. I am aware they haven't settled on their ideal solution but it is clear they want to change the surface, not a case of if but when. And only an idiot would not be aware that a sport like Canadian Football/Rugby tears up a grass surface far more than soccer does, hence the desire for the Argonauts to move out.

The Blue Jays want to for obvious reasons. But the Argos moving out has little to do with the condition of the playing surface.. it's because they don't want to lay down the baseball field and have to take it out and put it back in during the season. That's easy enough to do with an artificial surface. Not so much if you're trying to grow grass indoors. And since you seem to be selectively reading too, take a look above where intoronto says (and I think he's right) that they can't kick the Argos out until they find somewhere else for them to play. Again, wanting to do something and having the ability to do something is different than actually doing it.

3. As Canada is a far larger country than South Africa, they want to have all the country involved. 2007 and the upcoming 2015 have already proven that.

There is the possibilty they could take the BMO up to 44,000 seats but then they could also simply use the Rogers Centre.

8 different venues were used for the Last 16 - no stadium doubled up and held two.

Canada is larger in area than South Africa, but South Africa has a big edge in population for what that's worth. Good for Canada that they want a more spread out World Cup. That's not exactly a positive. Different with 2007/2015 where crowds of 20,000 per game largely isolated to 1 or 2 cities would become 40,000+ all over the country. From what I remember, that was 1 of the knocks against USA 1994 that the games were so spread out. So why does that make Canada's bid bidder? Wow, it's like talking to shrek!

Oh, and with regard to 8 different venues, you're right that no stadium doubled up. But you implied that no CITY would host more than 1 match per round. I merely pointed out that Johannesburg had both its stadiums host in not 1 but 2 of the knockout rounds. Just saying.

We can go back and forth ad nauseum at this. You can call me names and insult me all you want. If you're going to throw out every city/country out there you want to consider, permit me to state my opinion, even if you disagree with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't let that anti-Americanism blind you too much when this country has hosted 2 World Cups to your country's 1. Remind again who won group C in the 2010 Cup?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm not anti-everything, I'm a realist. If you want to call me names, go right ahead. At least I'm not the guy who came back to the board under a new user name and thinks no one here noticed that. You can have all the positive conversations about a Canadian bid that you want. I'm entitled to my opinion. And in case you hadn't noticed, the resident Canadian and Toronto resident here has offered his opinion that Rogers Centre need not be a part of the bid even though you insist it will be and even he's admitting that it's an uphill battle.

Again, which venue hosts more events? Not even close there. Major League Baseball plays 6-7 games a week, not 1. So even with multiple teams, that's a heavier load the Rogers Centre has to deal with. And MLB probably isn't going to change their entire calendar up to accommodate 1 stadium in use for the World Cup. Of course, it could be a moot point because..

The Blue Jays want to for obvious reasons. But the Argos moving out has little to do with the condition of the playing surface.. it's because they don't want to lay down the baseball field and have to take it out and put it back in during the season. That's easy enough to do with an artificial surface. Not so much if you're trying to grow grass indoors. And since you seem to be selectively reading too, take a look above where intoronto says (and I think he's right) that they can't kick the Argos out until they find somewhere else for them to play. Again, wanting to do something and having the ability to do something is different than actually doing it.

Canada is larger in area than South Africa, but South Africa has a big edge in population for what that's worth. Good for Canada that they want a more spread out World Cup. That's not exactly a positive. Different with 2007/2015 where crowds of 20,000 per game largely isolated to 1 or 2 cities would become 40,000+ all over the country. From what I remember, that was 1 of the knocks against USA 1994 that the games were so spread out. So why does that make Canada's bid bidder? Wow, it's like talking to shrek!

Oh, and with regard to 8 different venues, you're right that no stadium doubled up. But you implied that no CITY would host more than 1 match per round. I merely pointed out that Johannesburg had both its stadiums host in not 1 but 2 of the knockout rounds. Just saying.

We can go back and forth ad nauseum at this. You can call me names and insult me all you want. If you're going to throw out every city/country out there you want to consider, permit me to state my opinion, even if you disagree with it.

1. You've host two World Cups in the USA? So as 1994 was your first time remind us of your second? ... especially as you compete against two other nations to hold a North American version ... and in 2010, you only win the group on goals scored, before losing to the mightly Ghanians whilst at least we got knocked out by a world power house. At least our football delegate to FIFA hasn't been mired in corruption - Chuck Blazwe + Salt Lake City = pattern?

2. Our Canadian colleague has already said that the BMO cannot be expanded beyond 28,000 seats. Therefore the Rogers Centre would be the ideal 2nd stadium in Toronto.

3. An AFL game does far more damage to a playing surface than a MLB game which is why the surface needs a longer rest. As for the Blue Jays not wanting to switch the pitch all the time, we are not talking about a regular tennant sharing the surface for the next 10 years - we are talking of a small window of 2 weeks for a one off event only. The Raiders and Athletics and until recently the Dolphins and Marlins have done this with no problems for years to the playing surface at least.

4. And finally again your American arrogance shows through. Firstly, the U20 World Cup Finals involving 20 teams was held at 6 locations - Montreal,Ottawa,Toronto, Edmonton, Burnaby, Victoria

You sneer at the 22,987 average per game, but this was this average beat the likes of Portugal 1991, Australia 1993, Qatar 1995, Malaysia 1997, Nigeria 1999, Argentina 2001, UAE 2003, and the Netherlands 2005.

So some major Soccer nations, where the sport is No1 yet couldn't achieve the same average per game as the Canadians who had some smaller capacity stadiums in the mix, meaning not only were these well attended, but the large grounds were also fuller. Translate that level of enthusiasm for an age group event and it is clear why FIFA like the idea of a Canadian World Cup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...