Expos de Montréal

[vincenzo]

1 minute ago, fmfranck said:

They got a basically FREE 40 years emphytéotic lease from RIO and the provincial government forked out more than half of the stadium costs. All in all, it cost them less than 25-30 mil for the stadium. Do you think they wouldve gotten a similar deal downtown? 

Going to the east end wasnt a mistake if you consider that it was a choice to save up on infrastructure costs. 

You are 100% correct in the short term.

In the long term, a downtown stadium could have been used for far more events and conceivably be a better deal.

Also, maybe not at present, but at the time the stadium was built, they would have still gotten half the costs covered by the provincial government and most probable land and infrastructure support from the city.

[fmfranck]

Il y a 14 heures, Mondo_Grosso a dit :

Agreed, but they have excellent attendance ever since the Drogba era. They average between 18k to 20k a game the past 3 seasons, that's almost as good as the Habs and puts them at the middle of MLS attendance.

MLS isn't a huge money maker yet, and definitely wasn't in 2012 when the Impact joined. A lot of teams don't even have soccer specific stadiums or training centers yet! Stadiums downtown are very rare in MLS. We are pretty decent all in all.

That is totally false my friend. Most clubs do have a soccer specific stadium these days. The new expansion sides will have very decent ones at that. 

Minnesota : 

LAFC : 

Orlando : 

Etc, etc. 

Il y a trop de stades à présenter. 

Je te laisse avec le stade D'ENTRAINEMENT du Inter Miami (training center in MLS are top notch btw) :
 

 

il y a 6 minutes, vincenzo a dit :

You are 100% correct in the short term.

In the long term, a downtown stadium could have been used for far more events and conceivably be a better deal.

 Also, maybe not at present, but at the time the stadium was built, they would have still gotten half the costs covered by the provincial government and most probable land and infrastructure support from the city.

I agree that their approach was very short sighted. But the Saputos wanted to squeeze every last penny in 2012 (and even now). Remember they initially refused to pay the initial expansion fees of 40 mil to join MLS. 

[Gio22]

Interesting to note is that alot of people are asking if their will still be interest in baseball (if the expos come back) once the honeymoon phase is over. Many experests such as Mitch Melnik said that in the 80's after the great habs dynasty was over the expos were just as popular and at times more popular than the habs. For two years they outdrew BOTH the yankees and the mets. Now I personally would like to see an open air stadium, I just feel it is more authentic to the game of baseball. But if its a stadium with a roof ill still be happy, as long as the expos come back. 

[Fortier]

Il y a 1 heure, fmfranck a dit :

That is totally false my friend. Most clubs do have a soccer specific stadium these days. The new expansion sides will have very decent ones at that. 

Minnesota : 

LAFC : 

Orlando : 

Etc, etc. 

Il y a trop de stades à présenter. 

Je te laisse avec le stade D'ENTRAINEMENT du Inter Miami (training center in MLS are top notch btw) :
 

 

I agree that their approach was very short sighted. But the Saputos wanted to squeeze every last penny in 2012 (and even now). Remember they initially refused to pay the initial expansion fees of 40 mil to join MLS. 

Ma perception personnelle est que si l'Impact s'offrait un stade comme ça, l'intérêt pour le club augmenterait tout comme l'assistance au stade. Le problème avec l'Impact selon moi est la perception de manque d'envergure. Déjà avec le nom qui fait club de quartier et le stade qui donne l'impression d'être au Roudourou...

Bref je pense qu'ils devraient essayer prendre du gallon pour se faire prendre plus au sérieux.

[mtlurb]

il y a 10 minutes, Fortier a dit :

Ma perception personnelle est que si l'Impact s'offrait un stade comme ça, l'intérêt pour le club augmenterait tout comme l'assistance au stade. Le problème avec l'Impact selon moi est la perception de manque d'envergure. Déjà avec le nom qui fait club de quartier et le stade qui donne l'impression d'être au Roudourou...

Bref je pense qu'ils devraient essayer prendre du gallon pour se faire prendre plus au sérieux.

100% avec toi. J’hésite à acheter des billets d’avance pour l’impact tant que j’ai pas une garantie sur la météo. Je suis sûr que je ne suis pas le seul qui est comme ça. 

Ça sera pareille pour les expos. 

( en passant les chiffres d’assistance de l’impact sont gonflés puisque les billets sont souvent vendus beaucoup moins chers que la valeur nominale)

[pop-up]

Le 2019-05-09 à 20:39, Habsfan a dit :

Entièrement en accord avec eux. Le Minute Maid Park est l'exemple à suivre pour Montréal!

Le nôtre pourrait se nommer Oasis Parc ?

[Mondo_Grosso]

3 hours ago, fmfranck said:

That is totally false my friend. Most clubs do have a soccer specific stadium these days. The new expansion sides will have very decent ones at that. 

Minnesota : 

LAFC : 

Orlando : 

Etc, etc. 

Il y a trop de stades à présenter. 

Je te laisse avec le stade D'ENTRAINEMENT du Inter Miami (training center in MLS are top notch btw) :
 

 

I agree that their approach was very short sighted. But the Saputos wanted to squeeze every last penny in 2012 (and even now). Remember they initially refused to pay the initial expansion fees of 40 mil to join MLS. 

What is "totally false" in what I said? I said that a lot of teams don't have soccer specific stadiums, not most. There are still 9 teams that are playing in non soccer specific stadiums.

In my opinion, that is a lot and puts Saputo stadium ahead of a lot of other teams, in terms of quality of installations and location (accessible by highway and public transit).

[fmfranck]

Il y a 18 heures, Mondo_Grosso a dit :

What is "totally false" in what I said? I said that a lot of teams don't have soccer specific stadiums, not most. There are still 9 teams that are playing in non soccer specific stadiums.

In my opinion, that is a lot and puts Saputo stadium ahead of a lot of other teams, in terms of quality of installations and location (accessible by highway and public transit).

Sorry in advance for the long off topic post : 

What was totally false is you saying that a LOT of teams dont have soccer specific stadiums. There arent 9 teams who dont have soccer specific stadiums. There is 6 at the moment (Atlanta, Cincinnati, New York City FC,  New England, Seattle and Vancouver), and Cincinnati's soccer specific stadium is under construction. Also they play in a stadium that they fill out and that is very well suited to soccer.

So were down to 5.

Before we continue, it's important to understand that back in the MLS 1.0 years, teams were playing in empty NFL stadiums that were not adaptable to soccer. Columbus and then LA Galaxy were the first two teams to solve this issue by building soccer specific stadiums. This solution was then seen as the gold standard for MLS clubs, explaining why people started to measure success with the construction a soccer specific stadium. However, with the growing popularity of MLS, certain clubs have been able to get comfortable in larger NFL stadiums that were built with soccer configuration in mind. 

For instance, Atlanta's new Mercedes Benz stadium, whilst not being soccer specific, was built with soccer configuration in mind. Plus they fill it game in, game out. Last year, they had an average attendance of 53,000, so I think its obvious this stadium is well suited to soccer. 

So were down to 4.

BC Place in Vancouver is in a similar situation. It's a multi purpose stadium which was recently renovated in 2010. It has a soccer configuration that was used to host the final of the 2015 women world cup, and many national team matches since. 

So we're down to 3. 

Seattle is yet another city which hosts an NFL-MLS duo of teams in a multipurpose stadium. Whilst CenturyLink Field was built for the Seattle Seahawks, it was designed to meet FIFA criterias. It has hosted CONCACAF official games. For a long time it had the highest attendance in the league, regularly topping 40,000. 

So were down to 2. There is two teams in MLS that play in stadiums misadapted to soccer : New England and NYC FC. Of these two, NYCFC have tried to build a stadium in NYC proper, but it isnt that simple. One thing that is for sure, it isnt due to MLS not being a "money maker" since they are are backed by the Abu Dhabi royal family and the Yankees.

So with the new expansion sides coming into the league all having soccer specific stadiums, it'll mean that 23 teams out of 28 will have an outright soccer specific stadium, and 26 out of 28 teams will have a stadium well suited to soccer. I'm expecting the New England team to move to a Boston soccer specific stadium at some point, and NYCFC will also have their stadium.

Also, pretty much every team has a training facilities, and many of them are world class. 

So yeah, saying that "a lot of teams dont have soccer specific stadium or training facilities" is false. 

[Mondo_Grosso]

2 hours ago, fmfranck said:

Sorry in advance for the long off topic post : 

What was totally false is you saying that a LOT of teams dont have soccer specific stadiums. There arent 9 teams who dont have soccer specific stadiums. There is 6 at the moment (Atlanta, Cincinnati, New York City FC,  New England, Seattle and Vancouver), and Cincinnati's soccer specific stadium is under construction. Also they play in a stadium that they fill out and that is very well suited to soccer.

So were down to 5.

Before we continue, it's important to understand that back in the MLS 1.0 years, teams were playing in empty NFL stadiums that were not adaptable to soccer. Columbus and then LA Galaxy were the first two teams to solve this issue by building soccer specific stadiums. This solution was then seen as the gold standard for MLS clubs, explaining why people started to measure success with the construction a soccer specific stadium. However, with the growing popularity of MLS, certain clubs have been able to get comfortable in larger NFL stadiums that were built with soccer configuration in mind. 

For instance, Atlanta's new Mercedes Benz stadium, whilst not being soccer specific, was built with soccer configuration in mind. Plus they fill it game in, game out. Last year, they had an average attendance of 53,000, so I think its obvious this stadium is well suited to soccer. 

So were down to 4.

BC Place in Vancouver is in a similar situation. It's a multi purpose stadium which was recently renovated in 2010. It has a soccer configuration that was used to host the final of the 2015 women world cup, and many national team matches since. 

So we're down to 3. 

Seattle is yet another city which hosts an NFL-MLS duo of teams in a multipurpose stadium. Whilst CenturyLink Field was built for the Seattle Seahawks, it was designed to meet FIFA criterias. It has hosted CONCACAF official games. For a long time it had the highest attendance in the league, regularly topping 40,000. 

So were down to 2. There is two teams in MLS that play in stadiums misadapted to soccer : New England and NYC FC. Of these two, NYCFC have tried to build a stadium in NYC proper, but it isnt that simple. One thing that is for sure, it isnt due to MLS not being a "money maker" since they are are backed by the Abu Dhabi royal family and the Yankees.

So with the new expansion sides coming into the league all having soccer specific stadiums, it'll mean that 23 teams out of 28 will have an outright soccer specific stadium, and 26 out of 28 teams will have a stadium well suited to soccer. I'm expecting the New England team to move to a Boston soccer specific stadium at some point, and NYCFC will also have their stadium.

Also, pretty much every team has a training facilities, and many of them are world class. 

So yeah, saying that "a lot of teams dont have soccer specific stadium or training facilities" is false. 

You can't tell me that my opinion is false, get real. According to Wikipedia, there are 9 teams that dont have a soccer specific stadium, a multi purpose stadium is not a soccer specific stadium, no matter how well suited it serves as a soccer venue. That is a fact, your opinion doesn't change that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Soccer_stadiums

In my opinion, even 1 non soccer specific arena is too much. 

 

[fmfranck]

il y a 51 minutes, Mondo_Grosso a dit :

You can't tell me that my opinion is false, get real. According to Wikipedia, there are 9 teams that dont have a soccer specific stadium, a multi purpose stadium is not a soccer specific stadium, no matter how well suited it serves as a soccer venue. That is a fact, your opinion doesn't change that.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Soccer_stadiums

In my opinion, even 1 non soccer specific arena is too much. 

 

List me the teams then. 

And are you kidding me with this logic. If its multipurpose it isnt a valid soccer stadium and one is too much. Then guess what, the new Spurs stadium is multipurpose as well, it was made to accomodate NFL matches. I guess the premier league is substandard as well then? 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-uk/0ap3000001025320/New-Tottenham-Hotspur-stadium-opens-in-London-will-host-two-NFL-UK-games