Sports in Canadian culture

[Hackslack]

Calgary say "no thanks" to Quebec City

Good for Calgary, and rightfully so... It would just be another way for Quebec to make profits while someone else pays for it, pretty well wanting to ride the coattails of Calgary, and everything Calgary has to offer.... Another example of the division of our confederation. Quebec, you don't scratch Alberta's backs, they won't scratch yours...

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...be-to-olympics

[elly63]

Originally Posted by flipv

Vancouver, as famous as Lake Placid, Lillehammer, Grenoble or Sochi.

Pretty good if you can remember small towns like that so I guess it doesn't have to be a big city to be memorable.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Because generally the largest city also has the largest suitable stadium

And in this case it doesn't.

[osmo]

There is also capacity issues. Vancouver is as well but there are too many technical issues you can't easily fix (security & capacity). How will you magically expand BC Place to 70K seats? After Vancouver just dumped hundreds of millions doing a complete gut job on it not that long ago? It is probably a stretch to get the Big O to 70K also, but 67K is much closer to 70K, then BC Place at 55K. BC Place is much to small for a WC final.

Edmonton becomes a option simply as a placeholder for Vancouver due to capacity reasons which would only be options if Toronto or Montreal crap the bed in making the stadium issues work. But then Edmonton's shortcomings make any issues that would be present in Toronto or Montreal look cheap as heavy rail to its airport will cost more than any stadium costs in Toronto or Montreal.

TV plays a big role in this as well. The Eastern time zone rules all. Big Yankee TV stations that flood FIFA with rights money demand, when possible to have games as close to Eastern Time Prime-time as they can make them. Anything that is on this side of the ocean will be rigged to make this happen. If you get a chance to have a WC final in Eastern time, it will be in eastern time. So even in my examples of Dallas being actually more capable of New York to host a WC final in a USA example, New York will always host it. EST is a big thing.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by osmo

There is also capacity issues. Vancouver is as well but there are too many technical issues you can't easily fix (security & capacity). How will you magically expand BC Place to 70K seats? After Vancouver just dumped hundreds of millions doing a complete gut job on it not that long ago? It is probably a stretch to get the Big O to 70K also, but 67K is much closer to 70K, then BC Place at 55K. BC Place is much to small for a WC final.

Edmonton becomes a option simply as a placeholder for Vancouver due to capacity reasons which would only be options if Toronto or Montreal crap the bed in making the stadium issues work. But then Edmonton's shortcomings make any issues that would be present in Toronto or Montreal look cheap as heavy rail to its airport will cost more than any stadium costs in Toronto or Montreal.

TV plays a big role in this as well. The Eastern time zone rules all. Big Yankee TV stations that flood FIFA with rights money demand, when possible to have games as close to Eastern Time Prime-time as they can make them. Anything that is on this side of the ocean will be rigged to make this happen. If you get a chance to have a WC final in Eastern time, it will be in eastern time. So even in my examples of Dallas being actually more capable of New York to host a WC final in a USA example, New York will always host it. EST is a big thing.

I do agree with you on the BC expansion but the people lobbying for the two bigger cities aren't using that as an argument, otherwise Toronto wouldn't be in the mix without a new stadium. They're making it out that Vancouver and Edmonton aren't "sophisticated" enough or logistically up to the task which is ridiculous.

Also, the "lack" of rail service in Edmonton is a non starter. As I've said Edmonton has hosted larger events than a WC group. Europeans seem to have a preoccupation with rail service that we in North America don't. If we had the need for it we'd have it, obviously we don't have the same need or want as they do.

As regarding the time zone issue, I agree and disagree. It was once quite important but I think much less so now. We have more choices for content delivery now and on demand. American networks have never had an issue with tape delay to suit their schedules, there weren't any great issues when the Olympics were in Vancouver. It's only a three hour difference and isn't Vancouver acclimatized to scheduling events for prime time anyway?

I can understand Toronto and Montreal being jealous if they lost out to a smaller city but aside from the stadium issues that every one of the four cities have there is no plausible reason why any of the four couldn't host the final.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by osmo

Vancouver is as well but there are too many technical issues you can't easily fix (security & capacity)

How did they ever manage to host the Olympics?

[Welkin]

Originally Posted by elly63

How did they ever manage to host the Olympics?

Give up on it Osmo. I don't think that Elly is grasping the concept nor the magnitude of the Men's World Cup. It is the biggest event in the world (although the Summer Olympics would give it a run) and its finals will not be played in Vancouver or Edmonton. On the off chance that Canada gets selected, the finals will be in Toronto and Toronto will have to build a new 70-80,000 seat stadium (regardless of whether or not it's ever used again). No new stadium, no Men's World Cup for Canada. The last four finals have been Berlin, Johannesburg, Rio de Janerio and will be Moscow in 2018. Sorry, but only Toronto fits that group.

[elly63]

Please don't even try to patronize me, I've been following the Canadian soccer scene and this issue likely before at least one of you were born.

Of course I understand the magnitude of the event but isn't it you who says we can't host. But the entire event isn't in one city it's spread across eight, ten or more.

And if you can't figure it out, and the way you keep going on about white elephants being built I'm assuming you can't, I'm not saying Vancouver or Edmonton will host, I am saying there is nothing stopping them from being able to host.

And aside from Toronto getting a new stadium built I see no reason why they are any better than any of the other cities.

And Calvin keeps making points about reasons why they can't host except he keeps missing the obvious that they already have hosted events that are similar in scope.

Do you know what's involved in a WC bid? Did you read the last bid Canada had? I have. And we are in about a hundred percent better position than we were then.

If you guys get suckered by all those fancy exterior white elephant stadiums that other countries build and expect that's what it takes, you're sadly mistaken. By the time the Russian and Qatar fiascos have run their course FIFA will be looking for stability and that's our middle name.

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Add the Universiad and the World Masters Games to the Edmonton Column. Edmonton did not bid for the WMG, the original host city in Europe fell through financially, the WMG council knew of Edmonton hosting history and aproached the city to take this on. It was a short time to put it together but Edmonton had most of the required facilities and pulled it off. On the international Sports stage Edmonton does have a good rep as a host city. Canada proved with the women's WC that we could pull it off even with the logistical issues. So Edmonton could host a finals for the Men's WC just as much as another city would. International media would however dictate the exact location of the finals.

Once again, westerners do not understand the magnitude of a World Cup final. We're not talking about a Grey Cup here, we're talking about 1/7th of the planet Earth watching! As far as one time program, NOTHING comes close in terms of viewership and magnitude. Commonwealth just doesn't cut it as a stadium.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

Commonwealth just doesn't cut it as a stadium.

How so? If Commonwealth was designated as the host for a WC final, it's certain that it would be expanded by having one of the upper end zones filled in, probably bringing capacity to somewhere between 65,000-70,000. It would probably be around 80,000 if they filled in both end zones which is possible given that I recall there was some discussion about it before the IAAF Championships in 2001.

So realistically, what is it about a 70,000 seat Big O that would make it such a sure thing over a 70 or 80 thousand seat Commonwealth Stadium? Because whatever it is, it isn't very obvious to me.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by elly63

I do agree with you on the BC expansion but the people lobbying for the two bigger cities aren't using that as an argument, otherwise Toronto wouldn't be in the mix without a new stadium. They're making it out that Vancouver and Edmonton aren't "sophisticated" enough or logistically up to the task which is ridiculous.

.

That's not it. At least not for me. I just think that any WC bid by Canada that can't provide a stadium big enough to host the final in one of the three biggest cities (Tor-Mtl-Van) is probably going to be seen as less serious and viable by FIFA. Given the history of countries always having the final in city no 1 or city no 2.

I doubt the Americans would host the WC final at Ohio Stadium in Columbus, Ohio.

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by esquire

How so? If Commonwealth was designated as the host for a WC final, it's certain that it would be expanded by having one of the upper end zones filled in, probably bringing capacity to somewhere between 65,000-70,000. It would probably be around 80,000 if they filled in both end zones which is possible given that I recall there was some discussion about it before the IAAF Championships in 2001.

So realistically, what is it about a 70,000 seat Big O that would make it such a sure thing over a 70 or 80 thousand seat Commonwealth Stadium? Because whatever it is, it isn't very obvious to me.

The fact the Commonwealth was designed on CFL dimensions make it very ugly and assymmetrical when you have a soccer field.

Capacity wise, Commonwealth is the only stadium other than the Big O that could make it happen but I am not sure FIFA would approve such configuration...

[Berklon]

It's not just about the stadium - it's about the city, location and demographics as well. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are the only cities that would be considered major enough to host a World Cup final. And Toronto needs to step up with a much better stadium - even if they don't host the finals since Toronto has to play a major part in the World Cup. Tacking on seats to BMO doesn't cut it.

FIFA wants to showcase the games using major cities, and Canada wants to showcase the country. Edmonton doesn't accomplish that.

Many out west mentioned in an older thread a year or two ago that when the World Cup is taking place, the cities out there barely take notice. Toronto is the total opposite. If you haven't been to Toronto when the World Cup is taking place - you need to experience it. It's a MAJOR event. The buzz is incredible - even to a non-soccer fan as myself. Hell, I know plenty of people who went to the 2014 WC in Brazil. If Toronto hosted some games, it would be nuts. This is what FIFA wants to take advantage of - something that helps sell the game even further in Canada/US. It's not just about having enough people to fill a stadium. Plus the amount of tourism dollars generated is MUCH larger in Toronto or Montreal - and Canada wants to take advantage.

As said earlier, without a new stadium in Toronto - the World Cup is a non-starter.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by elly63

Pretty good if you can remember small towns like that so I guess it doesn't have to be a big city to be memorable.

I had to google some of them but thanks for asking!

The WOG were a smaller event than the Panam games in Toronto. Let that sink in for a minute.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by esquire

So realistically, what is it about a 70,000 seat Big O that would make it such a sure thing over a 70 or 80 thousand seat Commonwealth Stadium? Because whatever it is, it isn't very obvious to me.

What is obvious to me is an unearned, entitled central Canadian condescending attitude towards those unsophisticated stubble jumpers in the west. Still haven't seen a good reason for them to get a final aside from them feeling entitled to it.

[SaskScraper]

Canada did such a great job hosting the Women's World Cup and Edmonton proved to be the most successful site for the cup..after Vancouver of course which had the Final. As far as actual stadiums go, Commonwealth Stadium and Olympic Stadium were built in same decade but one has held up over time WAY better, Commonwealth Stadium of course..

The Men's World Cup Soccer Final doesn't neccesarily end up being played in a countries #! or #2 largest city, Munich has held the Final before, Qatar's Final is set to be in a city that's one of the countries smaller cities I think..

Toronto did a very fine job doing Canada's 3rd hosting of the PanAm games & it had something like 6,000 athletes from 40 countries which is an amazing congregation of athletes. Monctown, NB 2010 World Junior Track & Field Championships had an even more impressive 1,300+ athletes from over 160 nations if you compare to size of host community. I guess some SSP forumers would consider if we are comparing size of previous events to ability to hold a World Cup Final then maybe New Brunswick should be in running for hosting World Cup Final if it comes to Canada

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

Commonwealth just doesn't cut it as a stadium.

Please stop talking out of your ass. Every Commonwealth reno is usually based upon them visiting NFL stadiums and seeing what they've done.

So I suppose the next thing you'll say is how European stadiums are better than the richest pro league in the world.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I doubt the Americans would host the WC final at Ohio Stadium in Columbus, Ohio.

No, but they did host one in a 72 year old stadium outside of Los Angeles and not in New York.

[TownGuy]

Can't believe people are seriously arguing that Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton could host a World Cup final. This is the biggest single game event in the world that we are talking about here.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

The fact the Commonwealth was designed on CFL dimensions make it very ugly and assymmetrical when you have a soccer field.

Oh my God the horror, it's so hideous I can't even look at it



Where's Debra Barone when you need her?