Major League Soccer 2016

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The renos at the Big O would not be on the feds' dime. Or at least not really significantly more than their contribution to WC costs in other cities. The Big O is a provincial and municipal facility.

If Montreal's going to host a game, the cost will be quite higher than any other city in Canada. I can't see a scenario where Montreal doesn't receive the lion's share of all the money put to hosting in this country from all governments. BC Place is a provincial stadium and BMO is a municipal one, so its not like either of them will require a lot of money.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

If Montreal's going to host a game, the cost will be quite higher than any other city in Canada. I can't see a scenario where Montreal doesn't receive the lion's share of all the money put to hosting in this country from all governments. BC Place is a provincial stadium and BMO is a municipal one, so its not like either of them will require a lot of money.

That's more cynical than analytical. The Big O has not really received much in federal funding (if any at all) in recent decades. It's been the province and the city that have paid for any work done there.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

Biggest issue I think is why US would do a joint bid when they already have plenty of stadiums that are World Cup ready - why would they want to share with us and Mexico. And of course by then Mexico will be walled off...

It's a smart play by US Soccer, and also for Canada. By presenting a united bid to FIFA, it:

• Positions the bid as a continent-wide event
• Keeps control of the bid to the bidding consortium, collaborating with, rather than competing against, the Mexican and Canadian associations
• Reduces the cost of the bidding process (read: bribes)

With the expanded field, the US could effectively have the same 32-team World Cup event and farm out the extra games (from the expanded field) out to Canada and Mexico. Should it come to pass, I'd be very unsurprised if the teams from the "undesirable" countries (N Korea, Iran, etc) find themselves "randomly" drawn to the Canadian or Mexican-based groups as well.

Smart play by US Soccer. If FIFA wants North America, they come as a package instead of letting FIFA play them all against each other in separate bids.

Also - if US is leading the bid, the semi-finals are not going to be played anywhere but in the States.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

If Montreal's going to host a game, the cost will be quite higher than any other city in Canada.

Not necessarily. The reality is you could play the games in their stadium pretty much as is, apart from obvious technical improvements (lighting, broadband and other networks) and general touch-ups to things like dressing rooms, etc. That stuff is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, though. There is no need for a new roof, and any major improvements like that would be purely incidental.

The reality is if Montreal's proponents insist that it will require a half-billion dollars or whatever from the feds to get the Big O up to par, then it would probably make sense to look at other venues like Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto (x2) that are pretty much ready to go in their current state.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Horus

It's a smart play by US Soccer, and also for Canada. By presenting a united bid to FIFA, it:

• Positions the bid as a continent-wide event
• Keeps control of the bid to the bidding consortium, collaborating with, rather than competing against, the Mexican and Canadian associations
• Reduces the cost of the bidding process (read: bribes)

With the expanded field, the US could effectively have the same 32-team World Cup event and farm out the extra games (from the expanded field) out to Canada and Mexico. Should it come to pass, I'd be very unsurprised if the teams from the "undesirable" countries (N Korea, Iran, etc) find themselves "randomly" drawn to the Canadian or Mexican-based groups as well.

Smart play by US Soccer. If FIFA wants North America, they come as a package instead of letting FIFA play them all against each other in separate bids.

Also - if US is leading the bid, the semi-finals are not going to be played anywhere but in the States.

I get why Canada is going along with this as the state of soccer here is such that being a tag-along with the Americans is probably the best hope we have for being a World Cup "host", but what's in it for Mexico? Wouldn't a country like that with a strong soccer culture and that has actually hosted the WC before want to mount a full bid on its own?

[Horus]

Originally Posted by esquire

I get why Canada is going along with this as the state of soccer here is such that being a tag-along with the Americans is probably the best hope we have for being a World Cup "host", but what's in it for Mexico? Wouldn't a country like that with a strong soccer culture and that has actually hosted the WC before want to mount a full bid on its own?

$$$

They get the World Cup experience for a fraction of the price. World Cup Lite! As with Canada, it's an affordable way to get some World Cup without blowing up a generation of the nation's finances.

Maybe they're not 100% on board and would want to launch their own bid. It's all still speculative anyway.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Horus

Also - if US is leading the bid, the semi-finals are not going to be played anywhere but in the States.

A quarter-final then?

If it's an expanded field to begin with, there will likely be more "playoff" type games after the group stages.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A quarter-final then?

If it's an expanded field to begin with, there will likely be more "playoff" type games after the group stages.

They'll have to throw Canada and Mexico a bone. I could see the semis being played in Canada and Mexico with the final and third place game being in the US. Or one semi + the third place game, or some such.

[Acajack]

The more I think about it the more a Canada-USA-Mexico or even a Canada-USA World Cup makes sense.

2026 is the 250 anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence. With no summer Olympics up for grabs they are likely looking for a global event to make a splash. Soccer is growing fast down there as well, and will be even bigger a decade from now. There is little chance the Americans will let this one slip through their fingers.

Ideally I would have preferred Canada do the World Cup on its own at some point instead of piggybacking on the Americans yet again.

But hey, we're used to it.

[esquire]

^ A joint bid is sensible. We're not likely to pull off a full scale WC anytime soon. This lets us get in on the party at a lower cost... if Korea and Japan can do it, so can we. The best part is that a joint bid really allows us to use mostly existing infrastructure and minimize one of the most onerous costs of hosting an event like the WC, which is building the stadiums you don't have yet.

[mistercorporate]

Improvements to Olympic stadium, new grass training facilities for Vancouver, fixing the transit and pedestrian tunnel bottlenecks around BMO Field with a possible expansion as well...a lot of upside without any new white elephant stadiums. I like.

[esquire]

^ Is it a certainty that Toronto's prospective WC venue would be BMO Field? Seems to me that there would be some merit to using Rogers Centre instead of a BMO augmented with temporary seating... things like greater seating capacity, convenient location, more concourse and back-end space, etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Is it a certainty that Toronto's prospective WC venue would be BMO Field? Seems to me that there would be some merit to using Rogers Centre instead of a BMO augmented with temporary seating... things like greater seating capacity, convenient location, more concourse and back-end space, etc.

Rogers Centre looks like a good choice (the field is not really an issue BTW) but there is the matter of the Blue Jays' season...

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Rogers Centre looks like a good choice (the field is not really an issue BTW) but there is the matter of the Blue Jays' season...

Didn't the Jays go on an extended road trip for the Pan Am Games? I don't know exactly how the logistics would work, but perhaps they could do something like two back to back extended road trips interrupted by a week at home or something like that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Didn't the Jays go on an extended road trip for the Pan Am Games? I don't know exactly how the logistics would work, but perhaps they could do something like two back to back extended road trips interrupted by a week at home or something like that.

I guess that's a possibility. There is also the roll-in and roll-out pain the ass with the field (soccer vs. baseball) that you'd have there.

On the other hand, it is more of a prestige facility (in all respects) than BMO, that's a fact.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess that's a possibility. There is also the roll-in and roll-out pain the ass with the field (soccer vs. baseball) that you'd have there.

That's why I said two extended roadtrips with a homestand in between... then you could conceivably have about a month for soccer interrupted by a week for baseball, with the fields only being swapped four times in total.

On the other hand, it is more of a prestige facility (in all respects) than BMO, that's a fact.

That's the main factor. It's a bigger and better facility in most respects. BMO could work but Skydome would be preferable IMO.

[mistercorporate]

Rogers Centre is always a possibility but over the years it has become increasingly a baseball-focused facility. BMO on the other hand presents a better soccer experience (and looks better on TV), and has the potential to match the Rogers Centre capacity with minimal expansion and temporary seats. MLSE had this debate before the MLS Cup and decided that BMO Field was a better venue even with lower capacity (the demand was sufficient to easily sell out the Rogers Centre). RC can only seat 47,568 in its soccer configuration and that capacity can't be expanded. Also, BMO presents the opportunity to fix the pedestrian/transit bottlenecks around the stadium which is a valuable legacy project and not expensive at all. The World Cup is all about leaving a legacy for soccer development/culture.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's why I said two extended roadtrips with a homestand in between... then you could conceivably have about a month for soccer interrupted by a week for baseball, with the fields only being swapped four times in total.



That's the main factor. It's a bigger and better facility in most respects. BMO could work but Skydome would be preferable IMO.

Can't see FIFA going for that (homestand in the middle part) , especially with all the security concerns etc.

[mistercorporate]

Judging by the behind the scenes supporters group campaigns currently in progress as a lead up to the official announcement rumoured for April, we're getting a sneak peak at what some of the cities are for the Canadian Premier League:

Regina
Winnipeg
Kitchener
Hamilton
Halifax

Likely Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver as well. Wouldn't be suprised to see something out of Alberta too, but the 5 cities above are the ones which are part of the organized supporters group campaign. I wouldn't expect all these brand new supporters groups popping out of nowhere at the exact same time in a coordinated manner to occur otherwise.