Apparently no Touchdown Atlantic ...

So I’m guessing there will be no touchdown atlantic this year. Why not? Did this die with Wright leaving us? Is there some fear that one of the teams that’s supposed to play in it will drop out of the League again (not bloody likely)? Or is the CFL just going to give up on Halifax until Ottawa gets back? Personally, I would really like to see the CFL continue to host a game in Halifax. It would help judge how a team would do once the novelty wore off. I remember they even made a trophy for the winner, last year … That ALONE should be a reason to go back to Halifax! :wink:

People in Halifax know what the deal is, if they get a stadium with the CG, then a team is likely, I don't really see the need to play a game there and then if they don't get the CG, they will be peeved, let's see first what happen in the fall when the CG announcement is made. Just my 2 cents.

How about a Touchdown Ottawa.

as much as i would like there to be TD Atlantic every year, the league is focusing on ottawa now, rather than halifax.

shortsighted, i know.

Here is an idea change the pre-season(CFLPA would need to agree) so that half(if not all) teams get two pre-season games.

Those 2 or 4 games could be used to hold pre-season games in cities like Quebec, Ottawa, London and Halifax.

Winnipeg vs. Montreal in Quebec
BC vs. Hamilton in Halifax
Edmonton vs. Saskatchewan in Ottawa
Calgary vs. Toronto in London

There would still be one home game per CFL team but also the top 4 prospect Cities can have a game, this would be good for TSN too, getting to show off how even non-member Cities love the CFL, there would need to be precautions taken to ensure events would be worth it(atleast 18K people or 14K with higher ticket costs)
it could be part of a Saturday/Sunday double header during the middle week of the pre-season, Cities would get to see alot of Starters and CFL teams would get more time(an extra game) to evaluate Talent.

the CFL would get to Evaluate Prospective Cities support.

Not a bad idea except that any city that doesn't have it will most likely support one game because of the novelty. The question is what kind of support will they get in the second and third years of expansion when it is not new anymore and the team is struggling?


Sorry, but I have to put my Western bias in here. Ottawas could hardly be consedered a test market, if you want to go outside to create outside interest chose no-traditional markets.

IMO go with 3 of the matchups name and play the Edmonton vs Saskatchewan mach-up in Saskatoon. That would ba a natural.

Yes good idea barnes.
In fact I even said before how each team should rotate and play one of their Xibition games in a neutral site city to build the game.
For example there would be four neutrals every year.
What better way to feel out the expansion dollars and build your "brand" by moving it around.
Even in small university type stadiums, it would not be exorbitant to erect say 10,000-15,000 temp seats.

I think they should have a team in the atlantic area with three citites at once.
the concept is: St johns, nf - fredricton,nb - and halifax,ns they all have three home games a year and they just deal with the small stadiums (for now) by adding extra seats if possible
Plus if the cfl worked on some type of shared profit system for all teams (which they may already i dont know)The Atlantic Seamen or East Coast Pirates or whatever they would be called could survive.
keep in mind this is just a shot in the dark at getting a team not too serious bu innovative nontheless

I really, really hope your first name suggestion there was a joke! Because it would become one very quickly, if not ...

As for the tri-city idea, I don't think it would work. Too much cost, not enough revenue. And it wouldn't reflect well on the League's standing (yes, it would make it look "bush", even though it would be innovative).

The league would not be able to afford it or atleast cannot it would not be a good idea to have 8 teams proping up one,

At the Very least the to be a CFL city you need a 20K seat Stadium, now if Husky Stadium can be modified to that size ok, but then those Tickets will be up there inc cost(expect Season tickets to cost an average of 500$)
a City could get a CFL team with a small Stadium if they will pay more(double the ticket cost every time the Stadium size is halved)

(10K * 1K = 10M)
20K * 500 = 10M with 10M a year the Team could survives(especially with strong corporate support) But if Halifax was to get their Stadium(apparently up to 50K seats) then they should easily be able to get the required 25K-30K(most likely alot more the first few years)(having a 3 or even 5 year season ticket deal would be a good start to their marketing plan. Try to get those Die-hard East coast fans to lock in) a Garantee to get the cup 4 or 5 years in.
The team should start off pretty good.

The key to the exhibition plan is to get the CFLPA to agree to allow teams to have 3 exhibition games(possibly meaning game 1 is only for younger(CFL experience wise) players). That would allow easily for up to 4 Neutral games a year.

Now that Halifax is gone, now all the attention can be put into Ottawa.....

Or Quebec City!

Or Rochester, or Milwaukee, or Portland. :wink:

I like barnes7's suggestion that the CFL play up to four games in potential future CFL cities. If the CFLPA won't go for expanding the pre-season, they could just use existing pre-season games. (It doesn't matter so much that a team loses a home date every other year in the pre-season, does it?)

You could also consider going to a 19-game regular season schedule and have each team play one game per year in a neutral site (potential new franchise location). This should generate more excitement (and revenue) than a pre-season game. Of course, the CFLPA would have to approve this too. The downside is that you'd be expanding the already long CFL regular season. You also run into problems scheduling a 19 game season for an odd number of teams (in that case I suppose a compromise could be arranged -- say the team with the worst record the previous year plays one game less (no neutral site game), or the Grey Cup champ plays one game more (two neutral site games) -- it would be messy but something could be arranged).

Another option is to shorten the regular season (to 17 games) and expand the pre-season (to 3 games). Each team would play one regular season games in a neutral site (as described above, and again you have scheduling issues if you have an odd number of teams). The extra pre-season games could be played either in neutral sites or at a team's normal stadium. (It isn't as important to balance out who plays more pre-season games at home or away, just alternate each year.)

Add Windsor (Detroit-area stadium) to the list, and maybe some purely US locations (especially out West if you want to reduce travel costs for the Western division teams -- places like Spokane, WA and Boise, ID; and add Hershey, PA for the old Baltimore CFL fans (like me) :wink: ).

Only if you think losing $400,000 + does not matter!

Even if the team lost only 20,000 people at $20 per ticket, thats $400,000. As a season ticket holder, my cost includes paying for that preseason game, plus the amount I spend on the concession stand.

The team that loses the home game would get the proceeds from the neutral site game as if it were their home game. Granted, if that game doesn't draw well, they may still lose money.

Season tickets would be pro-rated accordingly (90%). You wouldn't be charged for a game you're not getting a ticket for.

Well unless the stadium is in Ottawa there will be less than 15,000 people attending, so that will decrease the potential gate, plus I would imagine the stadium would cost some money to rent, even if its just to pay the security, etc.

Basically you would be looking at coming up with at least $1.2 million a year to pay the 4 teams losing the home game plus travel expenses, etc. Now you are right, there will be gate revenue, etc. The problem is where do you play the games. You would be hard pressed to find four stadiums with more than even 10,000 seats.

The occassional one-off game is manageble from season to season, but every year in four different locations,unless you just go back to the same four places, soon you will be holding games in stadiums that seat less than 3000 people! Is that the image of the league you want?

Here's four for Canada (sort-of):

Ottawa: 28,826 (Frank Clair Stadium)
Quebec City: 18,500 (PEPS Stadium)
London: 16,000 (TD Waterhouse Stadium (expanded))
Windsor/Detroit: 30,200 (Rynearson Stadium, Ypsilanti, MI)


Not perfect... PEPS stadium (QC), I understand, is rather primitive and includes standing-room only. You may not be able to charge a lot of money for those tickets. TD Waterhouse Stadium (London) is normally 8,000, but can be expanded temporarily to 16,000 (and has been for a prior CFL exhibition). (Perhaps they could expand it even more?) Obviously, Windsor's game would really be in the States.

If we're just talking pre-season, I suppose you could designate the games be 'hosted' by the teams that tend to draw smaller crowds (i.e., don't take the dates from the best crowd-drawing teams like Edmonton).

scrap TD atlantic and make TD-QC.

a few years of sold-out exhibition games, and it might give a rich guy the idea of putting a team in QC?

I would now say how the CFL should possibly call the mayor of Moncton who was very hot to trott, unlike Halifax's tree hugging politicians, to see if the city is interested and so that they could expand the recently announced small stadium to a minimum 30,000.
Otherwise I do not see anything for Atlantic Canada in our life time.