I would think it would be OEG/Katz as the new owner because why would they be looking at renovating or replacing Commonwealth. They certainly aren’t doing it just for the sake of buying a CPL team and I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be MLS. Also how many concerts would Commonwealth host in a year?
Like I said, it was unsubstantiated rumour. It got me to thinking, what would a construction guy know about running an entertainment company. But then you get MLSE and how poorly they’ve done with the Argos and they are an entertainment company and how well Doman has done in BC and his fortune wasn’t made in entertainment.
Yup. Like I said previously we went from 1-2 events a week at Northlands to almost every night at Rogers.
I think ultimately - doing a deal like the downtown arena, benefits everyone and we bet a better facility in the end that sees way way more use.
I am sorry I can’t provide more context but I see people talking about rumours and they don’t document where they read or heard it. I try to supply sources if I can.
But one of these “rumours” mentioned talk of a new, smaller stadium north of the arena that OEG was exploring.
There was legitimate talk of a new, smaller stadium in Edmonton in the 10k range in 2017. Is this being revisited now in the 20-30k range. I don’t mean this specific stadium (the article and drawing) but a new stadium in general.
For sure and OEG understands the value of private boxes, loge seating, party decks, and all that stuff that - to add to Commonwealth would probably cost the same as or more than a new venue.
There is upside all around with with doing this. IMO - we lost a lot when we took out the real grass. Both in football and ability to host soccer and rugby events.
Definitely agree with the first paragraph, disagree with the second.
What hurts Edmonton (and Vancouver) is not the artificial turf it is the time and distance they are from Europe and Toronto.
The majority of our NT players are originally from the GTA, we also had/have an NT training centre in Alliston, Ontario. Players fly in from Europe and they want to stay close to home and also not fly longer than necessary
The artificial turf extends the season. Remember we played World Cup qualifiers in Edmonton in November for the sole reason of having a good fan draw and freezing the opponents out.
Going back to turf may cost more to maintain (I’ve seen contrary reports) and lessens the amount of bookings the facility can have. For turf to thrive you really can’t have more than one event per week. To maintain a top playing surface requires equipment like grow lights, aerators etc. I don’t know because I wasn’t there but I think the reason the Commonwealth turf was in good shape in the past was because they severely limited its use. But OEGs intention is to use a new facility as much as possible.
That was always my belief but I did come across articles that said the contrary. I still think turf is more expensive to maintain but I am always willing to question. As I showed previously the premise that football is harder on turf than soccer is a myth.
This article claims that artificial turf being prohibitively cheaper to maintain than turf is a myth.
It is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fieldsor that synthetic turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require: additional infill, irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, chemical disinfectants, sprays to reduce static cling and odors, drainage repair and maintenance, erasing and repainting temporary lines and removing organic matter accumulation.
*“Maintaining a natural grass field is slightly more expensive than a turf field, but not by a significant margin. Plus, if one takes into consideration the $500,000 that must be paid every 8-10 years to replace the carpet of an artificial turf field, and the fact that it is at least $250,000 more expensive to implement, then using natural grass ends up being cheaper in the short and long run.”
Brian Wolfson, Duke University Soccer Politics Blog, 2015 (Duke University maintains real grass fields)
Before anyone jumps on me, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I am just presenting information from another viewpoint that I have heard about before. People often think the AT is laid and never touched again until replaced. You have to do something to get the spit, blood and snot off of it. There’s no organics at work there.
Thanks for posting. That article is from a group that is clearly biased towards natural grass fields. They clearly cherry pick the data and twist things around to suit their agenda i.e. they seem to omit very real ongoing costs in maintaining grass fields but add luxury pie in the sky items that most artificial fields would never use (or at least use on a regular basis).
Amd what is being compared? Professional play fields or recreational ones we see at the park? Again a big difference between those yet this article seems to assume that local parks and school boards treat their artificial turf fields the same way the Dallas Cowboys do yet again all but ignoring the very real and large ongoing maintenance costs that makes natural grass field options too pricey for most organizations
Well MLSE has done all they can in Toronto with the Argos, cheap tickets, $5 beer, pre-game concerts, bobblehead nights etc - I don’t know what more they can do and they continue to pay the bills and keep the Argos going with 12k average attendance.
Even though they are locally owned just like Doman with the Lions in BC, the fans are not coming out.
As discussed numerous times on these boards, the CFL is not seen as Major league and I don’t think anything changes that.
Right on. I think by now we’ve beaten that dead horse in other threads, and back to the Elks here please.
MLSE has the situation in Toronto otherwise right where they have wanted it, and it’s not changing via MLSE but for perhaps marginal or minor improvements here and there when the Argos win more games.
Haven’t heard a thing about new ownership yet. I hope it’s not a situation like Montreal, where the other CFL teams had to keep them going for a season.
When you are losing and the fans are not showing up it’s not a good sales pitch to any new owner or ownership groups.
I don’t know about this year but the Argos had fairly significant increases in attendance the past two years and did get some 20k attendances during playoffs IIRC. Even Edmonton despite their abysmal record had two 30k attendances last year.
It just seems like the Argos have never had a long term plan, like Doman has, and the Argos throw things against the wall and see if they stick. For years, the Argos thought marketing was bringing in a washed up former NFL star, they probably still do.
MLS is minor league compared to the major soccer leagues and isn’t even the best league in North America, Liga MX is.
TFC TV ratings were barely higher than their attendance back in the day. What does that mean? It means you don’t have to be popular amongst 6 million GTAers just 25k.
The naysayers keep saying the Argos are dead but you can’t be dead and still growing with attendance increases.
In the turf vs artificial debate you really have to look at TCO over eight years, the usual lifespan of an artificial field. Just for clarity, I think most AT are rated for 10-12 years but are usually replaced around eight, coincidentally, roughly the same amount of time it takes to build a stadium for serious concept to final construction.
AFAIK the decision has been made. The new owner in Edmonton is already being consulted about the team decisions ie the recent firing of Chris Jones, there will be no league taking over the team. The new owner will likely be announced in the next month.
If you add in the orthopaedic surgery costs for knees, the TCO of artificial turf goes up significantly.
Look at the only team playing on real turf in the CFL. Lots less knee and hip injuries. That’s why NFL players keep pushing for real turf everywhere, because there are less injuries on grass than AT.
