Sight-line in CFL stadiums

Is there some reason why the Alouettes do not play in the stadium formerly used by the Expos (Olympic Stadium)? Is the sight-line for the fans at McGill superior? Just curious. Olympic Stadium seats more fans. If the view of the action stinks I can certainly understand why games are played at McGill.

One other thing. How come both the home and visiting team bench areas are on the same side of the field at McGill? The Green Bay Packers did this at one of their stadiums too. Anyone know what that is all about?

The sight lines in Olympic Stadium, in my view, are just fine, and made for football and soccer.

HOWEVER, a disctinction is in order - it is an olympic stadium, i.e. multi-sport, and multi-purpose stadium and not a football-specific stadium. There is an 8-lane track around the playing field for track events which puts fans further from the playing field. When it was used for baseball, most of the fans were far away from the action. In Molson Stadium, a football-specific stadium, there is a track, but the stands are closer to the playing field.

The tendency in North America has recently been to erect sports-specific stadia. Take, for example, the new ballparks for baseball; these could not really be used for other sports.

The other knock against Molson Stadium is that there is absolutely no parking and it is not easy to reach, whereas the Olypmpic Stadium has great parking factilities and is directly served by the Metro system. The sound system, however, is strident and awful.

Personally, I would like to see every CFL city capable of drawing 40,000 - 50,000 spectators in stadia with great facilities and sightlines. The question, though, is this - is the CFL popular enough with fans to draw such attendance figues? Take for example Vancouver, Toronto, and Edmonton - all have stadia capable of seating 55,000+ fans. None of them do on a regular basis. Why?

I've been in stadiums with a running track with the first row seats unbelievably beginning at ground level instead of elevated. Those were lousy views of the action and I flat-out could not get excited about the the point I would never go back.

If the facility formerly used by the baseball Montreal Expos has the fans too far away from the field for football action, that may be why McGill was chosen. That would also explain why McGill sells out -- great view of the action -- while Olympic Stadium is second rate for 12 man football?

If you aren't enjoying yourself it won't matter how good your team on the field is doing. They'll simply find something else to do -- go to a movie instead, etc.

It doesn't add up. I can't think of any reason other than the most essential priority -- view of the action being too far away -- at Olympic Stadium when it comes to the choice of the Baltimore CFLers moving to Montreal and making McGill their home.

Il y a plusieurs facteurs.

Premièrement, je suis certain que le stade McGill coûte beaucoup moins cher que le Stade Olypique.

Deuxièmement, pour vendre des billets, il faut que l'atmosphère soit bonne. Au Stade Olympique, s'il n'y a pas 36-37 000 personnes dans les gradins, le stade devient immense et a l'air vide. C'est plus difficile de mettre de l'ambiance dans la place dans ces conditions.

Troisièmement, le Stade Olympique est dans l'Est. Même s'il y a beaucoup de stationnement et 2 stations de métro pour le servir, il y a bien des amateurs qui ne partiront pas de Pointe Claire ou de Kirkland pour aller au Stade Olympique. Le stade McGill est au centre-ville. Il y a beaucoup plus de gens intéressés à se faire une belle soirée resto-victoire-fête sans avoir à conduire une minute, ce qui est facile à faire avec un stade au centre-ville mais pas avec un stade dans l'Est.

Mais lorsque les Alouettes ne pourront plus agrandir le stade McGill, il leur faudra bien trouver une alternative, et là, peut-être que le Stade Olympique sera leur solution.

Can anyone translate French for me?