Robchester_2000 said: I don't give a crap if the game is in Vancouver, Toronto, or even Moose Jaw, if they manage to win, it was the right decision.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc? If they lose to the USA, that will in no way have to do with the location they played the game. It will have everything to do with the USA being a superior side. If they don't draw well, then that's a valid argument for moving. The reverse is also true. If they beat Cuba at BMO, it doesn't validate the decision to play at BMO unless for some reason they wouldn't also have been able to achieve that result in Vancouver or Moose Jaw.

Lots of National Teams play at their National Stadium, and as far as I know, BMO was pitched as such when it was built. It's hardly a revelation that Canada are playing there.

Most, if not all, of those countries can get away with playing at a central stadium because it's a 5 hour jaunt from the farthest flung boonies to the capital. If I lived in Manchester and all the games were in London, it would be a pain in the ass but I could still make a weekend out of it if I were so inclined. Having a national stadium in a country the size of Canada is fucking dumb and, revelation or not, I will bitch about it until the situation changes.

Lord_Bob said: Will is from Scotland. That does not necessarily make your statement less true, of course.

I don't think anybody doubts that "the players dislike playing on artificial turf"; the difference is over how much we want people ruled by habit and superstition making decisions of national strategy based on their being comfortable.

The issue for me is not whether or not players like it, it's that this player has brought it upon himself to twitter battle disappointed Vancouver fans. I can't think of any other organization besides the CSA that wouldn't put a muzzle on him.

Chris said:

Robchester_2000 said: I don't give a crap if the game is in Vancouver, Toronto, or even Moose Jaw, if they manage to win, it was the right decision.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc? If they lose to the USA, that will in no way have to do with the location they played the game. It will have everything to do with the USA being a superior side. If they don't draw well, then that's a valid argument for moving. The reverse is also true. If they beat Cuba at BMO, it doesn't validate the decision to play at BMO unless for some reason they wouldn't also have been able to achieve that result in Vancouver or Moose Jaw.

Oh shit, you got Latinized muthafucka!

FootyMonster said: In the Action Item EX15.11 Summary

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.EX15.11

It makes mention of the existing tentative agreement LOI between The City of Toronto, MLSE and the CSA. It says

" entered an initial Letter of Intent (CSA LOI) that provided for the construction and future use of a national soccer stadium (i.e. BMO field) at Exhibition Place. Included in the LOI were certain terms and conditions for use of BMO Field by the CSA. In particular, the LOI contemplated that the CSA would use the stadium for a minimum of six national team games annually."

All this was entered back in 2005, before they put turf at BMO and then changed to grass. Does this not indicate that turf vs. grass was never an issue but more of an excuse?

I hate turf as much as everyone and do think that the CMNT should be always on grass by the way. But BMO, CSA and MLSE went ahead and put turf in place knowing full well they would be one day be hosting "at least 6 WCQ games per year"

Confused and frustrated

At the time, the CSA was desperate to get ANYTHING done as they needed the stadium for the U-20 WC. They thought the artificial turf would be acceptable, and didn't realize how quickly it would deteriorate (due to massive overuse imposed by the City of Toronto, which owns the stadium) and how hated it would become by the players.

As such, even though the CSA were obligated to schedule 6 games per year at BMO Field, they never even got close. The women hated the surface, the men despised it, and the CSA eventually tried to stay away (disregarding their legal obligations), even opting for the cow pasture at Saputo Stadium as their "base".

The TFC players/staff were quiet in public but campaigned pretty vigorously behind the scenes to get the turf ripped out. Combined with losing out on potential DPs and the CSA staying away (and Canadian players publicly slagging the surface), MLSE convinced the City to ditch the public usage at the stadium and allow them to lay down a privately-funded grass pitch.

Now, the proposed amendment to the contract will see the CSA only obligated for 16,000 total tickets sold per year, rather than 6 games per year (which they didn't bother to adhere to anyway).

Brenton said: Only 16,000 per year? I thought it was 16,000 per game.

There are multiple references to yearly minimums that led to me read the 16,000 number as a total annual low mark, rather than a per game minimum.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-44376.pdf

From Page 3: "In years where the CSA has greater than 16,000 paid tickets the CSA participation in excess cash flow falls under the same terms as the LOI."

The amendment, to me, means greater flexibility for the CSA to actually move away from BMO Field whenever they feel it's of a greater benefit, since they can hit that 16,000 mark pretty easily (the U.S. game alone will put them over it, for example).

Rudi said:

Brenton said: Only 16,000 per year? I thought it was 16,000 per game.

There are multiple references to yearly minimums that led to me read the 16,000 number as a total annual low mark, rather than a per game minimum.

You're right. Very clear here:

In exchange for the removal of the minimum 6 game commitment enshrined in the LOI, the CSA will agree to an annual "minimum paid attendance commitment" (the "MAC") of 16,000 paid tickets.

So, the hotel and surrounding area didn't help them beat Puerto Rico?

Chris said:

Robchester_2000 said: My argument wasn't that they will win because they play in Toronto, rather, if it makes them feel more confident they will win, go ahead, but just make sure you do win, cos otherwise people are going to annihilate them.

They already drew 0-0 to fucking Puerto Rico. I think once you've failed to score at home against a bunch of guys who don't even count as a real country, the "this place gives us the best chance to win" ship has sailed.

That's a 3-0 loss to Puerto Rico if played at BC Place, maybe just a 1-0 loss in Montreal, and God only knows what sort of massacre it would have been in Edmonton.

As far as the kit...I really like it but I also liked the chevron. My bil from Paraguay will be happy he hates that Canadian national teams always put black on their national jerseys.

So Toronto get's all the matches because they believe that will help them qualify for Brazil. Sounds ok if they qualify, but if they don't Toronto should get zero games until 2020.

whymark said: So Toronto get's all the matches because they believe that will help them qualify for Brazil. Sounds ok if they qualify, but if they don't Toronto should get zero games until 2020.

I get where you're coming from whymark, but it is the same problem in reverse. Toronto should get games, whether we qualify or not. They just shouldn't get all the games, whether we qualify or not.

DannyBoy said: Just for shits and giggles, according to FIFA, this is how many games each city has hosted a WCQ game since 1988

Vancouver/Burnaby - 11 Edmonton - 7 Toronto - 7 Montreal - 2 Winnipeg - 2 Kingston - 1

Now if you factor in that Toronto has received almost half of their total in the last few months, they were due for a bunch of games. Montreal has barely hosted any over the years and their 2 came only in the last round of qualifiers in 2008.

Agree, Toronto was due. I understand from those who've been paying more attention than me that they didn't really have a suitable facility until BMO. There are now 3 more than suitable facilities in Canada. Use them.

I will be attending the WCQ games in toronto, and hopefully they can get more than 11k for these games, not like the previous round, in which they couldn't.

And the jerseys are growing on me, it's like a song that you hate, but then you keep hearing it and you start to like it, something about these jerseys that are cool.

RandomWhiteMale said: Still hate the CSA logo. Why have they not changed it to something more classic or contemporary?

You want the CSA to get off their arses and do something beneficial? Get the fuck outta here.

I like the CSA Logo, it's got everything you want in a soccer logo

Opinions are like assholes ...

Wow. Don't know what to say to that.

Bad_Gones said: Wow. Don't know what to say to that.

Let the record show Bad_Gones was rendered speechless on February 10, 2011 at 8:39 pm.

Chris said:

Bad_Gones said: Wow. Don't know what to say to that.

Let the record show Bad_Gones was rendered speechless on February 10, 2011 at 8:39 pm.

Olfan can only hope this lasts for a while

Bad_Gones said:

OldFan said:

Olfan can only hope this lasts for a while

Et tu OldFan? ;-)

You have to admit, the sodomy remarks were pretty off-base.

Yup, pretty crude.

RandomWhiteMale said:

dhawk11 said: I like the CSA Logo, it's got everything you want in a soccer logo

What's that? A cheesy soccer ball, 80's lettering and the top of a leaf? I'm the furthest thing from a euro snob but I look at the three lions, the French rooster, the Mexican shield, etc and I think 'class'. When I look at the Canadian logo, I think 'negligence'.

I bet it was created with great intentions, the beginning of a new chapter in Canadian soccer. Like the program itself however, it is routinely forgotten. New eras begin and end before ever bringing in meaningful and necessary change. It is governed by people who either lack vision or lack the means to follow through with said vision. The poxy logo is a fair symbol of our program.

your not european so stop getting a hard on for their logos, so you could design one better than i guess, maybe a beaver playing soccer thats pretty canadian or some maple syrup being poured on a ball, or wait a lumber jack hacking a ball up,

This time without the sodomy jokes okay?

mexico's logo is crap