TFC fan stoops lower then low.

[Argoknot]

Larson sure seems to be changing his tune. Is he about to jump ship (pardon the expression) to the good ship Argonaut and the momentum they are building?

[Argoknot]

Tony Stones, Head Groundsman, Wembley Stadium

"We find most damage is caused by football (soccer) players digging in, turning quick, whereas an NFL game it's all solid, it's crunching together, Desso likes that, holds together well, it's when they're doing quick turns, your Rugby Union you get a bit of quick turning in that as well and a bit of scrummaging so you get a bit of mess from that but I'd say most damage comes from football (soccer)

It's warmups, football (soccer) warmups that are the worst thing, that's where we get the most damage from, especially the goalkeepers that will not use his portable goal, they insist on using his main goal that creates us some serious trouble"

So if interpreted correctly, the order of most to least damaging sport to a reinforced turf is:

1 Soccer
2 Rugby
3 Football

[Ron]

Tony Stones, Head Groundsman, Wembley Stadium

Interesting video. Did you find that by going to the Red Patch forum for the link?

[Argoknot]

Interesting video. Did you find that by going to the Red Patch forum for the link?

Are you kidding? A post like that would have been deleted and the poster banned. They can't deal with the truth or expert opinion, only the lies they make up to keep the Argos outta the treehouse. And they're still carrying on and will until the inevitable week of rain, above average usage and subsequent damage occur.

[T-Bone]

So if interpreted correctly, the order of most to least damaging sport to a reinforced turf is:

1 Soccer
2 Rugby
3 Football

Which sport does more or less damage to the field is irrelevant to the debate. Adding 10-12 games of football to a natural surface that is already being used for soccer is going to increase potential damage to that surface.

What's done to compensate for that added potential damage is what matters and I feel the groundskeepers at BMO Field have done well so far.

[R.J]

Which sport does more or less damage to the field is irrelevant to the debate. Adding 10-12 games of football to a natural surface that is already being used for soccer is going to increase potential damage to that surface.

What's done to compensate for that added potential damage is what matters and I feel the groundskeepers at BMO Field have done well so far.

How is it irrelevant ?
Soccer does more damage to the turf than football does, but from my understanding as long as soccer (TFC, International, etc) is played at BMO it's okay, but anything else is no good ?

[Ron]

Which sport does more or less damage to the field is irrelevant to the debate. Adding 10-12 games of football to a natural surface that is already being used for soccer is going to increase potential damage to that surface.

What's done to compensate for that added potential damage is what matters and I feel the groundskeepers at BMO Field have done well so far.

How is it irrelevant ?
Soccer does more damage to the turf than football does, but from my understanding as long as soccer (TFC, International, etc) is played at BMO it's okay, but anything else is no good ?

Technically ... adding 10-12 football games does add damage to the turf when looking at the whole. But when BMO books extra rugby games and extra friendlies and other soccer games ... that incurs more damage than these extra football games.

And as Snow says ... you never see any complaints about the pitch when extra soccer games are added. So the intent of the pitch argument isn't about the pitch conditions at all.

[R.J]

Technically ... adding 10-12 football games does add damage to the turf when looking at the whole. But when BMO books extra rugby games and extra friendlies and other soccer games ... that incurs more damage than these extra football games.

And as Snow says ... you never see any complaints about the pitch when extra soccer games are added. So the intent of the pitch argument isn't about the pitch conditions at all.

[T-Bone]

Technically ... adding 10-12 football games does add damage to the turf when looking at the whole. But when BMO books extra rugby games and extra friendlies and other soccer games ... that incurs more damage than these extra football games.

And as Snow says ... you never see any complaints about the pitch when extra soccer games are added. So the intent of the pitch argument isn't about the pitch conditions at all.

So far the grounds crew have been able to maintain the surface with those added rugby and soccer games in the past so there is proof that it can work with those events. With the addition of football it is uncharted territory at BMO Field so the concerns about the field conditions are legitimate and not lies as rdavis claimed. Like I already said:

What's done to compensate for that added potential damage is what matters and I feel the groundskeepers at BMO Field have done well so far.

Once I read about all the extra tools given to the grounds crew to help maintain the surface it calmed my concerns but only time will tell if there are issues.

You've got to give some credit to the grounds crew that they'll know how to deal with issues when they arise. These guys didn't just drop off applications for a summer grass hacking job.

Yes people should, it's not an easy job I'm sure. The Head Groundskeeper used to work at top notch golf courses in Barbados I believe.

[Ron]

Once I read about all the extra tools given to the grounds crew to help maintain the surface it calmed my concerns but only time will tell if there are issues.

Agreed. Seems they have their work cut out for them to fix the field after TFC games to get the field pristine for CFL games.

[Argoknot]

With the addition of football it is uncharted territory at BMO Field so the concerns about the field conditions are legitimate and not lies as rdavis claimed.

Everything that comes off some TFC fan's keyboards are lies. Tell me this, if fears are legitimate then why is the groundskeeper at BMO not worried? The TFC clods know more than the Wembley guy, the BMO guy, right? That's why I post those articles, to get the thoughts of experts not my and TFC fan's uninformed opinions.

Even if football wasn't played there and there was terrible weather over more than a few days the turf will be damaged. The TFC people are just waiting for this to happen as an excuse to blame the Argos for "invading" their entitled playpen. And it will happen one day, football or no.

[Argoknot]

Which sport does more or less damage to the field is irrelevant to the debate.

Damn right it is relevant to the debate. When the TFC fans whine and moan that the Argos are going to come in and ruin their field and the guy in charge of the most famous turf in the world is saying that soccer itself is harder on the field, then the TFC people are total BSers. And then comes their usual BS that this guy is lying to save his job and that the TFC fans know more than he does, For Gawd's sakes when will it end with these people?

You just want to go all Howard Beale on them.

[AngeloV]

Damn right it is relevant to the debate. When the TFC fans whine and moan that the Argos are going to come in and ruin their field and the guy in charge of the most famous turf in the world is saying that soccer itself is harder on the field, then the TFC people are total BSers. And then comes their usual BS that this guy is lying to save his job and that the TFC fans know more than he does, For Gawd's sakes when will it end with these people?

You just want to go all Howard Beale on them.

It all comes down to what we have been saying for a long time. This has nothing to do with the field surface, but everything to do with a small minority of idiots that want to feel entitled. I'm sure a good chunk of TFC fans really don't care.

[T-Bone]

Why bitch and complain about something that might never happen?

Have you not complained about the potential problems at BMO Field etc.?

It all comes down to what we have been saying for a long time. This has nothing to do with the field surface, but everything to do with a small minority of idiots that want to feel entitled. I'm sure a good chunk of TFC fans really don't care.

I actually agree with you on this except that there are some TFC fans that are legitimately concerned about the field conditions. There is a minority of TFC fans that are being unreasonable but there is also a minority of Argos/CFL fans that are being unreasonable. The minority on both sides are keeping the bickering going.

[Argoknot]

There is a minority of TFC fans that are being unreasonable but there is also a minority of Argos/CFL fans that are being unreasonable. The minority on both sides are keeping the bickering going.

Here we go with the old PC BS that both sides are equally guilty. Just one of those TFC websites has 150 pages of Argo bitching, we've got a ways to go to catch that. Argo fans are reactors, why would we have negative posts about sharing with them? It's the best thing that has happened to the Argos in recent memory. TFC fans initiate the BS and Argo fans react, if they didn't start it, there would hardly be a problem.