CFL and Argos looking at solution for BMO end zone turf and attendance problems

[1971GreyCup]

In 1993, the Colorado Rockies used a removable East Stand with 11,000 seat capacity in order to temporarily accommodate MLB in a NFL stadium. Reading material on the stand, it appears that both teams shared a natural grass field as well. This structure was 13 stories high and cost $25 million. It worked. Adapting BMO Field would hardly be the Manhattan Project. However, they would need to commit to the task.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_High_Stadium
https://www.denverpost.com/2010/08/1...ands-engineer/

[1971GreyCup]

I was just looking for a stadium where they needed temporary seating and we’re dealing with natural grass. Denver seemed to be an overachiever in this regard.

Given that the city owns BMO Field and the current configuration is known to be unsafe, doesn’t it seem that the potential liability lies with the city? Doesn’t that follow that the city should be pursuing a solution. Any lawyers in this site?

[halifaxguy]

I was just looking for a stadium where they needed temporary seating and we’re dealing with natural grass. Denver seemed to be an overachiever in this regard.

Given that the city owns BMO Field and the current configuration is known to be unsafe, doesn’t it seem that the potential liability lies with the city? Doesn’t that follow that the city should be pursuing a solution. Any lawyers in this site?

But is it "known to be unsafe" ?? no known injuries just a couple of slips. One offensive player who slipped down but the defenders didn't have a problem or the other receivers in the area. We have seen more players slipping down on field turf.
It's a matter of getting used to the transition.

The second part of the title of this thread "and attendance problems" - ??? I think people have discussed it to death and the reasons.

[AngeloV]

But is it "known to be unsafe" ?? no known injuries just a couple of slips. One offensive player who slipped down but the defenders didn't have a problem or the other receivers in the area. We have seen more players slipping down on field turf.
It's a matter of getting used to the transition.

The second part of the title of this thread "and attendance problems" - ??? I think people have discussed it to death and the reasons.

It's pretty obvious that you have never played on both surfaces. As I mentioned earlier, cleat lengths on grass and turf are different. It is not a stretch to believe someone can do serious damage to an ankle or knee when you have the wrong cleats on turf. No it hasn't happened yet, but do we really have to wait for a possible career changer to admit it's a problem?

[1971GreyCup]

If the problem has been identified publicly, then there is a liability problem. Deepest pockets for a litigant is/are obviously MLSE and/or City of Toronto.

[Mightygoose]

Actually, Matthew's examples are not bad ones. I over looked than teams played on grass and dirt surfaces at the same time. The Raiders are the only ones left, it only happens until baseball season is over plus the Raiders will be in Vegas in a couple years as well so there is a solution coming.

Does NYCFC play partially on dirt at Yankees Stadium? Either way, the soccer team in planning on a new stadium which is not happening in Toronto anytime in the near or far future.

Not sure of any teams playing on grass and turf at the same time.

[AngeloV]

Not sure of any teams playing on grass and turf at the same time.

It's Memphis Maddogs all over again.

[Rich]

Adapting to challenging field conditions has always been part of the game. Football is a risky sport to play and field conditions sometimes make it riskier, but that's what you sign up for as a player. They didn't cancel the last Grey Cup on account of the icy field which could have caused more injury. It's all about which team adapts to the field conditions better, through better footwear and better play selection.

[Argo57]

Adapting to challenging field conditions has always been part of the game. Football is a risky sport to play and field conditions sometimes make it riskier, but that's what you sign up for as a player. They didn't cancel the last Grey Cup on account of the icy field which could have caused more injury. It's all about which team adapts to the field conditions better, through better footwear and better play selection.

Perfect solution to this issue?

[Scooter McCray]

Adapting to challenging field conditions has always been part of the game. Football is a risky sport to play and field conditions sometimes make it riskier, but that's what you sign up for as a player. They didn't cancel the last Grey Cup on account of the icy field which could have caused more injury. It's all about which team adapts to the field conditions better, through better footwear and better play selection.

Yes, but we don't control the weather. This is a man-made problem that can be fixed. It IS controllable and therefore should be. There is no excuse for the field to be that way two years in now. I agree with Dunigan.

[paulwoods13]

Yes, but we don't control the weather. This is a man-made problem that can be fixed. It IS controllable and therefore should be. There is no excuse for the field to be that way two years in now. I agree with Dunigan.

If there was a blindingly obvious solution available that wouldn't cost much or cause any collateral issues, I'd agree there's no excuse. But there is no obvious solution at hand, and anything they do is going to either have a sizeable cost attached or cause issues elsewhere. I'm confident this will get solved, but it's not going to happen overnight and it's not going to be simple.

[halifaxguy]

Adapting to challenging field conditions has always been part of the game. Football is a risky sport to play and field conditions sometimes make it riskier, but that's what you sign up for as a player. They didn't cancel the last Grey Cup on account of the icy field which could have caused more injury. It's all about which team adapts to the field conditions better, through better footwear and better play selection.

yes, I agree, the best solution !!

[Bruro]

cfl sadly is simply dying in Canada's three biggest markets. Cant see it going on much longer, especially after TSN's contract ends in 2021 (only thing keeping the league afloat). Its not a coincidence as well that all three of those markets have MLS franchises now, sucking up even more oxygen in the sporting landscape during the summer/fall months. Their schedules are almost identical (cfl and mls).

[ArgoZ]

cfl sadly is simply dying in Canada's three biggest markets. Cant see it going on much longer, especially after TSN's contract ends in 2021 (only thing keeping the league afloat). Its not a coincidence as well that all three of those markets have MLS franchises now, sucking up even more oxygen in the sporting landscape during the summer/fall months. Their schedules are almost identical (cfl and mls).

Well I guess I better enjoy the last 3 seasons! Seriously though, are you new to the CFL? We are light years ahead of where the league was in the late nineties (the last time deaths door was knocking).

[gilthethrill]

Well I guess I better enjoy the last 3 seasons! Seriously though, are you new to the CFL? We are light years ahead of where the league was in the late nineties (the last time deaths door was knocking).

I envision a TFC jersey on Bruro when he posted his dire prediction.☺

[Bruro]

You can thank TSN for that. Without them CFL is even less relevant in the sporting landscape than the late 90s, if thats even possible

[macspectrum]

You can thank TSN for that. Without them CFL is even less relevant in the sporting landscape than the late 90s, if thats even possible

i wholeheartedly agree !
the TSN experiment has been a bust
the C in CFL stands for Canadian, not corporate
why is it that i can watch nfl games, including playoffs and superbowl on CTV [ota or part of a package] but i must pay to watch CFL ?
i think CFL games should be broadcast by CBC [ota or part of a package]
cbc is the peoples' broadcast network
-------
i still recall in years gone past when ctv and cbc SHARED [1/2 each] in the broadcast of the grey cup

[halifaxguy]

i wholeheartedly agree !
the TSN experiment has been a bust
the C in CFL stands for Canadian, not corporate
why is it that i can watch nfl games, including playoffs and superbowl on CTV [ota or part of a package] but i must pay to watch CFL ?
i think CFL games should be broadcast by CBC [ota or part of a package]
cbc is the peoples' broadcast network
-------
i still recall in years gone past when ctv and cbc SHARED [1/2 each] in the broadcast of the grey cup

You can watch NFL games on CTV because they are simulcasting, they have no choice. If CTV didn't do that, then anyone would be able to watch the games on the American broadcasts on NBC/FOX etc with no Canadian ads etc.
TSN was set up to broadcast nothing but sports, without the CFL and a few other sports there would be no need for it.
It's the same with the Blue Jays you need to subscribe to Sportsnet to watch them, no CBC anymore.
At one time you could watch the Jays or CFL football on CBC or CTV, times have changed.
There is no going back. Sports has shifted to the specialty channels in this country.
The future will be streaming, not everyone has cable or satellite or an antenna but EVERYONE has the internet

[Will]

cfl sadly is simply dying in Canada's three biggest markets. Cant see it going on much longer, especially after TSN's contract ends in 2021 (only thing keeping the league afloat). Its not a coincidence as well that all three of those markets have MLS franchises now, sucking up even more oxygen in the sporting landscape during the summer/fall months. Their schedules are almost identical (cfl and mls).

Hyman Roth has been dying from the same heart attack for the last twenty years.

[halifaxguy]

cfl sadly is simply dying in Canada's three biggest markets. Cant see it going on much longer, especially after TSN's contract ends in 2021 (only thing keeping the league afloat). Its not a coincidence as well that all three of those markets have MLS franchises now, sucking up even more oxygen in the sporting landscape during the summer/fall months. Their schedules are almost identical (cfl and mls).

The TV contract is worth $4 Million to each team, that's not a lot of money when you look at a team's revenue. You can look at the books of the public teams, Riders, Bombers and Esks and see that they all have similar revenues of around $37 Million. The teams have a lot of expense close to $36 million and the TV revenue helps but it's certainly not keeping the league afloat. The CFL is still a gate driven league and must rely on attendance for most of their revenue.

Who knows what will happen in 2021 with the TV contract, the league certainly can't hang their hopes on a potential rise in the TV contract especially with the amount of customers cutting the cord and more streaming. The TV revenue is such a small part of revenue now and the contract may be worth less in the future.
Teams are making just as much in revenue from things like the luxury suites, club seats viewing patios with bars etc