04-17-2013, 01:36 PM
|
#21
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
|
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 01:40 PM
|
#22
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Yup. Pretty sure Flames LP are going to be in favour of a new stadium. MacMahon is old and aging and serves one purpose - football. I expect a smaller, soccer-only stadium/facility to come to fruition within the next 10 years, likely sooner.
|
Why? Do you expect them to bring a soccer team on board in the near future?
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 03:42 PM
|
#23
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shermanator
MLS is not expanding to Canada anytime soon, the Commissioner said that during the season opener in Vancouver. Calgary needs to start small, and build at the lower divisions. Plus, we have an arena to build first before any football / soccer stadiums factor in to the discussion.
Not that you'd go anyways, with how much you bash Canadian soccer as being inferior.
|
I probably wouldn't go to a NASL game on a regular basis no but I don't bash "Canadian Soccer". I've ridiculed the Canadian Mens team and the CSA which is just calling a spade a spade.
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 08:59 PM
|
#24
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East London
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Why? Do you expect them to bring a soccer team on board in the near future?
|
I don't think they would be too keen to add a footy team into the fold, especially an entry-level club. Personally, I don't know how well a purpose built footy ground would fit into an entertainment district occupied with both a Flames arena and a Stamps stadium. As these two structures would take up two very large inner-city blocks, the rest of the area would need to be composed of smaller developments to help nurture the human-scale feel successful inner-city neighbourhoods provide.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 11:27 PM
|
#25
|
Franchise Player
|
If this happens, Browna should be CPs official correspondent with full media privileges.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to killer_carlson For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-18-2013, 08:30 AM
|
#26
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addick
I don't think they would be too keen to add a footy team into the fold, especially an entry-level club. Personally, I don't know how well a purpose built footy ground would fit into an entertainment district occupied with both a Flames arena and a Stamps stadium. As these two structures would take up two very large inner-city blocks, the rest of the area would need to be composed of smaller developments to help nurture the human-scale feel successful inner-city neighbourhoods provide.
|
I'll be stunned if they build a new stadium for the Stamps. It makes absolutely no sense. And without adding a soccer team to the mix I don't see any basis for thinking that a purpose built stadium will happen.
|
|
|
04-18-2013, 09:10 AM
|
#27
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
I'll be stunned if they build a new stadium for the Stamps. It makes absolutely no sense. And without adding a soccer team to the mix I don't see any basis for thinking that a purpose built stadium will happen.
|
I'm happy for them to build a stadium because I would use it but it makes zero sense to do so. An arena makes sense because its used not just for hockey but concerts, popular talks, monster trucks, I suspect the occupancy rate for the dome in a given year is over 50%.
A state of the art stadium would get used at most 15 times (unless they put a roof on it and use it for convention space, but then it would need to be downtown).
__________________
|
|
|
04-18-2013, 11:03 AM
|
#29
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shermanator
If that indoor fieldhouse that's been discussed is built, I'd like to see the Foothills track torn down and rebuilt as a 5000 seat stadium. Not sure if there's room for it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenarms
Foothills track isn't going anywhere especially with all the reno's they put in for the National Track & Field Championships. If they're going to build a small soccer stadium it would probably be on the Burns Stadium site or even a renovation of Burns Stadium itself.
|
The plans for the fieldhouse are to build it on top of the current track and inside would have a FIFA regulation pitch with seating for ~5,000 (or at least a spectator capacity around there), the 400m track etc.
http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...-plan-full.pdf
http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...tic-Parks.aspx
http://www.calgaryfieldhouse.ca/
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-18-2013, 11:19 AM
|
#30
|
Marshmallow Maiden
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
The plans for the fieldhouse are to build it on top of the current track and inside would have a FIFA regulation pitch with seating for ~5,000 (or at least a spectator capacity around there), the 400m track etc.
http://www.calgaryfieldhouse.ca/
|
I love that rendering.
|
|
|
04-19-2013, 09:58 AM
|
#31
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary
|
This all sounds very promising, except for the suggestion that McMahon would be where they would play. As a CFL football stadium, McMahon is adequate, although a little tired. The seats are quite far from the field, higher up, and it is has a capacity that is suited for the CFL.
It is the exact opposite of what a NASL team needs to thrive. I will support the team no matter what, but I really do fear that McMahon, especially in the first few years, would be a huge mistake. Hellard Field and Foothills address the capacity/atmosphere questions a little, but they're still miles from the pitch. But even they would be better options than McMahon. Not to mention that CFL football lines are very distracting to watch (and play) a game on. The NASL streams a lot of their games online, so even in a grassroots "television" sense, this is bad. Have you ever tried watching a FC Edmonton game online? Headache inducing.
Heck, even a temporary 3000 seat stadium with seats right up to the pitch would be better than playing at McMahon.
I wonder if SAIT would consider adding some seating along the Western edge of their pitch? Great location, ample parking (if the games were scheduled properly).
I hate to be a downer, but using McMahon would be a massive mistake and I couldn't see fans putting up with watching games in a 1/10 full stadium, miles from the pitch for very long. The fan experience is what is going to make or break this, and I really hope that any suggestion of using McMahon is quickly vetoed.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-19-2013, 10:09 AM
|
#32
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mango
|
En Anglais, sil vous plait, Frenchie?
In all seriousness, would you mind summarizing it for us? My French is limited to what I have learned from product packaging and on signage at the airport and in national parks.
|
|
|
04-19-2013, 10:25 AM
|
#33
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang
This all sounds very promising, except for the suggestion that McMahon would be where they would play. As a CFL football stadium, McMahon is adequate, although a little tired. The seats are quite far from the field, higher up, and it is has a capacity that is suited for the CFL.
It is the exact opposite of what a NASL team needs to thrive. I will support the team no matter what, but I really do fear that McMahon, especially in the first few years, would be a huge mistake. Hellard Field and Foothills address the capacity/atmosphere questions a little, but they're still miles from the pitch. But even they would be better options than McMahon. Not to mention that CFL football lines are very distracting to watch (and play) a game on. The NASL streams a lot of their games online, so even in a grassroots "television" sense, this is bad. Have you ever tried watching a FC Edmonton game online? Headache inducing.
Heck, even a temporary 3000 seat stadium with seats right up to the pitch would be better than playing at McMahon.
I wonder if SAIT would consider adding some seating along the Western edge of their pitch? Great location, ample parking (if the games were scheduled properly).
I hate to be a downer, but using McMahon would be a massive mistake and I couldn't see fans putting up with watching games in a 1/10 full stadium, miles from the pitch for very long. The fan experience is what is going to make or break this, and I really hope that any suggestion of using McMahon is quickly vetoed.
|
100% agree with this, except I don't know how much capacity they can add at SAIT. I wonder if they could partner with the U of C to build a 5000 seat stadium on the west campus? There's room for it, relatively close to transit, etc.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to shermanator For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-19-2013, 10:45 AM
|
#34
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
I'll be stunned if they build a new stadium for the Stamps. It makes absolutely no sense. And without adding a soccer team to the mix I don't see any basis for thinking that a purpose built stadium will happen.
|
Depends. Dont forget Calgary is severely lacking in quality exhibition and conference space as well as hotel space. A purpose built stadium for football and maybe soccer at some point would probably not happen but if a developer or a group of developers that includes the Flames with deep enough pockets can figure it out as part of a larger scale development project, why not?
|
|
|
04-19-2013, 10:46 AM
|
#35
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shermanator
100% agree with this, except I don't know how much capacity they can add at SAIT. I wonder if they could partner with the U of C to build a 5000 seat stadium on the west campus? There's room for it, relatively close to transit, etc.
|
SAIT would indeed be tricky as that area is also an important walkway to the LRT and some of the parking lots. U of C may be an interesting partner to create/improve some facilities for the Dinos soccer and field hockey games. They've got the land there and the parking.
Even Mount Royal has some land around the back where the existing fields are where popping up some stands could be viable, but of course, you lose the LRT convenience. I would like to think that there are some opportunities to partner with some of the post-secondary institutions because they've got a few of the ingredients: athletic programs of their own that don't require mammoth stadiums, land, and parking.
I really do hope that, if they do attract some investors for this, that the top priority is investing in a suitable place to play. It doesn't have to be big or fancy - atmosphere and location are the key. Even the concessions can be "outsourced" to independent vendors like the food trucks. Make it a festival-like atmosphere on game days. A large facility is a detriment to everything that they should be aiming for right now.
|
|
|
04-19-2013, 12:19 PM
|
#36
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnes
Depends. Dont forget Calgary is severely lacking in quality exhibition and conference space as well as hotel space. A purpose built stadium for football and maybe soccer at some point would probably not happen but if a developer or a group of developers that includes the Flames with deep enough pockets can figure it out as part of a larger scale development project, why not?
|
I'm assuming that you're proposing a domed stadium that could double as conference space, in which case the venue would get more use but it would also be much more expensive. If private developers think they can make a go of it more power to them, but my point continues to be that there is absolutely no need to replace McMahon, the criticisms could easily be addressed by renovations.
|
|
|
04-19-2013, 01:09 PM
|
#38
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
I'm assuming that you're proposing a domed stadium that could double as conference space, in which case the venue would get more use but it would also be much more expensive. If private developers think they can make a go of it more power to them, but my point continues to be that there is absolutely no need to replace McMahon, the criticisms could easily be addressed by renovations.
|
I am proposing that if there was to be a new stadium it would need to be more than than simple a football stadium. There exists some synergy in what is required in the city and what a new large stadium could provide if it was part of a major development.
Some of the problems can be solved by renovations and they are planning on doing that if they can get the UofC and the McMahon family to agree to sell the naming rights. It's obvious that the Flames don't want to invest a bunch of money in a facility owned by the UofC but they do want to maximize revenue by improving concession and adding box/luxury suites. They just need to find someone to pay for it.
|
|
|
04-19-2013, 01:28 PM
|
#39
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Its exciting to hear the strong possibility of a team coming soon... as Calgary desperately needs some pro soccer.
However, I'm always concerned whenever I hear the words McMahon and soccer in the same sentence. It seems like McMahon is always the hill these ventures are happy to die on. Petrone is right that McMahon is more suitable than ever... but its still not suitable for second division pro soccer and unless its deconstructed to 10-15k seats as a consequence of a new stadium opening elsewhere, it never will be.
Anything less than 10000 and McMahon looks empty and cavernous. I understand Petrone not wanting Calgary to fall into the same pitfall Edmonton is facing where attendance is essentially capped at a money losing level by a stadium that is too small (and taking forever to modify with temp seats), but McMahon is possibly even too big for MLS... let alone NASL.
Reality is this. 5000 people per game is ambitious. Doable, but ambitious, as it would put Calgary at #2 after San Antonio for average attendance. 15000 is the absolute best case scenario, and McMahon would STILL be half empty.
Any NASL franchise must have a plan for a 5000-12000 seat stadium long term... but should realistically start at Hellard or Foothills with an additional 3000 temporary seats. McMahon only makes sense when MLS teams come to town for Canadian Cup... cause TFC, Whitecaps and Impact could likely attract more than 10000 fans.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Thunderball For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-20-2013, 09:46 AM
|
#40
|
Marshmallow Maiden
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang
En Anglais, sil vous plait, Frenchie?
In all seriousness, would you mind summarizing it for us? My French is limited to what I have learned from product packaging and on signage at the airport and in national parks.
|
Oui
They only touched on the topic briefly. However, they said it appears it's a group of European investors wanting to bring a team to Calgary. It's surprising because previous pro soccer endeavours were more locally invested.
From what I'm hearing from Calgary soccer community, the investors have a connection to the Foothills SC. They didn't say how direct that is. I'm only guessing, but perhaps it's a connection to the Wheeldon family?
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:56 AM.
|
|