Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Football: Possibility of Ravens, GGs cohabitating raised

Worth noting: The Ottawa Sports Entertainment Group's press release announcing Ottawa's bid for a United Soccer Leagues (USL-1) team did dangle the possibility of two university football teams playing at Lansdowne Park:
"From a business standpoint, professional soccer is a tremendous asset for the stadium. We'll have as many as 20 dates for soccer, 10 for CFL football and, potentially, dates for Carleton Ravens and Ottawa Gee-Gees football, along with outdoor stadium concerts. It'll be a busy place and a tremendous environment in which our community can gather."
What's the old saying, two is company, three is a crowd? It is hard to imagine two CIS football teams sharing the same space, should Carleton revive its program. Waterloo got its own field for a reason. At the same time, the possibility should not be automatically dismissed, but in football, competing interests tend to be territorial (it is, after all, a violent ground-acquisition game and don't we love it for that reason).

Jeff Hunt's strategy is also to drive the point home that there would be more sports events than the CFL at a rebuilt Lansdowne Park. The Lansdowne issue might be a little broad for this blog, so a longer post is up at Out of Left Field.
posted by sager at 12:41 PM
Labels: , , , ,

5 comments:

  1. In this day and age, I think it is most reasonable for a football field to have multiple tenants. I think the reason the Warriors could no longer stand staying at Seagram Stadium, which used to be theirs, was that WLU had bought it and branded it and made UW feel like a second-class visitor.

    If Lansdowne is done right and allows the universities to profit from their games there, I see no reason why they wouldn't enjoy sharing playing their games at such a first-class facility.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed on Waterloo - they moved not just because they had to share a field, but because they were playing on Laurier's field. Like, it literally has a Golden Hawk in the middle of it.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Lauren has a good point. It certainly is reasonable, espy. in the same city, for teams to share a field. Remember, in football you only have 4 home games, 8 tops if you host an exhibition, get home-field for the playoffs and host a Vanier Cup semi-final.

    At the same time, there is the "branding" aspect. If the new Lansdowne is done up in the red and black of the Rough Riders and the Ravens, how are the GG-uys in garnet and grey going to feel?

    The answer is always somewhere in the middle.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Carleton does not have a team while uOttawa does. If Carleton wishes to be in the rebuilt stadium when it potentially opens in 2012, they need to get their act together now. You have to give the CIS two years notice before you can field a football team.

    In the meantime, if the Hunt group really wants to keep the Gee-Gees at Lansdowne and drop the idea of a campus stadium, now is the time for uOttawa to talk to them. Now is the time for uOttawa to negotiate a deal, such as logos at the stadium and whatever other goodies they can think of. They need to negotiate a guarantee of equal billing should Carleton ever enter into the picture.

    uOttawa can offer LL a team while Carleton has not yet decided. uOttawa needs to be pro-active and make a deal to their liking before Carleton even gets to the table.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Watching city council debate LL on cable TV.

    Coun. Maria Mcrae asked if uOttawa will be invovled with LL?

    City Manager Kent Kirkpatrick said he met some time ago with a VP of uOttawa, and uOttawa has no interest in LL. Kirkpatrick said thet uOttawa is completely focused on building a smaller campus stadium.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)