Reed says Canadians should support TFC [Archive]

Grizzly

07-29-2009, 01:50 AM

First of all as far as Reed goes, I think people should hope for who they want. It is not up to a broadcaster who lives in Toronto and earns a living televising TFC broadcasts to tell people who they should hope for. I would almost in a rare instance agree with MediaGuy if he could for once get his facts right (for example, the Impact also have a national tv contract and while they don't play in front of 20 000 they do play in front of very large crowds as well) and lose the condescending tone.

Personally, I am mixed on this. On the one hand as an Impact supporter it would be nice to see TFC lose but on the other hand as a Voyageur it is probably good for Canadian soccer if they have a long run in CCL. In some way it is both a win-win and lose-lose situation in that in both possible outcomes I can find a positive and a negative. My heart will be for Puerto Rico (or more accurately against TFC though also a little bit for USL and also a bit for a team of players that I like better than the TFC players (Serioux, Nana and Frei excepted)) but my head will be with TFC (or more accurately for Canadian success in CONCACAF). Probably while watching the game my heart will rule my head (it always does) and I will cheer for PR (I just couldn't fathom actually cheering for TFC) but in post game analysis I will certainly appreciate what the result positive or negative will do for Canadian soccer.

Trident

07-29-2009, 03:57 AM

Jesus, Nigel even sounds like a **** on "paper".

And Mediaguy, start doing some fact checking, dude! SRC is nationally broadcasted! FSC is internationally broadcasted! Having attendance of 12,000-14,000(and one 55k), is pretty damned good for Canada. I know you were trying to say we shouldn't have to get behind Toronto, but even in an article with a subject that shows respect, you come off as disrespectful, or at best, ignorant, when you say stuff like that.

And I agree with Dan, I hope Toronto lose every single thing that comes along for them.

I guess I "want" PR to advance, but if an opportunity comes up holding both TFC and PR out of the Cup, I'll be ecstatic.

I want Toronto to lose, I want Vancouver to lose, I want Porto Rico to lose, I want everyone that isn't the Montreal Impact to do terribly.

Cheeta

07-29-2009, 06:50 AM

To my mind the lesser of the two evils is Toronto going deep into this tourny. I'll admit I've been following Montreal with some interest the last couple of years but that bias aside I can't believe how into the CCL I got entirely thanks to the surprising and stylish success the club enjoyed last year. That and the TV coverage sure helped. But still I think the point is made.

Any Canadian representative (especially TFC) being successful in this tourney is good business for football in this country. End of story. I'll hold my nose and wish them the best if it means more positive coverage for soccer in Canada and an increased following in the GTA for this and future CCL tourneys in the years to come.

john tv

07-29-2009, 08:01 AM

Cheeta,ditta

Keano

07-29-2009, 09:53 AM

quote:Originally posted by VPjr

If Toronto FC makes a deep run in the CCL, I would expect that even some of the most ardent Whitecaps or Impact supporters might be quietly hoping that the club does well, only because it would be good for the state of club soccer in this country, which needs as much help as possible.

However, at this stage of the tournament, I'm sure those same Impact and 'Cap fans won't shed a single tear if TFC is launched from this tournament by Puerto Rico.

I always support TFC except the couple of times they've played the Impact. I don't feel there is much of a real rivalry yet, and I'm the type of fan that has a favorite team in every league. I enjoy that they now have several of my favorite MNT players too. Every Impact fan I know personally feels similarly, (without obviously wanting to speak for all Impact fans). No need to be quiet about it really.

tmcmurph

07-29-2009, 10:13 AM

quote:Originally posted by Cyrus

Speaking as an Impact fan, I wouldn't mind if TFC did well in this competition. I'll even go so far as to say that a succesful cup run resulting in positive media coverage in the largest market in the country is a good, good thing for our sport.

I don't hate you guys. You're not Rochester.

Too funny :D

Or as us Caps fans would say "I'll say a lot of bad things about them but at least they aren't Seattle".

Duane Rollins

07-29-2009, 12:43 PM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

First of all as far as Reed goes, I think people should hope for who they want. It is not up to a broadcaster who lives in Toronto and earns a living televising TFC broadcasts to tell people who they should hope for. I would almost in a rare instance agree with MediaGuy if he could for once get his facts right (for example, the Impact also have a national tv contract and while they don't play in front of 20 000 they do play in front of very large crowds as well) and lose the condescending tone.

Personally, I am mixed on this. On the one hand as an Impact supporter it would be nice to see TFC lose but on the other hand as a Voyageur it is probably good for Canadian soccer if they have a long run in CCL. In some way it is both a win-win and lose-lose situation in that in both possible outcomes I can find a positive and a negative. My heart will be for Puerto Rico (or more accurately against TFC though also a little bit for USL and also a bit for a team of players that I like better than the TFC players (Serioux, Nana and Frei excepted)) but my head will be with TFC (or more accurately for Canadian success in CONCACAF). Probably while watching the game my heart will rule my head (it always does) and I will cheer for PR (I just couldn't fathom actually cheering for TFC) but in post game analysis I will certainly appreciate what the result positive or negative will do for Canadian soccer.

I can't turn my TV on and watch the Impact Grizz (I could buy RDS, but it's hardly got national reach. TFC is free over the air nationally). And they don't play in front of 20,000 people. What's hard to understand about that?

Rudi

07-29-2009, 12:44 PM

loyola

07-29-2009, 12:46 PM

Unless I'm mistaken the Impact broadcaster is SRC (Radio Canada). You should be able to turn your TV and watch a MTL game en francais.

loyola

07-29-2009, 12:51 PM

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

First of all as far as Reed goes, I think people should hope for who they want. It is not up to a broadcaster who lives in Toronto and earns a living televising TFC broadcasts to tell people who they should hope for. I would almost in a rare instance agree with MediaGuy if he could for once get his facts right (for example, the Impact also have a national tv contract and while they don't play in front of 20 000 they do play in front of very large crowds as well) and lose the condescending tone.

Personally, I am mixed on this. On the one hand as an Impact supporter it would be nice to see TFC lose but on the other hand as a Voyageur it is probably good for Canadian soccer if they have a long run in CCL. In some way it is both a win-win and lose-lose situation in that in both possible outcomes I can find a positive and a negative. My heart will be for Puerto Rico (or more accurately against TFC though also a little bit for USL and also a bit for a team of players that I like better than the TFC players (Serioux, Nana and Frei excepted)) but my head will be with TFC (or more accurately for Canadian success in CONCACAF). Probably while watching the game my heart will rule my head (it always does) and I will cheer for PR (I just couldn't fathom actually cheering for TFC) but in post game analysis I will certainly appreciate what the result positive or negative will do for Canadian soccer.

I can't turn my TV on and watch the Impact Grizz (I could buy RDS, but it's hardly got national reach. TFC is free over the air nationally). And they don't play in front of 20,000 people. What's hard to understand about that?

The Impact play (sporadically) on SRC.

TFC and MTL have the same number of games on CBC/SRC this year: 12.

Of course TFC have a better reach with GOLTV and SN for their remaining games.

Keano

07-29-2009, 01:08 PM

quote:Originally posted by Keano

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

[quote]Originally posted by Grizzly

First of all as far as Reed goes, I think people should hope for who they want. It is not up to a broadcaster who lives in Toronto and earns a living televising TFC broadcasts to tell people who they should hope for. I would almost in a rare instance agree with MediaGuy if he could for once get his facts right (for example, the Impact also have a national tv contract and while they don't play in front of 20 000 they do play in front of very large crowds as well) and lose the condescending tone.

Personally, I am mixed on this. On the one hand as an Impact supporter it would be nice to see TFC lose but on the other hand as a Voyageur it is probably good for Canadian soccer if they have a long run in CCL. In some way it is both a win-win and lose-lose situation in that in both possible outcomes I can find a positive and a negative. My heart will be for Puerto Rico (or more accurately against TFC though also a little bit for USL and also a bit for a team of players that I like better than the TFC players (Serioux, Nana and Frei excepted)) but my head will be with TFC (or more accurately for Canadian success in CONCACAF). Probably while watching the game my heart will rule my head (it always does) and I will cheer for PR (I just couldn't fathom actually cheering for TFC) but in post game analysis I will certainly appreciate what the result positive or negative will do for Canadian soccer.

I can't turn my TV on and watch the Impact Grizz (I could buy RDS, but it's hardly got national reach. TFC is free over the air nationally). And they don't play in front of 20,000 people. What's hard to understand about that?

All Impact home games are available Nation-wide on SRC.

Rudi

07-29-2009, 01:48 PM

Thanks to all you guys who are repeating what I said already [:P]

Grizzly

07-29-2009, 02:20 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

First of all as far as Reed goes, I think people should hope for who they want. It is not up to a broadcaster who lives in Toronto and earns a living televising TFC broadcasts to tell people who they should hope for. I would almost in a rare instance agree with MediaGuy if he could for once get his facts right (for example, the Impact also have a national tv contract and while they don't play in front of 20 000 they do play in front of very large crowds as well) and lose the condescending tone.

Personally, I am mixed on this. On the one hand as an Impact supporter it would be nice to see TFC lose but on the other hand as a Voyageur it is probably good for Canadian soccer if they have a long run in CCL. In some way it is both a win-win and lose-lose situation in that in both possible outcomes I can find a positive and a negative. My heart will be for Puerto Rico (or more accurately against TFC though also a little bit for USL and also a bit for a team of players that I like better than the TFC players (Serioux, Nana and Frei excepted)) but my head will be with TFC (or more accurately for Canadian success in CONCACAF). Probably while watching the game my heart will rule my head (it always does) and I will cheer for PR (I just couldn't fathom actually cheering for TFC) but in post game analysis I will certainly appreciate what the result positive or negative will do for Canadian soccer.

I can't turn my TV on and watch the Impact Grizz (I could buy RDS, but it's hardly got national reach. TFC is free over the air nationally). And they don't play in front of 20,000 people. What's hard to understand about that?

To make Rudi happy I won't repeat what everyone else has said. Yet it is pretty pathetic that someone who claims to be a national soccer journalist doesn't know that Impact games are broadcast nationally on a regular basis. Pathetic especially when one thinks about how many times posters on this very forum (and mostly English speaking ones from western Canada since the majority of Quebecois go to the games live) have posted about watching Impact games on SRC. Did you graduate from the Ben Knight School of Inaccurate Journalism?

And yes it is accurate that they don't play in front of 20 000 but you make it sound like we are playing in front of very small crowds and should be grateful and impressed that TFC is getting 20 000. The Impact is averaging around 12 000 a game this year despite the poor on field performance. You write stuff like the following and then wonder why people find you arrogant?

quote:I’ve been called arrogant for pointing out what seems to me to be obvious – TFC has a national TV contract and plays in front of 20,000 people weekly. The USL clubs do not have those things. They do have, of course, dedicated fans that care very deeply for them. There just aren’t enough of them, nor will there ever be when they are at the USL level. We’ve had 10 plus years of evidence to back up my contention.

Rudi

07-29-2009, 02:25 PM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

And yes it is accurate that they don't play in front of 20 000 but you make it sound like we are playing in front of very small crowds and should be grateful and impressed that TFC is getting 20 000. The Impact is averaging around 12 000 a game this year despite the poor on field performance.

To be fair, TFC averaged 20,000 for over two years despite poor on-field performance. :D

Blue and White Army

07-29-2009, 02:42 PM

Reed can kiss my Vancouver jacksie.

footballfreak

07-29-2009, 03:58 PM

I hope they advance past Puerto Rico, primarily because I don't want to see Canada lose its top seed in the preliminary round. On top of that, advancing would put Toronto's playoff hopes in serious jeopardy.

They're looking at flying from LA to Costa Rica to Seattle to Denver, back home to play Colorado and Cruz Azul/Herediano in the space of a month...and then they fly back out to LA, back home to play Saprissa, a quick trip to Chicago before heading back to Central America.

Wed July 29 @ Puerto Rico (CCL)

Sat Aug 1 @ New England
Tues Aug 4 @ Puerto Rico (CCL)
Sat Aug 15 vs DC
Tues Aug 18 @ Columbus (CCL)
Sat Aug 22 @ Chivas USA
Tues Aug 25 @ Deportivo Saprissa (CCL)
Sat Aug 29 @ Seattle

Sat Sept 5 @ Colorado
Sat Sept 12 vs Colorado
Tues Sept 15 vs Cruz Azul/Herediano (CCL)
Sat Sept 19 @ LA Galaxy
Tues Sept 22 vs. Deportivo Saprissa (CCL)
Sat Sept 26 @ Chicago
Wed Sept 30 @ Cruz Azul/Herediano (CCL)

Sat Oct 10 vs. San Jose
Sat Oct 17 vs/ Salt Lake
Tues Oct 20 vs. Columbus (CCL)
Sat Oct 24 @ New York

Sat Nov 1 - MLS Playoffs begin

As a Whitecaps fan, I can't think of anything more satisfying than watching TFC get absolutely decimated by injuries while they prop up the group table (not a given, but does anyone really fancy their chances out of the group of death with such a small roster?) and spiral out of the playoff race. But that's just me.

Mr.Impact

07-29-2009, 04:52 PM

quote:Originally posted by Trident

Jesus, Nigel even sounds like a **** on "paper".

And Mediaguy, start doing some fact checking, dude! SRC is nationally broadcasted! FSC is internationally broadcasted! Having attendance of 12,000-14,000(and one 55k), is pretty damned good for Canada. I know you were trying to say we shouldn't have to get behind Toronto, but even in an article with a subject that shows respect, you come off as disrespectful, or at best, ignorant, when you say stuff like that.

And I agree with Dan, I hope Toronto lose every single thing that comes along for them.

I guess I "want" PR to advance, but if an opportunity comes up holding both TFC and PR out of the Cup, I'll be ecstatic.

I want Toronto to lose, I want Vancouver to lose, I want Porto Rico to lose, I want everyone that isn't the Montreal Impact to do terribly.

TWO THUMBS UP .... well said. .... oh and PS who is Nigel Reed?

Trident

07-29-2009, 10:52 PM

Well, Mediaguy, that was a great, nationally broadcasted, well attended, 20,000 spectator loss for your team.

Grizzly

07-29-2009, 11:00 PM

quote:Originally posted by Trident

Well, Mediaguy, that was a great, nationally broadcasted, well attended, 20,000 spectator loss for your team.

Except judging from all the empty seats there were far less than 20 000 in the stadium. Actually this is the case in almost all TFC games I watch including the one against the Impact that I attended in person. The 20 000 figure really refers to the number of people and corporations who can afford to buy tickets without actually feeling compelled to show up.

earlimus

07-30-2009, 07:16 AM

I was sitting here thinking about what to write and how to tell all of you haters that you're really not helping the game here in Canada (which is what we all want, right?) by wanting TFC out of the competition right away. I think I've come up with the answer.

Go to the pub in your hometown wearing your own team's jersey and cheer for Puerto Rico. That way, you're hating on TFC AND bringing publicity to the game, passion, and rivalry that this country so desperately needs. Go to the main square in your city and wave your flags. Burn something with TFC on it!!!! Get on TV!!!!

Just don't wave any Puerto Rico flags. After finally getting stadiums filled with Canadian fans we don't want to backtrack.

the biologist

07-30-2009, 08:06 AM

^ Pretty good idea. But the problem is the number of pubs where you can actually watch the game in order to cheer for PR. A pub that shows a game that doesn't involve the hometown team and features an MLS side against a USL one (did I say footie snobs ?) is still a long shot to find. Sad but true.

Grizzly

07-30-2009, 08:41 AM

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

^ Pretty good idea. But the problem is the number of pubs where you can actually watch the game in order to cheer for PR. A pub that shows a game that doesn't involve the hometown team and features an MLS side against a USL one (did I say footie snobs ?) is still a long shot to find. Sad but true.

Not true in Montreal. Frappe will show anything unless there is some major sporting event that has filled the bar. I couldn't go out to a bar for the game so I didn't try and organize anything there. I can think of at least 3 or 4 other bars in Montreal that would show the game if asked. Next week's game is at the same time as the Impact-River Plate game so we won't organize a viewing for that either but otherwise we probably would organize something. I would think in most cities of a decent size the situation would be similar. You just need to find a bar that has Goltv and is relatively empty which shouldn't be that difficult on a Wednesday or Tuesday night.

To respond to earlimus, the more fans we have in Canada who feel so strongly about their team that they could never support their rival Canadian team the better for the Canadian national team and Canadian soccer in general. These are the same fans who will be passionate enough to come out to national team games and ensure that our home games truly are home games.

the biologist

07-30-2009, 09:03 AM

^ You're right on this, I never went to Frappe but know about it. But when you can name the places where you can watch it... you know what I mean. I'm not asking for the same level of interest they show when it comes to NHL or NFL games, but still, there's a long way to go.

In response to earlimus' point, when you have to ask to watch the game, there's a good chance you're the only one truly interested, so how can you actually create some publicity and bring some passion regarding those kind of games ? That was my point. Never underestimate the "footie snobs" (not sure how you call them in english...)

earlimus

07-30-2009, 09:57 AM

"Footie snobs" is perfect. Douchebags works too. Still, you can't really blame people for preferring superior league's to their own. North of my city here in Spain is a tiny little town called Jaca that is the number one team in Spain for ice hockey. One of only 4 teams in fact. I don't know if a guy there could be called a snob just because he prefered watching a NHL game to a televised Jaca vs. Barca (which is worse than high school Canadian hockey, trust me). I've been into soccer for around 8 years now and I sure as hell never gave a crap about the Toronto Lynx back when they were the only local option.

You're right Grizzly, that kind of passion is great for the game. I also realize that it's hard to support another team just to "help grow the game here domestically". I guess I think that we need to do everything we can. Other clubs in other countries certainly don't do that but then... they're not Canada. Still, showing passion for your own Canadian club accomplishes the same thing as far as publicity goes.

Rudi

07-30-2009, 10:23 AM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Trident

Well, Mediaguy, that was a great, nationally broadcasted, well attended, 20,000 spectator loss for your team.

Except judging from all the empty seats there were far less than 20 000 in the stadium. Actually this is the case in almost all TFC games I watch including the one against the Impact that I attended in person. The 20 000 figure really refers to the number of people and corporations who can afford to buy tickets without actually feeling compelled to show up.

Torontonians are notorious for showing up late to everything.

Judge the crowd size by what it looks like in the 20th minute, not at kick off.

MuirtonPark

07-30-2009, 01:38 PM

True. Part of the reason is that the GO train from Burlington and points between helpfully gets in to Exhibition a few minutes after 8:00, so several hundred fans who don't want to hang around for an hour arrive late.

I was there, and the stadium was almost full on the East side by 8:15. The extra bench seats on the North end were full, which was an extra 1000 +/-.

Mpenza

07-30-2009, 01:58 PM

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Trident

Well, Mediaguy, that was a great, nationally broadcasted, well attended, 20,000 spectator loss for your team.

Except judging from all the empty seats there were far less than 20 000 in the stadium. Actually this is the case in almost all TFC games I watch including the one against the Impact that I attended in person. The 20 000 figure really refers to the number of people and corporations who can afford to buy tickets without actually feeling compelled to show up.

Torontonians are notorious for showing up late to everything.

Judge the crowd size by what it looks like in the 20th minute, not at kick off.

First half or second half?

Rudi

07-30-2009, 02:05 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mpenza

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Trident

Well, Mediaguy, that was a great, nationally broadcasted, well attended, 20,000 spectator loss for your team.

Except judging from all the empty seats there were far less than 20 000 in the stadium. Actually this is the case in almost all TFC games I watch including the one against the Impact that I attended in person. The 20 000 figure really refers to the number of people and corporations who can afford to buy tickets without actually feeling compelled to show up.

Torontonians are notorious for showing up late to everything.

Judge the crowd size by what it looks like in the 20th minute, not at kick off.

First half or second half?

Either?

the biologist

07-30-2009, 02:47 PM

quote:Originally posted by earlimus

"Footie snobs" is perfect. Douchebags works too. Still, you can't really blame people for preferring superior league's to their own. [...] I've been into soccer for around 8 years now and I sure as hell never gave a crap about the Toronto Lynx back when they were the only local option.
Preferring a superior league is pretty acceptable. But one doesn't exclude the other actually IMO. Don't you follow some college/junior teams (of any sport) sometimes ? You can cheer for Barca, Man U or AC as long as you want, everybody understands that. But why don't you ALSO follow the activities of your "domestic" league and cheer for your local team, even if the organization is Lynx-like ? I mean, they represent the potential of a great belonging feeling in your city, like other city trademarks do.

You're the one that brought the douchebag term after all. ;)

redhat

07-30-2009, 03:40 PM

<MOD ALERT> Guys, please chill and don't get into name-calling. Everyone's entitled to an intelligent opinion.

The topic is: why Canadians should support TFC ...

Suggestion: Make your arguments or points with wit, and make it interesting. Thanks.

Robert

07-30-2009, 05:19 PM

Death to the TFC!

earlimus

07-31-2009, 02:34 AM

Hahahaha ^^^^^. Nice. Now get that on tv somehow for some soccer publicity!!!

Redhat, I just looked back and I don't see any actual name calling, just a little witty banter.

Trident

07-31-2009, 07:15 AM

quote:Originally posted by earlimus

Hahahaha ^^^^^. Nice. Now get that on tv somehow for some soccer publicity!!!

Redhat, I just looked back and I don't see any actual name calling, just a little witty banter.

Yeah, I was surprised at the red text alert...it's a thread with Rudi, Mpenza, Grizzly,MrImpact and myself, and it's all civil.

The moderation in this place has to be less severe, every time I wanna say ****, I have to take a little extra time to bypass the idiotic censor. Somethings can spiral out of control for pages, and then we can have a civil one with intervention like this one.

If you're gonna sensor that word into something, at least make it something that makes sense when subbed in, instead of "great".

Either put it to something like "frigg", so it makes sense, or, get rid of it all together.

loyola

07-31-2009, 07:31 AM

<MOD> As far as I know, and I'm new in this role, mods don't have much power over the censorship stuff.

As for the thread it self, I think it's fine and obviously redhat just made an honest mistake and thought there was some name calling.

Please get back to your civil discussion without further delay <MOD>

redhat

07-31-2009, 11:19 AM

quote:Originally posted by Trident

The moderation in this place has to be less severe, every time I wanna say ****, I have to take a little extra time to bypass the idiotic censor. Somethings can spiral out of control for pages, and then we can have a civil one with intervention like this one.

If you're gonna sensor that word into something, at least make it something that makes sense when subbed in, instead of "great".

Either put it to something like "frigg", so it makes sense, or, get rid of it all together.

Thanks. We don't censor, but people should be civil enough
(or mature enough) to understand that minors (those under 18)
can be reading these. I apologize if anyone thinks it's too
much, but we have to step in BEFORE things may go out of hand.
My mistake if everyone thinks it's okay.

This anti-TFC/anti-Toronto, inter-club rivalry has gotten out of
hand on many threads, and yet we have not stepped in.
We just want things to not get too personal, and not boring.

The rule is: say something related to the topic, and be as witty
as possible with any retort.

And no, although it may be appropriate in many cases, calling
someone "douchebag" has no wit on any forum.;)

Grizzly

08-01-2009, 01:47 AM

Noone called anyone douchebag on this thread though. The term was used to describe people who aren't interested in supporting Canadian soccer. You can agree or disagree with that but it was not used as a personal insult to any other poster so I see no reason for it to be moderated.

BTW, Redhat, why are your posts always formatted so there is a lot of empty space on the right and thus they are very long lengthwise as a result?

youllneverwalkalone

08-01-2009, 11:44 AM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly
BTW, Redhat, why are your posts always formatted so there is a lot of empty space on the right and thus they are very long lengthwise as a result?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

redhat

08-01-2009, 12:41 PM

Sorry to offend anyone about the formatting. I find it better than
reading something that goes on and on without punctuation or
anything. As for the perceived over-moderating, I again apologize
for the perception. That's not our/my intent.

But guys, please carry on with your banter, including any anti-Toronto
or anti-TFC stuff that other areas of Canada may find of little
interest. ;)

Trident

08-02-2009, 01:55 AM

His spacing is even worse than my line by line, tiny paragraphs for each tiny thought I have that are separated by a space.

It looks like I should read his posts as a poem or something artistic.

Oh, and loyola, just to let you know, I started bypassing that filter while under the age of 18. I think you should find out who has control over the censor, because i take the time to make it "****ing", rather than "greating". the censorship makes me swear, while I'd leave it alone if it were only "frigg"

DoyleG

08-02-2009, 02:55 AM

With the latest CBC ratings, Reed's blog should be titled "Support TFC so I can have a job."

the biologist

08-02-2009, 04:51 AM

quote:Originally posted by Trident

His spacing is even worse than my line by line, tiny paragraphs for each tiny thought I have that are separated by a space.

It looks like I should read his posts as a poem or something artistic.

Oh, and loyola, just to let you know, I started bypassing that filter while under the age of 18. I think you should find out who has control over the censor, because i take the time to make it "****ing", rather than "greating". the censorship makes me swear, while I'd leave it alone if it were only "frigg"
Mmmmm... Aren't these the words of a douchebag ? [:p]

Cheeta

08-02-2009, 09:20 AM

quote:Originally posted by Trident

His spacing is even worse than my line by line, tiny paragraphs for each tiny thought I have that are separated by a space.

It looks like I should read his posts as a poem or something artistic.

Oh, and loyola, just to let you know, I started bypassing that filter while under the age of 18. I think you should find out who has control over the censor, because i take the time to make it "****ing", rather than "greating". the censorship makes me swear, while I'd leave it alone if it were only "frigg"

frigg
frigging
frigging Hell.
For friggs sake.
frigg off, sod!
frigg you and frigg anyone who even looks like you.
friggity, friggity, frigg, frigg, frigg.

(Seems to be working)

And so it shall be.

(Holding you to that by the way)

redhat

08-02-2009, 10:07 AM

quote:Originally posted by Trident

His spacing is even worse than my line by line, tiny paragraphs for each tiny thought I have that are separated by a space.

It looks like I should read his posts as a poem or something artistic.

Sorry it bothers you, Curtis. From a graphical perspective (my family
has a graphic arts, as well as a financial background) I find it looks
better. That's why newspapers have columns, not continuous lines
without any breaks. But it's really just a preference, like anything.

Montreal_FC_fan

08-02-2009, 01:05 PM

This is club football not the MNT.

Screw TFC. :)

Tuscan

08-02-2009, 01:28 PM

It's tough to support a club who got in due to the current rules set not fitting the competition format, but I do hope they pull it out in Puerto Rico, moreso for the chance that Canada get a direct seed into the group stage from here on out.

Rudi

08-02-2009, 01:31 PM

quote:Originally posted by Tuscan

It's tough to support a club who got in due to the current rules set not fitting the competition format

Huh?

squizz

08-02-2009, 03:30 PM

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

quote:Originally posted by Tuscan

It's tough to support a club who got in due to the current rules set not fitting the competition format

Huh?

I'm going to assume Tuscan means that TFC only won the Canadian Championship because, due to the current competition format, Montreal saw fit to field their C-team in the final game, and Toronto advanced ahead of Vancouver only by running up the score against said C-team.

Which, really, is a pretty tough point to argue against.

Rudi

08-02-2009, 04:41 PM

That's not TFC's fault (nor their problem).

Richard

08-02-2009, 08:30 PM

^ Well, the tournament format helped them, not superior play which is unfortunate. I am sure the format was setup on the not unreasonable assumption that all teams would be ethical in their approach. Well not all teams were so I suspect the format will change next year if the Whitecaps have anything to do with it.

But since TFC is the 2009-10 Canadian representative I am 100% behind them. Pity they bombed the first game against PRI.

Trident

08-03-2009, 01:30 AM

quote:Originally posted by redhat

quote:Originally posted by Trident

His spacing is even worse than my line by line, tiny paragraphs for each tiny thought I have that are separated by a space.

It looks like I should read his posts as a poem or something artistic.

Sorry it bothers you, Curtis. From a graphical perspective (my family
has a graphic arts, as well as a financial background) I find it looks
better. That's why newspapers have columns, not continuous lines
without any breaks. But it's really just a preference, like anything.

Nah, I don't mind, it's easier to read, and it's nice meeting someone else with a different post format.

Awesome new word filter, way frigging better than the last one!

the biologist

08-03-2009, 04:19 AM

quote:Originally posted by Richard

^ Well, the tournament format helped them, not superior play which is unfortunate. I am sure the format was setup on the not unreasonable assumption that all teams would be ethical in their approach. Well not all teams were so I suspect the format will change next year if the Whitecaps have anything to do with it.

But since TFC is the 2009-10 Canadian representative I am 100% behind them. Pity they bombed the first game against PRI.
Well, what do you want ?

If the "each team playing two games against each other, one home and one away" format isn't the most used around the world, what is ? They don't play in the same league, so a specific tournament has to be played. Once that is established, what could be done differently next year that would still be 100 % logic, acceptable and fair ? If the Caps find themselves at 8th in USL D1 with one game in hand to secure the 7th and final spot for the playoffs and this game appears to be against Cleveland (and you win 6-1 cause they don't care, season's over), will you cry for the unfortunate team that will get bumped out of the playoffs ? Will you claim high and loud that the league format is bullsh*t and ask for a change ? No cause every team plays 3 times against every other teams, half of them two times at home, half of them two times away, the same good ol' basic format we see everywhere.

The real problem in this case is the number of fully pro canadian-based soccer clubs. There will be only three for a while so you better get used to it... like we all get used to your trolling posts.

Richard

08-03-2009, 03:08 PM

The number of teams participating is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. I would add one more game to the existing format, top two teams from the round robin play off against each other for the cup. That would resolve the issue of unethical teams rolling over in meaningless games the way Montreal did. Your comparison with playing for the 7th spot in the USL playoffs is trivial, whole different situation with very different consequences.

So because you disagree with my stated positions I am a troll eh! What does that make you?

squizz

08-03-2009, 03:46 PM

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

That's not TFC's fault (nor their problem).

You're absolutely right.

loyola

08-03-2009, 03:46 PM

quote:Originally posted by Richard

The number of teams participating is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. I would add one more game to the existing format, top two teams from the round robin play off against each other for the cup. That would resolve the issue of unethical teams rolling over in meaningless games the way Montreal did. Your comparison with playing for the 7th spot in the USL playoffs is trivial, whole different situation with very different consequences.

So because you disagree with my stated positions I am a troll eh! What does that make you?

Even if you add a final you would still have the possibility to see something similar to the MTL situation happening. Imagine this situation before the final round robin game:

1Vancouver has 9 pts (3 wins)
2MTL has 3 pts (1 win, 3 loss)
3TFC 3 pts (1 win, 2 loss)

MTL is ahead of TFC on the tie breaker. The last game is Vancouver vs TFC. Vancouver is already assure to be receiving the final so decide to field their B team. TFC wins against Vancouver in the last game and people (mostly MTL fans) complains about the format....

the biologist

08-03-2009, 04:00 PM

quote:Originally posted by Richard

I would add one more game to the existing format, top two teams from the round robin play off against each other for the cup. That would resolve the issue of unethical teams rolling over in meaningless games the way Montreal did.
Let's see...

VAN 0-1 TOR |-------------|
MTL 0-0 VAN | TOR = 7 pts |
MTL 0-1 TOR | VAN = 3 pts |
TOR 0-0 VAN | MTL = 2 pts |
VAN 0-0 MTL |-------------|

For the final game (TOR @ MTL), TFC plays their C-squad cause they're already in and MTL wins the game, excluding VAN from the playoffs. Would it be better ? Ask yourself the question...

Second scenario: if the final standings are

VAN = 12 pts
MTL = 2 pts -> Playoff game: MTL @ VAN
TOR = 2 pts

After a 0-0 draw, MTL wins on penalty kicks. I'd like to see your face if that happens...

THERE'S NO PERFECT FORMAT.

the biologist

08-03-2009, 04:03 PM

quote:Originally posted by loyola

Even if you add a final you would still have the possibility to see something similar to the MTL situation happening. Imagine this situation before the final round robin game:

1Vancouver has 9 pts (3 wins)
2MTL has 3 pts (1 win, 3 loss)
3TFC 3 pts (1 win, 2 loss)

MTL is ahead of TFC on the tie breaker. The last game is Vancouver vs TFC. Vancouver is already assure to be receiving the final so decide to field their B team. TFC wins against Vancouver in the last game and people (mostly MTL fans) complains about the format....
Quicker than me :) You're so tough to beat on quickness :D

the biologist

08-03-2009, 04:19 PM

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Your comparison with playing for the 7th spot in the USL playoffs is trivial, whole different situation with very different consequences.
I'd say it's the same situation. In both scenarios it's about a team denied it's chance to go further because of a team that has its fate already sealed and plays its B- or C-sqaud for that reason.
quote:Originally posted by Richard

So because you disagree with my stated positions I am a troll eh! What does that make you?
No, I just said what is obvious. Anyway, I didn't say "You're a troll". I said you are often making trolling posts because in each and every thread you like it to be "Richard vs. the World". There's no need for me to justify that since many long-time posters (and way longer than me) has already stated that before.

Richard

08-03-2009, 07:12 PM

Errr.... I make trolling posts but I am not a troll? That's about as logical as most of your posts generally are.

Richard

08-03-2009, 07:14 PM

I didn't suggest that adding a final game between first and second was the perfect solution but it would be a definite improvement over the current format. What's your suggestion for improvement?

loyola

08-03-2009, 07:23 PM

Richard, I quote you:

"That would resolve the issue of unethical teams rolling over in meaningless games the way Montreal did". Like the biologist (cool name BTW :)) and I have demonstrated it could still happen.

The only way to have a perfect solution is to have a real Cup format like they have everywhere else in the world. But we would need more teams so I guess we are stuck with the current format or a similar one with the possibility for a team to have to play a meaningless game...

the biologist

08-03-2009, 08:05 PM

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Errr.... I make trolling posts but I am not a troll? That's about as logical as most of your posts generally are.
You can say stupid things without being a stupid person.

You are making provocative posts yet I didn't read all of your 5k+ posts. I didn't want to reduce you as a troll because of that, so I say you're making trolling posts. But if you really want me to call you a troll, just ask me...

Anyway, I'm about the 3764th person you're calling illogical, so... [|)]

the biologist

08-03-2009, 08:09 PM

quote:Originally posted by loyola

Richard, I quote you:

"That would resolve the issue of unethical teams rolling over in meaningless games the way Montreal did". Like the biologist (cool name BTW :)) and I have demonstrated it could still happen.

The only way to have a perfect solution is to have a real Cup format like they have everywhere else in the world. But we would need more teams so I guess we are stuck with the current format or a similar one with the possibility for a team to have to play a meaningless game...
Excellent demonstration of contradiction. And still I'm the illogical one ? loyola, you said it all. Richard's solution is NOT an improvement at all. There's NO IMPROVEMENT possible as long as there's only 3 teams.

BTW loyola, biology is what I'm studying. Thx for the compliment but I must admit my username ain't original at all... ;)

Duane Rollins

08-03-2009, 09:06 PM

[Pathetic especially when one thinks about how many times posters on this very forum (and mostly English speaking ones from western Canada since the majority of Quebecois go to the games live) have posted about watching Impact games on SRC. Did you graduate from the Ben Knight School of Inaccurate Journalism?

[/quote]

Grizz,

We have a mutual friend who tells me that this internet tough guy stuff you spout on here is really just an act and that you are actually a stand up guy that just wants to see the sport grow. So I choose to believe that. So how about we both just chill on this TFC v Impact stuff for a while. It's a little dull. We aren't going to convince each other that we're wrong, are we?

(But one last dig. If you don't like what I write, start your own blog. It's free. Hell, e-mail me and I'll let you post what you want on mine -- 25,000 page views a month...)

squizz

08-03-2009, 09:57 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly
Pathetic especially when one thinks about how many times posters on this very forum (and mostly English speaking ones from western Canada since the majority of Quebecois go to the games live) have posted about watching Impact games on SRC. Did you graduate from the Ben Knight School of Inaccurate Journalism?

Grizz,

We have a mutual friend who tells me that this internet tough guy stuff you spout on here is really just an act and that you are actually a stand up guy

Based on that quote, I'm guessing the mutual friend isn't Ben Knight.

Grizzly

08-04-2009, 02:17 AM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:

[Pathetic especially when one thinks about how many times posters on this very forum (and mostly English speaking ones from western Canada since the majority of Quebecois go to the games live) have posted about watching Impact games on SRC. Did you graduate from the Ben Knight School of Inaccurate Journalism?

Grizz,

We have a mutual friend who tells me that this internet tough guy stuff you spout on here is really just an act and that you are actually a stand up guy that just wants to see the sport grow. So I choose to believe that. So how about we both just chill on this TFC v Impact stuff for a while. It's a little dull. We aren't going to convince each other that we're wrong, are we?

(But one last dig. If you don't like what I write, start your own blog. It's free. Hell, e-mail me and I'll let you post what you want on mine -- 25,000 page views a month...)

You see MediaGuy, this post just sums up everything wrong with you and your attitude. Since you have been on this forum (and your blog as well) you have claimed to be a national soccer journalist but have been arrogant, incredibly biased and often inaccurate and fail to research your topics adequately. It is one thing to have views that are different than mine but another completely when it is obvious those views are based on complete bias and ignorance. As a journalist you are supposed to be less biased than us fans and supporter group members not more biased. As a journalist, not knowing that one of Canada's TWO yes only two professional soccer teams other than TFC has a national television contract is incredibly ignorant and pathetic especially when this has been mentioned numerous times on the forum by members who are just regular posters here. As a Canadian soccer journalist you should have been watching these telecasts. Pointing this out and other fallacies you write makes me the bad guy? I am the internet tough guy who spouts stuff as an act but according to his friend is a "stand up guy"? Nice olive branch.

If you want me to respect your views then lose the pompous attitude and start learning something about the other teams in Canada besides TFC. For one thing, just because you have access to certain contacts and inside information as a journalist doesn't make you knowlegdeable about soccer. There are so many people here who post far more knowledgeable posts here than you and some of them are TFC fans and you don't see me arguing with them over their views. Even the guys I do argue with and seldom agree with like Rudi, I respect their views a lot more than I do what you post. You seem well on your way to becoming a pro-TFC and pro-soccer Bob McCown and if that is your personality or the way you want to make your name then that is your choice but don't ask me to respect it. Have you noticed that when Steven Beauregard writes articles on your blog they are well received and regarded not only by Impact fans but also by TFC and Caps fans even though he is not even a trained journalist? Judging by the blog comments even a lot of TFC fans dislike what you write. Again if that is what you are trying for it is your right but don't ask me to agree or respect it.

As to our mutual friend, it is his choice whether he wants to associate or be friends with you. It has nothing to do with me. And no squizz, he is not Ben Knight although even though I am often critical of Ben as I have said before personally I think we both like and respect each other. But yes that was a dig at Ben who also often doesn't research properly and writes inaccurate stuff. Sometimes I think he actually does it on purpose to piss people off because as we all know Ben has a weird sense of humour. When he gets criticized for inaccuracy on the forum (not only by me) he often makes sarcastic comments that seem to purposely inflame the criticism.

Many posters on this forum do a lot of research and think quite carefully about what they post. Some are more biased than others partially depending on how hardcore they support any one team and I certainly don't claim to be unbiased. Yet considering how much knowledgeable and accurate information is posted here is it too much to ask that those journalists who are posting here (or writing in various media) are at least equal if not above the level of a good poster, ie. well informed and not incredibly biased.

Jeffery S.

08-04-2009, 03:03 AM

If the mods wouldn't be threatening me and Grizzly with banning everytime we respond to each other, as they are in fact doing, I would agree fully with his last post. But I can't. I am not allowed.

Grizzly

08-04-2009, 03:31 AM

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

If the mods wouldn't be threatening me and Grizzly with banning everytime we respond to each other, as they are in fact doing, I would agree fully with his last post. But I can't. I am not allowed.

:D

(I hope I don't get banned for that smiley!)

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 07:41 AM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:

[Pathetic especially when one thinks about how many times posters on this very forum (and mostly English speaking ones from western Canada since the majority of Quebecois go to the games live) have posted about watching Impact games on SRC. Did you graduate from the Ben Knight School of Inaccurate Journalism?

Grizz,

We have a mutual friend who tells me that this internet tough guy stuff you spout on here is really just an act and that you are actually a stand up guy that just wants to see the sport grow. So I choose to believe that. So how about we both just chill on this TFC v Impact stuff for a while. It's a little dull. We aren't going to convince each other that we're wrong, are we?

(But one last dig. If you don't like what I write, start your own blog. It's free. Hell, e-mail me and I'll let you post what you want on mine -- 25,000 page views a month...)

You see MediaGuy, this post just sums up everything wrong with you and your attitude. Since you have been on this forum (and your blog as well) you have claimed to be a national soccer journalist but have been arrogant, incredibly biased and often inaccurate and fail to research your topics adequately. It is one thing to have views that are different than mine but another completely when it is obvious those views are based on complete bias and ignorance. As a journalist you are supposed to be less biased than us fans and supporter group members not more biased. As a journalist, not knowing that one of Canada's TWO yes only two professional soccer teams other than TFC has a national television contract is incredibly ignorant and pathetic especially when this has been mentioned numerous times on the forum by members who are just regular posters here. As a Canadian soccer journalist you should have been watching these telecasts. Pointing this out and other fallacies you write makes me the bad guy? I am the internet tough guy who spouts stuff as an act but according to his friend is a "stand up guy"? Nice olive branch.

What are you talking about that I don't "research?" The Impact have 10 games on the French CBC (and I'm sorry that I didn't remember that when I made the post). The thing is it doesn't change the thesis. How does that give them anywhere near the profile of TFC in this country? That's my position. That TFC has a higher profile. The fact that you argue against that suggests that you're either a troll or a bit dense. IT'S PAINFULLY F UCKING OBVIOUS THAT THEY DO.

Forget TFC vs. Impact. Let's just make it MLS vs. USL-1. I'm sure Vancouver posters will agree that the Whitecaps move to MLS has received about 10X more coverage than anything they did in the USL. That's all I was saying. Why, other than your blind hatred of all things me/TFC, would you argue against something that damn obvious?

As an aside, here is why I post under the name MediaGuy: When I first started posting it came after several years of lurking. At the time I did not think I was going to do anything other than make a single post that was about media coverage. I felt that the prevailing attitude on the board at the time about the lack of coverage -- that it was a conspiracy to keep the game down -- was wrong and failed to address the core reason why -- that the game wasn't popular enough. So, I chose the name to reflect what I was arguing.

I HATE the name now because it opens me up to pedantic attacks from people like you who are looking for reasons to go after me. I post under the name SweetOwnGoal on most soccer boards I belong to (and would prefer to do so here). That is when I'm not doing so under my actual name.

Or, to put it simply I don't claim to know more than the rest of you. However, I do claim to work my ass off at researching the domestic game, which is why it's so damn offensive to me when you make posts like you have above. If you respect me so little Grizz stop reading me. To be blunt I don't need your page views because I get plenty from elsewhere.

By the way having contacts and access to information is EXACTLY what makes a journalist. The old adage taught in j-school is that you are only as good as your sources. What you are trying to argue is that I’m not a good analysis. First off I don’t really claim to be a tactics guy – although it’s football not astrophysics so I’m pretty sure I can hold my own. Secondly, having an opinion about someone’s opinion is highly subjective. But thanks for your feedback.

And why the Spaniard is jumping into this conversation is anyone's guess.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 08:13 AM

And if you want me to stick to facts, here you go:

The Impact's home attendance numbers so far this year
12246
12180
11470
11483
11561 (TFC game. Uh-huh. Maybe you should be quiet about "actual fans in the stands" when attempting to discredit TFC because we all saw this one and know that the number is pure bull$hit)
8047
12287
12676
11581
5047
11827
12213
11948

That's an average of 11120, which is a nice number for USL. But it isn't 20,000, which is all I said. I'm pretty sure Quebec is like the rest of the country when it comes to the hard, undeniable fact that 11120 is less than 20,000.

As for TV, by my count there will be 22 Impact games available on French TV - so easily accessible to about 7 million Canadians, less so to the other 25 million. I'm happy those games are on TV, but when you are talking about having a truly national footprint you need to be broadcasting in the language of the majority (To be clear I'm not suggesting that the Impact should broadcast in English as Quebec is a French society. Obviously they need to be broadcasting in French in PQ. But what we are arguing here is NATIONAL exposure). NO ONE outside of the hardcore fan watches a sporting event broadcasted in a language they don’t speak. We aren’t talking about getting the games out so a Voyageur can watch. We are talking about getting them out so your typical EPL-mostly football fan can (or, better yet, a kid that has yet to be influenced by Eurosnob attitudes.

The Impact are on national English TV three times this year. TFC 37. Again, how is that even close to being the same?

Ask yourself this: What team is a 12-year-old living in Moose Jaw most likely to start to support – TFC or the Impact.

Above are FACTS. Supported FACTS. If you want to attack my position, attack those FACTS rather than me Grizz. Otherwise...

Cheeta

08-04-2009, 08:17 AM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

If the mods wouldn't be threatening me and Grizzly with banning everytime we respond to each other, as they are in fact doing, I would agree fully with his last post. But I can't. I am not allowed.

:D

(I hope I don't get banned for that smiley!)

I'll take the bait.

Going to interrupt this topic for a minute, whether that's okay with everyone or not, to ask both you gentlemen a question.

Where you fellows approached by the mods with an opportunity to have the no-contact restriction lifted but declined to do so? Twice I believe?

Respond here, privately. Whichever you prefer.

Or don't.

Trident

08-04-2009, 11:34 AM

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh duane! You jumped headfirst into this one...

1. You said the impact don't have a National TV contract, they do.

2. You "work your ass off" for the domestic game..but either didn't know/forgot that IMFC was national. Dude, it's not like you have to remember 30 teams, why can you forget stuff about three professional teams, while working your ass off? Maybe you should work better, not harder, because you don't seem to be doing too good.

3. Who cares what language it's broadcasted in? My dad can't speak french, and he always watched on the SRC instead of Bold during our run. The point is it's on a national station, which makes it a national broadcast. Stop trying to defend the fact you're a know nothing fake, with technicalities like "oh, it's not in english, so I didn't count it as national!"

Jesus, it's a game, not a sitcom, you still understand when there's a goal, a red card, etc. it's not like they broadcast soccer to people who speak french, but if you only know english, it shows up as Quidditch.

Rudi

08-04-2009, 11:45 AM

quote:Originally posted by Trident

Stop trying to defend the fact you're a know nothing fake, with technicalities like "oh, it's not in english, so I didn't count it as national!"

I'm reading, but don't see that quote anywhere.

If you're going to call someone out on a "technicality", don't go changing the quotes to fit your argument.

What he's saying has merit. No one outside the hardcore fan is going to watch a sport in another language. In responding to that, you didn't actually address the point but rather went after the poster (which is a running theme among some here).

I know you're piling on to the anti-MG bandwagon here (because, of course, he supports TFC), but please don't be intentionally dense in doing so.

El Hombre

08-04-2009, 12:14 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

The Impact are on national English TV three times this year. TFC 37. Again, how is that even close to being the same?

This caught my eye.

I'm surprised that TFC is on national TV 37 times. What do you mean by "national English TV"? Is this just the amount of times TFC can be seen on TV if you have Sportsnet and Gol?

Jeffery S.

08-04-2009, 01:02 PM

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

If the mods wouldn't be threatening me and Grizzly with banning everytime we respond to each other, as they are in fact doing, I would agree fully with his last post. But I can't. I am not allowed.

:D

(I hope I don't get banned for that smiley!)

I'll take the bait.

Going to interrupt this topic for a minute, whether that's okay with everyone or not, to ask both you gentlemen a question.

Where you fellows approached by the mods with an opportunity to have the no-contact restriction lifted but declined to do so? Twice I believe?

Respond here, privately. Whichever you prefer.

Or don't.

Because the new mods, at what seems to be your pathetic after-the-fact prompting, started threatening us with a ban because we AGREED with each other rather amicably on a thread.

And of course no one in their right mind is going to agree to that, I am glad Grizzly felt the same way I did about it.

If we get out of line again in the same extreme way, fine, ban us, give us a week or two, we both have other things we can do. We can live with it. But if we are agreeing with each other, or just making observations about question not concerning us personally on the same thread, don't send us these pompous threats in the name of Cheeta.

According to this assinine state of things Grizzly should not post on the Julian's Future threads I start, and I should not post about the Impact pretty well ever.

Instead of the new mods thinking for themselves, Cheeta is still moderating through them. Mods, think for yourselves and stop letting Cheeta in the same half-ass, partial way he did before.

What the new mods should do, instead of just blindly and irrationally following Cheeta's badly construed criteria, is just wipe the slate clean. They did it for his botched moderating jobs, they can do it for the botched attempts at forum discussion Grizzly and I fell into a few months ago.

Instead of sending us threat mail.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 01:16 PM

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

The Impact are on national English TV three times this year. TFC 37. Again, how is that even close to being the same?

This caught my eye.

I'm surprised that TFC is on national TV 37 times. What do you mean by "national English TV"? Is this just the amount of times TFC can be seen on TV if you have Sportsnet and Gol?

Yes.

Edit to add: Of course Gol has far less reach than the CBC, but I will argue that its reach is similar to the French CBC when you are looking at English households. The argument here is what team has more exposure. I've yet to hear an Impact poster actual argue the Montreal's exposure is better or the same as TFC. All they seem to want to do is to attack my credibility without attacking the actual argument.

If you don't think that Montreal has the same or better exposure than TFC then why are you on here debating the point? BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I EVER SAID.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 01:20 PM

quote:Originally posted by Trident

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh duane! You jumped headfirst into this one...

1. You said the impact don't have a National TV contract, they do.

2. You "work your ass off" for the domestic game..but either didn't know/forgot that IMFC was national. Dude, it's not like you have to remember 30 teams, why can you forget stuff about three professional teams, while working your ass off? Maybe you should work better, not harder, because you don't seem to be doing too good.

3. Who cares what language it's broadcasted in? My dad can't speak french, and he always watched on the SRC instead of Bold during our run. The point is it's on a national station, which makes it a national broadcast. Stop trying to defend the fact you're a know nothing fake, with technicalities like "oh, it's not in english, so I didn't count it as national!"

Jesus, it's a game, not a sitcom, you still understand when there's a goal, a red card, etc. it's not like they broadcast soccer to people who speak french, but if you only know english, it shows up as Quidditch.

You didn't even remotely read what I wrote. "A know (sic) nothing fake." Yeah, that's some real solid debating going on right there.

The FACTS I've posted above. Please respond to the FACTS.

El Hombre

08-04-2009, 01:21 PM

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Instead of the new mods thinking for themselves, Cheeta is still moderating through them. Mods, think for yourselves and stop letting Cheeta in the same half-ass, partial way he did before.

What the new mods should do, instead of just blindly and irrationally following Cheeta's badly construed criteria, is just wipe the slate clean. They did it for his botched moderating jobs, they can do it for the botched attempts at forum discussion Grizzly and I fell into a few months ago.

Instead of sending us threat mail.

<mod>Alright, Jeffrey, you've said your piece. I hope you are happy with it and I hope this also puts an end to posts such as was quoted by Cheeta.

If you wish to discuss this further or address any other slight, please feel free to message me or any of the other mods. This goes for everyone else on the forum: we (or at least I) am always available if someone wants to discuss something. 90% of the time, a little bit of communication will resolve things.

Rest assured, the new mods are "thinking for themselves" and are consistently in contact about various topics regarding forum moderation.</mod>

El Hombre

08-04-2009, 01:28 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

The Impact are on national English TV three times this year. TFC 37. Again, how is that even close to being the same?

This caught my eye.

I'm surprised that TFC is on national TV 37 times. What do you mean by "national English TV"? Is this just the amount of times TFC can be seen on TV if you have Sportsnet and Gol?

Yes.

If that's the case then, I think it's hard for you to argue on one hand how the French language broadcasts should be discounted because only the hardcore footy watcher would watch it in a different language while then on the other hand use GolTV to support your argument which would only really be ordered by that same hardcore footy watcher.

I think what's important is that all TFC home games are broadcast on CBC while all Impact home games are broadcast on SRC (I believe), and CBC is generally more watched giving TFC a wider base to work from.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 01:33 PM

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

The Impact are on national English TV three times this year. TFC 37. Again, how is that even close to being the same?

This caught my eye.

I'm surprised that TFC is on national TV 37 times. What do you mean by "national English TV"? Is this just the amount of times TFC can be seen on TV if you have Sportsnet and Gol?

Yes.

If that's the case then, I think it's hard for you to argue on one hand how the French language broadcasts should be discounted because only the hardcore footy watcher would watch it in a different language while then on the other hand use GolTV to support your argument which would only really be ordered by that same hardcore footy watcher.

I think what's important is that all TFC home games are broadcast on CBC while all Impact home games are broadcast on SRC (I believe), and CBC is generally more watched giving TFC a wider base to work from.

I addressed your point above in an edit.

Do you think that Montreal has the same level of exposure (among general soccer/sports fans) as TFC? That's what started this. I've suggested that TFC/MLS has a greater level of exposure. I'm being attacked for stating something that is pretty damn obvious.

Let me ask the question again: If you are a 12-year-old kid living in Moose Jaw with an interest in soccer (and no one older in your life to influence your thinking) is it more likely that you will start to follow TFC or Montreal based on the current exposure of both clubs?

the biologist

08-04-2009, 01:40 PM

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

If that's the case then, I think it's hard for you to argue on one hand how the French language broadcasts should be discounted because only the hardcore footy watcher would watch it in a different language while then on the other hand use GolTV to support your argument which would only really be ordered by that same hardcore footy watcher.

I think what's important is that all TFC home games are broadcast on CBC while all Impact home games are broadcast on SRC (I believe), and CBC is generally more watched giving TFC a wider base to work from.
Yes they are. And I totally agree with your point. Then again, I believe there's more little kids in Moose Jaw that can actually watch SRC than GolTV, maybe even Sportsnet.

Hey, during my childhood I watched so many games in english because I wanted to watch hockey. I understood sweet f*ck all but a goal is a goal. And you know what, I watched so many things in english, now I can express myself in Shakespeare's language. Maybe if you do the same with SRC...

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 01:46 PM

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

If that's the case then, I think it's hard for you to argue on one hand how the French language broadcasts should be discounted because only the hardcore footy watcher would watch it in a different language while then on the other hand use GolTV to support your argument which would only really be ordered by that same hardcore footy watcher.

I think what's important is that all TFC home games are broadcast on CBC while all Impact home games are broadcast on SRC (I believe), and CBC is generally more watched giving TFC a wider base to work from.
Yes they are. And I totally agree with your point. Then again, I believe there's more little kids in Moose Jaw that can actually watch SRC than GolTV, maybe even Sportsnet.

Hey, during my childhood I watched so many games in english because I wanted to watch hockey. I understood sweet f*ck all but a goal is a goal. And you know what, I watched so many things in english, now I can express myself in Shakespeare's language. Maybe if you do the same with SRC...

And I envy those in French Canada for that. It's not the same in English Canada though. It really, really isn't.

English Canadians very, very rarely watch French TV. We are undoubtedly lesser for that, but it doesn't make the situation any less true.

loyola

08-04-2009, 01:48 PM

From what I remember MTL has 12 games broadcast on National TV (SRC) while TFC has the same amount. That, to me, is equivalent exposure regardless of the language. Like the biologist said, soccer fans will watch a game no matter the language of the commentator.

Where TFC has more exposure is with the Sportsnet and GOLTV broadcast for their remaining games. Yes, those chanels aren't available like SRC/CBC but the people who are paying for it have more chance to get a TFC game than a MTL game. That's where the difference lie IMO.

Edit: I also want to add that the league they are playing in is also contributing to the exposure. From my personal experience most of my club teamates wouldn't be able to name the league MTL is playing in while they all know what the MLS is. I'm telling you that and I'm living in Quebec City which is a 2hrs 1/2 ride from MTL.

youllneverwalkalone

08-04-2009, 01:52 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy
English Canadians very, very rarely watch French TV. We are undoubtedly lesser for that, but it doesn't make the situation any less true.

Is this another one of these "FACTS" we keep hearing about so loudly?

I remember watching literally thousands of Expos games on French TV.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 01:54 PM

quote:Originally posted by loyola

From what I remember MTL has 12 games broadcast on National TV (SRC) while TFC has the same amount. That, to me, is equivalent exposure regardless of the language. Like the biologist said, soccer fans will watch a game no matter the language of the commentator.

Where TFC has more exposure is with the Sportsnet and GOLTV broadcast for their remaining games. Yes, those chanels aren't available like SRC/CBC but the people who are paying for it have more chance to get a TFC game than a MTL game. That's where the difference lie IMO.

Sporsnet is hardly a niche channel. It's in about 7 million households (so about 21 million canadians have access to it)

Rudi

08-04-2009, 01:59 PM

youllneverwalkalone

08-04-2009, 02:00 PM

^My point exactly. Duane doesn't watch French TV, hence neither do the rest of us.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 02:04 PM

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy
English Canadians very, very rarely watch French TV. We are undoubtedly lesser for that, but it doesn't make the situation any less true.

Is this another one of these "FACTS" we keep hearing about so loudly?

I remember watching literally thousands of Expos games on French TV.

Yes and your individual anecdote clearly negates all that I'm saying.

Outside of the core audience, how many people to you really think watch programming in a different language than they speak?

I’m essentially arguing that the sky is blue, but whatever.

Does anyone really think that TFC doesn’t have the highest profile of any club in the country.

I’m NOT saying they are the best club, or the coolest club, or the only club worth supporting – it’s your own defensiveness that goes there. I’m just suggesting that they have the most exposure. Forget the 12-year-old kid. Walk down to the street corner in Moose Jaw and ask 100 12-year-old kids to name a professional soccer team in Canada. Do you think the Montreal Impact are going to be the first thing that comes off their lips?

Jesus, seriously, why is it so hard to admit that TFC has the highest profile? It doesn’t make you less of a person, or less of a supporter of the game. It’s bloody common sense. Arguing against the idea is INSANE (hell, blame the Toronto media is you want. It doesn’t make it less true). The only place is the world where you could find anyone that believes that TFC doesn’t have a higher profile than Montreal or Vancouver is here at the Voyageurs.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 02:05 PM

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

^My point exactly. Duane doesn't watch French TV, hence neither do the rest of us.

And because you do everyone does?

(we could go around in this circle all day)

El Hombre

08-04-2009, 02:06 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

I addressed your point above in an edit.

Do you think that Montreal has the same level of exposure (among general soccer/sports fans) as TFC? That's what started this. I've suggested that TFC/MLS has a greater level of exposure. I'm being attacked for stating something that is pretty damn obvious.

Firstly, I don't think you're being attacked. You are in the unenviable position of having a widely-read blog. That means that what you write will be scrutinized more closely than something posted on a forum like this.

Secondly, I agree with your point. The problem is, you are doing a poor job of defending it. This is mostly due to assumptions you make which gets people's back up. Saying things like "English Canada doesn't watch French TV" is wrong. When I'm flipping through my cable channels, I check to see what on between channels 3 and 48 first. SRC is in that range, so if I see Impact vs. Rhinos de Rochester, I'll watch that and turn off the commentary (something that more and more people are doing these days). It happens with less frequency that I happen to come across channel 428 to see what GolTV is showing. So, in that instance, SRC actually is more available to me than GolTV. This same thing happens with hockey, champions league soccer, NFL football etc. And before you dismiss me as some sort of sports nutjob, most of my friends do the same thing. It all depends on who's showing what you want to see.

Your basic premise is correct, you just have to stop backing it up with sweeping generalizations. Compare CBC to SRC and there you have it.

Also, the thing with Sportsnet is that it isn't guaranteed in every basic cable package, like CBC and SRC are (not 100% sure on SRC, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 02:08 PM

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

^My point exactly. Duane doesn't watch French TV, hence neither do the rest of us.

And I do watch French TV. I'm just not delusional enough to think that my habits reflect what less obsessed soccer fans do.

loyola

08-04-2009, 02:09 PM

Duane, I'm not sure many here are arguing against your point, but many are picking on some claims you are making such as the one involving RDS and Impact and about english people not watching french TV.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 02:11 PM

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

I addressed your point above in an edit.

Do you think that Montreal has the same level of exposure (among general soccer/sports fans) as TFC? That's what started this. I've suggested that TFC/MLS has a greater level of exposure. I'm being attacked for stating something that is pretty damn obvious.

Firstly, I don't think you're being attacked. You are in the unenviable position of having a widely-read blog. That means that what you write will be scrutinized more closely than something posted on a forum like this.

Secondly, I agree with your point. The problem is, you are doing a poor job of defending it. This is mostly due to assumptions you make which gets people's back up. Saying things like "English Canada doesn't watch French TV" is wrong. When I'm flipping through my cable channels, I check to see what on between channels 3 and 48 first. SRC is in that range, so if I see Impact vs. Rhinos de Rochester, I'll watch that and turn off the commentary (something that more and more people are doing these days). It happens with less frequency that I happen to come across channel 428 to see what GolTV is showing. So, in that instance, SRC actually is more available to me than GolTV. This same thing happens with hockey, champions league soccer, NFL football etc. And before you dismiss me as some sort of sports nutjob, most of my friends do the same thing. It all depends on who's showing what you want to see.

Your basic premise is correct, you just have to stop backing it up with sweeping generalizations. Compare CBC to SRC and there you have it.

Also, the thing with Sportsnet is that it isn't guaranteed in every basic cable package, like CBC and SRC are (not 100% sure on SRC, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

Again you are making an individual anecdote. If I'm guilty of generalizing then so are you.

The ratings of French programming in English parts of the country suggest that most Canadians do not watch programming outside of their first language. Is that better?

If you disagree, then find me the facts to support your position. What are the Impact’s TV numbers?

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 02:14 PM

quote:Originally posted by loyola

Duane, I'm not sure many here are arguing against your point, but many are picking on some claims you are making such as the one involving RDS and Impact and about english people not watching french TV.

Honestly, look at the posts. I'm not the one that is making absolute statements. Clearly, I understand that there are exceptions. It's others that are holding up their habits as being reflective of the rest of the country (I watched Expos games so...).

Very, very rarely (which is what I said) isn't never.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 02:16 PM

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

Also, the thing with Sportsnet is that it isn't guaranteed in every basic cable package, like CBC and SRC are (not 100% sure on SRC, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

The 7 million number (and I think it's actually about 6.8 million to be precise) has been quoted by SN as the amount of homes they are in, not could be in.

TSN is in about 8 million.

El Hombre

08-04-2009, 02:20 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

Again you are making an individual anecdote. If I'm guilty of generalizing then so are you.

The ratings of French programming in English parts of the country suggest that most Canadians do not watch programming outside of their first language. Is that better?

If you disagree, then find me the facts to support your position. What are the Impact’s TV numbers?

frigg, man. You're not reading. [u]I agree with you</u>. However, I can clearly see how it is easy for others to pick apart your arguments and get you into these 5 page wank fests.

Get rid of the assumptions and generalizations that run contrary to your target audience (soccer fans across the country, I'm assuming) and you'll have less problems.

As for your Moose Jaw question, if the 12 year-old was one of the 450 Moose Javians who spoke only French at home as per the 2006 census, then he might just like the Impact more than TFC. [:p]

El Hombre

08-04-2009, 02:26 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

Also, the thing with Sportsnet is that it isn't guaranteed in every basic cable package, like CBC and SRC are (not 100% sure on SRC, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

The 7 million number (and I think it's actually about 6.8 million to be precise) has been quoted by SN as the amount of homes they are in, not could be in.

TSN is in about 8 million.

I don't doubt the number at all. I think the main point is that SRC and CBC are in [u]all</u> the homes.

the biologist

08-04-2009, 02:46 PM

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

When I'm flipping through my cable channels, I check to see what on between channels 3 and 48 first. SRC is in that range, so if I see Impact vs. Rhinos de Rochester, I'll watch that and turn off the commentary (something that more and more people are doing these days). It happens with less frequency that I happen to come across channel 428 to see what GolTV is showing. So, in that instance, SRC actually is more available to me than GolTV. This same thing happens with hockey, champions league soccer, NFL football etc. And before you dismiss me as some sort of sports nutjob, most of my friends do the same thing. It all depends on who's showing what you want to see.Amen. IF you REALLY want to check Impact games wherever you are in the country, you can. Everyone can. If I want to watch TFC games, I can watch CBC FOR "FREE" at home, but I can't watch them on SN & GolTV CAUSE I'M A STUDENT and Internet is about the only thing I can afford. So all in all, the number of TFC games available to me is no bigger than Impact's. I may be wrong but I assume there are many people in my situation ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

The point is, Impact games are available on Nat TV. Whether you watch french TV or not is not relevant here. When I'm flipping through channels, I don't skip CBC because it's in english. You could do the same.

Once you know we speak french in Québec, you can have a good idea about where Impact games can be seen. You got it, on french TV.

Rudi

08-04-2009, 02:52 PM

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

If I want to watch TFC games, I can watch CBC FOR "FREE" at home, but I can't watch them on SN & GolTV CAUSE I'M A STUDENT and Internet is about the only thing I can afford. So all in all, the number of TFC games available to me is no bigger than Impact's.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Whether it's available to you personally is not what is being discussed.

You can't just discount the millions of people that have Sportsnet. They count too, and when you add in Sportsnet to CBC's coverage, there are more TFC games available than Impact games.

That's the reality, there is no right or wrong about it. When Vancouver and Montreal join MLS, their coverage will increase as well. It's the nature of the beast.

the biologist

08-04-2009, 03:09 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

As for TV, by my count there will be 22 Impact games available on French TV - so easily accessible to about 7 million Canadians, less so to the other 25 million. I'm happy those games are on TV, but when you are talking about having a truly national footprint you need to be broadcasting in the language of the majority (To be clear I'm not suggesting that the Impact should broadcast in English as Quebec is a French society. Obviously they need to be broadcasting in French in PQ. But what we are arguing here is NATIONAL exposure). NO ONE outside of the hardcore fan watches a sporting event broadcasted in a language they don’t speak. We aren’t talking about getting the games out so a Voyageur can watch. We are talking about getting them out so your typical EPL-mostly football fan can (or, better yet, a kid that has yet to be influenced by Eurosnob attitudes.

The Impact are on national English TV three times this year. TFC 37. Again, how is that even close to being the same?

And because you do everyone does [watch french TV]?

And I do watch French TV. I'm just not delusional enough to think that my habits reflect what less obsessed soccer fans do.

The ratings of French programming in English parts of the country suggest that most Canadians do not watch programming outside of their first language. Is that better?

If you disagree, then find me the facts to support your position. What are the Impact’s TV numbers?Rudi, if you read carefully what MediaGuy said, you'd understand why I wrote my previous post. Nat TV games aren't 37 to 3 in favour of TO. It's about the same cause SRC is Nat TV. GolTV isn't.

youllneverwalkalone

08-04-2009, 04:08 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy
English Canadians very, very rarely watch French TV. We are undoubtedly lesser for that, but it doesn't make the situation any less true.

Is this another one of these "FACTS" we keep hearing about so loudly?

I remember watching literally thousands of Expos games on French TV.

Yes and your individual anecdote clearly negates all that I'm saying.

Outside of the core audience, how many people to you really think watch programming in a different language than they speak?

I’m essentially arguing that the sky is blue, but whatever.

Does anyone really think that TFC doesn’t have the highest profile of any club in the country.

I’m NOT saying they are the best club, or the coolest club, or the only club worth supporting – it’s your own defensiveness that goes there. I’m just suggesting that they have the most exposure. Forget the 12-year-old kid. Walk down to the street corner in Moose Jaw and ask 100 12-year-old kids to name a professional soccer team in Canada. Do you think the Montreal Impact are going to be the first thing that comes off their lips?

Jesus, seriously, why is it so hard to admit that TFC has the highest profile? It doesn’t make you less of a person, or less of a supporter of the game. It’s bloody common sense. Arguing against the idea is INSANE (hell, blame the Toronto media is you want. It doesn’t make it less true). The only place is the world where you could find anyone that believes that TFC doesn’t have a higher profile than Montreal or Vancouver is here at the Voyageurs.

El Hombre gave you an extremely (overly) kind opportunity to STFU. Nobody disagrees with your assertions that TFC is, for now, the biggest club in Canada. But your so-called "facts" to back this up are dubious. I honestly thought you would have some evidence to support your claim that Anglophones "very, very rarely" watch French TV. No matter how anecdotal, most of us, the insane Voyageurs who just live to crap all over TFC and Toronto, seem to agree that we'll watch sports in another language. I don't think this gives Montreal equal exposure, but it's an interesting counterpoint that isn't INSANE.

Regardless, my advice, show some more respect for the poeple who post here and you'll find it returned.

Grizzly

08-04-2009, 04:24 PM

Media Guy much of your arguing here shows what is wrong with your journalism as a whole. First of all you are completely dismissing/misinterpreting the criticism of you and then are changing the subject to argue other points. No one is denying that TFC has the most media exposure in Canada. In fact, this will probably be the case even when the other teams are in MLS. What we are stating that your following paragraph is both wrong in content and that even those parts that are technically right are written in a tone that implies something incorrect:

quote:I’ve been called arrogant for pointing out what seems to me to be obvious – TFC has a national TV contract and plays in front of 20,000 people weekly. The USL clubs do not have those things. They do have, of course, dedicated fans that care very deeply for them. There just aren’t enough of them, nor will there ever be when they are at the USL level. We’ve had 10 plus years of evidence to back up my contention.

The first part about the national tv contract is patently false. There is no argument about language or viewership numbers or available cable sports channels the statement is 100% false. Anyone in Canada with a tv and an antennae or cable or satellite can receive SRC and thus it is a national tv contract. The second part is technically true yet written in such a way that it doesn't read like a responsible journalist would write. A responsible journalist would portray the situation accurately and write something like: TFC is the only team that averages 20 000 fans per game but the Impact also get a very good average of close to 12 000 while Vancouver averages above 5 000 in a small stadium in a far away suburb. Instead you write it in a way that implies the Impact and Caps are getting really crappy small attendances. If someone unfamiliar with the USL teams were to read that they would have the impression that the two teams are getting attendance of 2 or 3 thousand.

Now your following quote is simply untrue and shows why you are such a poor journalist:

quote:By the way having contacts and access to information is EXACTLY what makes a journalist. The old adage taught in j-school is that you are only as good as your sources.

Yes it is important to have sources and access to information but that is only the first step. It is even more important to be able to present this information in as non-biased a manner as possible and when drawing conclusions and making analysis of such information to do so in a fair and logical way. I do not see that at all in your posts on this forum, your blog entries or your podcasts. Instead we get someone who often has his facts wrong (and won't even admit it when this is pointed out), is extremely and I mean EXTREMELY Toronto centric and TFC/MLS biased and who comes off as pompous and arrogant. Yes there are sportscasters and journalists who have made a career out of this and if that is your intent go to it but don't wonder when a large number of posters here dislike you and your style of journalism. Honestly, is there any better summary of your style of posting here and journalistic writing than you starting off a post that is intended to reconcile with me by stating, "We have a mutual friend who tells me that this internet tough guy stuff you spout on here is really just an act". Yes insulting people is always the best way to reconcile with them.http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/2006.gif

Rudi

08-04-2009, 04:32 PM

Grizzly, what MG writes in here is NOT an example of his journalism.

He doesn't have to pander to or overly explain such trivial things as USL attendance here, as the overwhelming majority of people on this site already know that themselves.

Just because he is a working journalist, that does not mean that all of his posts have to be held to some journalistic standard that no one else here is subject to. He's been a V's member for as long as I can remember, and as such has the right to post as casually as everyone else.

Grizzly

08-04-2009, 04:44 PM

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Grizzly, what MG writes in here is NOT an example of his journalism.

He doesn't have to pander to or overly explain such trivial things as USL attendance here, as the overwhelming majority of people on this site already know that themselves.

Just because he is a working journalist, that does not mean that all of his posts have to be held to some journalistic standard that no one else here is subject to. He's been a V's member for as long as I can remember, and as such has the right to post as casually as everyone else.

First of all, the quote that is at dispute right now is not from this forum but from his blog which appears to be his main journalistic outlet and should indeed be representative of his journalistic standard. Secondly, he promotes his blog and various journalistic activities here so I would not say that he comes on here as a mere casual poster. He could always post under an anonymous name if he wanted to avoid criticism. Thirdly about his right to post casually here in principle you are right but I doubt many journalists would agree with not maintaining a certain standard of professionalism. Every profession has a standard and those who practice it usually try to uphold it whatever the situation. As a professional musician I still try to play to a high level when I am playing casual, non-paid events even though it is not a concert with a paying public. Most of the people I respect of any profession have a similar outlook.

Duane Rollins

08-04-2009, 04:50 PM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

Media Guy much of your arguing here shows what is wrong with your journalism as a whole. First of all you are completely dismissing/misinterpreting the criticism of you and then are changing the subject to argue other points. Noone is denying that TFC has the most media exposure in Canada. In fact, this will probably be the case even when the other teams are in MLS. What we are stating that your following paragraph is both wrong in content and that even those parts that are technically right are written in a tone that implies something incorrect:

quote:I’ve been called arrogant for pointing out what seems to me to be obvious – TFC has a national TV contract and plays in front of 20,000 people weekly. The USL clubs do not have those things. They do have, of course, dedicated fans that care very deeply for them. There just aren’t enough of them, nor will there ever be when they are at the USL level. We’ve had 10 plus years of evidence to back up my contention.

The first part about the national tv contract is patently false. There is no argument about language or viewership numbers or available cable sports channels the statement is 100% false. Anyone in Canada with a tv and an antennae or cable or satellite can receive SRC and thus it is a national tv contract. The second part is technically true yet written in such a way that it doesn't read like a responsible journalist would write. A responsible journalist would portray the situation accurately and write something like: TFC is the only team that averages 20 000 fans per game but the Impact also get a very good average of close to 12 000 while Vancouver averages above 5 000 in a small stadium in a far away suburb. Instead you write it in a way that implies the Impact and Caps are getting really crappy small attendances. If someone unfamiliar with the USL teams were to read that they would have the impression that the two teams are getting attendance of 2 or 3 thousand.

Now your following quote is simply untrue and shows why you are such a poor journalist:

quote:By the way having contacts and access to information is EXACTLY what makes a journalist. The old adage taught in j-school is that you are only as good as your sources.

Yes it is important to have sources and access to information but that is only the first step. It is even more important to be able to present this information in as non-biased a manner as possible and when drawing conclusions and making analysis of such information to do so in a fair and logical way. I do not see that at all in your posts on this forum, your blog entries or your podcasts. Instead we get someone who often has his facts wrong (and won't even admit it when this is pointed out), is extremely and I mean EXTREMELY Toronto centric and TFC/MLS biased and who comes off as pompous and arrogant. Yes there are sportscasters and journalists who have made a career out of this and if that is your intent go to it but don't wonder when a large number of posters here dislike you and your style of journalism. Honestly, is there any better summary of your style of posting here and journalistic writing than you starting off a post that is intended to reconcile with me by stating, "We have a mutual friend who tells me that this internet tough guy stuff you spout on here is really just an act". Yes insulting people is always the best way to reconcile with them.http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/2006.gif

No one is two words.

Have a nice day.

nazzer

08-04-2009, 04:56 PM

Grizzly

08-04-2009, 05:00 PM

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

If the mods wouldn't be threatening me and Grizzly with banning everytime we respond to each other, as they are in fact doing, I would agree fully with his last post. But I can't. I am not allowed.

:D

(I hope I don't get banned for that smiley!)

I'll take the bait.

Going to interrupt this topic for a minute, whether that's okay with everyone or not, to ask both you gentlemen a question.

Where you fellows approached by the mods with an opportunity to have the no-contact restriction lifted but declined to do so? Twice I believe?

Respond here, privately. Whichever you prefer.

Or don't.

Because the new mods, at what seems to be your pathetic after-the-fact prompting, started threatening us with a ban because we AGREED with each other rather amicably on a thread.

And of course no one in their right mind is going to agree to that, I am glad Grizzly felt the same way I did about it.

If we get out of line again in the same extreme way, fine, ban us, give us a week or two, we both have other things we can do. We can live with it. But if we are agreeing with each other, or just making observations about question not concerning us personally on the same thread, don't send us these pompous threats in the name of Cheeta.

According to this assinine state of things Grizzly should not post on the Julian's Future threads I start, and I should not post about the Impact pretty well ever.

Instead of the new mods thinking for themselves, Cheeta is still moderating through them. Mods, think for yourselves and stop letting Cheeta in the same half-ass, partial way he did before.

What the new mods should do, instead of just blindly and irrationally following Cheeta's badly construed criteria, is just wipe the slate clean. They did it for his botched moderating jobs, they can do it for the botched attempts at forum discussion Grizzly and I fell into a few months ago.

Instead of sending us threat mail.

I already responded in private about this issue several weeks ago (to no effect apparently) so I will basically repeat what I wrote at that time. Jeffrey and I had some disputes some time ago which while I won't deny our own personal responsibility also occurred in large part because Cheetah was not properly moderating the forum. Cheetah then informed us that we were forbidden to respond to each other on any threads and would be banned if we did. I told him at the time that he should do a better job of moderating the forum and that as long as I was a member of this forum I would respond to whoever I wanted including Jeffrey and if he wanted to try banning me for this then go ahead. Subsequently, Jeffrey and I have at times responded to each other and nothing was mentioned about it until the new mods took over when it was pointed out that we were breaking the rules on a thread in which we were actually agreeing with each other.

So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted. If the mods want to lift it on their own or want to ban me for breaking it that is their own choice. As long as Jeffrey and I don't break the other legitimate rules of the forum that I do respect I don't see the purpose of the communications ban. I fully intend to respond to Jeffrey and any other poster here whenever I want to regardless of the official status of this ridiculous communications ban and judging from his responses above Jeffrey has the same intention.

Grizzly

08-04-2009, 05:04 PM

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy
No one is two words.

Have a nice day.

Indeed it is two words and I have corrected it. Some people do admit it when they make an error.

youllneverwalkalone

08-04-2009, 05:13 PM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly
So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted.

Grizzly cannot be banned. That is too funny. :D

I am a little hurt that I wasn't even threatened. I guess I'm getting old. For future reference, if you've got a blacklist I want to be on it!

Grizzly

08-04-2009, 05:15 PM

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly
So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted.

Grizzly cannot be banned. That is too funny. :D

I am a little hurt that I wasn't even threatened. I guess I'm getting old. For future reference, if you've got a blacklist I want to be on it!

Now had they banned me from communicating with you that I would have understood! Hey Jeffrey never threatened me with the ICF! (Hope that makes you feel better!):D

Jeffery S.

08-04-2009, 05:18 PM

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

If the mods wouldn't be threatening me and Grizzly with banning everytime we respond to each other, as they are in fact doing, I would agree fully with his last post. But I can't. I am not allowed.

:D

(I hope I don't get banned for that smiley!)

I'll take the bait.

Going to interrupt this topic for a minute, whether that's okay with everyone or not, to ask both you gentlemen a question.

Where you fellows approached by the mods with an opportunity to have the no-contact restriction lifted but declined to do so? Twice I believe?

Respond here, privately. Whichever you prefer.

Or don't.

Because the new mods, at what seems to be your pathetic after-the-fact prompting, started threatening us with a ban because we AGREED with each other rather amicably on a thread.

And of course no one in their right mind is going to agree to that, I am glad Grizzly felt the same way I did about it.

If we get out of line again in the same extreme way, fine, ban us, give us a week or two, we both have other things we can do. We can live with it. But if we are agreeing with each other, or just making observations about question not concerning us personally on the same thread, don't send us these pompous threats in the name of Cheeta.

According to this assinine state of things Grizzly should not post on the Julian's Future threads I start, and I should not post about the Impact pretty well ever.

Instead of the new mods thinking for themselves, Cheeta is still moderating through them. Mods, think for yourselves and stop letting Cheeta in the same half-ass, partial way he did before.

What the new mods should do, instead of just blindly and irrationally following Cheeta's badly construed criteria, is just wipe the slate clean. They did it for his botched moderating jobs, they can do it for the botched attempts at forum discussion Grizzly and I fell into a few months ago.

Instead of sending us threat mail.

I already responded in private about this issue several weeks ago (to no effect apparently) so I will basically repeat what I wrote at that time. Jeffrey and I had some disputes some time ago which while I won't deny our own personal responsibility also occurred in large part because Cheetah was not properly moderating the forum. Cheetah then informed us that we were forbidden to respond to each other on any threads and would be banned if we did. I told him at the time that he should do a better job of moderating the forum and that as long as I was a member of this forum I would respond to whoever I wanted including Jeffrey and if he wanted to try banning me for this then go ahead. Subsequently, Jeffrey and I have at times responded to each other and nothing was mentioned about it until the new mods took over when it was pointed out that we were breaking the rules on a thread in which we were actually agreeing with each other.

So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted. If the mods want to lift it on their own or want to ban me for breaking it that is their own choice. As long as Jeffrey and I don't break the other legitimate rules of the forum that I do respect I don't see the purpose of the communications ban. I fully intend to respond to Jeffrey and any other poster here whenever I want to regardless of the official status of this ridiculous communications ban and judging from his responses above Jeffrey has the same intention.

First, Grizzly probably expresses this better than I, but here is my take on a new thread:
http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20068

Second, without consulting each other at all over the last few months we have come to the same conclusion, and independently refused to accept the terms for the ban threat to be lifted.

Finally, there is no doubt we went too far in posts on a specific topic, but that was months ago. We are not alone in such behaviour on board, though I would like to know how many other long-time posters have been under a 3 month ban threat.

We agree on a lot and disagree strongly as well, but I don't think we should be singled out. And I don't think, as I say on the other thread, that the new mods should be sharing personal private messages related to their work as mods to third parties who have nothing to do with what is being discussed (passing on private messages sent by mods to Jeffrey S. and Grizzly to Cheeta).

That is a serious error and you better damn well address it as it is totally unacceptable. Because if you don't as far as I am concerned you might as well resign and we can start again.

PS. Technically you should ban me for posting a reply on Grizzly's post.

earlimus

08-04-2009, 06:18 PM

I'm hereby banning myself from this website for a week. I like to use this website to help alleviate the burden that every team that I support, be it country or club, pretty much sucks. It's a nice break from reality, where I can chat about crap with other soccer nerds. I like it. I also like freedom of speech, but there's a difference between solid discussion and flinging ****.

One other thing, I really haven't read too much by Mediaguy, but if you don't like the self promotion being done on this site (which is also done by others, and is in every way related to Canadian soccer), respond to it when it happens, don't fling **** just because others are doing it. Grow some balls.

I also maintain the right to unban myself.

dsqpr

08-04-2009, 07:34 PM

quote:Originally posted by squizz

Wait... am I seeing TFC, Whitecaps and Impact fans (or at least, a very small sampling of them) agreeing, somewhat, on a common issue? No name-calling, no petty regionalism, no useless baiting... where am I? Did the Voyageurs board move?

(awaiting subsequent posts that will make me eat my words...)

Would you like the salt and pepper? [}:)]

El Hombre

08-04-2009, 07:59 PM

<mod>
Alright, a couple things:

1) Jeffrey and Grizzly: you've both now had your grievances made public. As I said earlier, I hope that this will suffice and that we can put this issue to rest, in public, at least. I believe that this all should've been kept private, but you've both now had your say. If you wish to continue this, we can do it somewhere else more appropriate.

2) Jeffrey (and anyone else curious): The content of personal private messages are kept private. However, rarely do mods act alone and most of the time, come to an agreement on the best way forward before acting. Any action taken is usually a group effort decided [u]between mods</u> (ie. not at the request of former mods). Therefore, if follow-up action is required, a mod will ask the advice of other mods on how to proceed or give an update. This is so that there is some consistency in the board moderation. But, any private messages sent to me remain private and are not posted for all to see or forwarded to anyone else. I'd like to think that any action we've taken so far has been respectful and would hope that we would receive the same in turn.

3) Earlimus: You are not alone in being fed up with the mudslinging. I hope that you've noticed that we've tried to step in on certain threads before things got out of control. One of the things we all agreed on was that that crap was making this board a pain to read. We are doing our best but we're also learning.

4) With any changeover, there's going to be some growing pains. I'm hoping that this is what we are going through now. It's good that it's coming at a time where there is relatively little to discuss. Please bear with us. Once again, if you want to discuss a point, feel free to message me.

Now, I'd really like to get back to talking about something at least tangentially related to soccer.
</mod>

Macksam

08-04-2009, 09:39 PM

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

What he's saying has merit. No one outside the hardcore fan is going to watch a sport in another language.

Most footy fans are hardcore so that's not an issue.

Macksam

08-04-2009, 09:41 PM

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

If that's the case then, I think it's hard for you to argue on one hand how the French language broadcasts should be discounted because only the hardcore footy watcher would watch it in a different language while then on the other hand use GolTV to support your argument which would only really be ordered by that same hardcore footy watcher.

I think what's important is that all TFC home games are broadcast on CBC while all Impact home games are broadcast on SRC (I believe), and CBC is generally more watched giving TFC a wider base to work from.

Hey, during my childhood I watched so many games in english because I wanted to watch hockey. I understood sweet f*ck all but a goal is a goal. And you know what, I watched so many things in english, now I can express myself in Shakespeare's language. Maybe if you do the same with SRC...

I hear you, TLN is one of my favourite channels.

squizz

08-04-2009, 09:58 PM

quote:Originally posted by dsqpr

quote:Originally posted by squizz

Wait... am I seeing TFC, Whitecaps and Impact fans (or at least, a very small sampling of them) agreeing, somewhat, on a common issue? No name-calling, no petty regionalism, no useless baiting... where am I? Did the Voyageurs board move?

(awaiting subsequent posts that will make me eat my words...)

Would you like the salt and pepper? [}:)]

Ha ha, I like the devil face, as if it's my fault. I didn't put the baking soda and vinegar together, I just said the volcano was probably about to erupt.

Maybe Toronto's elimination will put this particular brand of inanity to bed for a while? Maybe?

(boy, my words sure are delicious, I think I'll eat some more...)

Cheeta

08-04-2009, 11:05 PM

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly
So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted.

Grizzly cannot be banned. That is too funny. :D

I am a little hurt that I wasn't even threatened. I guess I'm getting old. For future reference, if you've got a blacklist I want to be on it!

Get your own material.

But if it makes you feel better, The Voyageur Gestapo already has a file on you. Big Brother is watching.

(I kid, I kid. Or do I?)

Cheeta

08-05-2009, 12:32 AM

Oh, and as much as this topic should die after tonight it has up to this point shown a mutating survival instinct which is quite surprising so Grizzly, Jeffrey S let us not bore those who are interested in other topics and move the now public conversation concerning your forum restrictions to Jeffrey S' topic below*.

Seems a more appropriate place.

*http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20068

SthMelbRed

08-05-2009, 02:22 AM

quote:Originally posted by Rudi
I know you're piling on to the anti-MG bandwagon here (because, of course, he supports TFC), but please don't be intentionally dense in doing so.

I have to call bull**** on this claim. I suspect that more than half of the posters on this board admit to some affinity for TFC. Not all of them attract the same disdain as MediaGuy. If people are mounting a coordinated, unjustified campaign against Duane Rollins solely because of his open support for TFC, why isn't BrennanFan (random TFC supporting Voyageur) being chased by an unruly mob of torch-wielding thugs? It may just be that between the two posters, one came out all arrogant and condescending and the other is just a regular guy who loves football. Perhaps making bold claims to being the most knowledgeable guy in the country on MLS expansion, ridiculing other posters who disagreed with him, and ultimately getting it all horribly wrong is not a better way to make friends than being respectful and getting us all a very nice scarf.

youllneverwalkalone

08-05-2009, 09:49 AM

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly
So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted.

Grizzly cannot be banned. That is too funny. :D

I am a little hurt that I wasn't even threatened. I guess I'm getting old. For future reference, if you've got a blacklist I want to be on it!

Get your own material.

But if it makes you feel better, The Voyageur Gestapo already has a file on you. Big Brother is watching.

(I kid, I kid. Or do I?)

Not trying to pass that off as mine, thank you. I'm not sure what your problem is? I guess responding with a smiley to the evil evil Grizzly? Well, whatever, I personally have never criticized your moderation. Or anything else that you've written big boy. Back off.