There is no stands or cover from the elements for the spectators at Toronto's Lamport Stadium does this stadium meet the RFL minimum standards criteria for a professional rugby league ground?

Think we all know the standards will go out the window. London's park standard ground will be passed too. Then again Wakefield have got away with Belle Vue for all this time

Oh some people might get wet.

Stay safe Torontarians.

But three and a quarter sides under cover, hardly a fair comparison to Toronto and London.

In two seasons, there's only been one occasion when it rained at match time. Even then, the rain stopped just before kick-off. (Yes, we have that super power.) It does rain in Toronto in summer but it's not the drizzly English kind of rain. Given that we watch Toronto FC in the snow, I think we know to bring a rain mac if it's going to rain and a coat if it's going to be cold.

Wolfpack have been very clear that we're staying at Lamport. No doubt there will be some improvements, but the stadium is owned by the city of Toronto and so any changes have to be negotiated.

It cold and wrse than that in the summer they might get sunburnt.


Maybe. We should do a collection to buy them all. Umbrellas sun screen and waterproofs.

I cannot wait for the first fans from Wigan etc to go over and complain about rain !1

The question was does the Lamport Stadium meet the required minimum standards criteria issued by the RFL

They're well used to rain at the DW. However, if the pies aren't up to scratch, you WILL get complaints - big time!

I suppose if it a problem in the future there are alternatives available in Toronto not that I think it will be the case it’s the pitch I don’t like with all the different markings it reminds me of school

Is there a requirement to have part covered though? I know there is for seating. Lets be honest, i don't think even the SL chairman who hate Toronto dare try block them on a technicality of the stadium when you look at thr state of some in SL.

Well both Dewsbury and Hunslet were refused entry to Superleague due to stadium issues including capacity and seating etc as well as lack of attributable finance so a precedent has been well set.

Castleford and Wakefield have been constantly threatened with demotion if they don’t deliver a new ground and either London who’s ground looks like something you’d play on at a sports centre 3,000 capacity and Toronto who have barrier less terraces (sorry they ain’t seats), looks like it is only part constructed, a crazily marked pitch, less than 10,000 capacity and nothing behind the goals will get automatically promoted?

Oh I forget RL has a life changing North American TV deal??

Sorry but Fred Carno’s Circus looks more sensible than this and don’t say London will rent a ground when needed or Toronto will play there games in The UK.

All this and one team that can’t play at home for almost a quarter of the season... and they said you can’t replace the Chuckle Brothers

Scroll down the link below which lists of populations of UK towns & cities and you will see how many there are with populations above 50,000 that dont have a professional Rugby League team. worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... on/cities/

Scroll down the link below which lists of populations of UK towns & cities and you will see how many there are with populations above 50,000 that dont have a professional Rugby League team. worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... on/cities/

Never mind the surroundings, that pitch they play on should not be allowed in SL. They should be made to change the markings. And it’s very questionable whether that pitch is wide enough!

Anfield pitch wasnt to RL and international requirements, do you think the rfl will question toronto on that?


as for fans complaining about the rain, did clubs like bradford in their glory days get 18000 fans into the seating stand? no



stop grasping at straws and looking for faults, it is what it is....get on with it

Lamport has been approved by the RFL for Super League, with some modifications. I don't personally know what those mods are, but Lamport is in a fantastic location in the city and one of the main reasons we can attract so many fans. Speculate all you like, but if we make SL we're staying at Lamport, end of.

It's a brand new G4 pitch. Ask the players, they'll tell you it's way better than the pitch at Widnes, who also play in SL. Oh wait ...

Lamport is a community pitch used by local sports teams for football and lacrosse as well as rugby. Just stop moaning about the markings, we can't change them as long as the city owns the ground.

Wolfpack will tell you that they've looked at all the possible alternatives. They looked at renting BMO Field early in the season and would have had to pay an astronomical rental fee. There's nothing remotely close to downtown that is affordable to rent and that has the right kind of goalposts (that is, not gridiron goalposts.) Wolfpack have recently said that they are staying at Lamport and will make improvements if required, working with the city of Toronto who own it.

Wolfpack aren't going to move to a rugby ground 30 miles out of town and dump all their downtown fan base in order to satisfy UK TV viewers who don't like the pitch markings.

Hull City and Wigan Athletic are made to paint over the football markings on their pitch before Hull and Wigan can play rugby on them.

That pitch in Toronto looks bloody terrible and is a distraction to what’s going on in the game.

It's not paint, it's coloured plastic. We would have to rebuild the pitch every game. The players don't have any trouble with the markings and nor should you.

In the recent game v Widnes a kick went up in the air and the Widnes winger planted his foot behind the goal line to take it on the full for a 20m restart, only it wasn't the try line but some sort of Lacrosse end of pitch line about 1m in front of the try line. I wouldn't say that was the players coping with it.

On the Widnes pitch they manage to "paint" over the other lines on it before each game, be that football or rugby, surely Toronto can do the same?

Surely they haven't laid separate colours of AstroTurf down for the different markings have they - that sounds bonkers

What if some of the players are colour blind?

If it's so hi-tech then there should be a way of sorting it out. It's confusing for the players, TV viewers and the folk watching in the ground. From what I've seen, every ground in the UK has to mask out the lines from other sports before a different game is played. It's not always brilliantly successful, but there's at least a decent chance of the players being able to differentiate between the markings.

Quote ="GeoffRoebuck"Scroll down the link below which lists of populations of UK towns & cities and you will see how many there are with populations above 50,000 that dont have a professional Rugby League team. worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... on/cities/'" Wow, what's that got to do with whether stadiums have a covered stand or not?

Quote ="GeoffRoebuck"Scroll down the link below which lists of populations of UK towns & cities and you will see how many there are with populations above 50,000 that dont have a professional Rugby League team. worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... on/cities/'" Wow, what's that got to do with whether stadiums have a covered stand or not?

I do have a problem with the pitch markings. Watching on tv the miriad of lines makes it very confusing. A player last week on catching a high ball thought he had his back foot over the dead ball line, unfortunately he didn't.