beachesl Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Topic Page: 1 2 3 of 3 Daniel Paris France 2398 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 17:46:31 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are the terms for the exclusivity deal given to MLSE and the Toronto stadium, as read in Quebec Soccer: - MLSE will have exclusive territorial rights for all of Canada up to and including the 2009 season. From 2010 and on, it will be restricted to Ontario. - The CSA must present 6 national team games every year at the Toronto stadium (this includes all ages and both genders - however, we don't know how a qualifying tournament might be counted). - The 6-a-year deal has been signed for 2007 through, get this, 2026! Someone's gonna have to scramble come WCQ10 time... By the way, two demands MLSE made that were refused: - Compensation for player call-ups to the national team - Have the national team technical staff as its own (coaches, trainers, etc.) David C. Toronto Canada 377 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 18:03:57 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They forgot to ask for a percentage of all transfer payments, involving all Canadian players, retroactive to 1985. Andrew W Olds Canada 962 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 18:26:50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you provide a link please (if one exists) or was it from the paper version. What I'm interested in is whether or not this is confirmed by a reliable source (like a CSA memo or CSA or MLSE/MLS official), opined by the writer or told to him by Joey Saputo or someone else with an axe to grind. Thanks Daniel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - Andrew W on 11/09/2005 18:30:29 Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 21:05:39 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Daniel Here are the terms for the exclusivity deal given to MLSE and the Toronto stadium, as read in Quebec Soccer: - MLSE will have exclusive territorial rights for all of Canada up to and including the 2009 season. From 2010 and on, it will be restricted to Ontario. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am wondering if there is more to this in terms of what it entails, as it seems likely to be somewhat moot. If it just means that no other Canadian organization can join the MLS until 2010, it sounds like, at most, a year delay for another team. Nobody else is ready or interested for 2007 expansion anyway, and the next one isn't scheduled until 2009, or possibly (by the sound of this) 2010. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - The CSA must present 6 national team games every year at the Toronto stadium (this includes all ages and both genders - however, we don't know how a qualifying tournament might be counted). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sounds good to me, though not hard to do when you add women to the mix & all the age levels. Hopefully that will encourage more friendlies. What needs to be done is to ensure that it isn't Toronto getting all the games of course, but with all age groups & genders we should have far more than 6 home games per year. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - The 6-a-year deal has been signed for 2007 through, get this, 2026! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even better! quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, two demands MLSE made that were refused: - Compensation for player call-ups to the national team - Have the national team technical staff as its own (coaches, trainers, etc.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good on the CSA for that. I'm assuming they were "requests" then "demands" though, as if they were the latter presumably the deal would never have been done. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - Gian-Luca on 11/09/2005 21:07:28 Gordon Saskatoon Canada 1590 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 21:45:40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gian-Luca I am wondering if there is more to this in terms of what it entails, as it seems likely to be somewhat moot. If it just means that no other Canadian organization can join the MLS until 2010, it sounds like, at most, a year delay for another team. Nobody else is ready or interested for 2007 expansion anyway, and the next one isn't scheduled until 2009, or possibly (by the sound of this) 2010. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, but there is the pre-expansion period in which a franchise is awarded and existing but not playing on the field. For example, if Greg Kerfoot had an interest in 2009 or 2010, that is now impossible without some sort of compensation to MLSE. As it stands, the earliest Vancouver can get a frachise up and running is 2011 without such payment. As in, Toronto is awared a 2007 franchise in 2005. This is the stinkiest part of the whole deal as it does two things: It allows MLSE to pillage another market that might want to get into MLS in the near future, (and it is at the very least possible that Kerfoot might want in sometime in the next 5 years) by forcing a fee to be paid for the rights to their own market, or worse, gives MLSE the exclusive right to develop a franchise in Vancouver which would be the ultimate fricking insult to both Kerfoot and the community. The Toronto deal came together in less than a year, but Vancouver, with far more going for it is effectively barred for at least 6 years or forced to tithe MLSE for no good reason to move before that. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. This deal ensures that soccer in this country will stagnate in a position only marginally better than it was in 2004. So forgive me if I can't get excited about MLSE or MLS. Deals like this shows that soccer in this country is and almost certainly will remain a rudderless ship, where an incompetent adminsitration consistently puts up roadblocks to even the slightest possibility of positive action. For greatsakes, we all deserve better than this Andy Sharpe! And I can tell you that at the most recent Saskatchewan Soccer Association Meeting Mr. Sharpe told me personally that he would not allow any sort of national territorial rights for the MLS team in Toronto. I mean, if we are going to go down this path, why the great put up roadblocks? Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 21:58:05 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gordon Ah, but there is the pre-expansion period in which a franchise is awarded and existing but not playing on the field. For example, if Greg Kerfoot had an interest in 2009 or 2010, that is now impossible without some sort of compensation to MLSE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well its difficult to say from this report of a report that isn't even official which is all we have to go on - but I didn't see anything which says that a team can't bid for a team to start in 2010. The wording makes it sound to me as though they have the rights to own & operate an MLS franchise until & including the 2009 season - when after that it will just be for Ontario. I think we need to wait to see what is official before drawing any conclusions on this point, but the use of the word "season" suggests to me we are talking about the operation of a team for that year (aka season), and not the ability to apply for one for 2010, which you are referring to. Daniel Paris France 2398 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 22:05:44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These informations were in the paper version and come from the president of the QSF (with documents), who voted on the deal. The big thing I mind isn't so much the MLS or the 6-a-year (the more the better), but rather the 20-year deal. This means that for the next 20 years, no matter what happens, we'll be seeing the bulk of national team games played in Toronto. THAT hinders the development of the game across the country. In the past 6 years, with the few we've played on home soil, we've had games in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. G-Man east side Canada 632 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 22:20:58 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Daniel These informations were in the paper version and come from the president of the QSF (with documents), who voted on the deal. The big thing I mind isn't so much the MLS or the 6-a-year (the more the better), but rather the 20-year deal. This means that for the next 20 years, no matter what happens, we'll be seeing the bulk of national team games played in Toronto. THAT hinders the development of the game across the country. In the past 6 years, with the few we've played on home soil, we've had games in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the city that has done the least to support pro soccer amoung the big 3 gets rewarded for it's pro team drawing 2300 per game. Sick. Stick a temp grass surface on McGill and reward the fans that came out with at least ONE game every 14 years. Sicker. Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 22:22:50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Daniel The big thing I mind isn't so much the MLS or the 6-a-year (the more the better), but rather the 20-year deal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This seems a bit inconsistent to me. You are okay with 6 national team games for all ages & genders to be played in Toronto a year, but not for this to last over a 20 year period? I don't get it. Are you saying then that we should play a few games in Toronto over the next few years, make it a success there and then mainly ignore the city after that? I highly doubt the CSA are going to ignore the rest of the country from now on. Weather will prevent the Toronto stadium being used for any dates between November & April. The next time we host youth/women qualifiers or friendlies in January to March (like we've done many times in the past), they are all going to out west (like they have done in the past), because they don't really have much choice about it. I also suspect Vancouver, Montreal & Edmonton with their grass stadiums will get games for that reason, which Toronto apparently won't have. So even if they want to screw the rest of the country and not grow the game elsewhere (which I'm doubting they want to do). You missed Kingston by the way in your list. dbailey62 333 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 22:24:08 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gian-Luca quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gordon Ah, but there is the pre-expansion period in which a franchise is awarded and existing but not playing on the field. For example, if Greg Kerfoot had an interest in 2009 or 2010, that is now impossible without some sort of compensation to MLSE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well its difficult to say from this report of a report that isn't even official which is all we have to go on - but I didn't see anything which says that a team can't bid for a team to start in 2010. The wording makes it sound to me as though they have the rights to own & operate an MLS franchise until & including the 2009 season - when after that it will just be for Ontario. I think we need to wait to see what is official before drawing any conclusions on this point, but the use of the word "season" suggests to me we are talking about the operation of a team for that year (aka season), and not the ability to apply for one for 2010, which you are referring to. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I tend to agree with G-L. Neither MLS nor MLSE would want Gordon's scenario to occur. I would think that MLSE is droooooling over the possibility of the rivalries. It's only a three year window based on what we're reading from Daniel. There's nothing there that say they can't apply before 2010 for a team in the 2010 season. They'd probably be applying in 2008 if not earlier. db Ed Calgary Canada 1361 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 22:25:38 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you (Daniel) saying that the provincial associations apparently voted on this? I'm sure ol' Sharpie will be in for some heat in BC if this is all valid. I can't imagine the ASA or BCSA seeing anything positive for soccer in the West in this. I guess Toronto's a lock for the fabulous Jeux de Francophonie. I would imagine the coaches will be real happy to tell their players that they will be playing virtually all games in Canada on Fieldturf. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - Ed on 11/09/2005 22:27:45 morrison Toronto 50 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 22:28:57 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- pfft... all 100 000 of us french-canadian TO residents, yeah -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - morrison on 11/09/2005 22:29:34 Daniel Paris France 2398 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 22:34:48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GL: I'm ok with breaking-in the stadium a bit and rebuilding a certain market for national team games in Toronto, but 20 years is ridiculous. Think back to 1985 and where we were and now. I also don't have much confidence that we'll see many games outside of Toronto. The odd grass-or-bust (WCQ?) games and maybe some rare winter Q's, but with 6 games to provide for TO, the CSA will have its plate full. As for the CSA vote, it was voted in 9-3, with the 3 opposed being QC, BC and the pro clubs. The QC pres called up the other associations and they also thought it was ridiculous, but no one spoke up during the conference call except the 3. Andrew W Olds Canada 962 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 22:49:57 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this is all accurate I'm sure it will be relatively soon that we hear from the Duze in Vancouver and (unfortunately) from Saputo in Montreal. Anyone know Davidson's email at CP? Maybe he could dig something up, as well. BTW, when was this vote taken? Gordon Saskatoon Canada 1590 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 23:02:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 I tend to agree with G-L. Neither MLS nor MLSE would want Gordon's scenario to occur. I would think that MLSE is droooooling over the possibility of the rivalries. It's only a three year window based on what we're reading from Daniel. There's nothing there that say they can't apply before 2010 for a team in the 2010 season. They'd probably be applying in 2008 if not earlier. db -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please, all I hear is about how insignificant canadian rivalries are for Toronto, Now MLSE is drooling over them? If your suggestion is true, why is there any sort of national territorial rights as part of this deal? Give me one plausible reason why MLSE needs a 6+ year exclusivity to all of Canada? I mean, I know it isn't because MLSE is worried about all their fans in Winnipeg choosing to attend midweek games in Vancouver due to its closer proximity. And please don't bother with Sponsorship because Toronto, by virtue of its size is going to get every national account in any event. Nobody is going to sponsor the Whitecaps who would have otherwise sponsored the Black Squirrels. OK, Lets be blunt, the only plausible reason MLSE wants this is to ensure that there is no competition for Canadian Players and thus lower their operating costs for 6-8 rather than 4 years. Anyone who thinks MLSE could give a damn about another MLS team in Canada - unless it is one they own and can profit from is dreaming IMO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - Gordon on 11/09/2005 23:06:56 dbailey62 333 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 23:17:50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gordon quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 I tend to agree with G-L. Neither MLS nor MLSE would want Gordon's scenario to occur. I would think that MLSE is droooooling over the possibility of the rivalries. It's only a three year window based on what we're reading from Daniel. There's nothing there that say they can't apply before 2010 for a team in the 2010 season. They'd probably be applying in 2008 if not earlier. db -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please, all I hear is about how insignificant canadian rivalries are for Toronto, Now MLSE is drooling over them? If your suggestion is true, why is there any sort of national territorial rights as part of this deal? Give me one plausible reason why MLSE needs a 6 year exclusivity to all of Canada? I mean, I know it isn't because MLSE is worried about all their fans in Winnipeg choosing to attend midweek games in Vancouver due to it closer proximity. And please don't bother with Sponsorship becasue Toronto, by virtue of its size is going to get every national account in any event. Nobody is going to sponsor the Whitecaps who would have otherwise sponsored the Black Squirrels. OK, Lets be blunt, the only plausible reason MLSE wants this is to ensure that there is no competition for Canadian Players and thus lower their operating costs for 6-8 rather than 4 years. Anyone who thinks MLSE could give a damn about another MLS team in Canada - unless it is one they own and can profit from is dreaming IMO. Because I just don't see it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon. How do you get 6-8 years out of 2007, 2008 and 2009? Those are the years of exclusivity as stated in Daniels post. Three years, not six, not eight. It's quite clear. Again, I don't know where you're getting this stuff about Canadian rivalries. Look at the Leafs rivalries with the Habs and the Sens. Look at the Argos rivalries with the Als and the Ti-Cats. Hell, even the Raptors and Grizzlies had a neat rivalry going for a while. Why do you think major league rivalries like this wouldn't work or wouldn't be desirable We're not talking Durham Flames versus Metro Lions here. We're not talking Kitchener Kickers vs. North York Rockets. Where do you get this stuff? db Andrew W Olds Canada 962 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 23:24:55 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gordon Give me one plausible reason why MLSE needs a 6+ year exclusivity to all of Canada? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, the main point I'll make is that the above posted information does not suggest a 6-year window of exclusivity. It suggests four years from (essentially) Saturday which would be the end of the 2009 season. If I see anything that states specifically that another Canadian group cannot even apply until after 2009 then I'll join you in your outrage. To me it simply means that 2010 is the earliest we'll see another Canadian MLS team on the field, but we could get an announcement for that team by 2008. Cheeta Winnipeg Canada 2013 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 23:35:07 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, no deal is every completely iron clad. Parts of this could eventualy mutate into something else. But that'll take more wheeling and dealing. Maybe MLSE is trying to recover some of their expansion fee with that exclusivity right. I'd think probably and MLS and the CSA had to or were willing to play along to get MLSE's money for Ex. The exclusivity right doesn't necessarily mean the 'Caps won't bid to enter MLS in their own good time, but it does mean it's gotten more expensive. The big fear which was brought up time and again in the endless national stadium topics was once the stadium was built no meaningful matchs would be played outside of Toronto except out of climatic need. MLSE is going to pressure the CSA in order to cherry pick the most marketable internationals leaving scraps for everybody else. Just see if that doesn't prove true. I don't blame the Associations too much either. This deal was presented as the last shot at getting a stadium built in Toronto for the WYC. The alternative was no stadium and millions of crown dollars evaporating forever. Pinch your nose, ignore the odvious deficencies, and vote Liberal because the alternative is worse. OOOPs. Sorry, vote for the deal because the alternative is worse. If the provincial associations re-elect that clown Pipe, well that however is another matter. What a bloody mess. And I was in favour of a national stadium in Toronto? Gordon Saskatoon Canada 1590 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 23:48:04 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 Gordon. How do you get 6-8 years out of 2007, 2008 and 2009? Those are the years of exclusivity as stated in Daniels post. Three years, not six, not eight. It's quite clear. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its late 2005, thus 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 equals four, add the two additional years that I believe is implied by the time frame in question - as in no non MLSE Vancouver franchise awarded until after the 2009 season which means two years before it lands on the field (and that is the most logical way to intrepet the clause IMO) and you get 6. MLS is looking to expand by two in 2007, and since Kerfoot most certainly has the means, Vancouver is out of the picture for that, so the clock starts now. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 Again, I don't know where you're getting this stuff about Canadian rivalries. Look at the Leafs rivalries with the Habs and the Sens. Look at the Argos rivalries with the Als and the Ti-Cats. Hell, even the Raptors and Grizzlies had a neat rivalry going for a while. Why do you think major league rivalries like this wouldn't work or wouldn't be desirable We're not talking Durham Flames versus Metro Lions here. We're not talking Kitchener Kickers vs. North York Rockets. Where do you get this stuff? db -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From arguing on two different sites about my preference for a national league over MLS and being told repeatedly...and you have participated onthese threads so your memory must be a bit rusty...repeatedly - did I say Repeatedly? - that Canadian rivalries were neither necessary nor important for Toronto. And not just by the wingnuts. I do recognize that there are two standards...one for Toronto and one for the rest of Canada when it comes to debating the relative merits of CSL MLS - you know, NASL attendance counts for TO, but not Edmonton, A-League attendance counts for Edmonton but not Toronto, But I do think changing the arguements mid stream to defend a position is a bit much not to just let slide by unchallenged. But lets not dwell on that, I am still waiting for a plausible reason that MLSE needs exclusive territorial rights to all of Canada? If it is so certain that MLS would not be expanding to Vancouver any time soon, why even bother? Page: 1 2 3 of 3 Topic Next Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted November 12, 2005 Author Share Posted November 12, 2005 Topic Page: 1 2 3 of 3 Gordon Saskatoon Canada 1590 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 23:54:54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Andrew W Well, the main point I'll make is that the above posted information does not suggest a 6-year window of exclusivity. It suggests four years from (essentially) Saturday which would be the end of the 2009 season. If I see anything that states specifically that another Canadian group cannot even apply until after 2009 then I'll join you in your outrage. To me it simply means that 2010 is the earliest we'll see another Canadian MLS team on the field, but we could get an announcement for that team by 2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are right then why even put the clause in? If someone can give me anything resembling a plausible reason why anyone would even bother with that frickin clause, I'll happily grasp onto it and hold it dear. Trust me Andrew, If I have to endure nothing but youth and women's games out west for the next 20 years, then I desperately want to believe that some good will come of it. dbailey62 333 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 00:12:42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gordon quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 Gordon. How do you get 6-8 years out of 2007, 2008 and 2009? Those are the years of exclusivity as stated in Daniels post. Three years, not six, not eight. It's quite clear. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its late 2005, thus 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 equals four, add the two additional years that I believe is implied by the time frame in question - as in no non MLSE Vancouver franchise awarded until after the 2009 season which means two years before it lands on the field (and that is the most logical way to intrepet the clause IMO) and you get 6. MLS is looking to expand by two in 2007, and since Kerfoot most certainly has the means, Vancouver is out of the picture for that, so the clock starts now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROTFLOL What about "- MLSE will have exclusive territorial rights for all of Canada up to and including the 2009 season. From 2010 and on, it will be restricted to Ontario" is so difficult to understand? You've really lost it haven't you. Kerfoot can apply any time he wants for a franchise in 2010. Same for Saputo. You are hilarious! You're nonsensical scenario implies that Kerfoot could have a team on the field in the 2006 season. Considering that there is no MLS expansion until 2007, that is quite the reach. Thanks for a good laugh. db Massive Attack The City Above Toronto Canada 1830 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 00:17:55 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The exclusivity (sp?) clause shouldn't be too big of a deal. The Whitecaps (or the Duz anyway) made a statement that they hope to be in the MLS in 5 years, which might work out perfectly. As for Montreal, I thought they weren't interested in MLS anyway? Plus, we can't expect MLS to let in 3 Canadian teams all at once, not when their league is currently at only 12 teams. I just hope that the USL D1 is still around in 5 years before Vancouver (inevitably imho) makes the jump to the MLS. The 6 national team games a year seems way too optimistic. Has any Canadian city seen that many games in one year, at all levels, in the post Varsity years? This should be interesting. Bxl Boy Montréal Canada 467 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 00:43:30 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another points from the Quebec Soccer pages not mentionned by Daniel : - The CSA will have to pay the stadium location for each game played in Toronto (so, at least 6 times a year) but the benefits will go first to MLSE, then the City of Toronto, CSA comes third I don't know how it happen for the moment with the other stadiums ? - The vote (for the whole project) at the CSA was 9 for, 3 against (QC, BC, pros) and one abstention (just guess the province) - Great quote by Kevan Pipe. Question : “Will the MLS team in Toronto do harm to other pro teams in Canada ?" - Pipe : “Do the Montreal Canadians do harm to the Quebec hockey junior team ?” - Pipe confirms : Toronto and Edmonton will host 2007 WC semi-finals, Toronto will be the main city for the Fifa (even if there were discussions with Montreal for both points) - Also intersting talk with Lenarduzzi. He's upset, because the problem of soccer in Canada has always been everyone doing its own thing alone and now, it began to change with great collaboration between BC and QC (pro clubs but also between the provincial federations and at a lower level)... but the CSA doesn't go in that collaborative way. Gordon Saskatoon Canada 1590 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 01:51:17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Massive Attack The exclusivity (sp?) clause shouldn't be too big of a deal. The Whitecaps (or the Duz anyway) made a statement that they hope to be in the MLS in 5 years, which might work out perfectly. As for Montreal, I thought they weren't interested in MLS anyway? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How fast might that change though if the USL goes into the tank or, fans stop showing up because its second tier, within Canada, soccer? This is the thing, if MLS is the future of soccer in Canada, why keep Saputo and Kerfoot from jumping on that bandwagon sooner rather than later? I do not see why everyone is rushing in to defend this. Gordon Saskatoon Canada 1590 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 01:58:10 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 ROTFLOL What about "- MLSE will have exclusive territorial rights for all of Canada up to and including the 2009 season. From 2010 and on, it will be restricted to Ontario" is so difficult to understand? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What part of "I think the territorial rights prevents the awarding of a franchise until after the period of exclusivity has expired" do you find so hard to understand? Is it such a difficult concept for you to grasp that it is possible, just possible, that an exclusive territorial right through 2009 is just exactly that and that it precludes any other entity from gaining a franchise until such time as those territorial rights are fully extinguished? I mean come on, use your head here instead of resorting to condescending bs. You asked for an explanation and I gave it to you. I have yet to see anyone be able to put forward a reason that one would even bother to put in a territotrial clause if it is as limited as you and others insist. So get off your high horse and give me a reasonable answer or bugger off. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 You've really lost it haven't you. Kerfoot can apply any time he wants for a franchise in 2010. Same for Saputo. You are hilarious! You're nonsensical scenario implies that Kerfoot could have a team on the field in the 2006 season. Considering that there is no MLS expansion until 2007, that is quite the reach. Thanks for a good laugh. db -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lovely dbailey, thanks for your contribution here. Let me walk you through it, just in case you decide that maybe taking a civil approach to this conversation is in the cards at some point in the future. Stretch just a bit David, and tell me when Toronto is getting their MLS franchise, you know, the MLS franchise that will not play until 2007? Here is a clue, it will be before 2007. Is this a stretch for you? This agreement, prevents Kerfoot, for example, either this year, or ealry next, from obtaining a franchise for the 2007 season. Just like Toronto is doing right now. Do you by any chance remember where Vancouver was on the NBA radar when Toronto was pursuing a franchise? If you don't, it was "not even" and the whole world was surprised by the Vancouver franchise coming on stream at the same time as the Raptors. Or how about Real Salt Lake to use an MLS example. Right out of the blue. Are you so certain that MLS would thumb their noise at Mr. Kerfoot if he were to show up with a cheque for $15 million US, a stadium and a desire to enter MLS in 2007? Especially given that there are no US cities on the horizon right now to join TO in 2007? Is this beyond plausible for you? This agreement makes that impossible. I've lost nothing db, other than the capacity to put on my rose coloured glasses and suspend critical thinking. You may be content to take the most liberal interpretation on a clause that you haven't even seen on paper and then dismissing every other interpretation as nonsensical, but unfortunately, I am still unable to suspend disbelief. I don't believe there is a reasonable basis on which to believe that exclusive territorial rights aren't in fact, exclusive territorial rights. So, you can make up whatever you want, but it is still made up. But let me encourage another track...put on your thinking cap and try to respond in a civil manner that addresses the points I have made...not by making **** up, **** like Kerfoot and Saputo can apply whenever they want, which is no more than your opinion, and may in fact be completely wrong. Show me an instance at any time in professional sports where a franchise was awarded within someone's exclusive territorial rights during the timeframe those rights existed. That is your propositiion, that these rights simply exclude any other franchise from playing until after the 2009 season. Well show me any example in North America. I will be satisfied with that db. Give me something, anything. Even a good reason why this caluse is even included in the deal if it is so unrestrictive. Because, once you get through your mirth, and whatever other issues you may have with me unrelated to this particular thread, I think you'll come to the conclusion that there is at least some plausibility to the basic premise that the exclusive territorial rights to Canada through the 2009 MLS season does in fact extend to the acquisition of franchises. I can accept that it is plausible, although very unlikley IMO, that your interpretion may hold. I've chosen not to mock you for that position, rather only to challenge you to provide some support for the position. It is unfortunate that you chose not to extend the same courtesy back. Why is that? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - Gordon on 11/10/2005 02:28:36 Elias Steeltown Canada 495 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 01:59:48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow the whining. It's funny when the foot is on the other shoe...or something. Exclusivity - To me it seems to mean that a team could sign a deal in 2009, but not begin playing until the 2010 season. Gordon, you really haven't explained why they would not be able to put all the off field stuff together, like a coaching staff, etc. in 2009, and be ready to play in 2010. But I don't understand why they would want an exclusive deal outside of Ontario? Maybe there is more to it. And it really depends on the official wording which we don't have. 6 national team games is not that hard. 2 womens games, 2 girls U19 games, 1 boys U17 and a boys U15 or something. Doesn't say anything about the stadium has to sell out. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Bxl Boy - The CSA will have to pay the stadium location for each game played in Toronto (so, at least 6 times a year) but the benefits will go first to MLSE, then the City of Toronto, CSA comes third I don't know how it happen for the moment with the other stadiums ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to reports when the deal was happening, the CSA will have to pay 7% of the tickets sold to the "MLSE Stadium Operating Company", which will be a different entity than "MLSE MLS Team". The MLS team will also pay 7% of the tickets sold to the "Operating Co." which is basically the deal between MLSE and the City. They have to pay rent at all stadiums they use. Most have a fixed fee plus a percent of the tickets. So if they are only paying a percent here, it's a great deal because there is no risk involved. They sell no tickets, they pay no rent. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Bxl Boy - Great quote by Kevan Pipe. Question : “Will the MLS team in Toronto do harm to other pro teams in Canada ?" - Pipe : “Do the Montreal Canadians do harm to the Quebec hockey junior team ?” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, he says something that makes sense. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Bxl Boy - Also intersting talk with Lenarduzzi. He's upset, because the problem of soccer in Canada has always been everyone doing its own thing alone and now, it began to change with great collaboration between BC and QC (pro clubs but also between the provincial federations and at a lower level)... but the CSA doesn't go in that collaborative way. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Somebody tell him to just shut-up. And in reality, now is finally when the CSA is stepping up and taking charge. New stadium, new pro team in Canada's biggest city, new powerful partners that can actually get things done (Ontario Teachers Pension with gazillions, TD Bank, Bell Globemedia, etc.). The opposite of "every one doing it's own thing" is "one person is in charge". Sorry, but Vancouver and Kerfoot, and Montreal and Saputo, can't compete with Toronto and the MLSE owners. Just like the guy who owned the Montreal Supra couldn't compete with Saputo. Funny how that there thing called life works. Sometimes Darwin beats Einstein (Prison Break is the best show). Elias Steeltown Canada 495 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 02:21:24 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And according to a CP article, MLSE will be at the MLS Cup this weekend, but a final announcement is NOT expected with regards to a Toronto MLS team. I hope they are just trying to build the excitement which we really don't need. Gordon Saskatoon Canada 1590 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 02:23:27 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Elias Exclusivity - To me it seems to mean that a team could sign a deal in 2009, but not begin playing until the 2010 season. Gordon, you really haven't explained why they would not be able to put all the off field stuff together, like a coaching staff, etc. in 2009, and be ready to play in 2010. But I don't understand why they would want an exclusive deal outside of Ontario? Maybe there is more to it. And it really depends on the official wording which we don't have. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are three reasons why MLSE would want exclusive territorial rights for as long as possible. Every MLS team in Canada raises the cost of acquiring player, and potentially diminshes the quality of thier team...if their second best player can make more as the highest paid player on Vancouver than he can as the second highest on Toronto, he is going to want to leave. Another reason is that MLSE might actually think there is some potential and they want to have first right at francises in Montreal and Vancouver, and if you can get the guarantee for nothing more than you are already giving (contribution to the Tornto stadium) why not hedge. The third reason is the belief that Vancouver or Montreal may want into MLS beore 2010 (more like 2011 since MLS seems to be proposing expansion every two years) so why not put yourself in line to pillage a little form those cities in the form of a payment to extinguish the exclusive rights. It doesn't cost anything, so it doesn't hurt to have that in your pocket. Lets be blunt, if in fact, it is possible that Kerfoot could obtain a franchise in 2008 for the 2010 season, of what value is the exclusive territorial rights? MLSE will only have had one and a half or at max two full season of operating the franchise gaining a feel for the market and the best way to market the sport in Canada. That really isn't enough time to make a decision on Vancouver or Montreal as second and third franchises. Look at the MLS model. Owners operating multiple teams is a norm. Why assume that MLS in Canada will be a single operator structure when it is not in the US? There is no value in terms of marketing or enhancements in sponsorship. MLS Toronto will be a non-entity outside of the Toronto market. I mean why give right beyond 50 miles of Toronto? Imagine it this way, the hypothetically 2006 season has been a disaster for the Whitecaps and 2007 has started off the same way. MLS Toronto has resulted in Vancouver fans staying away because they are not going to pay good money to see second rate soccer even by Canadian standards (now I don't actually beleive that will be the case, but for the purposes of seeting up the scenario, lets pretend). Kerfoot realizes he has to jump to MLS to save his investment in both the club and the stadium. He approachs MLS and asks for a franchise for 2010 season and is given said franchise. Meanwhile in Toronto the MLS is a rip roaring sucess in it inital season - fans are filling the stadium and MLSe believes they have struck upon the magical formula and they really think this single entity thing is the way to work it. So they cast a coveting eye towards Vancouver, a much better soccer market historically than Toronto, and think they can repeat the magic and make a boatload of money. But when they approach MLS, hey are told "No, we've given the franchise to Kerfoot, your exclusive territotrial rights didn't mean anything more than the right to prevent another team from taking the pitch in Canada until 2010. Kerfoot has agreed to that so you are SOL". Do you see that unfolding in that manner? I can't. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - Gordon on 11/10/2005 02:25:29 Rudi Mississauga Canada 1040 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 02:23:58 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The way I interpret it is that no other Canadian team can join MLS until 2010. We have seen nothing to suggest that Vancouver and Montreal couldn't strike a deal with MLS in 2008 to begin play in 2010. Although to be fair, we haven't seen anything that say otherwise, either. I think the exclusivity deal has to do with MLSE's apparently lack of faith in the Canadian talent pool (as per Peddie's comments a few weeks back). MLSE wants access to all Canadian talent for the first few years, and through this exclusivity deal gets just that. I think they'll actually be pleasantly surprised at the level of Canadian talent available to them from the get-go. What really stood out from that blurb that Daniel posted was that MLSE wanted the national team staff (Yallop, Watson, Dolan, et al.) to also run their team. Did they really think that was going to happen, especially given that the next 'serious' matches for the nat'l team just happen to take place in '07 (the Gold Cup)? Cheeta Winnipeg Canada 2013 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 08:36:43 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Elias quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Bxl Boy - Great quote by Kevan Pipe. Question : “Will the MLS team in Toronto do harm to other pro teams in Canada ?" - Pipe : “Do the Montreal Canadians do harm to the Quebec hockey junior team ?” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, he says something that makes sense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eh? Does pro hockey hurt junior hockey? No, no I suppose it doesn't. Don't quite see what that has to do with the MLS vs Div 1 debate however. Do oranges smell like apples? I think a more appropriate question would be will NFL Toronto hurt CFL Canada? I'm sure every Canadian centre outside Toronto is happy to hear they can one day aspire to be Toronto's farm teams. I'm especially sure 'Cap and Impact fans are completely pleased to finaly see how the CSA views their role in the Canadian soccer family. argh1 Moncton Canada 1497 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 09:09:59 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I have to admit that if this is in fact the agreement that the CSA has signed onto....that all my fears have come true. The CSA has sold the the CANADIAN soccer soul for the sake of one stadium in one city and one team in one city. Now before all you pro stadium, MLS guys get a hate on, I'm not against Toronto getting a stadium or a team. I'm against CSA CHEER LEADING the whole thing! But it does seem that the CSA has left the ROC high and dry on this deal. Granting MLS exclusive rights for any period of time and saying so many National team(s) games must be played in one stadium is just wrong. Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 09:41:19 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Daniel GL: I'm ok with breaking-in the stadium a bit and rebuilding a certain market for national team games in Toronto, but 20 years is ridiculous. Think back to 1985 and where we were and now. I also don't have much confidence that we'll see many games outside of Toronto. The odd grass-or-bust (WCQ?) games and maybe some rare winter Q's, but with 6 games to provide for TO, the CSA will have its plate full. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well we'll just have to disagree on that point. The CSA & our national teams are not run by Toronto-area people - our coaches are nearly always from BC (even the assistants), our President is from Sask. & the HQ is in Ottawa. I can't see the people that run our program wanting to ignore the rest of Canada, and if Toronto did get all of the games over the next little while there would be a huge (and rightful) stink over this that would pressure them to put games in other locations. I still don't think it will come to that. We have had only one national team friendly in Canada in the past 5 years, which is embarassaing & ridiculous. Anything which forces the CSA to get off the arses and get more games in the country is, IMO, a good thing. And I still don't think that 6 games for all genders & age groups (especially with the increase in the number of age group teams and the games they play) will be tough to do for Toronto and to spread the games out all over the country. Case in point, if we get the 2009 Gold Cup & the 2011 Women's World Cup I doubt that Toronto will be the sole host city just like it isn't for the 2007 WYC. Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 09:47:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Andrew W [Well, the main point I'll make is that the above posted information does not suggest a 6-year window of exclusivity. It suggests four years from (essentially) Saturday which would be the end of the 2009 season. If I see anything that states specifically that another Canadian group cannot even apply until after 2009 then I'll join you in your outrage. To me it simply means that 2010 is the earliest we'll see another Canadian MLS team on the field, but we could get an announcement for that team by 2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the thing is (and the reason I suggested right off the bat that this seems like a moot term) is that the Whitecaps themselves came out and said their goal is to enter the MLS in 5 years time (which takes us to 2010) and their spokesperson Lenarduzzi has already stated their belief that it is too soon for us to enter MLS. Even if they couldn't apply until 2010 (which I still very much doubt) and play in 2011, that would be a case of a 1 year delay from the Whitecaps own plan. Its not something I would prefer (if I had my way I'd have Vancouver join in 2007 & Montreal as well) but not the end of the world. But I still don't believe that the correct interpretation anyway. Assuming of course that MLS wants Vancouver, which I hope they do. Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 09:54:43 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Massive Attack The 6 national team games a year seems way too optimistic. Has any Canadian city seen that many games in one year, at all levels, in the post Varsity years? This should be interesting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well a lack of games in Canada has been part of the problem since Toronto lost its stadium and that's why its needed. I can tell you that Vancouver (or rather Burnaby) saw 4 men's national team games alone in 2004. The two B team friendlies, and two World Cup qualifiers. That's just at one level. Not sure about any others or if the women played their at all in 2004 to bump it up to 6, but already they were pretty close just the men. Frankly we need more years like that, in more cities. Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 10:06:07 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Bxl Boy Also intersting talk with Lenarduzzi. He's upset, because the problem of soccer in Canada has always been everyone doing its own thing alone and now, it began to change with great collaboration between BC and QC (pro clubs but also between the provincial federations and at a lower level)... but the CSA doesn't go in that collaborative way. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just have no sympathy at all for Lenarduzzi's comments. Think back to 1993 Bobby, and the CSL & APSL. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, he himself has already come out and said its too soon for us to go to MLS, and its known that his team has stated a goal to get into MLS for 2010, which is (perhaps not coincidentally) the same year as the excusivity deal ends. If he's complaining now that Vancouver can't get into MLS fast enough, how are we supposed to take any of his comments seriously? As for why Toronto wants exclusivity for a few years, I expect its for Canadian player competition. MLSE will want a competitive team from the get go to ensure that the team and the concept of MLS in Canada (and in Toronto specifically) is a success. I suspect they wouldn't want to have a losing team and they might feel that if the best Canadian players available to MLS (as the really good ones are staying in Europe) are spread out over several teams, their team will suffer on the field and so will the business as a result. Its not a view I necessarily agree with, but its understandable. Because of the comments of Saputo & Lenarduzzi and the Whitecaps, and the fact that I doubt MLS would ever have wanted to go in with 3 Canadian teams at the same time in any event, the exclusivity doesn't bother me, as it still seems to be largley moot. argh1 Moncton Canada 1497 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 10:12:48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Bxl Boy - Great quote by Kevan Pipe. Question : “Will the MLS team in Toronto do harm to other pro teams in Canada ?" - Pipe : “Do the Montreal Canadians do harm to the Quebec hockey junior team ?” - Pipe confirms : Toronto and Edmonton will host 2007 WC semi-finals, Toronto will be the main city for the Fifa (even if there were discussions with Montreal for both points) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These statements show the mindset of the CSA and the total lack of respect or knowledge of pro soccer or even just soccer across the entire country. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - argh1 on 11/10/2005 10:16:27 Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 10:17:14 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gordon What part of "I think the territorial rights prevents the awarding of a franchise until after the period of exclusivity has expired" do you find so hard to understand? Is it such a difficult concept for you to grasp that it is possible, just possible, that an exclusive territorial right through 2009 is just exactly that and that it precludes any other entity from gaining a franchise until such time as those territorial rights are fully extinguished? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted November 12, 2005 Author Share Posted November 12, 2005 Possible, yes, likely, no, IMO. If the terms of the deal were that no-one can even bid for a team until the 2009 season has concluded I think the report would specifically state that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And I don't mind agreeing to disagree on this until further clarification is available. But I do disagree that the report would specifically outline the definition as it is clearly not an official or complete report that we have seen. Maybe it does only cover the team on the field, but If MLS sticks to its stated expansion program, the result is the same under either yours or my scenarios as there is no 2010 expansion contemplated. Under either scenario, Vancouver will not be in the league until 2011 (unless territotrial blackmail paid or it is an MLSE owned team). quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gian-Luca Again, I point to "2009 season" being used. If your interpretation is correct and you want to be picky about it, Vancouver could apply on November 14th, 2009 or whenever it is the season actually ends that year. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would they wait until after the season to allow someone to apply in 2009? If I'm right about the reason for the exclusivity, it comes down again to operating a team for the 2009 season. Which fits in with the Whitecaps stated goal of operating an MLS team for 2010. Could it be that the CSA negotiating this specifically for this year because of the Whitecaps stated preference? If not, its a bit of a coincidence, don't you think? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I don't think it is anything but a coincidence as it relates to Lenarduzzi's interview, and I really don't think that Lenarduzzi's comment about being in MLS in 5 years time should be taken as a definite 2010 target date. These things are hardly etched in stone or a Whitecaps Business plan. Indeed, if it were so condusive to the Whitecaps plans, why would the "Pro teams", which I assume includes Vancouver, vote against the deal? I find the notion that there is some sort of grand design, and that everyone with an interest in this process is on the same page highly optimistic in the light of the reaction of Saputo and the WhiteCaps to the deal from the very day the Toronto Stadium was announced (its the wrong time for MLS), their vote against the CSA-MLSE deal and the extremely confining result that has occured. MLS has taked of expanding in 2007, 2009 and 2011. While that too is hardly etched in stone it is a pretty reasonable pattern to follow and also quite consistent with expansion generally in other sports. So the obvious intent would seem to the exclusion of additional non-MLSE Canadian expansion for the 2009 season. As for your point about "If your interpretation is correct and you want to be picky about it, Vancouver could apply on November 14th, 2009 or whenever it is the season actually ends that year. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would they wait until after the season to allow someone to apply in 2009?" I would only point to the current date and its association with the Toronto Franchise being awarded for 2007. Does it make sense to award Toronto a franchise a week after the 2005 MLS season ends? If it does, then it certainly makes sense to do the same with Vancouver or any other prospective franchise. Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 14:42:46 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gordon Indeed, if it were so condusive to the Whitecaps plans, why would the "Pro teams", which I assume includes Vancouver, vote against the deal? I find the notion that there is some sort of grand design, and that everyone with an interest in this process is on the same page highly optimistic in the light of the reaction of Saputo and the WhiteCaps to the deal from the very day the Toronto Stadium was announced (its the wrong time for MLS), their vote against the CSA-MLSE deal and the extremely confining result that has occured. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be honest, its very difficult to know that Saputo & the Whitecaps are thinking since they seem to flip flop on the issues and what they want. Saputo wants to build a "large" stadium then re-considers its size when he hears that MLS in Toronto is going to become a reality, even though he must have been perfectly aware it was the direction the CSA was heading in (Andy Sharpe announced it in, what, summer of 2003?) Now possibly a flip-flop by the Whitecaps on whether we should enter MLS sooner rather than later. If I'm negotiating a deal with a sports empire and they say to me "We want exclusivity in Canada to at least 2009" and I've got in the back of my mind that the other teams have stated publicly (and perhaps privately to the CSA) they aren't interested in MLS or not until 2010, and don't think we should be going to MLS at this point in time anyway, and I've heard from the MLS that they won't come to Canada again for a few years after 2007 anway chances are I'm going to to agree with it because it doesn't really affect anything. If those same teams then turn around and object because they wanted get into MLS right away, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the CSA person doing the negotiation. Now if they publicly stated one thing and privately told the CSA "No, we really want to join in 2008, we're just kidding about our public MLS comments for no readily apparent reason" then they have a legitimate beef with the CSA. Even then, very tricky for the CSA to deal with this issue. Difficult to pass up on the chance to bring a sports empire into Canadian soccer, with a SSS and a WYC to boot. To be fair to Saputo & Lenarduzzi, perhaps its not the exclusivity aspect that they objected to but the same concerns that Daniel has. Or both. Who knows. Difficult to say until we hear from them, but even when we do, they have been so inconsistent with their statements recently its difficult to know what to take seriously from now on. dbailey62 333 Posts Posted - 11/12/2005 : 04:42:11 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon, I'm sorry I pissed you off. My sarcasm was not well placed. My apologies. Now, let's work through your points. I totally disagree with your premise. In response to G-L, you stated "Ah, but there is the pre-expansion period in which a franchise is awarded and existing but not playing on the field. For example, if Greg Kerfoot had an interest in 2009 or 2010, that is now impossible without some sort of compensation to MLSE. As it stands, the earliest Vancouver can get a frachise up and running is 2011 without such payment." As others here have already opined and with whom I (obviously) agree, many of us believe the exclusivity clause refers to an operating team in the league. MLSE will operate the only Canadian team in MLS for 2007, 2008 and 2009. I would not be surprised in the least to see Vancouver in 2010. The problem with your statement is that you have no way to back it up. You have given me a difficult time regarding “proof” but what “proof” have you provided to back up the above assertion? The answer? None. It is total hypothesis stated as fact. Criticize me for doing the same all you like but why not look in a mirror? We have seen no indication anywhere that this clause would preclude any other potential franchisee from applying for a franchise to play in the 2010 season. I believe that your feelings to the contrary are based upon a supposition of the most exaggerated nature and are really only a reflection of your predisposed negative opinion of this entire recent turn of events. I choose to give the CSA, MLS and MLSE credit for some intelligence. You choose not to. You're entitled to do that. Considering that Forbes recently named the Toronto Maple Leafs as the most valuable franchise in the NHL (I believe the figure was somewhere around $325 million US), I'm inclined to believe that MLSE deserves some credit. If you're going to risk millions on a venture, you have to cover all the bases and that’s what they’ve done (it appears). In the long run, all three organizations will benefit from an increased number of solid Canadian franchises in the league. There is no benefit to be gained from stopping a Montreal or a Vancouver from entering the league in 2010 if their applications are viable. In any case, for all intents and purposes, the point is moot (as G-L stated earlier). Vancouver is interested in 2010, or has at least stated so. Montreal claims to be uninterested. If, as you hypothesize, Kerfoot changes his mind and decides that he wants a team prior to 2010, well, he just might be SOL (as you say) but it is just as possible that arrangements will be made to get Vancouver in but if it means that Kerfoot has to make some sort of agreement with MLSE, well that's the nature of business. The truth is that a Canadian rivalry would be the best thing that could possibly happen for Canadian soccer and it would be very desirable for all concerned. You recently gave me a hard time about the issue of rivalries stating "Please, all I hear is about how insignificant canadian rivalries are for Toronto, Now MLSE is drooling over them?" which was in response to my post stating my opinion on that matter. I’ve never said Canadian rivalries were insignificant for Toronto. Where did you get this? Argos vs. Als and Cats, Leafs vs. Sens and Tabbies, great rivalries all. I have stated that a major problem with the USL is the issue of mixing minor league cities with major league cities and the resultant marketing difficulties. Hampton Roads does not sell tickets in Toronto (or Hampton Roads for that matter). Why do you choose to misrepresent my position? I'll touch upon your comparison of the Whitecaps and the Grizzlies. The announcement regarding the Grizzlies was a great surprise to the general public, yes, but obviously negotiations had been going on between the NBA and the owners of the Grizzlies long before the announcement was made. It's not like a magic wand was waved and the Grizzlies appeared out of thin air even if it did appear that way to the general public. Regarding Real Salt Lake, again, this was a surprise to the general public but, again, the organization behind the application had obviously been working with the league long before the announcement was made. Again, there is no magic wand. It wasn’t out of the blue as you choose to say. In regards to your very valid point that there is a shortage of potential new ownership in the USA, it is my contention that the league would live with one new team for 2007 if it had to. Yes, it complicates issues but not fatally so. The CFL has managed for a long, long time with uneven numbers. In conclusion, I hope that all our questions will be answered and our doubts addressed once the actual franchise announcement is made. It will be nice to deal with facts. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gordon quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 ROTFLOL What about "- MLSE will have exclusive territorial rights for all of Canada up to and including the 2009 season. From 2010 and on, it will be restricted to Ontario" is so difficult to understand? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What part of "I think the territorial rights prevents the awarding of a franchise until after the period of exclusivity has expired" do you find so hard to understand? Is it such a difficult concept for you to grasp that it is possible, just possible, that an exclusive territorial right through 2009 is just exactly that and that it precludes any other entity from gaining a franchise until such time as those territorial rights are fully extinguished? I mean come on, use your head here instead of resorting to condescending bs. You asked for an explanation and I gave it to you. I have yet to see anyone be able to put forward a reason that one would even bother to put in a territotrial clause if it is as limited as you and others insist. So get off your high horse and give me a reasonable answer or bugger off. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 You've really lost it haven't you. Kerfoot can apply any time he wants for a franchise in 2010. Same for Saputo. You are hilarious! You're nonsensical scenario implies that Kerfoot could have a team on the field in the 2006 season. Considering that there is no MLS expansion until 2007, that is quite the reach. Thanks for a good laugh. db -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lovely dbailey, thanks for your contribution here. Let me walk you through it, just in case you decide that maybe taking a civil approach to this conversation is in the cards at some point in the future. Stretch just a bit David, and tell me when Toronto is getting their MLS franchise, you know, the MLS franchise that will not play until 2007? Here is a clue, it will be before 2007. Is this a stretch for you? This agreement, prevents Kerfoot, for example, either this year, or ealry next, from obtaining a franchise for the 2007 season. Just like Toronto is doing right now. Do you by any chance remember where Vancouver was on the NBA radar when Toronto was pursuing a franchise? If you don't, it was "not even" and the whole world was surprised by the Vancouver franchise coming on stream at the same time as the Raptors. Or how about Real Salt Lake to use an MLS example. Right out of the blue. Are you so certain that MLS would thumb their noise at Mr. Kerfoot if he were to show up with a cheque for $15 million US, a stadium and a desire to enter MLS in 2007? Especially given that there are no US cities on the horizon right now to join TO in 2007? Is this beyond plausible for you? This agreement makes that impossible. I've lost nothing db, other than the capacity to put on my rose coloured glasses and suspend critical thinking. You may be content to take the most liberal interpretation on a clause that you haven't even seen on paper and then dismissing every other interpretation as nonsensical, but unfortunately, I am still unable to suspend disbelief. I don't believe there is a reasonable basis on which to believe that exclusive territorial rights aren't in fact, exclusive territorial rights. So, you can make up whatever you want, but it is still made up. But let me encourage another track...put on your thinking cap and try to respond in a civil manner that addresses the points I have made...not by making **** up, **** like Kerfoot and Saputo can apply whenever they want, which is no more than your opinion, and may in fact be completely wrong. Show me an instance at any time in professional sports where a franchise was awarded within someone's exclusive territorial rights during the timeframe those rights existed. That is your propositiion, that these rights simply exclude any other franchise from playing until after the 2009 season. Well show me any example in North America. I will be satisfied with that db. Give me something, anything. Even a good reason why this caluse is even included in the deal if it is so unrestrictive. Because, once you get through your mirth, and whatever other issues you may have with me unrelated to this particular thread, I think you'll come to the conclusion that there is at least some plausibility to the basic premise that the exclusive territorial rights to Canada through the 2009 MLS season does in fact extend to the acquisition of franchises. I can accept that it is plausible, although very unlikley IMO, that your interpretion may hold. I've chosen not to mock you for that position, rather only to challenge you to provide some support for the position. It is unfortunate that you chose not to extend the same courtesy back. Why is that? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Saskatoon Canada 1590 Posts Posted - 11/12/2005 : 09:34:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 The problem with your statement is that you have no way to back it up. You have given me a difficult time regarding “proof” but what “proof” have you provided to back up the above assertion? The answer? None. It is total hypothesis stated as fact. Criticize me for doing the same all you like but why not look in a mirror? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've not asked for "proof", only a rationale reason why a) I might be off base and 2)why the national exclusivity clause. With due respect we are both taking a statement, admittedly second hand in nature and reaching different conclusions. I am taking the wording at face value and reaching a concusion, others are taking the wording and reading an implied exception. Neither completely out of the realm of formal documents such as contracts and legislation. Baring the real text of the agreement, I suppose, we will simply have to agree to disagree. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 We have seen no indication anywhere that this clause would preclude any other potential franchisee from applying for a franchise to play in the 2010 season. I believe that your feelings to the contrary are based upon a supposition of the most exaggerated nature and are really only a reflection of your predisposed negative opinion of this entire recent turn of events. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My predisposition has been developed over a number of different threads, and it is to view this suspicion, but certainly not negativity. I'll sum it up, since much of that seems to have been lost. Best option - not available in the short term is a Canadian League, MLS, as waste of time if limited to one Canadian team, MLS requires a minimum of 3 Canadian teams to be worth the effort. SO when I see an organization with the wherewithal, the capacity and the at least passing interest of becoming the second Canadian MLS entry, I do get highly suspicion of the rationale to block said possibility. Frankly, it should piss you off too, even if every element of what you believe this deal is what you take it to be. Indeed, why even have territorial exclusivity for all of Ontario? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 I choose to give the CSA, MLS and MLSE credit for some intelligence. You choose not to. You're entitled to do that. Considering that Forbes recently named the Toronto Maple Leafs as the most valuable franchise in the NHL (I believe the figure was somewhere around $325 million US), I'm inclined to believe that MLSE deserves some credit. If you're going to risk millions on a venture, you have to cover all the bases and that’s what they’ve done (it appears). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I give MLSE a lot of credit...I can see why they are doing this...definitely in their corporate interest. I am not foolish enough however, to believe MLSE are motivated by any desire to help canadian soccer and I don't think you believe that either. MLS is not part of this deal, and you are correct, I don't give CSA much credit for intelligence, and frankly think that they were just so desperate to get a partner that they would sell out the interests of Kerfoot to ensure MLSE were on board. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 In the long run, all three organizations will benefit from an increased number of solid Canadian franchises in the league. There is no benefit to be gained from stopping a Montreal or a Vancouver from entering the league in 2010 if their applications are viable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really? You can't see any benefit to MLSE? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 You recently gave me a hard time about the issue of rivalries stating "Please, all I hear is about how insignificant canadian rivalries are for Toronto, Now MLSE is drooling over them?" which was in response to my post stating my opinion on that matter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, if you've followed the debate on this board over the months you wil l be aware that several Toronto posters have hasten to indicate that Canadian rivalries mean nothing in Toronto. Been an oft repeated mantra. I do find it specious that this argument gets reversed when it is convenient to do so. However, I did not ascribe the intial denial of the importance of Canadian rivalries to you. Only that it was all that I heard when I was arguing the importance of Candian rivalries in support of a preference for a Canadian League. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by dbailey62 I'll touch upon your comparison of the Whitecaps and the Grizzlies. The announcement regarding the Grizzlies was a great surprise to the general public, yes, but obviously negotiations had been going on between the NBA and the owners of the Grizzlies long before the announcement was made. It's not like a magic wand was waved and the Grizzlies appeared out of thin air even if it did appear that way to the general public. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Define a long time. It was less than a year, and Vancouver only jumped on board when they saw the NBA were warming to Toronto. Given that Kerfoot has the entire structure he needs, and is only 3 better SI's, 3 fringe national teamers for Montreal or Europe away from a competitive MLS team, and has a stadium in the works, it is quite possible that a franchise awarded in spring of 2006 could be on the field in 2007, possibly playing out of BC PLace until the stadium was completed. These deal can and have come together quickly when to motivated parties are involved (as in Real Salt Lake). If you choose to disregad public indication that the deal came to gether quickly - google if you don't beleive me, then so be it. argh1 Moncton Canada 1497 Posts Posted - 11/12/2005 : 10:32:50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know that I've been labeled as anti-Toronto and anti -MLS and to a large extent that's most likely true, I can't deny it. Yes I would prefer a Canadian League. I'm not going to get into my rant about one stadium/team and CSA cheerleading. MLSE exclusive rights for all of Canada is wrong and the stadium being able to cherry pick National teams home games is also wrong, period. My opinion only. Canada being treated like the state of Ohio by the MLS, is an insult. If you put a team in Columbus than no don't put a team in Cleveland or Cincci, I agree. But exclusive rights for a whole nation? MLS is coming so I'll most likely watch even if it's to hope Toronto loses (I've got to be honest). If Canadian players can be treated as non imports by the entire MLS and the CSA works as diligently to attain stadiums and teams for other cities I will eat my computer on Main St. at noon hour. I will hail the CSA and MLS and MLSE as being the second coming. Other than that all we've acomplished is giving a handfull of players a chance to play in Toronto.(Yes I said something GTA guys won't like) Take your shots vilify me do as you must but that's my view. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - argh1 on 11/12/2005 10:52:37 Elias Steeltown Canada 495 Posts Posted - 11/12/2005 : 11:18:49 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay first, the CSA did NOT give MLSE exclusivity. MLS agreed to give MLSE exclusivity to all of Canada. Just like every team gets like 100 Km radius exclusivity in every sport. It's a private business contract between MLS and MLSE, the CSA really has no say. But since it's single entity, how exactly does this work? Cause if an other team has to pay MLSE, aren't they paying MLS? This exclusivity can mean two things, which are basically what people have mentioned, and without the official word we have no clue. 1. MLSE has exclusivity only in a marketing sense. So no other team can play before 2010. They do not own rights to put other teams in other cities. So others can negogiate in 2006/7/8/9 to begin play in 2010. 2. MLSE has total exclusivity to Canada. So that would mean nobody can negogiate until the earliest after the 2009 MLS Cup. Cause it's like I think one of Gordon's examples above, lets say the Caps come to terms with MLS in 2008 for a team in 2010. Then MLSE decides in 2009 they want to put a team in Vancouver, how can MLS tell them sorry, we already have a deal? If MLSE has total exclusivity, then MLS can not negogiate with anybody else. Number 2 would be more valuable to MLSE, because it would give them an extra year, other teams probably start earliest 2011, as opposed to 2010. argh1 Moncton Canada 1497 Posts Posted - 11/12/2005 : 11:41:46 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know this whole discussion that's been going on for months (MLS/Stadium) reminds me of when the wife says "Well if you don't know what you did, I'm not gonna tell ya...." Whaaaaaaat just tell me or shaddupp Cheeta Winnipeg Canada 2013 Posts Posted - 11/12/2005 : 11:58:16 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Elias Okay first, the CSA did NOT give MLSE exclusivity. MLS agreed to give MLSE exclusivity to all of Canada. Just like every team gets like 100 Km radius exclusivity in every sport. It's a private business contract between MLS and MLSE, the CSA really has no say. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, not quite the way I see it. I could be wrong but I don't think so. MLS can only come to Canada with the permission of the CSA. The terms and conditions by which MLS is to participate in the Canadian market have to be acceptable to the CSA. So by proxy, the CSA is granting MLSE exclusivity (and whatever that means). The CSA had the power to say to Hell with a nationwide exclusivity clause and did not. The reasons why are probably pretty odvious. I don't think exclusivity is going to be nearly as big as a hinderance as some might think. If Kerfoot wants in and MLSE is being too much of an obsticule this is a battle he can't loose. He has the money and there are enough mercenaries out there with the know how to turn this whole nationwide exclusivity clause into a relations disaster for the CSA, MLSE and MLS. To me, the idea of a nationwide exclusivity clause is just too rude. Unbelievably ignorant. Would have the CSA given Kerfoot the same clause? Or Saputo? Not bloody likely. Page: 3 of 3 Topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Isn't there a better way of moving topics? What sucks is that I started the thread because I was more interested in the National teams' aspect than the MLS deal. Of course, it got hijacked rather quickly (story of the Vs for the past months). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbailey62 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Isn't there a better way of moving topics? What sucks is that I started the thread because I was more interested in the National teams' aspect than the MLS deal. Of course, it got hijacked rather quickly (story of the Vs for the past months). Is it worth saving Daniel? It's pure repetition and I'm as guilty as anybody else. Shortly, most of these points of debate will be answered. It may not change anybody's minds regarding the appropriateness of the agreement or of some of its elements but I'm sure the debate will continue in some. db Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 No, it isn't (unfortunately, most threads get jacked nowadays...). And apparently admins can move topics properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.