Welcome to MLS Canada

[RealGooner]

quote:Originally posted by Blue and White Army

Nothing's changed for me. I'd still rather be in USL than MLS, for now at least.

Okay the, so whats the problem with an exclusivity clause that temporarily excludes you from something you dont want, or, in the case of the stadium can't even accommodate until 2010?

Answer - you really are just a Toronto basher.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Okay the, so whats the problem with an exclusivity clause that temporarily excludes you from something you dont want, or, in the case of the stadium can't even accommodate until 2010?

Answer - you really are just a Toronto basher.

I think if MLSE had bought the Lynx 3 years ago, was in the process of building a privately funded stadium, and had the capacity to join MLS sooner rather than later you would a) have some objections to a nationwide exclusivity clause that include the Toronto Market to MLS vancouver understand the fallacy of accepting a rumour that Toronto City Council might</u> opt to change their approval process to 4-5 times the normal process for a stadium project and c) understand the fallacy of taking a comment in an interview by the Lynx General Manager that the Lynx wanted to be in MLS in 5 years as a hard and fast time table, and might even point out hat it does not preclude being in MLS prior</u> to 5 years especially when the comment was made at a time that MLS Vancouver was anything but certain. I am pretty certain you would understand why Kerfoot would want that, but I suspect you'd struggle to accept why the CSA would grant that. I suspect that you could concieve of the possibility of MLSE having the resources to switch gears in a reasonably short order and bring a MLS team to Toronto, and you might even be a little pissed at the possibility that Greg Kerfoot could become the MLS Franchise holder in Toronto if he so desired, despite everything that MLSE had done for the game in TO. An if it was Orca Bay, instead of Kerfoot running the show in Vancouver, and they had just gotten into the picture in the last year, I suspect that you might even have a few concerns about a non-soccer man's fear about talent pools ensure that we (Canada) get absolutely the least possible benefit about moving down the MLS path.

And I think most people would see your support for the stadium in Vancouver, your statements that like MLS or not, we are down that path so lets make the best of it and conclude that you were not simply a Vancouver basher.

Who knows, maybe under those circumstances the mls vancouver types would set up machine gun pits everywhere and simply open fire on anyone with any questions at all about the deal - like Richard becoming "collateral damage" on another thread.

So I do think that the majority of the TO types are deepy entrenched in a bunker and that colours the ability to see any perspective other than your own right now. Maybe in time this will change. But the constant TO bashing claim is simply a refuge from critical thinking IMO.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Until very recently I thought the rest of Canada didn't want anything to do with MLS. Historically on this board most Toronto area posters were for it and high percentage of non-Toronto area posteres were against it. I guess that isn't the case any longer. Its funny how things change.

It should be obvious Gian-Luca why things have changed. Any option other than MLS is now moot with the awarding of a MLS franchise to Toronto. So the next best thing is to get as many teams in the league as we can as soon as possible. Pissing around with one MLS team does nothing for Canadian soccer so lets take this thing to the point where there is actually some</u> benefit to going the MLS route. We are committed so why institutionalize and codify the same lack of vision, intiative and results that have plagued Canadian soccer for the last decade?

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

As such, if the CSA is getting a sports empire to get involved with Canadian soccer for the first time ever (probably a wet dream to them for decades), and the sports empire is demanding this and it doesn't affect anything adversely in the other cities by the other cities own admission, why wouldn't they agree to it?

The only way you agree to this as the CSA is if it is an absolute deal breaker, and you are absolutely sure that a) the sports empire is in it for the long run, losses be dammed, what you think other potential franchise owners alleged "admission" really is in fact what they really meant, c) That you knew that no other possibilities existed. I highly doubt that any of those criteria was met. Things change on a dime - that is th enature of business. As the body responsible for soccer in Canada I would not abdicate that responsibility to a hockey man and his incorrect notion as to our talent pool. But at least that is an answer Gian-Luca, as to why the CSA might agree to it. I still think it a stupid deal, but conceed that it is possible that there will be no harm from it. Unfortunately, the deal effectively puts the control of the top end of Canadian soccer in the hands of an organization that couldn't even spell soccer 18 months ago. But it sure covers everyone's butt at the CSA.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

It should be obvious Gian-Luca why things have changed. Any option other than MLS is now moot with the awarding of a MLS franchise to Toronto.

I don't agree. I think any other option (for progress at least) than MLS has been moot since the plans for the CUSL died 4 years ago, yet most of the intervening time people were still largely against it except for people in Toronto and a handful of others elsewhere.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I don't agree. I think any other option (for progress at least) than MLS has been moot since the plans for the CUSL died 4 years ago, yet most of the intervening time people were still largely against it except for people in Toronto and a handful of others elsewhere.

The rejection of a specific plan for a Canadian league does not have the finality that the largest market in Canada joining MLS does. The concept of a Canadian League did not die with the rejection of CUSL, any more than MLS Canada became a certainty with Andy Sharpe's proclomation 4 years ago. But the concept of a Canadian league did die with MLS in Toronto, for the practical reason that any Canadian league needs the presense of the only market in Canada that is essential to sponsors. Sometimes you have to roll with the punches. The awarding of an MLS franchise has not made me any less convinced that a Canadian League, even one distantly down the road, is not a better option. But since that is now no longer on the table, the next best thing is to make the MLS route work as well as possible. So if you are thinking there has been a change in heart, you'd be wrong, as there is only a change in circumstances. Of course, I am only speaking for myself on this.

[Blue and White Army]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I don't agree with them re: the player pool, but if that is their view its understandable they would want exclusivity for a few years until the pool widens & increases

It "makes sense" in a strictly selfish sense for Toronto only, but perhaps not for Canadian footie as a whole, depending on whether it could possibly hamper other cities from joining. As already stated, the logistics work against another city joining before the exclusivity clause runs out, but that's no excuse for it.

The clause is either a) useless, or detrimental to Canadian footie as a whole. Take your pick.

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

...especially when the other potential MLS cities have not expressed an interest to join before that period anway.

Were representatives from other cities consulted on this clause, given the opportunity to make a bid prior to its implementation? If not, then it's hardly fair to turn around and point a finger at the other cities after its implementation.

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

As such, if the CSA is getting a sports empire to get involved with Canadian soccer for the first time ever (probably a wet dream to them for decades), and the sports empire is demanding this and it doesn't affect anything adversely in the other cities by the other cities own admission, why wouldn't they agree to it?

Because the CSA is spineless? I wonder how truly "demanding" MLSE were about this clause. In fact, I wonder if the CSA are genuinely supportive of it.

[Massive Attack]

While I agree that the exclusivity thing sucks, I think two important points should be brought up:

1. Complaing about it may be moot, because the MLS was going to give it to MLSE anyway. The thing I don't understand is why the CSA felt it even needed to be addressed. Shouldn't MLS decide who they let in, not the CSA?

2. Didn't this thing pass 9-3 in a CSA vote, with only BC, Quebec and Pro Clubs voting against this? Why aren't the other provincial associations being held accountable for allowing this to go through? Why would the Prairie and Atlantic associations be in favour of this?

[Blue and White Army]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

Why would the Prairie and Atlantic associations be in favour of this?

Down with Newfoundland!!!

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

The rejection of a specific plan for a Canadian league does not have the finality that the largest market in Canada joining MLS does. The concept of a Canadian League did not die with the rejection of CUSL, any more than MLS Canada became a certainty with Andy Sharpe's proclomation 4 years ago. But the concept of a Canadian league did die with MLS in Toronto,

That's where we'll just have to agree to differ. To all intents and purposes the concept of a Canadian league did die with the death of the CUSL concept. You mention the importance of Toronto to a Canadian league - well the Hartrells were the first people against the Canadian league concept to begin with. They were the most difficult people to convince to join it and they were the first in line to help kill it.

Saputo was also against a Canadian league. He (along with Lenarduzzi & the Vancouver 86ers) helped kill one back in 1993 for crying out loud, and he helped kill the concept for a new one back in 2001 along with the Hartrells. In order to get a new Canadian league going, you were going to have to kick both of these guys out of their cities somehow, as well as find a whole new owners for a bunch of other cities and make those other cities work for a lengthy period(which unfortunately didn't happen in two Albertan cities).

The CSA went the MLS route because they knew what a lot more people on this board IMO should have realized sooner - that there was almost no realistic possibility of a Canadian league of any kind happening in the forseeable future. Bringing MLS to Canada's largest cities was something that seemed possible and they went after it accordingly.

It bothers me that the same people & cities that helped kill a CSA-instigated plan for a Canadian league a few years ago are now being held up as innocent victims of the CSA's initiative to take the only other route (which these clubs & owners have effectively forced the CSA to go) to progress the domestic pro (and national team) game.

[Gordon]

2 Very good points.

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

While I agree that the exclusivity thing sucks, I think two important points should be brought up:

1. Complaing about it may be moot, because the MLS was going to give it to MLSE anyway. The thing I don't understand is why the CSA felt it even needed to be addressed. Shouldn't MLS decide who they let in, not the CSA?

An under the table deal between MLSE and MLS would draw criticism (if I was ever even aware of its existence) from me but nowhere near the ire. The Canadian Soccer Association has no business blessing such a deal. That this thing is anything more than a wink wink arrangement between MLS and MLSE speaks volumes of a lack of leadership by the CSA.

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

2. Didn't this thing pass 9-3 in a CSA vote, with only BC, Quebec and Pro Clubs voting against this? Why aren't the other provincial associations being held accountable for allowing this to go through? Why would the Prairie and Atlantic associations be in favour of this?

In immediate terms, the SSA looses nothing by this deal. Many of them don't give much of a damn about how the national team does generally as long as little Johnny or Janey get a chance for a non-threatening kick about. Lord forbid we place any emphasis on elite soccer, even at a youth level. So why care about pro soccer and an agreement that realisitcally is not going to impact Saskatchewan at all, especially when a favoured son has been party to the negotiations? Its not like Saskatchewan is going to see many youth/women's National team games in the next 20 years let alone, ever, a SMNT, so that part of the deal isn't a concern either. Not saying its right, or that they haven't heard from me, just explaining what I am sure is the thinking.

[G-Man]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

2 Very good points.

An under the table deal between MLSE and MLS would draw criticism (if I was ever even aware of its existence) from me but nowhere near the ire. The Canadian Soccer Association has no business blessing such a deal. That this thing is anything more than a wink wink arrangement between MLS and MLSE speaks volumes of a lack of leadership by the CSA.

In immediate terms, the SSA looses nothing by this deal. Many of them don't give much of a damn about how the national team does generally as long as little Johnny or Janey get a chance for a non-threatening kick about. Lord forbid we place any emphasis on elite soccer, even at a youth level. So why care about pro soccer and an agreement that realisitcally is not going to impact Saskatchewan at all, especially when a favoured son has been party to the negotiations? Its not like Saskatchewan is going to see many youth/women's National team games in the next 20 years let alone, ever, a SMNT, so that part of the deal isn't a concern either. Not saying its right, or that they haven't heard from me, just explaining what I am sure is the thinking.

Well if you can get Fieldturf™ put in at Taylor field....there's no excuse why not...what's good enough for MLS/MNT games in TO should be a good enough surface anywhere in the country.

[G-Man]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

2 Very good points.

An under the table deal between MLSE and MLS would draw criticism (if I was ever even aware of its existence) from me but nowhere near the ire. The Canadian Soccer Association has no business blessing such a deal. That this thing is anything more than a wink wink arrangement between MLS and MLSE speaks volumes of a lack of leadership by the CSA.

In immediate terms, the SSA looses nothing by this deal. Many of them don't give much of a damn about how the national team does generally as long as little Johnny or Janey get a chance for a non-threatening kick about. Lord forbid we place any emphasis on elite soccer, even at a youth level. So why care about pro soccer and an agreement that realisitcally is not going to impact Saskatchewan at all, especially when a favoured son has been party to the negotiations? Its not like Saskatchewan is going to see many youth/women's National team games in the next 20 years let alone, ever, a SMNT, so that part of the deal isn't a concern either. Not saying its right, or that they haven't heard from me, just explaining what I am sure is the thinking.

Well if you can get Fieldturf™ put in at Taylor field....there's no excuse why not...what's good enough for MLS/MNT games in TO should be a good enough surface anywhere in the country.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Blue and White Army

It "makes sense" in a strictly selfish sense for Toronto only, but perhaps not for Canadian footie as a whole, depending on whether it could possibly hamper other cities from joining. As already stated, the logistics work against another city joining before the exclusivity clause runs out, but that's no excuse for it.

Its not a reason for the CSA to want it, but I don't think this was their initiative - it apparently was an MLSE demand

Its worth remembering the CSA said no to two other MLSE demands, both of which would have been a logistical nightmare for the CSA to comply with, which is probably they were able to say no so successfully. Its difficult to see on what basis they would say no to MLSE's 3 year exclusivity demand when as you say, the logistics work against other cities joining in that time.

That's assuming that it was a demand for 3 year exclusivity clause. Maybe it was originally 5 or 10 and the CSA negotiated it down to the period where no other Canadian team would be able to join anyway. At this point, who knows, but the 3 years seems like an awfully fortuitous coincidence otherwise.

quote:

Were representatives from other cities consulted on this clause, given the opportunity to make a bid prior to its implementation? If not, then it's hardly fair to turn around and point a finger at the other cities after its implementation.

I suspect that in the traditional CSA fashion they were not - but again, it wouldn't surprise me if this was largely because the other prospective Canadian MLS owners had already made their position known. How many times does Saputo, for example, need to say "I don't like the MLS single entity" before the CSA is expected to take the hint?

quote:

I wonder how truly "demanding" MLSE were about this clause. In fact, I wonder if the CSA are genuinely supportive of it.

That's a good question. Everyone here, including myself, is just speculating in the dark about what has happened & the true motivations. As I said MLSE might have demanded a lot more than they were given. I doubt though that the CSA is in favour of just one MLS team in Canada for perpetuity.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Blue and White Army

It "makes sense" in a strictly selfish sense for Toronto only, but perhaps not for Canadian footie as a whole, depending on whether it could possibly hamper other cities from joining. As already stated, the logistics work against another city joining before the exclusivity clause runs out, but that's no excuse for it.

Its not a reason for the CSA to want it, but I don't think this was their initiative - it apparently was an MLSE demand

Its worth remembering the CSA said no to two other MLSE demands, both of which would have been a logistical nightmare for the CSA to comply with, which is probably they were able to say no so successfully. Its difficult to see on what basis they would say no to MLSE's 3 year exclusivity demand when as you say, the logistics work against other cities joining in that time.

That's assuming that it was a demand for 3 year exclusivity clause. Maybe it was originally 5 or 10 and the CSA negotiated it down to the period where no other Canadian team would be able to join anyway. At this point, who knows, but the 3 years seems like an awfully fortuitous coincidence otherwise.

quote:

Were representatives from other cities consulted on this clause, given the opportunity to make a bid prior to its implementation? If not, then it's hardly fair to turn around and point a finger at the other cities after its implementation.

I suspect that in the traditional CSA fashion they were not - but again, it wouldn't surprise me if this was largely because the other prospective Canadian MLS owners had already made their position known. How many times does Saputo, for example, need to say "I don't like the MLS single entity" before the CSA is expected to take the hint?

quote:

I wonder how truly "demanding" MLSE were about this clause. In fact, I wonder if the CSA are genuinely supportive of it.

That's a good question. Everyone here, including myself, is just speculating in the dark about what has happened & the true motivations. As I said MLSE might have demanded a lot more than they were given. I doubt though that the CSA is in favour of just one MLS team in Canada for perpetuity.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

That's where we'll just have to agree to differ. To all intents and purposes the concept of a Canadian league did die with the death of the CUSL concept. You mention the importance of Toronto to a Canadian league - well the Hartrells were the first people against the Canadian league concept to begin with. They were the most difficult people to convince to join it and they were the first in line to help kill it.

Fair enough Gian-Luca. I just look at how the landscape has changed in Toronto - dramatcially I think you'd agree - in the last 4 years, and can envision change across the country. None of the major cities in Canada are the same as they were 12 years ago, including Toronto. What happened in 1993, or 2001 or last week is not a determinant in what can happen tomorrow. People change, attitudes change and environments change. I would agree that a Canadian League was not just around the corner, but it is not a stretch for me to see the possibility. I think we can do better than MLS at a glacier's pace in any event and don't beleive th exclusivity was a deal breaker for MLSE. If it was, then I question their commitment to the venture. As it stands, baring Kerfoot's willingness to pay extortion money to MLSE, we will not see a second team until the 2011 season (and that is not a debate over the term of the exclusivity clause, rather it is MLS's published expansion schedule, something lost in the rush to minimize the impact of the clause...I too have reasons to believe the clause was set as it was. ).

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

It bothers me that the same people & cities that helped kill a CSA-instigated plan for a Canadian league a few years ago are now being held up as innocent victims of the CSA's initiative to take the only other route (which these clubs & owners have effectively forced the CSA to go) to progress the domestic pro (and national team) game.

Some of us think they didn't have</u> to be victims. Toronto with exclusive rights to Ontario is more than generous (and more than I'd give) And really, if they (Saputo, Kerfoot et. al. ) simply saw what you think is obvious - that a Canadian League wasn't viable, why should they be then subject to penalty for not going down that route? Seems like a double standard.

[MLSFAN]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

I think if MLSE had bought the Lynx 3 years ago, was in the process of building a privately funded stadium, and had the capacity to join MLS sooner rather than later you would a) have some objections to a nationwide exclusivity clause that include the Toronto Market to MLS vancouver understand the fallacy of accepting a rumour that Toronto City Council might</u> opt to change their approval process to 4-5 times the normal process for a stadium project and c) understand the fallacy of taking a comment in an interview by the Lynx General Manager that the Lynx wanted to be in MLS in 5 years as a hard and fast time table, and might even point out hat it does not preclude being in MLS prior</u> to 5 years especially when the comment was made at a time that MLS Vancouver was anything but certain. I am pretty certain you would understand why Kerfoot would want that, but I suspect you'd struggle to accept why the CSA would grant that. I suspect that you could concieve of the possibility of MLSE having the resources to switch gears in a reasonably short order and bring a MLS team to Toronto, and you might even be a little pissed at the possibility that Greg Kerfoot could become the MLS Franchise holder in Toronto if he so desired, despite everything that MLSE had done for the game in TO. An if it was Orca Bay, instead of Kerfoot running the show in Vancouver, and they had just gotten into the picture in the last year, I suspect that you might even have a few concerns about a non-soccer man's fear about talent pools ensure that we (Canada) get absolutely the least possible benefit about moving down the MLS path.

And I think most people would see your support for the stadium in Vancouver, your statements that like MLS or not, we are down that path so lets make the best of it and conclude that you were not simply a Vancouver basher.

Who knows, maybe under those circumstances the mls vancouver types would set up machine gun pits everywhere and simply open fire on anyone with any questions at all about the deal - like Richard becoming "collateral damage" on another thread.

So I do think that the majority of the TO types are deepy entrenched in a bunker and that colours the ability to see any perspective other than your own right now. Maybe in time this will change. But the constant TO bashing claim is simply a refuge from critical thinking IMO.

Again just more to Bashing. Like RealGooner stated. VCR stadium will not be ready befoe 2010. That means the exlusivity clause will have no effect. None Zero, but the bashers and haters have to come up with something to moan and cry about.

Why would MLSE want anything to do with the Stynx. WHy would they tie themselves with th worst orginization in the world. Dont fret on others and be happy you have a sugar daddy to take care of you, Before Keerfooot came on board you where minutes from being extinct. Thank god for him and stop bashing Toronto for bring profesional soccer to Canada.

Also dont foget that 40% of the money that comes to the CSA comes fron Ontario.

[MLSFAN]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

That's where we'll just have to agree to differ. To all intents and purposes the concept of a Canadian league did die with the death of the CUSL concept. You mention the importance of Toronto to a Canadian league - well the Hartrells were the first people against the Canadian league concept to begin with. They were the most difficult people to convince to join it and they were the first in line to help kill it.

Saputo was also against a Canadian league. He (along with Lenarduzzi & the Vancouver 86ers) helped kill one back in 1993 for crying out loud, and he helped kill the concept for a new one back in 2001 along with the Hartrells. In order to get a new Canadian league going, you were going to have to kick both of these guys out of their cities somehow, as well as find a whole new owners for a bunch of other cities and make those other cities work for a lengthy period(which unfortunately didn't happen in two Albertan cities).

The CSA went the MLS route because they knew what a lot more people on this board IMO should have realized sooner - that there was almost no realistic possibility of a Canadian league of any kind happening in the forseeable future. Bringing MLS to Canada's largest cities was something that seemed possible and they went after it accordingly.

It bothers me that the same people & cities that helped kill a CSA-instigated plan for a Canadian league a few years ago are now being held up as innocent victims of the CSA's initiative to take the only other route (which these clubs & owners have effectively forced the CSA to go) to progress the domestic pro (and national team) game.

Cudo's G-L

[RealGooner]

Gordon, I don't know where you are going with this. The exclusivity clause covers a period in which Vancouver can't participate anyway due to lack of an SSS. The stadiumm will be ready for the 2010 season, when the exclusivity clause is done. What is the problem here?

[MLSFAN]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Gordon, I don't know where you are going with this. The exclusivity clause covers a period in which Vancouver can't participate anyway due to lack of an SSS. The stadiumm will be ready for the 2010 season, when the exclusivity clause is done. What is the problem here?

The problem is his Anti Toronto Agenda. very sad how people hate on Toronto. The city that gives the most gets the least and does not complain.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Gordon, I don't know where you are going with this. The exclusivity clause covers a period in which Vancouver can't participate anyway due to lack of an SSS. The stadiumm will be ready for the 2010 season, when the exclusivity clause is done. What is the problem here?

The Vancouver stadium is only slightly behind the Toronto stadium, approval only takes a maximum 6 months and while there are "rumours" that certain elements of the Vancouver council would like to do a 2 year review, they are just rumours and no more or less valid than the rumblings of certain TO councillors about Exhibition 6 weeks ago. Business plans are always adjusted according to circumstances and are not etched in stone, the notion that Vancouver couldn't possibly be in before 2010, or doesn't want to be in before 2010 is an artificial construct. I find the notion that the exclusivity clause is just a "throw-away" specious. The "case" that Vancouver, or Montreal won't be effected is constructed around much propogated fallacies. As I have stated from my very first post, it is possible that Vancouver and Montreal will be admitted to MLS prior to the end of the exclusivity agreement - of whatever duration one wants to put on it, but not without payment of "compensation" to MLSE. This is wrong, pure and simple. Ask yourself - why does MLSE want this? MLSE will have done their due diligence - and it is clear that MLSE has been in discussions with at least the Whitecaps - so if all that you believe is true, then why would MLSE demand/request the clause? It should be apparent - they think there is a possibility that a franchise will emerge in another Canadian market and compete. Otherwise, they would not care or bother. So the problem for me is both pratical - the blocking of possible fanchises (or extortion from the francise owners, and philosophical - the CSA has no business giving rights over all of Canada to any one market or organization for any period ot time. Indeed, they should have stopped at 50 miles around TO.

You'll note I have not made much of a deal about the 20 year 6 games a year stadium deal, other than to suggest it is too long. The reason? Because no matter how unlikely it is that the CSA will ever hold another SMNT game outside of Toronto, they have the option to do simply by scheduling enough games. The fact that the CSA has rarely done so and has displayed a complete lack of desire and intiative to do so does not change the fact that they may possibly do so. I think it highly unlikely, but the deal doesn't restrict</u> or prevent them from doing so, although that is more unlikely in my estimation than Vancouver being able to go into MLS in either 2007 or 2009. The exclusivity clause is an unnecessary restriction</u> on the growth and development of the game in Canada at the top level.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by MLSFAN

Ding! My post count just exceeded my IQ!

Gratz MLSFAN

[MLSFAN]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

The Vancouver stadium is only slightly behind the Toronto stadium, approval only takes a maximum 6 months and while there are "rumours" that certain elements of the Vancouver council would like to do a 2 year review, they are just rumours and no more or less valid than the rumblings of certain TO councillors about Exhibition 6 weeks ago. Business plans are always adjusted according to circumstances and are not etched in stone, the notion that Vancouver couldn't possibly be in before 2010, or doesn't want to be in before 2010 is an artificial construct. I find the notion that the exclusivity clause is just a "throw-away" specious. The "case" that Vancouver, or Montreal won't be effected is constructed around much propogated fallacies. As I have stated from my very first post, it is possible that Vancouver and Montreal will be admitted to MLS prior to the end of the exclusivity agreement - of whatever duration one wants to put on it, but not without payment of "compensation" to MLSE. This is wrong, pure and simple. Ask yourself - why does MLSE want this? MLSE will have done their due diligence - and it is clear that MLSE has been in discussions with at least the Whitecaps - so if all that you believe is true, then why would MLSE demand/request the clause? It should be apparent - they think there is a possibility that a franchise will emerge in another Canadian market and compete. Otherwise, they would not care or bother. So the problem for me is both pratical - the blocking of possible fanchises (or extortion from the francise owners, and philosophical - the CSA has no business giving rights over all of Canada to any one market or organization for any period ot time. Indeed, they should have stopped at 50 miles around TO.

You'll note I have not made much of a deal about the 20 year 6 games a year stadium deal, other than to suggest it is too long. The reason? Because no matter how unlikely it is that the CSA will ever hold another SMNT game outside of Toronto, they have the option to do simply by scheduling enough games. The fact that the CSA has rarely done so and has displayed a complete lack of desire and intiative to do so does not change the fact that they may possibly do so. I think it highly unlikely, but the deal doesn't restrict</u> or prevent them from doing so, although that is more unlikely in my estimation than Vancouver being able to go into MLS in either 2007 or 2009. The exclusivity clause is an unnecessary restriction</u> on the growth and development of the game in Canada at the top level.

You conviniently forget VCR has staed they want in in 5 years, 2010 Enough of your long winded rambling. MLSE has done what it needs to do. Protect its Investment. I dont see VCR or MTL ready to spend 15 Million + Stadium for 2007, do you?

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Alberta can't even make USL work.

Is that the criteria? Better tell the MLS that Toronto might be the wrong place!

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

Some of us think they didn't have</u> to be victims.

Even accepting for the sake of argument that Kerfoot & Saputo are "victims", I highly doubt that the CSA were interested making them so. What would be in it for them? As you said before, since this is the road we have chosen to take there is no incentive or motivation for the CSA to want to put the road-blocks up (although without other cars on the road at the moment to my mind there's not much of an argument they can make to prevent them from being put up). At most this is an unfortunate side effect that the CSA was forced to agree to, as it seems highly likely to me that the exclusivity clause until 2009 was something that MLS & MLSE wanted, and likely agreed to between themselves before going to the CSA with it as their "terms". Some are taking the view that the almighty & all-powerful CSA should have stood firm and prevent any sort of exclusivity period from happening. The problem with that view for me is that I don't believe the CSA are anywhere close to being almighty and all-powerful. If they were, they wouldn't have been spending the last two years cap in hand with their pockets empty like a pedlar on the street corner begging just about everyone in sight (with the known final tally being three levels of government, two major sports owners and two universities) for cash so that someone could build a stadium for them, and they wouldn't be running to the Americans to allow Canadian teams into their league in order to save Canadian soccer. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that the CSA have put themselves in that position over the past 20 years or so, but that's a side issue - we all knew going in that this is the position the CSA was currently in.

What is strange to me, is that if I were upset at the exclusivity clause (I'm not overjoyed about it but I still think its largely moot), I'd be far angrier at MLSE for being greedy & taking our results & FIFA rankings at face value, etc. than at the CSA for sanctioning whatever deal MLS & MLSE came up with, but nobody seems to have a problem with MLSE and instead all the rage is at the CSA for not overpowering those other two organizations, despite obviously not having the cash - and therefore the clout - to do so.