RS Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 quote:Originally posted by RJB They have thirteen clubs now, and have said they'd stop at 16 They said they'd stop at 16, take some time to let the new franchises develop (the 14th is already promised to San Jose), and continue from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 quote:Think Saputo would put it down more as the ex-wife who slaved away and suffered through the lean years only to find herself put to the curb for the younger trophie wife after her husband had finaly "made it". I don't see it like that at all Cheeta. The MLS is clearly the top league in North America that would accept a Canadian team (don't think we will be playing in the Mexican league anytime soon) and Saputo has shown no ambition to join them. What is the CSA to do? It has been debated before whether or not the CSA should have decided to go the MLS route or not but given that they decided to go that route (and I certainly didn't see Saputo providing good alternative suggestions) are they then supposed to deal with someone who doesn't want to go that route. Sticking with the women analogy, do you ask a girl to go a dance after she has told you for years that she doesn't like the dance club it is in and won't go there? Saputo has every right not to want to join MLS but I don't understand all the complaining and hard feelings about CSA supporting someone that did want to join the MLS. If he is going to complain about getting dumped he had to at least show some interest and ambition to play at a higher level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 His comments look even worse when you consider the history of the Impact coming into place with the APSL (then A-league now USL Div.1) to supplant Montreal's team in the CSL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by RJB Maybe his beef is that the CSA is in bed with MLSE. The Impact have clearly been Canada's top supported team for some time now, and the CSA gave them a bit of a slough-foot by allowing MLSE to usurp that title. . How so? MLSEL expressed an interest in joining MLS, so what was the CSA supposed to say? " No we dont approve because...... well because we like the Impact". What benefit would there be for the CSA and Canadian soccer in trying to derail the MLS project? Plus, If MLSEL set its sights on joining the MLS then I cant see why they would care what the CSA or Saputo thinks. Having said that, the endorsement of the CSA does not hurt. As far as Saputo, I do and I dont feel sorry for him. I feel sorry because they have had the best fan support for soccer in Canada up to now and all they have to show for it is their club is now regarded as tier two in Canada. But I also dont feel sorry for him because the USL was always teir two in North america, and the Impact have been drawing MLS type numbers and running an operation that is comparable to MLS and could easily operate in the MLS. So why weren't they the first to pursue the MLS option( eg.; two or three years ago)? Another thing that must be crossing Saputo's mind on this topic IMO: WE know that Saputo is one of, if not, the most influential owner(s) in the USL. If I were him, I'd be wondering if there is anything that could have been done to ensure that the Toronto USL entry rid itself of the Hartrells and get a more solid, well funded ownership. Because if there one thing that I believe could have kept MLSEL and MLS out, its not the CSA or Saputo. But rather, a solidly run and well supported USL team in TO operating in a more professional environment. In the end, its the Hartrells who created the vacuum that allowed MLSEL to move in. Because essentially, there was no pro soccer in Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 He is pissed at the CSA for the exclusivity deal and the national team games in Toronto guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Daniel He is pissed at the CSA for the exclusivity deal and the national team games in Toronto guarantee. Yes we know he is pissed off at that the question is why? Maybe there is some legitimacy to the Toronto National Team games guarantee but this is only an issue once Saputo builds his stadium. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the guarantee means that Montreal can not get any national team games and will probably get more than the rare games (once a decade) in the past if this means a new commitment to playing national team games in Canada. The exclusivity complaint is simply bull**** because he has not in the past and is not currently showing interest in joining MLS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morbital Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 impact, top team? Vancouver 2 - 0 Montreal thats the result i remember, anyone else remember that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly Yes we know he is pissed off at that the question is why? Maybe there is some legitimacy to the Toronto National Team games guarantee but this is only an issue once Saputo builds his stadium. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the guarantee means that Montreal can not get any national team games and will probably get more than the rare games (once a decade) in the past if this means a new commitment to playing national team games in Canada. The exclusivity complaint is simply bull**** because he has not in the past and is not currently showing interest in joining MLS. I may be wrong on this but, I do not know or recall that there was mention of this exclsuivity aggreement in any press release nor in any source outside of this forum. That doesn't mean that I doubt its existance but rather, I suspect that whomever first mentioned this, left out some important details or was not clear in regards as to who its negociated with and how it applies. None the less, It was my impression that the exclusivity agreement only applies if other Canadian clubs try to join MLS. I was not aware ( from what I heard/read about here way back when) that it said anything about the national teams nor that it impacted in any way the the existing USL operations. I would like to see the artcle again, when it was mentioned. Though I am not a legal expert, I cannot see how thes kind of agreement would pass a litmus test of Canadian laws ( As i understnd them). I cant see how in Canada it it is possible to allow one employer the first right of refusal on human resources to the detriment of other competitors or employers. It strikes me as anti-competitive. It would make sense though, for such an agreement to exist if it were negociated between the club and the league. But not between the Club and the CSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 If you look at it as a Franchise, then it's not so uncommon - there are exclusive territorial rights that go with a lot of other sports franchises, in this case the territory is Canada. Having said that, with Saputo the issue is moot if he is true to his word that he's not interested in MLS for the current time anyway. He was saying that before the exclusivity agreement came into being, and he's apparently been saying that again after it came into effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurosawa1555362267 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 He never showed interest in MLS, that is all I ear, but you don't seem to know Joey Saputo like I do. He is a bit of a poker player our Joey, it's not because he never stated to the media interest in MLS that he is not interested. Imagine that a little, you are Brad Pitt and you are going out with Jenniffer Aniston (div 2 in my mind) do you go oput to the media that yes you are with Jen but the only thing you have your eyes on is Angelina Jolie (definitely div 1). No, you don't do that, you wait until the timing is right and then you ditch Jen for Angelina. Now the Impact is a non-profit organisation, that's nice and all, but it also means it can't declare a loss at the end of the year. They have to be profitable. We suspect that most teams in MLS are losing money, so Joey is not fond of the system they have right now. He is definitely waiting for it to be somewhat modified so he can keep his non profit organisation. If Joey Saputo is pissed it's probably more about the stadium money that TFC more or less received from the CSA, because let's face it, no stadium no team in MLS. Since he is dishing out his own money to have a stadium built I say he can be pissed all he want. Imagine if you are a taxpayer who wants to be the first canadian to drive to the US, you work hard and save money to buy a car but then just as you are choosing the color the govnment decides that it will buy a car, loan it for next to nothing to your neighbor so he can be the first to cross the border and get all the glory. Not very nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 The reality is...both the Whitecaps and Impact will be MLS teams, possibly as early as 2010, but more likely 2011. The real question is...will the league mandate that the 'Caps and Impact have the same Canadian Player ratios as Toronto does now. Because if that's the case, then all 3 teams will suffer...there just isn't enough talent (right now) to spread around 3 Canadian teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurosawa1555362267 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer The real question is...will the league mandate that the 'Caps and Impact have the same Canadian Player ratios as Toronto does now. Because if that's the case, then all 3 teams will suffer...there just isn't enough talent (right now) to spread around 3 Canadian teams. Absolutely true and that's the real challenge that all three professionnal club in Canada have to face right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer The reality is...both the Whitecaps and Impact will be MLS teams, possibly as early as 2010, but more likely 2011. The real question is...will the league mandate that the 'Caps and Impact have the same Canadian Player ratios as Toronto does now. Because if that's the case, then all 3 teams will suffer...there just isn't enough talent (right now) to spread around 3 Canadian teams. I agree with your first statement (but I am hoping for 2009) and disagree with your second. There is the talent. They just need to figure out how to bring it back from Europe or prevent it from going. I refer to the players playing (or sitting on the bench) in mediocre (no disrespect) leagues. The Stalteris, Radzinskis, Klukowskis, DeGuzmans, etc are going to, and should go, play in the top leagues in the world and come back when the time is right. However, it the Stamatopolous', Berniers, Imhofs, Gerbas that we need to find a way to keep here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurosawa1555362267 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Well if a kid dreams to go to Europe to play soccer then you can't blame him for trying to make it there, but you have to make playing in Canada a step in making that dream come true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Free kick I may be wrong on this but, I do not know or recall that there was mention of this exclsuivity aggreement in any press release nor in any source outside of this forum. That doesn't mean that I doubt its existance but rather, I suspect that whomever first mentioned this, left out some important details or was not clear in regards as to who its negociated with and how it applies. None the less, It was my impression that the exclusivity agreement only applies if other Canadian clubs try to join MLS. I was not aware ( from what I heard/read about here way back when) that it said anything about the national teams nor that it impacted in any way the the existing USL operations. I would like to see the artcle again, when it was mentioned. Though I am not a legal expert, I cannot see how thes kind of agreement would pass a litmus test of Canadian laws ( As i understnd them). I cant see how in Canada it it is possible to allow one employer the first right of refusal on human resources to the detriment of other competitors or employers. It strikes me as anti-competitive. It would make sense though, for such an agreement to exist if it were negociated between the club and the league. But not between the Club and the CSA. The exclusivity agreement for Canada and the number of national team games to be played in Toronto are seperate clauses of the agreement with MLSE and are not the same thing. In terms of the former, the exclusivity clause gives MLSE the exploitation rights to every market in Canada for 5 years and to Ontario for ever. This means that an MLS franchise in Montreal or Vancouver either can not be granted until the 5 years has expired or that some sort of compensation agreeable to MLSE would have to be negotitated in order for a franchis eot be granted prior to the expiraion of the exclusivity agreement. This will always be the case in Ontario (ie Ottawa or Hamilton). The number of games guarantee was that the CSA agreed to play 6 Natioanl Team games per annum in the new stadium (controlled by MLSE) The agreement does not preclude the CSA from having games outside of Toronto as long as the 6 are held. Additionally the agreement does not specify that it is Men's NT games..theroetically could be U-17 girls. Of course, it is a practical consideration that the CSA is not going to hold U-15 or WNT or anything other than MNT in the stadium unless they are simply "filling the numbers" because rents would dictate that you put your best draw in there. There is no element of the agreement that infringes upon the direct operations of a USL team that I am aware of. There are a few indirect: 1) Impact can not go up to MLS (without paying a premium for their own market to TFC) and 2) TFC only exists due to subsidization of the stadium and because TFC exists, at least two of the Impact's best players will not be playing for Montreal this year which will have an effect on their operations. 1) Probably would not have occured anyway, but if the USL folds, it will put the Impact in a difficult position and likely result in the team flding as well and 2) may have occured anyway had Sutton and Braz moved on to Europe or MLS anyway. Nevertheless, it should be clear that neither Saputo nor Kerfoot are likely to get the assistance TFC has to get an MLS quality stadium. Add paying MLSE for the rights to the markets should the desire or need to go to MLS arise before the end of exclusivity period. The deal struck with MLSE is a great deal if the goal is ONE</u> MLS team in Canada...the deck is stack in its favour: No competition for players, a stadium for 10% of its cost, operating subsdizations through the national team program (6 rentals per year). But it does nothing to help anyone else into the League, and indeed, places obstacles. But one MLS team in Toronto does really does great all for Canadian soccer, and if MLS is the vehicle by which Canadian soccer is to arrive then the MLSE agreement is a poor one from the national perspective. Now, if the CSA is able to help get Montreal/Vancouver $40 million in Federal funding and another $15 - 20 million from Municipal and Provincial sources, and if the CSA is able to guarantee 6 rentals per annum for 20+ years, and if the CSA is goign to ensure that Montreal and Vancouver can actually get into MLS if they meet the expansion requiermets for stadium, financing and fan base, and the CSA is going to ensure that if Ottawa gets an ownership group together they can actually get in w/o paying an onerous fee to extinguish MLSE's permanent Ontario rights, then my concerns disappear, and I am sure Saputo's would as well. The women's world cup might be the leverage needed to pry the government money. Its not actually impossible that Montreal and Vancouver get the same sort of support as Toronto has for the most part, but given the margins in Canadian soccer, if they don't provide that support, ONE MLS team is the best we are likely to get. So, if I am Saputo, looking at the last 20 years..I can't be too optimistic that the CSA hasn't just screwed me over in favour of MLSE. And hey, he accepts that sometimes in business you have to do that sort of thing...said it himself...but that doesn't make getting screwed any more palitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Kurosawa Now the Impact is a non-profit organisation, that's nice and all, but it also means it can't declare a loss at the end of the year. They have to be profitable. We suspect that most teams in MLS are losing money, so Joey is not fond of the system they have right now. He is definitely waiting for it to be somewhat modified so he can keep his non profit organisation. That's fine.....but again it gets back to the main point that by all accounts he still isn't interested in getting into the MLS at the present time & therefore it is irrational for him to be upset about the exclusivity deal made between MLSE & MLS. quote: If Joey Saputo is pissed it's probably more about the stadium money that TFC more or less received from the CSA, because let's face it, no stadium no team in MLS. That would at least make a bit more sense. However.... quote: Imagine if you are a taxpayer who wants to be the first canadian to drive to the US, you work hard and save money to buy a car but then just as you are choosing the color the govnment decides that it will buy a car, loan it for next to nothing to your neighbor so he can be the first to cross the border and get all the glory. ....this analogy doesn't work, because again there doesn't appear to have been any suggestion that Saputo was anywhere near close to buying a car, let alone choosing the colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gordon The exclusivity agreement for Canada and the number of national team games to be played in Toronto are seperate clauses of the agreement with MLSE and are not the same thing. In terms of the former, the exclusivity clause gives MLSE the exploitation rights to every market in Canada for 5 years and to Ontario for ever. IIRC it was until 2009, not 5 years. 2010 was the year the others could make contact, so to speak. quote: But one MLS team in Toronto does really does great all for Canadian soccer, and if MLS is the vehicle by which Canadian soccer is to arrive then the MLSE agreement is a poor one from the national perspective. I would only agree with this statement if there was clear evidence that there were other owners from other cities who were not only definitely interested in joining the league but also immediately able to do so (with stadiums ready for the targeted entry time) in time for expansion & MLS was interested in having more than one Canadian team join MLS at the outset. To the best of my knowledge this has never been the case. Hence I continue to hold the view that the exclusivity deal is largely irrelevant (I believe the main reason it exists is for Canadian player quotas), unless all of the reports coming out of Montreal as to Saputo's intentions have been false - and even then that still leaves the issue of MLS's (lack of) interest in having 3 Canadian teams join at the same time or in very quick succession, given that they want to expand at a gradual pace and to some more US cities as well. I fully expect that we will see Vancouver & then Montreal join MLS by 2010/2012, and certainly would agree that if the CSA put up roadblocks to prevent that from happening or do not try to assist with getting them into the league and with stadiums, then they will be deserving of criticism - if and when that happens, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurosawa1555362267 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca ....this analogy doesn't work, because again there doesn't appear to have been any suggestion that Saputo was anywhere near close to buying a car, let alone choosing the colour. That analogy is about the fact that Saputo wanted to build a Stadium for a while now. The CSA decided not to support him but to put their marbles with a group that was not associated with soccer at all before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Ault Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Impact Get $1.5M Kick From Quebec MONTREAL – The Montreal Impact announced, Wednesday, a new five-year partnership with the Government of Québec, as one of the club’s founding partners. www.canadakicks.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Kurosawa That analogy is about the fact that Saputo wanted to build a Stadium for a while now. The CSA decided not to support him but to put their marbles with a group that was not associated with soccer at all before that. Ah, I get you now - I initially thought the car you were referring to was an MLS team, not a stadium. However it must be remembered that the CSA were looking to put that federal cash into a stadium in Toronto before MLSE were on the scene as a stadium partner - originally it was U of T & the Argos, then York University & the Argos. So I don't think we should be looking at this as the CSA choosing MLSE over Saputo for available stadium funds, but rather the CSA getting the cash in the first place because of the dearth of facilities in Toronto (especially in comparison to Montreal), a city deemed vital for the country hosting the U20 World Cup. I have high doubts that the Feds would have provided that money if it was felt that there wasn't a huge gap facility-wise in Toronto or that the other cities could have hosted games with the facilities they already had (which basically is proving to be the case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca If you look at it as a Franchise, then it's not so uncommon - there are exclusive territorial rights that go with a lot of other sports franchises, in this case the territory is Canada. Having said that, with Saputo the issue is moot if he is true to his word that he's not interested in MLS for the current time anyway. He was saying that before the exclusivity agreement came into being, and he's apparently been saying that again after it came into effect. Yeah. I agree that that is not uncommon. But as I said, I can imagine the existance of these territorial rights or exclusivity agreements as they apply to groups or entities within a league. Every lodge has its own rules. But as long as Vncr and Mtl are out ( ie.: not lodge/MLS partners ) I cannot see how it is enforceable or how it even affects them in how they operate. That is why I suspected in my posted that the exclusivity agreement, as it applies to players, has nothing to do with the CSA but is rather an agreement between TFC and its MLS partners. If it did exist and affect them( Van, Mtl), then I could see them suing. somebody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gordon The exclusivity agreement for Canada and the number of national team games to be played in Toronto are seperate clauses of the agreement with MLSE and are not the same thing. In terms of the former, the exclusivity clause gives MLSE the exploitation rights to every market in Canada for 5 years and to Ontario for ever. This means that an MLS franchise in Montreal or Vancouver either can not be granted until the 5 years has expired or that some sort of compensation agreeable to MLSE would have to be negotitated in order for a franchis eot be granted prior to the expiraion of the exclusivity agreement. This will always be the case in Ontario (ie Ottawa or Hamilton). The number of games guarantee was that the CSA agreed to play 6 Natioanl Team games per annum in the new stadium (controlled by MLSE) The agreement does not preclude the CSA from having games outside of Toronto as long as the 6 are held. Additionally the agreement does not specify that it is Men's NT games..theroetically could be U-17 girls. Of course, it is a practical consideration that the CSA is not going to hold U-15 or WNT or anything other than MNT in the stadium unless they are simply "filling the numbers" because rents would dictate that you put your best draw in there. There is no element of the agreement that infringes upon the direct operations of a USL team that I am aware of. There are a few indirect: 1) Impact can not go up to MLS (without paying a premium for their own market to TFC) and 2) TFC only exists due to subsidization of the stadium and because TFC exists, at least two of the Impact's best players will not be playing for Montreal this year which will have an effect on their operations. 1) Probably would not have occured anyway, but if the USL folds, it will put the Impact in a difficult position and likely result in the team flding as well and 2) may have occured anyway had Sutton and Braz moved on to Europe or MLS anyway. Nevertheless, it should be clear that neither Saputo nor Kerfoot are likely to get the assistance TFC has to get an MLS quality stadium. Add paying MLSE for the rights to the markets should the desire or need to go to MLS arise before the end of exclusivity period. The deal struck with MLSE is a great deal if the goal is ONE</u> MLS team in Canada...the deck is stack in its favour: No competition for players, a stadium for 10% of its cost, operating subsdizations through the national team program (6 rentals per year). But it does nothing to help anyone else into the League, and indeed, places obstacles. But one MLS team in Toronto does really does great all for Canadian soccer, and if MLS is the vehicle by which Canadian soccer is to arrive then the MLSE agreement is a poor one from the national perspective. Now, if the CSA is able to help get Montreal/Vancouver $40 million in Federal funding and another $15 - 20 million from Municipal and Provincial sources, and if the CSA is able to guarantee 6 rentals per annum for 20+ years, and if the CSA is goign to ensure that Montreal and Vancouver can actually get into MLS if they meet the expansion requiermets for stadium, financing and fan base, and the CSA is going to ensure that if Ottawa gets an ownership group together they can actually get in w/o paying an onerous fee to extinguish MLSE's permanent Ontario rights, then my concerns disappear, and I am sure Saputo's would as well. The women's world cup might be the leverage needed to pry the government money. Its not actually impossible that Montreal and Vancouver get the same sort of support as Toronto has for the most part, but given the margins in Canadian soccer, if they don't provide that support, ONE MLS team is the best we are likely to get. So, if I am Saputo, looking at the last 20 years..I can't be too optimistic that the CSA hasn't just screwed me over in favour of MLSE. And hey, he accepts that sometimes in business you have to do that sort of thing...said it himself...but that doesn't make getting screwed any more palitable. After the Argos bailed, the CSA needed a partner or the stadium wasn't going to happened. Dont forget, the commitment to funding from the various levels of govt ( except city hall)was pretty much there already. MLSE steps up and says, OK we'll partner with you since you are up the creek without a paddle provided that in return, we get to run the joint and you, in turn, guarantee us six events ( National team games)per year. On our end, we'll get an MLS team to justify our investment. So in this sence, the exclusivity agreement, as it applies to the National team matches was nothing more than a condition that needed to be met in order to ensure that the stadium project goes ahead and that the U20 WC doesn't get mothballed. Therefore, this agreement has nothing to do with the CSA helping or favouring Toronto or getting in bed with the MLS. Whereas the way that you put it in your post, it was a case of CSA getting the funding from governements and helping TO to the detriment of others. The Gov't $$$ could have just as easily gone to benefit the Argos intead. In that case, would we still be having this discussion ( Again, dont forget, a pertnership with the argos was the original plan). Similarly, I dont see how the CSA can get anyone into the MLS. they are not paying the tab, its MLSE who is and who has put the $$$ at risk. All they can do is not stand in the way. And, what reason would there be for them to stand in the way. So I am completely lost with this notion that has often crept up here stating " that the CSA got into bed with MLSEL" or that " the CSA favoured TO" or that " the CSA screwed Saputo and kerfoot". If anyone screwed the other USL clubs with their exclsuivity agreement , its not the CSA, but rather MLSEL and Major league Soccer. As much I hate it ( the exclsuivity agreement) I concure with what Calgary boomer said above and now see why it was wise for MLSEL to get it. I think that MLSEL saw something that the Voyageurs didn't. Just look at the trouble that TFC has had in getting Cnd talent. Maybe, we just dont have the talent depth that many here think. Without this player exclusivity agreement, the Canadian teams in MLS (should Van and Mon join) would face a serious talent shortage and it would be hard for them to stay competitive and help the CSA/Canadian soccer in the long run if they keep diluting the Canadian talent pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Kurosawa That analogy is about the fact that Saputo wanted to build a Stadium for a while now. The CSA decided not to support him but to put their marbles with a group that was not associated with soccer at all before that. Again I would respond to Saputo with the same question as above: Would it have made him feel better if the Argos would have not bailed and the CSA put "their marbles with a group that was not associated with soccer " such as the Argos? Again, Its worth repeating, that was the original plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Free kick Similarly, I dont see how the CSA can get anyone into the MLS. they are not paying the tab, its MLSE who is and who has put the $$$ at risk. All they can do is not stand in the way. To be fair, I suspect Gordon is referring to the fact that initially the CSA approached MLSE (through MLS) to ask them if they might be interested in joining the league with a team in Toronto. In that sense is could be said that they did more than simply "not stand in the way". It was absolutely the right thing for the CSA to do of course, especially given that Saputo & the Hartrells had basically told them to go take a jump in the lake with respect to the CSA's plan to create the CUSL, and that the Hartrells were holding back pro soccer's development in Toronto & that nobody else was seemingly interested in moving up to the MLS (at the time). quote: If anyone screwed the other USL clubs with their exclsuivity agreement , its not the CSA, but rather MLSEL and Major league Soccer. As much I hate it ( the exclsuivity agreement) I concure with what Calgary boomer said above and now see why it was wise for MLSEL to get it. I think that MLSEL saw something that the Voyageurs didn't. Just look at the trouble that TFC has had in getting Cnd talent. Maybe, we just dont have the talent depth that many here think. Without this player exclusivity agreement, the Canadian teams in MLS (should Van and Mon join) would face a serious talent shortage and it would be hard for them to stay competitive and help the CSA/Canadian soccer in the long run if they keep diluting the Canadian talent pool. I can also see why they wanted it & agree it is for the reasons you mention. Right off the bat it would be difficult to stock three Canadian MLS teams at current MLS salary levels, but the idea of course is that for not to be the case in a few years time, and I suspect that will be the case. I also suspect the CSA probably felt the same way however, and that is where MLSE got their advice from. Given that MLS's interest in waiting a bit for another Canadian team to come into the league & the lack of interest/ability of the other Cdn. cities to enter the league by 2007 or 2008, its difficult to see where the CSA had much of a leg to stand on in order to put its foot down against the exclusivity agreement that MLSE would have wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 In my opinion, to even be considered Canada's top soccer team, your roster has to be at least 50 per cent Canadian. Until that happens, TFC doesn't qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.