strobe_z Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Gawd... that whole fiasco still brings tears to my eyes. Still... it was a great summer while it lasted. I even had "The Hangar" website updated with pictures and articles... <sigh> I still have faith though that a management team that knows what it's doing would be able make a USL team in Edmonton a success, and the Whitecaps clearly know what they're doing. If I had to choose though, I'd rather watch a game at Clarke with event stands brought it than at Foote Field. With raised stands only on one side it was a real weird experience to watch games there (and the fact that my "hometown team" had self-destructed after only 2 months had nothing at all to do with it...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 This makes sense. The Whitecaps have stated they have a lot of concerns about the future of their developmental program. They want to keep it going, but they really need a higher place than PDL as a goal for their players. The MLS Whitecaps will not be able to promote a player like they did last year without him being signed over to MLS. I expect that the MLS side will stay separate from the developmental organization side, and that a pro USL club would be their top option. However, I was thinking before that they might go USL Div 2 pro and play at Swangard. Edmonton is a bolder option, but I like it. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Even if MLS does not make rule changes to accomodate USL teams there is no reason why the Whitecaps MLS ownership group shouldn't transfer the development aspect of the club and its USL franchises to a separate corporate legal entity under their ownership and carry on as before without MLS interference. Or create a new company to operate the standalone MLS team and keep the existing USL operation going as it is. This is a large part of why the MLS operation was called Vancouver 2011 MLS and not Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Frankly I think MLS would be foolish in the extreme to be inordinately stubborn about this stuff, it's not in their interests at all really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintin Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 I love the idea of another Canadian team in the USL, but I seem to be the only person missing something. If the Whitecaps were to own a team in Edmonton, I'm assuming the Edmonton team would not be eligible for the Voyageurs' Cup, being owned by one of the teams they would be competing against. I would love to see USL teams in Edmonton, Québec and Victoria all competing in the Voyageurs' Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 It's not the owners who play for the Voyageurs Cup it's their soccer teams. Common ownership is irrelevant. Heck, for the longest time many MLS clubs had the same few owners and it meant nothing when it came to league competition or competing for the US Open Cup, why should it matter in Canada for the Voyageur Cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard It's not the owners who play for the Voyageurs Cup it's their soccer teams. Common ownership is irrelevant. Heck, for the longest time many MLS clubs had the same few owners and it meant nothing when it came to league competition or competing for the US Open Cup, why should it matter in Canada for the Voyageur Cup? Because the Edmonton team in question would be mere development side, subservient to the Whitecaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueviking Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Mr.Impact The other challange for Edmonton and other potential western cities, is that they would be competing with the CFL for customers entertainment dollars, given the population base of these cities (i.e Edmonton,Calgary Winnipeg, Regina). i dont think this would be an issue for a franchise playing in a 1500-5000 seat stadium...that is a completely different scale than the CFL drawing 30 000 per game...winnipeg has a minor league baseball team that averages 7000 per game for 40 games...there is no reason a city like edmonton couldnt support both CFL and USL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG Because the Edmonton team in question would be mere development side, subservient to the Whitecaps. So what! You don't think most USL-1 players harbour ambitions to play for an MLS team? The Edmonton Whitecaps would be no different in that regard from any other USL-1 team. Ownership is irrelevant in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto Ruffrider Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard So what! You don't think most USL-1 players harbour ambitions to play for an MLS team? The Edmonton Whitecaps would be no different in that regard from any other USL-1 team. Ownership is irrelevant in this instance. I don't see why a connection between ownership groups should prevent any teams from entering the Voyageurs Cup, even if that connection is developmental in nature. In the United States, for instance, both the Chicago Fire (MLS) and the Chicago Fire Premier (PDL) are eligible for the U.S. Open Cup, even though the latter team serves a developmental purpose for the former team. If American teams can feature strange and unique ownership bonds in competitive play, then why can't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard So what! You don't think most USL-1 players harbour ambitions to play for an MLS team? The Edmonton Whitecaps would be no different in that regard from any other USL-1 team. Ownership is irrelevant in this instance. You should try to explain that to the potential fans of such a team. Again, ownership is relevant in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 There is also rumors that the six Canadian PDL clubs will play in their own mini tournament next year, with the winner getting a spot in the Voyageurs Cup , This would included the Whitecaps Residency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 -Having a six-team PDL cup leading to V's cup would be great. but how would this work if they actually WON the V's cup!? Although far-fetched it must be considered since they are entering. (that's a different topic which has been discussed) -What is stopping a separate ownership group in Edmonton starting-up the Edmonton 'Caps (or some other form of Whitecaps etc....) with a LOAN-agreement with the MLS whitecaps. This would keep Edmonton filled with inspiring youngsters and give the MLS caps a serious avenue of development for it's young up and comers. It would also give them somewhere adequate for injured first-teamers to recover/improve fitness. -Edmonton could have a USL-1 side, and it makes sense since I figure Victoria PDL will be up to USL very shortly. Frankly, I don't see much other reason for Colin Miller to involve himself in a program such as that - he could have quite easily had the same job in Abby (of course I have no clue what the monetary differences are). He does drive a nice car! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 whoever believes that PDL teams playing in a tournament could possibly qualify for the V's cup is dreaming in technicolour. PDL teams are part time ventures (3 month seasons). The players, by and large, are committed to other organizations as soon as their short season is over. It ain't happening....trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 That's my point VPjr - but WHAT IF!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 quote:Originally posted by bettermirror That's my point VPjr - but WHAT IF!? Then it's terrible for soccer in this country, hosting international teams in public parks. [V] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I think the PDL teams would upgrade for those games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt-MTL Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 No PDL, CSL, or USL-2 teams in the Canadian Championship PLEASE! As for the topic itself, I would hope that there would be an ownership group in Edmonton prepared to step up and invest in a USL-1 franchise (heck I'd even take USL-2 or PDL to start off with). If it's owned by the Whitecaps, then does it not simply become another feeder club? I would rather Edmonton have a separate ownership group in order to ensure that these are truly separate entities, thereby further increasing the competition in the Canadian soccer landscape and giving the fans out West an alternative to the Whitecaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I can understand people preferring an independent, even local ownership group for a USL-1 franchise in Edmonton, but it isn't happening... how long is it since the last Edmonton team failed? In your shoes, in the absence of the ideal solution I would be delighted if a really well run, well funded, proven organisation like the Whitecaps FC stepped up and delivered a team to my city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard I can understand people preferring an independent, even local ownership group for a USL-1 franchise in Edmonton, but it isn't happening... how long is it since the last Edmonton team failed? In your shoes, in the absence of the ideal solution I would be delighted if a really well run, well funded, proven organisation like the Whitecaps FC stepped up and delivered a team to my city. If Edmonton doesn't want them as owners, Winnipeg would gladly take them. I can't think of anyone with a better knowledge of our domestic professional game than the Duze. The only thing that I would suggest of the Vancouver ownership group, for marketing reasons, you do not want to call the club Edmonton Whitecaps. Give the club a name the locals can be proud of that means something to Edmonton. With that in mind, it would be a great move for any USL club, because they would be getting MLS players on loan and grooming some exciting young Canadian prospects. It's a formal arrangement that Montreal does not have, and could only benefit Edmonton/Winnipeg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 ^ Agreed, a team name would have to be chosen that contributes to the marketing success of the venture. Whitecaps is hardly relevant to Edmonton considering it was inspired by the choppy waves in Burrard Inlet and the tips of the snowcapped North Shore mountains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpg75 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 quote:Originally posted by bettermirror That's my point VPjr - but WHAT IF!? I think what he's saying is the PDL sides can't take part, they only have the players for the summer while College is out and could not stay assembled past the end of August due to school committments. If a PDL team won the V's Cup they'd have to stay assembled for the Fall season to participate in the CCL and that ain't happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 ^^ Well, they could compete for the Canadian Championship, they just couldn't represent Canada in the CCL if they won it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 ^ In principle they could compete for the Canadian championship but I can't see the fulltime professional clubs agreeing to it since the whole purpose of the championship is to settle on an entrant for the CCL. Why would the pro clubs be interested in playing what they would see as meaningless games against lower level teams with poor marketing potential? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.