Richard Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Why on earth should links of any kind keep one team out of a tournament but not the other and on what basis can it possibly be argued that a professional club in Edmonton MUST be owned by Edmonton interests? Professional soccer is a business, we don't insist all our major grocery stores be owned by interests in the same city! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksam Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 quote:Originally posted by KAS The viability of a Canadian pro club would be enhanced with inclusion into the Voyageur's Cup. That being said, I would not let them into the tournament in 2011, and maybe not 2012 or beyond either. Not letting them in for 2011 is obvious really. They will not be very good on the field (the V Cup should be kept at a high standard), their off-field organization will be unproven, and there will be doubts in some people's minds about whether they will last any longer than the Aviators did. For 2012, you might want to consider it, but there will be a couple of important issues to discuss. The first is that Montreal might then be in MLS, so can Edmonton compete with three MLS clubs when only in its' second year, or does the V Cup go exclusively MLS for awhile. The second issue concerns club independence. The Edmonton Drillers should not only be 100% owned by Edmonton interests, but also given time to distance itself from the Whitecaps organization. You can't let them into the V Cup before all Whitecaps links are severed. Lets face it, soccer fans can get pretty paranoid at times, and after the "Miracle in Montreal" this year, allowing one soft goal/own goal by Edmonton against Vancouver in a V Cup game would have Toronto and Montreal fans putting on their tinfoil hats and crashing several internet forums. The same applies for any Impact spinoff club after they move to MLS. Any Canadian soccer club would like to get into the V Cup and make some extra money, but standards have to be maintained. Negative, they should enter right away. They will have a lot of the Caps players who won't make the jump to MLS so it will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 It would be nice if they could build their own little Railhawks/Battery type stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettinhalifax Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 A new SSS would be ideal, but at least there's something to work with at Foote Field. Either the 3500 seat football side (with Canadian football markings and yellow endzones) or the 1500 seat track and field side, which they could expand with temporary stands like Swangard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAS Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I think I should explain my views about Edmonton and the V Cup a little better. Bettermirror: In 2011, the Whitecaps will be in MLS, and they will take the best players with them. They won't play in the same league as Edmonton as Edmonton will be taking Vancouver's place in NASL. It remains to be seen who will be going to Edmonton and what the quality will be like. Vancouver and Montreal have done well against TFC in part because TFC have choked a few times, but also because Vancouver and Montreal were not your ordinary USL1 clubs. They are well-organized, with relatively large budgets. Some other USL1/NASL clubs are much smaller and less capable. Nobody knows what level Edmonton will be at, so it makes sense to wait and see what they are capable of. Richard: I know that alot of clubs are owned by interests from outside the community (ex: half the EPL). I did not really mean that the owners had to be from Edmonton. My concern was with financial independence. The Drillers can have outside owners so long as one of them is NOT Kerfoot! All of the clubs in the FA Cup are independent of each other. You don't see EPL clubs playing League 1/2 or Conference clubs that they have an ownership stake in. UEFA does not allow anyone to have a stake in more than one European club, and that is for the best. Players that are out on loan do not play against the club that owns their rights. If an Ottawa club was to emerge with either MLSE or Saputo money/leadership involved, then I wouldn't want that club in the V Cup either. Macksam: I don't think Edmonton should be allowed in right away. The "not good enough for MLS" version of the Whitecaps might not look too good. Furthermore, this new team will need time to gain legitimacy. Not only would you want a period of time for them to gain their own identity before they play Vancouver in official matches, but also because the Aviators were an embarrassment and the new team has owners with a questionable past. Since the Aviators folded in LESS THAN ONE SEASON, and some of the people involved with that disaster are involved here, I think it is only fair that they take a year or two to prove themselves so that Canadian soccer is not embarrassed on the CBC and infront of the mainstream media in one of the few cases were they would be paying attention to Canadian soccer. So, in conclusion, I think that the new Edmonton team should not be in the V Cup in their first year. They should take some time to become more independent of the Whitecaps, to prove that their on-field quality is good enough to enter this tournament, and to prove that their off-field competence is sufficient to keep the club going and thereby avoid any mid-season folding with committments left unfulfilled. The inspiration for tournaments like the V Cup is the FA Cup. You must remember that the FA Cup developed in a different country and at a very different time. Even with traditional behind it, the truly amateur clubs are not shown on TV, and the big clubs often play their reserves. In Canada, the challenge is to convince many skeptical people that the quality of the best players on our best clubs doesn't suck. As much as I would like to see more teams in the V Cup, quality and financial independence/soundness must be maintained. Adding Edmonton, Ottawa, and Hamilton would lend itself well to a two stage tournament that starts with a TFC/Hamilton, Ottawa/Montreal, and Edmonton/Vancouver home-and-away two-game first stage, but that will have to wait until atleast 2014 as half those teams still only exist on paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 KAS: you are dead wrong if Kerfoot owns Edmonton Caps. First of all, he won't fund a half-ass program, so the quality will be good and the players desperate to be "promoted" to the MLS (higher pay scale you'd think). If they are owned by someone else then they are DEFO in to the v-cup straight away. Level of play aside. If they don't want to be embarrassed, as you put it, they'll have a proper organization. Re: your comments with half-loaned teams .... Jeff may be able to clarify what happens in Spain, and someone else can correct me (or support me) re: Holland and Germany, BUT .... Certainly in Holland "reserve" teams have full participation in the national cup and have at times met their "first team" ie, Ajax 1 v. Ajax 2. Re: what you said to Macksam - then by your definition, no team below the premier league should be allowed in the FA Cup??? No team below MLS should be in the US Open Cup??? Fair enough that the new owners (or some of them former Aviators owners) should prove themselves...BEFORE they enter ownership. Once approved, they have full rights to participate in V-Cup as they meet the league standard set for entry. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonm Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I think it is alright to have a weaker team in the V Cup. Montreal did it againest Toronto on the last game of the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAS Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 quote:Originally posted by bettermirror KAS: you are dead wrong if Kerfoot owns Edmonton Caps. First of all, he won't fund a half-ass program, so the quality will be good and the players desperate to be "promoted" to the MLS (higher pay scale you'd think). If they are owned by someone else then they are DEFO in to the v-cup straight away. Level of play aside. If they don't want to be embarrassed, as you put it, they'll have a proper organization. Re: your comments with half-loaned teams .... Jeff may be able to clarify what happens in Spain, and someone else can correct me (or support me) re: Holland and Germany, BUT .... Certainly in Holland "reserve" teams have full participation in the national cup and have at times met their "first team" ie, Ajax 1 v. Ajax 2. Re: what you said to Macksam - then by your definition, no team below the premier league should be allowed in the FA Cup??? No team below MLS should be in the US Open Cup??? Fair enough that the new owners (or some of them former Aviators owners) should prove themselves...BEFORE they enter ownership. Once approved, they have full rights to participate in V-Cup as they meet the league standard set for entry. Period. If there is any Vancouver ownership interest in the Edmonton club, or extensive organizational links between the two that could suggest a lack of independence and possible conflict of interest, then Edmonton should stay out of the V Cup until it finds its' feet and these are removed so that the legitimacy of the competition is above reproach. If Vancouver is not involved in ownership or day-to-day operations, then Edmonton should be considered for the V Cup for 2012. I would not suggest 2011 because if the Edmonton group really is in charge, then the lack of experience with sports teams of some, and the history of failure and incompetence (link to Aviators or Everton/River Plate friendly) with others in the Edmonton group, suggest that they should atleast prove that they can play a full season without folding before risking a very public embarrassment to Canadian soccer. This is not an anti-Edmonton thing. If the club was fully owned and operated by the Rexall group then 2011 would be fine as the club would be independent, run by competent people, and well supported financially. I think that the V Cup will always be smaller than the FA Cup and even the US Open Cup. A lack of tradition and travel expenses are just part of it. The advantage that the V Cup has is that all the teams currently involved draw well and all the games can be televised, so there is some real money being made in each game. In that sense, the V Cup is actually alot better and more efficient than other national cups. For this to continue, the tournament has to remain small in the number of games played, and restricted to teams that are big enough to draw good crowds (in stadiums with TV production facilities) and play well enough to satisfy a television audience. The "Miracle in Montreal" may have been fun for TFC fans, but it hurt the credibility of this young tournament. It was not just the crap play from the Impact, but the talk on various forums along the lines of "MLSE must have handed over a big suitcase full of cash" which does not help. The FA Cup is full of tradition, and yet it still suffers at times do to the decisions made by some clubs. The V Cup doesn't have a tradition yet, and so it must be careful and picky to keep the quality and integrity of the competition at the highest possible level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscan Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Just keep in mind that the guys who are looking to take the reigns of this new Edmonton club were the same ones who set up that obscure Everton - River Plate match. Just keep that in mind when you debate the possible quality of the ownership and management group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 What's the stadium situation. Anything that includes the words "Common" and "wealth" should kill the possibility of NASL in Edmonton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Reserve teams used to be in the German DFB Pokal up until 2 years ago but with the introduction of professional 3 Liga, they only have senior teams now. However, if I remember correctly they did not allow a reserves vs senior side tie at any time. I don't see any issue with Saputo or Kerfoot owning 2 difft clubs in the competition. MLS has had its share of owners with multiple teams, didn't cause an issue with the US Open Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Edmonton must be allowed into the V's cup right away if only for the fact that it will help to launch the franchise by having at least 2 'big league' teams visit Edmonton. Don't you think fans will be a lot more excited to watch games against MLS teams from Toronto and Vancouver perhaps with some DPs on their rosters as oppossed to visits from Rochester and Carolina? Plus it will get the new team some exposure on a national network like Sportsnet or CBC or whoever will broadcast these games. If Montreal and Edmonton are both in the NASL in 2011, how can Montreal be in the V's Cup and Edmonton no? It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Any team playing in the NASL must be included in the VCup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort York Redcoat1555362293 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Here's to hoping for a smaller stadium for better atmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAS Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Fort York Redcoat Here's to hoping for a smaller stadium for better atmo. Agreed. With the huge size, high rent, multiple tenants taking prime dates, and CFL ripping up that pitch, Commonwealth is just a bad idea for second division soccer. High-profile friendlies would be one thing, but like the Aviators, a NASL club that tries to play all of their regular season games at Commonwealth is doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Any team playing in the NASL must be included in the VCup. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeltfc91 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Can someone clarify, is Edmonton going to be in NASL in 2011 forsure like 100% no doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAS Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 quote:Originally posted by michaeltfc91 Can someone clarify, is Edmonton going to be in NASL in 2011 forsure like 100% no doubt? It is as close to certain as you can probably get in Canadian soccer - take that for what its' worth! Vancouver will definitely be moving to MLS in 2011 (as Rafa would say: FACT!) and an agreement has been reached with an Edmonton based group to transfer much of the current squad and support to Edmonton for a new NASL Edmonton Drillers. The only concerns are that while Vancouver probably have their act together, there are question marks about some in the Edmonton group. Another possible problem is that the NASL is not yet sanctioned. Finally, where will the Drillers play? I would say that the odds of this happening are extremely good. The USSF still needs to sanction the NASL. The CSA needs to sanction the NASL for play in Canada, as well as sanction an Edmonton team (no problem there). Stadium issues in Vancouver (for them to leave Swanguard and play in MLS) are generally ok right now, but I don't know what is planned for Edmonton and that will be critical in determining their chances for success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Any team playing in the NASL must be included in the VCup. Even if it means that a participant would not be operating at arm's lenght from another club in the VCup?. The relationship between Edm and Van would have to be clearly defined before we can answer the question of whether Edmonton should play in the VCup. Otherwise the competition could turn into mockery. Suppose that its a straight parent and farm club realtionship and the two clubs meet up for key match and the parent club calls up several of the opponents key players. Just the appearance of not operating at arm lenght would put into serious question the integrity and credibility of the whole competion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 ^ The solution to that is simple. You 'cup-tie' players as they appear for one team or the other. Club A can't call up or bring down a player 'cup-tied' with Club B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The V's Cup can not be any more of a mockery than it was this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.