CSA won't block Ottawa's NASL ambitions

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Latest from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/message+only+hiccup/3926933/story.html

A chill wind blew across the Ottawa soccer landscape after the Canadian Soccer Association announced it would refuse permission for any Canadian teams to play in U.S. leagues until next October.

It was enough to put a major scare into Ottawa Fury owner John Pugh and his Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group partners. In all probability, it made them pretty mad.

Here they were hard at work making a deal with the North American Soccer League for a tier two professional franchise to kick off in the resurrected Lansdowne Park stadium in the spring of 2013.

Then this news landed. No chance of the required CSA sanction until next October and who knows what after that? Setting yourself up as a genuine professional sports franchise doesn't take six months, it takes years and here was the CSA appearing to put the kibosh on things for almost a year because they want to "examine the feasibility of a Canadian Professional League." Did they want Pugh to sit on his hands, wasting valuable time? Well, hold the phone.

I spoke with CSA General Secretary Peter Montopoli and he assured me that, when the Ottawa franchise asks the association to sanction it to join the NASL, "we are not looking to stop anything. There will be no withholding." So we can rest easy.

Ottawa's professional soccer future can continue to gather steam and, right now -- short of political interference or stadium construction holdups -- I can see no reason why Lansdowne will not see a tier two professional soccer team sitting alongside a CFL franchise and the Ottawa 67's come 2013....

[jedinathan]

So what was the point? Just to scare teams?

[Alex D]

BBTB's thread title is misleading. The plan was to never stop teams from preparing, because if they are prepared for NASL they are also prepared for the Canadian League. They just won't be awarded sanctioning until after the moratorium.

[jedinathan]

Ah fair enough. Its also early, and work is slow... Me being half asleep didn't help my comprehension. Thanks!

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

So what was the point? Just to scare teams?

Pure speculation on my part would be that certain CSA execs were hoping that the moratorium would kill off the NASL's recent sanctioning bid with the USSF (the Ottawa money being used to fund Minnesota thing is still being mentioned on US based podcasts) but now it's up and running as a D2 league they aren't going to stand in anyone's way because the optics of being seen to actively block Canadian investment groups in the larger cities from entering a genuinely professional level league would not be good.

Setting that aside it will be interesting to see if there are any moves on here to set up a supporters group in Ottawa now similar to what has been happening in Edmonton.

[Juby]

holy deceptively biased article, it had two legitimate quotes, and both were kinda against the point of the article but he barely factors them in in favour of the unquoted opinions he talks OF. (edit: despite the title, actually spends a majority of it's time complaining about a national division)

The best example of this is where he degenerates all the opposing arguements saying we should have a national league just 'because it can' and then it briefly mentions their worried of losing players and losing teams (actually their worried their not producing enough players and don't have enough teams) and then writes that off by pretending nasl and a canadian d-2 are mutually exclusive? (people literally act like we have a choice between two more nasl teams and decent national division??? maybe debuting in the same season, but in general it's a polarizing over simplification)

Then he points out everyone elses plan of setting up regional csl's??? Weren't the anti national league people pretending this was a bad idea a few months ago? when they had that idea, you guys shat on it, then when they decide to look into other things, it's suddenly a great start.

heck, the entry point of the article is the resulting fury of a team thinking of entering nasl in 2013, a year and a half after the moratorium ends. it sounds more like a bit of confusion then anger to me.

And for the 9 billionth time, the whole article assumes the plans of the csa are set in stone, they set up a committee to decide on what to do, they could decide the best way to eventually setup a canadian d-2 by helping establish an alberta saskatchewan d-3, but that would be far to reasonable and rational I guess.

Also, once again, i wish people would start to use 'ad hoc' correctly? sure it literally means 'for this', but it's meant makeshift(ie rushed or poorly planned) for centuries, and if you could call a planning committee for a vague goal ad hoc, you could literally call any goal ad hoc to call this ad hoc is stretching the definition to ludicrous degrees.

[Redcoatsforever]

Pure speculation on my part would be that certain CSA execs were hoping that the moratorium would kill off the NASL's recent sanctioning bid with the USSF .

That must be why the moratorium came out AFTER the league was provisionally sanctioned, and didn't touch any teams already sanctioned.

I forget though, the CSA are a dark board of shadowy figures who hate soccer.

[VPjr]

Montopoli's quote in that article is being interpreted incorrectly by most.

All he is saying is that Pugh's group is free to continue to do whatever work they need to do if they are serious about pursuing an NASL franchise. The CSA doesn't have the authority to keep someone like John (or any other group) from continuing negotiations with NASL, putting business plans together, negotiating with facility operators, etc etc etc...

What the Fury or any other similar minded group can not do is make an application for sanctioning for about 10-12 months, which means they also can not make any formal announcements about formally joining an American league until the CSA has done their work in determining which way to go with D2 professional football in Canada (or, more accurately, groups like Fury can say they are approved to join the NASL but their entry into that league in 2013 is subject to CSA sanctioning)

Nothing has changed in terms of the moratorium.

[ray]

I tend to agree with the OP. Its true that the CSA moratorium doesn't affect any owners seeking franchises in US Federation-sanctioned leagues. That is good. But as that is the case I don't see the purpose of the moratorium in the first place. Just because it is harmless does not make it necessary. The CSA can carry out their study quite easily without the moratorium. They can signal their preference for a Canadian league without resorting to any temporary blockage.

On a different note, I'm glad we know the people Ottawa's NASL bid.

[Richard]

No Canadian club can play in a US league without CSA sanction.

Since there were no public declarations by any ownership group seeking fresh sanctioning from the CSA to play in a US league in 2011, the moratorium was little more than meaningless posturing by the CSA. All it did really was to get them a few column inches in the media, and that was not a ringing universal endorsement of the CSA's actions either.

[Juby]

No Canadian club can play in a US league without CSA sanction.

Since there were no public declarations by any ownership group seeking fresh sanctioning from the CSA to play in a US league in 2011, the moratorium was little more than meaningless posturing by the CSA. All it did really was to get them a few column inches in the media, and that was not a ringing universal endorsement of the CSA's actions either.

*shakes head* Meaningless posturing or for once, proper planning? They picked what looks like an open year, they picked it well in advance (no matter how you spin it, that's not stupid, stupid would be calling with less then a year before the 2012 season, which you probably would have criticized them for had they done that) They are making a bit of noise, so that people, you know, actually know what their doing. Honestly, it's one month into the moratorium and your already saying things like it was 'meaningless posturing'? Isn't a little early to make insulting assumptions? Saying things arrogantly doesn't make them true... you need proof, not a bunch of rash conclusions in a rude little paragraph.

I dare you to dig up some proof to back up your snotty claims that they aren't planning on doing anything, just looking for attention (it should be obvious that the proof won't arrive for months which makes your claims, like I said, baseless or like you said 'meaningless posturing' aha)

[Richard]

So what's the point of the moratorium if as you say they picked an 'open year' and there are no teams to stop anyway? That's what makes it meaningless posturing Juby. Why not just get on with their league study committee then when they have a financially viable plan and investors lined up for their 8 team national D2 professional league, make a big splash in the media. The way they've gone about it, if they fail which they very likely will, they will really have egg on their faces. With the CSA's track record and their management of the situation in Alberta as the most recent example, I have little faith in the CSA's ability to organise a piss up in a brewery, never mind the professional league some people are expecting.

[Juby]

So what's the point of the moratorium if as you say they picked an 'open year' and there are no teams to stop anyway? That's what makes it meaningless posturing Juby. Why not just get on with their league study committee then when they have a financially viable plan and investors lined up for their 8 team national D2 professional league, make a big splash in the media. The way they've gone about it, if they fail which they very likely will, they will really have egg on their faces. With the CSA's track record and their management of the situation in Alberta as the most recent example, I have little faith in the CSA's ability to organise a piss up in a brewery, never mind the professional league some people are expecting.

Your kidding me? You'll probably just roll your eyes at the idea of a 25 year old telling you about some basic business (which I think just isn't occuring to you because you are so tunnel visioned against any national division) but it's pretty simple.

A) making sure the open year stays open. It wouldn't help the new league to have to compete in certain markets with other brand new teams in different leagues, that's just shooting yourself in the foot.

basic planning. Since they appear to have an open year, where they've factored in their fellow canadians plans, their fairly booking their place for their plans. In other words 'we already signed on to winnipeg in 2011, going back on that would be dishonest so were not doing that, 2012 looks open, 2013 is when ottawa plans on entering NASL, good on them, okay, so were going to book 2012 so that if any nice people with their own plans come along, they will hopefully take our plans into account the same way we did with everyone elses plans', the only difference is they have the power to enforce this and I think their thought process in regards to Ottawa and Winnipeg shows their not going overboard.

C) cornering potential investors. Do you think the CSA is throwing away the numbers of people inquiring about the pdl? no, their probably telling them, 2012 won't be open (it's almost 2011 so that should be fine anyway) but 2013 should be open, then they will hopefully just casually mention that 2012 won't be open because there trying to get a low level national league together and tell them they'll be giving presentations in a few months. Then they keep that persons number and ask them if they were interested in hearing the new league pitch when it was done.

D) If they follow your suggestion that they just do the study, and continue to go about normal business, and then decide it is viable they may have already done A) (see A above, shot themselves in the foot), (see B above, if they announced it this summer the the moron brigade would accuse them of rushing a league and poor planning) and have already given up on C) (see C above, giving potential low level investors a second option before they commit).

And if they liked their chances of succeding in general but ruined 2012 by not using their heads (in other words not using foresight), they might not be able to find an open year at which point you'd say they were stupid for not trying in 2012 or for competing in an unopen year.

On top of that your whole arguement contridicts itself. You said for them to plan, then announce their plan with everything in order to make a splash? technically isn't calling a seemingly harmless moratorium a good way to make a bit of splash. You know that it's easier to find the investors after a big splash right? Do you realize how next to impossible it is for low level canadian soccer 'to make a splash' in the media? You know what, for opening splash this was pretty good I think, and sure the cats out of the bag but theirs no reason they still can't also make the same splash you were suggesting as well.

You then ramble on with your typical, nothings gonna change, their all incompetant, why bother and so on and so on ( You do realize that all your point boils down to is, you don't think theirs enough investors, enough talent or enough interest, you can't exactly prove it but you've persisted on repeating that over and over again masking a very simple opinion in arrogance and poor logic (like pretending what was correct in Canada in 1990, has to be correct for Canada 2010), like you understand that your point about the CSA being unfixably useless isn't a real point, it's just illogical pessimism disguised as facts. Sure you can think the CSA is incompetant but to say they are incapable of anything but failure is just as extreme as saying they will succeed, everytime. Do you not see how assuming an illogical 'CSA has to be wrong' stance may adversely affect the arguements your building out of it? If I act like all dogs have to be brown, I will make a fool of myself everytime I talk about dogs)

[Richard]

Why do I bother ever responding to this juvenile idiot.

[Juby]

Why do I bother ever responding to this juvenile idiot.

I wonder the same thing about you, why don't you try making a proper logical point, or show a mistake in my logic (that would require reading something that you disagree with *Shocking*) or provide some real numbers (that make sense btw) instead of just saying you don't think it's there yet arrogantly and rudely as possible. At least I have the common sense to read what I'm argueing against and use what you say to discredit what you say instead of being vague and arrogant.

literally, just look at the post and show how something makes no sense (or as you so maturely put it, show I'm a 'juvenile idiot' instead of just making the claim), if your so obviously right, then shouldn't it be my posts that are littered with poorly thought points, misleading comparison and bad logic like yours?

[Grizzly]

Quite honestly Juby, I seldom agree with Richard, but I find your posts almost incomprehensible from a language, writing skills, grammar and basic logic point of view even on issues I agree on you with. You are entitled to your point of view but try to express it in a coherent fashion.

[Juby]

Quite honestly Juby, I seldom agree with Richard, but I find your posts almost incomprehensible from a language, writing skills, grammar and basic logic point of view even on issues I agree on you with. You are entitled to your point of view but try to express it in a coherent fashion.

examples, because I have been taking care to cut out the silly mistakes, however if you come to the conclusion there just long, I'm not going to fault myself unless you can point out me just repeating myself or not making any sense.

I don't want to be a wanker but your going to have to prove your point, just volunteer to read that post up there, point out me being incomprehensible. Otherwise it's a little unfair to have to deal with brief general criticism. (and to be completely honest, I am rather annoyed you accuse me of problems with my logic, these should be relatively easy to point out)

edit: If someone was making huge crappy incomprehensible posts, I would quote this paragraph, and point out that it makes no sense, and highlight something else that was completely incomprehensible and tease that and actually try and embaress them into making sense or shutting up (clearly doesn't always work). Honestly, if I say something completely stupid, I feel embaressed, and quite often shut up, maybe that's a little more proper then a general statement (or even basic snottiness from some people). I already have to deal with people trying to degenerate my arguements to regional insults (and it's not like it'd be acceptable if I made fun of any other province (not that I would)), written off because of my age, and sometimes just called childish names, is it so much that someone take the thorough route the odd time with me if what your saying is correct?

[Grizzly]

examples, because I have been taking care to cut out the silly mistakes, however if you come to the conclusion there just long, I'm not going to fault myself unless you can point out me just repeating myself or not making any sense.

I don't want to be a wanker but your going to have to prove your point, just volunteer to read that post up there, point out me being incomprehensible. Otherwise it's a little unfair to have to deal with brief general criticism. (and to be completely honest, I am rather annoyed you accuse me of problems with my logic, these should be relatively easy to point out)

I have neither the desire or time to do an analysis of your posts. Let me also remark that it is interesting that you make such demands of me but did not even feel it necessary to use proper grammar, capitalization or punctuation in your response. How many errors are there in just the first sentence of your response? It is not the length (my posts are often too long also), it is the inability to write coherent sentences. We don't have to write literary masterpieces here but simple correct English helps one to be understood. There are numerous posters who I debate with here who I may or may not agree with. Some like Gordon I frequently agree with but on a few issues disagree with completely. Others like Richard and BBTB I disagree with most of the time. Nevertheless, I understand their arguments and what they are trying to say even if I don't agree with it. With you I don't even know what your point is half the time. I am pretty sure a lot of other posters have the same opinion. You can accept or not accept the criticism, that is your choice. If I were you I would try to write fewer and shorter posts and take more time trying to express your opinions clearly.

Additonally let me point out that despite your claims of bias against Richard Starnes, his article is a very well written and well thought out analysis of the situation created by the CSA.

[Juby]

I have neither the desire or time to do an analysis of your posts. Let me also remark that it is interesting that you make such demands of me but did not even feel it necessary to use proper grammar, capitalization or punctuation in your response. How many errors are there in just the first sentence of your response? It is not the length (my posts are often too long also), it is the inability to write coherent sentences. We don't have to write literary masterpieces here but simple correct English helps one to be understood. There are numerous posters who I debate with here who I may or may not agree with. Some like Gordon I frequently agree with but on a few issues disagree with completely. Others like Richard and BBTB I disagree with most of the time. Nevertheless, I understand their arguments and what they are trying to say even if I don't agree with it. With you I don't even know what your point is half the time. I am pretty sure a lot of other posters have the same opinion. You can accept or not accept the criticism, I don't really care, but I pretty much ignore your posts as incomprehensible jibberish whether we are on the same side of a debate or not.

Just weak. Complaining about basic grammer is what people do when they run out of real arguements. When I say that someone makes no sense or is being illogical, I prove it. Is it so much to ask you do the same (ie back your statements, or make proper criticism), I specifically chose that last post up there cause it's not that long, maybe 5 minutes to 'prove' your point, but apparently I'm asking far too much of you...I reread that last big post of mine, a couple run on sentences, a few minor punctuation mistakes (like a few missing capitals makes it incomprehensible), it still makes perfect sense

edit to your edit: I thought amoung fairly optimistic points, it was generally bogged down in the middle by typical over simplified 'poppycock' arguement against the national league, he quotes the people for a league saying what they should be saying but doesn't quote the people who agree with his 'this is a bad idea' stance even though he mentions them.

[Grizzly]

Just weak. Complaining about basic grammer is what people do when they run out of real arguements. When I say that someone makes no sense or is being illogical, I prove it. Is it so much to ask you do the same (ie back your statements, or make proper criticism), I specifically chose that last post up there cause it's not that long, maybe 5 minutes to 'prove' your point, but apparently I'm asking far too much of you...I reread that last big post of mine, a couple run on sentences, a few minor punctuation mistakes (like a few missing capitals makes it incomprehensible), it still makes perfect sense

edit to your edit: I thought amoung fairly optimistic points, it was generally bogged down in the middle by typical over simplified 'poppycock' arguement against the national league, he quotes the people for a league saying what they should be saying but doesn't quote the people who agree with his 'this is a bad idea' stance even though he mentions them.

Ok thanks for several PMs of personal insults demanding an example of an illogical post. Ask and you will receive. The following paragraph neither makes sense nor is logical, in fact, I have no clue even what you are saying here (nevertheless in an absurd way it could be post of the year material ):

You then ramble on with your typical, nothings gonna change, their all incompetant, why bother and so on and so on ( You do realize that all your point boils down to is, you don't think theirs enough investors, enough talent or enough interest, you can't exactly prove it but you've persisted on repeating that over and over again masking a very simple opinion in arrogance and poor logic (like pretending what was correct in Canada in 1990, has to be correct for Canada 2010), like you understand that your point about the CSA being unfixably useless isn't a real point, it's just illogical pessimism disguised as facts. Sure you can think the CSA is incompetant but to say they are incapable of anything but failure is just as extreme as saying they will succeed, everytime. Do you not see how assuming an illogical 'CSA has to be wrong' stance may adversely affect the arguements your building out of it? If I act like all dogs have to be brown, I will make a fool of myself everytime I talk about dogs)

[Juby]

Ok thanks for several PMs of personal insults demanding an example of an illogical post. Ask and you will receive. The following paragraph neither makes sense nor is logical, in fact, I have no clue even what you are saying here (nevertheless in an absurd way it could be post of the year material ):

haha, you need to read what I'm responding to(it's a rebuttle), to your point that was one of the examples of run on, but first, read his post, in my final paragraph you pointed out: I sum it up (admittedly cynically) and berate the repeatitive arguements being arrogantly stated with poor to little reasoning. I then(abusing the bracket system admittedly, but this is the run on bit) point out two examples of poor logic (the idea that nothing will ever change and the CSA has to be wrong) Now this is simpler, just the second part of his bit and my final paragraph. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.

btw: I wrote a fairly friendly post and thought to write a fairly friendly pm, I looked back to the thread and saw he had decided to take a written dump on me, so when he pm'd back I told him flat out he was a prik. And yes I went on to say if what he is saying is true he should prove it.

'demanding' though is pretty much a lie (at best a huge exxageration), asking someone to back up their point is...debate, and by several he means when he responded back again saying he was speaking generally about my writing, I responded once again, okay, prove it (and cry me a river for being called a prik, I tried being nice), then I added very brief a pm saying it was off topic to generally talk about my writing(especially when it's not even applicable to this thread).

Why does everyone have to try and play politics?

edit: I hate to use a cliche, but MUD SLINGING, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who started it or who was right, we all look bad. So as much as we both know there wasn't actually much in mentioning the pm's, we both now look like teenage girls.

[El Hombre]

Alright kids. That's enough. Can we please debate the topic at hand and cut out the rest of the crap?