Juby Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Again all of the details about these 2 organizations not returning to the CSL have not come out. I was the one who made the point about the CSL not being about development and about business from my perspective. You then go on to talk purely about business in that long post of yours. So what is it? Development of Canadian Soccer or business for the "equity owners"? This being a Canadian soccer supporters site the business side of the CSL's structure would be of less concern than the development side of things to people here. So I am not sure why you are suprised at the response you have gotten so far. Many here see the necessity for the gap in the Canadian Soccer pyramid to be filled with a nationwide or regional setup of a Division 2/3 league to help or improve the development of Canadian Soccer. Many on here think that the CSL could potentially be the basis for doing so but obviously a major obstacle is the lack of CSA governance and involvement in the CSL and arguably the "equity ownership" of certain clubs. So don't take it as "bashing" the CSL, its about Canadian Soccer growing. Eventually for this to happen it has to either be about development or business. From the sounds of your posts you are more concerned about the business side. Am I right? When 2 organizations decide to call it quits, questions will be asked about the structure and how the Canadian Soccer League is run. Again still awaiting details on the issues. Some of the stuff people have said is pure bashing (like calling equity ownership worthless when its obviously worth more then 25 000$). And this doesn't have to be terribly arguementative but my point on developement vs business interests is that at this level: the business interests are not stable enough to not be a huge priority. If someone has to sacrifice a bit of money from developement to balance the books, better that then potentially bankrupt a club (and develop nothing), and at this level, financing and sustainability has to be the priority (their not in it to make a tonne of profit like a top club, there their trying to not lose money doing what they love, it's already a difficult situation). It's fine if you still don't think their doing enough for developement (I disagree) but if you were to behave like a bunch of others here you would have said their doing nothing for developement. I am not upset at alot of the arguements (there's plenty of perfectly nice 'I disagree' arguements I've made here). I am upset by all the exxagerated and just plain snotty remarks being dropped under the guise of debate. And the league structure changed this year, who says it won't again? They can't stop competition from starting, they can run their business however they want, if someone doesn't like the csl structure, they should support others but some of the things being said are terribly insulting and exxagerated and just counter productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Judging from this story from a local newspaper in the Milton area, a 2012 launch is more likely for the new league and it appears to involve more 2011 CSL members than the two that left: http://www.insidehalton.com/sports/article/954918--milltown-fc-parts-ways-with-canadian-soccer-league Adamson said that shortly before Christmas the CSL received a letter from a group of teams — including MFC and Hamilton Croatia (others not named by either side) — addressing concerns about the league’s terms and conditions (which haven’t been disclosed) for 2011. He said the teams “demanded” a meeting that simply couldn’t be accommodated around the holidays, and when that request wasn’t met, MFC refused to discuss its concerns and repeatedly missed membership deadlines. ... While highly unlikely for this coming year, Rossi said preliminary plans are in the works for MFC and a handful of other clubs to establish a new non-amateur men’s league under the Ontario Soccer Association umbrella. He added, “Right now about six teams have shown real interest in this. There’s really not enough time for this year. It’s more likely for 2012.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Spiers Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Judging from this story from a local newspaper in the Milton area, a 2012 launch is more likely for the new league and it appears to involve more 2011 CSL members than the two that left. However, I believe this is on the agenda for the February 26/27, 2011 OSA Board Meeting for approval in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpg75 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I can't wait for this new league to take root, it's really about time there was an alternative to the antiquated franchise system of the CSL. Forking over 6 digit franchise fees so you can lose 6 digits on operating a team does not sound like a smart investment. Let the dysfunctional old boys club sink out of the picture and replace them with a progressive new league run by all of the clubs and not by a clique of "old money" - some of whom have shown themselves incapable of actually running a club properly. Good luck Dino! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 However, I believe this is on the agenda for the February 26/27, 2011 OSA Board Meeting for approval in 2011. Hope all goes well with the vote. Looks like the CSL played hardball and managed to get most of the dissident clubs/franchises to sign on for 2011. Will be interesting to see what happens this time next year in terms of a realignment of forces if sanctioning is obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Then another guy (dbailey) goes off and takes a dump on the guys who have actually been putting their money up (thanks for actually investing in canadian soccer for a decade, now piss off). Wow, you really know nothing about the history of Soccer in this country over the last twenty years do you? If you can talk such ill-informed smack to one of the most knowledgable soccer fans in all of Canada there is little point wasting time reading anything you write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Wow, you really know nothing about the history of Soccer in this country over the last twenty years do you? If you can talk such ill-informed smack to one of the most knowledgable soccer fans in all of Canada there is little point wasting time reading anything you write. wow, I called him rude for calling out people who are actually investing their money pretty much for not being rich enough (by name at that) ...'I'll informed smack'???? Your clearly weren't reading in the first place anyway... (btw, if your talking about me using the word decade, I just mean what they've invested into this league but it's easier to pretend I'm talking about each clubs complete history???) And I was going to be quiet, but I'll try and make this quick: jpg75, this new league is suggesting a league that is founded by teams that don't have a spare couple hundred grand, too make a league that will hypothetically begin behind the current csl (salary minimums), probably with equal travel costs. Apparently this idea is a smarter investment then getting guys who can show some stability? I'm not being anti this new league, but low level soccer in general is not a 'smart investment', so making the csl look like a bad investment is just throwing stones in glass houses. And the guys who are incapable of running a club, are the ones who don't have a team anymore, not a few survivors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 As someone who takes a little pride in the English language, the excerpt below makes my eyes bleed: 'Some of the stuff people have said is pure bashing (like calling equity ownership worthless when its obviously worth more then 25 000$). And this doesn't have to be terribly arguementative but my point on developement vs business interests is that at this level: the business interests are not stable enough to not be a huge priority. If someone has to sacrifice a bit of money from developement to balance the books, better that then potentially bankrupt a club (and develop nothing), and at this level, financing and sustainability has to be the priority (their not in it to make a tonne of profit like a top club, there their trying to not lose money doing what they love, it's already a difficult situation). Apologies to the Bard, but "My kingdom for an 'ignore' option"!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 As someone who takes a little pride in the English language, the excerpt below makes my eyes bleed: 'Some of the stuff people have said is pure bashing (like calling equity ownership worthless when its obviously worth more then 25 000$). And this doesn't have to be terribly arguementative but my point on developement vs business interests is that at this level: the business interests are not stable enough to not be a huge priority. If someone has to sacrifice a bit of money from developement to balance the books, better that then potentially bankrupt a club (and develop nothing), and at this level, financing and sustainability has to be the priority (their not in it to make a tonne of profit like a top club, there their trying to not lose money doing what they love, it's already a difficult situation). Apologies to the Bard, but "My kingdom for an 'ignore' option"!! It's got a couple typos, cry me a river, If you want to talk about typos, start a thread about it instead of in the d-3 threads. But this is just nitpicking, if those minor typos are making it too difficult to read it honestly says more about your english skills then a few typos on a forum ( I missed a comma and confused the theirs, noooo, your not exxagerating are you?) Yet another snotty off topic post from ed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 'A couple typos' my ass. How does one even begin to understand what you are trying to say here: "And this doesn't have to be terribly arguementative but my point on developement vs business interests is that at this level: the business interests are not stable enough to not be a huge priority." Having taken quite advanced logic courses in my university days (some real winners in the Philosophy dept at Hog's Back High in 1977 I'll tell you), I read that as -- wait for it -- the business interests are such that they are a huge priority. Is that what you are trying to say? What are you trying to say? And yet you have the gall to make a comment about my english [sic] skills. My English skills are fine. Yours, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 'A couple typos' my ass. How does one even begin to understand what you are trying to say here: "And this doesn't have to be terribly arguementative but my point on developement vs business interests is that at this level: the business interests are not stable enough to not be a huge priority." Having taken quite advanced logic courses in my university days (some real winners in the Philosophy dept at Hog's Back High in 1977 I'll tell you), I read that as -- wait for it -- the business interests are such that they are a huge priority. Is that what you are trying to say? What are you trying to say? And yet you have the gall to make a comment about my english [sic] skills. My English skills are fine. Yours, not so much. Your kidding me right? that sentence is pretty easy to read... if i put the second not in italics would that help? cause it's not a double negative... I was making a joke about your reading skills but we both know it's you being fussy and me teasing you for making a big deal out of nothing, not to mention being way off topic just to be insulting. This is a forum, I don't really care if a few typos crop in, if you do, start a thread about it, pm me if you want, but this is not the place to discuss a few typos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 The sad thing is I think you do truly believe that what you wrote is 'pretty easy to read'. I am still asking the question, what does that sentence mean?? I assume that you mean that the business interests are not a huge priority, but in fact, you wrote the opposite. Once again, this is not about a few typos, it is about being unable to communicate your ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smeghead Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Ed, just because you cant read dont mean you should waste my time with your off topic whine. stfu or stay on topic please. Im worried what will happen but im hoping for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcoatsforever Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 Ed, just because you cant read dont mean you should waste my time with your off topic whine. stfu or stay on topic please. Im worried what will happen but im hoping for the best. Compromise solution: Ed agrees to cease pursuit of the errant sentence meaning, and Juby agrees to proof-read before clicking "Post Reply". Gentlemen, the ball is in your respective courts. EDIT: As an afterthought, "(...)just because you cant read dont mean you should (...)" Really? misusing "don't" and not using an apostrophe when telling off someone for whom grammar is an issue? The word is doesn't, for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I am going to try and be diplomatic and avoid any 'digs' I assume that you mean that the business interests are not a huge priority, but in fact, you wrote the opposite. I meant the 'opposite', as in what I wrote, the business side has to be the priority at this level because it's unstable financially. the business interests are not stable enough to not be a huge priority. I'll put it out there for a second though, I don't want to talk about this crap either really but here it is quickly. When people go way over the top and are giving the little infrastructure we have a worse rap then it deserves, I become exasperated and upset to see smearing of one of the small peices of developement we have. That's when typo's come flying out (and I have been more then known to completely fumble a sentence by going to quick) but I try to edit them. But it just seems like theirs a few people who wait till I get upset and act like all of sudden I'm smack dab illiterate (and I realize that sentence is setting me up for one of ed's 'quote' jokes) and to pretend I don't make any sense at all (which is easier to accept if I'm upset). More often then not, its an exaggeration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpg75 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 And I was going to be quiet, but I'll try and make this quick: jpg75, this new league is suggesting a league that is founded by teams that don't have a spare couple hundred grand, too make a league that will hypothetically begin behind the current csl (salary minimums), probably with equal travel costs. Apparently this idea is a smarter investment then getting guys who can show some stability? I'm not being anti this new league, but low level soccer in general is not a 'smart investment', so making the csl look like a bad investment is just throwing stones in glass houses. And the guys who are incapable of running a club, are the ones who don't have a team anymore, not a few survivors The franchise fee isn't an investment, it's a buy-in tax and offers very little ROI. The CSL brand isn't strong enough to merit having to pay 6 digits to play in a league with clubs like London City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcoatsforever Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 The franchise fee isn't an investment, it's a buy-in tax and offers very little ROI. The CSL brand isn't strong enough to merit having to pay 6 digits to play in a league with clubs like London City. I would resent this comment if it weren't true... :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 The franchise fee isn't an investment, it's a buy-in tax and offers very little ROI. The CSL brand isn't strong enough to merit having to pay 6 digits to play in a league with clubs like London City. I know that, I just mean having 200 000 to drop on a franchise fee generally requires having a decent amount of starter capital. About the value of the league, I can understand you not thinking it's worth 150 000 - 200 000 but I honestly think that if they can sell the non equity franchises for 25 000, 150 000 - 200 000 isn't that off the mark (but I can certainly understand if you disagree) and I don't think it would seem ridiculous to an investor with a good amount of capital. One thing I wanted to put out there for accuarcy is that although a couple days ago I was just referring to equity ownership being worth 'more then 25 000', realistically I think the low end estimate (and I'm glad you said something along the lines of 'not 6 digits') for proper equity ownership should be said to be 50 000 - 75 000 (at least 2 or 3 times a non equity cost). I think it's worth more but it's alot better to argue around the truth then have people trying to make their case by exaggerating and saying it's worthless (and thank you for not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Juby, on what are you basing your estimates of equity value or is it just a 'feeling' you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Juby, on what are you basing your estimates of equity value or is it just a 'feeling' you have? The non equity franchise recently sold for $25 000. It's also been widely speculated that their(the csl) looking for $150 000 - 200 000 for equity membership on this board. For the $50 000 - $75 000 figure, I was saying that realistically, equity membership has to be worth at least 2 or 3 times non equity membership as a low ball estimate. All this was said earlier this thread though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huyton Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Doesn't the OSA decide on whether to sanction the new D3 league at it's meeting this weekend? How, or when, do we find out what took place? Also, the new league, in it's proposal to teams, stated that they had until Feb. 25th to submit their applications. Does anyone know how that went? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Yes on the sanctioning this weekend thing. They are now aiming for a 2012 start according to an ICF podcast last week because a lot of teams had to recommit to their existing leagues to ensure a place to play in 2011 due to delays in getting the sanctioning (Milltown and Hamilton Croatia, the two potentially left out in the cold in that regard, were said to be likely to be playing at the elite amateur level this summer). If the news doesn't leak out on here (odds on it will) the minutes of the OSA meeting will probably wind up on the OSA website at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Latest is on an ICF clip in an interview with Bruce Henderson of the OSA: http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/content.php?1246-It-s-Called-Football-Live-10-pm-EST {relevant bit is from 22:30} Final decision deferred to September. Board receptive to Dino Rossi's presentation. Working group of 5 is being formed to look into how to structure the league. By June should have standards in place to be met by provincial level non-amateur leagues that apply for sanctioning. League applications normally accepted in June for a decision in September so sounds like timescale was always unrealistic for a 2011 start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 The OSA could have made the decision by Feb. 25th, they just preferred to defer it until Sept. The proposed group had met all the requirements of the application process, once again a house league decision made by politicians, another case of "let's have a meeting to decide when to have the meeting" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 On the bright side, however, if you listen to the clip Bruce Davidson is upbeat about Dino Rossi and the new league and appears to take quite a few shots at the CSL where their role in youth development is concerned to an extent that would point to a definite rift between the two organizations. I think after listening to that interview that the OSA board are on your side but as is always the case when dealing with people who enjoy the exercise of power and control the powers that be on the OSA board want to be able to very much put their thumbprint on things. As an aside it was refreshing to hear how positive he was about the TFC and Impact Academy teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.