Expansion of Canadian Championship?

[Robert]

Whether or not the field for the ACC is expanded or not, a champion must be determined roughly around this same time of the calender year, as currently 21 of the 24 clubs for the 2012-13 CONCACAF Champions League have already qualified. There are only 3 Caribbean places left to be decided.

[ted]

And I think anyone who refers to the VCup as "ACC" should be suspended from this board and/or flogged with a wet noodle.

[Robert]

And I think anyone who refers to the VCup as "ACC" should be suspended from this board and/or flogged with a wet noodle.

And you still have 2 days left to enter the WCQ Pool Predictions competition.

[Guest ClaytonA]

As a start with 8 weeks from when the competition starts now (mid April) to mid June when the Caribbean gets around to assigning their competitors we could probably fit in the current calendar year:

finals - 2 weeks

semis - 2 weeks

quarters - 2 weeks

round 16 - 2 weeks

[Guest ClaytonA]

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2013/04/29/canadian-championship-nasl-teams-will-face-play-round-2014-tournament-may-ex

“What’s going to happen is the format will still be the home-and-away like we have now,” Montagliani said. “We’ll have a playoff between the NASL teams in terms of playing off for that spot. It hasn’t all been formalized but that’s sort of what we’re looking at for next year.”

“I think what you’re going to see with the increase of professional clubs in Canada over the next few years, even with our semi-pro leagues that are in their infancy in some of our regions,” he said, “we’re going to see some changes. Probably not in the next one or two, but definitely in the next five years, you’re going to see some increase in terms of the number of teams involved in the competition.”

[coppercanuck]

It's a shame really that the CSL couldn't do some many things (expand west, expand east, get a spot in the V-Cup). It would be very cool to see 8 teams (3 rounds) with 5 being already set. The remaining 3 could come from a number of sources, Challenge Trophy winner (top amateur team) or left overs from the CSL or Quebec's semi-pro setup.

How many teams out there are not in the Challenge Cup play-down system? Sorry PCSL, your one spot in the BC Cup ind of kills the semi-pro status. PDL teams? CIS teams? It just kills me that the CSA can't seem to get an "out-side the box" system in place to help make teams more professional.

[Guest ClaytonA]

A logical eight teams (PDL shouldn't get (a) spot(s) since they have a 2.5 month season and players go hither and yon back to university);

3 MLS teams

2 NASL teams

1 CSL regular season champ

1 PLSQ regular season champ

1 Challenge Trophy champ

Option to participate. participant with plan re venue/finances to be accepted by CSA. single elimination in first round. option to host. venues meets standards set by CSA/CONCACAF. if both want to host, then coin flip/draw on CSA's youtube channel. Geographic versus seeding to lower costs.

Second round and final same as now with home/away aggregate series, seeding as now. participant can decline opportunity to advance if they want, letting other team continue despite losing at the first CCL level or leave the CCL spot vacant.

(fighting this software and this is the 4th version, so it's pounded out quick)

[coppercanuck]

Option to participate. participant with plan re venue/finances to be accepted by CSA. single elimination in first round. option to host. venues meets standards set by CSA/CONCACAF. if both want to host, then coin flip/draw on CSA's youtube channel. Geographic versus seeding to lower costs.

Second round and final same as now with home/away aggregate series, seeding as now. participant can decline opportunity to advance if they want, letting other team continue despite losing at the first CCL level or leave the CCL spot vacant.

Exactly ... CSA needs to set some standards and make them a bit more transparent. It would be nice to know mid-way through a season who is eligible for qualification and why the other are not. That might motivate some sponsors or fans. I remember seeing a FA list once about standards and who was eligible for which Cup (FA Cup, FA Vase?)

[canadianfoot]

Let's not forget that it costs MONEY to travel cross country and at this point I only see our current MLS/NASL teams as being able to afford it.

CSL,PLSQ, Challenge I doubt they have the money for a RoundRobin Tournament with Home/Away games(4teams group means 3road trips). You need money to rent the facilites where you will play too. Rmbr the CSA told FC Edmonton they can't play in at Clarke Stadium instead they had to play at Commonwealth Stadium which I am sure cost them easily 20k to rent for the night.

Even if we managed to make 2groups of 4teams based on geography like it was mentioned before there would be bitc hing to the fact that TFC/Impact would be in the same group probably.

The way I see it MLS/NASL and IF...BiG IF we ever get a USL Pro club they might have the finances to afford the costs associated with participating in the Voyageurs Cup.

No point in playing in a tournament if your finances suffer.

Only way would be if AMWAY(or insert whatever sponsor) pays say 5 000$ per game. Additional 5000$ for a tie, and say 20 000$ for a win. Until then let's keep it to the "higher tier(whatever that means)" of soccer in our country. Right now the current format ain't bad but RoundRobin Tournament would be way better as long as we have an EVEN Number of teams.

Another Important thing to consider is:

- Playing the Voyageurs Cup but for CCL Qualification for NEXT Year. Not the same year, thus it will avoid the crowded schedule. And by having a less crowded schedule, the CSA might be more inclined to have a Round Robin tournament. MLS/NASL teams would have more attractive games to play and the fans would be more entertained since it would be harder to pick a winner off a series.

[Guest ClaytonA]

Money is why it shouldn't be a round robin (based on league principle where you play each team home and away). It should remain a knock out tournament. Cut costs for the teams by basing it geographically like the US Open Cup. Single elimination with only one game of costs in the first round. Hopefully the odd time a lower tier team does make it through, but on average they won't and there's cost savings. No it wouldn't be perfect ie TFC/Montreal (unlikely to happen: FC Gatineau(PLSQ) playing Ottawa Fury FC(NASL) and a Challenge Trophy winner closer to metro Toronto based CSL than Toronto FC is to CSL-it's unlikely)

It is better to have the team from the same year as the CCL to qualify in the year of the tournament. It is more fair, you're good this year, well great you're in. It's less fair the way the US does it. Look at how the teams change between seasons.

Round robins could end up with what happened in 2009. A team gets screwed by another team packing it in. A knockout tournament is better than a round robin until such time as we get say 20 teams and we're starting to realistically talk about a Canadian D1 league. It is a bad idea.

Yet these amateur teams manage to gather from across Canada once per year (with a lot less time for fundraising than over a winter, or equal time of summer on the west coast) at where ever nationals are hosted. It's already done; therefore, it's possible. Yes finances are a big issue, it's why the Whitecaps forfeited in 1992 Concacaf Champions Cup. At least give teams the chance instead of just saying well the rules forbid you entering.

FWIW I believe the11.ca mentioned renting Commonwealth cost the Eddies $85,000

[canadianfoot]

Money is why it shouldn't be a round robin (based on league principle where you play each team home and away). It should remain a knock out tournament. Cut costs for the teams by basing it geographically like the US Open Cup. Single elimination with only one game of costs in the first round. Hopefully the odd time a lower tier team does make it through, but on average they won't and there's cost savings. No it wouldn't be perfect ie TFC/Montreal (unlikely to happen: FC Gatineau(PLSQ) playing Ottawa Fury FC(NASL) and a Challenge Trophy winner closer to metro Toronto based CSL than Toronto FC is to CSL-it's unlikely)

It is better to have the team from the same year as the CCL to qualify in the year of the tournament. It is more fair, you're good this year, well great you're in. It's less fair the way the US does it. Look at how the teams change between seasons.

Round robins could end up with what happened in 2009. A team gets screwed by another team packing it in. A knockout tournament is better than a round robin until such time as we get say 20 teams and we're starting to realistically talk about a Canadian D1 league. It is a bad idea.

Yet these amateur teams manage to gather from across Canada once per year (with a lot less time for fundraising than over a winter, or equal time of summer on the west coast) at where ever nationals are hosted. It's already done; therefore, it's possible. Yes finances are a big issue, it's why the Whitecaps forfeited in 1992 Concacaf Champions Cup. At least give teams the chance instead of just saying well the rules forbid you entering.

FWIW I believe the11.ca mentioned renting Commonwealth cost the Eddies $85,000

Teams change of course but somehow all of Europe is able to play to qualify for a competition that starts the following year. In regards to RoundRobin Tournament and 2009 only reason it happened is the fact there were 3teams in the tournament and not an Even Number.

Would you suggest the knockout round be done within the lower leagues first then say NASL team enters in Round 2 while MLS Round 3?

85k for Commonwealth.....Yikes

[alberta white]

And I think anyone who refers to the VCup as "ACC" should be suspended from this board and/or flogged with a wet noodle.

Would it be televised?

[Guest ClaytonA]

Teams change of course but somehow all of Europe is able to play to qualify for a competition that starts the following year. In regards to RoundRobin Tournament and 2009 only reason it happened is the fact there were 3teams in the tournament and not an Even Number.

Would you suggest the knockout round be done within the lower leagues first then say NASL team enters in Round 2 while MLS Round 3?

85k for Commonwealth.....Yikes

It will do more to grow the game by expanding the number of teams, not expanding the number of games the existing (and 1 new one) play. Make them all play in the quarterfinals, the idea's a single game elimination, hell assuming the MLS send a reserve team, at least it's a meaningful game. (Versus the one the Whitecaps lost to UBC this spring.)

The CSA should keep the tournament structured, so it's more likely for this to happen. While we'd all like more Canadian NASL teams, the USSF has a quota of 75% US teams for their league, and other than some rumblings about the Ticats new stadium requiring soccer or a penalty fee, some nebulous claims of overseas interest in Calgary reported by the11.ca, and benefactor wishing by Highlanders supporters, it could reasonably take decades. Or with the leadership the CSA shows, longer.

[madmonte]

So...just out of curiousity, it seems kind of jumbled. Some seem to think the 75% matters, some think they can apply for an exemption. Some think that Puerto Rico COULD count as a USA team, some people think they can't as they are a different nation under FIFA. My thoughts are that if Garber decided to bring a club to Hamilton, Calgary or Winnipeg, they'd find a way around it and make it happen. But, I'm not sure about there. Is there a definite restriction against it in writing, that we can link to and read? I am having trouble finding reference to this rule outside of this forum.

I'm very excited by the prospect of pro soccer in Calgary, so I'm definitely curious as to the "real" scoop.

[Guest ClaytonA]

You'd think you would find it on ussoccer.com under goverance->policies->professional leagues, but no.

Only references I can find are from the 2010 USSF D2 year when they strengthened the standards to help with the 75% failure rate of D2 teams and the USL allegedly seeking expansion fees as operating revenue (ala the original NASL).

http://www.indyweek.com/images/blogimages/2011/02/09/1297289589-ussf.d2standards8-2010.pdf

http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2010/08/12/ussf-d-2-professional-league-standards/

The waiver (non-compliance) apparently can only be done for one year.

UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION

PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE STANDARDS

1.I. General Requirements for All Professional Leagues (Additional Specific Division Standards Listed Below):

i.Composition; Play

i.i. League must determine a champion each year based on seasonal play or by means of a post-season playoff tournament.

ii.ii. League playing rules must comply with all relevant FIFA guidelines and Laws of the Game.

1.Markets; Stadia; and Fields

i.i. At least 75 percent of the league’s teams must be based in the United States.

ii.ii. League stadiums must meet the following parameters: i.All stadiums/arenas must have controllable ingress/egress.

ii.All outdoor leagues: Playing surfaces for all teams must be at least 70 yards by 110 yards and be FIFA-approved.

...

1.Waiver Procedures

1.i. League may request a temporary waiver from compliance with a Standard. Any such request must be made in writing to the Federation and explain in detail (a) the Standard for which a waiver is sought, and ( the reasons why a waiver is necessary. Waivers may only be requested for one year.

2.ii. Waiver requests will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. However, in no event will a waiver be granted with respect to FIFA guidelines or the Laws of the Game without FIFA approval.

1.II. Division II Men’s Outdoor League:

i.Composition; Play

i.i. League must have a minimum of eight teams to apply. By year three, the league must have a minimum of 10 teams. By year six, the league must have a minimum of 12 teams.

ii.ii. U.S.-based teams must participate in all representative CONCACAF competitions for which they are eligible.

1.Markets; Stadia; and Fields

i.i. In the first year, U.S.-based teams must be located in at least two different time zones in the continental United States. By year six, U.S.-based teams must be located in at least three different time zones.

ii.ii. At least 75 percent of the league’s teams must play in metropolitan markets of at least 750,000 persons.

iii.iii. League stadiums must have a minimum seating capacity of 5,000.

iv.iv. Not later than 120 days prior to the start of each season, each team shall have a lease for one full season with its home stadium.

1.Financial Viability

i.i. Each team must submit a letter of credit in the amount of $750,000 with the joint beneficiaries being the Federation and the league in a form satisfactory to the Federation on an annual basis. The letter of credit will be used to cover the costs of the team’s operations (including, without limitation, player and staff salaries and wages, stadium lease commitments and third party vendor obligations in addition to commitments by each team to the league) for a season should that become necessary. The letters of credit must be submitted 120 days prior to the start of the next season for each team. Any team that utilizes the letter of credit during the season will be required to replenish the letter of credit at least 120 days prior to the next year.

ii.ii. Each team ownership group must demonstrate the financial capacity to operate the team for three years. As part of the process of demonstrating financial capacity, each ownership group must provide detailed financial history, verifiable individual financial net worth statements for each member of its ownership group owning at least a five percent (5%) interest in the team and projections (including a detailed budget) for the team to the Federation in a form satisfactory to the Federation.

iii.iii. Each team must have and designate one principal owner that owns at least 35% of the team and has authority to bind the team. Such principal owner must have an individual net worth of at least twenty million US dollars exclusive of the value of his/her ownership in the league or team.

iv.iv. Any prospective team principal owner must meet with Federation staff regarding the responsibilities of owning a team. In the case of a new league, each team principal owner in the new league and the senior league personnel must meet with Federation staff on an individual basis, as required by the Federation.

v.v. The league will furnish to the Federation prompt written notice of the following (and, in any event, within five business days of the league obtaining knowledge thereof): i.any violation of these standards, specifying the nature and extent thereof and the corrective action (if any) taken or proposed to be taken with respect thereto;

ii.the filing or commencement of, or any written threat or notice of intention of any person to file or commence, any action, suit, litigation or proceeding, whether at law or in equity by or before any governmental authority, against the league or one or more teams in the league that could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

iii.any development that has resulted in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a Material Adverse Effect.

iv.“Material Adverse Effect” shall mean a material adverse change in or effect on the business, condition (financial or otherwise), results of operations, assets or liabilities of the league and/or its teams, individually or taken as a whole; ( the ability of the league or its teams to perform any of its obligations under these Standards; or © the ability of the league or its teams to meet any of their financial obligations.

1.Team Organization

i.i. All of the required positions must be filled by full-time staff during the season.

Bottom line is while we can sponge off US leagues for a while, it shouldn't probably be a long term strategy. They'll run their leagues to benefit them. Also interesting that the US Open Cup stadia standards don't have seating req's, but in my mind just as important ones such as field markings, etc that as in Canada are probably mandated from CONCACAF (for the Voyageurs Cup here).

[canadianfoot]

Interesting quote from Rocket Robin(in CSL 2013 thread page 2):

1st Question: from John Horvath "We should have a CSL/PDL/amature

team tournament across the country! TFC, Impact, Whitecaps are not

supporting that". [i think he was holding a petition].

Ursini answered the CSL had an open cup years ago but it got curtailed

by different provincial associations. The CSL ran a Women's league

as amatures because of provincial resistance. He says "Let the

players play". He's trying to have a second tier/entry level division

for financial reasons and level competition. We are a semi-professional

league. He criticised the Easton report--it's not likely that owners

will start out cold in some regions. Run a second tier league regionally

and wnen it climbs to 15 teams maybe five teams will make the jump to

the next highest level. He is in favour of other provinces starting their

own semi-pro leagues.

------------

So the MLS teams are happy with the way the Voyageurs Cup looks like now.

[Blue and White Army]

A logical eight teams (PDL shouldn't get (a) spot(s) since they have a 2.5 month season and players go hither and yon back to university)

USL PDL clubs compete in the US Open Cup, but they shouldn't be able to compete in the Voyageurs Cup?

Let's not forget that it costs MONEY to travel cross country and at this point I only see our current MLS/NASL teams as being able to afford it.

The CSA could help with travel expenses (just as the USSF does for amateur clubs in the US Open Cup, which saw almost a doubling of financial support for 2013).

It also costs MONEY for a PDL club like WSA Winnipeg to fly to away league matches in places like Kansas City and to Springfield (Missouri), yet somehow they manage it. And if benefactor owners are willing to foot the flight bill to such exciting opponents as Springfield Demize, surely they would be keen to play away at BMO Field (and to take a share of the attendance profits like they do in many countries' cup competitions).

Further, note that some of the earlier rounds of the US Open Cup have regionalization - that concept could help reduce costs in a Voyageurs Cup that includes amateurs.

It is better to have the team from the same year as the CCL to qualify in the year of the tournament. It is more fair, you're good this year, well great you're in. It's less fair the way the US does it. Look at how the teams change between seasons.

This I agree with. The question is: does this factor outweigh the increased interest of the PDL/amateur clubs joining?

Personally, I'd prefer to see the smaller clubs involved, even if it means the delay of upwards of a year between winning the V-Cup and entering the CCL.

So the MLS teams are happy with the way the Voyageurs Cup looks like now.

Quite frankly - who cares? If we polled the English Premier League clubs and asked them if they wanted to do away with the amateur clubs from England's FA Cup, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance. But the world doesn't revolve around them. The FA Cup is for the benefit of club football throughout the entire 10 (sometimes 11) levels of the English pyramid - and even more importantly, for the interest of the FANS. And we all know that the League Cup is much less prestigious than the FA Cup because it includes much fewer clubs - much like why the Voyageurs Cup gets much less respect than the US Open Cup.

The Voyageurs Cup shouldn't just be about the MLS clubs. It's a chance for NASL clubs like Edmonton (and Ottawa) to shine on a national stage, and the same opportunity should exist for any club willing and able to participate.

[Winnipeg Fury]

Quite frankly - who cares? If we polled the English Premier League clubs and asked them if they wanted to do away with the amateur clubs from England's FA Cup, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance. But the world doesn't revolve around them. The FA Cup is for the benefit of club football throughout the entire 10 (sometimes 11) levels of the English pyramid - any even more importantly, for the interest of the FANS. And we all know that the League Cup is much less prestigious than the FA Cup because it includes much fewer clubs - much like why the Voyageurs Cup gets much less respect than the US Open Cup.

The Voyageurs Cup shouldn't just be about the MLS clubs. It's a chance for NASL clubs like Edmonton (and Ottawa) to shine on a national stage, and the same opportunity should exist for any club willing and able to participate.

Hear, hear !

[canadianfoot]

USL PDL clubs compete in the US Open Cup, but they shouldn't be able to compete in the Voyageurs Cup?

The CSA could help with travel expenses (just as the USSF does for amateur clubs in the US Open Cup, which saw almost a doubling of financial support for 2013).

It also costs MONEY for a PDL club like WSA Winnipeg to fly to away league matches in places like Kansas City and to Springfield (Missouri), yet somehow they manage it. And if benefactor owners are willing to foot the flight bill to such exciting opponents as Springfield Demize, surely they would be keen to play away at BMO Field (and to take a share of the attendance profits like they do in many countries' cup competitions).

Further, note that some of the earlier rounds of the US Open Cup have regionalization - that concept could help reduce costs in a Voyageurs Cup that includes amateurs.

This I agree with. The question is: does this factor outweigh the increased interest of the PDL/amateur clubs joining?

Personally, I'd prefer to see the smaller clubs involved, even if it means the delay of upwards of a year between winning the V-Cup and entering the CCL.

Quite frankly - who cares? If we polled the English Premier League clubs and asked them if they wanted to do away with the amateur clubs from England's FA Cup, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance. But the world doesn't revolve around them. The FA Cup is for the benefit of club football throughout the entire 10 (sometimes 11) levels of the English pyramid - and even more importantly, for the interest of the FANS. And we all know that the League Cup is much less prestigious than the FA Cup because it includes much fewer clubs - much like why the Voyageurs Cup gets much less respect than the US Open Cup.

The Voyageurs Cup shouldn't just be about the MLS clubs. It's a chance for NASL clubs like Edmonton (and Ottawa) to shine on a national stage, and the same opportunity should exist for any club willing and able to participate.

So What is Stopping the smaller teams in writing a letter to the CSA and saying we want in?

[Blue and White Army]

So What is Stopping the smaller teams in writing a letter to the CSA and saying we want in?

Nothing. But one would hope that the CSA has a long-term, strategic plan for growing club soccer in our country. They should be the ones providing leadership here.

Will it require a handful of clubs to protest before we have a proper cup competition? If so, that speaks volumes about the state of soccer in Canada, and the lack of leadership from the CSA

[canadianfoot]

I doubt it's just a case of a team applying and wanting to play in the tournament. Otherwise there would be at Least 1PDL/CSL or from the Quebec league wanting a shot at it.

CSA has it's duties and all but a club should have the guts to say I Want In.