Canadian Premier League

[Gopherbashi]

9 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Kingston Metro Population: 169k as of 2015. It's geography makes it desirable as it's right in the middle of the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle and part of the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

The new stadium looks great but I question the local corporate support...

Kingston as a CPL 2 location makes more sense to me just like those cities from my hypothetical D2 CPL 2 that I wrote:  Peel-Halton (Mississauga), Durham (Oshawa), York Region (Richmond Hill), Barrie, St. Catharines-Niagara, Sherbrooke, Kelowna, Abbotsford, Kingston, Sudbury, Saguenay, Trois-Rivières, Guelph, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Thunder Bay, Brantford, Peterborough, Saint John NB, Chatam-Kent, Cape Breton

 

The only way TFC can be part of CPL is by some kind of partnership and/or minority/silent shareholder in a team. With TFC wanting so bad into the league, London makes total sense as a CPL team.

Kingston might scrape by as a D2, but they certainly wouldn't be my first choice.  I'd rather see them build support for their existing D3 first.

A TFC-backed London would certainly be attractive, but... MLSE isn't exactly a foreign investor.

[Complete Homer]

11 hours ago, Gopherbashi said:

Glitch

2 hours ago, Gopherbashi said:

If it had 4x the population and 2x the disposable income, part of my thinks they'd be aiming for Kingston.  Queen's just built a new 8500-seat stadium which is desperately short of any revenue generation in the summer months.

Of course, it doesn't have those modifiers, so it's a moot point.

Which makes me think either London (which would be odd with the new London TFC partnership, or hopefully not a new club), or KW.

 

Yeah, unfortunately, Kingston just isn't an option (which makes me sad, I love the city). Outside of homecoming and the home opener, college football draws poorly as do the L1O team

[Kent]

12 hours ago, -Hammer- said:

It took MLS a decade and a half to move the US national team a round ahead

Just a bit of fact checking on this. Presumably your baseline was USA's round of 16 exit in the 1994 World Cup, which they hosted. Also worth noting that they advanced out of the group but in those days, some 3rd place finishers advanced, which is how USA got through. This was the last World Cup where you could advance from a 3rd place position.

Then MLS started in 1996.

World Cup 1998 USA tanked.

World Cup 2002, USA made it to the quarter final, one round further than the 1994 World Cup, during MLS's 7th season, not a decade and a half later.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

The only way TFC can be part of CPL is by some kind of partnership and/or minority/silent shareholder in a team. With TFC wanting so bad into the league, London makes total sense as a CPL team.

The first bit is ultimately up to the CSA and Victor Montagliani has talked about an "inclusive approach" where the existing pro teams are concerned. I'd wait until an official announcement is made before making any assumptions as to how this eventually pans out. Compromises often have to be made to the preferred vision to get a league off the ground and having a Canadian team in MLS Cup this year is going to make cooperation with MLS the easier thing to spin to the media, especially if the rumoured solution to the domestic player issue in the off season is a reasonable one.

On the second bit, TFC's involvement with FC London really isn't anything more than keeping tabs on which players in their academy system eventually deserve a shot at joining TFC's older age group academy teams, so I don't think it's safe to assume London would be the site for any TFC entry. London's viability as a market for pro soccer ultimately depends on the budget that eventually becomes the norm.

If any new setup is geared more towards a top end of the NSL in the 1970s or a middle-of-the-road original CSL team in the late 1980s sort of format then the interest level shown in PDL in recent times suggests that it might be possible to make something fly in the present day if around 2000 would be break even for something that would mainly be bus travel in the Windsor-Quebec corridor with maybe one Western road trip by air per season. If it's really going to be a $1.5 million salary cap and geared towards the use of CFL stadia with lots of air travel involved leading to a break even of over 5000 in paid attendance then the recent track record with pro soccer across North America strongly suggests that any metropolitan area with significantly under 1,000,000 in population has very little chance of making it work. 

[Kent]

13 hours ago, Complete Homer said:

As ridiculous as this thread is, it does demonstrate that CONCACAF really should be publishing the league coefficients

Shameless plug (does it count as a shameless plug if I stand to gain nothing by people reading it?):

For what it's worth, here is my attempt at CONCACAF coefficients based on the last 5 years of CCL play.
http://www.wakingthered.com/2016/10/24/13387490/concacaf-champions-league-team-allocations

[Ansem]

1 minute ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

The first bit is ultimately up to the CSA and Victor Montagliani has talked about an "inclusive approach" where the existing pro teams are concerned.

Yeah... Silent minority partnership and some form of affiliation/cooperation is inclusive. The MLS B Teams won't be allowed in CPL, which seems what MLSE wanted to happen.

4 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

having a Canadian team in MLS Cup this year is going to make cooperation with MLS the easier thing to spin to the media, especially if the rumoured solution to the domestic player issue in the off season is a reasonable one.

TFC played only (Johnson, Osorio and Ricketts) while Montreal plays only (Bernier). Don't get me wrong, it's great to have Canadian Clubs in the finals, but 4 players (only 2 starting) is nothing to get overjoyed with. MLS-CSA partnership has been an overall failure for our program (Fact). MLS got hundred of millions in expansion fees, 3 of most lucrative TV markets in North America, Canadian Clubs bringing MLS extra credibility (Giovinco, Bradley, Drogba, Di Vaio, PIatti, etc...) and for what? Being stubborn on Canadians being domestic?

I wouldn't be holding my breath about that Canadian solution by year end. Why would MLS change anything? We have no league until 2018, hence no leverage until then.

Why would CPL partner with MLS for exposure? You're just asking to have both leagues being constantly compared against one another and CPL will be branded as inferior at every turn. CPL is 100% right to just do their own thing and not talk MLS...ever except during V Cup,  CONCACAF Champions League and when players are acquired/loaned from MLS.

13 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

On the second bit, London's involvement with FC London really isn't anything more than keeping tabs on which players in their academy system eventually deserve a shot at joining TFC's older age group academy teams, so don't think it's safe to assume London would be the site for any TFC entry. London's viability as a market for pro soccer ultimately depends on the budget that eventually becomes the norm.

I was talking hypothetically. London being a CPL franchise will ultimately come down to having a deep pocket owner willing to start the team and have a CPL "approved" stadium. The demographic, geography and local corporate in the region makes it viable. Anything close to what the London knights have going would be excellent to build upon.

17 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

If any new setup is geared more towards a top end of the NSL in the 1970s or an original CSL in the late 1980s sort of format then the interest level shown in PDL in recent times suggests that it might be possible to make something fly in the present day if around 2000 would be break even for something that would mainly be bus travel in the Windsor-Quebec corridor with maybe one Western road trip by air per season. If it's really going to be a $1.5 million salary cap and geared towards the use of CFL stadia with lots of air travel involved leading to a break even of over 5000 in paid attendance then the recent track record with pro soccer across North America strongly suggests that any metropolitan area with significantly under 1,000,000 in population has very little chance of making it work. 

Talk about pessimism...I think CPL aspire to more than PDL... Actually top 3 CONCACAF league in spending seems to be in the ballpark of what's to be expected. Top 3 in level of play is an objective (not at the start of the league but with time)

What's wrong with 1st Class Via Rail in the Quebec-Windsor corridor?

Winnipeg is under 1M population...they seem to be doing fine in Winnipeg with all the flying around...How do Regina survive I wonder...

[Ansem]

11 minutes ago, Kent said:

Shameless plug (does it count as a shameless plug if I stand to gain nothing by people reading it?):

For what it's worth, here is my attempt at CONCACAF coefficients based on the last 5 years of CCL play.
http://www.wakingthered.com/2016/10/24/13387490/concacaf-champions-league-team-allocations

Great article!!!

Costa Rica definitely deserve 3 spots and so does Canada once CPL Starts

[Gopherbashi]

12 minutes ago, Kent said:

Shameless plug (does it count as a shameless plug if I stand to gain nothing by people reading it?):

For what it's worth, here is my attempt at CONCACAF coefficients based on the last 5 years of CCL play.
http://www.wakingthered.com/2016/10/24/13387490/concacaf-champions-league-team-allocations

CANADA BETTER THAN USA

CANADA DESERVES MORE ENTRIES THAN USA

VOYAGEURS CUP CANCELLED.  EVERYONE ADVANCES.  EVERYONE FEELS SPECIAL.  ULTIMATE CANADIAN SOLUTION.

[Ansem]

2 minutes ago, Gopherbashi said:

CANADA BETTER THAN USA

CANADA DESERVES MORE ENTRIES THAN USA

VOYAGEURS CUP CANCELLED.  EVERYONE ADVANCES.  EVERYONE FEELS SPECIAL.  ULTIMATE CANADIAN SOLUTION.

I think it's implied that Canada would need more teams to get 3 spots. Until CPL starts, 1 spot is what it is.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

7 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Talk about pessimism...I think CPL aspire to more than PDL...

Where did I say it couldn't? Somewhere in the 600-1000 range was what was happening for PDL in London from what I understand. Think there's scope to do a bit better than that, but not drastically better if revenues have to be reasonably close to expenses. Beyond that until there's an announcement of what the CSA have actually sanctioned and what investors have actually been willing to pay a franchise fee for there's no way to be sure what is happening on this stuff. Going for something that could work in mid-sized cities like Windsor, London and K/W might be a better fit for the gap that needs to be filled in terms of finding younger Canadian players with pro level prospects a place to play than trying to make an impact in markets that already have teams playing in other leagues. It's much easier to get column inches in the local newspaper or a story on the local news in London or Victoria than it is in Toronto or Vancouver.

[Gopherbashi]

31 minutes ago, Kent said:

Shameless plug (does it count as a shameless plug if I stand to gain nothing by people reading it?):

For what it's worth, here is my attempt at CONCACAF coefficients based on the last 5 years of CCL play.
http://www.wakingthered.com/2016/10/24/13387490/concacaf-champions-league-team-allocations

" For example, are there thresholds that determine how many spots you are awarded? Like a coefficient above 3.5 gets you 4 spots, or is it just the top nation that gets 4 spots? "

Divide your total teams (24) by your coefficient sum (19.32) to get your Magic Montagliani Number^TM (1.24).  Multiply this number by your coefficient to show how many entries you should get.

For the US (2.56), this would be 3.18.  You get one team for every full integer (3), and any spots left over would be filled using the largest remainder method (an actual thing in some electoral systems).  ie. if there's 3 vacant spots, the three countries with the largest post-decimal numbers would receive those spots.

Capping Mexico at 4 teams and Canada at 1 team for reasons discussed above would give:

Mexico	4.02	4.99	4
Canada	2.71	3.37	1
US	2.56	3.18	3
Costa Rica	2.38	2.96	3
Honduras	1.57	1.95	2
Guatemala	1.38	1.71	2
Panama	1.05	1.30	2
Jamaica	0.88	1.09	1
El Salvador	0.66	0.82	1
Belize	0.5	0.62	1
Puerto Rico	0.5	0.62	1
Trinidad and Tobago	0.41	0.51	1
Caribbean	0.4	0.50	1
Nicaragua	0.3	0.37	1
Haiti	0	0.00	0
Guyana	0	0.00	0

 

Of course, your next dilemma is how to get your Haitis and Guyanas of the world a path into this if they're not already in it.  Might need to keep a spot or two open for countries who wouldn't qualify with the coefficient, basing those spots on FIFA rankings.

[Ansem]

17 minutes ago, Gopherbashi said:

" For example, are there thresholds that determine how many spots you are awarded? Like a coefficient above 3.5 gets you 4 spots, or is it just the top nation that gets 4 spots? "

Divide your total teams (24) by your coefficient sum (19.32) to get your Magic Montagliani Number^TM (1.24).  Multiply this number by your coefficient to show how many entries you should get.

For the US (2.56), this would be 3.18.  You get one team for every full integer (3), and any spots left over would be filled using the largest remainder method (an actual thing in some electoral systems).  ie. if there's 3 vacant spots, the three countries with the largest post-decimal numbers would receive those spots.

Capping Mexico at 4 teams and Canada at 1 team for reasons discussed above would give:

Mexico	4.02	4.99	4
Canada	2.71	3.37	1
US	2.56	3.18	3
Costa Rica	2.38	2.96	3
Honduras	1.57	1.95	2
Guatemala	1.38	1.71	2
Panama	1.05	1.30	2
Jamaica	0.88	1.09	1
El Salvador	0.66	0.82	1
Belize	0.5	0.62	1
Puerto Rico	0.5	0.62	1
Trinidad and Tobago	0.41	0.51	1
Caribbean	0.4	0.50	1
Nicaragua	0.3	0.37	1
Haiti	0	0.00	0
Guyana	0	0.00	0

 

Of course, your next dilemma is how to get your Haitis and Guyanas of the world a path into this if they're not already in it.  Might need to keep a spot or two open for countries who wouldn't qualify with the coefficient, basing those spots on FIFA rankings.

I think the CFU format for Caribbean Clubs to qualify for the next stage of the Champions League is the right one. Best 3 clubs out the the 25+ nations gets a spot. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFU_Club_Championship

I think CCL might get expanded down the road so I'm not worried about Canada getting more spots down the road, same for Costa Rica

[matty]

15 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I think the CFU format for Caribbean Clubs to qualify for the next stage of the Champions League is the right one. Best 3 clubs out the the 25+ nations gets a spot. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFU_Club_Championship

I think CCL might get expanded down the road so I'm not worried about Canada getting more spots down the road, same for Costa Rica

The whole tourney needs a make over and the CPL will likely play a role in causing it. I actually think CONCACAF is large enough that they should do a second cup that has a focus on the weaker nations.

                                             CCL        New Cup
Mexico                                 4               1
USA                                      4               1
VCup/CPL                             2              2
Costa Rica                            2              2
CFU                                      2               2
Honduras                              2              1
Panama                                2              1
Guatemala                            1 (PO)      1(+CCL?)
Nicaragua                            1  (PO)    1(+CCL?)
El Salvador                           1 (PO)      1(+CCL?)
Belize                                    1(PO)      1(+CCL?)
Total Teams after playoffs       20            16

Under that approach, Guatemala takes the biggest hit (losing two CCL spots).

[Ansem]

6 minutes ago, matty said:

The whole tourney needs a make over and the CPL will likely play a role in causing it. I actually think CONCACAF is large enough that they should do a second cup that has a focus on the weaker nations.

                                             CCL        New Cup
Mexico                                 4               1
USA                                      4               1
VCup/CPL                             2              2
Costa Rica                            2              2
CAF                                      2               2
Honduras                              2              1
Panama                                2              1
Guatemala                            1 (PO)      1(+CCL?)
Nicaragua                            1  (PO)    1(+CCL?)
El Salvador                           1 (PO)      1(+CCL?)
Belize                                    1(PO)      1(+CCL?)
Total Teams after playoffs       20            16

You mean like Europa League?

What about the rumors of a (CONMEBOL + CONCACAF) single Champions League? If that ever happened, then I could see it.

A merged (CCL and Copa Libertadores) is needed for the Americas to somewhate rival EUFA. Copa America was way more entertaining than the Euro

[matty]

3 minutes ago, Ansem said:

You mean like Europa League?

What about the rumors of a (CONMEBOL + CONCACAF) single Champions League? If that ever happened, then I could see it.

Yep. And I hope the two do not merge, it would help no one.

Also I take full credit for the Kamperveen Cup (CONCACAF will wanna honour its past and that's the best sounding name of the CONCACAF Hall of Famers)

[-Hammer-]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Just a bit of fact checking on this. Presumably your baseline was USA's round of 16 exit in the 1994 World Cup, which they hosted. Also worth noting that they advanced out of the group but in those days, some 3rd place finishers advanced, which is how USA got through. This was the last World Cup where you could advance from a 3rd place position.

Then MLS started in 1996.

World Cup 1998 USA tanked.

World Cup 2002, USA made it to the quarter final, one round further than the 1994 World Cup, during MLS's 7th season, not a decade and a half later.

That is fair, and I concede my error.

[Shway]

30 minutes ago, matty said:

And I hope the two do not merge, it would help no one.

How so? 

Smaller nations (Canada, Honduras, Jamaica, T&T etc) would get the chance of playing Brazil, Argentina etc in meaningful games, which brings more money to the country, gives youth the chance of being exposed to and play against great players. The only downfall would be that it would be harder a little bit harder for Canada to qualify for the WC. 

The only country it ""wouldn't"" help would be the brazils, and argentinas because they wouldn't be playing "top class opponents", but thats what friendlies are for. 

I agree to a CONCACAF CONEMBOL WCQ merger, but keep the CCL and Copa Libertorderes (sp?) seperate. 

 

[Ansem]

5 minutes ago, Jahinho Guerro said:

I agree to a CONCACAF CONEMBOL WCQ merger, but keep the CCL and Copa Libertorderes (sp?) seperate.

I think the opposite is better actually. I don't even see the USA qualifying every time if that happens. Only Mexico would stand a chance to qualify. CONCACAF (except Honduras) did a good job at representing the region with people arguing that we deserve an extra spot.

However, a unified Copa America makes sense due to the Gold Cup being a joke of a tournament and is comparable to the Euro.

In retrospect, CCL has potential and isn't quite ready to compete against Copa Libertadores

[Shway]

Just now, Ansem said:

I think the opposite is better actually. I don't even see the USA qualifying every year if that happens. Only Mexico would stand a chance to qualify.

However, a unified Copa America makes sense due to the Gold Cup being a joke of a tournament.

In retrospect, CCL has potential and isn't quite ready to compete against Copa Libertadores

I think you overrate the bottom 5 teams in the CONMEBOL (Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay). The Copa America showed that US, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Panama can beat those teams.

[matty]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

However, a unified Copa America makes sense due to the Gold Cup being a joke of a tournament and is comparable to the Euro.

I disagree, the Gold Cup does need a change up (mainly with qualifying and getting non-FIFA teams out) but if should remain. It's our regions cup and would do more for everyone in the region than scraping it would for a shiny new object.

1 hour ago, Jahinho Guerro said:

How so? 

Smaller nations (Canada, Honduras, Jamaica, T&T etc) would get the chance of playing Brazil, Argentina etc in meaningful games, which brings more money to the country, gives youth the chance of being exposed to and play against great players. The only downfall would be that it would be harder a little bit harder for Canada to qualify for the WC. 

The only country it ""wouldn't"" help would be the brazils, and argentinas because they wouldn't be playing "top class opponents", but thats what friendlies are for. 

I agree to a CONCACAF CONEMBOL WCQ merger, but keep the CCL and Copa Libertorderes (sp?) seperate. 

 

Say they were merged today, CONCACAF outside of the US, Mexico and Costa Rica, would likely not to get into the World Cup for decades and exiting the group stage at the Copa America would be an uphill battle, not to mention qualifying for that. Most of CONCACAF would struggle greatly with South America (Haiti and Jamaica allowed 18 goals combined in 6 games in the Copa Centenario and scored once between them, even Panama who you pointed to struggled to beat Bolivia and did shit against the stronger teams).

Yes they would make money from playing Brazil but they'd lose out on bigger sums of money that could be made off of major tourneys. A merger is also a good way to enforce a "we're a shitty team" culture more than we currently have.

[Ansem]

19 minutes ago, matty said:

I disagree, the Gold Cup does need a change up (mainly with qualifying and getting non-FIFA teams out) but if should remain. It's our regions cup and would do more for everyone in the region than scraping it would for a shiny new object.

• Rename the Gold Cup
• once every 4 years (next should be 2019 and scratch 2017)
• 16 teams tournament with proper qualifiers for ALL...No automatic participation
• None-FIFA/CONCACAF members out
• Allow CONCACAF nations to bid to host. No more USA hosting every time
• 6 best teams from CONCACAF qualifies for Copa America in 2020

What can I say? Copa America Centenario was fun! Watching American analyst claiming they were on Columbia's level just to get dominated and seeing their speechless faces on TV....filled with much needed humility? Priceless

[matty]

1 minute ago, Ansem said:

• Rename the Gold Cup
• once every 4 years (next should be 2019 and scratch 2017)
• 16 teams tournament with proper qualifiers for ALL...No automatic participation
• None-FIFA/CONCACAF members out
• Allow CONCACAF nations to bid to host. No more USA hosting every time
• 6 best teams from CONCACAF qualifies for Copa America in 2020

Few changes
-Canada, The US and Mexico rotate hosting duties (until another nation is up the the task of hosting)
-Regional Qualifying continues with a reestablished NAFU consisting of Canada, US, Mexico, Cuba, Bermuda, Bahamas and Belize
-Spot allocation
   -Host of Cup: 1
   -NAFU: 4
   -CFU: 4
   -CAFU: 4
   -Teams ranked 5 and 6 enter into playoffs with the 3 winner earning spots
-Semi-Finalists get invites to Copa America

[Ansem]

2 minutes ago, matty said:

Few changes
-Canada, The US and Mexico rotate hosting duties (until another nation is up the the task of hosting)
-Regional Qualifying continues with a reestablished NAFU consisting of Canada, US, Mexico, Cuba, Bermuda, Bahamas and Belize
-Spot allocation
   -Host of Cup: 1
   -NAFU: 4
   -CFU: 4
   -CAFU: 4
   -Teams ranked 5 and 6 enter into playoffs with the 3 winner earning spots
-Semi-Finalists get invites to Copa America

One of the reasons why our ranking is so low is because we don't play as many games as the other confederation. Montagliani is right to revamp the whole thing. Countries are either out too early or don't play enough qualifying games within the confederation, leaving them with years without meaningful games to play.

We should do like the Europeans and just have a full qualifying schedule like Montagliani seems to be hinting at.

[grande]

What are the odds we can get Greenland into CONCACAF?  They'd be a good (easy) opponent in NAFU!

[matty]

58 minutes ago, Ansem said:

One of the reasons why our ranking is so low is because we don't play as many games as the other confederation. Montagliani is right to revamp the whole thing. Countries are either out too early or don't play enough qualifying games within the confederation, leaving them with years without meaningful games to play.

We should do like the Europeans and just have a full qualifying schedule like Montagliani seems to be hinting at.

See i agree with a Euro style qualifier for the WC (concacaf's top 25 in 5 groups) but with the GC i think it should remain a somewhat fair reflection of the 3 regions of concacaf. The qualifiers for it should be done within the region not via concacaf as a whole