GuillermoDelQuarto Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, -Hammer- said: On the plus side, it's good to see news of another ownership group outside of Hamilton wanting to be involved. and lo, the dominoes begin to fall. also, where's the halifax supporters group at? we've got work to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complete Homer Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 17 minutes ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said: and lo, the dominoes begin to fall. also, where's the halifax supporters group at? we've got work to do https://twitter.com/Wanderers_SG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradMack Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 12 minutes ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said: I'm sorry, but this isn't an appropriate comparison. history aside, soccer and lacrosse shouldn't really be mentioned in the same sentence. the only team sport with a higher active participation rate than soccer in this country is hockey. period. Not sure that you're correct here... The problem is that participation rates also have little to do with attendance. If participation had such an effect than Pro teams wouldn't be giving tickets away to youth soccer clubs to convince young soccer players to maybe one day want to pay for tickets. Also the NLL's Rush consistently crushed FC Edmonton in attendance and they competed directly with the Oilers. Also by this argument MLS and EPL games should be crushing curling on TV ratings but its actually the opposite. Aside from the TFC v Impact series the ratings would tell you that Canadians are way more interested in Curling. And while I agree the TFC/Impact series was amazing and I hope for the sake of the MNT that it has a positive impact on the perception of the game in this country, lets not pretend that attention wasn't bolstered by it being marketed as a very significant Canadian event. TFC and the impact play multiple times a year and this was clearly not the norm. Youth participation often means nothing as far as pro sports go, and being the only show in town often means nothing as far as pro sports go. The thing that will make this proposed team work is how it is portrayed to the public by the ownership, and how the league carries itself. If the league comes out with player/coaches and treating players poorly and making bush league moves like the NASL live stream service nobody will take it seriously and it will fail. SEA wont do that, and it doesnt sound like the CSA is going to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuillermoDelQuarto Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 1 hour ago, BradMack said: Not sure that you're correct here... The problem is that participation rates also have little to do with attendance. If participation had such an effect than Pro teams wouldn't be giving tickets away to youth soccer clubs to convince young soccer players to maybe one day want to pay for tickets. Also the NLL's Rush consistently crushed FC Edmonton in attendance and they competed directly with the Oilers. Also by this argument MLS and EPL games should be crushing curling on TV ratings but its actually the opposite. Aside from the TFC v Impact series the ratings would tell you that Canadians are way more interested in Curling. And while I agree the TFC/Impact series was amazing and I hope for the sake of the MNT that it has a positive impact on the perception of the game in this country, lets not pretend that attention wasn't bolstered by it being marketed as a very significant Canadian event. TFC and the impact play multiple times a year and this was clearly not the norm. Youth participation often means nothing as far as pro sports go, and being the only show in town often means nothing as far as pro sports go. The thing that will make this proposed team work is how it is portrayed to the public by the ownership, and how the league carries itself. If the league comes out with player/coaches and treating players poorly and making bush league moves like the NASL live stream service nobody will take it seriously and it will fail. SEA wont do that, and it doesnt sound like the CSA is going to do that. Apples and oranges. NLL has been operating for 30 years, whereas the modern NASL was in operation for less time than the edmonton rush was a member of NLL. participation rates might not directly translate to attendance, but they do translate to interest, and if it weren't for old world football I think we can all agree that it would be a safe bet to assume north american soccer would do significantly better if the current levels of youth participation were maintained. Granted you can make the case that if it weren't for old world football there wouldn't be the same level of participation in soccer over here, but thats a whole other can of worms. the main problem, IMO, is that people still have allegiance to the old world clubs. This is why I have been saying since day 1 that we should be borderline pandering to these people in the hope to win them over as opposed to branding with north american conventions that simply hasn't worked yet - but this is also off topic to what we were talking about. But I agree with the last bit you said. if this ownership group is indeed in, it definitely seems like a positive. edit: I'd like to also point out regarding participation rates, I'm also fairly certain they've went up over the past 50 years or so. and just Anecdotally, my dad(who isn't much of a sports guy) says it wasn't like this when he was a kid, with soccer on TV constantly. Don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't until the late 80s that soccer from europe etc started being regularly televised over here. That means the old NASL failed because it didn't have the foundation of the TV audience to build on, it was a fresh product that had an impact on a generation, but just didn't have the history of CFL, NHL. Basically, there is just cause for optimism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complete Homer Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 43 minutes ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said: participation rates might not directly translate to attendance, but they do translate to interest, and if it weren't for old world football I think we can all agree that it would be a safe bet to assume north american soccer would do significantly better if the current levels of youth participation were maintained. I'm sure there's not a fantasticly strong correlation, but it's not hard to argue that soccer literacy is at an all time high in this country. People I know who hate sport in general will sit through a soccer game because they at least understand the basics of the rules. That counts for something. Further, I think we are hitting the point where way more people under 35 played soccer as their primary sport than even hockey. That helps people identify with the sport personally. I grew up in a fairly rural town, not some soccer crazed hotbed of new Canadians, and I'd say 1/3 of the guys I went to high school with started following TFC when it came around despite being a bit too far away to attend games with any frequency, simply because it was a sport we understood and loved. There's a wave of people coming who grew up with the idea that it is ok to cheer for Canadian soccer teams, as opposed to pretending that you're tightly connected to Barca or Chelsea. The leading edge of that wave is finally starting to earn a decent wage and becoming more relevant in the market than their parents who either don't "get" soccer or are stuck cheering for grandpa's team from the motherland If a bunch of kids from small town Ontario can become the type of people to spend way too much money on TFC despite their only real contact with the sport being recreational soccer, I have a hard time believing that story isn't replicated to a certain extent across the country. Soccer is already their sport. Just give them a club that can be theirs too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuillermoDelQuarto Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Complete Homer said: I grew up in a fairly rural town, not some soccer crazed hotbed of new Canadians, and I'd say 1/3 of the guys I went to high school with started following TFC when it came around despite being a bit too far away to attend games with any frequency, simply because it was a sport we understood and loved. There's a wave of people coming who grew up with the idea that it is ok to cheer for Canadian soccer teams, as opposed to pretending that you're tightly connected to Barca or Chelsea. The tip of that wave is finally starting to earn a decent wage and becoming more relevant in the market than their parents who either don't "get" soccer or are stuck cheering for grandpa's team from the motherland If a bunch of kids from small town Ontario can become the type of people to spend way too much money on TFC despite their only real contact with the sport being recreational soccer, I have a hard time believing that story isn't replicated to a certain extent across the country. Soccer is already their sport. Just give them a club that can be theirs too honestly man. It's tipping. I don't like to beat gladwell to death but it's right on the verge here(Whitehorse). People bring up the whitecaps now(not mainstream, but soccer people) whereas a few years ago the idea of Canadian soccer was a joke. take it from a former eurosnob, it's so fucking close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimliJetsMan Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 3 hours ago, -Hammer- said: It's not quite that simple. Not only do you need the right owner, you need a 20+ thousand seat venue, of which there are none in our country that don't have a team already or a CFL team nearby, and you need a viable market. PEPS is the closest at 12,000 but the University is very hostile to the CFL comming in and taking fans away from the Rogue Et Or who want to keep being the big fish in a small pond. Moncton is next with 10,000 but they quickly got cold feet for CFL ball out that way after the 3rd touchdown Atlantic game. The right owner would be someone who could get a stadium built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Glitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complete Homer Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Some interesting stuff from the CBC interview with Derek Martin. To sum up, he's calling the stadium a "pop up" and "modular" stadium to test the market, which sounds very much like Empire Field. Also makes me think it would be easier to get through city council if it is removable if the team folds (and if it is privately funded!). Second, he said they are talking to "partners in the community", so it sounds like they themselves aren't interested in being the sole owners. While that's good, they seem much better suited to actual run the franchise than finance it from the eyeball test of their net worth (there's no official reports, but they don't look like a huge company), it also means the team isn't a sure thing yet. Last, he said they were very preliminary. While it seemed pretty obvious, it should be restated that this is probably a potential expansion side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJSweet Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 CBC Nova Scotia: Interview with Derek Martin, the president of the Halifax-based sports promotion firm Sports & Entertainment Atlantic that is pushing the drive to bring a Canadian Premier League bid to Halifax (interview starts at the 52:00 minute)...What comes-out sharply from this interview is that Martin is calling the proposed Halifax stadium a "pop up" stadium to test the market for now. Sounds like Vancouver's Empire Field. This is probably a smart move in order to convince Halifax city-hall. Furthermore, he mentions that his organization is looking to "work with partners". http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/828468803663 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Hammer- Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 10 hours ago, GimliJetsMan said: The right owner would be someone who could get a stadium built. Sure, but very few stadiums in this country were built with private funds (in fact, I think the ACC is the only one if I'm not mistaken). That means having a greater conversation with the local government and getting them on board, which even the best owner in the world can't always get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheo Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Ottawa Fury twitter hyping their "biggest announcement yet" for 10 am. Nothing on there yet, 4 minutes late lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimliJetsMan Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, -Hammer- said: Sure, but very few stadiums in this country were built with private funds (in fact, I think the ACC is the only one if I'm not mistaken). That means having a greater conversation with the local government and getting them on board, which even the best owner in the world can't always get it done. When I say "get a stadium built" it means lobby the public effectively and provide a solid plan to the government so they feel comfortable supporting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David C. Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Hmm... I guess 10:30 is the new 10:00 - still waiting. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Putting 6000-8000 for breakeven crowds in perspective, it's WHA sort of numbers on announced as opposed to paid attendance: http://www.kenn.com/the_blog/?page_id=4821 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 9 minutes ago, David C. said: Hmm... I guess 10:30 is the new 10:00 - still waiting. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David C. Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Details on Impact partnership, while remaining an independent club. http://www.ottawafuryfc.com/news_article/show/732176?referrer_id=2824815 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 good to see the CSA applied common sense: Ottawa’s participation in USL and the partnership with Montreal will have no impact on the club’s participation in the Amway Canadian Championship. Fury FC will again take aim at the Voyageur’s Cup in 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt-MTL Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Yeah happy to see that Ottawa can still take part in the V-cup but they'll need to clarify what happens with those players on loan from MTL if they get drawn against the "parent" club. My guess is they would be ineligible.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levi Oakey Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 It doesn't say the length of the deal... Unless that is somewhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheo Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Sure seems like this thread will slow down now lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted December 9, 2016 Author Share Posted December 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Kurt-MTL said: Yeah happy to see that Ottawa can still take part in the V-cup but they'll need to clarify what happens with those players on loan from MTL if they get drawn against the "parent" club. My guess is they would be ineligible.. The FA Cup says you can only take the field for one team in a given years competition. Players on loan usually sit out as it is specified in the loan deal. Others sit out if they have already played for another team in that year's competition. Seems like a good model to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mianjo Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, ted said: The FA Cup says you can only take the field for one team in a given years competition. Players on loan usually sit out as it is specified in the loan deal. Others sit out if they have already played for another team in that year's competition. Seems like a good model to me. This is called being cuptied. The Loan rules changed this year in the UK, Loan transfers will now have to be agreed only during transfer windows, as opposed to the previous flexible month-to-month basis throughout the year. A huge change comes that teams are now unable to recall loanees at short notice, they have to stay for the whole loan period, ie 1 month, 6 months etc, a player can only be recalled if he is injured and the loan arrangement is therefor cancelled,. For example last year Liverpool at one period had 22 players out on loan to other teams, this season they have 4 players out on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuillermoDelQuarto Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Rheo said: Sure seems like this thread will slow down now lol song=thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuillermoDelQuarto Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 21 minutes ago, mianjo said: This is called being cuptied. The Loan rules changed this year in the UK, Loan transfers will now have to be agreed only during transfer windows, as opposed to the previous flexible month-to-month basis throughout the year. A huge change comes that teams are now unable to recall loanees at short notice, they have to stay for the whole loan period, ie 1 month, 6 months etc, a player can only be recalled if he is injured and the loan arrangement is therefor cancelled,. For example last year Liverpool at one period had 22 players out on loan to other teams, this season they have 4 players out on loan. this is really interesting, I had no idea. I feel like this is something we should talk about i'll start. IF MLS teams are somehow involved(looking at MLSE) is there some way to ensure that it doesn't become reserve squads through the loan rules? I don't wanna hear that MLS squads shouldn't be involved, thats a different discussion which we have(IMO) already beaten to death. I wanna see if theres a reasonable way for them to be involved that keeps the 1a(MLS)/1b(CPL) sort of mentality I mentioned earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.