Canadian Premier League

[GuillermoDelQuarto]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Halifax and London are both larger than the smallest city in the NFL, as well as the CFL. Just saying.

this is a somewhat related point, but I'm just wondering what were the populations of some of these cities when NFL, CFL and NHL were founded.  Like the population has grown considerably overall in north america in that time no?

I think what I'm trying to say is that small ish cities with no competition in terms of other big teams might not be as bad an option as people think.  Everythings gotta start somewhere.  it's all about buzz.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

1 minute ago, -Hammer- said:

You know what else is kinda awesome. They both also have a higher population then Bournemouth who has an EPL team.

And that means they are automatically going to be the next success stories on a scale similar to the Portland Timbers and Orlando City? Having cities like London and Halifax as part of the mix suggests a downsizing of ambitions more than anything else. If one of them does a Green Bay great, but there's no way you budget for that in advance unless you are on halucinogenic drugs.

[Ansem]

1 minute ago, BradMack said:

We've never had a Canadian league that has worked out before. Even today a lot of voyageurs don't think its a possibility.

I'm sure the Americans and hardcore fans were thinking the same all along around the 1994 World Cup and once MLS started. Look where there are today. There's no guarantee in life but you won't know unless you try but I'll tell you this, CPL will be starting at much more favorable point in time than MLS had too in 1996 when no one cared about soccer for years until Beckham came in 2007.

4 minutes ago, BradMack said:

You're saying what if London develops a Bradley or a Larin, what if they sell him for pennies to TFC.... But you're completely avoiding another question. What if the only way London exists is with MLSE.

London already exist, without MLSE. They recently affiliated with them

5 minutes ago, BradMack said:

We are going to need big money groups for this to work and they are one of the biggest involved in sports in this country.

There's already 6 owners guarantee for the launch. Perhaps we should give CPL some time to convince others to join, just like MLS had to do.

7 minutes ago, BradMack said:

If done correctly it doesn't need to hurt the league. Has NYCFC hurt MLS?

I didn't recall England being a neighbouring country to the United States, with New York/Los Angeles and Chicago having franchise in EPL while Manchester City implements a NYCFC team in Jersey in MLS. See why you just can't use that as a comparison, totally different markets, totally different context and there's an ocean between them.

There were rumours of European teams wanting to start something in CPL, you can see why I don't oppose that like your NYCFC example above (if done right)

*Montreal Impact are entering a dangerous zone with Bologna FC, just my opinion.

[GuillermoDelQuarto]

the MLSE one is such a catch 22.  Do you allow them in despite all the conflicts of interest that will no doubt occur, because they're the one ownership group that would virtually ensure deep enough pockets to make it work(from a financial POV) or do you say no you can't be in because it undermines the integrity of way we want the league to operate(from an authenticity POV). 

I don't have a good answer but there are legitimate arguments for both side of the coin.

[matty]

4 minutes ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said:

I think what I'm trying to say is that small ish cities with no competition in terms of other big teams might not be as bad an option as people think.  Everythings gotta start somewhere.  it's all about buzz.

I'd say go for it but only if you have a billionaire willing to back a team.

[GuillermoDelQuarto]

Just now, matty said:

I'd say go for it but only if you have a billionaire willing to back a team.

haha even if it's MLSE?

[matty]

Just now, GuillermoDelQuarto said:

haha even if it's MLSE?

That's a complex issue and it's a shame there are not rules in place to clear things up. I don't like people/groups owning two or more separate teams within the federation.

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said:

haha even if it's MLSE?

yes, only as a minority shareholder and away from any involvement from team management.

That's how Bell was able to have shares in both the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maples Leafs. Bell had to sell shares of Habs to be able to be a majority partner at MLSE...

otherwise...Conflict of interest

[GuillermoDelQuarto]

Just now, matty said:

That's a complex issue and it's a shame there are not rules in place to clear things up. I don't like people/groups owning two or more separate teams within the federation.

I do wonder, what kind of rules could be put in place to ensure the conflicts of interest aren't a problem.  Like is it possible or no?

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Worth noting the tweets, if accurate, suggest an affiliation to TFC by an independent organization. That's the Ottawa Fury model.

[Ansem]

1 minute ago, matty said:

That's a complex issue and it's a shame there are not rules in place to clear things up. I don't like people/groups owning two or more separate teams within the federation.

See below, to avoid a conflict of interest MLSE would need to be a minority partner away from team management decisions

[GuillermoDelQuarto]

Just now, Ansem said:

yes, only as a minority shareholder and away from any involvement from team management.

That's how Bell was able to have shares in both the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maples Leafs. Bell had to sell shares of Habs to be able to be a majority partner at MLSE...

otherwise...Conflict of interest

so... MLSE as a minority partner in every team?  like 40%?

haha maybe I'm dreaming

[Ansem]

1 minute ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said:

so... MLSE as a minority partner in every team?  like 40%?

haha maybe I'm dreaming

Technically they could, but MLS would have to agree to that

[GuillermoDelQuarto]

Just now, Ansem said:

Technically they could, but MLS would have to agree to that

chances of that?

[Ansem]

7 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

Worth noting the tweets, if accurate, suggest an affiliation to TFC by an independent organization. That's the Ottawa Fury model.

Not sure exploiting "loopholes" gets you in CPL. I think that the OFFC would have to terminate their affiliation with Montreal if they were to join CPL, which seems unlikely due to Montreal closing FC Montreal...

I'm starting to think that another group of owners will operate the Ottawa CPL team, not OSEG. Becoming a Montreal affiliate will come back to hunt them. Montreal-Ottawa has rivalries in NHL and CFL, not sure the fans likes what's going on.

For me, OFFC burned themselves and CPL should stay away from that brand

[Ansem]

Just now, GuillermoDelQuarto said:

chances of that?

Nil, MLSE wants too much control on the CPL team, and the fact that MLS agrees with that should raise some HUGE red flags

[-Hammer-]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure if it was tested in court, MLSE could get away without any conflict of intrest issues, by making the simple arguement. "MLS is a different league then the CPL and both have separate governing bodies. If the Saptuos are allowed interest in Serie A and Man City is allowed interest in NYCFC then there is no reason I can't own in two separate leagues"

It then comes down the MLS's franchise agreement with MLSE (which I don't believe is public knowledge) and if there are any clauses or items that prevent investment in a competing league in the MLS area, and explicitly beyond the reach of the USSF. It wouldn't surprise me if there was (to stop owners from hedging bets with the NASL or other rivals) but we'd have to see it and see what are the costs of violating.

Technically, you can make the argument every soccer league is in competition for television revenue and are all under the FIFA branch, so any co-ownership is a conflict of interest.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

1 minute ago, Ansem said:

Not sure exploiting "loopholes" gets you in CPL. I think that the OFFC would have to terminate their affiliation with Montreal if they were to join CPL

...because that's what you want to happen as it doesn't fit the genuine rival to MLS fantasy scenario. Meanwhile if this league is going to get off the ground they need to find willing investors and if billionaires aren't lining up to do a Phil Anshutz on this, you tailor your cloth accordingly.

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, -Hammer- said:

To be fair, I'm pretty sure if it was tested in court, MLSE could get away without any conflict of intrest issues, by making the simple arguement. "MLS is a different league then the CPL and both have separate governing bodies. If the Saptuos are allowed interest in Serie A and Man City is allow interest in NYCFC then there is no reason I can't own in two separate leagues"

It then comes down the MLS's franchise agreement with MLSE (which I don't believe is public knowledge) and if there are any clauses or items that prevent investment in a competing league in the MLS area, and explicitly beyond the reach of the USSF. It wouldn't surprise me if there was (to stop owners from hedging bets with the NASL or other rivals) but we'd have to see it and see what are the costs of violating.

Technically, you can make the argument every soccer league is in competition for television revenue and are all under the FIFA branch, so any co-ownership is a conflict of interest.

You don't need the courts for that. CPL can implement rules about what they deem to be conflict of interest. Actually, every employers have said rules including mine.

If you don't pass CPL conflict of interest test, they can ban you from ownership. You can't force CPL to accept you as an owner, otherwise there'd be NHL hockey in Hamilton

[-Hammer-]

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

You don't need the courts for that. CPL can implement rules about what they deem to be conflict of interest. Actually, every employers have said rules including mine.

If you don't pass CPL conflict of interest test, they can ban you from ownership. You can't force CPL to accept you as an owner, otherwise there'd be NHL hockey in Hamilton

I pretty much said that in the second paragraph.

Anyways, I think the CSA returns the favor to MLS and pushes and allows the absolute bare minimum "affiliate benefits" as required by MLS, and any such ownership looking to invest in the CPL.

[Ansem]

4 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

...because that's what you want to happen as it doesn't fit the genuine rival to MLS fantasy scenario. Meanwhile if this league is going to get off the ground they need to find willing investors and if billionaires aren't lining up to do a Phil Anshutz on this, you tailor your cloth accordingly.

I wanted Ottawa Fury all along in CPL but they don't seem to fit what CPL is looking for. Besides, all indication points to the league having 6 teams at start. Best to build on those 6 teams with solid ownership than taking chances with OSEG and what they've been doing to their brand

[BradMack]

12 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I'm sure the Americans and hardcore fans were thinking the same all along around the 1994 World Cup and once MLS started. Look where there are today. There's no guarantee in life but you won't know unless you try but I'll tell you this, CPL will be starting at much more favorable point in time than MLS had too in 1996 when no one cared about soccer for years until Beckham came in 2007.

London already exist, without MLSE. They recently affiliated with them

There's already 6 owners guarantee for the launch. Perhaps we should give CPL some time to convince others to join, just like MLS had to do.

I didn't recall England being a neighbouring country to the United States, with New York/Los Angeles and Chicago having franchise in EPL while Manchester City implements a NYCFC team in Jersey in MLS. See why you just can't use that as a comparison, totally different markets, totally different context and there's an ocean between them.

There were rumours of European teams wanting to start something in CPL, you can see why I don't oppose that like your NYCFC example above (if done right)

*Montreal Impact are entering a dangerous zone with Bologna FC, just my opinion.

I think you're going pretty far here to make my points look moot. London does exist, it is a real place on earth, with a league 1 team, but certainly not a place that pays professional athletes a liveable wage to play high level soccer. It doesn't have a large stadium that people go and pay a lot of money to watch soccer at. It doesn't have a full time professional academy developing Cyle Larins and Michael Bradley's like you were alluding to. Something probably not possible without MLSE involvement.

I would also like to know who these 6 confirmed owners are that are 100% in at league launch please inform us.

Lastly, when NYCFC entered the league everyone was scared it would take away from MLS' legitimacy. This is a fact, and it is just like what you're scared of with this TFC/London thing. There are millions of people in the USA who don't watch MLS because its inferior to the Prem. Those people were laughing at MLS when City football group announced a team in NYC that looked exactly like the big club but had significantly worse players. But in hindsight its actually turning out to be a good move because the investors behind it are big time and know what they are doing. 

[Ansem]

2 minutes ago, -Hammer- said:

I pretty much said that in the second paragraph.

Anyways, I think the CSA returns the favor to MLS and pushes and allows the absolute bare minimum "affiliate benefits" as required by MLS, and any such ownership looking to invest in the CPL.

Could you clarify that?

MLS didn't do CSA any favor with their "Canadian solution", CSA owes them nothing. MLS owes CSA A LOT thanks to their sanctioning of MLS in Canada which allowed that league to achieve so much since TFC joined.

[BradMack]

18 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Nil, MLSE wants too much control on the CPL team, and the fact that MLS agrees with that should raise some HUGE red flags

Where are you getting this information? Do you have any sources or are you just assuming these things because you think MLSE is the devil? You seem to be pulling a lot of "confirmed" things out of thin air and its starting to dilute your actual good points.

[-Hammer-]

25 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Could you clarify that?

MLS didn't do CSA any favor with their "Canadian solution", CSA owes them nothing. MLS owes CSA A LOT thanks to their sanctioning of MLS in Canada which allowed that league to achieve so much since TFC joined.

MLS's limited Canadian content for years, and even now is limited. Since TFC joined, the paltry 3 Canadian roster requirement was a joke. That did the CSA no favors and was only changed because uncle vic threatened to pull the plug if something wasn't done, and even then stopped short of simply making Canadians domestics across the board.

In return, if an MLS investor wants to invest in the CPL and says "But we have to be affiliated because MLS requires it" I respond with "Provide us with what you are contractually obligated to have in terms of "affiliation" and we'll consider that as our starting point and work our way down from there. You must understand our desire to not make this league a farm league"