Jump to content

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, coppercanuck said:

Not that Japan is the best comparison for Canada but greater Tokyo has 13 teams across the 3 J.Leagues.  Can Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver support more than one team? I say they already do.

When looking at the Eastern Canada scene with L1O, PLSQ, PDL* and CSL*, there seems to be plenty of ownership out there.  Regardless of the support, the ownership feel that their team is a "big deal".

The Greater Tokyo area has the same population as all of Canada.  

They also support their own sports teams, something that Canadians seem to have a problem doing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 hours ago, enbsports said:

I've done interviews with players who were force to quit MLS USSDA academies because of costs. Most teams have some sort of administration fee but also expect the players family to cover costs like Travel and the player in question says his family was paying more then $3000 a year for his soccer costs. Even the Whitecaps have an upcoming trail/showcase and are asking players to pay $1000 to participate.

Bottom line with CanPL is if it was your money would you invest in this league and what Canadian players need to be in this 1.5M budgeted league who wouldn't get the same out of a league with budgets 1/4th the costs. In terms of the idea we will take our losses and build the league, attendance historically been strong at the beginning of a sports league and gone down from there or remained consistent. Last year Ottawa only showed a 200 person increase per game from 2014 at TD Place despite an amazing season in 2015 and will most likely to go down this season well FC Edmonton attendance have gone down consistently each season since joining the NASL. If anything if CanPL was to happen the best attendance will be its first season because of the new car smell and be lucky if they can maintain that attendance going forward.

In terms of ranking a league on one hand you say you don't want to be part of the American system and then on the other hand you say NASL 2nd Tier and NPSL is 4th Tier. What ever the CanPL is, it will always be second tier to the MLS and in terms of below that why should budget make a difference. I think the better question is what players would attract you to go to a CanPL game that is keeping you away from a L1O game. This is also taking into account that you are a knowledgeable soccer fan 95% of Canadians wouldn't know the difference if a L1O or a USL game was played at BMO as long as the presentation was the same.

I'm not disagreeing development needs to be done at the club level in Canada although the plan should be realistic long term development then a league that is most likely to fold soon after it comes in existence. If Ottawa, FC Edmonton and now Hamilton want to remain in NASL on their own dime that is fine but also give smaller clubs a chance by allowing them to participate in the Voyageurs Cup and be part of a viable Canadian system/league. A grassroots club in Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina, Halifax and Quebec City have a much better chance growing if you reduce their starting costs then forcing them to invest heavily and have unrealistic expectations like the CanPL proposal suggests. 

 

 

I don't necessarily agree with you on many of these points but I do value your input and opinion on this! I am hoping interest in Canadian soccer continues to grow and I am thrilled to know that we will have a pro team to support in Hamilton after many years without one!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, baulderdash77 said:

I don't really see why the naysayers are so against the league.  Do they want to have Canada remain beholden to the US to set the soccer agenda for us?  

The league is happening so either get on board or get out of the way.

That's an oddity of Canadian culture, which I don't understand.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10 February, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Coramoor said:

That is not true, I believe DC united might still have some P2P elements but that's the only one

Calling the NHL not Canada's pro hockey league is absurd.

The NBL exists.

Who controls the league (and some believe playoff results) and where are most of the teams?  We're guests at our own game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SuperCanuck said:

Who controls the league (and some believe playoff results) and where are most of the teams?  We're guests at our own game.

Agree, I am so pissed with Hamilton being screwed out of the team they deserved and all the gimmicky rules made up by American lawyers I don't even watch it anymore and I'm a Habs fan from back when the Leafs were winning the cup! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I basically disagree with every thing you are saying. Some reasons why.

1-Your numbers are wrong. Say 14 home matches (play every rival twice in a league of 8) your calculation is to draw $2,400,000 just from the gate. Or almost a million more than what is being called the salary cap, and well over what you need to cover basic costs. Anyone who thinks gate has to represent over 100% of a club's budget from day one is immediately discredited in my eyes.

This does not even include gate from pre-season friendlies or Voyageurs Cup.

You do not mention merchandising, as you don't understand it. You ignore TV revenue, however modest. You forget about sponsorship, team and individual clubs. You are basically using manipulated figures to undercut the proposal's credibility. 

2-You wrote "higher" instead of "hire", which is pretty scary. That helped lose me right there.

3-You ignore clear indications that there will be Canadian minimums on clubs. Then proceed to argue we will be giving jobs to veterans of other leagues from other countries. While MLS and NASL clubs could do a lot better, this proposal establishes a rule where such questions are dealt with in statutes. Even having half of rosters, or 13 a club, upwards of 90 more Canadians being paid to play, is a major step forward. 

4-You make up a salary minimum and then suggest the "money" go elsewhere, to set up a semi-pro league in Ontario, which is clearly the centre of the universe, agree with you there. Basically, what "money" are you talking about? The money for the CanPL put up by ownership groups for their team, or the magic money picked from trees and arbitrarily allotted on footie forum fantasies? In any case, suggesting players can get paid a few hundred bucks a game, or basically, something like 9000 a year, is pretty insulting. Why don't you take that semi-pro money you have made up and let us put it into CanPL salaries, since it can be moved around so easily? 

20,000 as a minimum is better than 9,000, and if the salary cap was a million for 25 on a roster, your average would be 40 thousand, some at the base, youth, lower, with others higher.

5-You have to distinguish between academies developing players for a club, to benefit it, and those making money with that in mind. The former exist and work well, the latter, which I agree are less preferable, make money---another income source you forgot to add to the budget provisions. In any case, instead of ranting about low salaries and then proposing even lower ones, why not recognize that younger academy players are developed in part to avoid higher salaries and get more quality at a lower price. 

6-Because Hamilton may think it is too big and important for your semi-pro proposal, just to be nice, so you say, we are going to oficialize the national stadium there and move the CSA there too. Wow, that sounds like Hamilton selling itself pretty cheap. It IS Hamilton after all. Let's move Parliament there too, just to make them happy about having to play in the shitty league you are proposing that they'll rightfully hate being involved with.

7-You are proposing that Edmonton, for example, move to USL to play against the Whitecaps reserves instead of Cosmos, to save money? 

In conclusion, you would prefer to see this league fail, for some reason you don't seem to want to tell us.

 

The increase in NASL attendance solely has to do with the new expansion teams and the attendance they generated from San Antonio, Ottawa, to Indy, to Jacksonville the other NASL team attendance has been basically the same each season. Tampa Bay is the only team that has a steady rise from 4,000-5,500. 

Gate example you have 5,000 a game at average $20 a ticket that is $100,000, in the case of 8,000 would be $160,000, I was looking at a 20 game schedule, 8 clubs, 4 in east, 4 in west, one home game against opposite division, two home games vs teams in your own division. Although this assumes you get these numbers and everyone pays full price for their tickets.

People can google experience in creating a pro soccer team there is a lot of information on creating a NASL, USL, PDL and NPSL club and the budget and expectations needed to break even. USL budget because of MLS investment is about half of NASL that is why I suggest moving leagues. I work with a USL club who have an annual team budget of $800,000 this does not include stadium/game day costs but I would assume their overall budget is $1.2M where NASL is closer to $2M a season. A club like Detroit City FC have annual budget around $250,000 a year and some NPSL clubs are lower then $50,000 a year.

I was smoking weed when I wrote it so I was hi :)

What I said is the team will not lack Canadians but that these Canadians will be making the league minimum just based on expected salary based on history and performance most Canadians recruited in this league will be coming from CIS/CCAA/L1O so sure you can pay them $60,000-$80,000 a year if you wish but if you are a club why would you. The issue I mention is if the budget is high no club will hire management without a history of dealing with this type of budget. So the team will most likely higher an American with NASL/USL experience and they will hire players they are already committed to as we see with the development of other NASL/USL clubs.

My Hamilton suggestion was a workable alternative to the CanPL as we feel the main reason we need a league is to develop pro players so if you did develop a Canadian pro team solely produced there would be benefits to that so players like Manny Aparicio and Caleb Clarke would have alternatives if cut from the Canadian MLS teams although you don't need 8 teams to do this or at least at this moment. I think most people on this board would struggle naming 100 better yet 200 Canadians who would play in the CanPL.

I'm not against this league never been I'm giving an opinion taken from experience of dealing with the old CPL and other leagues in North America and Europe. I also attend L1O, PDL, USL games in Canada in empty stadiums where the quality of play will be equal to the type of player playing in the CanPL where prices of tickets are 1/2 or a 1/4 of what CanPL will have to charge for tickets.

So I'm skeptical especially if I was asked to invest in this league although alternatively if a nationwide domestic league could be developed based on grassroots communities similar to Junior Hockey with 10 clubs out west, 10 clubs in Ontario and 10 clubs in the Quebec/East and a National Championship plus the opportunity for teams to play in the Voyageurs Cup and maybe play a MLS club. I think this is something that is viable and from examples we are now seeing in the States can be great for everyone involve. I also believe this system would develop as many players at the CanPL and giving them opportunities to play in MLS/Europe - USL/NASL - or attend NCAA Division 1 schools in the States and eventually play with the Canadian National Team which is the goal of the whole Can PL.

The fact we are ignoring the Women's club game our greatest asset currently in Soccer is just another example of us being caught up in the American idea of "Pro Sports" then actually developing something with long term value. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 9, 2016 at 9:42 AM, MtlMario said:

Must say Duane I never doubted you on this subject. Good job. Now I can't wait for the league to get started. Go Canada go.

Same here. Never doubt 2 solitudes! Awesome podcast, you guys should have your own Sirius satellite show. 

On February 9, 2016 at 5:27 PM, BrennanFan said:

8000 attendance is a healthy bar to set.  Not impossible or improbable.  

Of course "budget" Canadians will benefit.  Even if the Canadian quota is at 50%, young Canadians will have to make up the numbers.  

There will still be a place for L1O and equivalents, but what Canadian soccer needs is for more professional player opportunities and a pyramid system where the cream can rise to the top.  

Why do you assume players will have to pay to be part of a CanPL academy?  MLS academies are not pay to play.  Regardless, when an academy has a good financial business plan and financial incentive, good things happen.  Sigma is pay to play, but they develop pros.  There are still plenty of European countries that will buy Canadian players.  It's not a myth, as we on this forum are well aware of many young players who have recently signed contracts in Europe.

Another USL or NASL team will not improve Canadian soccer.  Another team will not make us a regular contender for the World Cup.  Our own league, if done right, can do these things.  We have to stop riding on US Soccer's coat tails.  We need a paradigm shift.  We need to put ourselves first and believe in ourselves.     

Canada definitely needs to put it self first. We have to develop the children and best will rise to the top. We then can give our best 16-18 year old players a chance to play at the highest level in their country. Alexis Sanchez and Pele were only 17 when they got signed to top flight teams in their own domestic leagues. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, michaeltfc91 said:

A television deal is important for financial means such as additional revenues to the c-league as far as the C-League business plans details, to suggest that it`s success hinges on or depends on a television deal suggest you have not done your home work. 

the c-league/CPL do not need a television deal to be successful it`s needs a fan base which derives from other sources of marketing and development of its entertainment value or product. 

People are attracted to certain athletes and the swagger they bring to the game and television company`s, buy`s into the market created by these other marketing features in order to gain an audience for their programing.

C-League/CPL/Canadian Premier League  only needs the Canadian fans to jump on board. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Futballer said:

A television deal is important for financial means such as additional revenues to the c-league as far as the C-League business plans details, to suggest that it`s success hinges on or depends on a television deal suggest you have not done your home work.

Actually what is clear is you did not read the piece linked to.

He is not talking about revenues. He is talking about exposure, visibility, and he is 100% correct. If a fan in Ottawa cannot watch his team play a game in Calgary on TV the league is simply not viable. Now, for the first years that visibility may have be tape-delayed games or highlight packages but it must be on TV and it must be somewhere reasonably accessible to the general public (ie. TSN).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ted said:

Actually what is clear is you did not read the piece linked to.

He is not talking about revenues. He is talking about exposure, visibility, and he is 100% correct. If a fan in Ottawa cannot watch his team play a game in Calgary on TV the league is simply not viable. Now, for the first years that visibility may have be tape-delayed games or highlight packages but it must be on TV and it must be somewhere reasonably accessible to the general public (ie. TSN).

Exactly what I was trying to get at. The Television deal would be extremely important for the first few years simply to gain exposure and get the casual soccer or sports fans involved and will justify the league being "professional". Otherwise it will be an under the radar, semi pro league without much support (to most soccer fans, not us Voyageurs). Eventually if the league is able to capture a strong enough audience attendance-wise, television deals would help financially with providing TV and sponsorship revenue, but that is secondary in the beginning at least. As people have said in the comments, even if the CPL airs their matches on TSN for free, it will be beneficial to the league in the long run

Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted above I agree that the TV deal is required just for exposure.  If there's 4 games a week on TSN, even for free that means it gets on the highlight packages and it will get some level of media coverage.  

Actually if each game was on TSN then at least the Bell owned newspapers will probably have 1 local beat writer attached to the team.  That kind of coverage brings eyes and fans and sponsors.  

For these teams with a 1.5 million player budget and a 2.5 million total budget, a 500k shirt sponsor plus another 100k -200k of local sponsors may make the difference towards viability.  In fact 5,000 fans x 15 home games x 25 dollars plus the above sponsorships is a break even team.  Throw in some merchandise and concessions and you have a team.

Even for free or a nominal fee a TSN deal would go really far to making the league a success. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bold statement: This league needs some kind of DP set-up.

While a TV deal is crucial (a 5 hour 2 game programming blocks on Saturday and Sunday on TSN/RDS with the league cup action on TLN on weekdays), a situation similar to the MLS' designated player rule should also be viewed as a must for this league. While I don't except a CPL team to turn over the kind of money MLS clubs do to bring in a well known superstars, I don't think it would be insane to sign talent with impressive resumes to $500K-$1M/year contracts if it's someone they feel would truly get people's attention and contribute to the team.

They'd also give the league a greater level of seriousness in the eyes of casual sports fans who would likely brush the league off as an inferior version of the MLS.

Of course if the teams do get stuck with the $2.5m budgets then this is not something that will happen until years down the road.

4 hours ago, baulderdash77 said:

...In fact 5,000 fans x 15 home games x 25 dollars plus the above sponsorships is a break even team.  Throw in some merchandise and concessions and you have a team....

This is gonna sound kind of pretty but I don't see there being any more than 13 home games during the regular season. I'm assuming if they have 8 teams that there will  conference set up and very little inter conference action to cut down on costs. Likely 18 games within the conference and 8 inter conference games for a total of 26 games per team (13 at home, 13 on the road).

If the darkest time line happens and we have only 6 teams, then I'm expecting no conferences and a 20 games season (10 home and 10 on the Road).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like salary caps in general but I have no say in it.

In general I think leagues should have revenue sharing on non stadium and non ticket  ticket revenue and minimum player salaries.  Anything above that should be up to teams to responsibly budget for.  

Salary caps are for teams to control costs but it often leads to stupid moves and false markets like trading players for cap space or draft picks.  Also from a fan perspective there's always incessant salary cap couch general managers that become  impossible to talk to about the actual results on the field.  

So if a team thinks they can sell 15,000 season seats by signing a couple  big names and marketing the heck out of the team, then I say go for it.  It's the teams business plan and the owners money.  Why should I or you care how they spend it as long as they have strong Canadian content and provide entertainment.

*edit* example of stupid salary rules is the Laba trade.  Toronto needed a really good DM, gets one for market prices and could have afforded to keep him, but trades him because of salary cap rules and now they need a DM.  That makes no real sense.

Edited by baulderdash77
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, baulderdash77 said:

I don't like salary caps in general but I have no say in it.

In general I think leagues should have revenue sharing on non stadium and non ticket  ticket revenue and minimum player salaries.  Anything above that should be up to teams to responsibly budget for.  

Salary caps are for teams to control costs but it often leads to stupid moves and false markets like trading players for cap space or draft picks.  Also from a fan perspective there's always incessant salary cap couch general managers that become  impossible to talk to about the actual results on the field.  

So if a team thinks they can sell 15,000 season seats by signing a couple  big names and marketing the heck out of the team, then I say go for it.  It's the teams business plan and the owners money.  Why should I or you care how they spend it as long as they have strong Canadian content and provide entertainment.

*edit* example of stupid salary rules is the Laba trade.  Toronto needed a really good DM, gets one for market prices and could have afforded to keep him, but trades him because of salary cap rules and now they need a DM.  That makes no real sense.

I disagree. I think a league should be in business to see the entire league do well and be competative. Especially when it's in a financial struggle as most young leagues are. I mean, the biggest beef I have with the European leagues is the consistent domination by the have franchises. It's why Leicester's and Bournemouth's situation is such a good PR story as opposed to yet another Barcelona/Real Madrid sound off. 

I think when you have the reality of big markets vs small markets and some owners willing to spend far more then others. I'd also be interested to see what the dynamic a cap would have in a promotion/relegation system. It also forces a league to develop develop cheaper, young talent to keep salary costs down. With a 75% Canadian quota, or frankly even a 50% quota, that means a lot of money and focus going to younger Canadian soccer and academies. I'm a firm believer in the NHL, that you live and die by who you got in your AHL team, especially with injuries being what they are.

To each their own though, the cap, or lack there of isn't really a sticking point for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, baulderdash77 said:

As noted above I agree that the TV deal is required just for exposure.  If there's 4 games a week on TSN, even for free that means it gets on the highlight packages and it will get some level of media coverage.  

Actually if each game was on TSN then at least the Bell owned newspapers will probably have 1 local beat writer attached to the team.  That kind of coverage brings eyes and fans and sponsors.  

For these teams with a 1.5 million player budget and a 2.5 million total budget, a 500k shirt sponsor plus another 100k -200k of local sponsors may make the difference towards viability.  In fact 5,000 fans x 15 home games x 25 dollars plus the above sponsorships is a break even team.  Throw in some merchandise and concessions and you have a team.

Even for free or a nominal fee a TSN deal would go really far to making the league a success. 

There is no way a team will get 500k for a shirt sponsor in this league.  i think I read before that 100K in NASL was pretty good (at least it was a few years ago).  FCE hasn't been able to find a shirt sponsor for at least the last couple of years.

Jason

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, baulderdash77 said:

I don't like salary caps in general but I have no say in it.

In general I think leagues should have revenue sharing on non stadium and non ticket  ticket revenue and minimum player salaries.  Anything above that should be up to teams to responsibly budget for.  

Salary caps are for teams to control costs but it often leads to stupid moves and false markets like trading players for cap space or draft picks.  Also from a fan perspective there's always incessant salary cap couch general managers that become  impossible to talk to about the actual results on the field.  

So if a team thinks they can sell 15,000 season seats by signing a couple  big names and marketing the heck out of the team, then I say go for it.  It's the teams business plan and the owners money.  Why should I or you care how they spend it as long as they have strong Canadian content and provide entertainment.

*edit* example of stupid salary rules is the Laba trade.  Toronto needed a really good DM, gets one for market prices and could have afforded to keep him, but trades him because of salary cap rules and now they need a DM.  That makes no real sense.

I think a salary cap is inevitable.  The CFL owners are familiar with a salary cap, and the MLS has one too.  I think the owners are already putting in big money to get this off the ground and they will want some cost certainty when it comes to salary expenses.  I would love it if it was a luxury tax which would allow a big spender to go for it but would have to pay to do so.  

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jason said:

There is no way a team will get 500k for a shirt sponsor in this league.  i think I read before that 100K in NASL was pretty good (at least it was a few years ago).  FCE hasn't been able to find a shirt sponsor for at least the last couple of years.

Jason

 

It's tied to a TV deal.  Why would you pay a sponsorship to a team if nobody ever sees it?  The exposure on an Edmonton game is 3,000 views every 2 weeks because they're not on TV.  Plus there's no merchandise sales so nobody is looking at the sponsorshop.

A TV deal changes all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...