Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, Ansem said:

CSA seeks players from both countries to be equals across the board, rightfully so, not different quotas for different clubs. Anything less than that is unacceptable to the CSA

It's a protectionist move though.  MLS rules are currently massively protectionist in favour our the USMNT.  They basically guarantee a player pool of about 400 domestics, most of whom are USMNT eligible.  

The current CSA guidelines guarantee only 9 CMNT spots and clearly dont produce results.  The CSA has to follow suit for the benefit of our program.  Unfortunately protectionism breeds protectionism because in some cases it's the only way to level the playing field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more likely as I've said to change the definition of domestic player to include any players that have trained in the Canada or USA for 3 years prior to their 18th birthday. That would be preferable, as Canadian players would be treated equally to American players. With the CPL below that, players will even have opportunities later in their careers to move to MLS and they too would count as domestics.

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

But the CSA only has power over sanctioning rules.  That may be the more elegant approach legally.

If we had say 48 Canadians on MLS rosters then the CSA will be getting its objective.  Combine that with say 100 CanPL nationals and suddenly there's lots of playing time for Canadians.  

Having lots of players in CPL is realistic. 48 Canadians in MLS? Won't happen for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Having lots of players in CPL is realistic. 48 Canadians in MLS? Won't happen for a long time.

It's the CSA's trump card.  MLS treats Canadians as domestics to benefit Canadians or the CSA regulates then 3 Canadian MLS teams stringently like MLS protects Americans. 

Either way the CSA has learned it has much more power and is growing it's confidence to do something about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zen said:

It's more likely as I've said to change the definition of domestic player to include any players that have trained in the Canada or USA for 3 years prior to their 18th birthday. That would be preferable, as Canadian players would be treated equally to American players. With the CPL below that, players will even have opportunities later in their careers to move to MLS and they too would count as domestics.

Will be interesting to see the small print. I think they are arguing that there has to be an MLS academy system link to make it fly under US labour law rather than just anybody that played organized soccer in either country at youth level. If so, I think the key question would then be whether it would only be the three main academy operations that would count on that or whether affiliated clubs in smaller cities like Windsor and London that TFC and the Whitecaps have up and running would also fall the new rule. If they did the latter then the net could be cast wide enough to cover almost all of the Canadian youth players that are genuine pro level prospects and Montagliani could ride off into the sunset in CSA president terms to the CONCACAF job being able to claim he was the guy that solved the domestic player issue. Not so sure it would be enough to satisy people if it was the former option.

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

Will be interesting to see the small print. I think they are arguing that there has to be an MLS academy system link to make it fly under US labour law rather than just anybody that played organized soccer in either country at youth level. If so, I think the key question would then be whether it would only be the three main academy operations that would count on that or whether affiliated clubs in smaller cities like Windsor and London that TFC and the Whitecaps have up and running would also fall the new rule. If they did the latter then the net could be cast wide enough to cover almost all of the Canadian youth players that are genuine pro level prospects and Montagliani could ride off into the sunset in CSA president terms to the CONCACAF job being able to claim he was the guy that solved the domestic player issue. Not so sure it would be enough to satisy people if it was the former option.

If it's not redefined as any club sanctioned by the CSA, that would leave a huge hole in our development. That would still not be good enough for the majority of Canadian's that don't have opportunities with the 3 MLS teams. Players developed by academies in D3 academies and in the CPL would still hit a ceiling as far as opprtunities in North America.

The thing is that would really pose problems for them too, especially with the non-reserve USL academies.

 

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

It's the CSA's trump card.  MLS treats Canadians as domestics to benefit Canadians or the CSA regulates then 3 Canadian MLS teams stringently like MLS protects Americans. 

Either way the CSA has learned it has much more power and is growing it's confidence to do something about it.

MLS wouldn't care as long as they keep making money off the big 3 markets.

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

There's another card they can play.  The CSA can call the MLS bluff and force USL style sanctioning in any professional team operating in Canada.

For reference the USL rules are: 50 percent of total roster must be CMNT eligible, 50 percent of active game day rosters must be CMNT eligible.  6/11 starters must be CMNT eligible.

That probably gets themselves out of the protracted legal battle because it doesn't force MLS and NASL out of Canada.  It would also force the MLS teams to employ 45 Canadian players and 18 starters, way up from the current 24 and 7 that we have now.

 

edit- plus any Canadian players in MLS.

 

But this doesn't get at the core of the issue (at least as I understand it) which is to open up the American market to Canadian players.  CSA already has the capacity to impose player restrictions and quotas on Canadian teams, but any discussion of this  meets with resistance since it would put the Canadian teams at a disadvantage compared to their US competitors.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

But this doesn't get at the core of the issue (at least as I understand it) which is to open up the American market to Canadian players.  CSA already has the capacity to impose player restrictions and quotas on Canadian teams, but any discussion of this  meets with resistance since it would put the Canadian teams at a disadvantage compared to their US competitors.  

There are enough Canadian players to fill those roster spots who are MLS quality.  The thing that putting the 50%, 6 starter rule in place would do is create a demand for those Canadian players.  

The Canadian players who who make 60-120 would be in massive demand by the 3 Canadian teams.  Also the Canadian teams wouldn't be able to afford employing many American or foreign players in those salary ranges.

 

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

There are enough Canadian players to fill those roster spots who are MLS quality.  The thing that putting the 50%, 6 starter rule in place would do is create a demand for those Canadian players.  

The Canadian players who who make 60-120 would be in massive demand by the 3 Canadian teams.  Also the Canadian teams wouldn't be able to afford employing many American or foreign players in those salary ranges.

 

Don't get me wrong - I understand the rationale and the benefit of doing it.  I would have no issues with CSA unilaterally imposing this kind of requirement.

 

But it seemed like you were presenting it as some kind of lever CSA could use to resolve the 'Canadians as domestics' dispute, since the idea was that they could "call the MLS bluff".  My point is just that imposing these kinds of restrictions would have no meaningful impact on MLS decision makers and would do nothing to cause them to change their position.

Edited by dyslexic nam
Spellcheck has made me functionally illiterate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, baulderdash77 said:

Yes it would be a lever- even playing field or enhanced sanctioning.  But they would have to be prepared to go through with it.

My second point was just that there are those types of players so if they did go through with it, there would be the players to fill it.

I still don't see how it would cause MLS to change their stance.  Why would an American League loosen restrictions (to benefit Canadian players) just because the Canadian footy governing body was imposing Canadian content restrictions on Canadian teams?  Maybe I am missing something.

 

I suppose you could argue that the increase in CanContent for our 3 MLS teams would restrict US player opportunities in those markets, but the US federation would be giving up a lot more than that if they opened up every other US market to unrestricted Canucks.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Montagliani is doing more than just confirm the project.  He's on record with TSN 1040 that they want to start the league by 2018.  

Edit- link to full interview.  CPL questions begin at 12:30

 

Edited by baulderdash77
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dub Narcotic said:

Well, there we go. If you could recap anything else he said that would be great.

I just pasted the link.

He said the board is behind the project and the process.  The objective is to launch in 2018 and they're progressing towards that.  Not ready for a detailed announcement to protect the project and the people behind it.

Edited by baulderdash77
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they have to protect Ottawa and Edmonton if they're joining for one thing.  

Behind the scenes a lot has taken place.  The word is that the business plan was completed and a draft version has been submitted to the CSA.

Investor groups are being lined up.

In Hamilton the club is engaging the soccer and supporter  community.  

The CSA is acnowledging the project and we have an actual timetable now.  

 

Edited by baulderdash77
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, reme90 said:

 

Even on here, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that agrees. Some here seem to think that TORONTO can only have 1 club, that Hamilton should be able to block OTHER cities that are 100+kilometers away from having their own clubs. 

WHAT ABSURDITY, until we get educated and remove the blinders. I'm afraid Canada will always be set in mediocrity. 

There are some of us who sit somewhere in between.  We want it to be as much like you're describing as possible, yet we understand that north america isn't europe and we don't want to see CPL go belly up like the old NASL.

There is a middle ground, I believe.

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