Canadian USL Expansion Discussion 2016-

[Complete Homer]

44 minutes ago, Ansem said:

MLS teams? no they most likely won't if a deal on Canadian being domestic is reached, but NASL and USL teams? Why wouldn't they?

What's the point of the CSA if you aren't having canadian clubs play in Canadian leagues once they exist?

I'd have to dig through the Montagliani interviews, but he specifically said that none of the existing pro teams - including the MLS teams, Ottawa, or Edmonton, would be forced over to CPL. I suspect it is for reasons just like @TRM said, you don't want to give any future investors any reason to think they are dealing with a governing body that will bully its franchises and doesn't respect the business plan that they have been operating under. The CSA, unfortunately, isn't just in a position to govern soccer, in Canada it has to market soccer as well, and forcing existing businesses into your vision isn't going to be a positive in the eyes of new ownership groups.

As for new teams? I doubt they will ever sanction new teams USL/NASL/whatever fills the D3 void when USL moves up when CPL comes about, as it is a bit different to set a standard that new teams must meet as opposed to forcing existing businesses to turn their operation on its head for you. 

[TRM]

Bottom line is the CSA needs business investors more than the business investors need the CSA. There are lots of other things for investors to put their money into. Being harsh when there are alternatives seems senseless and I would hope the CSA was smarter than that.

All this talk of forcing is just not how businesses operate. Negotiate, make it more profitable or lower losses. If you have Air Canada or Westjet as one of your corporate backers giving cut rates to teams do you not think Edmonton would look at that favourably? Pay 100% to Puerto Rico and back or get discounted flights within Canada? Canadian vs US dollars?

You don't bully business people if you are the CSA. You make it worth their while to consider you viable. You make yourself the more appealing option.

[ted]

On 2016-10-25 at 6:16 PM, Pqhbv said:

I really want to see Div3's across the nation as well. Not to rain on your parade but given the CSA's position & actions on the PDL in Ontario, i would imagine that once a BCD3 did show up the PDL teams would have to choose between that or the PCSL.

I think you missed the part where I said I would rather we were in a BCD3 which would render any talk of PDL meaningless.

 

On 2016-10-25 at 6:35 PM, Gopherbashi said:

Can we murder the PCSL already?

Oh, so much this!!! 

Well, unless we could remove the "brain trust" that currently controls it I guess. LOL

[Dub Narcotic]

USL going down to three subs for next year. Great move, the old rule was necessary for the two-games-in-a-weekend version of the USL but the conference schedule has obsoleted that scheduling.

Also, it looks like Birmingham, AL might have a team for next year. Of note, their PDL team is called the Hammers.

[masster]

On 10/22/2016 at 6:40 PM, masster said:

Continuing on from that article...another one from Sports Illustrated that reflects the pains of trying to be a competitive professional league as well as a development league at the same time.
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/10/22/mls-usl-partnership-jake-edwards

While I understand that the Rio Grande Valley model has been more successful commercially, how does this benefit the player? (which is what this is all supposed to be about)

Take the San Jose and Reno partnership...those cities are a 4 hour drive apart. That reserve team isn't interacting with or training with the first team. You can't easily bring up players that have earned the opportunity to be looked at. How are you going to promote youth team players to the reserves that are 4 hours away. This is now becoming like minor leagues in baseball, which I think is worse than reserve teams from a player perspective. I would much rather players be sent out on loan to independent teams at an appropriate level and have them compete for their spot, which I have always advocated for.

Another quote I found interesting from Edwards is this one..." if they’re not able to meet the standards and operate a team and create an environment at the level we require, they won’t continue. "

So what would they do to a team like FC Montreal that doesn't even charge for tickets? (Is that still accurate? I know that was the case in year 1). Are they going to say sorry, you are out, and force them into a model that doesn't suit the needs of the club or player?

Following up on this old discussion, Orlando City has decided to move their B team from Melbourne Florida to Orlando and play out of the same facility as the senior team. According to the article, " The decision was made after much discussion about proximity, player travel and ease of operation, according to the club."

An example of the argument I was making previously that having a reserve team in a different market is not the optimal solution for player development.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/orlando-city-lions/os-orlando-city-b-to-play-2017-season-in-new-downtown-stadium-story.html

[David C.]

Latest updates/rumours on USL expansion from the NASL clubs today:

 

[Gopherbashi]

What's that, USL?  Would 62% of your teams meet D2 sanctioning requirements only if you accept all the NASL teams?

It's a good thing that, uh, let's say, you can be D2 if 60% of your teams meet the requirement.  Since when?  Since I scribbled it on this napkin, my good man.

[David C.]

I wish the USSF would only offer D-2 status to the USL on the condition that it separate itself into two tiers - USL-1 (Pro) and USL-2 (Reserves). I think that's USL's ultimate aim anyway and the condition would give USL the leverage needed to deal with MLS (who may want the reserves to be D-2).