Toronto CPL

[Ansem]

18 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

yeah basically what I was saying..essentially they'd own it to maintain control of the market..

But even if they set up a separate division or use the Argos to run the team I don't see how CPL could be convinced that there wouldn't be coordination..

If it's the Argos partnering with another investor or investors, that would be good enough. Even if there was an MLSE "conspiracy" trying to poison CPL for TFC from the inside, the other partners wouldn't sink money into it.

MLSE does not micromanage like that. If the Argos and partners are investing in the team and increases the value of the entire company, MLSE would only be happy.

If the Argos ever wanted to come to the table with serious investors/partners, regardless of what I've said in the past regarding MLSE, CPL would be crazy to not hear them out at the very least

[An Observer]

If I remember correctly, the CPL has said that they would not accept reserve teams of the MLS sides or clearly branded sides affiated with them in order to not discredit the league as second tier.   I thought they had left the door open for the ownership or part of the ownership of MLS side to be engaged in the CPL as an owner if it was a separate entity with at minimum Chinese walls between it and the MLS side.  So the Argos is a possibility even if its owners form part of the MLSE group that owns TFC. 

[Gopherbashi]

If the Argos partly own a CPL team, can we fire the cannon when we score a goal?

[matty]

3 hours ago, Gopherbashi said:

If the Argos partly own a CPL team, can we fire the cannon when we score a goal?

No but you can use a bubble machine

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

10 hours ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

If there is a Toronto team, I hope it has nothing to do with MLSE.  What would be the point of supporting it instead of TFC?

Think nothing is imminent and this Italian coach is just angling for a job back in Italy by accentuating the positive on what he has been doing in the GTA. Paul Beirne was describing in the latest podcast interview how the problem in Toronto is where you can find suitable land to build a stadium and made it sound like a Toronto team was something that would happen eventually but wasn't likely at launch. Well worth a listen to check whether I am wrong about that:

http://vocalminority.ca/episode-195-170717-theonewiththecplprez-sickbeirnebro/

 

[yellowsweatygorilla]

3 hours ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

Think nothing is imminent and this Italian coach is just angling for a job back in Italy by accentuating the positive on what he has been doing in the GTA. Paul Beirne was describing in the latest podcast interview how the problem in Toronto is where you can find suitable land to build a stadium and made it sound like a Toronto team was something that would happen eventually but wasn't likely at launch. Well worth a listen to check whether I am wrong about that:

http://vocalminority.ca/episode-195-170717-theonewiththecplprez-sickbeirnebro/

 

do you know when he starts talking about this in the podcast?

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Think the CPL stuff is from about 45:00 onwards and it is fairly early on.

Edit: 1:10:00 for the Toronto bit.

Edited July 16, 2017 by BringBackTheBlizzard

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Anthony Totera doesn't seem to be going into boom sources mode about the "news" in the Italian article:

 

[Kent]

Sounds to me like the inverse of this.

 

The soccer manager is going to coach the Toronto Argonauts football team.

[Rheo]

God those videos were the best.  I really need to watch them again lol.

[ironcub14]

The two Tutto Mercato articles definitely came out of left field, and I dismissed it initially when I skimmed it real quickly over the weekend, thinking the interviewee was talking about how he was going to fund or operate the team. I see now he was talking simply about having conversations about being a candidate for a coach. Still seems out of left field but don't think we can just dismiss it out of hand. I did ask my Italian colleague about Tutto Mercato, and he said, proceed with caution but they wouldn't write about Canada or CPL with no context at all.

As for Argos/MLSE, I mean, if we're so enthusiastic about the Ti-Cats and the Bombers leading the initiative for CPL, why would we dismiss Larry Tanenbaum so quickly? For all the issues that Canadian soccer fans may have with MLSE, they are simply responding to the market forces and what the majority of fans that don't go on the V's forum or Twitter want to see. The multiple TFC fans I know at work that go to multiple games from the tickets I help them get and can barely name me 5 players just want to see a winning team, they don't care whether the players are Canadians, Americans or Spanish. And I'm happy Larry is at least trying to do something about the Argos; we're constantly saying on the V's forum how it's great that CFL is the one true professional Canadian league here and that it's the benchmark CPL wishes to reach.

Obviously would rather see Goldhar or somebody else pop up for a Toronto/Sauga CPL, but I don't think we should be dismissing MLSE out of hand. So Manning came out earlier and said all that crap to Larson about not wanting a competitor. Maybe Young and co were able to convince them of the merit of the project, and that it's better to go along with the project than to continue to be the antagonist, when everybody's going to win from a higher quality of soccer in Canada. With all the CPL skeptics out there, it'd be pretty damn nice to convince MLSE and Tanenbaum of the merit of the league.

[ironcub14]

Just going to quickly add that MLSE/Manning must be taking CPL pretty seriously for them to have come out so vehemently, glad they can see the potential of the project.

Think that's more than what we can say about the Caps or Saputo.

[dyslexic nam]

On 7/18/2017 at 11:29 AM, ironcub14 said:

The two Tutto Mercato articles definitely came out of left field, and I dismissed it initially when I skimmed it real quickly over the weekend, thinking the interviewee was talking about how he was going to fund or operate the team. I see now he was talking simply about having conversations about being a candidate for a coach. Still seems out of left field but don't think we can just dismiss it out of hand. I did ask my Italian colleague about Tutto Mercato, and he said, proceed with caution but they wouldn't write about Canada or CPL with no context at all.

As for Argos/MLSE, I mean, if we're so enthusiastic about the Ti-Cats and the Bombers leading the initiative for CPL, why would we dismiss Larry Tanenbaum so quickly? For all the issues that Canadian soccer fans may have with MLSE, they are simply responding to the market forces and what the majority of fans that don't go on the V's forum or Twitter want to see. The multiple TFC fans I know at work that go to multiple games from the tickets I help them get and can barely name me 5 players just want to see a winning team, they don't care whether the players are Canadians, Americans or Spanish. And I'm happy Larry is at least trying to do something about the Argos; we're constantly saying on the V's forum how it's great that CFL is the one true professional Canadian league here and that it's the benchmark CPL wishes to reach.

Obviously would rather see Goldhar or somebody else pop up for a Toronto/Sauga CPL, but I don't think we should be dismissing MLSE out of hand. So Manning came out earlier and said all that crap to Larson about not wanting a competitor. Maybe Young and co were able to convince them of the merit of the project, and that it's better to go along with the project than to continue to be the antagonist, when everybody's going to win from a higher quality of soccer in Canada. With all the CPL skeptics out there, it'd be pretty damn nice to convince MLSE and Tanenbaum of the merit of the league.

My concern with MLSE in CPL (somehow) has nothing to do with gripes about the company itself - it is solely about the inherent conflict between their significantly larger financial stake in MLS vs their interest in growing a successful domestic league.

If the rumours are true, MLS expansion fees are now in the realm of $150M.  That makes TFC a very valuable property, and that doesn't even consider what seems to be an increasingly successful team in terms of fan support (and presumably revenue).  Having a CPL team - specifically the one that would be in our biggest domestic market - owned by a group that may not want to see support for TFC watered down with another option, would always leave room for a substantial conflict of interest.  

I absolutely get the idea of diversifying ones financial interests, and if the writing on the wall is that CPL is going to happen, the smart money is on someone backing a relatively strong club being established in Toronto at some point.  But when that interest is in direct opposition to the profitability of having exclusive domain over our biggest population centre for a team in a rival league, I just think the potential for conflict is too great.  That is nothing against MLSE - under any other set of circumstances they would be an ideal anchor for a Toronto team given their clear interest in sports teams there and their established broadcasting capacity.  In fact, it would be hard to find a better Toronto ownership group - if it weren't for TFC.  But with their massive (and primary, when it comes to footy) financial interest in the success of TFC and MLS by extension, I don't see how their strong presence in a competing league wouldn't undermine their ability to advance CPL.

[ironcub14]

8 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

My concern with MLSE in CPL (somehow) has nothing to do with gripes about the company itself - it is solely about the inherent conflict between their significantly larger financial stake in MLS vs their interest in growing a successful domestic league.

If the rumours are true, MLS expansion fees are now in the realm of $150M.  That makes TFC a very valuable property, and that doesn't even consider what seems to be an increasingly successful team in terms of fan support (and presumably revenue).  Having a CPL team - specifically the one that would be in our biggest domestic market - owned by a group that may not want to see support for TFC watered down with another option, would always leave room for a substantial conflict of interest.  

I absolutely get the idea of diversifying ones financial interests, and if the writing on the wall is that CPL is going to happen, the smart money is on someone backing a relatively strong club being established in Toronto at some point.  But when that interest is in direct opposition to the profitability of having exclusive domain over our biggest population centre for a team in a rival league, I just think the potential for conflict is too great.  That is nothing against MLSE - under any other set of circumstances they would be an ideal anchor for a Toronto team given their clear interest in sports teams there and their established broadcasting capacity.  In fact, it would be hard to find a better Toronto ownership group - if it weren't for TFC.  But with their massive (and primary, when it comes to footy) financial interest in the success of TFC and MLS by extension, I don't see how their strong presence in a competing league wouldn't undermine their ability to advance CPL.

Agreed completely with you, as I think anybody here would.

My main argument was only that people here not dismiss MLSE out of hand, either because of the conflict of interest that you've discussed, or some kind of animosity they hold towards MLSE for whatever reasons they may be.

My question to anybody who does have some kind of an animosity towards MLSE would be, is your animosity worth it in the grand scheme of things?

[dyslexic nam]

I haven't really sensed that kind of animosity.  If anything, they have shown a amazing capacity to manage well-run sports teams in TO.  Chronically underwhelming Leafs aside (though even they are on an upturn) the Raps and TFC have really shown an appetite for success and some shrewd sporting decisions.  Without the TFC issue, they would be my first choice of CPL ownership groups for TO -  by quite a wide margin.  I just don't see how the conflict of interest can't be an utterly fatal blow to that possibility. 

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

I just don't understand why you would support a CPL club in Toronto if it is just part of the TFC family? As a supporter, what would attract you to the CPL version over the MLS version? I just don't see how it could draw any fan interest or create it's own culture. 

[Cheeta]

As the nuts & bolts of this CanPL get sorted out if there isn't a non compete written into the ownership/investor by-laws there is a whole lot of something wrong in the heads of those doing the writing.

Don't want to discourage too many investers though, just those with financial interests in other soccer properties in North America.  For obvious reasons already mentioned.

Don't care if MLSE wants in.  They're not invited to the party.

[matty]

@ironcub14MLSE hurts the optics of the league a fair bit, due to them owning TFC. We've seen MLS have its image as a top league hurt when groups that own teams in bigger league (Liga MX, EPL) come in to a run a team. Why should the CPL follow that path?

[ironcub14]

1 hour ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

I just don't understand why you would support a CPL club in Toronto if it is just part of the TFC family? As a supporter, what would attract you to the CPL version over the MLS version? I just don't see how it could draw any fan interest or create it's own culture. 

As I said above, I'd much prefer an independent owner pop up for Toronto.

But just to answer your question, it'd be to support CPL, and Canadian soccer by extension. And more Canadian players. Whether the team was branded as an offshoot of TFC, or with a completely another brand.

This is all a theoretical exercise on a forum. But if MLSE came out tomorrow saying they're owning a CPL team in Toronto, why would a CPL supporter in Toronto NOT support that team, if the survival of this league and the success of Canadian soccer is the ultimate objective?

Is support of MLS and CPL mutually exclusive? Is MLSE compelled to use CPL as a vehicle to undermine the league, rather than perhaps coming around to it as another possible revenue-making entity? Perhaps so, perhaps not.

All theoretical, devil's advocate, etc. Nobody wants it, but I'm saying, don't dismiss the idea out of hand. Honestly, I'm not advocating for MLSE or Argos at all, but I do think that the bashing of either of the two entities has been a bit frustrating to see over the long term. I do think that Young and Beirne would say no to MLSE, because of all the incredibly stupid things Manning said over the year, but honestly, it would be nice for MLSE to come around, for the grand scheme of things.

Edited July 19, 2017 by ironcub14

[ironcub14]

21 minutes ago, matty said:

@ironcub14MLSE hurts the optics of the league a fair bit, due to them owning TFC. We've seen MLS have its image as a top league hurt when groups that own teams in bigger league (Liga MX, EPL) come in to a run a team. Why should the CPL follow that path?

As bad as Chivas USA was, I don't see the same complaints being discussed about NYCFC.

Another theoretical exercise on the forums, not advocating this whatsover, but if City Football Group came tomorrow saying they'd own a CPL club in Toronto or another Canadian city, would you reject that too, using the same argument about image? I doubt it. I think most people would answer that question by saying that they'd be happy with CFG because there is no conflict of interest as there would be with MLSE.

I think the conflict of interest is a much more reasonable argument against MLSE than any top league image issues.

[matty]

Just now, ironcub14 said:

As bad as Chivas USA was, I don't see the same complaints being discussed about NYCFC.

Another theoretical exercise on the forums, not advocating this whatsover, but if City Football Group came tomorrow saying they'd own a CPL club in Toronto or another Canadian city, would you reject that too, using the same argument about image? I doubt it. I think most people would answer that question by saying that they'd be happy with CFG because there is no conflict of interest as there would be with MLSE.

I think the conflict of interest is a much more reasonable argument against MLSE than any top league image issues.

Remember the joke NYCFC were made out to be in 2015 because of City Group's handling of the team and how bad that was? Because it was really bad and it hurt the league quite a bit in comparison to CSL.

And I do agree City Group isn't a bad when it comes to owning in MLS but that's partly because EPL isn't direct competition like Liga MX is for MLS and MLS will be for CPL. City Group however are MLS owners so no I do not want them.

If City Group, Red Bull or MLSE wanted a CPL team the answer should be no because it'll end in tears.

[dyslexic nam]

58 minutes ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

I just don't understand why you would support a CPL club in Toronto if it is just part of the TFC family? As a supporter, what would attract you to the CPL version over the MLS version? I just don't see how it could draw any fan interest or create it's own culture. 

I don't really understand that perspective.  People don't support TFC because it is owned by MLSE, so I don't know why support for an MLSE CPL club would hinge on the same thing.  As ironcub said, I can see knowledgeable soccer people supporting a Toronto CPL team (regardless of ownership group) because it offers the best prospect for advancing the long term objective of growing the sport in the country.   If someone just wants to watch the highest level of local footy available, TFC will be the default option for the forseeable future, but that is independent of ownership group. 

I may be missing something, but I just don't see the connectivity. 

 

 

[ironcub14]

My general point about groups like MLSE and CFG would be that, I can't see them willingly try to sabotage the league internally.

If all ownership groups have equal power in a Board of Governors, then the way I'm seeing it at the moment is... if these groups try to force the league to be more mainstream, then it gives CPL a better chance of succeeding it in the long-term. If these groups try to force the league to be tighter with the budgets, then it's going to put the league in a trajectory that actually makes the hardcores more happy, with more roster space given to cheaper Canadians.

I'm not sure how CPL is going to find the happy balance between appealing to the hardcore V's who want to see lots of Canadian players, at the expense of overall quality, vs. appealing to the mainstream who wants to see more high-quality football. But either way, I'm not sure how groups like MLSE or CFG could tilt the team in a way that wouldn't appease either at least one of the mainstream or the hardcores.

Edited July 19, 2017 by ironcub14

[mpg_29]

So long as CPL has rules against 2nd teams and MLS branding/team names in CPL and MLSE were to agree to those terms...I'm not convinced CPL would turn them away from owning a team...

[matty]

Gonna say this: Anyone who thinks MLSE would not treat a CPL team like a D-team, whether it was branded that way or not, needs to take a long pause and think about it?

MLSE has publically tried to derail the CPL and chases the big bucks which they would not get out of CPL.