CPL new teams speculation

[Impactsupporter]

9 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Suspect if they got ten teams for 2021 they would go to east and west conferences:

Pacific, Cavalry, FCE, Valour, ANOther

Forge, Y9, Atletico, Wanderers, ANOther

4x4 + 2x5 = 26 game regular season

for the west you can add : Saskatchewan and Fraser Valley

for the east you can add : Grand River(KW) and Quebec City

East West 6 teams each.

Something like the CEBL wants to do.

 

[Initial B]

41 minutes ago, Impactsupporter said:

for the west you can add : Saskatchewan and Fraser Valley

for the east you can add : Grand River(KW) and Quebec City

East West 6 teams each.

Something like the CEBL wants to do.

They may have to split into conferences in the short term. A 2 Conference League you could fit up to 10-teams per conference with a 28-game schedule (1 game vs opposite conference teams (beyond 14 clubs), remaining games in conference). However if they can increase the number of clubs beyond 20, at that point they could create an 8-team, single table from the top 4 clubs in each conference and make this the new 1st division (CanPL Elite?) and the remaining CanPL clubs can be the 2nd division. They could then institute pro-rel between them with the 2nd Div playoff winner replacing the last-place CanPL Elite club the following season.

[johnyb]

4 hours ago, Initial B said:

I think they'll want to keep it at 28 games for revenue purposes and from talking to staff at the AO event, it sounded like they wanted to ideally keep it single table.

Money talks. They may prefer single table and to save a few thousand wouldn't be worth the switch to conferences, but to save a few Million they will do it. Like most other things, I'm ok with it, if it keeps the league healthy. At 8 teams we're probably safe but at 10 they will consider it based on savings and if it's an even East/West split.

Edited February 13, 2020 by johnyb

[m-g-williams]

I feel like conferences make sense for the NHL, NBA, etc. given the sheer number of teams. Playing 30-odd teams in a single table strikes me as a bit unweidly, whereas playing 15 or so more frequently makes things logistically easier without getting boring. Even when the CPL expands, I think we'd see it cap out at 16 max. 

I'd personally be against conferences for the CPL. Yes, it reduces travel costs, but my understanding is that Westjet has been heavily discounting travel for teams to begin with. Given the (comparatively) smaller number of teams for the CPL, I'd much rather have the variety of watching my home team play all the others a more or less even number of times in a given campaign than see them play the same few conference rivals over and over again. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by m-g-williams

[yellowsweatygorilla]

2 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

It also looks like the NHL, NBA, CFL and NFL, so don't think that's true. The reason North American leagues do this is that a single table is easy when you can drive from one end of a country to another in 3 or 4 hours as is the case in many European countries, but makes less sense if you have teams in cities stretched out over a distance comparable to Amsterdam to Tehran.

I agree. This is one area where I think it's perfectly fine for the league to cut costs for. No other league on similar standing in terms of finances has to contend with such a geography. I rather the money go into increasing the cap, or ensure greater financial viability so that we can have more teams in the league.

[RS]

7 hours ago, yomurphy1 said:

Yep. And if you break into conference it starts to look like a regional "minor" league (think  WHL, OHL, QMJHL).

Perception is everything here with the general populace.

What a strange comment.

The general populace isn't going to think "minor league" if it sees conferences. Why would that even be a concern?

[youllneverwalkalone]

The general populace who watch non-MLS football will think something.

[RS]

4 hours ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

The general populace who watch non-MLS football will think something.

How many of those people have never heard of the NFL, NBA, NHL or MLB? Remember we're talking about Canadians here.

[Kent]

My preference would be no conferences, but it’s not a big deal to me if they do split into conferences.

However, if they do I would like to suggest it would be awesome/hilarious if instead of an East/West split they do a North/South split. With the existing teams it would become.

North: Edmonton, Cavalry, Valour, Pacific

South: Forge, Atletico, Wanderers, York 9

Works out to the same split, but it’s some geography fun.

(yes, I did look up coordinates to confirm Langford isn’t south of any of the teams in the east).

[Watchmen]

I'm not sure why so many people assume attendance is going to go up this year. Last year had the novelty of new league/new team for all the cities involved. That will be there for a bit this year, but results are going to matter more. We saw attendance dropping for teams last year when it was clear they were poor. No reason to think that won't happen again this year, and with out the "novelty factor" to help prop some teams up. 

[Senorpopps]

On 2/12/2020 at 3:16 PM, PaulV said:

One reason why they might want to continue to expand is to create conferences or divisions. Travel has to be one of the big cost centres in the league and if they can increase the number of games that can be travelled to on a bus, and decrease the cross-country flights, that's going to go a long ways to cutting costs.

I totally agree with this. Imagine Montreal gets a team - then we have four teams that travel to almost half of their away games (6/14)  via bus. Buses cost 3,000-4,000 for two days of travel. At its maximum, that's 4,000 for the 20-23 players + coaching staff + other (media+physio+admin) whereas a return ticket at best will cost 400$ per person if you assume the local bus travel takes the place of, for example, a Ottawa to Vancouver match (which will cost much more than 400$ return). If you do the match, you save several thousand off of one trip alone.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Senorpopps

[Macksam]

Ottawa at the very least has that novelty...somewhat. 

As for novelty in general, we are soccer hooligans, the idea of being hardcore supporters should not be something that wears off....hopefully. 

[Ansem]

Sanctioning...

Yep... FIFA & CONCACAF would be petrified of MLS and 3 clubs 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Ansem

[Watchmen]

16 hours ago, Ansem said:

Sanctioning...

Yep... FIFA & CONCACAF would be petrified of MLS and 3 clubs 

Yup.  Because when FIFA and UEFA come out with some sanctioning, it's always enforced.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/dec/20/real-madrid-transfer-ban-cut-summer-window-2017-cas.

https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2019/12/06/chelsea-transfer-ban-reduced-after-appeal/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2849506-manchester-city-avoid-transfer-ban-fined-by-fifa-after-breaching-transfer-rules

 

 

[Ansem]

18 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Yup.  Because when FIFA and UEFA come out with some sanctioning, it's always enforced.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/dec/20/real-madrid-transfer-ban-cut-summer-window-2017-cas.

https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2019/12/06/chelsea-transfer-ban-reduced-after-appeal/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2849506-manchester-city-avoid-transfer-ban-fined-by-fifa-after-breaching-transfer-rules

 

 

Good we're going somewhere. 

We went from "FIFA would never dare touch MLS" to "CAS can reverse or amend some of their decisions"

Which means that we can finally agree that FIFA wouldn't blink at enforcing Article 73 when the opportunity arises (end of the waiver forcing the 3 clubs to reapply for USSF sanctioning with FIFA approval)

Whether MLS appeal the ruling or not is a different matter altogether...same for with whom CAS would side with

Edited February 15, 2020 by Ansem

[Unnamed Trialist]

20 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Good we're going somewhere. 

We went from "FIFA would never dare touch MLS" to "CAS can reverse or amend some of their decisions"

Which means that we can finally agree that FIFA wouldn't blink at enforcing Article 73 when the opportunity arises (end of the waiver forcing the 3 clubs to reapply for USSF sanctioning with FIFA approval)

Whether MLS appeal the ruling or not is a different matter altogether...same for with whom CAS would side with

Did you read the links? The sanctions are regularly not enforced or softened on appeal.

Anyways, the City case is not even a FIFA ruling, so the argument is still lame. 

And it also ignores a key factor in these recent years of sanctioning teams for not fulfilling financial fair play or rules for signing kids: internal politics.

UEFA is under pressure from major clubs who only have their own sources of income, and federations who do not have clubs with huge foreign injections of capital, who want clubs like City and PSG to be closely monitored, since they are doing just what City has been condemned for: falsifying income and injecting capital from outside sources. 

Where is there any internal pressure of any worth on Concacaf from clubs or national federations? Would Concacaf cave in on the three MLS clubs in Canada to appease the CSA? Those arguing this are being tendentious and completely misunderstand how the club and federation rivalries work in Europe.

The post also completely miscontrues how football governance works in a federated model.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Unnamed Trialist

[Ansem]

15 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Did you read the links? The sanctions are regularly not enforced or softened on appeal.

Anyways, the City case is not even a FIFA ruling, so the argument is still lame. 

And it also ignores a key factor in these recent years of sanctioning teams for not fulfilling financial fair play or rules for signing kids: internal politics.

UEFA is under pressure from major clubs who only have their own sources of income, and federations who do not have clubs with huge foreign injections of capital, who want clubs like City and PSG to be closely monitored, since they are doing just what City has been condemned for: falsifying income and injecting capital from outside sources. 

Where is there any internal pressure of any worth on Concacaf from clubs or national federations? Would Concacaf cave in on the three MLS clubs in Canada to appease the CSA? Those arguing this are being tendentious and completely misunderstand how the club and federation rivalries work in Europe.

The post also completely miscontrues how football governance works in a federated model.

My point was "willingness" to act. This is where the whole thing started where posters claimed the 3 clubs would be left alone because of the power of MLS and the almighty dollar.

All I'm saying is that's false.

In regards to outcome, that's a different debate if this escalates or not

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Good we're going somewhere. 

We went from "FIFA would never dare touch MLS" to "CAS can reverse or amend some of their decisions"

Which means that we can finally agree that FIFA wouldn't blink at enforcing Article 73 when the opportunity arises (end of the waiver forcing the 3 clubs to reapply for USSF sanctioning with FIFA approval)

Whether MLS appeal the ruling or not is a different matter altogether...same for with whom CAS would side with

1) No, we started at you insisting that CONCACAF and FIFA will definitely enforce Article 73 before you drifted in to "maybe they won't".  I've been of the opinion since the start that "they might not bother because it's not worth it", on the assumption that it would be worse for them to try to enforce it, go to CAS, and possibly lose.  This is not the same as "FIFA would never dare touch MLS".  The 3 MLS clubs in Canada is not worth it to them to fight.

2) Yes, I brought up a CAS ruling recently about how the US and Australia were viewed as being different from other federations for just this point of argument.

[Watchmen]

27 minutes ago, Ansem said:

My point was "willingness" to act. This is where the whole thing started where posters claimed the 3 clubs would be left alone because of the power of MLS and the almighty dollar.

All I'm saying is that's false.

In regards to outcome, that's a different debate if this escalates or not

Yes, this is where we very, very definitely differ.  A lot of us don't think they'll act, because it's not worth it to either CONCACAF or FIFA to do so.  You think they will.

I think I'm going to say we're just going to have to agree to disagree here and let this argument die.  There's no new evidence that's going to be coming forward any time soon, and it's killing this thread.

[Unnamed Trialist]

38 minutes ago, Ansem said:

My point was "willingness" to act. This is where the whole thing started where posters claimed the 3 clubs would be left alone because of the power of MLS and the almighty dollar.

All I'm saying is that's false.

In regards to outcome, that's a different debate if this escalates or not

What I am saying is that first, you'd have to have internal pressure in Concacaf. From powerful clubs and from associations/federations, pushing the regional federation to act. If they could make a strong argument for it, they'd have FIFA's backing. 

There is no evidence that would happen. What clubs right now could make an argument they are being discriminated by the 3 MLS teams in Canada? What national federation?

I cannot envision any scenario where a similar argument as seen now in UEFA, of breaking rules of fair play, could be applied in Concacaf. In fact, having a WC shared by three federations goes in the opposite direction of what is being argued: how can you argue for a tendency towards national exclusivity when for the first time ever, FIFA has broken the pattern of one-federation exclusivity for WC hosting?

Edited February 15, 2020 by Unnamed Trialist

[Macksam]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

Yup.  Because when FIFA and UEFA come out with some sanctioning, it's always enforced.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/dec/20/real-madrid-transfer-ban-cut-summer-window-2017-cas.

https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2019/12/06/chelsea-transfer-ban-reduced-after-appeal/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2849506-manchester-city-avoid-transfer-ban-fined-by-fifa-after-breaching-transfer-rules

 

 

Sounds like a fucking shakedown to me. All the big clubs probably have lobbiests that "liaison" with these governing bodies and it seems Man City naively didn't allocate their budget appropriately to satisfy this department.

[Ansem]

5 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

1) No, we started at you insisting that CONCACAF and FIFA will definitely enforce Article 73 before you drifted in to "maybe they won't".  I've been of the opinion since the start that "they might not bother because it's not worth it", on the assumption that it would be worse for them to try to enforce it, go to CAS, and possibly lose.  This is not the same as "FIFA would never dare touch MLS".  The 3 MLS clubs in Canada is not worth it to them to fight.

As with the Fury, the teams must demonstrate how they meet the exceptional clauses under Article 73 which falls into a few major categories:

(1) clubs that are in close proximity to another member’s territory and have been long-standing members of the other league

(2) clubs that have moved because of political conflict or civil war in their homes countries

(3) clubs located in member associations where there isn’t currently a professional league

(4) clubs in disputed territories

Option 3 no longer applied to the Fury due to CPL and unfortunately for them, they had to renew yearly. Once the waiver is up our 3 clubs will have to demonstrate how they meet the exceptions.

it's actually CONCACAF ruling that's setting the precedent here with how they treated the Fury when they stated that they don't recognize exceptional clause on the Fury which they didn't appeal to CAS. That precedent strengthens CONCACAF & FIFA.

Will CONCACAF enforce Article 73? I believe they will. They aren't simply going to extend the waiver, clubs MUST apply for sanction and has to be signed on by FIFA. 

Will the 3 clubs appeal it? Maybe.

Will CAS side with them? Unlikely if FIFA choose to interpret their rule to ensure that cross-border leagues are kept strictly to exceptional circumstances which is in their interest.

19 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

2) Yes, I brought up a CAS ruling recently about how the US and Australia were viewed as being different from other federations for just this point of argument.

But the analysis of the ruling that I posted earlier on states that FIFA is free to interpret their own rules however they like and CAS is unlikely to do it for them hence Silva losing.

Silva interpreted the rule and FIFA opted to articulate their own interpretation which isn't just about FIFA. I remember this coming up on the Balsillie v. NHL where the judge stated the same. 

It comes down to what FIFA wants. Did they want to force Australia and MLS in pro/rel? No, most likely more trouble than it's worth with negligeable ramifications to the rest of their structure.

If FIFA choose to ensure that cross-border leagues doesn't happen, then they'll argue about their own interpretation of their own rule and they'll win. Is it in their interest to enforce the rule? I believe it is. What's preventing Super Leagues so far is mainly Article 73, applying it consistently makes sense

[Ams1984]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

As with the Fury, the teams must demonstrate how they meet the exceptional clauses under Article 73 which falls into a few major categories:

(1) clubs that are in close proximity to another member’s territory and have been long-standing members of the other league

(2) clubs that have moved because of political conflict or civil war in their homes countries

(3) clubs located in member associations where there isn’t currently a professional league

(4) clubs in disputed territories

Option 3 no longer applied to the Fury due to CPL and unfortunately for them, they had to renew yearly. Once the waiver is up our 3 clubs will have to demonstrate how they meet the exceptions.

it's actually CONCACAF ruling that's setting the precedent here with how they treated the Fury when they stated that they don't recognize exceptional clause on the Fury which they didn't appeal to CAS. That precedent strengthens CONCACAF & FIFA.

Will CONCACAF enforce Article 73? I believe they will. They aren't simply going to extend the waiver, clubs MUST apply for sanction and has to be signed on by FIFA. 

Will the 3 clubs appeal it? Maybe.

Will CAS side with them? Unlikely if FIFA choose to interpret their rule to ensure that cross-border leagues are kept strictly to exceptional circumstances which is in their interest.

But the analysis of the ruling that I posted earlier on states that FIFA is free to interpret their own rules however they like and CAS is unlikely to do it for them hence Silva losing.

Silva interpreted the rule and FIFA opted to articulate their own interpretation which isn't just about FIFA. I remember this coming up on the Balsillie v. NHL where the judge stated the same. 

It comes down to what FIFA wants. Did they want to force Australia and MLS in pro/rel? No, most likely more trouble than it's worth with negligeable ramifications to the rest of their structure.

If FIFA choose to ensure that cross-border leagues doesn't happen, then they'll argue about their own interpretation of their own rule and they'll win. Is it in their interest to enforce the rule? I believe it is. What's preventing Super Leagues so far is mainly Article 73, applying it consistently makes sense

When do you see this happening? I’m not sure how long is left in the present waiver... but when it expires (especially if it expires soon) I wonder if Concacaf might not just decide to extend it one final time to give the CPL more time to get its level up and to also simultaneously give the big 3 notice. 

[MtlMario]

I think I'm going to start a new topic called "CPL new teams speculation".😀

[Blackdude]

30 minutes ago, Ams1984 said:

When do you see this happening? I’m not sure how long is left in the present waiver... but when it expires (especially if it expires soon) I wonder if Concacaf might not just decide to extend it one final time to give the CPL more time to get its level up and to also simultaneously give the big 3 notice. 

Ansem lives in their own world and hopes that it will happen one day. I don't think one can expect that to happen, but I'm pretty sure that option 1 is a possibility. We're talking about clubs that have been in MLS for 9+ years. It's not clear what long-standing means, but it could be argued that 9+ years in a 25 year old league is long-standing. So, sure it could be debated, but I doubt that they would do the same as long as MLS is that much better than CPL..