Jump to content

CPL new teams speculation


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Since the players are on salaries for a season, playing more games is not an issue (as long as we're not going overboard, which we're not). So get those 2-3 more home matches to benefit revenues. 

A 28-match season is still short. Add a few cup matches, still not long. We haven't even seen friendlies to enhance gate yet. 

I agree, but my thinking is how do we reduce midweek league games, as those are always the lowest attended matches.
We can then swap those with midweek game slots with glamour friendlies for the potential added revenue. 

When do you think the league should start and end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MauditYvon said:

I think 12 is the magic number. 33 games by team. Add Laval, Québec, Saskatchewan and Moncton.

Still a bit unbalanced and probably too many midweek dates. If you have pro/rel, then you can get into models like Denmark with 22 matches before a playoff round for CL spot and relegation playoffs. This would satisfy the NA demand for PLAYOFFS!

If pro/rel is going to happen, then you should probably focus on D2 first. 8 teams works great from a scheduling point of view at 28 matches. There are 5-6 clubs in the West ready for D2. I'm sure you could easily add 2 more to get to 8. It would be easy to add the top 4 from Quebec and Ontario (possibly with a Moncton or St. John's) to get 8 in the east. Then you have all kinds of flexibility about where you go with D1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With three out of eight struggling, four doing so so but likely also below break even (I'm assuming Atletico is much the same as the Fury once the initial excitement wears off) and only one doing well I think talk of 16 clubs is well ahead of where things are right now and they won't be rushing into any new situation unless they are confident it is going to do well. Part of that should be the right stadium environment in a sensible location which may explain in part what we are seeing unfold with Saskatoon beyond any making life awkward for Joe Belan angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

I think 16 is the magic number and I believe the commish mentioned this at one point. Our calendar can barely sustain 28 matches in prime time, but if you went down to 26 it looks a bit bush. 15 clubs doesn't make any sense from a scheduling point of view.

I'm quoting you but this applies to everyone else discussing this. Under no circumstances should we be aiming to return to an odd number of teams in the CPL. It's stupid, it makes scheduling a hassle, and the thought of teams having bye rounds again makes me crumpet. 

 

With that said, I know we're talking about golden number of teams in the league. I'm thinking that 12, 14 or 16 would be perfectly fine. If we do a dozen, as someone else said, 22 game regular season then split to have a top and bottom 6. Meet the teams in that section twice more and bam, there's your 32 game season. Works quite well. Fourteen teams? 26 game regular season and then top four plays playoffs, meeting each other twice more. That is 32 games max. Sixteen teams? Simply 30 games without the need for playoffs. There you go. No need to complicate things even further than that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We actually do have some insight because the Winnipeg Blue Bombers have to release some sort of balance sheet for the Valour due to being community owned. A rough idea of target crowds was described repeatedly by Paul Beirne before launch and a rule of thumb for what has historically been required to keep pro soccer afloat in coast-to-coast leagues in North America can easily be gauged from past precedent. 

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

We actually do have some insight because the Winnipeg Blue Bombers have to release some sort of balance sheet for the Valour due to being community owned. A rough idea of target crowds was described repeatedly by Paul Beirne before launch and a rule of thumb for what has historically been required to keep pro soccer afloat in coast-to-coast leagues in North America can easily be gauged from past precedent. 

Do you mean financial statements? I don't think that WFC report shows detailed financials for Valour. If it does, please post a link as I'd love to discuss further.

Still, what we need to find is financials for CSB that show the complete picture. Anything less is guess work. The media pro deal, sponsorship from Macron and Volkswagen all need to be understood.

This not your parents CSL. Modern football relies on multiple revenue sources. Bums in seats are not the only metric. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

There was nothing obvious in the Valour financials that could be taken as evidence that CSB is revenue positive at this point and sports leagues usually need to be receiving large broadcasting rights fees to not still be largely gate driven in revenue terms.

You won't see CSB revenue in the Valour statements. Valour would be a subsidiary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Forbes:

Q&A's

I submitted a number of written questions to the CPL office after the announcement and included below are the responses from David Clanachan, Commissioner, CPL, and Chairman of the CSB. Thank you to the CPL office for coordinating the Commissioner's answers.

I assume that CSB is a registered company - who owns CSB (and %) and who are the directors? 

Yes, CSB is a registered company – it’s owned by CPL team owners who will be the company’s directors.

How will CSB be different than SUM in the US? 

CSB was created purposefully for CPL owners and investors along with representing Canada Soccer. We can’t comment on SUM or their operations or structure.

How will the inherent conflicts of interest be managed in terms of CSB? 

Scott (Mitchell) has founded and managed this project from the outset and his leadership and vision has been paramount to the launch of the CSB and CPL. We are still in launch mode and have several significant projects and partners that will be announced before launch.

We continue to look at the best structure related to the date of launch.

In the meantime, as the Chair of the Board of CSB, we have established an independent governance committee, without representation from Hamilton.

Who does the CSB CEO report to and does he have any official capacity within CanPL - e.g. does he sit as a club representative? 

The CEO of the CSB reports to the Chairman, and through the Chairman, to the Directors of the Board. The CEO of the CSB does not have any standing as a club representative.

The source of funding to date for the CanPL and how much has been spent?        

That’s not something we are going to comment on at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The investor in this instance is the Winnpeg Football Club which is community owned so the CSB angle still needs to be in there somewhere.

You just said that Valour was the investor but, regardless, you are probably not going to see income from CSB in the WFC financial statements unless CSB pays are dividend -which would be unlikely. The article above seems to confirm that Valour is a subsidiary of WFC, although I would agree that this part is not clear from the report.

The point in the Forbes article above is that this information is private and we just don't know how CSB is doing. That's what you need to figure out before you conclude on expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

https://d3ham790trbkqy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/05/2019WinnipegBlueBombers_AnnualReport_Web_FINAL.pdf

There's abosulute nothing to be gleaned here. Is there a 2020 version with more detail?

In the Notes of the 2019 report, there is a statement of operations for Valour, under related party transactions. 

Screenshot_20210818-124057_Foxit PDF Editor.jpg

Edited by bugsey2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The income described in those accounts is not drastically far off what you could reasonably expect from stated game day ancillary revenues and ticket sales. The Valour did well on crowds initially in 2019 including a 10,000+ season opener that spectators actually did pay to see unlike the Hamilton and Ottawa scenarios and there were reports that season ticket sales for year one had been relatively healthy there. After that I would have thought that any additional CSB angle linked to WFC's Valour involvement is most likely to be in the assets and liabilities part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valour also an NPO, as would be WFC I assume:

(b) Valour FC Inc. Nature of organization Valour FC Inc. ("Valour FC") was incorporated as a Manitoba Corporation on March 3, 2018. The object of Valour FC is to carry on the operation of a professional soccer club in Winnipeg, Manitoba and participate in the Canadian Premier League. Valour FC is exempt from income taxes under Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Board of Directors of Valour FC is made up of common Directors who also serve on the Club's Board of Directors. Valour FC is therefore controlled by the Club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The income described in those accounts is not drastically far off what you could reasonably expect from stated game day ancillary revenues and ticket sales. The Valour did well on crowds initially in 2019 including a 10,000+ season opener that spectators actually did pay to see unlike the Hamilton and Ottawa scenarios and there were reports that season ticket sales for year one had been relatively healthy there. After that I would have thought that any additional CSB angle linked to WFC's Valour involvement is most likely to be in the assets and liabilities part.

There is no disclosure of Valour revenues and expenses in the report. There is only a disclosure of a related party loan and certain interco payments.

Edited by youllneverwalkalone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnnyFranchise said:

Surrey or coquitlam is a f*cking no-brainer. Only difference for me would be where you could get a stadium up. (Coquitlam already has one next to a skytrain station).

Coquitlam's stadium is inadequate and would need to be built up substantially, something they have shown little interest in.  I remember it being discussed as a possibility for WFC2 "with renovations" and the renovations sounded like a no-go (regardless of league/team).

Surrey has shown little to no interest in building a stadium. The one caveat is that Cloverdale was one of the proposed locations. That's not a great site, but the new transit line out that way does have a Cloverdale stop that might make it slightly more interesting. But it's still a bad location. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coincidence seeing the above

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/langley-township-horse-racing-casino-hastings-racecourse-fraser-downs

Why is this interesting? Because this location is once rumored CPL stadium site. It would replace and free up the PNE and Cloverdale fairgrounds for potential Whitecaps and CPL stadiums respectively. As noted the new Langley skytrain will run a few blocks from Cloverdale fairgrounds. For those obsessed with the skytrain but it would help bring out Surrey people. 90% of the fans would just easily drive in from the Valley and South Surrey. Maple Ridge, Langley, Guildford, Newton, ND, White Rock, Abbotsford... all within a 20 or 40 min drive. By the time 2025 rolls around you'd easily have over a million people within 40 mins of your stadium 

Edited by SpursFlu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...