CPL new teams speculation

[Dub Narcotic]

Its the Saskatoon budget process this week and I haven't heard anything about the CPL stadium proposal so far. There's still today to go, however.

[Ansem]

11 minutes ago, Dub Narcotic said:

Its the Saskatoon budget process this week and I haven't heard anything about the CPL stadium proposal so far. There's still today to go, however.

Please get inform before spreading misinformation that contributes to some people panicking here. The Saskatoon stadium is to be paid by the owners, but, they want Saskatoon to donate the land to them. The city would be crazy to refuse, especially as they are looking to revitalize their downtown core

To Joe Belan's credit, he's willing to use an alternative until the city green light's the project and the stadium gets built. That alternative his at his own cost. Can't assume all owners can or are willing to do the same. Another factor that totally out of the league's control

Edited November 28, 2017 by Ansem

[BuzzAndSting]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Please get inform before spreading misinformation that contributes to some people panicking here. The Saskatoon stadium is to be paid by the owners, but, they want Saskatoon to donate the land to them. The city would be crazy to refuse, especially as they are looking to revitalize their downtown core

To Joe Belan's credit, he's willing to use an alternative until the city green light's the project and the stadium gets built. That alternative his at his own cost. Can't assume all owners can or are willing to do the same. Another factor that totally out of the league's control

What misinformation is @Dub Narcotic spreading?

[Ansem]

11 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

What misinformation is @Dub Narcotic spreading?

The stadium proposal isn't linked to the budget. It's a matter of city planning and about if the city will or will not donate the land to the Saskatchewan group. His post implies that there are reasons to be concerned as the stadium doesn't show in the budget. It won't as owners already said they'd pay for the stadium, they don't want to pay for the land.

http://thestarphoenix.com/sports/local-sports/groups-pro-soccer-push-includes-downtown-stadium-for-saskatoon

Belan said his soccer vision requires no financial impact on taxpayers, although his initial proposal does involve the city donating land for the stadium at the site of the current city yards.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Ansem

[BuzzAndSting]

Just now, Ansem said:

The stadium proposal isn't linked to the budget. It's a matter of city planning and about if the city will or will not donate the land to the Saskatchewan group. His post implies that there are reasons to be concerned as the stadium doesn't show in the budget. It won't as owners already said they'd pay for the stadium

A donation of developable land wouldn't be listed in a budget? Why not? It would be considered a salable asset so giving it way for free should be included. I assume also that whatever happens with the projected development of the preferred stadium sites that the city would be responsible for the cost to bring whatever necessary infrastructure to the actual site so that would be another budgetary concern.

Do you have any actual policy references from the City of Saskatoon about this or are you just speculating?

Not trying to be a jerk but I agree with @Dub Narcotic that it's interesting at the very least that there's no chatter about the stadium situation in the run up to this budget process. I don't believe he was spreading any misinformation in any way.

[Dub Narcotic]

Thanks @BuzzAndSting for quoting that message, I've long since blocked @Ansem.

I live in Saskatoon and follow civic politics closely:

1. The city likely will have no problems donating the land the CPL team wants (although it hasn't been seriously debated yet). However, right now that land holds a lot of civic yard operations that would have to be moved at fairly large city expense. This expenditure is not being debated during this year's budget process to the best of my knowledge nor, in my estimation, would it ever have a hope of passing in this hard budget year. Realistically, this is year away from happening barring some amazing occurance.

2. The 'temporary' site being proposed is at the Saskatoon fairgrounds location. I don't know if the city would have to approve anything for the team to play at this site as the fairgrounds are privately run. However, I haven't heard anything about this recently either.

 

[Ansem]

14 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

I assume also that whatever happens with the projected development of the preferred stadium sites that the city would be responsible for the cost to bring whatever necessary infrastructure to the actual site so that would be another budgetary concern.

Fair point, owners said that there would be no costs to the city. Would they pay for all those fees themselves? We don't know, the city most likely doesn't know either. Those details tends to be more detailed when an actual proposal is on the table with plans etc... I followed closely how the city handled the Videotron Centre in Quebec and the cost of infrastructure related to the new arena came at later phases of the project. It's doubtful that the city can put an actual number on that this soon with no actual formal plan 

Let's not dismiss the following either:

http://thestarphoenix.com/sports/soccer/kormish-canadian-premier-league-an-opportunity-for-saskatoon

The city has previously admitted the yards need to be relocated away from downtown regardless. 

If that's indeed true, those were costs that the city most likely already planned to cover. This could be a point of negotiations between both parties. 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Ansem

[Kent]

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

actually, the league officially said that the bids would be evaluated within the next 60-90 days. We just collectively implied that they were going ahead with an announcement at the end of the evaluation period. Also, last month I think, 10 ownership and FCE were in attendance to a meeting with CPL in Toronto. Seems like the bids are either a formality or approved. 

That means that 50% of the ownership location are known. Stadiums are entirely out of the league's control. This is with local politicians who most often than none have their own agendas. The league and owners have to navigate those municipalities bureaucracy and process. The lack of news could be linked to that.

Hard to go public with a press conference and the league has to tell the whole country that they don't know where half of their teams will play, let alone if a city could cancel a deal at the last minutes. That screams of amateurish and you simply can't have that. They have to wait for everything to be 100% sure.

It sucks but hardly a surprise. There's time to clear the hurdles named by Fath or for someone else to take the CPL project in Edmonton.

They met last month, so I wouldn't think so

We did via Surrey mayor, Saskatoon city hall and Halifax city hall. Those matters (stadiums on city land) are public. So we know of 5. 

Doubtful. No league would have an ownership meeting with "owners" without cash backing them. It's like the Quebec Nordiques group meeting Gary Bettman without securing Quebecor's money. Their call wouldn't make it past the secretary.

I get it from a fan perspective, we're impatient and we all know that for Canada to have it's own D1 league, this is it. However, from a business point of view, there's nothing abnormal that the league has done so far. No serious business comes out to announce a project without being 100% ready and those who do usually see such a move backfire one way or another.

Unless I hear Bob Young starting to unfollow CPL, saying that he's out or something major like leaks from pissed off investors wanting out, it's business as usual. The legal and politics behind building a new league is so massive and complex that people have to stop reducing at just signing a bunch of paper and play. It unbelievably complex. 

Good to hear that there were 10 ownership groups attending the meeting in Toronto last month. If I had heard that, I had forgotten it.

As for the 50% of the ownership locations being known paragraph, that means there are 50% that, assuming they need a new stadium, are seemingly behind where Halifax was a year ago, and Halifax still hasn't put a shovel in the ground. If that's an example to go off, then it makes you worry about 2019 being possible too. The 60-90 days for evaluating bids certainly does make it sound like we would hear something (whether official announcements or city council news) for more than 2 groups.

And things like the potential Halifax to CFL news and FC Edmonton folding news are not good things for CPL (unless perhaps the CFL and CPL can split costs on a stadium that works for both parties and reduces the financial burden/risk). I would think CPL would be an easier sell if FC Edmonton were thriving, rather than folding.

Long story short, they keep telling us that they are further along than people think, but evidently that isn't true.

I'm not panicking but I am starting to get concerned.

[Ansem]

The reality is that we don't know what's going on fully. I worked for municipalities and now the federal government and no matter how fast you're trying to go, good old bureaucracy will most certainly slow you down. CFL stadium in Halifax will most likely have to face more red tape than CPL due to the scope of the project

If it's 2020, so be it... Not much the league or we can do about it...

[Gopherbashi]

6 hours ago, Rheo said:

Short but full reply now.  I'm just at a frustration point  in general when it comes to CPL reaction.  It just seems that in my opinion too many people are at one extreme or the other.  In the glory days of the post launch announcement, I'd estimate a majority of people on the board strongly disagreed with the idea of the 2018 soft launch.  Now that 2018 is off the table suddenly the league isn't feasible?  Some assume that starting a national sports league is easy.  That it's a static thing but in reality it's a fluid.  

I don't think the concern is that 2019 is now the anticipated date - it's that 2019 has become the anticipated date with so little progress made from when 2018 was the anticipated date.

If we had two or three more teams formally announced with some physical barnraising going on in Halifax or Regina or Surrey or anywhere else, I don't think we'd be as concerned about 2019.  It's the lack of progress that has become concerning; the launch date is merely a bellweather for that larger concern.

[Macksam]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

I would think CPL would be an easier sell if FC Edmonton were thriving, rather than folding.

I think there's a lot more to FC Edmonton folding its professional operations than what we're seeing. The whole thing doesn't make sense, especially considering how the team was gaining momentum and had its best season with regards to fan support. Shutting down, launching in a proper stadium in the CPL could be the winning recipe.

[harrycoyster]

3 hours ago, Macksam said:

I think there's a lot more to FC Edmonton folding its professional operations than what we're seeing. The whole thing doesn't make sense, especially considering how the team was gaining momentum and had its best season with regards to fan support. Shutting down, launching in a proper stadium in the CPL could be the winning recipe.

Eh. I think that what Sandor and Rollins have said is probably correct. Edmonton has pulled more fans this season, but still had the 9th worst attendance of any standalone professional soccer team in the USL/NASL this season...and two of the teams that had less are in the process of folding as well and most of the others are in tiny cities. That's despite investing a sizable amount in marketing this season. NASL really doesn't make sense going forward, as Fath is losing millions a season and the league isn't trending upward. Fath has clearly held talks with CPL but as Sandor said in his article, "he was not convinced that his team could be “sustainable” if it was to be revived to join the [CPL]."

I'm pretty sure this is just a guy who has lost big on the NASL, that bought the "you'll lose money in years 1-5 to make money in years 10-100" once before who isn't ready make that investment again, given the reaction of his market to pro soccer. By both Sandor and Rollins accounts, FCE did great work off the field, but never gained traction in the city. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by harrycoyster

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

6 hours ago, harrycoyster said:

Eh. I think that what Sandor and Rollins have said is probably correct. Edmonton has pulled more fans this season, but still had the 9th worst attendance of any standalone professional soccer team in the USL/NASL this season...

Although to be fair it was also one of the smaller markets active in that regard in metro population terms. Was surprised by that when Peter Wilt outlined what markets were still available for soccer expansion in North America in a blog earlier this year and listed metro areas with and without teams by population. That blog also made it clear why expansion into cities like Halifax and Saskatoon with break even expectations set at over 5000 is very ambitious as things stand at the moment.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

11 hours ago, Kent said:

Good to hear that there were 10 ownership groups attending the meeting in Toronto last month. If I had heard that, I had forgotten it.

What I remember hearing is that there have been up to 12 groups at these meetings. People online extrapolate from that to add in the investor and ownership parts when it could easily be groups like the Moncton soccer association guys that wanted a team for the stadium in their city but had no investor to sign the cheques and are therefore not too far along on Paul Beirne's "spectrum of readiness", as well as people like Tom Fath who are there to listen to what is being said and could easily still decide that they are not interested in taking the plunge barring a significant change of circumstances. Think I've even seen it claimed on here that TFC have been attending.

Edited November 29, 2017 by BringBackTheBlizzard

[harrycoyster]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

Although to be fair it was also one of the smaller markets active in that regard in metro population terms. Was surprised by that when Peter Wilt outlined what markets were still available for soccer expansion in North America in a blog earlier this year and listed metro areas with and without teams by population. That blog also made it clear why expansion into cities like Halifax and Saskatoon with break even expectations set at over 5000 is very ambitious as things stand at the moment.

Of the bottom ten teams in attendance Edmonton is on the higher end in terms of metro area population.

Jacksonville, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Charlotte are higher. Colorado Springs, Charleston, Harrisburg, Rochester, and Orange County lower. Plus Jacksonville would have beaten FCE in attendance if hurricane season didn't hit them hard...take away their games rescheduled/moved due to hurricanes are they have the 5th highest attendance in USL instead of 7th.

Edited November 29, 2017 by harrycoyster

[PJSweet]

17 hours ago, Kent said:

Good to hear that there were 10 ownership groups attending the meeting in Toronto last month. If I had heard that, I had forgotten it.

 

For the record Kent, I spoke directly with Anthony Totera about this particular issue a few weeks ago. He has informed me that there were in fact 12 ownership groups at the meeting in Toronto last month. Not 10. For this reason, I've been making the following assumptions that the markets that were at this meeting are as followed: (1) Winnipeg, (2) Hamilton, (3) Halifax, (4) Saskatoon, (5) Edmonton, (6) Calgary, (7) Surrey, (8) Kitchener-Waterloo, (9) Victoria, (10) Quebec-City, (11) Toronto area, and (12) Montreal area.

Hey!!! I could be wrong, but this is what my gut is telling me. I'm also basing the magic number of 12 teams based on my conversation with Totera. Now, I'm willing to further expand that number to 14 teams in the condition that Regina and Moncton (or probably London, Ontario) decide to join the league by 2020.

Edited November 29, 2017 by PJSweet

[Soefeia]

2 hours ago, PJSweet said:

For the record Kent, I spoke directly with Anthony Totera about this particular issue a few weeks ago. He has informed me that there were in fact 12 ownership groups at the meeting in Toronto last month. Not 10. For this reason, I've been making the following assumptions that the markets that were at this meeting are as followed: (1) Winnipeg, (2) Hamilton, (3) Halifax, (4) Saskatoon, (5) Edmonton, (6) Calgary, (7) Surrey, (8) Kitchener-Waterloo, (9) Victoria, (10) Quebec-City, (11) Toronto area, and (12) Montreal area.

Hey!!! I could be wrong, but this is what my gut is telling me. I'm also basing the magic number of 12 teams based on my conversation with Totera. Now, I'm willing to further expand that number to 14 teams in the condition that Regina and Moncton (or probably London, Ontario) decide to join the league by 2020.

Anthony was wrong. There were 10 groups. He has made the same calculation error often and repeated it as fact. 

However, these 10 groups are all financially backed. They are not municipalities or groups exploring the idea without financing. Groups without financing are not invited to the CPL adult's table until they have it.

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, Soefeia said:

Anthony was wrong. There were 10 groups. He has made the same calculation error often and repeated it as fact. 

However, these 10 groups are all financially backed. They are not municipalities or groups exploring the idea without financing. Groups without financing are not invited to the CPL adult's table until they have it.

So safe to assume FC Edmonton were not part of the 10 as they were still affiliate with NASL at the time and they might have been "observers"?

[Soefeia]

1 minute ago, Ansem said:

So safe to assume FC Edmonton were not part of the 10 as they were still affiliate with NASL at the time and they might have been "observers"?

It's never safe to assume anything. 

It's certainly not safe to assume that Tom Fath, despite being a very honest, forthright, and big-hearted individual is not canny enough to say what he feels needs to be said rather than tell the whole truth on the subject. Even a light treatment of his past interviews would show someone, who is not simply looking to cherry pick information that supports their point, that he reveals very little. 

And that is all I will say about that. 

[Ansem]

2 minutes ago, Soefeia said:

It's never safe to assume anything. 

It's certainly not safe to assume that Tom Fath, despite being a very honest, forthright, and big-hearted individual is not canny enough to say what he feels needs to be said rather than tell the whole truth on the subject. Even a light treatment of his past interviews would show someone, who is not simply looking to cherry pick information that supports their point, that he reveals very little. 

And that is all I will say about that. 

I'll agree with you on that.

When I read his interview on the newspaper after folding, where most people saw the end of the world and that CPL was doomed, I saw a clever guy who just dictated his terms for his future involvement. 

Where people saw that he deemed Edmonton market as a bad one, I saw that his critics were much more focused and specific, mainly at the city and corporate Edmonton while indirectly stating how NASL didn't help which I think is directed at CPL.

Personally, felt to me like he was setting the table for bargaining. Just a feeling

[PJSweet]

2 hours ago, Soefeia said:

Anthony was wrong. There were 10 groups. He has made the same calculation error often and repeated it as fact. 

However, these 10 groups are all financially backed. They are not municipalities or groups exploring the idea without financing. Groups without financing are not invited to the CPL adult's table until they have it.

What are the possibilities that Totera meant to say 10 + 2 (Winnipeg & Hamilton)? This is where Totera comes out with the number 12. I think what he meant to say to me was 10 brand new investors, including Winnipeg and Hamilton that have already been approved by the league. I THINK! Please, I'm begging you to prove me wrong. There's a strong possibility that the number 10 means to say 10 brand new investors, not including Winnipeg & Hamilton.

Edited November 29, 2017 by PJSweet

[ironcub14]

In case I didn't make it clear enough on my posts on this thread, I didn't feel any pessimism after reading what Fath had to say on Friday about folding up shop on the Eddies. We all know Tom Fath is the biggest poker player in the NASL roundtable, we've seen him in action in December 2016.

Everything I've said this week on this thread had to do not with what Fath said, but with what Steve Sandor said about Edmonton in general on this thread on Saturday. And we all acknowledge that while Steve himself can withhold a ton of information about what he knows about NASL and CPL, that was a rare moment of pessimism about Edmonton that I haven't seen from him in a long time, coming from a guy that knows soccer in Edmonton in incredible detail.

[harrycoyster]

11 minutes ago, ironcub14 said:

In case I didn't make it clear enough on my posts on this thread, I didn't feel any pessimism after reading what Fath had to say on Friday about folding up shop on the Eddies. We all know Tom Fath is the biggest poker player in the NASL roundtable, we've seen him in action in December 2016.

Everything I've said this week on this thread had to do not with what Fath said, but with what Steve Sandor said about Edmonton in general on this thread on Saturday. And we all acknowledge that while Steve himself can withhold a ton of information about what he knows about NASL and CPL, that was a rare moment of pessimism about Edmonton that I haven't seen from him in a long time, coming from a guy that knows soccer in Edmonton in incredible detail.

I think there should be pessimism about the Edmonton market, but I don't see how that translates to "the whole CPL is doomed" for some people. 

[ironcub14]

22 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

I think there should be pessimism about the Edmonton market, but I don't see how that translates to "the whole CPL is doomed" for some people. 

I'm fine if CPL launches 2020, I'm fine if CPL looks very little like what I envisioned in a multitude of different ways, but if CPL can't take advantage of the sophisticated existing supporter bases in Edmonton and Ottawa, the 3,000 to 5,000 of them anyways, then I would be quite down on CPL's short and medium-term future, unless all of the CPL sides really blow teams like FCEd and the Fury out of the water with its financial backing.

I mean, there's a big difference between launching and sustaining a league too. I know most people here are concerned mostly only with launching the league, but I'm very much interested in talking about and boosting the sustainability of the league as well. What's the long-term benefit of having launched a CPL, if we do get there, if it crashes and burns spectacularly? If the investors are doing this, they're going to want to get it right the first time, because if it's not sustainable, then none of them are going to be around for the next iteration of a future CPL.

Anyways, sorry for the doom and gloom, I've mostly just extrapolated it from Steven. Let's hope his doom and gloom was strictly about FCEd. Let's hope that there are some good interest bubbling around CPL Edmonton from somewhere, or that Fath is just straight up bluffing. I think the Lynx and TFC provide a very good example in what a different ownership group and a different stadium can do for the financial success of footy in a specific city.

Edited November 29, 2017 by ironcub14

[harrycoyster]

5 minutes ago, ironcub14 said:

I'm fine if CPL launches 2020, I'm fine if CPL looks very little like what I envisioned in a multitude of different ways, but if CPL can't take advantage of the sophisticated existing supporter bases in Edmonton and Ottawa, the 3,000 to 5,000 of them anyways, then I would be quite down on CPL's short and medium-term future, unless all of the CPL sides really blow teams like FCEd and the Fury out of the water with its financial backing.

The alpha and omega of sports expansion is ownership groups. Edmonton could have the supporter base of Cincinnati, if there isn't an ownership group willing to buy in...there won't be a team there.