CPL new teams speculation

[Kingston]

23 minutes ago, narduch said:

This also has me thinking. What is the optimal max size for the CPL? We have to face the fact that it may only be 12-14 teams.

And that isn't a bad thing, in my opinion.

Some of the best Euro soccer nations have fairly small top divisions.

Considering a time window that is reasonably forseeable (who knows what things will be like when the CPL turns 100?), I'd suggest ten to twelve.  That lets you avoid trying to compete in MLS markets at one end and avoid trying to survive in tiny markets at the other.

Below that we'd have fully fleshed out D3 leagues.  No true D2 but some of the D3 leagues would have higher and lower tiers like L1O is moving to.  And no/pro rel with the CPL.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

33 minutes ago, Kingston said:

They were pretty clear when they started the league that they wanted pro/rel.  It wasn't stated as a pandering sort of "maybe we'll look into it" but rather as "this is the official plan".

Often best to judge what people are planning by what they do rather than what they say. Most of the pro/rel rhetoric came from Paul Beirne and he was out the door as league president before the end of the first season. Earlier than that John McGrane had peddled a vision that sounded more like a soccer version of the CFL and that's also what Duane Rollins appeared to have been told about. Many of CanPL's actions on issues like territorial rights, expansion fees and stadia requirements have been more consistent with that sort of end game

Edited August 23, 2022 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Kingston]

23 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Often best to judge what people are planning by what they do rather than what they say. Most of the pro/rel rhetoric came from Paul Beirne and he was out the door as league president before the end of the first season. Earlier than that John McGrane had peddled a vision that sounded more like a soccer version of the CFL and that's also what Duane Rollins appeared to have been told about. Many of CanPL's actions on issues like territorial rights, expansion fees and stadia requirements have been more consistent with that sort of end game

Fair point.  Although no matter what their intentions, it is too early to be looking at pro/rel so it's a bit hard to judge them by their actions just yet.  Let's see what transpires if/when the CPL reaches, say, twelve teams and, say, the upper tier L1O teams look more like pro sides.  In other words, do they bring it up again if/when pro/rel might actually be viable.

[Aird25]

I don't think it's all that hard to look at the seasonal window available in Canada and determine the amount of home and away matches we can have. Perhaps double the teams we currently have considering the amount of matchups between teams currently. Maybe more teams if we get rid of playoffs. That's a big factor.

But we need to embrace the sport and the league first. Attendances aren't where they should be

[Kingston]

36 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I don't think it's all that hard to look at the seasonal window available in Canada and determine the amount of home and away matches we can have. Perhaps double the teams we currently have considering the amount of matchups between teams currently. Maybe more teams if we get rid of playoffs. That's a big factor.

Looked at that way, we have about a six month window where the weather is good and fans would actually want to come out.  That's 26 weeks.

Assume one week per game on the weekend leaving Wednesdays for Canadian Championship games, etc.

Take out two weeks for the playoffs (semis and final).

That leaves 24 weeks or a balanced home and away schedule for 13 teams.

[Watchmen]

36 minutes ago, Kingston said:

Looked at that way, we have about a six month window where the weather is good and fans would actually want to come out.  That's 26 weeks.

Assume one week per game on the weekend leaving Wednesdays for Canadian Championship games, etc.

Take out two weeks for the playoffs (semis and final).

That leaves 24 weeks or a balanced home and away schedule for 13 teams.

I think you go either 12 or 14 then. An even number so there's no bye weeks. 14 would give you pretty good coverage across Canada. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with leaving a few markets as strong D3. I'm primarily thinking of the southern Ontario market here, where there seems to be a rush to saturate every city with a CPL club.

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 hours ago, Kingston said:

Looked at that way, we have about a six month window where the weather is good and fans would actually want to come out.  That's 26 weeks.

Assume one week per game on the weekend leaving Wednesdays for Canadian Championship games, etc.

Take out two weeks for the playoffs (semis and final).

That leaves 24 weeks or a balanced home and away schedule for 13 teams.

You are calculating a league shorter than the current one of 28 matches plus playoffs? 

[Kingston]

2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You are calculating a league shorter than the current one of 28 matches plus playoffs? 

I wasn't paying attention to the current season length.  Just thinking out loud with the weather math and how many teams that would fit into a balanced schedule.  There's enough fluff in what people might consider acceptable weather that we could also do a 28 game schedule for 15 teams.  (Or 14 or 16 for even numbers.)  

[Kent]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:30 AM, Kent said:

But I am curious. I might see if I can find a pair of non-COVID spoiled years and see what the difference in attendance was with promoted/relegated teams in EPL/Championship/League One/League Two.

I have done this now! I had to get numbers from all over the place, hopefully they are at least mostly accurate.

Hopefully that is understandable. I was comparing 2017/18 and 2018/19. On the left are teams that were promoted from one year to the next. On the right are teams that were relegated from one year to the next.

So based on this small sample space, there is a big jump in attendance after being promoted. After being relegated there is usually a drop (but 2 teams had their attendance rise) but it looks like a relatively modest drop in most cases. Only 1 out of the 10 teams dropped by more than 15%, compared to 7 of the 10 promoted teams (and oddly enough, one relegated team) increased their attendance by more than 15%.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Kent
I said left instead of right.

[narduch]

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by narduch

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, narduch said:

 

 

A necessary step in my opinion. Best to do it slow but right than repeat "York 9".

[MtlMario]

I'm starting to lose hope on a Mtl area (Laval) team. I'm getting tired of holding my credit card in my hands waiting to buy S/T's.☹️

[Ansem]

11 minutes ago, MtlMario said:

I'm starting to lose hope on a Mtl area (Laval) team. I'm getting tired of holding my credit card in my hands waiting to buy S/T's.☹️

Not only do you need the right venue (my preference is Parc Jarry or Bassin Peel - I don't buy the whole Expos angle), you need the right timing (closer or right after 2026), but the right owners (This is where you go to France and try to lure a French giant here - the biggest French expat community is Mtl)

[MtlMario]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:57 PM, Ansem said:

Not only do you need the right venue (my preference is Parc Jarry or Bassin Peel - I don't buy the whole Expos angle), you need the right timing (closer or right after 2026), but the right owners (This is where you go to France and try to lure a French giant here - the biggest French expat community is Mtl)

I'm still convinced that a team on Mtl island will be looked at as a little brother to CF Mtl and therefor second rate and probably will fail.. On the other hand a team in Laval will be a competitor to them instead. As for luring a French giant here, I really do not care where it comes from, all I want is a team (although a French giant would be a good idea).

[Kingston]

On 8/27/2022 at 8:14 PM, MtlMario said:

I'm still convinced that a team on Mtl island will be looked at as a little brother to CF Mtl and therefor second rate and probably will fail.. On the other hand a team in Laval will be a competitor to them instead. As for luring a French giant here, I really do not care where it comes from, all I want is a team (although a French giant would be a good idea).

Honest question:  Why is it okay - even desirable - to many posters here for the CPL to field farm teams from European squads but for so many of those same posters the idea of MLS reserve teams is anathema?

I get that none of us want a, say, Kitchener team that's literally called TFCII, but how it Atletico Ottawa okay but not, say, an MSLE-owned Kitchener Blizzard?

[Ansem]

8 minutes ago, Kingston said:

Honest question:  Why is it okay - even desirable - to many posters here for the CPL to field farm teams from European squads but for so many of those same posters the idea of MLS reserve teams is anathema?

I get that none of us want a, say, Kitchener team that's literally called TFCII, but how it Atletico Ottawa okay but not, say, an MSLE-owned Kitchener Blizzard?

Does it matter? It won't happen. Do we want another "Chivas USA" on Canadian soil?

[Kingston]

18 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Does it matter? It won't happen. Do we want another "Chivas USA" on Canadian soil?

Does anything we write on these boards actually matter?

Of course we don't want a Canadian Chivas USA. I will remind you, however, that Chivas USA was a foreign-owned MLS team.  So more akin to Atletico Ottawa going sour.

So my question remains:  If we want deep pocketed, soccer savvy owners for our CPL teams, why would we welcome a European soccer club but spurn MLSE?  (And, to be clear, I'm not saying we need to actively court the MLS ownership groups - just asking why many people who are obviously open to allowing farm clubs in general are so opposed to specifically MLS reserve sides.)

[Ansem]

14 minutes ago, Kingston said:

Does anything we write on these boards actually matter?

Of course we don't want a Canadian Chivas USA. I will remind you, however, that Chivas USA was a foreign-owned MLS team.  So more akin to Atletico Ottawa going sour.

So my question remains:  If we want deep pocketed, soccer savvy owners for our CPL teams, why would we welcome a European soccer club but spurn MLSE?  (And, to be clear, I'm not saying we need to actively court the MLS ownership groups - just asking why many people who are obviously open to allowing farm clubs in general are so opposed to specifically MLS reserve sides.)

They don't bring much value to the league's overall objectives. Looking at the history of reserves teams in the country - the data is compelling and hard to argue against

They are already losing money in MLS - how sure are you they would spend and lose more in CPL instead of just running them as reserves clubs at the lowest cost?

Edited August 29, 2022 by Ansem

[narduch]

We've already seen through their USL and Next Pro teams how the MLS sides treat their reserve teams.

Other than offering a few more different teams to play it wouldn't improve the leagues overall look.

That would devalue the CPL, in my opinion.

Atletico Ottawa is like comparing apples to oranges

 

[Ivan]

1 hour ago, narduch said:

We've already seen through their USL and Next Pro teams how the MLS sides treat their reserve teams.

Other than offering a few more different teams to play it wouldn't improve the leagues overall look.

That would devalue the CPL, in my opinion.

Atletico Ottawa is like comparing apples to oranges

 

I would be okay with MLSE ownership in the CPL provided the team was a separate entity from TFC with a max amount of loaned players (say 4) from TFC.  Similar to what Montreal has done with Rea, Sirois, Yao and Assi on loan to the CPL.

[Ansem]

5 minutes ago, Ivan said:

I would be okay with MLSE ownership in the CPL provided the team was a separate entity from TFC with a max amount of loaned players (say 4) from TFC.  Similar to what Montreal has done with Rea, Sirois, Yao and Assi on loan to the CPL.

The problem is that they aren't willing to do that. There was an article in Soccer Quebe where Saputo was approached to do just that and outside of providing advice - he's unwilling to invest money to the level CPL would require. At best he'd consider a reserve team like TFC and Vancouver wanted. That's not good enough for CPL as those clubs would be ran at minimal cost. They aren't going to spend on infrastructure or marketing - so it doesn't bring much value to the league.

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 hours ago, Kingston said:

Honest question:  Why is it okay - even desirable - to many posters here for the CPL to field farm teams from European squads but for so many of those same posters the idea of MLS reserve teams is anathema?

I get that none of us want a, say, Kitchener team that's literally called TFCII, but how it Atletico Ottawa okay but not, say, an MSLE-owned Kitchener Blizzard?

Because At Ottawa is not a farm team, really, in any sense of the concept. 

While any MLS farm team in CPL would be exactly that.

It is At Madrid spending money to expand its brand in Canada, and internationally in general.  There is really no movement between the clubs of any substance, and certainly no movement from Ottawa to Madrid.

The spread between the two clubs is too large to be worried about it. While any MLS initiative in CPL would mean a clear relationship of prepping players to cover gaps weekly in the MLS team.

[narduch]

20 years ago MLS had only 10 teams.

I really don't think CPL with 8/9 teams needs to be so desperate to add teams too fast

[Kingston]

4 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Because At Ottawa is not a farm team, really, in any sense of the concept. 

While any MLS farm team in CPL would be exactly that.

It is At Madrid spending money to expand its brand in Canada, and internationally in general.  There is really no movement between the clubs of any substance, and certainly no movement from Ottawa to Madrid.

The spread between the two clubs is too large to be worried about it. While any MLS initiative in CPL would mean a clear relationship of prepping players to cover gaps weekly in the MLS team.

I thank you for this explanation.  It makes more sense than many of the explanations I've seen on other boards which generally amount to "MLS is evil".

I think there might be ways around the problems you raise if both sides were strongly interested, but I do get your point about the difference, which is why I called the European owned clubs farm teams and the potential MLS teams reserve teams.  (Use whatever names one wants but, as you point out, they are treated quite differently.)

[narduch]

5 minutes ago, Kingston said:

I thank you for this explanation.  It makes more sense than many of the explanations I've seen on other boards which generally amount to "MLS is evil".

This is a bullshit statement and shows you aren't discussing the topic in good faith