Jump to content
lazlo_80

CPL new teams speculation

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Kent said:

I don't know how this doesn't count as "fact", but it seems like either everyone here disregarded this or didn't see it. Maybe they had BBTB blocked a year ago when this article came out. This is the article he is referring to, and the relevant part is a quote from someone who says they have spoken with the CPL on this.

https://lfpress.com/sports/soccer/will-london-build-a-downtown-sports-stadium-its-a-possibility

“There was the franchise fee, which is in the millions. Then there was the expectation that there would be money lost in the first few years,” Campbell said.

Thanks for the link. Just to give that quote a bit more context:

Interest seems to have ratcheted up about a potential stadium with the establishment of the Canadian Premier League, a new national soccer league with seven franchises. The CPL is a hard-pushing organization that’s selling itself as the true Canadian league. Several franchises have been established in cities with Canadian Football League teams.

FC London’s founder and chief operating officer, Ian Campbell, says he had discussions with the league last year but the financial numbers didn’t work out.

“There was the franchise fee, which is in the millions. Then there was the expectation that there would be money lost in the first few years,” Campbell said. “I also think that the travel expenses are going to be really steep. It’s expensive going to places like Victoria.”

Either the author and the person he is quoting are confused or uninformed about the structure of the league, or the commissioner, David Clanachan is, since he has categorically said it is not a franchise based model.

This would certainly not be the first time an uninformed journalist had used the wrong terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The person being quoted is the owner of FC London, the former PDL champions now in L1O, who says he met with CanPL to discuss the possible entry of a London, Ont team. The article describes his reasons for not pursuing it with the large franchise fee being mentioned as one of the main reasons. As for whether it is the wrong terminology, if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The person being quoted is the owner of FC London, the former PDL champions now in L1O, who says he met with CanPL to discuss the possible entry of a London, Ont team. The article describes his reasons for not pursuing it with the large franchise fee being mentioned as one of the main reasons. As for whether it is the wrong terminology, if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck...

As opposed to the league commissioner, who has said it is not a franchise based league. L1O owner vs. CPL Commissioner. I wonder who would have more knowledge about the legal structure of CPL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone casuallly calling it a franchise fee, in one interview, casually, non officially, has more credit than the entire league officially saying they are not franchises and there is no fixed fee. 

In any case, CPL asks for money to enter into the league. You could call it seed money, or an investment that goes into the general CPL fund, along with the investment you will make on your stadium, team, staff.

Since there are a few clubs that have some financial questions that derive from errors in stadium choice, marketing, pricing, which could lead to someone pulling out (probably due to their own mistakes), you better damn well get more teams in before you start getting all haughty about the value of your league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to pretend to have any inside knowledge, but I wonder if that "franchise fee" somehow combines an entry fee + a multi-year bond.

Wasn't there also some discussion a while back about the original seven teams having some kind of stake in CSB that expansion teams wouldn't have?  Perhaps this $8-9 million franchise fee refers to a stake in CSB which is separate from league membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gopherbashi said:

I'm not going to pretend to have any inside knowledge, but I wonder if that "franchise fee" somehow combines an entry fee + a multi-year bond.

Wasn't there also some discussion a while back about the original seven teams having some kind of stake in CSB that expansion teams wouldn't have?  Perhaps this $8-9 million franchise fee refers to a stake in CSB which is separate from league membership.

Any new club is buying into the security of the 200million MediaPro deal, minus the proportion already doled out this first season. 

But any new club may in fact also be helping to ensure the terms of the MediaPro deal, which was not made on the premise of having only 7 teams/markets in the near, mid or far-off future. 

So you cannot calculate what they are getting only, you have to calculate how new clubs in CPL actually help guarantee what the existing clubs are benefitting from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lofty said:

Thanks for the link. Just to give that quote a bit more context:

Interest seems to have ratcheted up about a potential stadium with the establishment of the Canadian Premier League, a new national soccer league with seven franchises. The CPL is a hard-pushing organization that’s selling itself as the true Canadian league. Several franchises have been established in cities with Canadian Football League teams.

FC London’s founder and chief operating officer, Ian Campbell, says he had discussions with the league last year but the financial numbers didn’t work out.

“There was the franchise fee, which is in the millions. Then there was the expectation that there would be money lost in the first few years,” Campbell said. “I also think that the travel expenses are going to be really steep. It’s expensive going to places like Victoria.”

Either the author and the person he is quoting are confused or uninformed about the structure of the league, or the commissioner, David Clanachan is, since he has categorically said it is not a franchise based model.

This would certainly not be the first time an uninformed journalist had used the wrong terminology.

It’s probably a case of an overly liberal use of the word “franchise” by the journalist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Prior to the launch, the fee would have helped to provide the startup capital that was needed to fund league operations (such as marketing expenses, salaries and expenses for Beirne, Clanachan, et al.) until revenues started flowing in. Later on the fee is about paying for a share of existing league assets and compensating the existing owners for taking an extra share of league revenues for x number of years into the future.

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ams1984 said:

It’s probably a case of an overly liberal use of the word “franchise” by the journalist. 

Exactly. This discussion is getting silly. People pushing an agenda are disingenuously making inferences from casual use of the word "franchise" that were never intended to be implied by the author/speaker.

The CPL Commissioner gets the final word on the legal structure of the league!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Again I seriously question whether anyone would even care about the use of the word "franchise" if there wasn't a desire to create a point of difference from MLS that is perceived by some people as making the league more authentic in some way. Any way you slice it new teams will have to pay to get in and gain an eventual share from revenues derived from league related ventures like CSB (perhaps keeping that at arms length and not having the same sort of single entity concept going on as MLS does is part of how they think that they get to claim to be clubs rather than franchises as if it makes some crucial difference). When asked about the size of the expansion fee at around 14:00 in this interview:

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/montreal-690/clanachan-we-are-speaking-with-a-number-of-parties-in-quebec-1.1339314

He doesn't deny its existence and after saying he won't get into the dollars and cents, describes it as "not a huge investment but a significant investment" whatever that means.

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Again I seriously question whether anyone would even care about the use of the word "franchise" if there wasn't a desire to create a point of difference from MLS that is perceived by some people as making the league more authentic in some way. Any way you slice it new teams will have to pay to get in and gain an eventual share from revenues derived from league related ventures like CSB (perhaps keeping that at arms length and not having the same sort of single entity concept going on as MLS does is part of how they think that they get to claim to be clubs rather than franchises as if it makes some crucial difference). When asked about the size of the expansion fee at around 14:00 in this interview:

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/montreal-690/clanachan-we-are-speaking-with-a-number-of-parties-in-quebec-1.1339314

He doesn't deny its existence and after saying he won't get into the dollars and cents, describes it as "not a huge investment but a significant investment" whatever that means.

And there it is. Trying to discredit the advantages of the CPL club based ownership model. The big advantage of this model, as opposed to the typical North American "franchise" based model, is that the fans cannot have the team yanked out from under their feet on the whim of an owner. It has nothing to do with "authenticity".

And I see the "franchise fee" has suddenly become an "expansion fee". 😂

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Try telling Clydebank and Meadowbank Thistle fans in Scotland or Wimbledon fans in England that you can't have a club as opposed to a franchise yanked away from you. Beyond that I really couldn't care less either way as long as pro soccer in Canada thrives in the years ahead. MLS has led the way in showing pro soccer can work. Hopefully CanPL does likewise in the years ahead. Most normal soccer people in Canada would want both leagues to do well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Wimbledon_F.C._to_Milton_Keynes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/scotland/2118528.stm

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Try telling Clydebank and Meadowbank Thistle fans in Scotland or Wimbledon fans in England that you can't have a club as opposed to a franchise yanked away from you. Beyond that I really couldn't care less either way as long as pro soccer in Canada thrives in the years ahead. MLS has led the way in showing pro soccer can work. Hopefully CanPL does likewise in the years ahead. Most normal soccer people in Canada would want both leagues to do well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Wimbledon_F.C._to_Milton_Keynes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/scotland/2118528.stm

Wimbledon FC was relocated approximately 50 miles to a place that was easy to reach from Wimbledon. The thinking in allowing it was that Wimbledon fans could still easily continue to support the team. Nevertheless, the fall out was significant and that type of relatively small but certainly non trivial move is unlikely to be allowed again by the English FA.

Not the same thing at all as moving the Jets from Winnipeg to Phoenix (for example).

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The phrase "franchise fee" appears in a direct quote attributed to Ian Campbell.

And he is the one that decides the business model for CPL, is that what you are saying?

So if I want to start an OrangeTheory Fitness in my town, and I say there is a licensing fee of X amount of dollars when I talk excitedly to the local press, then by your logic, OrangeTheory charges a licensing fee, and is therefore not a franchise operation?

Your posts define "tendentious"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lofty said:

Wimbledon FC was relocated approximately 50 miles to a place that was easy to reach from Wimbledon. The thinking in allowing it was that Wimbledon fans could still easily continue to support the team. Nevertheless, the fall out was significant and that type of relatively small but certainly non trivial move is unlikely to be allowed again by the English FA.

Not the same thing at all as moving the Jets from Winnipeg to Phoenix (for example).

Regardless, I really do not agree that not having franchises does help avoid such moves of clubs from one place to another. In Spain you can purchase the license of another club and relocate it, though you need permission and it does not happen often.

For me that is not the advantage, in fact I am not fully convinced there is a great advantage--I think single entity in MLS is a worse problem than franchised clubs. If you have a league with high standards that are clearly laid out and enforced, and the national FA is backing you and also pushing for minimums (as well as providing your FIFA qualified reffing and disciplinary committees perhaps), then you have a similar level of control.

A national D1 league should allow any club to participate, and the fees and costs should only be in terms of fulfilling minimum standards and paying for them, not to create a pyramid scheme. That is why promotion and relegation are so brilliant. 

But the advantage for our sport is that you have entities defending the principles of the game as played internationally, even advancing them (we are the first league in the world to apply the International Board's new rulings, so effectively an international test case). That means you cannot go maverick and come up with bogus concepts that defy what soccer is about, like they do in the NBA allowing travelling and double dribbling in the name of showtime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPL doesn't "claim" they have clubs, they in fact do have clubs and not franchises. The league is based on a club model not a franchise one. CPL clubs own the league.

MLS, with its odd single entity setup doesn't have clubs, as even Don Garber has stated, it has owner operators of a business unit, think of it like a Mcdonalds franchise. The teams don't own the players or the league but buy a right to operate a business unit.

Most of the worlds fans would likely say the CPL is more authentic compared to the MLS.

As for the word Franchise, as others have pointed out, its used loosely and incorrectly much of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is we dont really have a clue whats going on behind closed doors on the business side. The league lets out a few details that they want us to know. However we have no idea how accurate they are or how they are twisted around.

For instance people keep talking about the '200 million media deal' and assuming that means they are giving 200 million dollars to the league (or some dollars) . In my mind that is very very very doubtful. We likely will never know as there is virtually no real reporting on the league.

However what if medipro figures their production of the games and the cost associated with it is worth 20 million of year? They are picking up the 20 million production costs/fees in exchange for global right to the product. Still a 200 million dollar deal over 10 years - however the league doesn't see a penny. They just don't have to pay anything to have the games produced. I mean to me that is a way more likely scenario - unless someone at MediaPro is smoking a ton of the good stuff.

Then again I doubt there will ever be a real way to verify this or much else that happens in the league unless some journalists really start covering and ask something other  then fluffball questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm sick of the secrecy behind every aspect of this league and MLS. What's the point of isolating your audience? 

Edited by Aird25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, baulderdash77 said:

Honestly the internal financial model is something that very few fans care about or really should.

The product is what matters.  Team budgets matter because of the talent the team puts on the field but that’s really it.

I love trying to predict lineups, transfer decisions, managers choices, and comparing strategies and decision between clubs. It makes you feel involved. That can't happen when basic details about the club aren't shared with the fans. From what I've seen, the overall football knowledge around the stadium has been pretty good. People know the sport, but nobody has a clue about the team and players they're watching. They haven't even added pictures for half the players on their website. It's a difficult way to win support, and I don't know what the advantage of operating that way is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, grasshopper1917 said:

...Then again I doubt there will ever be a real way to verify this or much else that happens in the league unless some journalists really start covering and ask something other  then fluffball questions.

They are too scared about losing access to do that, unfortunately.

11 hours ago, CDNFootballer said:

CPL doesn't "claim" they have clubs, they in fact do have clubs and not franchises...

You can usually join your local amateur soccer club and the membership have a vote at its AGM where office holders are concerned. Been there, done that have been in the meetings. Do the "members" of CanPL "clubs" have the ability to do that or is everything decided by the rich investor(s) who paid the league entry fee and own the shares in the holding company set up to run the team?

In some countries like Germany and Spain the original club structure was often retained into the professional era and members can still vote for the club president and have a genuine say in how their club is run. In both the UK and North America there tends to be an identifiable owner with a majority shareholding calling all the shots in the fully pro national leagues and the fans are basically just paying customers in that context.

The idea that there is some crucial difference between how the Glazers run Man Utd and MLSE runs TFC is dubious at best and as long as it gets the job done who really cares about the finer nuances and semantics of it, if Bob Young rather than a fan owned supporters trust type club is able to make pro soccer work in Hamilton? If a traditional club sort of approach was going to work in Canada in terms of having a national league we would be posting about the 1926-1998 iteration of the NSL on here and there would have been no niche for a league like CanPL to fill.

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, grasshopper1917 said:

The reality is we dont really have a clue whats going on behind closed doors on the business side. The league lets out a few details that they want us to know. However we have no idea how accurate they are or how they are twisted around

....

 

There aren't any great secrects anymore are there?  Stuff always gets out there on way or another.

We are going to get a pretty good idea on a few things out of Valour though I expect.   As a community owned not-for-profit they will have to publish a financial disclosure for fiscal 2019.  Payables, receivables and their sources/vendors etc.  Should give us a reasonable idea as to what a CPL operating budget is, salary cap and league sponsorship revenue.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Latest from David Clanachan on expansion:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/pinder-steinberg/david-clanachan-canadian-championship-matchups-success-cpl-expansion/

5:40 expansion broached a subject, how many for next season? numbers clubs and regions still interested 18 to 22, talks up stadium as the stumbling block, sees WC 2026 as helping for training camps etc

7:40 who handles expansion and how do you deal with 20 interested markets

9:15 price is more now, he uses the phrase "some of the other sports franchises"

10:30 most important factor?

15:30 still a pathway for Ottawa? says there is still a pathway, no further conversations, ball is in their court

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...