Jump to content

CPL General


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, harrycoyster said:

I mean, this isn't really that novel, the NASL said most of the same things. Some things are semantics and others are the realistic vision. We just have to hope the execution and unified direction is there.

Right, my question is that it doesn't really square well with what had been told to reporters earlier with a "hybrid" approach 

Unless "hybrid" just means a closed league with a salary cap 

Edited by Complete Homer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

Clubs, not franchises. Pro/rel... It's a purist's dream

So how's this hybrid work then? Is there any room for single entity if it's clubs? Is it just semantics? Very curious

Can someone here please clarify what a hybrid single-entity system suppose to mean? I hope this is NOT like the NASL system where spending was out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

Right, my question is that it doesn't really square well with what hardware been told to reporters earlier with a "hybrid" approach 

Unless "hybrid" just means a closed league with a salary cap 

The approach has probably changed 4-5 times so far and will likely change a few more times before March 2019, so what reporters or even Bernie have said months ago holds little water at this point. Running a business, whether it be a pizzeria or pro soccer league, is an endless series of compromises; we are still early in the process.

As of right now, it sounds to me like "hybrid" means MLS-esque league with built-in agreements to take off the training wheels down the line. 

Edited by harrycoyster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2017 at 12:07 AM, Gopherbashi said:

I can't believe we're back on the pro/rel argument.

So many things said over the past hours, have scared me senseless,  been in  favor of a independent club system, this means to me that the league aint  and dont want to be responsible for the club making money  which will lead to immediate financial failure just like the CSL days. 

The most successful N American league over the past 15 years can now sell a franchise for 300 million dollars and you are not in favor of such a system: that `s scary: 

Timbits soccer  that`s a scary thought to  bring to the table of professional soccer league. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Futballer said:

So many things said over the past hours, have scared me senseless,  been in  favor of a independent club system, this means to me that the league aint  and dont want to be responsible for the club making money  which will lead to immediate financial failure just like the CSL days. 

The most successful N American league over the past 15 years can now sell a franchise for 300 million dollars and you are not in favor of such a system: that `s scary: 

Timbits soccer  that`s a scary thought to  bring to the table of professional soccer league. 

 

I'm not sure why I'm being quoted from a year ago but I still can't believe we're back on the pro/rel argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Complete Homer said:

Clubs, not franchises. Pro/rel... It's a purist's dream

So how's this hybrid work then? Is there any room for single entity if it's clubs? Is it just semantics? Very curious

I hate to take words out of anyone's mouth, but if they're only aiming for markets over 200,000 then reliably exceeding that pro/rel trigger of 16 teams may be a challenge.  There are only so many viable pro markets in this country, and you'll want to make sure you're nice and stable if you want to create a viable second division.

Even then, I imagine the threshold for relegation will be rather stringent, and it may relate to this hybrid model - single-entity or founding teams may be exempt, but independent teams outside of that core group may be dropped if they finish last.  At least that's something I'd consider if I was designing this with compromise in mind.

Edited by Gopherbashi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gopherbashi said:

I hate to take words out of anyone's mouth, but if they're only aiming for markets over 200,000 then reliably exceeding that pro/rel trigger of 16 teams may be a challenge.  There are only so many viable pro markets in this country, and you'll want to make sure you're nice and stable if you want to create a viable second division.

Even then, I imagine the threshold for relegation will be rather stringent, and it may relate to this hybrid model - single-entity or founding teams may be exempt, but independent teams outside of that core group may be dropped if they finish last.  At least that's something I'd consider if I was designing this with compromise in mind.

I think reaching 16 is way out there in the future, but the 200,000 requirement could work out with multiple teams in the big three cities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gopherbashi said:

I hate to take words out of anyone's mouth, but if they're only aiming for markets over 200,000 then reliably exceeding that pro/rel trigger of 16 teams may be a challenge.  There are only so many viable pro markets in this country, and you'll want to make sure you're nice and stable if you want to create a viable second division.

Even then, I imagine the threshold for relegation will be rather stringent, and it may relate to this hybrid model - single-entity or founding teams may be exempt, but independent teams outside of that core group may be dropped if they finish last.  At least that's something I'd consider if I was designing this with compromise in mind.

I hope to Satan they do not do pro/rel. Honestly I think it's just PB's desire (and a dream situation for some involved with the league)  but not a serious goal for the league.

Edited by matty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Clanachan is saying what you're supposed to say in his position..."the plan is for promotion/relegation", knowing that he'll never have to deal with it. There will only be 10-12 teams for the foreseeable future and he'll never have to worry about it during his tenure.

...but that's just what I think. I'm not baseing that on anything.

Edited by LAK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting about the Calgary angle is that it appears to be the Foothills Roy Nasrallah is meeting (Foothills involvement has been rumoured on here a couple of times in the past) rather than the Stampeders or Spruce Meadows. Do the Foothills have the money and stadium available to be able to launch a team in 2019? If not, Calgary isn't firmly on board yet in terms of the spectrum of readiness.

Edited by BringBackTheBlizzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, shermanator said:

Oh hey, it's @Stuart, Roy Nasrallah and I. What a strange coincidence that we ran into each other while Roy was on the road. 

But remember, Calgary is not firmly on board.

 

I don't know why more people didn't key in on this way back when, when @Xavier was hired by BCFC to do their kits and branding etc. and was told not to use the colour green because two teams were already going to be utilizing it. One team would use it as it's traditional colour (Saskatchewan) and the other was an existing club in another league stepping up (Foothills FC). I forget who put that together, but that's been my assumption ever since. This was at least 6 months ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People did key into that at the time from what I remember. What a lot of people also noticed as evidenced by another thread at the moment was a Foothills director saying in a newspaper article that they would assist an investor if one emerged but would not be launching a team themselves. Shermantor let slip that the CSA had been in contact with the Foothills about the new league on here well before that so this is nothing new. We have also had the Spruce Meadows leak that allegedly came from Steven Sandor to a poster on here since then. If there is a Spruce Meadows angle to this visit by Roy Nasrallah it would be evidence that things are further along.

Edited by BringBackTheBlizzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LAK said:

I think that Clanachan is saying what you're supposed to say in his position..."the plan is for promotion/relegation", knowing that he'll never have to deal with it. There will only be 10-12 teams for the foreseeable future and he'll never have to worry about it during his tenure.

...but that's just what I think. I'm not baseing that on anything.

Did he say it's the plan? The main quote I've seen him say (haven't hear the audio interview yet) is that he can imagine it if they get to 16 teams and others want in at which point you explore it. He's a fan of it but did not outright say it's in the plan.

I really can't see it working here. I get it's the world standard, but 3 nations very similar to Canada don't and likely will never have it unless it's forced on them. There's a lot of domestic sporting traditions you'd need fans to accepting breaking for it to succeed and owners willing to make even less/lose more for long periods of time if they're in D2. If A-League does it and it works with great success, then prehaps I'll change my tune on it.

Edited by matty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Complete Homer said:

Clanachan plans to begin awarding franchises to by the end of next month

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional details have yet to be confirmed, but Clanachan expects a six-month season sans playoffs, the winner of which will receive automatic entry into the CONCACAF Champions League.

Interesting that they're going without playoffs.  I wonder if they'll re-evaluate after a few years - it's good for publicity.

 

Clanachan tipped his hat to MLS, despite acknowledging it as a competitor.

No one tell BBTB.

 

Clanachan didn’t rule out entering the CPL’s inaugural season without a broadcast deal in place.

“That whole world has changed,” he responded. “Today it’s a different world. You have your traditional broadcast opportunities, but there are a lot of other broadcast opportunities out there. I think a blend of the two could be a solution.

Not ruling it out, but not entirely rejecting it either.

 

Until then, the league’s executive members are plucking from a list of prospective markets that includes ownership groups from all but one non-Maritime province.

Such an ugly sentence - basically five provinces west of the Maritimes have prospective ownership groups, and one province does not.  The question is whether they're including Winnipeg as a prospective market, and by extension whether they have any leads in Quebec.  Every other province is accounted for.

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...