CPL General

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Kent said:

I am not remotely close to being a legal expert, but I don’t think you are describing a conflict of interest. Wouldn’t a conflict of interest mean that you have a vested interest in seeing something fail? It’s not better for the Bombers for the CPL team to fail. What you are describing could be the case for any ownership group that owns another company. Didn't Peter Pocklington sell Gretzky to LA in part to cover for losses in his other businesses?

I am not a legal expert either but I would say that a conflict of interest is when you are charged with acting in the best interests of somebody (or something) but can benefit from taking action that is not in the best interests of that person or thing.

Regardless of the semantics of the term "conflict of interest", I am sure you can see the problem here.

Of course the Bombers would want the CPL team to "succeed" in terms of generating revenue but I believe they will not care too much about success on the pitch. So long as the fans are happy to watch a losing team, that is what they will get. And that is a problem for me, until the "problem" is removed by keeping the CPL team and the CFL team at arms length from one another.

Edited April 19, 2018 by dsqpr

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Kent said:

What you are describing could be the case for any ownership group that owns another company. Didn't Peter Pocklington sell Gretzky to LA in part to cover for losses in his other businesses?

Sports teams are inherently different from other businesses in that "success" can be measured in sporting terms as well as financial ones.

The owners of football teams (in England anyway) have historically mostly owned the team for prestige and have understood that the team is likely to cost them money rather than make them money (there are exceptions, such as Mike Ashley at Newcastle and the fucking Glazers at Man U). And people love them when the team does well (Ashley and the Glazers are hated), so they spend money on it. Clearly none of this will apply in the inaugural case of Winnipeg FC.

Edited April 19, 2018 by dsqpr

[nolbertos]

So the Caps fan comment I sumbitted was true that the Winnipeg team is a not for profit organization aka Winnipeg Blue Bombers and probably Martin Nash’s salary cap comments are true that the league salary cap will be closer to USL Div. 2 than USL - Div 1.  Hmm, I’m sure thats the only way this league can start and survive is by emulating the lower USL leagues with salary caps and finances and that essentially rules out any chance of a current national team player to come back and play here unless they take a huge salary cut.  I know many of you will be disappointed but its the less riskier way to make this league work and that’s Canada’s reality.  They won’t be competing against MLS anytime soon, they gotta first compete against USL in branding, marketing and finances.  Funny how I championed the USL model and seems this CPL league will follow that model to a T albeit lower end USL pyramid.

Edited April 19, 2018 by nolbertos

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

9 hours ago, Shortdutchcanuck said:

Is Bob Young also part of the nefarious CFL Deep State conspiracy or does he get a pass because of his longterm interest in owning a soccer team?....

Longterm interest in using soccer at the PanAm Games for securing funding for the replacement to Ivor Wynne was a factor in his case, so there was a CFL related motivation involved as well. Given he's one of the main instigators of this wild goose chase on having to have a "D1^A" domestic pro league rather than working within or with the system that was already in place he will have effectively hampered soccer's progress by a decade or so if this CanPL thing doesn't happen, but I'll given him the benefit of the doubt on being a misguided rather than a malign influence overall at this point as he wouldn't have hired people like Paul Beirne if he wasn't serious about it.

Yesterday's events may well have torpedoed a 2019 launch, so the no CanPL scenario is looking more likely again. Time will tell. It was good for the role that Canadian football officialdom often plays in suppressing soccer was out in the open like that for all to see given all the naivety there was on here in recent years about the CFL as a collective entity being behind a new high budget domestic pro league. I seriously doubt the would be CFL group in Halifax are doing anything positive behind the scenes where the Wanderers Grounds pop-up is concerned given Halifax clearly doesn't need two mid-sized stadiums, and the Roughriders have had anything good to say about a CanPL team using the now bulldozed Taylor Field in Regina or municipal land in Saskatoon, so I would be surprised if it is only Edmonton where this sort of thing is happening.

Going further back I remember how the Argos almost killed the 2007 U20 World Cup stadium project and by extension MLS expansion in Toronto by signing a new lease at the Rogers Centre at a very late stage in the proceedings and how the Western Mustangs in London, Ont deliberately designed the new TD Waterhouse to not be suitable for future pro soccer use even when a soccer-friendly journalist at the London Free Press was pointing out in op-ed articles what they could do at minimal extra expense to facilitate it (London is seldom mentioned in CanPL terms because there is no easy stadium solution), so it's just reality rather than a "nefarious CFL Deep State conspiracy" as far as I'm concerned. Soccer is Canadian football's main rival to be the top spectator sport in the summer and fall and has already decimated it at the grassroots level, so it's only natural that many/most people within that sport would prefer to hamper rather than aid soccer's progress.

Edited April 19, 2018 by BringBackTheBlizzard

[Alex D]

You guys crack me up. 

[Rheo]

Another recap from Edmonton

https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/2018/04/18/fc-edmonton-wants-city-to-invest-in-clarke-stadium-and-bring-professional-soccer-back.html

[Complete Homer]

2 hours ago, Alex D said:

You guys crack me up. 

I love how the group that criticised a the credibility of a wide array of individuals are now hanging their hat on "a  friend of a friend said Martin Nash said something". How much sense does it make for a league that requires well above USL average attendance numbers to be sustainable be far below that league's salary figures?

And even if the statement were true, the statement has quickly morphed from "Nash wished the salary cap was $250,000 higher" to "CPL will be USL D3 level", without taking a moment to appreciate that thanks to Nipun Chopra's article yesterday confirmed that some USL teams are spending in the millions on player salary, and 250,000 would not constitute such a dramatic fall. 

...and the mental gymnastics required to believe that yesterday's meeting likely torpedoed the league are truly Olympic level, bravo. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Complete Homer

[Rheo]

Sandor recap of Edmonton

https://the11.ca/canpl-and-cfl-much-better-to-be-friends-than-enemies/

[Jason]

13 hours ago, dsqpr said:

The Bombers do NOT have deep pockets! They are struggling just to make their payments on IG Field! (See my link above.) They have probably planned for a short ramp up period for Winnipeg FC, since that just makes sense, but it had better at least break even real fast or it will be gone, because the Bombers simply can't afford more losses.

There is a conflict of interest because if there is an operational surplus they can decide whether to invest in a better CFL product or a better CPL product -- no matter which team generated the surplus. I have no shadow of doubt that they will use any CPL profits to help the CFL arm -- which effectively puts a ceiling on the potential on-field success of the CPL team. There are other aspects to the conflict of interest too but I see that as the biggest one.

True North (who own the Jets) and Mark Chipman have demonstrated a desire to do the right things for the right reasons. So although I would have the same concerns if they owned the CPL team instead, I would also be hopeful that they would do the right thing anyway (invest CPL ptofits into the CPL team). Not to mention that the Winnipeg FC budget is likely to be pocket change compared to the Jets for the foreseeable future, so syphoning off any CPL profits wouldn't make much difference anyway.

The concerns I have seem blindingly obvious to me. It is hardly credible to think that I am the only potential CPL fan who has thought of this, or that the people running the Bombers are so stupid that they have not thought of it either. In which case they could very easily allay those concerns and instantly increase their potential fan base with a simple announcement that CPL revenue will be ring fenced. I await that announcement but I promise you I am not holding my breath.

Well I think that you are a lot more cynical than I am about this - and you live in Winnipeg and I don't, so I can respect that.   I agree the Bombers don't have tons of $, but they have enough access to resources to keep this thing going.  And my thoughts about their existing infrastructure is still a huge advantage going forward.  If I remember correctly, the Bombers are community run with a board - can't really imagine that the board sits in some private meeting planning on using the CPL and soccer in this way.  The board members don't personally enrich themselves by being on the board, and they are generally members of the community that want to see it be a better place.  Maybe I'm being naive, but I think the Bombers will want the club to succeed on and off the pitch.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Well I think that you are a lot more cynical than I am about this - and you live in Winnipeg and I don't, so I can respect that.   I agree the Bombers don't have tons of $, but they have enough access to resources to keep this thing going.  And my thoughts about their existing infrastructure is still a huge advantage going forward.  If I remember correctly, the Bombers are community run with a board - can't really imagine that the board sits in some private meeting planning on using the CPL and soccer in this way.  The board members don't personally enrich themselves by being on the board, and they are generally members of the community that want to see it be a better place.  Maybe I'm being naive, but I think the Bombers will want the club to succeed on and off the pitch.

They are Bomber and CFL fans, which is why they sit on the board of a CFL team. Their primary interest will be success for the Bombers, not the CPL team. And unless money is unlimited, those two objectives conflict with one another. And therein lies the problem.

[m-g-williams]

1 hour ago, dsqpr said:

They are Bomber and CFL fans, which is why they sit on the board of a CFL team. Their primary interest will be success for the Bombers, not the CPL team. And unless money is unlimited, those two objectives conflict with one another. And therein lies the problem.

. . . then how do groups like OSEG, MLSE and Calgary Sports and Entertainment work? This is an honest question, not trying to be facetious. I admit that I'm not fully informed when it comes to the nuances of ownership groups and who has holdings in what, but the multi-team/sport ownership groups I'm familiar with seem to be doing a decent job of balancing priorities.

Each obviously has a primary cash-cow that ends up being the main focus, but rather than different objectives coming into conflict with one another, I've always had the impression that they've generally complemented one another. Or am I totally off-base here? (again, honest question)

Edited April 19, 2018 by m-g-williams

[Bison44]

How about MLSE??  They have managed to Have Hockey, Basketball and Soccer under the umbrella of one company and all 3 seem to be thriving.  I guess the hardcore GTA fans prob have stories of bias etc, but it seems to me like enough money gets funneled into Basketball and Soccer.  And they have been genuine about making the secondary franchises successful.  

As far as the bombers, there will be conflicts but I dont think the 2 teams are in direct polar opposition to each other.  Sharing the venue/facilities will help both teams.  I dont doubt it will be obvious to everyone who the senior partner will be, but at least they would have somewhere to play...which is a leg up on most of the other potential CPL cities.  

[Kent]

2 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

How about MLSE??  They have managed to Have Hockey, Basketball and Soccer under the umbrella of one company and all 3 seem to be thriving.  I guess the hardcore GTA fans prob have stories of bias etc, but it seems to me like enough money gets funneled into Basketball and Soccer.  And they have been genuine about making the secondary franchises successful.  

As far as the bombers, there will be conflicts but I dont think the 2 teams are in direct polar opposition to each other.  Sharing the venue/facilities will help both teams.  I dont doubt it will be obvious to everyone who the senior partner will be, but at least they would have somewhere to play...which is a leg up on most of the other potential CPL cities.  

And of course MLSE's recent improvement on the field/court/ice came after getting a president from AEG who manage the LA Galaxy and LA Kings as well as a lot of other minor league or European teams as well.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, m-g-williams said:

. . . then how do groups like OSEG, MLSE and Calgary Sports and Entertainment work? This is an honest question, not trying to be facetious. I admit that I'm not fully informed when it comes to the nuances of ownership groups and who has holdings in what, but the multi-team/sport ownership groups I'm familiar with seem to be doing a decent job of balancing priorities.

Each obviously has a primary cash-cow that ends up being the main focus, but rather than different objectives coming into conflict with one another, I've always had the impression that they've generally complemented one another. Or am I totally off-base here? (again, honest question)

The conflict of interest only comes into play when there is a "favourite son", so to speak. In the case of the Bombers Board, assuming they are CFL fans who are charged with acting in the best interests of Winnipeg FC, their potentiall benefit is improved sporting success for the Bombers by using profits generated by Winnipeg FC. But this is only a benefit if they are Bomber fans. In the case of Hamilton, it seems possible that the conflict could actually work to the benefit of the CPL team.

Whenever multiple sports teams are owned by the same owner, this conflict of interest exists. So far as MLSE is concerned, when was the last time the cash cow Leafs won the Stanley Cup? Hell, when was the last time they were in the final?

Edited April 19, 2018 by dsqpr

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Kent said:

And of course MLSE's recent improvement on the field/court/ice came after getting a president from AEG who manage the LA Galaxy and LA Kings as well as a lot of other minor league or European teams as well.

Thank you @Kent, that illustrates my point beautifully. I am surprised that so many people seem to be struggling to understand it. It seems so obvious to me.

Edited April 19, 2018 by dsqpr

[Tigers]

How timely...

Winnipeg Football Club posts operating profit of $5.1 million in 2017

 

Bombers seem to be on the up.

[An Observer]

Hopefully, they can plow that profit into the soccer team to cover their losses in the initial years! 

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

An obvious question would be why the headline to the story talks about an "operating profit" rather than a "profit" and if this bit at the very end:

...The Club recorded a payment to Triple B of $3.5 million, the Club’s fourth annual scheduled excess cash payment as required by the Club’s Management Agreement with Triple B. This was in addition to paying the City of Winnipeg $1.3 million, which was related to an earlier Winnipeg Enterprises Corporation debt that was assigned to the Club by the City of Winnipeg in 2005

implies that they were actually left with a surplus of only 300k.

Edited April 19, 2018 by BringBackTheBlizzard

[Rocket Robin]

from my story on the April 18, 2018 USL game between Toronto FC II and North Carolina FC...

Attendance was about 110 by my estimate.  The USL website posts only 50! 
It was a bitterly cold night just like last night's CCL game but this
is really bad.  I was thinking the Leafs were playing as they alternate hockey
and basketball since their playoffs started but neither team was playing. 
Last year the message boards screamed that the Ontario Soccer Centre was so
far away (just outside the city limits) and the fans would flock to be downtown
and they'd get more than their 500 to 1000.  There were no children
in the crowd.  Tickets are free to TFC season ticket holders (last year
was $12) but outsiders are either $15 or $30.  I couldn't see the difference
as all the folks were squeezed into Section 107 in the East stands. 
One concession stand and one beer stand open but with security, ushers,
kitchen staff etc there were more staff than fans.  Oh yeah Wednesday! 
I suppose all the downtown hipsters were having their beards trimmed tonight. 

my comments on the game at this link:  
http://www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/reports18/18tfc245.htm   

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

An obvious question would be why the headline to the story talks about an "operating profit" rather than a "profit" and if this bit at the very end:

...The Club recorded a payment to Triple B of $3.5 million, the Club’s fourth annual scheduled excess cash payment as required by the Club’s Management Agreement with Triple B. This was in addition to paying the City of Winnipeg $1.3 million, which was related to an earlier Winnipeg Enterprises Corporation debt that was assigned to the Club by the City of Winnipeg in 2005

implies that they were actually left with a surplus of only 300k.

Exactly correct. Operating profit does not include interest payments or taxes. But those payments must still be made!

From the article -- Miller makes it pretty clear that all events at IG Field are there for the benefit of the Bombers ("The Club"):

In addition, the hosting of non-football events at Investors Group Field are important contributors to the Club’s overall financial performance, while inviting a broader fan base to our stadium. “Investors Group Field has welcomed more than just football fans since its opening, with concerts, soccer, and the Manitoba Marathon finish line inviting a much broader group of Winnipegers into our beautiful facility. These non-football events have been important in the Club’s financial performance as well,” said Miller.

Edited April 19, 2018 by dsqpr

[Gopherbashi]

6 hours ago, m-g-williams said:

. . . then how do groups like OSEG, MLSE and Calgary Sports and Entertainment work?

By cutting the Women Fury, Fury Academy, and becoming an MLS affiliate?

Edited April 20, 2018 by Gopherbashi

[grasshopper1917]

3 hours ago, Rocket Robin said:

from my story on the April 18, 2018 USL game between Toronto FC II and North Carolina FC...

Attendance was about 110 by my estimate.  The USL website posts only 50! 
It was a bitterly cold night just like last night's CCL game but this
is really bad.  I was thinking the Leafs were playing as they alternate hockey
and basketball since their playoffs started but neither team was playing. 
Last year the message boards screamed that the Ontario Soccer Centre was so
far away (just outside the city limits) and the fans would flock to be downtown
and they'd get more than their 500 to 1000.  There were no children
in the crowd.  Tickets are free to TFC season ticket holders (last year
was $12) but outsiders are either $15 or $30.  I couldn't see the difference
as all the folks were squeezed into Section 107 in the East stands. 
One concession stand and one beer stand open but with security, ushers,
kitchen staff etc there were more staff than fans.  Oh yeah Wednesday! 
I suppose all the downtown hipsters were having their beards trimmed tonight. 

my comments on the game at this link:  
http://www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/reports18/18tfc245.htm   

I watched a bit of the game on YouTube I have never seen that few people attending any sporting event in my entire life. There are routinely more people watching beer league softball at my local ball diamond. 

This has actually convinced me there is no way a CPL team could fly in Toronto proper. I hope I am wrong - but when USL draws a few dozen I cant see a league at a similar level and likely higher prices drawing thousands.

[Kent]

4 hours ago, dsqpr said:

Thank you @Kent, that illustrates my point beautifully. I am surprised that so many people seem to be struggling to understand it. It seems so obvious to me.

I really don’t think I was making your point for you. Leiweke at AEG won MLS Cups and the Stanley Cup. Hardly seems like there was any “conflict of interest”.

[Kent]

1 minute ago, grasshopper1917 said:

I watched a bit of the game on YouTube I have never seen that few people attending any sporting event in my entire life. There are routinely more people watching beer league softball at my local ball diamond. 

This has actually convinced me there is no way a CPL team could fly in Toronto proper. I hope I am wrong - but when USL draws a few dozen I cant see a league at a similar level and likely higher prices drawing thousands.

It is very possible that a CPL team in Toronto proper could get drowned out by all the other sports options available, but I do think there is a big difference between a reserve team that doesn’t have any real interest in winning, with a constantly changing roster from week to week based on the senior team’s needs, and a (presumably) independent team trying to win a championship playing in a league without reserve teams.

[Gopherbashi]

23 minutes ago, grasshopper1917 said:

This has actually convinced me there is no way a CPL team could fly in Toronto proper. I hope I am wrong - but when USL draws a few dozen I cant see a league at a similar level and likely higher prices drawing thousands.

All it's showing is that there's absolutely zero benefit to including MLS B teams in the CPL.