CPL General

[matty]

3 minutes ago, Rocket Robin said:

Is that just for this first year or do we keep adding teams with 2020 having Bunbury's team, Saskatchewan etc?  

Eventually 13 teams competing for that and 3 for a 'Founder's Cup'?  

first year only as future teams will be "on time" for the CL in their first year...unless the csa opts to be fucking stupid and deem the ineligible for it in their first year of play for a stupid reason

Edited February 13, 2019 by matty

[Kent]

5 hours ago, Initial B said:

However that would be unbalanced as 4 teams would have had 4 home games and the other three teams would only have had 3 home games, so clubs could cry foul. There isn't enough time for each team to play home and away before CL starts in July.

By limiting it to the 3 Clubs, they can have balanced Home and Away format games completed before July rolls around.

I’m sorry but this makes no sense. Is your argument that some teams playing more home games than others is somehow less balanced than excluding more than half of the league from even competing? Excluding some teams is by FAR the most unbalanced system imaginable. It’s similar to a place of business with a “no colored allowed” sign in its window.

[Gopherbashi]

6 hours ago, Initial B said:

I know it sucks, but I can kind of see the rationale for the CSA doing what they did.

Concacaf League starts in July this year. The CPL season won't finish until October, so the 2019 CPL winner will have to be for 2020 CL.

If they decided to wait until each team has played each other once that could be completed before July (though it would run into the Voyageurs Cup games). However that would be unbalanced as 4 teams would have had 4 home games and the other three teams would only have had 3 home games, so clubs could cry foul. There isn't enough time for each team to play home and away before CL starts in July.

By limiting it to the 3 Clubs, they can have balanced Home and Away format games completed before July rolls around. They could add more clubs, but some others would have to be excluded, which would still have the same problem as now.

There was no way they were going to please everyone this year. Knowing the communication issues, the CSA probably didn't know CONCACAF was going to make these changes.

It may be less ideal, but there's nothing saying that you need to have a home-and-away setup to determine a winner.  Teams being disadvantaged through scheduling is a far better option that teams being disqualified through administrative decision.

Besides, if the FA Cup can determine a champion despite single-match results & home field advantage, we should be able to as well.

The larger issue in my mind is that - if you take the league-leading team after (for example) eight weeks, that team also has a better chance of qualifying for the 2020 CL by nature of leading the league eight weeks in.  In essence, they could be qualifying for two successive tournaments using the same results, which isn't exactly ideal either.

The other issue to consider is scheduling; you don't exactly want to cobble together plane tickets or a stadium date by entering a tournament at the last minute.  Assuming some proper scheduling (and a single midweek game), the league should be able to determine its entrant by the end of May - leaving lots of time to find a hotel somewhere in Central America and sell tickets for a home date.  ie. Giving themselves the time to do things properly and not fart around at the last minute making everything look like amateur hour.

That said, they maybe save themselves a week at best.  They could have everyone face each other once by the end of week 7 (six opponents + one bye week), which would take us to the weekend of June 8th (even assuming no midweek games, which you'd be able to schedule around the V Cup days if you wanted).  It's more than doable if they wanted.

I also wonder if there's some CONCACAF statutes at play here (don't explain by incompetence what you can explain through bureaucracy).  They may require teams to be registered with their federation by January 1st of the previous year in order to be eligible, making the four newer teams ineligible.  It would explain this head-scratching setup, but I don't understand why the CSA wouldn't just come out and give this explanation if this were the case.

[C2SKI]

I'm pissed that Pacific got the short end of the stick in 2 competitions, but I think I'm angriest that instead of fans being excited about 2 incredibly positive developments, we're now arguing about divisive and unjust decisions by our governing body. We've been doing so well lately, but this is such a sucker punch

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, C2SKI said:

I'm pissed that Pacific got the short end of the stick in 2 competitions, but I think I'm angriest that instead of fans being excited about 2 incredibly positive developments, we're now arguing about divisive and unjust decisions by our governing body. We've been doing so well lately, but this is such a sucker punch

Sure, but don't you think unjust decisions deserve to be called out?

[Copes]

11 hours ago, C2SKI said:

I'm pissed that Pacific got the short end of the stick in 2 competitions, but I think I'm angriest that instead of fans being excited about 2 incredibly positive developments, we're now arguing about divisive and unjust decisions by our governing body. We've been doing so well lately, but this is such a sucker punch

I'm thrilled by the 2 positive developments. I just can't help but feel that following them up with a foolish and unjust decision really sours them.

[Kent]

12 hours ago, dsqpr said:

Sure, but don't you think unjust decisions deserve to be called out?

I didn’t read what he wrote as a complaint that we are arguing, I read it as a complaint that the CSA messed it up so bad that we have to argue instead of just being absolutely stoked. But maybe I just read it that way because that’s how I feel. Like Copes said above, great developments are being soured, seemingly for no good reason.

[Initial B]

16 hours ago, Kent said:

I’m sorry but this makes no sense. Is your argument that some teams playing more home games than others is somehow less balanced than excluding more than half of the league from even competing? Excluding some teams is by FAR the most unbalanced system imaginable. It’s similar to a place of business with a “no colored allowed” sign in its window.

I know it's a stretch, but I'm trying to figure out how to make sense of the nonsensical. That was a good point someone made about time constraints for administration purposes. I think one of the reasons we don't have a schedule yet is because they're trying to shoe-horn these CL Qualifier games in at the last minute. If FCE play against Valour in Winnipeg opening weekend, I expect you'll see Forge@FCE, Valour@FCE, FCE@Forge, Valour@Forge, and Forge@Valour in weeks 2 through 6, so they can get paperwork and logistics out of the way by end of May.

[C2SKI]

10 hours ago, Kent said:

I didn’t read what he wrote as a complaint that we are arguing, I read it as a complaint that the CSA messed it up so bad that we have to argue instead of just being absolutely stoked.

Exactly. I'm relieved people are talking about this, and I wish the media would take it up. I'm stoked we're getting the spot, and that we're expanding the voyageurs cup, but I just haven't found a way to get excited about something that is so contradictory to what sport and competition is supposed to be. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by C2SKI

[matty]

light observation but it seems canadian national team eligibility is not required to count as a domestic on a CPL roster. Justin Springer who is captied to St. Kitts and Nevis is listed as a domestic signing https://canpl.ca/article/rosters-canadian-premier-league-clubs-continue-filling-squads-as-pre-season-approaches

imo it's no big deal but found it interesting

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

It would be difficult in legal terms to treat someone born and raised in Canada as anything other than Canadian in employment status terms without leaving yourself wide open to legal action. It appears that having either citizenship, PR status and probably asylum related refugee status is enough to be treated as a domestic because that covers anyone who has the legal right to work in Canada without needing a work related visa.

Edited February 15, 2019 by BringBackTheBlizzard

[Keegan]

6 hours ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

It would be difficult in legal terms to treat someone born and raised in Canada as anything other than Canadian in employment status terms without leaving yourself wide open to legal action. It appears that having either citizenship, PR status and probably asylum related refugee status is enough to be treated as a domestic because that covers anyone who has the legal right to work in Canada without needing a work related visa.

For the hundredth time, on what basis BBTB?  I’ve directed you to the relevant legislation and you continually ignore it - that’s fine, but don’t peddle the same crap over and over. 

It’s just probably not worth it making first year 26 year old pros waste international slots in a new league.  The defectors this league is gonna get at this stage are guys who were never good enough for Canada anyhow. 

[StillOnFire]

9 hours ago, matty said:

light observation but it seems canadian national team eligibility is not required to count as a domestic on a CPL roster. Justin Springer who is captied to St. Kitts and Nevis is listed as a domestic signing https://canpl.ca/article/rosters-canadian-premier-league-clubs-continue-filling-squads-as-pre-season-approaches

imo it's no big deal but found it interesting

I struggle to see how Justin Springer could be counted as non-domestic, despite being capped by St Kitts and Nevis, he is born and raised in Canada. I would seriously be interested if anyone could give an example of a top tier league which uses eligibility to play for the national team as criteria for domestic status, rather than the fact they are considered a citizen or what not.

[MtlMario]

28 minutes ago, StillOnFire said:

I struggle to see how Justin Springer could be counted as non-domestic, despite being capped by St Kitts and Nevis, he is born and raised in Canada. I would seriously be interested if anyone could give an example of a top tier league which uses eligibility to play for the national team as criteria for domestic status, rather than the fact they are considered a citizen or what not.

What if all 23 players on the teams would have the same exact status as Springer? What happens then? How is that going to help the Canadian Men National Team? 

Edited February 15, 2019 by MtlMario

[BenFisk'sBiggestFan]

1 hour ago, Keegan said:

For the hundredth time, on what basis BBTB?  I’ve directed you to the relevant legislation and you continually ignore it - that’s fine, but don’t peddle the same crap over and over. 

It’s just probably not worth it making first year 26 year old pros waste international slots in a new league.  The defectors this league is gonna get at this stage are guys who were never good enough for Canada anyhow. 

Tomi Ameobi will be considered domestic once he gets his PR status. I don't know about the "legal" stuff, but it definitely sounds as if BBTB is right.

[C2SKI]

Victor Blasco is an international and he’s been in Canada for 6+ years I believe. Though I don’t know what his status is

[StillOnFire]

5 minutes ago, MtlMario said:

What if all 23 players on the teams would have the same exact status as Springer? What happens then? How is that going to help the Canadian Men Nation Team? 

?well, ok.... Can you give an example of a league where this happened in before? No?  Because it just wouldn't happen

[StillOnFire]

4 minutes ago, BenFisk'sBiggestFan said:

Tomi Ameobi will be considered domestic once he gets his PR status. I don't know about the "legal" stuff, but it definitely sounds as if BBTB is right.

Imagine, Tom Ameobi would be counted as domestic, yet a player born and raised in Canada wouldn't be. That would make sense.  

[dyslexic nam]

11 minutes ago, BenFisk'sBiggestFan said:

Tomi Ameobi will be considered domestic once he gets his PR status. I don't know about the "legal" stuff, but it definitely sounds as if BBTB is right.

Has he represented another country internationally?  If not, then there may be a fine distinction at play.

The core issue may not be that full CMNT eligibility is need to count as a domestic, but that CMNT ineligibility might preclude you from counting as a domestic.  Thus someone like Springer could be excluded on the basis of his commitment to St.K&N, whereas  Ameobi  could be considered a domestic via his PR status because he could, eventually get citizenship and still theoretically rep Canada.  

Just tossing it out as a possibility.  No idea what the actual CPL bylaws say on the matter.

[Shortdutchcanuck]

According to the CanPL website where it lists rosters (where players have either a globe or maple leaf next to their name), Justin Springer is listed as domestic and Ameobi as an import.  Blasco was originally listed as domestic but is now listed as an import.

Just out of curiosity, are their any countries out there with leagues where domestic status is tied to national team eligibility?  

[BenFisk'sBiggestFan]

4 minutes ago, Shortdutchcanuck said:

According to the CanPL website where it lists rosters (where players have either a globe or maple leaf next to their name), Justin Springer is listed as domestic and Ameobi as an import.  Blasco was originally listed as domestic but is now listed as an import.

Just out of curiosity, are their any countries out there with leagues where domestic status is tied to national team eligibility?  

Ameobi hasn't received his PR status yet. He is going to get it before the season though from the sounds of it.

[BenFisk'sBiggestFan]

5 minutes ago, Shortdutchcanuck said:

According to the CanPL website where it lists rosters (where players have either a globe or maple leaf next to their name), Justin Springer is listed as domestic and Ameobi as an import.  Blasco was originally listed as domestic but is now listed as an import.

Just out of curiosity, are their any countries out there with leagues where domestic status is tied to national team eligibility?  

Ameobi hasn't received his PR status yet. He is going to get it before the season though from the sounds of it.

[MtlMario]

18 minutes ago, StillOnFire said:

?well, ok.... Can you give an example of a league where this happened in before? No?  Because it just wouldn't happen

Just because it's probably not going to happen doesn't change the fact that if it did how does that help our National team? What if only half the team was in that situation? Wouldn't  the players that could be eligible for our team be off the team?  Just like if I buy a Loto Max ticket I'll be a millionaire. No. Because it just wouldn't happen. By Canadians For Canadians.

[RS]

4 hours ago, Keegan said:

For the hundredth time, on what basis BBTB?  I’ve directed you to the relevant legislation and you continually ignore it - that’s fine, but don’t peddle the same crap over and over. 

It’s just probably not worth it making first year 26 year old pros waste international slots in a new league.  The defectors this league is gonna get at this stage are guys who were never good enough for Canada anyhow. 

Probably on the basis that Springer is being counted as domestic, as will Amoebi when he gets his PR status.

I get that people here love to argue with BBTB on everything (I've gotten into it with him myself), but in this case the evidence is on his side, and mounting.

[Keegan]

7 minutes ago, RS said:

Probably on the basis that Springer is being counted as domestic, as will Amoebi when he gets his PR status.

I get that people here love to argue with BBTB on everything (I've gotten into it with him myself), but in this case the evidence is on his side, and mounting.

Really? I have to jump thread to thread lecturing you on how to read? ?

Challenging, I know.  Try again @RS.

On what basis would it be illegal to have players ineligible for CMNT count as non-domestic?  Not on what basis are they considered domestic, which quite clearly they are.