Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've mentioned it before, but the schedule can be compressed when the league has an even number of teams, as there is no need for byes. Playing every weekend of May through September gets you 22 match days. One midweek fixture a month basically gets you to the full slate of 28 league matches. I don't know that it solves the biggest problems but it doesn't hurt.

Share this post


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

Just out of curiosity, what kind of TV exposure did MLS have in the early days?

It was potty IIRC. I do remember that first MLS Cup final in the rain at Foxboro which means it must have been on an American Network at least for the final.

 

Share this post


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

I don't know.

I think people may be spoiled because you can watch every league match for all 3 Canadians MLS teams (I realize its hard to watch Impact outside Quebec though).

It's my understanding MLS didnt have a tv deal for its first 10 years. MLS people like to point at Beckham but my personal opinion is MLS was always on shaky ground until TFC, Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, Montreal came along. To me that was the game changer. 3 Canadian cities and 2 American cities that wish they were Canadian. My humble opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gopherbashi said:

That's a fair point, I could be mistaken.

Your not, Thomas is a good kid and is enthusiastically getting into fan based media now but not a solid source.

Share this post


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

It was potty IIRC. I do remember that first MLS Cup final in the rain at Foxboro which means it must have been on an American Network at least for the final.

I remember that game as well. I remember searching for MLS coverage/games for the first few weeks of the season and giving up. The only thing I saw was a single highlight/mention of the inaugural game on I believe it was CNN Headline News. In Canada I believe the MLS Cup final was the only game on TV. I assume there were games on TV in the USA, but I have also heard that in the early years MLS was paying to get TV coverage, rather than networks paying MLS. I don't think the details are known, perhaps it was just covering production costs, and I don't know for sure if that started right from year 1.

I hope that helps your original question @Gopherbashi

Share this post


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

It was potty IIRC. I do remember that first MLS Cup final in the rain at Foxboro which means it must have been on an American Network at least for the final.

 

I remember Garth Lagerwey's dreadlocks so something MLS must have been on TV!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Found on the google groups archive of rec.sport.soccer from 1996 regarding MLS TV coverage:

"they'll be all over the place.  ABC will show a few games - all-star and
championship final, for instance, and probably some mid-season NY-LA
match.  ESPN will show about 10 games (i think) - something like one every
other week.  ESPN2 will show more, a game of the week; finally, Univision
will broadcast some in spanish, but i don't know if they will be a
separate block of games or co-transmissions of ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 games."

So, not lacking in exposure even though it's a far cry from the coverage you get today. With ABC and ESPN they would be out there in terms of public exposure. I'm old enough to remember the start of MLS and I'm pretty sure it was higher profile back then compared to the equivalent exposure that the start of CPL has received in Canada this year, although it's not a fair comparison since MLS started across the country and did not lack the largest major markets. Still it was pretty niche, especially if you didn't live in one of the MLS cities.

You see some other posts complaining about the lack of promotion by the TV networks and MLS, so I guess some things aren't necessarily different!

Edited by PaulV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2019 at 10:22 PM, PaulV said:

I'm old enough to remember the start of MLS and I'm pretty sure it was higher profile back then compared to the equivalent exposure that the start of CPL has received in Canada this year, although it's not a fair comparison since MLS started across the country and did not lack the largest major markets. Still it was pretty niche, especially if you didn't live in one of the MLS cities.

And to add to that, it was sometime after the 1994 World Cup with a good performance from the USMNT.

CPL doesn't have that but I'm sure the season before 2026 and after will significantly boost the league

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the discussion, but if there were single-entity aspects to CanPL, that could be a reason why OSEG balked at having the Fury join the league if they lost a measure of independence.

As for playoffs, just before the Fury joined NASL, the playoff structure was just like it is for CanPL now. But in 2013, the Spring and Fall winners played the championship game, but the team with the most combined points was excluded. This lead the league to institute a 4 team playoff system with the Spring and Fall Champions hosting a play-in round against the two non-champion clubs with the highest combined season points. I would be fine with a playoff format like that. Note also that 2014 was the year the Fury joined NASL and the league expanded to 10 teams. (*sigh* Things looked so bright then...)

I'd be fine with a 10-team Division 1. 

So long as the 9th and 10th spots gets relegated to one of 2 or 3 regional Division 2 Conferences. :ph34r:

Edited by Initial B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Initial B said:

Late to the discussion, but if there were single-entity aspects to CanPL, that could be a reason why OSEG balked at having the Fury join the league if they lost a measure of independence.

As for playoffs, just before the Fury joined NASL, the playoff structure was just like it is for CanPL now. But in 2013, the Spring and Fall winners played the championship game, but the team with the most combined points was excluded. This lead the league to institute a 4 team playoff system with the Spring and Fall Champions hosting a play-in round against the two non-champion clubs with the highest combined season points. I would be fine with a playoff format like that. Note also that 2014 was the year the Fury joined NASL and the league expanded to 10 teams. (*sigh* Things looked so bright then...)

I'd be fine with a 10-team Division 1. 

So long as the 9th and 10th spots gets relegated to one of 2 or 3 regional Division 2 Conferences. :ph34r:

CPL is a club owned league following the more common international model mainly and not single entity like MLS so Fury would/will not lose independence. The only thing they will lose is the ability to be a minor league affiliate for an MLS team as they are now since CPL as a D1 league doesn't allow for minor league affiliates or reserve teams in their league. They will gain a revenue stream from CSB however, and over the years that will likely grow.

As for playoffs, I expect CPL will go the 4 team route for next year, keeping most clubs in the race during the regular Spring and Fall seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, CDNFootballer said:

CPL is a club owned league following the more common international model mainly and not single entity like MLS so Fury would/will not lose independence. The only thing they will lose is the ability to be a minor league affiliate for an MLS team as they are now since CPL as a D1 league doesn't allow for minor league affiliates or reserve teams in their league. They will gain a revenue stream from CSB however, and over the years that will likely grow.

As for playoffs, I expect CPL will go the 4 team route for next year, keeping most clubs in the race during the regular Spring and Fall seasons.

If Ottawa are a "affiliate" its only in the loosest terms.  What do they have 3 guys from Ottawa and 3 from TFC?  Just to do a little comparing, some league one teams just off the top of my head, Ipswitch has 3 loanees, Blackpool 4, Bolton 4, Gillingham 5.  Its a little harsh on Ottawa and there would be nothing wrong with CPL teams all having several loanees, I dont think it diminshes the league at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bison44 said:

If Ottawa are a "affiliate" its only in the loosest terms.  What do they have 3 guys from Ottawa and 3 from TFC?  Just to do a little comparing, some league one teams just off the top of my head, Ipswitch has 3 loanees, Blackpool 4, Bolton 4, Gillingham 5.  Its a little harsh on Ottawa and there would be nothing wrong with CPL teams all having several loanees, I dont think it diminshes the league at all.  

None of the teams you mention are D1 (i.e. Premier League) teams. And if you really did that off the top of your head and it is accurate, kudos!

The loan process is a siren song for smaller clubs. They effectively develop players for the bigger lending clubs but do not get the transfer fee reward they used to get. This allows the bigger clubs to hog all the talent and significantly reduces revenue for the smaller clubs.

I wish that CPL would outlaw loans so that the players who benefit from playing in CPL will give something back to CPL (in the form of a transfer fee) when they move up (yes, they can play out their contract and move for nothing but nobody will want to wait when a bigger team comes calling). Welshman is a good example; Forge deserved a fee for the opportunity they gave him and have been just fine without him: the point being that the "loan" was not needed and they could have stood their ground on insisting on a transfer before they played him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams were random, loans i looked up.  I looked up a lower league, because we are the lower league.  My point was big teams loan to smaller teams.  There are some loans in EPL, but not many, because what teams are bigger than they are eh?  I pulled up the Jupiter league, damn near every team had a few loans on the roster.  I tried Series A...Roma had 6 on their roster... same with  Bunda and MLS, .....etc etc.  It wont hurt our league, and I cant see why it would be a stumbling block to keep Ottawa from joining.  

Share this post


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

None of the teams you mention are D1 (i.e. Premier League) teams. And if you really did that off the top of your head and it is accurate, kudos!

The loan process is a siren song for smaller clubs. They effectively develop players for the bigger lending clubs but do not get the transfer fee reward they used to get. This allows the bigger clubs to hog all the talent and significantly reduces revenue for the smaller clubs.

I wish that CPL would outlaw loans so that the players who benefit from playing in CPL will give something back to CPL (in the form of a transfer fee) when they move up (yes, they can play out their contract and move for nothing but nobody will want to wait when a bigger team comes calling). Welshman is a good example; Forge deserved a fee for the opportunity they gave him and have been just fine without him: the point being that the "loan" was not needed and they could have stood their ground on insisting on a transfer before they played him.

Christ, Bayern take players on loan all the time. It’s a great strategy to acquire talent and save on transfer fees. You can always negotiate an option to buy into the agreement too. Teams just need to be smarter  about it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bison44 said:

 

If Ottawa are a "affiliate" its only in the loosest terms.  What do they have 3 guys from Ottawa and 3 from TFC?  Just to do a little comparing, some league one teams just off the top of my head, Ipswitch has 3 loanees, Blackpool 4, Bolton 4, Gillingham 5.  Its a little harsh on Ottawa and there would be nothing wrong with CPL teams all having several loanees, I dont think it diminshes the league at all.  

I understand your point but they are an official MLS minor league affiliate no matter the amount of players the parent MLS club has provided. The MLS/USL minor league affiliate agreement provides for up to 8 players provided from the parent MLS franchise.

CPL is ok with loans from the american MLS as there have been a few, just not multiple loans from the same MLS club as it gives the impression that they are a minor league affiliate, and CPL as Canada's D1 does not want that impression given in any way for any of its clubs.

This is the correct decision, and there has been talk of CPL not allowing more than 2 loans I think, from the same MLS franchise, to prohibit the impression of any minor league affiliates or reserve teams  in the Canadian Premier League. 

Share this post


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

I understand your point but they are an official MLS minor league affiliate no matter the amount of players the parent MLS club has provided. The MLS/USL minor league affiliate agreement provides for up to 8 players provided from the parent MLS franchise.

CPL is ok with loans from the american MLS as there have been a few, just not multiple loans from the same MLS club as it gives the impression that they are a minor league affiliate, and CPL as Canada's D1 does not want that impression given in any way for any of its clubs.

This is the correct decision, and there has been talk of CPL not allowing more than 2 loans I think, from the same MLS franchise, to prohibit the impression of any minor league affiliates or reserve teams  in the Canadian Premier League. 

You are making my point for me..if they are only getting 1-2 players, why continue with any official affiliation agreement??  TMG and Daniels are the only ones who play and would be missed.  Ottawas independence or lack there off effecting its decison on which league to play in shouldnt be swayed by such weak affiliation.  If they had an official deal with montreal and had 6-7 players that were more integral to the team..sure they dont want to lose that.  But if we are talking about TMG and Daniels (one from each club) I dont see why they couldnt scrap the "official" agreement and just pick up the one guy, unofficially.   Just like Welshman, Telfer Smith etc were picked up and it didnt bother CPL at all.  Easy peasy, one less thing to fret about so lets all have a group hug.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

You are making my point for me..if they are only getting 1-2 players, why continue with any official affiliation agreement??  TMG and Daniels are the only ones who play and would be missed.  Ottawas independence or lack there off effecting its decison on which league to play in shouldnt be swayed by such weak affiliation.  If they had an official deal with montreal and had 6-7 players that were more integral to the team..sure they dont want to lose that.  But if we are talking about TMG and Daniels (one from each club) I dont see why they couldnt scrap the "official" agreement and just pick up the one guy, unofficially.   Just like Welshman, Telfer Smith etc were picked up and it didnt bother CPL at all.  Easy peasy, one less thing to fret about so lets all have a group hug.  

I agree, Fury can and will need to drop the official agreement and abide by the CPL rules on loans and still can get a player or two.

If they want to remain a minor league affiliate and get more players than CPL rules would allow from Montreal and Toronto as well that are payed by the MLS franchises then stay in USL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bison44 said:

You are making my point for me..if they are only getting 1-2 players, why continue with any official affiliation agreement??  TMG and Daniels are the only ones who play and would be missed.  Ottawas independence or lack there off effecting its decison on which league to play in shouldnt be swayed by such weak affiliation.  If they had an official deal with montreal and had 6-7 players that were more integral to the team..sure they dont want to lose that.  But if we are talking about TMG and Daniels (one from each club) I dont see why they couldnt scrap the "official" agreement and just pick up the one guy, unofficially.   Just like Welshman, Telfer Smith etc were picked up and it didnt bother CPL at all.  Easy peasy, one less thing to fret about so lets all have a group hug.  

Isn’t there an MLS league rule that every team needs a reserve team in USL or at least an affiliate in USL? Maybe despite the seeming ineffectiveness of the affiliate agreement they are getting some other payments from Montreal. Purely speculation of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know what this "affiliate" agreement the Fury has with the Impact actually means.  When it was first announced last year, I was really not happy because I thought that the team would become Impact B.  But two years later,  I cannot tell anyone how the affiliation has had any effect on the player movements for the Fury.  So yeah on paper there is an affiliation.  But I have no idea what "impact" its had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kent: I am pretty sure every team has some sort of official "affiliate" either in USL champ or USL-1.  When you look it up though it really varies, some teams have only a few loanees, and some are completely loaded with loans and academy kids.  Plus plenty of them have players on loan from multiple teams not just the parent club.  As per usual MLS, it all seems murky and confusing.  

Share this post


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

I'd like to know what this "affiliate" agreement the Fury has with the Impact actually means.  When it was first announced last year, I was really not happy because I thought that the team would become Impact B.  But two years later,  I cannot tell anyone how the affiliation has had any effect on the player movements for the Fury.  So yeah on paper there is an affiliation.  But I have no idea what "impact" its had.

It means the Impact can send up to 8 players to the Fury as per the agreement, and apparently Montreal pays the players so the Fury gets a break on salaries but they lose some independence on the roster as the players aren't sent down to Ottawa to ride the bench.

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...