Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

End of conversation. Learn some manners if you want to get a reply.

If that shuts you up

You're truly acting in bad faith....

You're truly acting in bad faith....

You're truly acting in bad faith....

You're truly acting in bad faith....

You're truly acting in bad faith....

You're truly acting in bad faith....

You're truly acting in bad faith....

Share this post


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

I'm not one of those to have a beef with you but on this one, I'll call you out and say you're being a bit petty.  Last time I checked Mexico & Argentina were in FIFA and they have an apertura and clausura.  I think it's okay to discuss the merits of no playoffs and a split season, but this has been season one and this is the North American market.  Discuss that instead and not the source of the discussion.

Nope. Argentina is a single home and away league. It used to have an Apertura and Clausura, but River Plate's relegation changed things a lot. 

Share this post


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

6. Play-offs are effectively "cup football". So have a knock out competition IN ADDITION to the league and you get the best of both worlds! Crown your league champions based on points and ALSO have a Cup Final to end the season. Two trophies would be GOOD!

I agree. The A-League has this and I think the MLS does as well.

Share this post


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

Nope. Argentina is a single home and away league. It used to have an Apertura and Clausura, but River Plate's relegation changed things a lot. 

Thanks.  I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

 

Further clarification on this came farther in the thread:

There will still be 7 international roster spots, but max 2 of them can be filled by players over 27.

Best I can figure, they're aiming to be able to sell-on, and it's harder to sell-on older players. Galan is right pissed about it:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another source another spin:

I suspect that's probably wrong as it seems a bit too extreme but given how lacklustre many of the imports have been, it probably wouldn't be all that damaging to the level of play.

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Older players inflates salaries with no guarantees you're getting what you paid for a league like CPL. It's not like we're getting Silva or Giroud here anytime soon so paying guys like Paolucci and Galan (a good chunk) and it doesn't do much can be seen as a problem.

On that logic, I kind of get it

Share this post


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

CPL cannot afford foreign players in their prime.

All of Pacific’s internationals would be considered in, or near, their primes and they’ve all been very important players. I certainly wouldn’t say they’ve hurt the quality of the team or hindered the development of young Canadian players. A couple more like them would have been a benefit this season

Edited by Aird25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes more sense to have 7 International spots and allow only 2 to be under 25. having the older players help to mentor the young Canadians. having young foreigners doesn't.  I don't support this potential new rule,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quality of the league was for most either pleasantly surprising or what was expected- very good.  Most of the best players were Canadian and some of them were largely unknown. At this point we should limit the number of international players and give our boys a place to play.  As more professional players come home from abroad the quality of the league will not suffer.  Keep the CPL as Canadian as possible. The quality will not suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rant Alert;

Is it that CPL wants to be its own worst enemy?

Keep-it-simple-stupid.

Who the fu'k cares how team X, Y or Z spends their international allotment?  I mean aside from supporters of teams X, Y, or Z.  If they want to gamble on youth let them gamble on youth.  If they want to shore up their youth with older players let them shore up their youth with older players.  Let them compete as they see fit in what ever fashion they see fit and live with the consiquences of that decision.  Big Brother creating a nanny state is the last thing we need.

If I felt I needed to watch a league with six thousand rules as to what constitutes this type of player or that type of player under what circumstances when the moon is waning into Scorpio in August I'd go back to watching MLS.  Which I did for about 40 minutes today until my head hurt from watching  through the "foul-ball" netting and had to switch off.

Bugger me.  Someone is looking for a solution to a problem they dont' have.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jonovision said:

Hilarious that some opponents seem to think Valour had been gaming the system, unless "others" here is referring to other Valour players.

So we are banning teams from building how Valour, Edmonton, and HFX built their teams? The three worst teams in the fall season. Seems to me they might just have changed course anyways. I don’t like this rule. The tinkering sets a bad precedent and is how MLS made me not understand their rules.

DP rule, OK I get that. Allocation money? Um, I sorta get that. Young DP, TAM, Generation Adidas. Sorry MLS, I don’t get it anymore. Why don’t you go ahead and mandate all teams play the same formation while you are at it, and limit substitutions to one forward, one midfielder, and one defender, only like for like of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rintaran said:

Further clarification on this came farther in the thread:

 

 

Best I can figure, they're aiming to be able to sell-on, and it's harder to sell-on older players. Galan is right pissed about it:

 

 

So ridiculous on Galan’s part. 
 

I get it.  The simple reason is this: we are 7 years out from 2026, why not maximize naturalization opportunities?  That’s the angle I see here, otherwise it makes little sense to talk about age. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it one big looming concern should be an 86ers style domination of a precariously small league. I don't see anyone talking about it, but if Calgary and  (to an obviously lesser extent) Hamilton run away with things again next year, the league will have a bigger problem on their hands than thirty-something Caribbean players or washed up former European pros. 

Nobody will pay much to watch perennial CPL doormats. Picking on the doormats for their (albeit fruitless) efforts to remain competitive in the eyes of their already limited fanbase seems shortsighted from where I am sitting.

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...