Jump to content

CPL General


Recommended Posts

Any head start advantage Calgary or Hamilton got this year, will be gone next.  And if we are to believe the rumor mill and guys like Borges, Zator, Carducci etc might move on, that will even things out a bit too.   Hell, even the coaches that stand out might move on....way too early to worry about dynasties and perennial doormats.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, nolando said:

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.

The 86ers scenario and the sheer tedium it helped create in the western conference will always loom large for anyone old enough to remember the original CSL. I think this proposed rule change and the possibility of an entry draft for imports described in the tweet I posted above may be the league's way to try to ensure a reasonable level of parity in a vaguely MLS sort of way.

The main problem they have on parity is that if there is a local player component to how rosters are put together some markets are likely to be inherently stronger than others. Imports were the obvious way to alleviate that, but it didn't work out well for Halifax and Winnipeg this season. When this info is taken together with the latest David Clanachan interview it looks to me like they see engineering greater parity as the key to a more interesting season rather than changing their playoff format.

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bison44 said:

Rumors of a proposal being discussed as quoted by Rollins, hmmmmmm....they are probably following this thread and will listen to us fans.  

That’s what I assume. They’re just testing the waters with these ‘leaks’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 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:

 

 

This is not true
Anelka wasnt able to sign in Algeria because he was over 27:
https://www.sudouest.fr/2015/01/12/football-nicolas-anelka-ne-pourra-pas-jouer-en-algerie-1794481-766.php

Quote

"Les lois relatives aux joueurs étrangers couvrant le droit d’évoluer dans le championnat algérien sont clairs: seuls ceux âgés de moins de 27 ans et internationaux au sein des sélections de leurs pays sont autorisés à signer dans nos clubs", a déclaré Mahfoud Kerbadj, cité par l’agence l’APS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mtlsab said:

This is not true
Anelka wasnt able to sign in Algeria because he was over 27:
https://www.sudouest.fr/2015/01/12/football-nicolas-anelka-ne-pourra-pas-jouer-en-algerie-1794481-766.php

How is it not true? He said he had never heard or seen anything like that.

He probably has never heard of the rules in the Algerian league, I certainly haven't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am OK with the rule about playing time for young Canadians (although at the moment I forget if that is just for Canadians or young players regardless of nationality) because there is a clear goal that it should help. Developing Canadian players.

What is this rule supposed to do? Develop foreign players? I didn’t realize that was a priority for the league. I can’t come up with any other rationale. The closest I have seen is the suggestion that someone made that it could help with naturalization. I don’t think it’s worth a rule to try to increase nationalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be that the league doesn't want to have older foreign players since they have short careers, while younger foreigners can become stars in the league and sold for a substantial transfer fee.

Nationalization is the best case scenario, but I doubt it will happen unless one of the three Canadian MLS team's decide to pay a transfer fee, and the foreigner stays in Canada a significant time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian immigration system isn't really designed in a way that makes it easy for foreign players on a relatively low salary to get PR status, because soccer is not one of the in demand skills the points system is geared towards. The US green card system is more generous where people in various forms of entertainment industry are concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kent said:

... I don’t think it’s worth a rule to try to increase nationalization.

All I can come up with is that maybe they are expecting to be able to attract loan signings from clubs overseas (doubt it would be MLS due to the optics)? If they went down that route, when combined with the thinning out of experienced imports, it would probably mainly be about cost cutting and/or a shifting of cap resources towards more experienced Canadians, if the Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg rosters were viewed as being unacceptably thin in that regard with imports being signed with career trajectories that look like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Mitter

not inspiring confidence in the overall quality of the league.

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am missing something, but couldn't the rule simply be about signing players with some sell-on value, rather than being seen as a dead end league where you come to finish a career?  So no aging veterans who can't play anywhere else and just come here to collect a few final paychecks.  Refocus on having a strong developmental aspect, which would help clubs financially if they are able to move a few international players on to larger clubs.  This would also seem to set them up to engage in paid player transfers in both directions (buying and selling) - whereas it is a losing game financially to only have money going out the door to pay for incoming veteran players (who then retire).

Given the rumoured salary levels, its not like we are picking up DP-type retirees.  The guys at the end of their career who would be coming here wouldn't be a major draw to the league and would generally be on the decline.  If there isn't a Canadianna "victory lap" aspect to this type of player, I have no issue with it.  Better that the league focus on upcoming Canadians, mid-career and veteran Canadians who have limited options in other leagues, and internationals who are not yet on the decline and thus have some upside.

Like I said though, maybe I mam missing something.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

All I can come up with is that maybe they are expecting to be able to attract loan signings from clubs overseas (doubt it would be MLS due to the optics)? If they went down that route, when combined with the thinning out of experienced imports, it would probably mainly be about cost cutting and/or a shifting of cap resources towards more experienced Canadians, if the Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg rosters were viewed as being unacceptably thin in that regard with imports being signed with career trajectories that look like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Mitter

not inspiring confidence in the overall quality of the league.

I think you're bang on with this assessment. 

It all comes down to money.  Selling players off is definitely part of the business model of the league.  Older players cost more on the cap and there is close to zero chance of selling them off.   

I think it would be better for the league to add incentives to influence clubs in the kind of internationals they sign rather than this pretty drastic rule change.  Like any league, teams will try to copy what was successful for others.  Guess what, I don't think Valour, HFX & FCE were thrilled with the results their squads produced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, narduch said:

How much can you really sell players for if you are essentially only giving out 1 year contracts?

I wouldn't assume that how things were in year 1 (e.g. one year contracts) are the way they will be going forward.  If they do want to be a selling league - and this would seem to be a solid source of potential revenue - they will need to move into multi year contracts fairly quickly.  Probably safe to assume that the current year arrangements were put in place just to get things off the ground and that the contract mechanisms will evolve as the league matures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Maybe I am missing something, but couldn't the rule simply be about signing players with some sell-on value, rather than being seen as a dead end league where you come to finish a career?  So no aging veterans who can't play anywhere else and just come here to collect a few final paychecks.  Refocus on having a strong developmental aspect, which would help clubs financially if they are able to move a few international players on to larger clubs.  This would also seem to set them up to engage in paid player transfers in both directions (buying and selling) - whereas it is a losing game financially to only have money going out the door to pay for incoming veteran players (who then retire).

Given the rumoured salary levels, its not like we are picking up DP-type retirees.  The guys at the end of their career who would be coming here wouldn't be a major draw to the league and would generally be on the decline.  If there isn't a Canadianna "victory lap" aspect to this type of player, I have no issue with it.  Better that the league focus on upcoming Canadians, mid-career and veteran Canadians who have limited options in other leagues, and internationals who are not yet on the decline and thus have some upside.

Like I said though, maybe I mam missing something.    

I understand the reasoning. I just think it should be up to the individual teams how they want to approach it. This is a path that leads to GAM, TAM and other ridiculous MLS mechanisms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to add, since Valour's age heavy signings have been mentioned in a negative light I'd happily argue both Paolucci and especially Galan were/are more than useful signings.

Would also like to mention both these men aren't getting rich off of CPL and I expect are looking ahead to where their post playing careers will take them.

This league isn't just about player development, it's about building footballing infrastructure, buildings, coaches, officials, & media.  Winnipeg will be well served by both these men if they can transition into non-playing football careers. 

Can't believe they wouldn't have a ton to offer Canadian footie after they hang up the boots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

This league isn't just about player development, it's about building footballing infrastructure, buildings, coaches, officials, & media.  Winnipeg will be well served by both these men if they can transition into non-playing football careers

Agreed. They’re Canadian, but I’m pretty sure Issey and De Jong said that they plan to start up training camps or something on the island. With Pacifics new training facilities opening up I can see them sticking around the club after they retire 

Edited by Aird25
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...