CPL General

[Kingston]

32 minutes ago, phil03 said:

So, just a random idea I had: one thing that I feel everyone can agree on is that a key part of the CPL mandate is to develop young players. As a result, I think there might be merits in giving clubs league-based incentives, so that it isn't just the cash and the prestige, as important as those might, to transfer upward to some of their players.

Just on the top of my head I had two ideas:

I. Something like the General Allocation Money in MLS but purely based on transfers and with a provision that teams can keep it for as long as they like before using it, so that its essentially an investment for the future, when the league's financial footing would be solid enough that more clubs can easily afford to spend to the salary cap and might be interesting in some leaways to keep going...

II. Setting asside a descent portion of the CSB deal money each year, to be distributed to clubs based on how successful they have been in getting their players upward transfers the previous year.

Thoughts?

I think this addresses a problem we don't really have - the CPL clubs are already quite good at advancing their young players.

[phil03]

5 minutes ago, Kingston said:

I think this addresses a problem we don't really have - the CPL clubs are already quite good at advancing their young players.

Are all of them good at it to the same degree though? As has been noted a few times Forge hasn't really managed to get anyone on the next level as well as well as prepare them to stay there and more broadly I'd argue Cavalry and Pacific have been the biggest contributers in term of upward transfers.

I would agree with you that the league has a whole has done well in that sense but their is always space for improvement.

Edited December 6, 2023 by phil03

[Cheeta]

3 hours ago, phil03 said:

So, just a random idea I had: one thing that I feel everyone can agree on is that a key part of the CPL mandate is to develop young players. As a result, I think there might be merits in giving clubs league-based incentives, so that it isn't just the cash and the prestige, as important as those might, to transfer upward to some of their players.

Just on the top of my head I had two ideas:

I. Something like the General Allocation Money in MLS but purely based on transfers and with a provision that teams can keep it for as long as they like before using it, so that its essentially an investment for the future, when the league's financial footing would be solid enough that more clubs can easily afford to spend to the salary cap and might be interesting in some leaways to keep going...

II. Setting asside a descent portion of the CSB deal money each year, to be distributed to clubs based on how successful they have been in getting their players upward transfers the previous year.

Thoughts?

No.

[Kent]

5 hours ago, phil03 said:

So, just a random idea I had: one thing that I feel everyone can agree on is that a key part of the CPL mandate is to develop young players. As a result, I think there might be merits in giving clubs league-based incentives, so that it isn't just the cash and the prestige, as important as those might, to transfer upward to some of their players.

Just on the top of my head I had two ideas:

I. Something like the General Allocation Money in MLS but purely based on transfers and with a provision that teams can keep it for as long as they like before using it, so that its essentially an investment for the future, when the league's financial footing would be solid enough that more clubs can easily afford to spend to the salary cap and might be interesting in some leaways to keep going...

II. Setting asside a descent portion of the CSB deal money each year, to be distributed to clubs based on how successful they have been in getting their players upward transfers the previous year.

Thoughts?

I have one question (with lots of follow up questions) and one statement regarding the GAM suggestion.

The question is, how would this work?

Like, say a team sells a player for 200k, and let's say the salary cap is 1 million dollars. That team now has an extra 200k in their bank account to use as they see fit, whether that is to minimize operational losses, or sign another player, or go towards improvements in their stadium, or helping to run an academy system, whatever. And they can still spend as much as 1 million on their team salary. Are you suggesting that in addition to the money that they got from the non-CPL team, the league now gives them another 200k of real dollars and they are allowed to have 1.2 million cap space for the following year? If they get real money from the league, where does that money come from? Wouldn't it be better served on keeping teams afloat or marketing, or upgrading stadiums? Or do they just get an extra 200k of cap space that year but no real dollars from the league, so they have the ability to invest it all in the team salary? If they have that additional cap space that season, what happens in the following years? Do they keep that extra 200k of space forever, even as the cap is raised? Or does it disappear the next season or the following years? If you are signing players to multiple year contracts and actually using up your extra cap space, would you have to dump a sixth of your players to comply with the cap the following year?

And here is my statement about the GAM idea. Please god no. The league is already a bit too MLS-ish with their salary rules, I don't want them to go down the rabbit hole like MLS did as well.

The transfer fee is enough of a motivation, especially for teams that need the money. If some teams, like Forge, are able to hold onto their players to up the level of play in the league and be a good ambassador for the league in inter-league play, then that's great too. It's OK (ideal even) for different teams to have different philosophies. Again, a thing I don't like about MLS is that they try to bake into the roster rules one specific way to build a roster instead of letting teams get creative and perhaps finding better ways to do it.

[shermanator]

Or they could just....raise the salaries of every player in the league. Make it viable to be a pro at this level and attract better quality talent....

Edited December 7, 2023 by shermanator

[phil03]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

I have one question (with lots of follow up questions) and one statement regarding the GAM suggestion.

The question is, how would this work?

Like, say a team sells a player for 200k, and let's say the salary cap is 1 million dollars. That team now has an extra 200k in their bank account to use as they see fit, whether that is to minimize operational losses, or sign another player, or go towards improvements in their stadium, or helping to run an academy system, whatever. And they can still spend as much as 1 million on their team salary. Are you suggesting that in addition to the money that they got from the non-CPL team, the league now gives them another 200k of real dollars and they are allowed to have 1.2 million cap space for the following year? If they get real money from the league, where does that money come from? Wouldn't it be better served on keeping teams afloat or marketing, or upgrading stadiums? Or do they just get an extra 200k of cap space that year but no real dollars from the league, so they have the ability to invest it all in the team salary? If they have that additional cap space that season, what happens in the following years? Do they keep that extra 200k of space forever, even as the cap is raised? Or does it disappear the next season or the following years? If you are signing players to multiple year contracts and actually using up your extra cap space, would you have to dump a sixth of your players to comply with the cap the following year?

And here is my statement about the GAM idea. Please god no. The league is already a bit too MLS-ish with their salary rules, I don't want them to go down the rabbit hole like MLS did as well.

The transfer fee is enough of a motivation, especially for teams that need the money. If some teams, like Forge, are able to hold onto their players to up the level of play in the league and be a good ambassador for the league in inter-league play, then that's great too. It's OK (ideal even) for different teams to have different philosophies. Again, a thing I don't like about MLS is that they try to bake into the roster rules one specific way to build a roster instead of letting teams get creative and perhaps finding better ways to do it.

My train of thought is that if the league was that if the CSB deal was to be worth 16 million for a year, say, two millions could be set asside and divided based on what upward transfers a club can get for their players. The GAM idea (salary cap one) is separate from it.

On your objection, I get where you are coming from but I respectfully disagree on both the current salary rules and teams having different models. IMO a salary cap is needed because that's just what is needed for a young league to provide itself with some fiscal discipline and push toward the degree of parity that is needed to build fan interest in our sporting culture. On having different models, the reason the MLS did is that it was created as a development league. It was, and to a degree still is, its core mission and its what justified putting revenues of US national programs toward its development. The CPL is also a development league, its also in its core statement and it is also what justifies putting revenues of Canada national programs toward its development. IMO it would be perfectly fair to put rules inciting clubs to do more to fulfill said core mission. 

[phil03]

55 minutes ago, shermanator said:

Or they could just....raise the salaries of every player in the league. Make it viable to be a pro at this level and attract better quality talent....

If you can think of a way to find the money to do it in the short term without forcing the rest of Canada's Soccer scene to sacrifice even more to develop the league then its already doing then I would be most interested in hearing it.

At the end of the day the way to do that is to build the league's fanbase so that it has enough organic revenue to give its players higher pay and that's a work in progress.

Edited December 7, 2023 by phil03

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that the ownership of at least 3 out of the 8 CanPL clubs (Pacific, Vancouver, Valour) are on record with public statements and/or have shown by some of their actions that they are not keen on running on a higher budget in a speculate to accumulate sort of way if that translates to larger annual losses for them.

[Kent]

8 hours ago, phil03 said:

My train of thought is that if the league was that if the CSB deal was to be worth 16 million for a year, say, two millions could be set asside and divided based on what upward transfers a club can get for their players. The GAM idea (salary cap one) is separate from it.

On your objection, I get where you are coming from but I respectfully disagree on both the current salary rules and teams having different models. IMO a salary cap is needed because that's just what is needed for a young league to provide itself with some fiscal discipline and push toward the degree of parity that is needed to build fan interest in our sporting culture. On having different models, the reason the MLS did is that it was created as a development league. It was, and to a degree still is, its core mission and its what justified putting revenues of US national programs toward its development. The CPL is also a development league, its also in its core statement and it is also what justifies putting revenues of Canada national programs toward its development. IMO it would be perfectly fair to put rules inciting clubs to do more to fulfill said core mission. 

I'm not strictly against a salary cap for CPL (although I think MLS has made such a mockery of the salary cap, and they are in a healthy enough spot, that they should just get rid of it altogether) my objection is to the additional rules that try to force team's hands. The DP rule for example encourages teams to spend top dollar on offensive weapons and ignore development of young domestic players in those positions, then you've got things like young DP rules that similarly give motivation to teams to find a young foreign player, TAM rules which try to get someone a bit better than a good quality MLS player, but not as good as a DP. Like if a team is allowed to spend $50 million on salaries, why not just let them decide the best way to do that for themselves? Maybe they would rather have 11 starters make 3.5 million each and another 12 players making a solid million dollars. That could be the best team in MLS history and have amazing depth, but instead you've gotta give like 40 million of that to 3 guys and blah blah blah.

P.S. Where are you getting $16 million from? Are you talking about all the money from sponsors and OneSoccer?

[Aird25]

The team that wins the most retains their players, so you want to further incentivize shipping players off? I don't understand how the concept will benefit the league, let alone the practicalities. I don't think we need to reinvent the economics of this sport either. They're pretty well established

Edited December 7, 2023 by Aird25

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, Aird25 said:

The team that wins the most retains their players, so you want to further incentivize shipping players off? I don't understand how the concept will benefit the league, let alone the practicalities. I don't think we need to reinvent the economics of this sport either. They're pretty well established

I think this is a discussion on the purpose of the league. I think it's to develop players and move them on to a higher level, not to retain them. So a team could be successful in one category (winning trophies) but a failure for what the league as a whole is designed for (advancing players).

[Bison44]

Isnt a good part of the league to provide a good product for the CDN fans and have healthy successful clubs across the country?  These clubs will help push soccer forward ie jobs for players good enough, and pathways to elsewhere for those that are worthy. Nurturing domestic fans, developing infrastructure, professionals in all aspects of the game and real brick and mortar facilities?  If there isnt good soccer and good players in the league and exciting CPL games, the rest will all fall by the wayside. 

Not every team is going to prioritize signing kids and moving them on.  Bringing in vets, recycling MLS academy players or 23 year old NCAA cast offs is going to be part of the plan too.  We already have the youth min threshold that has to be reached, we dont need to get all gimicky "mls" over this.   Players will naturally grow beyond our league and move on...I dont think we need to try and force that.  I agree with bringing up the  total cap or minimum though.  We prob will never have the economics to match other leagues, but tacking another 100k on the cap will let everyone bring in a bit better talent, if some chose not to and stagnate at the bottom of the league...well thats up to them.    

[SpursFlu]

24 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Isnt a good part of the league to provide a good product for the CDN fans and have healthy successful clubs across the country?  These clubs will help push soccer forward ie jobs for players good enough, and pathways to elsewhere for those that are worthy. Nurturing domestic fans, developing infrastructure, professionals in all aspects of the game and real brick and mortar facilities?  If there isnt good soccer and good players in the league and exciting CPL games, the rest will all fall by the wayside. 

Not every team is going to prioritize signing kids and moving them on.  Bringing in vets, recycling MLS academy players or 23 year old NCAA cast offs is going to be part of the plan too.  We already have the youth min threshold that has to be reached, we dont need to get all gimicky "mls" over this.   Players will naturally grow beyond our league and move on...I dont think we need to try and force that.  I agree with bringing up the  total cap or minimum though.  We prob will never have the economics to match other leagues, but tacking another 100k on the cap will let everyone bring in a bit better talent, if some chose not to and stagnate at the bottom of the league...well thats up to them.    

Let's not forget Concacaf Champions League. The best marketing campaign, that happens to be free of charge, is to win some games and create an exciting environment in the Concacaf Champions League. 100k extra salary cap is almost in line with the increased revenue that was reported in 2024

Based on the modest place the league is in, what would a home game for Forge v Club America or Cavalry v LAFC mean to the bottom line? What would 2 rds mean? It's a big opportunity to make $$$$ and gain credibility. Credibility is the #1 thing the CPL needs at the moment. #1A is money. Champions league is a ticket to both things

Edited December 7, 2023 by SpursFlu

[Aird25]

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

I think this is a discussion on the purpose of the league. I think it's to develop players and move them on to a higher level, not to retain them. So a team could be successful in one category (winning trophies) but a failure for what the league as a whole is designed for (advancing players).

That may be a byproduct of competing in a global game, but I'm not sure I agree that the purpose of the league is to move players to other leagues. It's fantastic Algamdi is playing overseas against top players now, but that's not why I go to the stadium to support Pacific. I go because I like watching soccer and supporting my local team, but it's more fun when they are better and competing in bigger competitions. Ideally the league continues to grow and becomes a top footballing destination

[shermanator]

The purpose of the CPL is to give additional opportunities for Canadian players to play professional soccer. Whether that be a career solely within CPL or Canada, or via CPL and then moves to other / better leagues. 

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Aird25 said:

That may be a byproduct of competing in a global game, but I'm not sure I agree that the purpose of the league is to move players to other leagues. It's fantastic Algamdi is playing overseas against top players now, but that's not why I go to the stadium to support Pacific. I go because I like watching soccer and supporting my local team, but it's more fun when they are better and competing in bigger competitions. Ideally the league continues to grow and becomes a top footballing destination

Yes, as a fan that should be what you want - to go and support your local side and hope they win while having some fun. But as a league, if they're not moving players up to higher leagues then I think that's a problem.  And I don't ever see it becoming a top footballing destination.

Edit:

1) I was thinking of this in the context that if a club won a lot but wasn't moving players on to a higher league, is this a good thing.  I don't think it is.

2) I think the biggest mistake MLS made about a decade ago was trying to recall their best players from Europe (Bradley, Altidore, etc) and "build up MLS".  I think it set the national team program back.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Watchmen

[Kent]

2 hours ago, Bison44 said:

Isnt a good part of the league to provide a good product for the CDN fans and have healthy successful clubs across the country?

I really wish the league would start talking like this. For a little while now (maybe a year) I have started thinking maybe they need to stop promoting the league as an audition for players to go to good leagues, and instead say the league is for the fans.

[Rocket Robin]

All the audio (31 minutes) from December 7, 2023 CPL press conference introducing the new owners of York United FC. The Pasquel brothers from Mexico take over immediately.  They answered questions of their plans for the team etc. 

December 7, 2023...Press Conference to introduce new owners of York United FC (recorded by Rocket Robin) (rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com)

[Aird25]

On 12/7/2023 at 1:57 AM, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that the ownership of at least 3 out of the 8 CanPL clubs (Pacific, Vancouver, Valour) are on record with public statements and/or have shown by some of their actions that they are not keen on running on a higher budget in a speculate to accumulate sort of way if that translates to larger annual losses for them.

Wasn't the salary cap raised last season? Also, Pacific and Vancouver's ownership just doubled their investment in the league by starting the second team. What actions suggest their trying to minimize losses?

[Kingston]

15 hours ago, Kent said:

I really wish the league would start talking like this. For a little while now (maybe a year) I have started thinking maybe they need to stop promoting the league as an audition for players to go to good leagues, and instead say the league is for the fans.

Realistically, they should do both.

When the league was launching, there was a lot of talk about giving Canadian players "a place to get that critical first pro contract" so they could get on the pro ladder, work their way upward, and eventually supply the national team.  So the league was definitely mandated to develop Canadian talent and move it onward.

A great way to do that, however, is to have strong teams that are well supported by local fans.  This will involve keeping players who can excel at the CPL level and give the fans a talented and (ideally) winning team to cheer for.  So, yes, the CPL is going to send players onward but guys like - to pick an obvious example - Kyle Bekker have found their level at the CPL and are going to attract and retain fans.  That's good, too.

[Kent]

18 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

Based on the modest place the league is in, what would a home game for Forge v Club America or Cavalry v LAFC mean to the bottom line? What would 2 rds mean? It's a big opportunity to make $$$$ and gain credibility. Credibility is the #1 thing the CPL needs at the moment. #1A is money. Champions league is a ticket to both things

I agree with you, but it's worth bearing in mind that the one home game in the Champions League that a CPL team had, was only attended by 4,600 (Forge vs Cruz Azul). That was February 2022, there might have still been some restrictions at that point but I'm sure they could have sold more if there were more people looking to buy.

Now I'm getting the urge to collect all the attendance figures for CPL teams against teams from other leagues. I think I'll do that and post in the CPL Attendance thread.

[Aird25]

Rumours of both Pacius and Aparicio leaving the league this morning. I would be sad to see them both go (well only Manny, really), but if the moves happen it'll be interesting to see how they both make out

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

 

Looks like it's not just CanPL losing the CONCACAF Cup entry angle during the regular season that forms part of the fallout from the emergence of the Leagues Cup. CSB will probably be happy for commercial reasons at least that this approach doesn't appear to extend to the Canadian Championship given they hold the broadcast and title sponsor rights:

But the CanPL team operations wing of things might view it differently. Guess a key difference is that MLS teams can play up to 6 games in the USOC while it tends to only be up to three in a Canadian context. The CSA are also more likely to kick up a fuss over the optics of it, particularly if CF Montreal tried to use their PLSQ team.

Will be interesting to see how much squad rotation the three Canadian MLS sides do this season in the Canadian Championship given how hectic their scheduling is now with Leagues Cup inserted into the season and with a greater reluctance to play through FIFA windows now Lionel Messi is on board.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Kent]

5 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

 

Looks like it's not just CanPL losing the CONCACAF Cup entry angle during the regular season that forms part of the fallout from the emergence of the Leagues Cup. CSB will probably be happy for commercial reasons at least that this approach doesn't appear to extend to the Canadian Championship given they hold the broadcast and title sponsor rights:

But the CanPL team operations wing of things might view it differently. Guess a key difference is that MLS teams can play up to 6 games in the USOC while it tends to only be up to three in a Canadian context. The CSA are also more likely to kick up a fuss over the optics of it, particularly if CF Montreal tried to use their PLSQ team.

Will be interesting to see how much squad rotation the three Canadian MLS sides do this season in the Canadian Championship given how hectic their scheduling is now with Leagues Cup inserted into the season and with a greater reluctance to play through FIFA windows now Lionel Messi is on board.

Canadian teams also felt less of a pinch than lots of American teams last year due to all of them being out before the Round of 16 of Leagues Cup.

If the USSF isn't able to stop this from happening, I hope CONCACAF revokes the 3 Leagues Cup berths in the Champions Cup.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

You already know that last part isn't going to happen. Follow the money...