Jump to content
Ansem

CPL Division II - Pro/Rel discussion

Recommended Posts

I thought I'd create this thread to keep the CPL D1 thread more on topic as news are sure to be unveiled soon which will keep the main thread quite animated.

We all agree that Division II isn't in the near future and as Paul Beirne said "Once CPL hits 16 teams".

Here we can discuss:

  • Promotion/Relegation mechanism
  • Cities/areas that could have a team
  • Voyageurs Cup
  • Division II Championship
  • Academies, affiliations and development
  • Relationship with D1 and D3
  • Quotas/Imports
  • League structure
  • Salaries and financial
  • TV and medias
  • Players and staff
  • Etc...

Reminder of Metropolitan Areas in Canada according to Statistics Canada for 2016 : http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm

  • Toronto 6.2M
  • Montreal 4.1M
  • Vancouver 2.6M
  • Calgary 1.5M
  • Edmonton 1.4M
  • Ottawa-Gatineau 1.3M
  • Winnipeg 812k
  • Quebec City 807k
  • Hamilton 778k
  • Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo 517k
  • London 512k
  • Halifax 425k
  • St.Catharines-Niagara 412k
  • Oshawa 394k
  • Victoria 371k
  • Windsor 340k
  • Saskatoon 315k
  • Regina 247k
  • St,John's 218k
  • Sherbrooke 215k
  • Barrie 205k
  • Kelowna 198k
  • Abbotsford-Mission 187k
  • Kingston 171k
  • Greater Sudbury 166k
  • Trois-Rivieres 158k
  • Guelph 156k
  • Moncton 150k
  • Brantford 146k
  • Saint John 128k
  • Thunder Bay 124k
  • Peterborough 124k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

If it's only 8 teams in each division then my instinct is you only relegate 1 team down ..promote 1 team up. Relegating 2 teams would be 25% of the league...

I have a hunch that it will be 16 clubs D1 and then they accept bids for D2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I have a hunch that it will be 16 clubs D1 and then they accept bids for D2

Then they'd need to wait for at least 6 teams to join to start D2...might be easier to split and add teams as you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

Then they'd need to wait for at least 6 teams to join to start D2...might be easier to split and add teams as you go.

I'm thinking lower requirements for infrastructure, finances and a very high quota of domestics making clubs cheaper to run while under the brand of CPL is more likely to attract more investors than tier 1, especially from lower midsize cities like Kelowna, Sherbrooke or even from within the big metro areas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What void is this D2 league supposed to be filling?

Professional?  That will be CPL.

Development?  That will be the existing D3 structure.

Semi-pro?  Great, as long as these D2 teams can use no exposure and sub-1000 attendances to find a way to pay for professional-level stadiums and staffing that would be appropriate for a D1 level should they manage to get promoted.

I just don't see the business case for creating a D2 league out of a D1.  If you're going to create a D2 out of anything, it will be from the elite D3/PDL teams investing in themselves and raising themselves up to a higher level, not from expecting professional-level teams to relegate themselves downwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we've already had a couple threads in this sub about a CPL D2, but I'll just go for it again, why not.

If CPL ever hits 16-20 teams, and finds itself in demand for more clubs, which is probably an optimistic and very distant and not the most likely scenario but something to prepare for nonetheless, then I'd love for CPL to split itself into a 10-12-team CPL1 and a 10-12-team CPL2. And then for CPL2 to be gradually expanded over the years, and to eventually inch closer towards a fully open system much later on.

The most realistic way to implement that would be to announce a season where a system comes into effect where, the total points accumulated over the next 3 seasons will determine which teams stay in CPL1 and which teams go down to CPL2, along with a few new expansion clubs to fill out a new CPL2.

The purposes would be numerous, I don't want to retype it from the previous threads. The only reason I'm even mentioning this even is because I was asked by my friends on Whatsapp to determine how to implement a 2-tiered closed system for MLS if and when they hit 32 teams. I'd split the 32 teams into an 18-team MLS1 and an 18-team MLS2, based on total points accumulated over the following 3 seasons.

Basically, CPL is 20-25 years behind MLS, and when we look at MLS at the present, we are seeing many things that may affect CPL years later on.

Edited by ironcub14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Gopherbashi said:

What void is this D2 league supposed to be filling?

Professional?  That will be CPL.

Development?  That will be the existing D3 structure.

Semi-pro?  Great, as long as these D2 teams can use no exposure and sub-1000 attendances to find a way to pay for professional-level stadiums and staffing that would be appropriate for a D1 level should they manage to get promoted.

I just don't see the business case for creating a D2 league out of a D1.  If you're going to create a D2 out of anything, it will be from the elite D3/PDL teams investing in themselves and raising themselves up to a higher level, not from expecting professional-level teams to relegate themselves downwards.

To me, it serves a purpose if there is pyramid-wide revenue sharing that diverts proportionate amounts of revenue to each level

It would allow you to have a lower tier at a lower cost structure, enabling smaller markets to participate in the pro leagues,  despite the net pool of shared revenue remaining largely constant (unless the majority of big markets get relegated and their attendance completely tanks). It would also help ameliorate the stigma of "minor league" ("yeah we are D2 but two years ago we were D1!"), provide entertainment value at the lower end of the table, and help legitimize the league to a certain subset of fans

I'm not saying it will happen, but when Beirne talks about envisioning a 60 team pyramid, this is the only way I see it happening within a century. 

We should also be cautious about overplaying this point. Beirne has talked about "not closing the door on pro/rel", not sure he ever said it was Plan A. 

Edit: And personally, I'd wait longer than 16 teams to split

Edited by Complete Homer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

To me, it serves a purpose if there is pyramid-wide revenue sharing that diverts proportionate amounts of revenue to each level

It would allow you to have a lower tier at a lower cost structure, enabling smaller markets to participate in the pro leagues,  despite the net pool of shared revenue remaining largely constant (unless the majority of big markets get relegated and their attendance completely tanks). It would also help ameliorate the stigma of "minor league" ("yeah we are D2 but two years ago we were D1!"), provide entertainment value at the lower end of the table, and help legitimize the league to a certain subset of fans

I'm not saying it will happen, but when Beirne talks about envisioning a 60 team pyramid, this is the only way I see it happening within a century. 

We should also be cautious about overplaying this point. Beirne has talked about "not closing the door on pro/rel", not sure he ever said it was Plan A. 

Edit: And personally, I'd wait longer than 16 teams to split

Depends on how those 16 teams are doing in terms of attendance and where the Salary Cap is at...

But yes I agree with you that having two divisions would allow some flexibility with cost structures for teams. Pro/rel would act as a sorting mechanism between levels of success and arguably mitigate the need of relocating/folding teams that have been routinely underperforming.

Edited by mpg_29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

personally, I'd wait longer than 16 teams to split

Think my thoughts on pro/rel in Canada are pretty well known at this point. But I think at the very least most of us agree that splitting to two leagues of eight at 16 teams is...a stupid idea unless they have more teams lining up to get in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, harrycoyster said:

Think my thoughts on pro/rel in Canada are pretty well known at this point. But I think at the very least most of us agree that splitting to two leagues of eight at 16 teams is...a stupid idea unless they have more teams lining up to get in. 

Yep agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

It would allow you to have a lower tier at a lower cost structure, enabling smaller markets to participate in the pro leagues,  despite the net pool of shared revenue remaining largely constant (unless the majority of big markets get relegated and their attendance completely tanks). It would also help ameliorate the stigma of "minor league" ("yeah we are D2 but two years ago we were D1!"), provide entertainment value at the lower end of the table, and help legitimize the league to a certain subset of fans

Except you've hit the nail on the head as to why there's no benefit in doing this for the D1 teams who are bankrolling this project - all you're doing is splitting the same pot more ways.  "Diverting proportionate revenue to each level" is not a reason for the D1 level (who are the ones making the money) to throw their money at potential competition in exchange for helping AFC Medicine Hat not feel minor league.  It won't help the D1 teams, and more importantly it won't help Canadian soccer - the reason for this project.  If you want to improve the national team through a national league, you're going to do that by investing in coaches, training facilities, and player salaries, not by throwing money at minor-league teams whose feelings are hurt every time someone calls them minor league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in terms of legitimizing the league - any kind of pro/rel split will be a generation away at the absolute earliest.  Opinions about the league's legitimacy within that "certain subset" will be as hard as cement by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

Depends on how those 16 teams are doing in terms of attendance and where the Salary Cap is at...

But yes I agree with you that having two divisions would allow some flexibility with cost structures for teams. Pro/rel would act as a sorting mechanism between levels of success and arguably mitigate the need of relocating/folding teams that have been routinely underperforming.

If Pro/Rel is ever going to happen a salary cap won't really work that great. I think a salary cap will be important when the league is young but eventually it will IMO be better to let teams spend based on how much they can afford and not what the league dictates is a good cap for your average team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason for a Div 1, Div 2 split would be because some teams will not be able to handle the costs being in Div 1 would entail. If there is a D2, it will be split between East and West D2 Leagues that don't play each other, except the winner of each D2 League that would play for the right to take the Div 1 spot of the relegated CPL team. My view of the evolution of the CPL is this:

6-8 Teams: Single table, 28 games

9-20 Teams: Split into East and West Conferences, unbalanced schedule, 28 games

21+ Teams: Top 8 teams form single table Div 1, remaining teams are split geographically (and possibly unevenly) between separate East and West Div 2 Leagues, 28 games.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ReedOnTheGrand said:

If Pro/Rel is ever going to happen a salary cap won't really work that great. I think a salary cap will be important when the league is young but eventually it will IMO be better to let teams spend based on how much they can afford and not what the league dictates is a good cap for your average team. 

Yeah pro/rel definitely raises a lot of questions around salary caps and revenue sharing. Really if you had a fully functioning pyramid you wouldn't bother with caps/revenue sharing and let the teams rise/fall where they may..

Edited by mpg_29

Share this post


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

Except you've hit the nail on the head as to why there's no benefit in doing this for the D1 teams who are bankrolling this project - all you're doing is splitting the same pot more ways.  "Diverting proportionate revenue to each level" is not a reason for the D1 level (who are the ones making the money) to throw their money at potential competition in exchange for helping AFC Medicine Hat not feel minor league.  It won't help the D1 teams, and more importantly it won't help Canadian soccer - the reason for this project.  If you want to improve the national team through a national league, you're going to do that by investing in coaches, training facilities, and player salaries, not by throwing money at minor-league teams whose feelings are hurt every time someone calls them minor league.

Fair, but I think the fact that these sort of statements are being led from the owners is an indication that it is something they are comfortable with. All you can do at this point is build the league in a way that leaves the door open, instead of structuring it in a way that makes conversion to pro/rel nearly impossible like MLS unfortunately did

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Complete Homer said:

Fair, but I think the fact that these sort of statements are being led from the owners is an indication that it is something they are comfortable with. All you can do at this point is build the league in a way that leaves the door open, instead of structuring it in a way that makes conversion to pro/rel nearly impossible like MLS unfortunately did

 

Right, and a big issue is going to be "expansion" fees. If you are going to charge for them then you have to make it clear to potential owners that at some point pro/rel might exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mpg_29 said:

Right, and a big issue is going to be "expansion" fees. If you are going to charge for them then you have to make it clear to potential owners that at some point pro/rel might exist.

Exactly. It has to be structured as a possibility from day one, or it will never happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Initial B said:

The only reason for a Div 1, Div 2 split would be because some teams will not be able to handle the costs being in Div 1 would entail. If there is a D2, it will be split between East and West D2 Leagues that don't play each other, except the winner of each D2 League that would play for the right to take the Div 1 spot of the relegated CPL team. My view of the evolution of the CPL is this:

6-8 Teams: Single table, 28 games

9-20 Teams: Split into East and West Conferences, unbalanced schedule, 28 games

21+ Teams: Top 8 teams form single table Div 1, remaining teams are split geographically (and possibly unevenly) between separate East and West Div 2 Leagues, 28 games.

 

I agree up until the third stage(where I partially agree), once you get to that 20 team range you can start thinking of a second division. I think the top division needs to be at least 10 teams, 12 or 16(15) would be better amount IMO. Have your top division have 2(3) conferences but still have cross conference games. Then have the second division be regional to save a lot on travel and make away support more realistic. You can have the worst team from the first division be replaced by the best team from their region.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

Right, and a big issue is going to be "expansion" fees. If you are going to charge for them then you have to make it clear to potential owners that at some point pro/rel might exist.

I think staying away from the pyramid scheme tactics would be nice. Instead make expansion teams invest in their team to grow the CanPL brand. It would be really nice if CS could hold a bit more control in the league so there's at least a bit of a soccer first approach.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ReedOnTheGrand said:

I think staying away from the pyramid scheme tactics would be nice. Instead make expansion teams invest in their team to grow the CanPL brand. It would be really nice if CS could hold a bit more control in the league so there's at least a bit of a soccer first approach.  

Expansion fees aren't (just) about repaying owners who have run a loss in setting up the league, it is about making sure you are capable of running the team by limiting ownership to groups or individuals who can comfortably give up a large amount of money without immediate payoff. It's why even leagues struggling for teams and without collective ownership still usually have an expansion fee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ReedOnTheGrand said:

I think staying away from the pyramid scheme tactics would be nice. Instead make expansion teams invest in their team to grow the CanPL brand. It would be really nice if CS could hold a bit more control in the league so there's at least a bit of a soccer first approach.  

Among other things I think expansion fees act as a barrier of entry to prospective teams joining. I mean you don't want anyone just starting a team.

Edited by mpg_29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

Expansion fees aren't (just) about repaying owners who have run a loss in setting up the league, it is about making sure you are capable of running the team by limiting ownership to groups or individuals who can comfortably give up a large amount of money without immediate payoff. It's why even leagues struggling for teams and without collective ownership still usually have an expansion fee

I think there's plenty of ways of checking whether an ownership group has the financial power to run a team. Mandatory academy equipment, a soccer stadium, maybe they front operations cost for 3-4 years before they can join.  

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...