Jump to content
Ansem

CPL Division II - Pro/Rel discussion

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

The CPL gave Ottawa a 1 year exemption on USL level salaries.  I can't even begin to imagine that they'd give the MLS teams the MLS cap for multiple years (because 1 year would be pointless), or that their wouldn't be absolute rage from the existing CPL teams if that was offered.  The CPL does not want to create dynasties.  They want parity, or as close to it as they can get.

In my scenario, we're talking post 2026, closer to 2029 where CPL "2.0" salaries should be higher than now. I think there would be "negotiations" if these owners wanted to join willingly. No offence to the Fury but the values they bring to the league vs. current MLS owners is night and day. Doesn't need to be MLS cap, could be CPL cap being increased across the board or letting them spend more for a definite period of time. (more than a year but not indefinitely)

When you think about it, those teams visiting other CPL markets would drive up revenues for those teams, drive up the value of the next TV contract and raise the level of the league. This also increases sponsorship deals - increased revenue means more fiscal space for teams to spend more on quality and infrastructure. If you can get that sort of boost by allowing a limited exemption to those 3, it's worth it in the long run

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

It's entirely possible that they'll determine that Canada's best course of action is to have 3 teams in a stronger league while having an additional domestic league operating.  Another 6-9 years (your 2026-2029 range) will provide some useful data as to whether that's working.

We already have 13 years of data with negative results for the Canadian program where we didn't make the Hex, World Cup, no Gold Cup semi finals, and our U20 team have had worst results than pre MLS. The "new" CSA cares more about growing the pool and RESULTS than keeping 3 clubs happy and being content at just participating. Does a handful of guys getting handful of minutes in MLS worth holding back their own Tier 1 league full potential?

Keeping everything separate wouldn't prevent the best Canadians from going t to MLS if they are that good. Kaye, Osorio, Piette, Cavallini etc... would find work in MLS, they can even get a green card if they want too.

Clocking LOTS of CPL minutes and dominating can still get you to Europe  - I'm thinking of guys like Fraser and others who are in academies who won't see minutes being wasted. They might as well play here, dominate and move to MLS or elsewhere.You can't raise your value on the bench or with limited minutes or on USL-One buses. I'm not convince that minutes for a handful of guys is worth keeping our league's potential down. Even the analyst said it when talking about Baldissimo vs. Montreal - "there's no substitute for competitive minutes"

Another 6-9 years for what? Even Americans are seeing their minutes melting year after year and somehow were supposed to think it will only get better for Canadians? I have my doubts, MLS ain't that kind of league.

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

If MLS and the 3 Clubs decided to challenge the ruling and take it to CSA, CONCACAF might lose. 

MLS and the 3 clubs would be going after FIFA itself, not just the CSA or CONCACAF. The ruling would be the same - FIFA are entitled to interpret their own rules as they see fit. You can't challenge that in court and there's too many precedent where those kind of challenges failed. Would MLS really put up that fight when they know they can get another half a billions in capital 3 more times? Doubtful

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

And then you'd have your "precedent" for clubs being allowed in cross border leagues. 

They fit the exceptional clauses, the 3 MLS clubs wouldn't

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

It's entirely possible that FIFA looks at it and says that's not a fight worth having over the 3 clubs, and quietly has CONCACAF not enforce it.

It's most likely that they would view the 3 Canadian clubs in an American league in one of the less important confederation as not worth giving them a pass that could potentially empower mega clubs to challenge Statute 73 to force a UEFA Super League. If they aren't giving Barca, Madrid, PSG, Bayern, Chelsea, Manchester, Juve a pass, why on earth would they for the Impact, TFC or the Whitecaps. In the FIFA world, we aren't at the top of the food chain.

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

The Ottawa precedent you keep quoting is based on the CPL demonstrating it's at least comparable to USL and thus Ottawa having another option.  In the next 6-9 years, it's incredibly unlikely that the CPL will be able to demonstrate that they're a reasonable comparable option to MLS that the 3 clubs should have to join.  I know people really, really want the CPL to succeed, but that time line for growth doesn't seem even remotely reasonable.  It's therefore more reasonable to assume that the MLS clubs (if they so chose) could rather easily prove they deserve the exemption, and could easily be willing to fight for it.

What makes you think FIFA cares about that?  CPL is a Division 1 league under FIFA standards. You're talking parity which is the "exception" and not the norm in FIFA. Most leagues have a top 4-5 disproportionately stronger than the rest of their league.

PSG --- and the rest / Celtic & Rangers --- and the rest / Juve, Roma, Milan ---- and the rest / Barca & Madrid ---a and the rest

Parity is not a factor justifying an exemption under Article 73 otherwise, UEFA super clubs would have had their Super League a long time ago.

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

The can revamp, retool, and tinker with the Champions League all they want.  The US and Mexico drive the money for it, and all other countries are irrelevant. 

Wow, that's wrong. They can make even more money by expanding both tournaments and getting better TV deals than they currently have. There's more TV and sponsorship money to be made in Central America, Caribbean and Canada. The status quo just doesn't work to get to that goal hence revamping it and expanding it

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Hell, CONCACAF actually probably likes the fact that they can sneak 5 MLS clubs in to it with the Voyagers Cup winner getting a spot and that spot always (to date) going to another MLS team.  No way do they want to risk losing that. 

They don't need 3 Canadian clubs in MLS to achieve that. They can just expand both tournaments and allow more clubs from Mexico, Canada and the US. Having 3 Canadian clubs in MLS becomes irrelevant for CONCACAF

This was my suggestion

 

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

If  CONCACAF wants the Champions League to matter more, the solution isn't "force the 3 MLS teams in Canada to the CPL", it's "crack down on crappy tournaments like the Leagues Cup".

As shown in my suggestion above, expanding both tournaments and changing their format would hurt the League Cup enough for Mexican clubs to really not care about (they don't as of now) or even wanting out of it altogether.

Edited by Ansem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ansem said:

We already have 13 years of data with negative results for the Canadian program where we didn't make the Hex, World Cup, no Gold Cup semi finals, and our U20 team have had worst results than pre MLS.

I'll direct you to this website, where you can go on and tell everyone that the current CMNT is in worse shape than it was 13 years ago:

https://www.canadiansoccernews.com/forums/forum/13-mens-national-teams/

Of course, I'd chose to look at the current team and realize that a bunch (though certainly not all) of the key players came through MLS, or at least an MLS academy.  And I'd suggest that a lot of the past decade was because of the neglect by the program in the time prior.  It just took time for the results of MLS to finally come to fruition.

 

9 hours ago, Ansem said:

MLS and the 3 clubs would be going after FIFA itself, not just the CSA or CONCACAF. The ruling would be the same - FIFA are entitled to interpret their own rules as they see fit. You can't challenge that in court and there's too many precedent where those kind of challenges failed.

Mark Bosman challenged a UEFA rule and won.  Clubs challenge the UEFA "fair play" rules frequently and win.  Contrary to your assertion, the "rules" aren't infallible.  And FIFA can interpret their own rules as they see fit up until someone challenges them in a court of law.  When it comes to sports, "rules" don't always stand up in a court of law quite the way leagues would like them too.

9 hours ago, Ansem said:

Would MLS really put up that fight when they know they can get another half a billions in capital 3 more times? Doubtful

I'm curious as to where you think MLS would get this money from.  If the clubs were forced in to selling, they would sell to other ownership groups not back to MLS.  Even if they were forced to sell back to MLS, they'd do so at "fair market value".  In theory, MLS could then make a profit on a re-sale, but it wouldn't be half a billion times each.

9 hours ago, Ansem said:

They fit the exceptional clauses, the 3 MLS clubs wouldn't

Boiled down, I think this is the crux of our disagreement.  In 9 years, I don't see the CPL being developed enough to be seen as a viable alternative to MLS for the 3 clubs, and thus they would still fit the exception clause.  You obviously disagree.  We'll know in a number of years.

9 hours ago, Ansem said:

Parity is not a factor justifying an exemption under Article 73 otherwise, UEFA super clubs would have had their Super League a long time ago.

A Super League is inevitable.  Most people just haven't realized it yet.

9 hours ago, Ansem said:

Wow, that's wrong. They can make even more money by expanding both tournaments and getting better TV deals than they currently have. There's more TV and sponsorship money to be made in Central America, Caribbean and Canada. The status quo just doesn't work to get to that goal hence revamping it and expanding it

Are they inviting Qatari clubs in to the tournament? I think you're greatly overestimating the amount of money available from sponsorship and tv deals in these regions. There's only so much you can expand each tournament, and they're probably hitting their limits.  Does League even make money?  I wouldn't be shocked to learn it's a money loser for CONCACAF and they use it to appease the smaller countries.

Share this post


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

I'll direct you to this website, where you can go on and tell everyone that the current CMNT is in worse shape than it was 13 years ago:

https://www.canadiansoccernews.com/forums/forum/13-mens-national-teams/

Of course, I'd chose to look at the current team and realize that a bunch (though certainly not all) of the key players came through MLS, or at least an MLS academy.  And I'd suggest that a lot of the past decade was because of the neglect by the program in the time prior.  It just took time for the results of MLS to finally come to fruition.

Results matters. Based on results, we did worse but we'll see if the next team can get results

image.thumb.png.d4d39da56b4a108acb5f25d17ebb5467.png

20 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Mark Bosman challenged a UEFA rule and won.  Clubs challenge the UEFA "fair play" rules frequently and win.  Contrary to your assertion, the "rules" aren't infallible.  And FIFA can interpret their own rules as they see fit up until someone challenges them in a court of law.  When it comes to sports, "rules" don't always stand up in a court of law quite the way leagues would like them too.

Yet Super clubs haven't defeated Statute 73

20 hours ago, Watchmen said:

I'm curious as to where you think MLS would get this money from.  If the clubs were forced in to selling, they would sell to other ownership groups not back to MLS.  Even if they were forced to sell back to MLS, they'd do so at "fair market value".  In theory, MLS could then make a profit on a re-sale, but it wouldn't be half a billion times each.

I stand corrected but that 3 more US TV markets to gain.

20 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Boiled down, I think this is the crux of our disagreement.  In 9 years, I don't see the CPL being developed enough to be seen as a viable alternative to MLS for the 3 clubs, and thus they would still fit the exception clause.  You obviously disagree.  We'll know in a number of years.

Now you moved from "comparable" to "viability" - that's fair and we'll see if CPL will demonstrate long term viability post 2026 but they are on the right path. Although that's not one of the exceptions, it's a valid point

20 hours ago, Watchmen said:

A Super League is inevitable.  Most people just haven't realized it yet.

UEFA has zero interest in hurting in any way shape or form their biggest revenue stream which is the Champions League. Even if super clubs went rogue, good luck keeping the players as FIFA could just ban them from FIFA competition by not sanctioning that Super League.

UCL is the super league

20 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Are they inviting Qatari clubs in to the tournament? I think you're greatly overestimating the amount of money available from sponsorship and tv deals in these regions. There's only so much you can expand each tournament, and they're probably hitting their limits.  Does League even make money?  I wouldn't be shocked to learn it's a money loser for CONCACAF and they use it to appease the smaller countries.

In it's current form, we have a poor CCL. Changing the format but also the business plan behind it is essential. Without overestimating the money in those parts, we have to be careful not to underestimate potential revenues from those countries. Poor countries doesn't necessarily means poor corporations.

Share this post


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

Yet Super clubs haven't defeated Statute 73

Super clubs haven't *challenged* statute 73.  There's a significant difference there.  So far, they haven't needed to as they've been able to more or less bully UEFA in to doing what they want.

3 hours ago, Ansem said:

UEFA has zero interest in hurting in any way shape or form their biggest revenue stream which is the Champions League. Even if super clubs went rogue, good luck keeping the players as FIFA could just ban them from FIFA competition by not sanctioning that Super League.

Oh, we're in agreement that Champions League a massive source of income for UEFA and they'll do their best to ensure the big clubs don't leave.  It's why they bend so often to them.  And I think you would be shocked at the number of players who would go to the "banned" league for the paycheque.

 

3 hours ago, Ansem said:

In it's current form, we have a poor CCL. Changing the format but also the business plan behind it is essential. Without overestimating the money in those parts, we have to be careful not to underestimate potential revenues from those countries. Poor countries doesn't necessarily means poor corporations.

Sure, but all of these countries already have teams competing in the CCL.  Let's not pretend that a few more worse teams from the same small countries playing an extra few games is going to move the needle much on revenues.

Edited by Watchmen
Edit: I think we've drifted enough off topic here. We'll just have to wait and see how things go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

news from down under re: their set up of a second division - proposed:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/09/15/aafc-releases-plans-for-second-division-by-2022/

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/ffa-chief-urges-collaboration-over-a-league-second-division-plans-20200915-p55vyk.html

the AAFC as well as FFA are to decide on if this "Australian Championship" will be single table or conferences.

 

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...