Jump to content
CDNFootballer

Ottawa CPL Club

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Yes the ownership owns MLS franchise but they have "conflict of interest" rules too.

Their loyalty is to MLS first and foremost, CPL asks the same from its owners. The conflict of interest is obvious.

If you think they'd market both teams on equal footing, you must have missed Bill Manning nonsense a few years ago. They aren't even hiding that they wouldn't.

Bill Manning is in charge of Toronto FC, not MLSE.  If MLSE were to buy a CPL team to add to their portfolio of sports teams, it's no different from what Manchester City or Red Bull are doing.

Share this post


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

Bill Manning is in charge of Toronto FC, not MLSE.  If MLSE were to buy a CPL team to add to their portfolio of sports teams, it's no different from what Manchester City or Red Bull are doing.

I agree and disagree - there is a slight difference, in that Man City and Red Bull don't own more than one team in a country, but I do agree that it would also be problematic if Man City or Red Bull were to buy a CPL team - as they own MLS teams that can be viewed as indirect competition (there is, of course, more competition between TFC and the CPL, but on a sporting level it's really just the Voyageurs Cup. Not ideal, but I don't believe there are any rules against RB Salzberg playing RB Leipzig in the Champions League).

My perspective on MLS-associated CPL teams is simple - if they want to be minority owners helping support a team then it's probably okay - but I think it would be best if any foreign owners did not have links to MLS. So, based on a guardian article from 2017, Atletico Madrid, which also owns teams in Mexico and France, would be fine, as would Roland Duchatelet (Spain, Belgium, Hungary, Germany, and, at the time, the UK). But Man City, Red Bull, Vincent Tan, and Erick Thohir would not be, as they all own MLS teams. 

Hell, I'd even support a team owned by the Glazers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2019 at 1:13 PM, Zem said:

They were fully aware of him and his talent, but David had absolutely no interest whatsoever. He even refused an offer to train with the first team, which was way back in 2015 if I recall correctly.

From why I understood David’s club coach had a vision for him and a few other high level kids. Didn’t want them tied down to a pro club. He was providing high level coaching and competition. Plus David was a high level player in the national program so he would be on the radar. 

Share this post


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

Bill Manning is in charge of Toronto FC, not MLSE.  If MLSE were to buy a CPL team to add to their portfolio of sports teams, it's no different from what Manchester City or Red Bull are doing.

Bill Manning also runs the Argos!

Do you really think he wouldn't have been involved in a CPL farm team?

Someone made a good point earlier, based on how the 3 MLS clubs have treated their USL clubs, do we really trust them to do a better job running a CPL team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

$9 million is more than anyone wants to pay, except possibly a large European team.

Curious. What would you consider a fair range?

Edited by IAmPappy

Share this post


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

Curious, what would you consider a fair range?

As the league refuses to reveal any numbers, impossible to say.  But $9 million at this stage always felt high.  Based on a reporter for the league saying all expansion talk has gone quiet except for the city that has a large European club circling, I'd speculate that investors think that's too high too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IAmPappy said:

Curious. What would you consider a fair range?

I continue to be baffled by this expansion fee stuff. Surely every extra club makes the entire CPL stronger; in which case putting up a barrier to entry seems self defeating.

I understand that it makes good sense to ensure that any bid has a bunch of cash behind it so that it won't fold after a year or two, although if the Media Pro deal is as lucrative as seems to be suggested this should not be an issue (as clubs would presumably all be in the black). Regardless, this "proof of funds" is not really a "fee".

I also get that the original seven took a risk that new clubs are not taking now that a bunch of revenue generating deals have been signed. But surely a better way ensure those original clubs are adequately compensated for the extra risk is via a lion's share of those revenue streams rather than an expansion fee barrier to entry.

And to answer your original question, although it was not directed to me, we would need to know the actual numbers. But as you can probably guess, my answer is that a fair range is "whatever the original seven kicked in but the new club(s) get a smaller share of existing revenue streams until the original seven have received $x more than the new clubs from those streams -- where $x depends on the actual numbers".

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


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

I continue to be baffled by this expansion fee stuff. Surely every extra club makes the entire CPL stronger; in which case putting up a barrier to entry seems self defeating....

It makes sense if the league is franchise based in a similar manner to MLS as some people in a position to know have claimed.

Share this post


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

It makes sense if the league is franchise based in a similar manner to MLS as some people in a position to know have claimed.

I’m not sure that it has to do with franchisee/franchisor stuff necessarily. In fact, this league appears not to have a franchise based structure. Instead, I’d suggest that the expansion fee is probably primarily the new club(s) buying into their shares of CSB. 

Share this post


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

Based on a reporter for the league saying all expansion talk has gone quiet except for the city that has a large European club circling, I'd speculate that investors think that's too high too.

Or the simple explanation: it is too late for 2020 and too early to have to talk about 2021. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ted said:

Or the simple explanation: it is too late for 2020 and too early to have to talk about 2021. 

MLS has named their expansion teams for 2021 and 2022.

Of course, there's another explanation for so much expansion talk by the league all the time and it's pointed out by the same author: it drives interest for the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they could be just responding to us hardcoes asking endlessly....who's next, maybe 2020...2021?? what about ottawa?? Will there be a team in Quebec?? What about Saskatoon?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Or they could be just responding to us hardcoes asking endlessly....who's next, maybe 2020...2021?? what about ottawa?? Will there be a team in Quebec?? What about Saskatoon?? 

Well, yeah. That's what I meant by it drives interest in the league. That it keeps the most active people still active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

It makes sense if the league is franchise based in a similar manner to MLS as some people in a position to know have claimed.

Not this again, give it up, league itself, who knows more than anyone what it is, has said CPL is a club based league, NOT franchise and NOT single entity.

MLS is a single entity league with business units, not clubs. USL is a franchise league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amongst all the previous discussion, I am having difficulty distinguishing between a “franchise” and a “club” in the CPL.  The fee to be paid to enter the league...is that not a franchise fee?  And if an owner of a club wishes to (God forbid) relocate a club, is the owner allowed to do that within the CPL rules?  If the answer is yes, is that not a franchise?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JamboAl said:

Amongst all the previous discussion, I am having difficulty distinguishing between a “franchise” and a “club” in the CPL.  The fee to be paid to enter the league...is that not a franchise fee?  And if an owner of a club wishes to (God forbid) relocate a club, is the owner allowed to do that within the CPL rules?  If the answer is yes, is that not a franchise?  

I’m going to regret waddling into this conversation, but here goes: I view franchise vs club in the context of territorial exclusivity. 

In a (North American) club model, you still pay a free to enter the league, but that’s to buy into a piece of the pie (CSB, for example). You have the right to relocate you club but you don’t have territorial exclusivity. If Valour want to move to Skydome in Toronto (bad example), there’s nothing that Forge or York 9 can do about it. All land is free. 

In a franchise model, the NHL for example, you buy into the broader business pie, but you also get territorial rights. The Bruins could relocate if they like, but not anywhere in southern Ontario because the Leafs and Sabres own  the land. Dominos does the same thing — only one franchise per neighborhood. 

So, is CPL a club or a franchise model?

Edited by IAmPappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, IAmPappy said:

I’m going to regret waddling into this conversation, but here goes: I view franchise vs club in the context of territorial exclusivity. 

In a (North American) club model, you still pay a free to enter the league, but that’s to buy into a piece of the pie (CSB, for example). You have the right to relocate you club but you don’t have territorial exclusivity. If Valour want to move to Skydome in Toronto (bad example), there’s nothing that Forge or York 9 can do about it. All land is free. 

In a franchise model, the NHL for example, you buy into the broader business pie, but you also get territorial rights. The Bruins could relocate if they like, but not anywhere in southern Ontario because the Leafs and Sabres won the land. Dominos does the same thing — only one franchise per neighborhood. 

So, is CPL a club or a franchise model?

Apt, but there’s also more to it than that; it’s also about the nature of the juridic entities involved. In a club situation, the juridic persons (corporations probably) are distinct entities whereas in a franchise situation they aren’t really. To stick with your fast food example, the franchisor leases the right to use its intellectual property and business model to franchisees. There is no evidence to suggest that the CPL operates in the capacity of franchisor like MLS or the NFL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ams1984 said:

Apt, but there’s also more to it than that; it’s also about the nature of the juridic entities involved. In a club situation, the juridic persons (corporations probably) are distinct entities whereas in a franchise situation they aren’t really. To stick with your fast food example, the franchisor leases the right to use its intellectual property and business model to franchisees. There is no evidence to suggest that the CPL operates in the capacity of franchisor like MLS or the NFL. 

I think this is probably where I can't tell the difference.  Aren't the owners of the teams in the traditional North American leagues distinct entities?  I can distinguish in the MLS model where the players are "owned" by the league and assigned to the teams (in a way), except for homegrown talent like Davies.  But aren't the individual owners of the MLS teams not also distinct entities?

Fundamentally, I can't tell what makes the CPL teams not franchises or what doesn't make MLS teams, clubs.  I feel like the 6 year old kid who is always asking why?  

Edited by JamboAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ughhh this is why he brings it up.  A lot of people like to think of it as local snuggly clubs where we all sing and drink together after the game and not ****** faceless corporate franchises.   All he has to do is drop a goofy comment like "this proves its more of a franchise model like MLS" and he knows it will be 10 pages of debate and teeth knashing.  

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...