Jump to content
CDNFootballer

Ottawa CPL Club

Recommended Posts

If a player's contract can be traded from one team to another, for other players, cash, or draft picks, you're running a North American-style franchise league. 

Share this post


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

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?  

It's all a game with semantics to a large extent but there clearly are important differences on how CanPL and MLS operate with respect to player contracts that can explain why the club terminology could be justified to a certain extent, but lofty's point was a valid one. If the entry of an extra club helps to strengthen the league overall at this point why would they have to pay a fee comparable (with inflation factored in) to what MLSE paid to get into MLS back in 2007 to get in? There have also been people claiming that Bob Young holds territorial rights to Kitchener-Waterloo and the Pacific FC group holds territorial rights to lower mainland BC. If that's accurate along with the $8 or 9 million expansion fee it's difficult to see how a franchise type business model is not involved to a large extent given the very obvious parallels between CSB and SUM.

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

It's all a game with semantics to a large extent but there clearly are important differences on how CanPL and MLS operate with respect to player contracts that can explain why the club terminology could be justified to a certain extent, but lofty's point was a valid one. If the entry of an extra club helps to strengthen the league overall at this point why would they have to pay a fee comparable (with inflation factored in) to what MLSE paid to get into MLS back in 2007 to get in? There have also been people claiming that Bob Young holds territorial rights to Kitchener-Waterloo and the Pacific FC group holds territorial rights to lower mainland BC. If that's accurate along with the $8 or 9 million expansion fee it's difficult to see how a franchise type business model is not involved to a large extent given the very obvious parallels between CSB and SUM.

You’re cherry-picking semantics to justify the ‘franchise’ tag. Either that, or sh-t disturbing the board intentionally, but I wouldn’t accuse you of that. Let’s hear your 3-bullet definition for each term (club and franchise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A franchise is regulated by strict guidelines set out by a Board of Governors/Owners or a league. Things like suppliers, marketing, branding, labour relations, etc... are are regulated by an agreed upon set of rules.

Clubs have more freedom, they may be affiliated and work in concert on certain aspects of business operations but are not always obligated to do so. We can see evidence of this in the CPL in certain unique stadiums aspects, the international player draft and the seemingly fluid player movement (no complex player rights scheme).

I think the CPL is neither one or the other in the truest sense but probably somewhere in the middle, most likely closer to the club model. Anyone who thinks they can say definitively which model the CPL has implemented is not telling the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a hybrid model with elements of both and definitely not the MLS. Seems very similar to a traditional North American model like the NHL or CFL. Things like broadcasting, sponsorships, uniforms etc. are central (and some scouting and draft too apparently). Expansion fee (or, franchise fee, if you prefer) to join the party.

Edited by PaulV

Share this post


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

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?  

Think of it this way: clubs are distinct corporate entities that are members of a league. I think some people get hung up on the expansion fee. 

In the CPL’s case, it seems to be that the ‘expansion fee’ could be clubs buying their shares of CSB (actually sharing ownership of a distinct corporation which is in charge of their collective media negotiating) but they appear to be separate juridic entities, clubs. 

On the other hand, franchises (while leased by different entities, like MLSE) are licensees of the league. If I own a Tim Hortons franchise, what I actually own is XYZ Holdings Corp which leases a license to operate a Tim Hortons location for a period of time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definitions of franchise versus club teams are not clearly defined. If there has to be scale scale of club <----------> franchise then it seems CPL is further to the club side than franchise side compared to MLS based on the little info we have. No league in the world is likely completely on the club side (according to this made up scale) as then they would not have any financial reasons to play against each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure it really matters if the teams are called clubs or franchises... the important thing is how they feel... and to me they feel incredibly different to the corporate feel mls gives out. Having Rob Gale come out in an interview and be so honest about player contracts, and laughing at the idea FC Edmonton signs Bustos.... and then doubling down and essentially calling LBG an average player that they have a few of already.... is so different. That wouldn’t happen in MLS. It feels real. Not to mention both Gale and Bobby have come out and talked about moving players onto better leagues in the past few days instead of playing dumb and acting like they’re on par with Europe. The league is doing a good job of letting the teams sort of do their own thing while keeping the business in order... while I’d definitely like more transparency, right now things are going pretty well. 

Share this post


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

Learn some manners, if you want a conversation.

Dear Mr Parrot,

At your earliest convenience, would you please share with us your brief view on what differentiates a club model from a franchise model. 

Thank you in advance. 

Share this post


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

I’m not sure it really matters if the teams are called clubs or franchises... the important thing is how they feel... and to me they feel incredibly different to the corporate feel mls gives out. Having Rob Gale come out in an interview and be so honest about player contracts, and laughing at the idea FC Edmonton signs Bustos.... and then doubling down and essentially calling LBG an average player that they have a few of already.... is so different. That wouldn’t happen in MLS. It feels real. Not to mention both Gale and Bobby have come out and talked about moving players onto better leagues in the past few days instead of playing dumb and acting like they’re on par with Europe. The league is doing a good job of letting the teams sort of do their own thing while keeping the business in order... while I’d definitely like more transparency, right now things are going pretty well. 

Agreed as it's all about perspective.  It just seems like some people on this board are using the "franchise" vs "club" tag to the CPL teams to differentiate themselves from the MLS/USL when in fact, as I have now concluded, this point or description has no real relevance.  Personally, I'll exit the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to sidestep the club vs. franchise argument for a moment (as I've been deep into that rabbit hole before), what is important to me is league recognition that teams "belong" to the community where they are located and the (financial) owners are not permitted to relocate them. If it isn't working in one market, then the team folds; and if you want to start in another market, that is a new team.

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rattler280 said:

I think I'll hold off on the excitement until something actually happens beyond rumours of a mystery group being interested and Ottawa "leading the pack."

 

As encouraging as it sounds, you are absolutely correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ansem said:

 

 Where are my naysayers? 

9M is pure robbery :rolleyes:

200.gif

Before you get too cocky, let’s see what happens about whether any group winds up actually paying $9M.  I still personally  think that fee is preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Before you get too cocky, let’s see what happens about whether any group winds up actually paying $9M.  I still personally  think that fee is preposterous.

Ottawa attracting investors is really a no brainer as it's the biggest market with no pro clubs in Canada right now. The stadium is there and available for use. As for the $9M expansion fee, it's accurate especially if OneSoccer increases their portfolio (they will bid on MLS & and got all CONCACAF tournaments). Teams can turn around and make even more money on sponsors.

I mean, we're hearing places like St.John's, Saskatoon, Moncton etc... Ottawa, having more potential fans and the marketability of the city over the other markets is a huge incentive for investors.

 

Share this post


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

Ottawa attracting investors is really a no brainer as it's the biggest market with no pro clubs in Canada right now. The stadium is there and available for use. As for the $9M expansion fee, it's accurate especially if OneSoccer increases their portfolio (they will bid on MLS & and got all CONCACAF tournaments). Teams can turn around and make even more money on sponsors.

I mean, we're hearing places like St.John's, Saskatoon, Moncton etc... Ottawa, having more potential fans and the marketability of the city over the other markets is a huge incentive for investors.

 

I agree with most of your points about the market.  My problem is that this is only Year Two of the league and to have that high of a valuation seems crazy - that's probably due to my estimate of what One Soccer's (CSB's) actual financial backing is worth.  $9M is a very high (too high) for the vast majority of potential Canadian markets which means the CPL can be no more than about 9-10 teams.

Edited by JamboAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...