Ottawa CPL Club

[matty]

48 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Anyone wants to speculate on who the other ownership groups are for Ottawa?

Melnyk is an obvious name to bring up as he wanted to have an MLS team and a new stadium at a point in time.

Who else?

Folks at city hall maybe but doesn't mean that the city is actually behind it or that there is money

[Viruk42]

28 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I was thinking that too. The guys who bid against Melnyk for LeBreton Flats are the group of Devcore, Canderel and DLS Group

1-Gatineau-based Devcore group is one of the region's largest developers with annual sales of $100M

2-Montreal-based Caderel

DLS

(D for Desmarais) 3-F'N Power Corporation of Canada. The Desmarais family is among the richest in Quebec who's estate is north of $5.6B US. 

(L for Laliberte) 4-Guy Laliberte, founder of Cirque du Soleil, worth over $2.1B

(S for Sinclair) 5- William Sinclair, co founder and former president of JDS uniphase

Other people involved in the bid against Melnyk

Mierins Family who owns Mierins Automotive group

Ottawa Architect Ritchard Brisbin from BBB Architects who were involved in the Ottawa airport expansion, Shaw Centreband Lansdowne Park

I'll maybe add the ownership of Ottawa South United to that list. Talking to a colleague who has been involved in Ottawa soccer for a while (his son played high level local soccer; now plays in the CIS) about the Fury issue, he suggested the owners are wealthy and have long been interested in being involved in professional soccer, but I don't really know enough about them to say anything beyond that. 

[BuzzAndSting]

28 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Then a new team could have a soccer specific Halifax type stadium somewhere else in the city.

They lost that city-wide no compete clause for operating soccer when the Lansdowne deal was being done.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.958968

A clause that would make it difficult for any new stadium in Ottawa to get support from the city during the next 30 years has been eliminated from the Lansdowne Park redevelopment deal.

City council and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group agreed Friday to remove the controversial clause from the public-private partnership agreement. 

That clause that was removed prevented the city from investing in any other stadiums. What I said is that OSEG has exclusive operating rights to any pro soccer at TD Place.

The only other scenario I see possible in Ottawa that would be anywhere close to legitimate would be the Cirque guys building something at Lebreton. They’re rumoured to be negotiating with Melnyk about buying the Sens and taking over the development.

[Viruk42]

1 minute ago, BuzzAndSting said:

That clause that was removed prevented the city from investing in any other stadiums. What I said is that OSEG has exclusive operating rights to any pro soccer at TD Place.

The only other scenario I see possible in Ottawa that would be anywhere close to legitimate would be the Cirque guys building something at Lebreton. They’re rumoured to be negotiating with Melnyk about buying the Sens and taking over the development.

While I don't entirely disagree, it is theoretically possible to play somewhere like Carleton (same FieldTurf as Lansdowne, seats 3500. Main issues would be a lack of concessions and other facilities, University usage, etc), somewhere in Gatineau, or somewhere that is called Ottawa but isn't really Ottawa (i.e. anything outside of the Greenbelt - Kanata, Farrhaven, Orleans, etc).

Far from ideal, but they are theoretically possible - and far more likely than anything at Lebreton which would be 5+ years away.

[BuzzAndSting]

4 minutes ago, Viruk42 said:

While I don't entirely disagree, it is theoretically possible to play somewhere like Carleton (same FieldTurf as Lansdowne, seats 3500. Main issues would be a lack of concessions and other facilities, University usage, etc), somewhere in Gatineau, or somewhere that is called Ottawa but isn't really Ottawa (i.e. anything outside of the Greenbelt - Kanata, Farrhaven, Orleans, etc).

Far from ideal, but they are theoretically possible - and far more likely than anything at Lebreton which would be 5+ years away.

I wouldn’t even say Keith Harris Stadium at Carleton is theoretically feasible, they don’t have anything close to required for the game day experience to be revenue viable.

Possibly Terry Fox but it would require a huge investment and is in a terrible location with little transit and virtually no parking.

Edited September 10, 2018 by BuzzAndSting

[Viruk42]

7 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

I wouldn’t even say Keith Harris Stadium at Carleton is theoretically feasible, they don’t have anything close to required for the game day experience to be revenue viable.

Possibly Terry Fox but it would require a huge investment and is in a terrible location with little transit and virtually no parking.

Ya, I thought of Terry Fox before - feels like it'd be easier/cheaper to put the investment into a deal with Carleton frankly. At least the field, being turf, can be used year round and there's already plenty of parking. Completely agree on the game day experience stuff, but there is physical space that they could build concessions, more seats, non-portable washrooms, etc.

Again, far from ideal, but theoretically workable if someone is willing to put the investment in.

[BuzzAndSting]

56 minutes ago, Viruk42 said:

Ya, I thought of Terry Fox before - feels like it'd be easier/cheaper to put the investment into a deal with Carleton frankly. At least the field, being turf, can be used year round and there's already plenty of parking. Completely agree on the game day experience stuff, but there is physical space that they could build concessions, more seats, non-portable washrooms, etc.

Again, far from ideal, but theoretically workable if someone is willing to put the investment in.

I just don't see the university investing, they have a ton of money tied up in multiple major renovation projects already and they completed a major renovation of their athletic facilities a few years ago.

[Viruk42]

8 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

I just don't see the university investing, they have a ton of money tied up in multiple major renovation projects already and they completed a major renovation of their athletic facilities a few years ago.

Well Carleton has millions in reserve funds - and by millions, I mean it could be as much as 100mil, if not more. So they almost certainly could afford it, but they'd need a reason to invest that. As things stand I don't see it happening, but if some group wanted to put a team there semi-long term, they could maybe work out a semi-long term rental agreement (as a guess, I would say that's either cheap rent + paying for the improved facilities or the university pays for the upgrades and the team pays for it through the rent. It's unlikely the university would complain if someone wanted to pay to upgrade it either way, even if that means giving away some field access, but it still needs someone to want to pay for the upgrades)

[Ansem]

9 minutes ago, Viruk42 said:

It's unlikely the university would complain if someone wanted to pay to upgrade it either way, even if that means giving away some field access, but it still needs someone to want to pay for the upgrades)

Universities rarely do

McGill Stadium upgraded by the Allouettes in CFL is an example

[Cblake]

I just do not see a CPL team being viable in Ottawa if the Fury are already playing in the USL as they are. TD is a major league facility and I do not see anything else being perceived that way especially if its some sort of modular pop up thing. Building at the flats is not realistic at all, the land is just too valuable. 

Plus if you are a fan/supporter of the Fury are you really going to  jump ship, I don't think so. TD Place has so much going for it. 

[ted]

12 minutes ago, Cblake said:

Plus if you are a fan/supporter of the Fury are you really going to  jump ship, I don't think so. TD Place has so much going for it. 

A stadium that is too big, playing games in a league of cities that are virtually meaningless?

I think a smaller venue and/or playing against communities you know in a National League will be enough for some supporters to jump ship.

[Ansem]

34 minutes ago, Cblake said:

I just do not see a CPL team being viable in Ottawa if the Fury are already playing in the USL as they are. TD is a major league facility and I do not see anything else being perceived that way especially if its some sort of modular pop up thing. Building at the flats is not realistic at all, the land is just too valuable. 

Plus if you are a fan/supporter of the Fury are you really going to  jump ship, I don't think so. TD Place has so much going for it. 

If there's an Ottawa team for CPL with their own stadium plans, how long do you expect the CSA to sanction the Fury in USL?

Not long in my opinion

[ChrisinOrleans]

17 minutes ago, Ansem said:

If there's an Ottawa team for CPL with their own stadium plans, how long do you expect the CSA to sanction the Fury in USL?

Not long in my opinion

They'd lose the ensuing court challenge and be back at square one. 

[Ansem]

6 minutes ago, ChrisinOrleans said:

They'd lose the ensuing court challenge and be back at square one. 

What court challenge? The CSA not wanting to sanction clubs below D1 due to existing alternatives is pretty straightforward. 

They are within their right to sanction or not. 

Attacking the CSA is by default attacking FIFA and courts aren't thrilled at ruling on sport organization rules

[ChrisinOrleans]

Just now, Ansem said:

What court challenge? The CSA not wanting to sanction clubs below D1 due to existing alternatives is pretty straightforward. 

They are within their right to sanction or not. 

Attacking the CSA is by default attacking FIFA and courts aren't thrilled at ruling on sport organization rules

It's really not that simple. I don't want to come across like a know-it-all here, but I've got a degree in law and want to explain a few things.  

Sanctioning bodies are not gods. They can regulate your profession, or your league, or your dental practice, but they cannot influence WHERE you practice. 

I'll give you some examples. All doctors in the country are bound by the College of Physicians in Ottawa. It's a pretty simple body. Respect the rules, keep current on training, pay a fee and register your practice. Sound familiar? Okay, keeping physicians in Canada is naturally a good thing. There is even some provincial legislation around how we can entice you to go to the country or a different part of the province or town. There is absolutely no law that could prohibit that doctor from still paying their medical dues, and being able to practice in Canada, yet doing so in Ohio or France. Indeed, many do this. 

This also applies for the Law Society of Upper Canada, and lawyers. You can graduate here, live here, pay your dues here, and work in New York (as long as they're sanctioning you) without the LSUC being able to say anything as long as your meet their educational requirements and pass the bar (and don't commit a crime).  

It all stems from Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (mobility rights). If the CSA said 'We're going to use our sanctioning powers to prevent a Canadian business from operating in its preferred economic climate to force them to join a league in which we directly profit', they would directly be contravening OSEG's right to derive an income in the location of their choosing. 

This is ignoring the fact that the CSA derives a direct economic benefit from the sales of CanPL (since CSA material is bundled in the media package). That's opening a different court challenge, based on 'The Canadian Competition Act'. Basically, a regulatory organization can hold a monopoly on a professions government structure, and can admit or reject members based on skill or failure to maintain their practice, but cannot stifle competition among its members. In this case, that means that CanPL will have to compete with USL, but cannot hold a monopoly forcing Ottawa to join.  

If the CSA denied the Fury sanctioning for no reason other than to force them into a league of their choosing, and OSEG sued, the CSA would lose on both of the above grounds. 

We're not even exploring the possibility of a NAFTA suit either. Denying a company the ability to sell its wares to an American firm in place of a Canadian firm - in a sporting context no less - is a clear violation of our own trade laws. I don't know enough about trade law to speak intelligently about a trade suit, but I've seen them brought about for even dumber things than this. 

Oh, and courts are not thrilled to be ruling on anything outside of established precedent. But they will happily do so, sports or otherwise. We're not talking about sporting rules, but the limitations of professional regulatory bodies to sanction (or coerce) independent actors into a new economic arrangement.  

[Ansem]

21 minutes ago, ChrisinOrleans said:

It's really not that simple. I don't want to come across like a know-it-all here, but I've got a degree in law and want to explain a few things.  

Sanctioning bodies are not gods. They can regulate your profession, or your league, or your dental practice, but they cannot influence WHERE you practice. 

I'll give you some examples. All doctors in the country are bound by the College of Physicians in Ottawa. It's a pretty simple body. Respect the rules, keep current on training, pay a fee and register your practice. Sound familiar? Okay, keeping physicians in Canada is naturally a good thing. There is even some provincial legislation around how we can entice you to go to the country or a different part of the province or town. There is absolutely no law that could prohibit that doctor from still paying their medical dues, and being able to practice in Canada, yet doing so in Ohio or France. Indeed, many do this. 

This also applies for the Law Society of Upper Canada, and lawyers. You can graduate here, live here, pay your dues here, and work in New York (as long as they're sanctioning you) without the LSUC being able to say anything as long as your meet their educational requirements and pass the bar (and don't commit a crime).  

It all stems from Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (mobility rights). If the CSA said 'We're going to use our sanctioning powers to prevent a Canadian business from operating in its preferred economic climate to force them to join a league in which we directly profit', they would directly be contravening OSEG's right to derive an income in the location of their choosing. 

This is ignoring the fact that the CSA derives a direct economic benefit from the sales of CanPL (since CSA material is bundled in the media package). That's opening a different court challenge, based on 'The Canadian Competition Act'. Basically, a regulatory organization can hold a monopoly on a professions government structure, and can admit or reject members based on skill or failure to maintain their practice, but cannot stifle competition among its members. In this case, that means that CanPL will have to compete with USL, but cannot hold a monopoly forcing Ottawa to join.  

If the CSA denied the Fury sanctioning for no reason other than to force them into a league of their choosing, and OSEG sued, the CSA would lose on both of the above grounds. 

We're not even exploring the possibility of a NAFTA suit either. Denying a company the ability to sell its wares to an American firm in place of a Canadian firm - in a sporting context no less - is a clear violation of our own trade laws. I don't know enough about trade law to speak intelligently about a trade suit, but I've seen them brought about for even dumber things than this. 

Oh, and courts are not thrilled to be ruling on anything outside of established precedent. But they will happily do so, sports or otherwise. We're not talking about sporting rules, but the limitations of professional regulatory bodies to sanction (or coerce) independent actors into a new economic arrangement.  

Bottom line. 

Fury can play or do whatever they want but the CSA is under no obligation to sanction them in USL.. good luck getting USL allowing an unsanctioned club to compete. The CSA is implementing powers granted to them by FIFA which doesn't like inter country league competition except under special circumstances.

All party knew the CSA/FIFA convention ahead of time and still choose to due business under said circumstances.

The CSA doesnt want to have it's members in US leagues while alternatives exists. The 3 MLS clubs would have a much better case than the Fury could ever dream to have. The Fury are sanctioned to USL under the principle that there's no other options available to them, CPL starting in 2019 blew that argument away. As FIFA actually have in their convention that they don't want such scenarios unless it's under strict conditions, Fury has no case as time goes by.

They could argue USL is "higher" level than CanPL but how long is it going to be true, if indeed true? Then what? Join CPL? If the league wants them after what just happened because to prove your point, you got to take shots at the league you might need down the road.

Removing sanctioning to force them in CPL is one thing, removing sanctioning because there's no point in doing so because you're pyramid provides similar set of circumstances is a totally different thing. The CSA is not obligated to put up with USL on it's territory when CPL is here and were provided the opportunity to join. The fact that they shot down that option and blindsided the league on top of it weakens their case. The CSA will easily argue that not only were they provided all the chances to join but as the league said, could have operated virtually "as is".

Sorry, but OSEG played poorly by pissing off both the CSA and CPL by blindsiding them both. Talking to both of them ahead of time and working out some kind of roadmap for the future would have been much more constructive.

Fury can challenge that, but you're challenging the governing body itself, FIFA.

Sanctioning is a privilege, not a right

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Ansem

[1996]

5 hours ago, shamrock said:

Problem is OSEG has that awesome stadium. I mean, every other stadium option would be a serious downgrade. 

I feel like CSA should force them out of USL, if not now, next season. What good does it do for soccer in Canada to have them playing there?

I’ll repeat unless there are going to fill these stadiums like Winnipeg and Hamilton stadiums like the one in Ottawa are too big, 6000 people in a 22000 seat stadium I’m sorry looks horrible , but 4 to 5000 people in a stadium Halifax is going to play in is going to look great on TV and great to be at live, this league should have gone with small stadiums for all its teams ,  you might get a big crowd on opening day in Hamilton and Winnipeg, but after that even if 6 to 7000 are there for most of the games in these two cities all those empty seats will kill the atmosphere.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, ChrisinOrleans said:

It's really not that simple. I don't want to come across like a know-it-all here, but I've got a degree in law and want to explain a few things.  

Sanctioning bodies are not gods. They can regulate your profession, or your league, or your dental practice, but they cannot influence WHERE you practice. 

I'll give you some examples. All doctors in the country are bound by the College of Physicians in Ottawa. It's a pretty simple body. Respect the rules, keep current on training, pay a fee and register your practice. Sound familiar? Okay, keeping physicians in Canada is naturally a good thing. There is even some provincial legislation around how we can entice you to go to the country or a different part of the province or town. There is absolutely no law that could prohibit that doctor from still paying their medical dues, and being able to practice in Canada, yet doing so in Ohio or France. Indeed, many do this. 

This also applies for the Law Society of Upper Canada, and lawyers. You can graduate here, live here, pay your dues here, and work in New York (as long as they're sanctioning you) without the LSUC being able to say anything as long as your meet their educational requirements and pass the bar (and don't commit a crime).  

It all stems from Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (mobility rights). If the CSA said 'We're going to use our sanctioning powers to prevent a Canadian business from operating in its preferred economic climate to force them to join a league in which we directly profit', they would directly be contravening OSEG's right to derive an income in the location of their choosing. 

This is ignoring the fact that the CSA derives a direct economic benefit from the sales of CanPL (since CSA material is bundled in the media package). That's opening a different court challenge, based on 'The Canadian Competition Act'. Basically, a regulatory organization can hold a monopoly on a professions government structure, and can admit or reject members based on skill or failure to maintain their practice, but cannot stifle competition among its members. In this case, that means that CanPL will have to compete with USL, but cannot hold a monopoly forcing Ottawa to join.  

If the CSA denied the Fury sanctioning for no reason other than to force them into a league of their choosing, and OSEG sued, the CSA would lose on both of the above grounds. 

We're not even exploring the possibility of a NAFTA suit either. Denying a company the ability to sell its wares to an American firm in place of a Canadian firm - in a sporting context no less - is a clear violation of our own trade laws. I don't know enough about trade law to speak intelligently about a trade suit, but I've seen them brought about for even dumber things than this. 

Oh, and courts are not thrilled to be ruling on anything outside of established precedent. But they will happily do so, sports or otherwise. We're not talking about sporting rules, but the limitations of professional regulatory bodies to sanction (or coerce) independent actors into a new economic arrangement.  

FIFA authorises national federations or associations to establish the terms of competition. Fury is currently playing in a league sanctioned by the USSF. That is a monopolistic power, and FIFA defends it successfully in court in maybe 210 countries around the world. All exceptions of teams playing in a league outside the national federation's jurisdiction (Welsh teams in England the most notorious) are made under authority of a monopolistic federation allowing it. On their own accord. Thus MLS.

So I think you are totally mistaken on a number of accounts, but mostly, you have misrepresented a number of points.

Your argument about doctors (architects, engineers) being licensed to practice in more than one country, which could apply for any professional authorised by a professional college or association, is a poor example. No one is arguing for a club to play in two different competitions, doubling up. And no team in the world does it, unless there is some Welsh team playing in England also playing a Welsh FA cup of sorts. The college does authorise practice in its place of jurisdiction. The real problem in Canada, is that the CSA does not do enough to sanction federated competition and leave everything else in the "house" or pub league mode.

The NAFTA argument is faulty, as you argue it in terms of "selling wares". You don't even frame it properly, which is in terms of a service. In any case, a Canadian team can indeed go to the US, and play a game, get the gate, and generate revenue: in a friendly. Happens all the time. So there is no global or full-coverage restriction being opposed by denying sanctioning, it is a specfic restriction related to competition. Which is only sanctioned by a national federation or association if you are playing FIFA rules. 

Finally, you assume that non-sanctioning would have to explicitly be coercive. You talk about "forcing".  There is no basis to say that the CSA would frame it that way. Simply, you have a sanctioning body, and it sanctions teams for fully professional play in Canadian leagues, perhaps making some exceptions as it sees fit. MLS is the exception. It does not have to explicitly say it sanctions or denies on the basis of forcing a club to do something against their will. It can cite precedent of having placed limitations previously. It can cite the fact that it DID sanction Fury for USL as an exception in the past, giving it equal power to rescind that exceptionality. It can even say, that if Ottawa were to get an MLS franchise, they'd be sanctioned by the CSA to play, proving there is no discriminatory intent. 

Anyways, as I see it, the legal argument against non-sanctioning of Fury for USL is not on solid enough ground.

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Unnamed Trialist

[BuzzAndSting]

For those saying that TD Place does not offer a good experience, you’re wrong. It’s a great venue and when the lower south is full it’s a great atmosphere.

[Ansem]

4 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

For those saying that TD Place does not offer a good experience, you’re wrong. It’s a great venue and when the lower south is full it’s a great atmosphere.

I think the TV angle might be the issue. It doesn't look good on TV despite people saying that it'a more full than it looks (lower bowl)

[BuzzAndSting]

Neil Davidson’s article in the G&M disproving more of the Fury’s bullshit. 

“CSA has sanctioning authority and we’re sanctioned to play in the USL in 2019,” said Goudie. “But that’s a thing that all of the professional teams in Canada are subject to.”

Asked for comment on the issue of sanctioning the Fury, a CSA spokesman said only: “Canada Soccer is continually working through the due diligence of proper sanctioning requirements and will provide an update once sanctioning procedures have been completed.”

[BuzzAndSting]

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I think the TV angle might be the issue. It doesn't look good on TV despite people saying that it'a more full than it looks (lower bowl)

Fair enough. They have switched the camera pits to the north side so it only take 6-8K to make the place look “full” from the cameras perspective. I honestly think the Fury could have easily got those numbers regularly in the CPL.

Edited September 11, 2018 by BuzzAndSting

[Cheeta]

11 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

Neil Davidson’s article in the G&M disproving more of the Fury’s bullshit. 

“CSA has sanctioning authority and we’re sanctioned to play in the USL in 2019,” said Goudie. “But that’s a thing that all of the professional teams in Canada are subject to.”

Asked for comment on the issue of sanctioning the Fury, a CSA spokesman said only: “Canada Soccer is continually working through the due diligence of proper sanctioning requirements and will provide an update once sanctioning procedures have been completed.”

LOL.  I have a mental image of some emotionless suit doing their best to be an unblinking robot when they delivered that line.  Just for shits and giggles lets run that through the CheetaTranslator shall we?

"We promise you'll receive a fair trail before we hang you."

Hmm.  Thought so.

[Ansem]

33 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

Neil Davidson’s article in the G&M disproving more of the Fury’s bullshit. 

“CSA has sanctioning authority and we’re sanctioned to play in the USL in 2019,” said Goudie. “But that’s a thing that all of the professional teams in Canada are subject to.”

Asked for comment on the issue of sanctioning the Fury, a CSA spokesman said only: “Canada Soccer is continually working through the due diligence of proper sanctioning requirements and will provide an update once sanctioning procedures have been completed.”

And the journalist's thought the next paragraph 

Hardly a confirmation 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Ansem

[BuzzAndSting]

4 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

LOL.  I have a mental image of some emotionless suit doing their best to be an unblinking robot when they delivered that line.  Just for shits and giggles lets run that through the CheetaTranslator shall we?

"We promise you'll receive a fair trail before we hang you."

Hmm.  Thought so.

I agree with Steve Sandor that refusing sanctioning for 2019 would accomplish nothing. I think it’s a formality I just find it interesting that Mark Goudie insists that the Fury are sanctioned for 2019 yet the CSA felt it important to comment and state that it is not completed.