Ottawa CPL Club

[matty]

2 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Lol.  Not sure how anyone could assume from that statement that CONCACAF has grandfathered the Fury into USL for as long as they want.

Not BBTB but for some maybe

Edited March 1, 2019 by matty

[Gian-Luca]

So what do people say if MLSE wants to not only own a CPL team (as Bill Manning has recently said), but put it in Ottawa? Just speculation on my part, but I did see it announced recently that TFC has some kind of developmental affiliate in the Ottawa region. If nothing else it would be interesting to see which Ottawa-based franchise would then become the most hated, the team refusing to join the CPL or the one that is owned by (seemingly in the eyes of many on here) the Devil Incarnate.

[dyslexic nam]

1 minute ago, Gian-Luca said:

So what do people say if MLSE wants to not only own a CPL team (as Bill Manning has recently said), but put it in Ottawa? Just speculation on my part, but I did see it announced recently that TFC has some kind of developmental affiliate in the Ottawa region. If nothing else it would be interesting to see which Ottawa-based franchise would then become the most hated, the team refusing to join the CPL or the one that is owned by (seemingly in the eyes of many on here) the Devil Incarnate.

It would be like Arsenal playing Chelsea - can they both fucking lose?

[dyslexic nam]

The interesting thing to me about Clanachan's quote is that he is basically acknowledging they will face off with Fury at some point if they choose to stay in USL.  

"I started off by saying the people of Ottawa deserve to have a team in the Canadian Premier League. It’s Canada’s professional league. I can’t … I don’t see a world where a team from Ottawa is not playing in that league.  Do you?”

Pretty clear indication that CPL will not be excluded from the Ottawa market indefinitely just because the Fury don't want to play.   

[matty]

12 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

So what do people say if MLSE wants to not only own a CPL team (as Bill Manning has recently said), but put it in Ottawa? Just speculation on my part, but I did see it announced recently that TFC has some kind of developmental affiliate in the Ottawa region. If nothing else it would be interesting to see which Ottawa-based franchise would then become the most hated, the team refusing to join the CPL or the one that is owned by (seemingly in the eyes of many on here) the Devil Incarnate.

Ottawa without any affiliations is what people want in CPL and Ottawa would be the biggest heel

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

If Fury had been "grandfathered" as you say, CONCACAF wouldn't specify that the sanction is for 2019 and 2019 only

Sanctioning of CSA members playing out in USSF leagues is always done one year at a time. 

[Ansem]

40 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

Sanctioning of CSA members playing out in USSF leagues is always done one year at a time. 

So you shouldn't use the word "grandfathered"

[CDNFootballer]

5 hours ago, Ansem said:

I'm 99% sure that I saw somewhere that the notice required was lowered to 6 months.

Yes, it has been lowered to 6 months.

[CDNFootballer]

From the Ottawa Citizen article :

"General manager Julian de Guzman says Fury FC is, “happy to be in the USL. For us, it’s a league that has evolved and has flourished and has been successful for a couple of years now.

“We’re seeing the re-branding of the league and what they’re implementing now with 36 teams in total to compete for a title. That’s massive when you have two conferences of 18 each. You don’t find that in any league in the world right now. To be a part of that, and the only existing Canadian team, that definitely keeps involved in some of the best competitions you could be involved with for North America, and that’s important for our development, that’s important for our success for the Fury and also that’s important for the future of the game in Canada.”

USL is really good at the propaganda game and JDG has followed suit.

USL has basically just changed the name of the league, a mostly AAA style minor league of MLS at that, with a league average attendance of about 3800 last year (without the Cincinatti franchise that has left for MLS this year and was the one team drawing abnormally high attendances for a lower div league and inflating the league average). After operating for years and years the USL pays such low wages still that  you can make more working in fast food.

Hopefully for the fans the Fury move up to the Division 1 CPL in the next year or two and shed their minor league affiliate model.

 

Edited March 2, 2019 by CDNFootballer

[Cheeta]

6 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

So what do people say if MLSE wants to not only own a CPL team (as Bill Manning has recently said), but put it in Ottawa? Just speculation on my part, but I did see it announced recently that TFC has some kind of developmental affiliate in the Ottawa region. If nothing else it would be interesting to see which Ottawa-based franchise would then become the most hated, the team refusing to join the CPL or the one that is owned by (seemingly in the eyes of many on here) the Devil Incarnate.

In business never say never so I'm going to speculate there is about a 1% chance that the CPL board will approve MLSE as a franchise owner.  Unless of course MLSE is in compliance with the leagues non-compete and conflict of interest by-laws (such as will come into existence about 15 minutes after MLSE or anyone else shows a serious interest in operating franchises in other soccer leagues in North America at the same time as they want to operate a franchise in this league) in which case if they do, meh, I'd give them a 2% chance.

But good on Manning for allowing this league a bit of a think.  He's welcome to drop off a franchise application for consideration (along with the $500,000 non refundable application fee)  anytime after the completion of the 2019 season so it can receive a fair and honest review before being rejected.   

I'm in no rush to get a CPL team in Ottawa.  Its going to happen without any need to fuss.  Time is already on the CPL's side and the league doesn't even have 1 minute of match time under it's belt.  Just going to wait out that Blockbuster USL franchise to come to its inevitable conclusion.  

 

[Gian-Luca]

19 hours ago, Cheeta said:

In business never say never so I'm going to speculate there is about a 1% chance that the CPL board will approve MLSE as a franchise owner.  Unless of course MLSE is in compliance with the leagues non-compete and conflict of interest by-laws (such as will come into existence about 15 minutes after MLSE or anyone else shows a serious interest in operating franchises in other soccer leagues in North America at the same time as they want to operate a franchise in this league) in which case if they do, meh, I'd give them a 2% chance.

Can you elaborate on where you think a conflict of interest comes into play? Having one owner who owns two teams in the same league for sure is a potential conflict of interest even though we've seen it happen in the MLS and CFL. But if Saputo, or MLSE or Red Bull or Manchester City's owners or whoever wants to invest in Canadian soccer, own a team in the league and pay for new facilities to be built in various communities, where does the conflict of interest come into play if they only own one team in this league? I can maybe see potential conflcts for the Voyageurs Cup if there is a say, a Saputo-owned team in Quebec City, but the V Cup isn't owned by the CPL, it's run by the CSA.

[dyslexic nam]

7 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Can you elaborate on where you think a conflict of interest comes into play? Having one owner who owns two teams in the same league for sure is a potential conflict of interest even though we've seen it happen in the MLS and CFL. But if Saputo, or MLSE or Red Bull or Manchester City's owners or whoever wants to invest in Canadian soccer, own a team in the league and pay for new facilities to be built in various communities, where does the conflict of interest come into play if they only own one team in this league? I can maybe see potential conflcts for the Voyageurs Cup if there is a say, a Saputo-owned team in Quebec City, but the V Cup isn't owned by the CPL, it's run by the CSA.

There are a few angles of possible conflict.

One is the V-Cup scenario.  TFC vs MLSE CPL team is clearly a possible issue, even if CSA is the party implicated.

Another possible conflict is around player movement.  If the common ownership of the two teams enabled preferential treatment of a CPL MLSE team by TFC, they could have an unfair advantage in terms of access to fringe MLS players.  The loan possibilities would clearly provide the potential for huge subsidies of the wage bill and that give them an unfair advantage.  The same issue would occur if the Fury were to enter the league with their "affiliate" status to TFC and the Impact intact.

The other potential conflict is more subtle.  Assuming TFC is their primary footy revenue generator and assuming the growth of a strong and supported CPL has the potential to siphon off support from TFC (both reasonable assumptions in my view), the the backers of a CPL team would have an entrenched interest in ensuring CPL doesn't grow to the point where it seriously threatens the popularity of MLS/TFC.  Having one third of that pie would be seen as more lucrative than 1/8th (or 1/10th or 1/12th) of the support for CPL.  It is a classic "fox guarding the henhouse" situation.

[Gian-Luca]

3 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

There are a few angles of possible conflict.

One is the V-Cup scenario.  TFC vs MLSE CPL team is clearly a possible issue, even if CSA is the party implicated.

Another possible conflict is around player movement.  If the common ownership of the two teams enabled preferential treatment of a CPL MLSE team by TFC, they could have an unfair advantage in terms of access to fringe MLS players.  The loan possibilities would clearly provide the potential for huge subsidies of the wage bill and that give them an unfair advantage.  The same issue would occur if the Fury were to enter the league with their "affiliate" status to TFC and the Impact intact.

The other potential conflict is more subtle.  Assuming TFC is their primary footy revenue generator and assuming the growth of a strong and supported CPL has the potential to siphon off support from TFC (both reasonable assumptions in my view), the the backers of a CPL team would have an entrenched interest in ensuring CPL doesn't grow to the point where it seriously threatens the popularity of MLS/TFC.  Having one third of that pie would be seen as more lucrative than 1/8th (or 1/10th or 1/12th) of the support for CPL.  It is a classic "fox guarding the henhouse" situation.

None of these strike me as particularly problematic and/or areas of genuine conflict of interest for the league. As I mentioned, the V-Cup isn't the league so that doesn't apply at all as a conflict of interest situation where one of the existing MLS team owners owns a team in the CPL. Any conflict within the Cup competition itself (where I think there is really the only meaningful potential) is not something the CPL gets to rule or adjudicate on, and can be easily legislated for in the tournament rules - you simply have Cup-tie rules or other declared roster regulations that prevent players from MLS teams being loaned to CPL teams where they have the same ownership.

The second scenario is I think is more accurately described as a potential "competitive advantage" (rather than a "conflict of interest") - and again, I think you put in rules, salary cap levels and regulations which apply to all teams or specifically legislate in situations where clubs are affiliated with clubs from other leagues to prevent that from happening (which might also apply to whatever it is that Rob Gale is trying to do in Winnipeg, incidentally).

As for the subtle conflict described in the third scenario, I don't really buy it. If MLSE see the CPL as a threat to TFC, the worst thing they can do is to put a team in the league and invest millions into it and help to stabilize it and ensure its survival. I'd be more inclined to believe Manning is lying through his teeth (and to be fully transparent, I don't like particularly like Manning and am fully prepared to believe that he could be) about wanting to invest a team in the league than I am that they are investing in the league in order to weaken it, destroy it or neutralize it as a threat. If they are genuine, if I'm the CPL I'm thinking of where the best place for them to put a team is. MLSE says they want to put a team in the league and the CPL wants to have a franchise in Ottawa so that might seem a good fit (hence the speculation in this particular thread), but ideally as a fan I'm thinking it would be better if Ottawa just joined the CPL and MLSE puts a team in St. John's Newfoundland and pours millions into helping to renovate King George V Park and gives Halifax a nice east-coast rival and travel destination.

 

[Cheeta]

2 hours ago, Gian-Luca said:

Can you elaborate on where you think a conflict of interest comes into play? 

...

 

First, second, third and on it's all about brand.  Which brand is your priority? Who's brand are you selling?  And when it really comes down to it who's brand are you supporting?  Because I suspect, when push comes to shove, when these questions arise the parent brand has to take precedent.  Because, you know, that parent brand brought the money.  And I don't believe the CPL wants to find themselves in that place.  I don't believe the CPL wants to find themselves even appearing to be vulnerable to that.  With branding optics matter, no?

CPL shares a marketplace with MLS  and with USL.  Arguments will be made that it doesn't but it inescapable, it does. And CPL's brand value to consumers will be constantly measured against the brand value of MLS and USL.  They're in competition with each other.  Now how consumers measure the value of each brand is complicated but make no mistake, in spite of a common consumer link what benefits one doesn't necessarily benefit them all.  

I'm going to pick on MLSE.  But it's fairly easy to sub in Saputo or Man City by adjusting the geographical details. 

Nothing MLSE is going to bring to CPL will ever come close to the monetary investment and potential MLSE has made and expects from their MLS franchise in Toronto.  MLSE priority has to be protecting and promoting their MLS investment. They'd be derelict in their corporate responsibilities if they didn't.

So if you accept, as I do, that CPL is in competition with the other North American Leagues then you have to accept that investors, particularly ones who will have a superior vested financial interest in a competitive league shouldn't be allowed within your corporate family.  CPL cannot be their priority.   The potential for a conflict of interest will always exist. 

At the franchise level and, at least as importantly, at the corporate level.  MLSE becomes part of CPL's governance structure the second they're allowed to buy into the league.  That troubles me more than what could occur at the franchise level. 

It will be suggested the benefits outweigh the risks.  There is A LOT these deep pocketed investors from more mature leagues have to offer the CPL.  But I disagree.  I think the CPL is going to get along just fine without them.  Better than fine.  So don't risk the brands up side.  Optics matter.     

   

[Guest]

4 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

There are a few angles of possible conflict.

One is the V-Cup scenario.  TFC vs MLSE CPL team is clearly a possible issue, even if CSA is the party implicated.

Another possible conflict is around player movement.  If the common ownership of the two teams enabled preferential treatment of a CPL MLSE team by TFC, they could have an unfair advantage in terms of access to fringe MLS players.  The loan possibilities would clearly provide the potential for huge subsidies of the wage bill and that give them an unfair advantage.  The same issue would occur if the Fury were to enter the league with their "affiliate" status to TFC and the Impact intact.

The other potential conflict is more subtle.  Assuming TFC is their primary footy revenue generator and assuming the growth of a strong and supported CPL has the potential to siphon off support from TFC (both reasonable assumptions in my view), the the backers of a CPL team would have an entrenched interest in ensuring CPL doesn't grow to the point where it seriously threatens the popularity of MLS/TFC.  Having one third of that pie would be seen as more lucrative than 1/8th (or 1/10th or 1/12th) of the support for CPL.  It is a classic "fox guarding the henhouse" situation.

Very well presented.

Player loans are also a massive potential banana skin for CPL if the "parent" MLS club were to start loaning its promising youngsters to the CPL "development" club and then taking back an improved player with no transfer fee. At that point CPL would clearly be perceived as a development league for MLS and it would be finished. I would even go so far as to say that CPL should not permit ANY player loans from MLS for this very reason.

Player transfers from CPL to MLS with payment of an appropriate transfer fee would be entirely different. It will not be any secret that MLS currently has a higher level of play and transfers are to be expected. Of course good young CPL players are likely to transfer to other leagues too.

Edited March 3, 2019 by dsqpr

[ChrisinOrleans]

15 minutes ago, dsqpr said:

Player loans are also a massive potential banana skin for CPL if the "parent" MLS club were to start loaning its promising youngsters to the CPL "development" club and then taking back an improved player with no transfer fee. At that point CPL would clearly be perceived as a development league for MLS and it would be finished. I would even go so far as to say that CPL should not permit ANY player loans from MLS for this very reason.

The Impact have been sitting on Maxime Crépeau because he wasn't what they were looking for. They loaned him to Ottawa where he had an absolutely astounding year (watching him tear apart his teammates for their awful defending was the highlight of the season). He is now starting for Vancouver in MLS, which is leaps and bounds ahead of CanPL or USL. Ottawa fans are rightly proud of him, as are many Montréal fans. We still consider him "ours" - especially in the Franco-Ontarian community. He was a boon to the team, and the city. 

Why deny Canadian talent the ability to advance, simply because they have ambitions in other leagues? Why stymie our national team's development for the branding of a league that is not the highest level of talent in the country? Most importantly, why deny the fans of <insert market here> the ability to watch a quality player at a bargain price?  

Belgium is clearly a lower level than France next door, and yet tens of thousands tune in to watch. So I don't accept the argument that fans won't accept a "development" league. Especially in markets that MLS is not considering. 

CanPL is ALWAYS going to be lower quality than MLS, unless Canada's urban markets suddenly get super rich and populaed, attract 15k - 20k fans per game, in 20+ cities, and bring in Drogba-Rooney-Kaka level talent, so why not accept our unique market position and work with what is available?  

I don't get the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality of this board regarding MLS and the Fury... it's a loan, not a vassalization or declaration of subservience.  

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, ChrisinOrleans said:

The Impact have been sitting on Maxime Crépeau because he wasn't what they were looking for. They loaned him to Ottawa where he had an absolutely astounding year (watching him tear apart his teammates for their awful defending was the highlight of the season). He is now starting for Vancouver in MLS, which is leaps and bounds ahead of CanPL or USL. Ottawa fans are rightly proud of him, as are many Montréal fans. We still consider him "ours" - especially in the Franco-Ontarian community. He was a boon to the team, and the city. 

Why deny Canadian talent the ability to advance, simply because they have ambitions in other leagues? Why stymie our national team's development for the branding of a league that is not the highest level of talent in the country? Most importantly, why deny the fans of <insert market here> the ability to watch a quality player at a bargain price?  

Belgium is clearly a lower level than France next door, and yet tens of thousands tune in to watch. So I don't accept the argument that fans won't accept a "development" league. Especially in markets that MLS is not considering. 

CanPL is ALWAYS going to be lower quality than MLS, unless Canada's urban markets suddenly get super rich and populaed, attract 15k - 20k fans per game, in 20+ cities, and bring in Drogba-Rooney-Kaka level talent, so why not accept our unique market position and work with what is available?  

I don't get the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality of this board regarding MLS and the Fury... it's a loan, not a vassalization or declaration of subservience.  

You have hit on the key problem with loans Chris: the club who "develops" the player does not receive appropriate remuneration. Part of the CPL business model is to develop players and sell them. If a player wants to play in CPL to improve, why not make it a free transfer instead of a loan? Players will soon realize what they need to do in order to play in CPL. If they want to sit on an MLS bench, go for it. Allowing the top teams to loan players like this allows them to hog all the talent and not pay for the player improvement. Not good for CPL.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on whether Canadian fans will support an MLS development league in Canada, masquerading as a Canadian league. I personally will not and I have been a football fan ever since I was about 6. Of course I may be the exception but somehow I doubt it.

[Ottawafan74]

On 3/2/2019 at 11:22 PM, dsqpr said:

You have hit on the key problem with loans Chris: the club who "develops" the player does not receive appropriate remuneration. Part of the CPL business model is to develop players and sell them. If a player wants to play in CPL to improve, why not make it a free transfer instead of a loan? Players will soon realize what they need to do in order to play in CPL. If they want to sit on an MLS bench, go for it. Allowing the top teams to loan players like this allows them to hog all the talent and not pay for the player improvement. Not good for CPL.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on whether Canadian fans will support an MLS development league in Canada, masquerading as a Canadian league. I personally will not and I have been a football fan ever since I was about 6. Of course I may be the exception but somehow I doubt it.

This is partly what’s wrong with soccer in this country. Protecting your turf, even if it’s a detriment of the game as a whole. Canadian soccer fans should be interested in developing an environment that allows players to further their skills and abilities. Those that look to put up barriers out of spite are a dime a dozen in this country. 

[Alex D]

1 hour ago, Ottawafan74 said:

This is partly what’s wrong with soccer in this country. Protecting your turf, even if it’s a detriment of the game as a whole. Canadian soccer fans should be interested in developing an environment that allows players to further their skills and abilities. Those that look to put up barriers out of spite are a dime a dozen in this country. 

But would this actually help the sport in Canada or is this MLS protecting its turf by undermining a rival league?

[Ottawafan74]

15 minutes ago, Alex D said:

But would this actually help the sport in Canada or is this MLS protecting its turf by undermining a rival league?

By loaning out a player?  Not buying it. It’s similar to the CHL implementing a rule to block non NA goalies thru the import draft. That was designed to protect Canadian goalies; they’ve since reversed that decision. 

The best way to develop talent is to allow talent to go up against the best. 

[Alex D]

52 minutes ago, Ottawafan74 said:

By loaning out a player?  Not buying it. It’s similar to the CHL implementing a rule to block non NA goalies thru the import draft. That was designed to protect Canadian goalies; they’ve since reversed that decision. 

The best way to develop talent is to allow talent to go up against the best. 

I'm not against any individual loans, just formal affiliations. 

[Ottawafan74]

20 minutes ago, Alex D said:

I'm not against any individual loans, just formal affiliations. 

Gotcha. 

[ted]

On 3/2/2019 at 8:22 PM, dsqpr said:

You have hit on the key problem with loans Chris: the club who "develops" the player does not receive appropriate remuneration. Part of the CPL business model is to develop players and sell them.

WTF are you talking about?!!? Loans ALWAYS* go "down".

Manchester City Loans to Charleton Athletic so their player is guaranteed minutes. It doesn't work the other way around.

CanPL could use loans to add roster depth for less than full market value, and an MLS side gets to give a player minutes while taking some (or all) of their salary off the books.

EDIT: *OK sometimes a loan can go "up" but that is for a test and usually has a clause that if they use the player more than X amount it is an automatic transfer with proper fees.

Edited March 4, 2019 by ted
add exception

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ted said:

WTF are you talking about?!!? Loans ALWAYS* go "down".

Manchester City Loans to Charleton Athletic so their player is guaranteed minutes. It doesn't work the other way around.

WTF are YOU talking about?!!?

Where have I said that loans should go "up"? I was not talking about the direction of loans. Read my post again.

[mtlsab]

Sorry if I'm late but here is an article about the Fury situation that I wrote, it's in French but for the people tryin to understand what is goin on, it can be usefull:
https://culturesoccer.com/2019/01/11/ottawa-fury-quel-avenir/