CanPL COUNTDOWN

[Robert]

I believe that the number of views and replies to this thread is indicative that many here feel a great deal of uncertainty about the prospects of the CanPL, and justifiably so. Most who argue with my point of view probably think that my opinion will somehow adversely affect the future of the CanPL. Do they really think that I have that kind of power? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint them. I do not. The CanPL will succeed or fail on its own merits. They fully deserve 100% of the credit for whatever the inevitable outcome will be!

[Bison44]

I'm still just wondering about the zepplins.  

[Robert]

34 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

I'm still just wondering about the zepplins.  

Don't worry. They'll be there on opening day. I'm on top of it.

[Kent]

9 hours ago, Robert said:

The only reason that I ignored your Australia example is because not only are Australians better soccer players than Canadians, Australia has way better soccer supporters than Canada! So its little wonder they have succeeded with their league, while we continue to fiddle-fuck around.

...

Just think, if we were just as good as Australia, we would have been going to the World Cup in 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018 just like them.

The A-League kicked off in 2005. At that time Australia had missed the previous 7 World Cups, had only ever been to 1 World Cup, and had not yet scored a goal in a World Cup. After the league kicked off they qualified for the next 4 World Cups (admittedly, they qualified for 2006 only a couple months after the first A-League game).

Canada as you point out, is vastly different. By the time CPL kicks off in 2019 Canada will have missed the previous 8 World Cups, will have only ever been to 1 World Cup, and will have not yet scored a goal in a World Cup.

[Bison44]

14 hours ago, Robert said:

Breaking News: April 5, 1909. a team of touring All-Stars from San Francisco, California played a soccer match against Nanaimo United, at the Cricket Grounds, in Nanaimo. Although they could afford to buy airplane tickets they did manage to make it to Vancouver Island in under 24 hours by steam ship. Over 3,000 enthusiasts attended the match, not bad considering the population of Nanaimo totaled less than 10,000 at the time. That's 30% of the population! Also, there were no reports of any of the visiting players succumbing to any illnesses that they may have picked up while visiting Nanaimo, Victoria and Vancouver. Also, there were very detailed accounts of English soccer matches in the local newspapers during that era.

So to answer your question, obviously you don't have a fucking clue about whatever it is your spouting off about! 

Oh, by the way, the California All-Stars defeated Nanaimo United by a score of 5 goals to 2.

 

Is this hypothetically they could afford to buy airplane tickets??  Or was it zepplin??

[Robert]

13 minutes ago, Kent said:

The A-League kicked off in 2005. At that time Australia had missed the previous 7 World Cups, had only ever been to 1 World Cup, and had not yet scored a goal in a World Cup. After the league kicked off they qualified for the next 4 World Cups (admittedly, they qualified for 2006 only a couple months after the first A-League game).

Canada as you point out, is vastly different. By the time CPL kicks off in 2019 Canada will have missed the previous 7 World Cups, will have only ever been to 1 World Cup, and will have not yet scored a goal in a World Cup.

Is there an inference that with next year's launch of the CanPL Canada will now qualify for the next 4 World Cups just like Australia did? Of course, we will obviously take part in one of those World Cups as part of the joint bid with the US and Mexico, but can we really give the CanPL credit for that?

[Kent]

Am I the only one that assumed he meant "couldn't" afford to buy airplane tickets?

[Kent]

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

Is there an inference that with next year's launch of the CanPL Canada will now qualify for the next 4 World Cups just like Australia did? Of course, we will obviously take part in one of those World Cups as part of the joint bid with the US and Mexico, but can we really give the CanPL credit for that?

One could infer that, I'm not quite so bold though, although I do think it is possible if the league is successful. It has panned out that way for Australia and USA (with this year being the exception) after they started pro leagues after mostly not making it to World Cups (USA is a bit different, since they qualified in 1990 after missing many World Cups, and then hosted in 1994). But mainly I was just trying to show that you got the order wrong for Australia. The league came first, then the whole "good at soccer" thing came after.

[Bison44]

Couldnt afford as in there were no airplane flights to be had for a soccer team at any price? Or maybe they got ferried from California to BC one at a time?? Or by hot air balloon??  Robert has his own opinion, but he cant have his own facts.  His story is very fishy and I'm curious now??  I'm just wondering about that as in the same post he is blasting someone else for not knowing what they are talking about.

[Kent]

My interpretation was that he knew how they got there, so assumed they couldn't afford to fly, without knowing (I just looked this up today) that there were not any commercial flights for a few more years yet at that time.

[ted]

17 hours ago, Robert said:

Breaking News: April 5, 1909. a team of touring All-Stars from San Francisco, California played a soccer match against Nanaimo United, at the Cricket Grounds, in Nanaimo. Although they could afford to buy airplane tickets they did manage to make it to Vancouver Island in under 24 hours by steam ship.

In 1909 regular steamship service between San Francisco and Vancouver Island had been going for decades. The Wright brother's first flight had only been 6 years before and passenger air service was not even dreamed of.

So as usual, you have a half-point that gets drowned out in your hyperbole and errors.

 

11 hours ago, Robert said:

Just think, if we were just as good as Australia, we would have been going to the World Cup in 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018 just like them.

If we had been been in a confederation with the likes of Tuvalu and Samoa, where the next best team was New Zealand, I think we would have been to most of those World Cups.

 

Edit: And apparently I am old. Australia left Oceania in 2006 so we could have made 2006 if we had been in Oceania. Of course the A League was established in 2004 so we are where they were over a decade ago. 

 

[ChrisinOrleans]

I am just reading the last 3 pages of this thread now, and man, there is some massive cognitive dissonance going on.

The poster is mad that someone compared soccer to hockey, but that same poster has absolutely no problem comparing Canada, a nation of 36-million, to Andorra, a nation smaller than PEI.

Likewise, that poster claims that any comparison between Canada and Australia is inherently disingenuous, because the two have different levels of success in developing soccer players, but fails to mention their similar geographic distribution, urban concentration and economic base – the ingredients for a successful business venture. Keep in mind, soccer is not the most popular sport in either of these countries, so the reference isn’t even apt.  

Likewise, literally anything in Canadian history before 2000 is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. We have literally added the entire population of Finland to our nation in that time, almost all in the top-10 urban areas. In 2001, the regional municipality of Halifax had ~350,000 people. Today, it’s well over 400,000. That’s the entire population of the city of Fredericton. Comparing the Halifax of the 80’s to 2001 is enough of a stretch. Comparing the 1980’s to now is simple folly.

In Ottawa, the population in 2001 was 774,000. It’s now 980,000. Including Gatineau, the regional population is 1,323,800. That’s the 4^th largest urban agglomeration in the country. Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, York (GTA), Hamilton and Québec are all in similar positions. Honestly, this league has a great opportunity, and it has never been in a better position.

Saying it will fail, when you lack any basic insight into the business model of the league, as well as experience as a blue-chip CEO, a CPA or an MBA, is absolutely laughable. 

[Kent]

7 minutes ago, ChrisinOrleans said:

I am just reading the last 3 pages of this thread now, and man, there is some massive cognitive dissonance going on.

The poster is mad that someone compared soccer to hockey, but that same poster has absolutely no problem comparing Canada, a nation of 36-million, to Andorra, a nation smaller than PEI.

Likewise, that poster claims that any comparison between Canada and Australia is inherently disingenuous, because the two have different levels of success in developing soccer players, but fails to mention their similar geographic distribution, urban concentration and economic base – the ingredients for a successful business venture. Keep in mind, soccer is not the most popular sport in either of these countries, so the reference isn’t even apt.  

Likewise, literally anything in Canadian history before 2000 is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. We have literally added the entire population of Finland to our nation in that time, almost all in the top-10 urban areas. In 2001, the regional municipality of Halifax had ~350,000 people. Today, it’s well over 400,000. That’s the entire population of the city of Fredericton. Comparing the Halifax of the 80’s to 2001 is enough of a stretch. Comparing the 1980’s to now is simple folly.

In Ottawa, the population in 2001 was 774,000. It’s now 980,000. Including Gatineau, the regional population is 1,323,800. That’s the 4^th largest urban agglomeration in the country. Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, York (GTA), Hamilton and Québec are all in similar positions. Honestly, this league has a great opportunity, and it has never been in a better position.

Saying it will fail, when you lack any basic insight into the business model of the league, as well as experience as a blue-chip CEO, a CPA or an MBA, is absolutely laughable. 

Your mention of populations reminded me that a while back I looked at population growth for each city that had a CSL team at one point or another in the 1987-1992 era. Here's a quick table. This is based on metro area, and of course doesn't guarantee success, but I looked it up at the time for some context of at least one factor that has changed over time since the CSL folded.

CSL cities	1991	2016	Increase
Calgary	754,000	1,392,609	638,609
Edmonton	840,000	1,321,426	481,426
Hamilton	600,000	747,545	147,545
Kitchener	356,000	523,894	167,894
London	382,000	494,069	112,069
Ottawa	921,000	1,323,783	402,783
Montreal	3,127,000	4,098,927	971,927
Halifax	321,000	403,390	82,390
Toronto	3,893,000	5,928,040	2,035,040
Winnipeg	652,000	778,489	126,489
Vancouver	1,603,000	2,463,431	860,431
Victoria	288,000	367,770	79,770
Total	13,737,000	19,642,400	6,106,373

[Robert]

6 hours ago, Kent said:

One could infer that, I'm not quite so bold though, although I do think it is possible if the league is successful. It has panned out that way for Australia and USA (with this year being the exception) after they started pro leagues after mostly not making it to World Cups (USA is a bit different, since they qualified in 1990 after missing many World Cups, and then hosted in 1994). But mainly I was just trying to show that you got the order wrong for Australia. The league came first, then the whole "good at soccer" thing came after.

Australia was already "good at soccer" long before the A-League kicked off in 2005. Here's the proof:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(CONCACAF%E2%80%93OFC_play-off)

 

[Blackdude]

Canada was already "good at soccer" long before MLS showed up here in 2007. Here's the proof:

 

[Robert]

3 hours ago, ChrisinOrleans said:

I am just reading the last 3 pages of this thread now, and man, there is some massive cognitive dissonance going on.

The poster is mad that someone compared soccer to hockey, but that same poster has absolutely no problem comparing Canada, a nation of 36-million, to Andorra, a nation smaller than PEI.

Likewise, that poster claims that any comparison between Canada and Australia is inherently disingenuous, because the two have different levels of success in developing soccer players, but fails to mention their similar geographic distribution, urban concentration and economic base – the ingredients for a successful business venture. Keep in mind, soccer is not the most popular sport in either of these countries, so the reference isn’t even apt.  

Likewise, literally anything in Canadian history before 2000 is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. We have literally added the entire population of Finland to our nation in that time, almost all in the top-10 urban areas. In 2001, the regional municipality of Halifax had ~350,000 people. Today, it’s well over 400,000. That’s the entire population of the city of Fredericton. Comparing the Halifax of the 80’s to 2001 is enough of a stretch. Comparing the 1980’s to now is simple folly.

In Ottawa, the population in 2001 was 774,000. It’s now 980,000. Including Gatineau, the regional population is 1,323,800. That’s the 4^th largest urban agglomeration in the country. Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, York (GTA), Hamilton and Québec are all in similar positions. Honestly, this league has a great opportunity, and it has never been in a better position.

Saying it will fail, when you lack any basic insight into the business model of the league, as well as experience as a blue-chip CEO, a CPA or an MBA, is absolutely laughable. 

Hey, who-flung-dung truly can fling meaningless statistical shite with the best them. Like I've always said: One Icelander is worth more than 158 Englishmen. Population of Iceland: 334,252. Population of England: 53,010,000. Scoreline Iceland - England 2-1(Euro 2016).

Just because our population has increased because we are taking in more immigrants than ever-before doesn't mean were going to be able to suddenly launch a successful professional soccer league and qualify for the World Cup every four years. Is that the best argument you guys can come up with? As our esteemed P.M. recently blurted out at a town-hall meeting in Nanaimo: REALLY? REALLY?? REALLY???

Just because we have a population of 36,000,000 doesn't mean we can beat Andorra on the soccer pitch. Just ask any Englishman.

 

[Shortdutchcanuck]

Population growth plus soccer-friendly immigration does not necessarily equal World Cup success.  No one is arguing that.

But population growth plus soccer-friendly immigration accompanied by a general increase in disposable income means a new league is much more likrly to be supported.  Enough to be successful?  Only time will tell.  

I think Robert would concede even if Iceland sometimes beats England, England is capable of supporting a much bigger and better pro league(s) than Iceland.

Robert is trying to prognosticate things he can't possibly prognosticate and throw around claims he can't possibly substantiate.  He is pretending to deal in absolutes when what we are really dealing with is probabilities.

Then he resorts to insulting our general intelligence, which is usually a sign of someone running out of real ideas.

[LAK]

11 minutes ago, Robert said:

Hey, who-flung-dung truly can fling meaningless statistical shite with the best them. Like I've always said: One Icelander is worth more than 158 Englishmen. Population of Iceland: 334,252. Population of England: 53,010,000. Scoreline Iceland - England 2-1(Euro 2016).

Just because our population has increased because we are taking in more immigrants than ever-before doesn't mean were going to be able to suddenly launch a successful professional soccer league and qualify for the World Cup every four years. Is that the best argument you guys can come up with? As our esteemed P.M. recently blurted out at a town-hall meeting in Nanaimo: REALLY? REALLY?? REALLY???

Just because we have a population of 36,000,000 doesn't mean we can beat Andorra on the soccer pitch. Just ask any Englishman.

 

Stop acting like you are giving any real arguments for why this is 100% doomed for failure. How can anyone take you seriously when you give us meaningless historical facts that happened in 1912? That's the best you can do?

[longlugan]

On a positive note...Robert has now surpassed BBtB as the biggest douchebag on the forum...Congratulations Robert!

Ok everyone...carry on...

[Bison44]

Why dont we let this die?? On one of his last threads he touted the number of replies as some sort of validation of his argument.  He has admitted he only posts on threads he starts.  Why dont we all go back to regular threads and stop giving oxygen to the fire.  At least BBTB posts about other things not just doom and gloom.  Remember this started with his demanding a official countdown for opening day.  

[Robert]

2 hours ago, longlugan said:

On a positive note...Robert has now surpassed BBtB as the biggest douchebag on the forum...Congratulations Robert!

Ok everyone...carry on...

Obviously, I've hit a sore spot. I'm not having fun, till you're dialing 911?☎️?

[Unnamed Trialist]

9 hours ago, Robert said:

Hey, who-flung-dung truly can fling meaningless statistical shite with the best them. Like I've always said: One Icelander is worth more than 158 Englishmen. Population of Iceland: 334,252. Population of England: 53,010,000. Scoreline Iceland - England 2-1(Euro 2016).

Just because our population has increased because we are taking in more immigrants than ever-before doesn't mean were going to be able to suddenly launch a successful professional soccer league and qualify for the World Cup every four years. Is that the best argument you guys can come up with? As our esteemed P.M. recently blurted out at a town-hall meeting in Nanaimo: REALLY? REALLY?? REALLY???

Just because we have a population of 36,000,000 doesn't mean we can beat Andorra on the soccer pitch. Just ask any Englishman.

 

I was actually at that Andorra England qualifier that ended scoreless at the half.  

You're confusing fan base with results. The population stats are to show possible fan base and are reliable inasmuch as in general larger urban centres can justify larger stadiums and draw more fans. Not a single post in these CPL threads has ever suggested potential winners would come from larger cities.

BTW at that Andorra-England match, held in Barcelona, England fans outnumbered Andorrans 50-1.

[ChrisinOrleans]

12 hours ago, Robert said:

Hey, who-flung-dung truly can fling meaningless statistical shite with the best them. Like I've always said: One Icelander is worth more than 158 Englishmen. Population of Iceland: 334,252. Population of England: 53,010,000. Scoreline Iceland - England 2-1(Euro 2016).

Just because our population has increased because we are taking in more immigrants than ever-before doesn't mean were going to be able to suddenly launch a successful professional soccer league and qualify for the World Cup every four years. Is that the best argument you guys can come up with? As our esteemed P.M. recently blurted out at a town-hall meeting in Nanaimo: REALLY? REALLY?? REALLY???

Just because we have a population of 36,000,000 doesn't mean we can beat Andorra on the soccer pitch. Just ask any Englishman.

 

1. The conversation was about the success of the CanPL. Our success internationally is irrelevant. Italy is not going to close Series A tomorrow because they didn't qualify for the World Cup, and likewise, Canada's league is not going to die before a ball is kicked because we failed to qualify for 2018. I mean, the Icelandic league is barely existent, while England's is one of the top-5 in the world; so I fail to see the common denominator in your analogy. 

2. "Statistical shite" is referred to in my line of work as "evidence". You cannot make a rational claim to authority without bona fide credentials and supporting evidence. I am merely stating that the inherent demographic and cultural shift in Canada - specifically urban Canada - renders comparisons to previous league incarnations as inaccurate.   

3. I don't understand the rationale on the inclusion of the phrasing from our Prime Minister. My apologies. 

4. Once again, Canada being able to beat Andorra in soccer does not mean that a business venture in Ottawa and Vancouver will be a success. The two are tangentially related, at best. 

[ChrisinOrleans]

16 hours ago, Kent said:

Your mention of populations reminded me that a while back I looked at population growth for each city that had a CSL team at one point or another in the 1987-1992 era. Here's a quick table. This is based on metro area, and of course doesn't guarantee success, but I looked it up at the time for some context of at least one factor that has changed over time since the CSL folded.

 

CSL cities	1991	2016	Increase
Calgary	754,000	1,392,609	638,609
Edmonton	840,000	1,321,426	481,426
Hamilton	600,000	747,545	147,545
Kitchener	356,000	523,894	167,894
London	382,000	494,069	112,069
Ottawa	921,000	1,323,783	402,783
Montreal	3,127,000	4,098,927	971,927
Halifax	321,000	403,390	82,390
Toronto	3,893,000	5,928,040	2,035,040
Winnipeg	652,000	778,489	126,489
Vancouver	1,603,000	2,463,431	860,431
Victoria	288,000	367,770	79,770
Total	13,737,000	19,642,400	6,106,373

Very interesting chart. 

The differential coefficient in the CanPL cities is absolutely astounding. I don't think people understand the effects on a market like Ottawa, where growth of 400,000 in Ottawa/Gatineau means that the region has literally added the entire population of Halifax in the last few decades.

Montréal region has literally added an entire "Ottawa" to its population. 

This is why CanPL has never had a better opportunity than the present. 

 

[RS]

14 hours ago, longlugan said:

On a positive note...Robert has now surpassed BBtB as the biggest douchebag on the forum...Congratulations Robert!

Ok everyone...carry on...

Incorrect. Robert's always been the biggest asshole around here.