2021 Canadian Premier League Attendance

[youllneverwalkalone]

7 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

A comment that suggests you have a rather simplistic understanding of what creating a not-for-profit corporation is likely to be all about.

I'm a CPA, CA with 20 years of experience in income tax and a partner in a public practice firm.

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Avoidance of tax rather than profit being the key on why you would want to structure a CFL franchise that way.

[youllneverwalkalone]

[ted]

1 hour ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

I'm a CPA, CA with 20 years of experience in income tax and a partner in a public practice firm.

 

Which means that you should understand that "not for profit" only means that individuals do not personally profit from the organizations revenues and that those revenues are spent to support the purposes for which they are chartered. So unless the charter states that their purpose is to operate or subsidize a soccer team, they can take whatever revenue they can get from the soccer team to support their actual purpose.

[youllneverwalkalone]

4 minutes ago, ted said:

Which means that you should understand that "not for profit" only means that individuals do not personally profit from the organizations revenues and that those revenues are spent to support the purposes for which they are chartered. So unless the charter states that their purpose is to operate or subsidize a soccer team, they can take whatever revenue they can get from the soccer team to support their actual purpose.

But you can't have a for profit subsidiary. CRA are all over this. I will send you the IT bulletin if you want.

I've been lucky to be on the board of charities, which do not face the same scrutiny with respect to surplus and money making activities. But trust me, without charitable status, you need to be careful.

[ted]

39 minutes ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

But you can't have a for profit subsidiary.

Wait what?!? Since when is Valour a subsidiary? My point is predicated on the idea that Valour is an independent organization contracting services from the Bombers. 

[youllneverwalkalone]

1 minute ago, ted said:

Wait what?!? Since when is Valour a subsidiary? My point is predicated on the idea that Valour is an independent organization contracting services from the Bombers. 

It's a bit unclear if it's a sub or sister co, but it is a separate entity. 

[youllneverwalkalone]

I think if you look at the 2019 WFC financials, what likely happened is that the BB collected the season ticket revenue for Valour (as I believe the Seahawks do for the Sounders) and then passed it on to Valour net of their costs. 

[Watchmen]

I think the main point here is that BB was looking for another tenant for the stadium as an additional revenue source. If Valour "loses" money but the stadium revenur makes up for it (with game day sales, advertising, etc) they won't care.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

^^^this. The Winnipeg Football Club use the f-word rather than the c-word in their accounts to describe the Valour so the subsidiary angle may start to enter murky waters on how CanPL is put together and how it all relates to CSB.

Bottom line is whether a gridiron organisation is helping pro soccer out of the goodness of its not-for-profit tax avoiding little heart or has a self-interest agenda for getting involved that benefits them more than it benefits soccer.

My thought process many posts back now revolved around whether 3500 as a crowd might have worked better at a revamped Winnipeg Soccer Complex with a soccer first owner rather than going for "first division" optics with the big gridiron stadium.

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Bison44]

This fist division optics talking point is very strange.  This wasnt done for the purpose of looking first division.  Having an existing modern stadium to play in was a positive when the CPL was trying to get off the ground.  Not having to build or rennovate or search for a place to play like many other clubs was a good thing (sorry York9).  The owner of Valour owns the stadium so of course they will play there.  Is it too big at this point....probably.  But thats according to the usual  suspects.  The same guys that discount we averaged over 6000 fans in year one...not 3500.  I know people are in love with the idea of a cozy small stadium filled to the brim just like the good ole days in jolly old europe, but thats not what we have.  There was no soccer first owner in winnipeg....there was no one going to spend the money revamping some other facility.  

Hopefully the club and league will survive and grow and start to fill the stadium more so a certain % of people are not offended by the optics on TV.  But for actual fans that have actually gone to CPL games (valour in particular), I'm glad we have a team, even if we are all packed into one side of the stadium for now.  

 

[Ansem]

34 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

This fist division optics talking point is very strange.  This wasnt done for the purpose of looking first division.  Having an existing modern stadium to play in was a positive when the CPL was trying to get off the ground.  Not having to build or rennovate or search for a place to play like many other clubs was a good thing (sorry York9).  The owner of Valour owns the stadium so of course they will play there.  Is it too big at this point....probably.  But thats according to the usual  suspects.  The same guys that discount we averaged over 6000 fans in year one...not 3500.  I know people are in love with the idea of a cozy small stadium filled to the brim just like the good ole days in jolly old europe, but thats not what we have.  There was no soccer first owner in winnipeg....there was no one going to spend the money revamping some other facility.  

Hopefully the club and league will survive and grow and start to fill the stadium more so a certain % of people are not offended by the optics on TV.  But for actual fans that have actually gone to CPL games (valour in particular), I'm glad we have a team, even if we are all packed into one side of the stadium for now.  

 

If the owners have a long term plan (which they should all have), I can see where they would hope for a 10k average by end of decades with the 2026WC as a boost + CCL, CanChamp and CPL finals games.

Doesn't 10k gets the entire lower bowl used?

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Avoidance of tax rather than profit being the key on why you would want to structure a CFL franchise that way.

Why don't you at least acknowledge you were disrespectful and apologize to the professional? You're allowed an opinion, of course, but you're far from offering a trusted, valid, legally responsible opinion. 

Now, if the fact YNWA can't rap is the problem, just say so. 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

If you are suddenly worried about people being respectful on here I await your future posts advising longlugan how to behave in polite society with interest.

[SthMelbRed]

3 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

If you are suddenly worried about people being respectful on here I await your future posts advising longlugan how to behave in polite society with interest.

You're not being persecuted or picked on. Whatever opprobrium you attract on this forum is entirely of your own doing. Since you created the situation, you can certainly take steps to correct it. That being said, crying about it is much more in line with your forum persona.

[Cheeta]

8 hours ago, Ansem said:

If the owners have a long term plan (which they should all have), I can see where they would hope for a 10k average by end of decades with the 2026WC as a boost + CCL, CanChamp and CPL finals games.

Doesn't 10k gets the entire lower bowl used?

Have it in my head the lower bowl at IGF if 20K.  Maybe just north of that.  

[Kent]

On 8/29/2021 at 3:20 AM, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

...who now have 32 teams and expanded quickly from the 1960s onwards after air travel replaced cross-border express trains as the mode of transport to away games.

Oh. I didn't realize there weren't still only 6 teams in the NHL. I must have missed that. I guess I was wrong, and 8 teams really just isn't enough teams for a league to survive in Canada. If only we still didn't have abundant air travel, that would help a smaller league survive like the old NHL... somehow.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

^^^this is in response to the notion that playing the same teams over and over again in the same season rather than a conventional home and away format starts to get quite old quite quickly. Edmonton vs Calgary again later today for what seems like the umpteenth time already this season is a less than ideal scenario when there's already been an announced 805 out for an FCE weeknight home game.

The point I was making in the last post about the NHL's misnamed original six was that it was largely a product of circumstance rather than one of choice in a very different era in transportation terms. At no point did I suggest eight teams just isn't enough for a league to survive so goalposts are now being shifted in a big way but there's clearly no interest in engaging in respectful intelligent discussion here. It's all just an aggressive attempt to try to make the other person look small in a similar manner to yesterday's bizarre not-for-profit cheap shot and appeal-to-authority fallacy tangent. 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

^^^this is in response to the notion that playing the same teams over and over again in the same season rather than a conventional home and away format starts to get quite old quite quickly. Edmonton vs Calgary again later today for what seems like the umpteenth time already this season is a less than ideal scenario when there's already been an announced 805 out for an FCE weeknight home game.

The point I was making in the last post about the NHL's misnamed original six was that it was largely a product of circumstance rather than one of choice in a very different era in transportation terms. At no point did I suggest eight teams just isn't enough for a league to survive so goalposts are now being shifted in a big way but there's clearly no interest in engaging in respectful intelligent discussion here. It's all just an aggressive attempt to try to make the other person look small in a similar manner to yesterday's bizarre not-for-profit cheap shot and appeal-to-authority fallacy tangent. 

 

The original post that I responded to, by another poster, was this. "Not sure if I said this already, but I genuinely think in a country like this, 8 teams doesn't appeal a lot. Once we have at least 12 teams, we will see more people in the grounds."

OK, maybe he didn't say an 8 team league can't survive, but he was talking about the lack of appeal of an 8 team league. I just was giving counter examples to show that if it's done right, an 8 team league could survive in Canada and even be incredibly popular, because we have seen it happen with the NHL and CFL. You seemed to object to my counter examples, presumably supporting the original quote I was objecting to, that 8 teams are a deal breaker in terms of league size, in the medium to long term.

[Bison44]

So we want a home and away, 14 game season??  Talk about a product of circumstance...if we have 8 teams so far and we want a decently long season they'll have to play teams more than 2 times.  Most people would say that playing your close rivals more might help build a rivalry.  I know we all want the jolly old system that jolly old europe uses of 18-20 teams with a home and away, based on a multi tier pyramid of 60-80 pro clubs all within driving distance, but we have 8 teams so far in year 2.5.  Whining about seeing a club too much seems like the least of our worries when there is absolutely nothing we can do about it until we have more expansion.    

[narduch]

1 minute ago, Bison44 said:

So we want a home and away, 14 game season??  Talk about a product of circumstance...if we have 8 teams so far and we want a decently long season they'll have to play teams more than 2 times.  Most people would say that playing your close rivals more might help build a rivalry.  I know we all want the jolly old system that jolly old europe uses of 18-20 teams with a home and away, based on a multi tier pyramid of 60-80 pro clubs all within driving distance, but we have 8 teams so far in year 2.5.  Whining about seeing a club too much seems like the least of our worries when there is absolutely nothing we can do about it until we have more expansion.    

The MLS has the opposite problem. Too many teams mean you have zero familiarity with teams from the other conferences. They may show up once every few years.

[youllneverwalkalone]

If only there were a few MLS clubs we could move over to the CPL...

 

[longlugan]

On 8/31/2021 at 3:34 PM, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

If you are suddenly worried about people being respectful on here I await your future posts advising longlugan how to behave in polite society with interest.

Why drag me into this? I give you all the civility you warrant...I don't see what the problem is. I can't help it if the diplomatic corps was never in my future or that all the other fine gentlemen (yourself included of course 😅) are just nicer people than myself. Honestly...I'm not even sure why my wife hasn't left me...yet.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Back on topic. No Ottawa number but 470 has been officially announced for Edmonton vs Calgary:

https://canpl.ca/matchcentre/bj0fksdyvqllnl5s5h8ibc1lg/highlights

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Back on topic. No Ottawa number but 470 has been officially announced for Edmonton vs Calgary:

https://canpl.ca/matchcentre/bj0fksdyvqllnl5s5h8ibc1lg/highlights

 

The league can prep for further expansion, but they might need to start looking for new ownership in Edmonton as well.  I'm trying not judge any team based on attendance this year, but that was an ownership group that seemed to have to be dragged back in to soccer after folding their NASL team. Even with all the restrictions right now, I can't imagine this is what they expected when they came back.