Jump to content
nfooty

CPL General

CanPL General  

297 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the CanPL have Pro/Rel?

    • Yes
      165
    • No
      132
  2. 2. Should the CanPL have playoffs?

    • Yes
      188
    • No
      109


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

No one ever used the term "single entity" in a professional sports context before MLS. It has very specific connotations.

And yet the term "single entity like behaviour" is still correct in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

No one ever used the term "single entity" in a professional sports context before MLS. It has very specific connotations.

Yea I think the WNBA and XFL are the only other major examples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

All I mentioned was "single entity like behaviour". For example, most European league clubs do their own merchandising on replica shirts. CanPL dealt with Macron as a league.

Most European leagues also communally sell their broadcast rights, so how is that single entity behaviour?

North American leagues like the NHL and NFL centrally take care of merchandise deals too and they arent single entity.

So the behaviours you mention are not unique to single entity at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It serves no purpose to discuss the "single entity" idea here any longer.

They are doing some things collectively (ie. TV deal, kit suppliers) and they are doing some things as clubs (ie. signing players). How about we argue about the merits of what they are actually doing and stop a pedantic debate that serves no useful purpose?

Maybe after the inaugural season we can come back to critique how the league and clubs did when we actually have something worth talking about in regards to league and cub operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you are being argumentative just for the sake of it at this point. The point I was making originally is that CanPL may not be exactly the same as MLS, but it is emulating MLS in many ways, such as by having CSB on broadcasting which looks very like SUM except in not having anything lucrative to sell, so it shouldn't be surprising if a three year deal really means one plus two club held options. Time will tell.

Edited by BringBackTheBlizzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key to single entity is that it's the MLS way of getting around US anti trust laws, which prohibit collusion between independent parts. MLS effectively seeks to operate with monopoly control to gain market advantage, which is accepted in the US as the "best" way to grow the game.

In this regard you can't accuse MLS teams of colluding to veto a player or fix financial parameters,  since a single entity by definition can't collude. So the 1st article of the Sherman Antitrust Act can't be applied. In this regard teams are closer to branch outlets obliged to fulfil brand requirements, though with a sort of franchisee operational system, whereas what are called franchises in the rest of sports leagues are in fact more like licensed outlets. But this is harder than it all sounds.

In any case the real antidote to either model of monopolistic collusion is for the national FA to license the activity of soccer and then for everyone to be able to freely join in, usually from the bottom up, and compete in tiers made porous by promotion,  relegation and other inter-division competitions like Cups.

Edited by Unnamed Trialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or has the CPL already had a big boost for CMNT team players?  VWC have brought in Cornelius, Crepeau, Dasovic, MDV (and maybe Cordova), Impact got ZBG ( i wont mention TFC, cough americans cough cough).   Plus it seemed like all 3 tried to tie down some young academy talent before they jumped ship to CPL.  Do you think interest in the CPL with a high % of CDN content has lit a fire under the MLS teams to up their homegrown content a bit?? 

It would be great if the Van defenders (Crepeau/Henry/Cornelius/DeJong/Levis) can build some chemistry that carries over to the CMNT team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bison44 said:

Is it just me or has the CPL already had a big boost for CMNT team players?  VWC have brought in Cornelius, Crepeau, Dasovic, MDV (and maybe Cordova), Impact got ZBG ( i wont mention TFC, cough americans cough cough).   Plus it seemed like all 3 tried to tie down some young academy talent before they jumped ship to CPL.  Do you think interest in the CPL with a high % of CDN content has lit a fire under the MLS teams to up their homegrown content a bit?

It would be great if the Van defenders (Crepeau/Henry/Cornelius/DeJong/Levis) can build some chemistry that carries over to the CMNT team.  

I don't think it has anything to do with CPL. ZBG was rumoured to join the Impact last year. Crépeau just moved from one MLS team  to another and MDS was just a good coach waiting for an opportunity to manage an MLS team. for the other MLS players signed by Vancouver, it seems that Canadian clubs did check out domestic players last year (Petrasso, Henry) and they are going back there. 

 As for the Academy players, I can only talk about Montreal, but the two who have signed (Kinumbe and Bayiha) were supposed to be signed during the previous season, but couldn't because the Impact didn't have a roster spot for them. Does it have anything to do with CPL? I doubt it, I just think that they've been players rated high by the club as future players but who need playing time, so they might go play on loan somewhere else,. I don'T think it's more homegrowns the Impact have had on their roster since 2013. (Taking 2013, because that's the first year they had more than 1 homegrown)

As for CPL having a high quota, I doubt it does anything on MLS clubs. Maybe in hte V'S Cup if the quota is raised, but that's the only thing I could see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's mostly MDS doing what MDS does. He's always given Canadians opportunities. CPL might have played a small role in who the MLS teams are signing though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we shouldn't forget that it was always going to take time for all three MLS academies to get fully up to speed as the initial youngest age cohorts finally pass all the way through the system. For example, today's 21 and 22 year olds that you would expect to be breaking through to the first team were around 13 or 14 or so when the Impact and Whitecaps entered the league back in 2011. All the hysteria a few years ago about there not being enough Canadians always tended to steer clear of examining whether that said more about the quality of the domestic players coming through from elite youth soccer 5 to 10 years ago than it did about MLS signing policies.

Edited by BringBackTheBlizzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

And we shouldn't forget that it was always going to take time for all three MLS academies to get fully up to speed as the initial youngest age cohorts finally pass all the way through the system. For example, today's 21 and 22 year olds that you would expect to be breaking through to the first team were around 13 or 14 or so when the Impact and Whitecaps entered the league back in 2011. All the hysteria a few years ago about there not being enough Canadians always tended to steer clear of examining whether that said more about the quality of the domestic players coming through from elite youth soccer 5 to 10 years ago than it did about MLS signing policies.

Whitecaps Residency was around long before they went to MLS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but not on the same financial scale. In a similar sort of vein, 2012 was when TFC opened the training facility at Downsview and it's only now that players that went all the way through with that should be starting to break through.

Edited by BringBackTheBlizzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious how many roster spots clubs are planning to fill before training camp.  I guess each club will have different priorities and needs.  I could see some clubs leaving any number of bench spots open that trialists, whether from open trials or USports or local, can battle for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, deschamp86 said:

Whitecaps Residency was around long before they went to MLS

The early years of the Whitecaps Residency did produce a number of players of sufficient quality that they could have been useful players for the MLS 'Caps. Unfortunately, the program was entrusted to a guy who had no regard for the actual club that employed him, choosing to funnel the program's graduates to Germany through his personal connections. I think the point where you should start judging the results from the 'Caps development programs is from the day when they binned off Neindorf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

Softball questions for the most part. Should we read anything into somebody at Sportsnet having to ask what's happening on broadcasting?

No, often employees are kept out of the loop of big corporation decisions

9 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

Also no indication in the Ottawa answer of an expectation of an enforced move in 2020.

That's between CONCACAF, CSA and Fury. As the league is concerned, all they can do is come up with scenarios for Ottawa and "waiting" clearly isn't an option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been following as closely in the past few months but Clanachan confirms in that interview a 28-game season (14 home, 14 away). Is that new info?

Edited by mpg_29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article was just updated with the following:

 

Editors note: In a subsequent email to Sportsnet, the CPL confirmed that in addition to the roster requirements mentioned above by David Clanachan that another rule mandates that a minimum of three domestic players on each team must be under the age of 21 AND those players must play a minimum of 1,000 minutes per season.

 

That's a bit of a change. Definitely working on development of young players. I think this works as extra push to keep on some of the U-Sports draftees beyond training camp. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1000 minutes is about 11 complete games each, so that isn't token playing time and means teams are probably best advised to have significantly more than three domestic U-21s on board that can potentially achieve this, so they don't put all their eggs into one basket and create competition for that playing time. The Easton report hasn't been completely forgotten by the looks of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×