Article on CSA's Easton Report : http://the11.ca/2013/02/05/the-easton-report-what-it-means-for-div-3-in-canada/ "That the exisiting four Div. 1 and 2 pro teams in Canada, the three MLS teams and FC Edmonton of the NASL, should be encouraged to have their reserve/developmental squads play in a new Canadian Div. 3 set-up. This offers the biggest thorn for MLS, which just struck a deal with USL Pro to develop affiliated reserve clubs." "USL Pro is sanctioned as Div. 3 in the U.S., while NASL is Div. 2. And, the CSA has already stated that it will not sanction teams playing in USL-Pro as Div. 3 in Canada, as it was going to protect the regional-league vision presented in the Easton Report. So, now MLS and USL are left with major, major questions — how to implement the plans on TFC, the Montreal Impact and the Whitecaps, when the national sanctioning body is urging those clubs to develop players within a Canadian Div. 3 system"
I wonder how this will play out with the CSL referee scandal. I've read conflicting reports on the sanctioning of the CSL recently. I guess what I really don't understand is why the CSA bothers with having their own D3 league anyway. I mean, their D1 & D2 teams play in US based leagues, with decent success. Obviously the CSL hasn't done much to improve the international game. Why not allow USL Pro in Canada?
My gut feeling is because D3 is the highest level where the CSA thinks they could have a domestic league. There are only six cities in Canada, speaking generously, that could realistically support an MLS-level league, so they're better off letting MLS handle it than doing it themselves. There are only seven cities total that are larger than the USSF's 750,000 requirement for Division 2. So for a first- division league, Canada was always going to be restricted either to 8-10 teams or to a league small enough to let Kitchener and Halifax compete. On the other hand, a USL-level national league is more practical--but if the USL swoops in and plucks out all the best prospects, it's never going to happen (see: Cardiff and Swansea). It makes sense, from the CSA perspective, to try to protect the remaining markets for a purely Canadian league at the highest level where that's practical.
Agreed, a good explanation and probably what the CSA's thinking is on this. And by getting Canadian MLS and NASL teams to put their reserve's/development teams in a Canadian D3 league it would help make the league more legitimate as well.
there is a growing sentiment in CSA that MLS/USSF isn't doing enough to help develop Canadian players. Creating own league is one way to ensure Canadian players develops, even though only at D3 level
I posted this on the Union forum, but realized this might be the best place to get some answers: Question about the USL/MLS partnership: supposedly each USL affiliate is supposed to receive a minimum of four long-term loans, but this really hasn't been the case for Harrisburg. Cristhian Hernandez, Jimmy McLaughlin, and Greg Jordan have been the major long-term loans, Don Anding appears pretty frequently, but there seems to be no consistency to how the loans work. The City Islanders had four or more loans a few times, but recently they've barely had three. On Friday night, for example, Jordan was hurt and only Hernandez and McLaughlin were made available. In fact, Harrisburg has had only three loan players or less in three of the past four games. My question: what gives? The agreement clearly stipulates four long-term loans will be made to each affiliate, so what constitutes a "long-term" loan? http://www.uslsoccer.com/home/690369.html
I am not 100% sure the agreement "clearly" stipulates anything. Loans are traditionally ( a ) worked out between clubs and ( b ) always, in a case like this, going to favor the loaning team, which can (and will) do what is best for it. Kansas City just recalled Dom Dwyer. Did they replace him in Orlando yet? (I am asking because I don't know.) If it serves the MLS club's purposes, they will do what they will do. MLS clubs are not yet in a position where they all have so many players lying about that they can constantly make sure the Harrisburg City Islanders have four MLS players at all times. "Long-term" means "for as long as we let it happen."
I think he opposes the US/Canada joint league structure in MLS/NASL. However, then he would have to support booting Cardiff and Swansea to the League of Wales.
from www.RocSoccer.com ... It looks like USLPRO is meeting at the MLS All-Star game on Wednesday http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/home/742272.html to discuss USLPRO-MLS affiliation structure. Options: - Keep loaning MLS reserve players to USLPRO teams? - Put MLS Reserve teams in USLPRO league? - Both? After seeing our Rochester Rhinos reserve players from NE Revs this year, I think I would rather the MLS Reserve teams just join USLPRO, this way there will be an increase in teams in USLPRO, and the Rhinos can build a team with more veteran and permanent players, and most importantly this kind of set-up is the most conducive to MLS-2 being formed with the Rhinos in it.
The Rhinos couldn't afford to be in the second division now. My guess is that an MLS-2 (which is vaporware anyway) would be more expensive than that. The Rhinos' window of opportunity has likely closed. And while I see your point, kinda (affiliated teams are still only getting four MLS players, and not usually game-changers anyway, so it's not like the rest of your roster can't be "more veteran and (tee hee) permanent players"), the real issue with putting MLS Reserve teams in USL Pro is that you then create a league divided. The raison d'etre of the MLS Reserve teams is to develop players. The rest of the teams in the league are (ostensibly) trying to win and be viable businesses. It's certainly not USSF's responsibility to lift a finger to help develop Canadian players. It's arguable whether MLS has any business doing it, either.
The feeling here in Rochester has always been that we should either be a competitive team in the highest league or the best team in any lower division. Being in next-to-last place in 3rd division will see many fans not renewing their season tickets. Many of the current fans of the Rhinos are still many of the same fans of the former NASL Lancers and '96-'99 Rhinos and they expect quality and the status that I first mentioned. A lot of the talk in town recently has been the need for a new owner that has a passion for soccer and not just a passion to own a sports team.
This discrepancy reared its head this season within the current MLS-USL setup. Take my Harrisburg City Islanders as one example: The Philadelphia Union don't really know what to do with Aaron Wheeler, he's a 6'4" forward but the team has McInerney, Casey, Hoppenot and even Le Toux who can play forward so they figured they'd try Wheeler out at center back since he's big and mobile. Well, Harrisburg was the guinea pig for an experiment that failed miserably. Wheeler conceded a penalty and a terribly disorganized backline was exposed in the subsequent loss. The Union's developmental goals trumped the City Islanders' interests in this case and it cost them in the standings. Am I bitter? Not really, I understand that some of the team's success is due to having talented players on loan from the Union, but some fans will struggle to rectify the player development angle versus a winning at all costs mentality. Ideally the two go hand-in-hand, and we've debated this here before, but an MLS reserve USL-PRO is more akin to minor league baseball than lower divisions in European football, for better and for worse. The affiliate might not have complete autonomy, in this case the Union dictated a Harrisburg roster decision, but they get arguably better talent from their parent club. Maybe this dilemma is erased by having the USL-PRO team be a true MLS reserve squad, in which case fans will understand what they're watching.
And a reversed situation happened last year with Carolina where they played a loaned player out of position because of team need and his MLS team called him right back. The risk you take. You would hope in such a situation that Becher and Hackworth can have an open dialogue about goals and potential ramifications. A small-budget team like Harrisburg may be even more at the mercy of its parent club.
USLPRO will do well to add MLS Reserve teams to their league, with USLPRO adding two teams next year (Oklahoma City and Sacramento) and possibly losing two (Antigua and Phoenix) they will need the MLS Reserve teams in order to expand the league and geo-footprint.
Agreed, I'm sure Becher understands hs team's role for the Union because they probably feel like they gain more than they lose from the situation (and in the grand scheme of things, I think Harrisburg benefits greatly from the affiliation). There are many things that can be ironed out as the league affiliation evolves: 1. Roster rules. Apparently if a player is loaned to the USL for five games throughout the season, they are eligible to play in the USL postseason. For example, C.J. Sapong is loaned to Orlando for the weekend to keep him available through the playoffs. I wonder how five became the appearance standard? It doesn't seem like it's being abused, but I wonder if the leagues will rethink this? 2. Roster rules part deux. Affiliated teams were promised at least four loan players from their MLS parent, but this hasn't been reality. I've pointed out in the past how Harrisburg often has just three loans from Philly (Hernandez, McLaughlin, Jordan) and sometimes fewer than that. How are these four loans counted, does five games equal a "long-term" loan according to their agreement? 3. Scheduling. Some of these loans failed to materialize because the MLS and USL schedules overlap too much. Why have a reserve league if the schedule prevents guys who aren't on the MLS game day roster to play in the USL? I think they need to carefully structure the schedule to prevent overlap and afford maximum developmental time for the players. What else needs tweaking in this agreement?