Let's be conservative. Eight teams with a total $2.5 million budget per team. $20 million per year to run the league. (This is minimum viable and let's not talk about whether the quality of the league is high enough that you'd actually want to use its players on the NT.) $20 per ticket * 2500 average paid attendance * 10 home games per year * 8 teams = $4 million. Let's throw in $2 million in "in kind" from airlines, hotels, etc. And maybe another $4 million in jersey sponsors and other advertizing That leaves the CSA to absorb $10 million a year in losses. According to this (http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/canadi...release-new-blueprint-for-the-sport-1.1640767)) the CSA's entire budget is about $20 million per year. I don't see a plan for the CPL that requires CSA funding as viable. Feel free to play with the numbers. Maybe the deficit is only $8 million or maybe it's $12 million. The point is that the CSA simply doesn't have deep enough pockets to backstop a professional league.
@Kingston That is an enlightening article, indeed it does seem the CSA does not have the pockets to fund the loses. Although I'm not sure if that should be all that surprising... I always assumed the losses would come from the owners (predominately CFL) who are sharing venues with other teams. I think the best/fastest way to curb & mitigate the loses would be a TV deal that included the national teams. Conservative bets are always safer and budgeting for marketing and holding a high standard for in game experience are serious budget eaters as well... Overall the feasibility and viability of the CPL will always be brought into scrutiny until we see if happen and what kind of money is involved.
I am not disputing the need for the league....but to dismiss the tv numbers for those MLS/NASL clubs and expect there would be good/better ratings (and, therefore, valuable tv properties) is folly (IMO). You can call the teams anything you want....but the viewing public will know what they are...ie, a lesser product playing in a lesser market.
All we can do is hope that those setting this league up know of other revenue streams that we don't. There's also some money perhaps from selling players out of their development systems. But that would be $1M at best.
I see two scenarios: 1. The people in the CSA know some things I don't. They really are getting close to launching a well thought out, functional CPL that has a plan for surviving and thriving. By 2018 (?) we'll see teams on the pitches of our nation and watch the NT talent pool continue to deepen. 2. The CSA keeps running into the same insurmountable obstacles I (and others on these boards) do each time we run the numbers. This explains why there are so few details being announced and no date for a functioning CPL. I'd like to see scenario 1 but I'm not going to get my hopes up until I see something more concrete.
I'd agree with you Kingston, but the CSA has been working on this plan for two years now, they must know that it's going to work or not by this point, right? Then again, I remember this is the CSA we're talking about. The Easton Report didn't think a national league was feasible and I don't think much has changed. But if the CSA is to have any hope of winning a World Cup bid, they have to have a domestic league. They'll announce a start date of 2018 sometime in the next few months, which should be under the wire for WC2026 bid submissions. That said, the fact they keep putting off the announcement fills me with a sense of foreboding.
If it doesn't happen, it's still feasible to expand on the D3 concept that's happening with L1O and PLSQ. Leagues in BC and Alberta and perhaps a pan-maritime league. Add three additinal MASL teams in the meantime and perhaps in the distant future if support for enough of these clubs gets big enough they could get together and form a nationwide pro league. That's decades away mind you. Not a great plan, but it's practical and the combined development systems of the MLS, NASL and D3 clubs should provide us with enough talent over the years.
^ I actually think a bunch of teams in cross border leagues with the CSA helping co-ordinate player movement is the best way to go. It lets each city host a team at the highest level it can manage instead of putting all the teams at the same level which may be higher or lower than some markets can handle. It also means teams can come and go without threatening the viability of the entire league. If the CSA is going to go the CPL route, however, I very much want it to succeed.
It's a tough call. On one hand utilizing the strength of the US system is helpful to us. We would not have MLS level soccer in this country without them, or probably not even NASL. On the other hand, it also hurts us to be so reliant on another country. I think we use it as a crutch, and I think that serves to hold us back as well. As fruitful as it is to parlay our relationship with the US to our advantage, we can't ride their coat tails to success entirely. It's a bit embarrassing that much smaller countries in Central America and the Caribbean can achieve what we can't. Or in my view, could do if we were willing to get out and support whatever we have even if it's not the top notch.
Speculation is about 8 or 9. Only one group has publicly confirmed a club in this league and that is in Hamilton.
Every match a derby! Week 1 schedule: Hamilton A v Hamilton B Hamilton C v Hamilton D Hamilton E v Hamilton F (extra security for this one) Hamilton G v Hamilton H Bye week: Hamilton I
You forgot Stoney Creek, Dundas and Ancaster... I hear McMaster may have a team before Jackson Square but look out for Upper James to get a stadium first. Can't wait for this league to expand into Hagersville and Caledonia; after that TFC will be on board no doubt!
A lot talk/chatter about MLSE/TFC getting involved...that said, their comments seem to be along the lines of using the league as a player development "farm" type system for the 3 MLS teams.....which, while nice I guess, is a bit contrary to the league being Canada's Division 1.
Putting the 2nd teams in the league is a non-starter for me. I wouldn't be opposed to TFC loaning out guys like Hamilton & Babouli to any CPL team. We don't know what Vic has planned entirely here yet. Perhaps, a rebrand with an alternate identity might work.
TFC (any team) would be free to loan players to any team in any league they want....that's how the world works. So, to use a local example, the D league in Basketball is less of a minor league affiliate situation because the team is not called Raptors II but is called Raptors 905? Mississauga FC (owned, operated, and minor league affiliate of TFC is ok but TFC II or TFC III is not?)
Yes, and that's probably where I'd like to see the limit of TFC's (or other Cdn MLS teams) involvement in the CPL. In the unfortunate event that MLSE is indeed putting a team in the CPL, I'd prefer a name other than TFC II, yes.
The only team I would like to see from MLSE in CPL (not happening, I know, so don't need to tell me) is TFC....otherwise I would not see a difference in a farm/minor league set up no matter what the team is called.
If they're going the CPL route then having a pipeline for players to move between the CPL and higher leagues like MLS will be vital to the CPL achieving its goal of supplying the NT with talent. The existing non-MLS USL teams don't seem to suffer from playing against MLS II teams. Since the CPL will always be acknowledged as being a lower league than MLS I don't see why we wouldn't prefer to have the Canadian MLS II teams in the CPL along with six or so other teams. If three CPL teams are MLS affiliated and the rest are owned by CFL teams, it would certainly give the league a much better chance at financial stability. It also lets the CPL get into the Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver markets.
To me it really matters how the movement happens and what kind of movement it is. If you are talking about MLS clubs lending young players on season long loans to CPL clubs that is good. If you are talking CPL clubs developing young players and selling them on to MLS clubs for budget balancing transfer fees that is also good. If you are talking about the kind of yoyoing back and forth that goes on between farm clubs and big clubs (like TFCII players do with TFC and other sports do) then I am not a fan....the league then becomes nothing more than a farm team system and, in some ways, a glorified national academy. refer my comment above about movement......what is the value of having those markets if they are playing in front of the type of "friends and family" crowds that, for instance, TFC II does now? As the CFL is learning (to a much lesser extent than these clubs would face) "failing at the gate" in the big markets like VCR and Toronto at some point becomes a negative drag on the image of the league as a whole.
If there is a team in Toronto, then I see MLSE being involved in it, but not TFC. I think the CSA wants this to be a developmental league like the Eredivisie - no one would say that the Dutch league is among the best in Europe, but they provide a steady pipeline of players to the national team and other better leagues and the teams perform decently in Champions/Europa league action. I'd love to see this CPL be the top of the second-tier CONCACAF Premier Leagues. Iirc, the CSA wanted to not just develop players with this new league, but all the coaches, sports executives, and other ancillary positions required to build a healthy soccer pyramid infrastructure in Canada. They're looking at this very long term, hence why they're taking so long to bring it to fruition, with all due diligence.
I could have responded to that line with "semantics" but it is just factually incorrect. The MLSE executive that is having discussions with the CSA is Bill Manning....his job is President of TFC....that, in itself telling and you can draw conclusions from that.....but we don't have to since he told the Toronto Sun exactly what they want:
We agree on this. Overall I'd want to see a pipeline for players to advance beyond the CPL. I would accept the necessary reality of some more active shuffling for the CPL MLS teams, however, to get their involvement. Simply put it is the value of having three teams in your league whose financial stability is assured even if they do end up drawing only "family and friends" crowds. This league will need a minimum number of teams to be viable. Even being optimistic, Canada has barely enough cities of sufficient size to hopefully support soccer teams at the USL/NASL level. The viability of the league therefore hangs on essentially every market being successful. Given the history of soccer at this level (right up to Edmonton today) that is a big ask. If we can lock down three teams from the get go, that is huge.
^ I just think if you start with the minor league affiliation model (no matter how good the intent/reason is) that is what you will have forever.....and that does not seem to be what the original intent of the league is and, frankly, does not seem to do much more than just having affiliated teams in American leagues does for us.