CPL General

[shorty]

You forgot one:

[Ansem]

2 hours ago, Dominic94 said:

It’s a big move, the money is in this age group and this is who we can sell. It pushes team to not only sign U’s but to play them and sell them. There’s no cap cost to this. Would imagine a U-18 minutes rule could be in talks.

This makes promising U-18 poachable from MLS academies since CPL clubs could in theory offer similar wage but on a senior roster playing pro minutes OR promising U18 playing amateur could just opt to sign with CPL instead of an MLS clubs where he'd be sent to MLS Next Pro or something

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, narduch said:

Just need a DP now.

I mean, that's coming right?

[narduch]

2 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

I mean, that's coming right?

Eventually. In my opinion

[Ansem]

2 minutes ago, narduch said:

Eventually. In my opinion

A higher overall cap would be far more productive.

[masster]

4 hours ago, Big_M said:

So the Master roster can now be up to 25 players with spots 24 and 25 to U18 players on a standard player contract which will not count toward the cap + still possible to have a max of 4 development contracts at a time

Looks good overall as rosters were too small but not sure its a good look to add rules mid-season...is it done mid-season to help teams get across the line in U21 minutes requirements?

And the other question is will all teams use this rule and ensure that they have enough players all the time on the regular roster? Or will it create a bigger gap between some teams? Will some teams still travel to away games with 5 subs?

I like the thought behind the rule, but agree that making this change midseason looks poor.

Help me understand the development contracts/roster spots...these are for U-Sport athletes only? They count against the cap? They are only allowed to play 6 matches?

BTW...all of the CPL websites seem to be down right now! 😡

[masster]

Also...given that an 'exceptional young talent' would be on a fully professional contract, I assume they would forfeit their NCAA eligibility?

Currently, players that are on development contracts, do they forfeit their NCAA eligibility? 

[Aird25]

Seems like this has some promise but I hate how confusing the roster rules are. What are the advantages of making things so complicated?

[Stanley]

59 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

 What are the advantages of making things so complicated?

Next thing you know is they will start awarding 6 points for a win, bonus points for goals up to 3 a game, and have shootouts, just to complicate things even more!

[Big_M]

1 hour ago, masster said:

I like the thought behind the rule, but agree that making this change midseason looks poor.

Help me understand the development contracts/roster spots...these are for U-Sport athletes only? They count against the cap? They are only allowed to play 6 matches?

BTW...all of the CPL websites seem to be down right now! 😡

Development contracts and Usports contracts are 2 different things

Development contracts or permits: player has to be a U18 (born in 2005 for the 2023 season) and its an amateur contract so he keeps ncaa eligibility. A team can have 4 players on a development permit at any time. A development permit is for up to 3 games per player and a player can sign 2 of those per season so can play a max of 6 games per season as a dev player (as we saw with Cameron). These players dont take a spot on the primary roster of 23 (or now 25) players

Usports contract: these are for usports players who have at least 1 year of eligibility left. The contracts are lower than the standard player contracts and count against the cap. These players take a spot on the primary roster of 23 (or now 25) players

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Watching this just now was a reminder of what CanPL potentially lost out on when they were excluded from the Leagues Cup after initially being part of the plans for the new CCL regional qualifiers for North America:

Imagine what would have happened if Messi were playing at Tim Horton Field in the next couple of weeks.

[Ansem]

10 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Watching this just now was a reminder of what CanPL potentially lost out on when they were excluded from the Leagues Cup after initially being part of the plans for the new CCL regional qualifiers for North America:

Imagine what would have happened if Messi were playing at Tim Horton Field in the next couple of weeks.

And what's your point? We have 2 entries into Champions league

[narduch]

5 minutes ago, Ansem said:

And what's your point? We have 2 entries into Champions league

Also has what he said even been reported anywhere?

I guess he felt he wasn't take enough pot shots at the league recently 

Edited July 22, 2023 by narduch

[CanadaFan123]

On 7/22/2023 at 4:40 AM, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Watching this just now was a reminder of what CanPL potentially lost out on when they were excluded from the Leagues Cup after initially being part of the plans for the new CCL regional qualifiers for North America:

Imagine what would have happened if Messi were playing at Tim Horton Field in the next couple of weeks.

There is still a good chance of this happening next season. 

[narduch]

6 minutes ago, CanadaFan123 said:

There is still a good chance of this happening next season. 

The funny thing is that I've seen Carribean and Central American fans complain that it isn't fair that Canada gets 2 direct spots into the Concacaf Champions Cup. 

And technically they are correct.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

24 minutes ago, CanadaFan123 said:

There is still a good chance of this happening next season. 

Are you referring to all eight CanPL teams being included in the next Leagues Cup at a time of year when the weather is good and CanPL clubs have their full rosters in place, or are you talking about the CCL games for two clubs in late Feb or early March when playing outdoors may not even be possible in some of the cities potentially involved and the teams will likely be shorthanded in roster terms due to CanPL's very long off season?

Edited July 23, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Ansem]

4 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Are you referring to all eight CanPL teams being included in the next Leagues Cup at a time of year when the weather is good and CanPL clubs have their full rosters in place, or are you talking about the CCL games for two clubs in late Feb or early March when playing outdoors may not even be possible in some of the cities potentially involved and the teams will likely be shorthanded in roster terms due to CanPL's very long off season?

You're bored aren't you?

Since CPL isn't in the League Cup and there are no talks of joining it, here's the link to the thread. Go and knock yourself out

I do make that face when I read your passive aggressive jabs at the league

Edited July 23, 2023 by Ansem

[Cheeta]

^ That is a pretty good shit grin.  Easy 8.5.  Maybe a 9 when viewed in context.

Sorry.  Was watching the lady diving event from Japan yesterday.  As you were.

[Kingston]

On 7/20/2023 at 5:55 PM, Ansem said:

A higher overall cap would be far more productive.

In the salary stratum in which the CPL operates, yes.

It's not like a realistically larger salary cap would leave small market teams behind and cause permanent disparity.

It's also not likely that a CPL team would use a DP rule to bring in someone brand-name-enough to move the ticket sales needle by themselves.

[jonovision]

2 minutes ago, Kingston said:

In the salary stratum in which the CPL operates, yes.

It's not like a realistically larger salary cap would leave small market teams behind and cause permanent disparity.

It's also not likely that a CPL team would use a DP rule to bring in someone brand-name-enough to move the ticket sales needle by themselves.

I'm only in favour of a higher salary cap if the team player salary floor also increases by the same amount, or at least the same percentage.

[Kingston]

2 minutes ago, jonovision said:

I'm only in favour of a higher salary cap if the team player salary floor also increases by the same amount, or at least the same percentage.

That would be a way to ensure it didn't erode parity.

I was thinking that a realistic salary cap jump would only be in the $100 to $250 k range anyway, so all teams could probably keep pace, but also raising the floor is a good idea.

[jonovision]

10 minutes ago, Kingston said:

That would be a way to ensure it didn't erode parity.

I was thinking that a realistic salary cap jump would only be in the $100 to $250 k range anyway, so all teams could probably keep pace, but also raising the floor is a good idea.

It's 100% selfish reasons for me: I don't want Valour to be allowed to cheap out on player spending any more than they already are.

[Kingston]

14 minutes ago, jonovision said:

It's 100% selfish reasons for me: I don't want Valour to be allowed to cheap out on player spending any more than they already are.

Are the team spending numbers available anywhere?

[Ansem]

Loving the U18 rules not counting against the cap which makes the league instantly attractive to young talents who saw that the league is a viable path to Europe. I think something similar should exist for NT members where a % of their salary would be exempt from the cap to boost the quality of the league.

Yes, I would raise the cap and floor of the league.

I would introduce a luxury tax for clubs burning the cap which should help avoid situations of clubs living beyond their means. A club who can't afford the tax most likely can't afford to break the cap. However, a hard cap is also counterproductive in stopping clubs who can afford it from being competitive in CONCACAF. I'm thinking that signing pricier proven internationals and 1 or 2 NT veterans would significantly help make those clubs competitive in the region.

What to do with that tax pot? An infrastructure fund would be interesting

[Kingston]

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I would introduce a luxury tax for clubs burning the cap which should help avoid situations of clubs living beyond their means. A club who can't afford the tax most likely can't afford to break the cap. However, a hard cap is also counterproductive in stopping clubs who can afford it from being competitive in CONCACAF. I'm thinking that signing pricier proven internationals and 1 or 2 NT veterans would significantly help make those clubs competitive in the region.

A DP rule would probably be more effective if you believe that it would take two or three internationals/NT guys to let a team compete in CONCACAF.

A soft cap with a tax is more likely to result in increased spending across the roster.  That would simply entrench disparity within the CPL because a, say, 10% improvement across the board would be enough to let you pull away from your lower spending CPL opponents but not to catch the big teams in CONCACAF.  A starting eleven with a handful of bigger players would close the CONCACAF gap more effectively.