CPL General

[Ansem]

8 minutes ago, Kingston said:

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.

I don't think CPL is in a position to compete for internationals on that level. I would like to avoid situations where DP money is thrown on 2 or 3 guys leaving the rest of the roster being paid near the minimum - we've seen those imbalances plenty of times in past years. Also, I'd prefer to avoid the expectation that "DP" = "being paid above market value".

I think this rule could get us in Honduras/Costa Rica level - which is what I mean by "competitive in CONCACAF"

Also, my thinking was that NT guys only having a % of their salary not counting against the cap would make CPL clubs able to make competitive offers while bringing in much needed veteran experience into those clubs. Why not help grow the game at home instead of being in a bottom table club or D2 or lower in Europe OR on the bench in MLS if CPL can make you a competitive offer due to that rule?

 

22 minutes ago, Kingston said:

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.  

Disparity always existed in football - even MLS is starting to stop pretending that parity trumps all (looking at Miami). Even with the change of rules "after the facts" not many clubs will be able to follow that rhythm. They too are going down the route "if you can afford it - do it" - we can too but in a more efficient/controlled way than just throwing money around.

Sadly, the reality is that "super clubs" sells tickets and it's been pretty much like that consistently when the top 2or 3 club comes into town. This is what Miami will do in MLS, this is what top clubs elsewhere already do - it has its pros.*

*Sorry if I'm offending people - I would prefer to buy tickets to see Forge, Cavalry or Pacific over Vancouver FC or Valour

[jonovision]

Just now, Ansem said:

I don't think CPL is in a position to compete for internationals on that level. I would like to avoid situations where DP money is thrown on 2 or 3 guys leaving the rest of the roster being paid near the minimum - we've seen those imbalances plenty of times in past years. Also, I'd prefer to avoid the expectation that "DP" = "being paid above market value".

I think this rule could get us in Honduras/Costa Rica level - which is what I mean by "competitive in CONCACAF"

Also, my thinking was that NT guys only having a % of their salary not counting against the cap would make CPL clubs able to make competitive offers while bringing in much needed veteran experience into those clubs. Why not help grow the game at home instead of being in a bottom table club or D2 or lower in Europe OR on the bench in MLS if CPL can make you a competitive offer due to that rule?

 

Disparity always existed in football - even MLS is starting to stop pretending that parity trumps all (looking at Miami). Even with the change of rules "after the facts" not many clubs will be able to follow that rhythm. They too are going down the route "if you can afford it - do it" - we can too but in a more efficient/controlled way than just throwing money around.

Sadly, the reality is that "super clubs" sells tickets and it's been pretty much like that consistently when the top 2or 3 club comes into town. This is what Miami will do in MLS, this is what top clubs elsewhere already do - it has its pros.*

*Sorry if I'm offending people - I would prefer to buy tickets to see Forge, Cavalry or Pacific over Vancouver FC or Valour

You may prefer this but I don't think your perspective is common. There is no strong correlation between opponent strength and attendance figures in CPL. 

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, jonovision said:

You may prefer this but I don't think your perspective is common. There is no strong correlation between opponent strength and attendance figures in CPL. 

It's too soon, you're right but eventually we could see the same trend as elsewhere.

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

Also, my thinking was that NT guys only having a % of their salary not counting against the cap would make CPL clubs able to make competitive offers while bringing in much needed veteran experience into those clubs. Why not help grow the game at home instead of being in a bottom table club or D2 or lower in Europe OR on the bench in MLS if CPL can make you a competitive offer due to that rule?

I don't think Herdman shares this sentiment.  I think he'd rather an NT player was in a lower league in Europe or at least MLS.  If a player is on the way up in the program, I'm sure he'd consider giving them a look.  I don't think he wants a regular NT player in CPL though.

[Kent]

The DP rule doesn't make sense unless you can use it to buy someone at the Beckham or Messi level. Maybe it helps to be able to get the next rung down, like Lampard, Villa, Insigne, Bale, etc. It needs to be someone that themselves can draw people to the games that wouldn't go otherwise. I disagree with the assertion that someone (I forget who) said that a big player or two can help better to compete in CONCACAF than spreading the money across the roster. Let's say some number of years down the road a Champions Cup level CPL team has a starting lineup of players that make 100k per year. I firmly believe that you would be better off swapping in a team of 10 players at 200k per year (so approximately twice as good as the old starters) than to add in 1 player making 1 million.

Besides, the point of the salary cap is supposed to avoid overspending. And the DP rule allows overspending. So if a league is considering a DP rule, really they should just get rid of the salary cap. It allows for the exact same thing a DP rule tries to encourage, but it also gives the freedom to build your team other ways if you wish, which might be best for your team.

[Watchmen]

43 minutes ago, Kent said:

The DP rule doesn't make sense unless you can use it to buy someone at the Beckham or Messi level. Maybe it helps to be able to get the next rung down, like Lampard, Villa, Insigne, Bale, etc. It needs to be someone that themselves can draw people to the games that wouldn't go otherwise. I disagree with the assertion that someone (I forget who) said that a big player or two can help better to compete in CONCACAF than spreading the money across the roster. Let's say some number of years down the road a Champions Cup level CPL team has a starting lineup of players that make 100k per year. I firmly believe that you would be better off swapping in a team of 10 players at 200k per year (so approximately twice as good as the old starters) than to add in 1 player making 1 million.

Besides, the point of the salary cap is supposed to avoid overspending. And the DP rule allows overspending. So if a league is considering a DP rule, really they should just get rid of the salary cap. It allows for the exact same thing a DP rule tries to encourage, but it also gives the freedom to build your team other ways if you wish, which might be best for your team.

There was an Athletic article about this a year or two ago, regarding MLS.  And the conclusion was basically: If you want to raise the quality of your league, raise the cap (and floor).  If you want to maintain parity while giving more ambitious teams a few more options, go with the DP rule.

[Kent]

57 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

There was an Athletic article about this a year or two ago, regarding MLS.  And the conclusion was basically: If you want to raise the quality of your league, raise the cap (and floor).  If you want to maintain parity while giving more ambitious teams a few more options, go with the DP rule.

What does that mean to "give them more options"? I think in the context of MLS it is to sell more tickets, which MLS can (and did) draw the names I listed. It didn't raise the level of the league though (and that sentence you wrote seems to agree, or else you wouldn't maintain parity). CPL I think is trying to fight for relevancy, and since they can't afford those household names, they would be better off trying to raise the level of their teams to improve their performances when they do end up against Liga MX and MLS teams in the Champions Cup.

[Watchmen]

3 minutes ago, Kent said:

What does that mean to "give them more options"? I think in the context of MLS it is to sell more tickets, which MLS can (and did) draw the names I listed. It didn't raise the level of the league though (and that sentence you wrote seems to agree, or else you wouldn't maintain parity).

You can sign a "name" for sure.  You could also sign an up and coming player to a higher contract that you could normally offer, with the intention of selling them on.  You could also sign someone who is a difference maker in the league, even if they're not a "name".  I'm not saying the DP is the best way, just that it's a way the bigger clubs can add someone of more talent without completely pulling away from the league.  Regardless of method, you still need some smart management.

[Cheeta]

1).  MLS does a lot of things badly, they've improved over the years but still, my Gawd.  The DP rule, love it or hate it, is just so much marketing rubbish as to be nearly embarrassing in a footballing scense.  If it works for MLS markets, *shrug*, go ahead, fill your boots.  As an instrument for providing better football its rubbish.  Right there next to useless.  Debate amongst yourselves because you won't be changing my mind.   

2).  CPL can't echo what MLS has tried to do with their DP rule.  The dollar power just isn't there.  That is to say, bringing in players who'll drive up ticket sales.  Not going to happen at the CPL level and anybody who tells you that it can is delusional.

3). I'm all for letting the Big Dog Hunt.  If as a league you want to pretend you're aiming for parity (AKA, going for the Lowest Common Denominator) while allowing for "excellence" just bump the salary cap and keep the salary floor.   If Bob Young wants to outspend Valour and bring a better product to the good people of Hamilton than what the yobs in Winnipeg have to endure then why shouldn't he?  The rules are the same for everyone.  Knock yourself out kid!  Or don't.  Whatever. 

Just my rather strong opinion on the matter.  

[nolando]

I'm not sure the league could survive five straight years of an 86ers-style dynasty, tbh.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Talk about the demise of the CSL too much on here and people will start posting about how you have PTSD over it.

The New York Cosmos is maybe the better cautionary tale on how to kill a league that's drawing enough spectators for potential sustainability, if another economic model had been adopted, with an inflationary wage spiral driven by the excessive budget of one franchise.

With the 86ers, the dominance was more about where most of Canada's top players were based at the time because they were always teteering on the brink of bankruptcy themselves and from what I remember (it's been a while) their players were said to be working other jobs during the season.

[Kent]

5 hours ago, nolando said:

I'm not sure the league could survive five straight years of an 86ers-style dynasty, tbh.

Well, we are through 4.5 years of it and attendances are the strongest since season 1.

[Kent]

7 hours ago, Watchmen said:

You can sign a "name" for sure.  You could also sign an up and coming player to a higher contract that you could normally offer, with the intention of selling them on.  You could also sign someone who is a difference maker in the league, even if they're not a "name".  I'm not saying the DP is the best way, just that it's a way the bigger clubs can add someone of more talent without completely pulling away from the league.  Regardless of method, you still need some smart management.

In those cases you are improving your team, and thus reducing league parity. So why not just reduce league parity by letting teams spend more flexibly than to force their ambitious hand with a specific DP rule? This is why I am saying a DP rule doesn't make sense. It nullifies the reason for the salary cap in the first place, so why not just get rid of (or increase at least) the salary cap instead?

[Kingston]

 

14 hours ago, Ansem said:

Also, I'd prefer to avoid the expectation that "DP" = "being paid above market value".

 

I don't think DP should equal "above market value".  It should equal "above the typical rate for the league".  Some MLS teams are good at this and some aren't.  CPL teams would presumably also use a DP rule both wisely and foolishly.

14 hours ago, Ansem said:

I think this rule could get us in Honduras/Costa Rica level - which is what I mean by "competitive in CONCACAF"

Ah, I thought you meant more like compete with MLS and LMX which I wouldn't see CPL DP level money achieving.

15 hours ago, Ansem said:

Also, my thinking was that NT guys only having a % of their salary not counting against the cap would make CPL clubs able to make competitive offers while bringing in much needed veteran experience into those clubs. Why not help grow the game at home instead of being in a bottom table club or D2 or lower in Europe OR on the bench in MLS if CPL can make you a competitive offer due to that rule?

I think the idea is that being at a low level in Europe gives you a better chance of reaching a higher level in Europe.  You're more on the radar of clubs and scouts over there.  For guys who are going to be on the NT, I see the CPL and MLS (below its highest levels anyway) as part of the pathway to Europe, not a desirable end state.

[Kingston]

9 hours ago, Kent said:

The DP rule doesn't make sense unless you can use it to buy someone at the Beckham or Messi level. Maybe it helps to be able to get the next rung down, like Lampard, Villa, Insigne, Bale, etc. It needs to be someone that themselves can draw people to the games that wouldn't go otherwise.

The DP rule serves three functions in MLS:

One, it allows for league altering player signings like Beckham and Messi.  These are very rare but have proven very useful.

Two, it allows teams to bolster their top end talent.  Done intelligently, this can very much make a team more than it otherwise would be on the field even if the players aren't name-brand guys who will sell tickets just by their brand.  Doing this successfully has a meaningful impact on that team's finances.

Third, it allows an ownership group to demonstrate to their fan base that they are committed to the team.  This is less important than the other two but can be useful.

[Kent]

4 hours ago, Kingston said:

The DP rule serves three functions in MLS:

One, it allows for league altering player signings like Beckham and Messi.  These are very rare but have proven very useful.

Two, it allows teams to bolster their top end talent.  Done intelligently, this can very much make a team more than it otherwise would be on the field even if the players aren't name-brand guys who will sell tickets just by their brand.  Doing this successfully has a meaningful impact on that team's finances.

Third, it allows an ownership group to demonstrate to their fan base that they are committed to the team.  This is less important than the other two but can be useful.

But what is the purpose of the salary cap? I had to look this up just now, but the MLS salary cap this year is $5.2 million. There are only two teams that are spending below the cap (Nashville and Dallas). There are a total of only 6 teams out of 29 spending less than $6 million. With the numbers from before Messi/Busquets, there were 8 teams (not including Inter Miami) that were spending over $10 million, and one of those teams (Toronto) spending over $20 million. In fact, with TFC's $26 million wage bill, they are spending more than 5x the salary cap. Isn't the cap supposed to be there to avoid this kind of spending to keep teams viable? So if the DP rule (and TAM/GAM, etc) renders the salary cap essentially meaningless, then what is the point of the DP rule in the first place? Either have a salary cap, or don't. That's my opinion anyways.

[Kingston]

26 minutes ago, Kent said:

But what is the purpose of the salary cap? I had to look this up just now, but the MLS salary cap this year is $5.2 million. There are only two teams that are spending below the cap (Nashville and Dallas). There are a total of only 6 teams out of 29 spending less than $6 million. With the numbers from before Messi/Busquets, there were 8 teams (not including Inter Miami) that were spending over $10 million, and one of those teams (Toronto) spending over $20 million. In fact, with TFC's $26 million wage bill, they are spending more than 5x the salary cap. Isn't the cap supposed to be there to avoid this kind of spending to keep teams viable? So if the DP rule (and TAM/GAM, etc) renders the salary cap essentially meaningless, then what is the point of the DP rule in the first place? Either have a salary cap, or don't. That's my opinion anyways.

Ultimately the purposes of a salary cap are to maintain parity in a league and to prevent financial disaster where even high revenue teams drive themselves into bankruptcy through foolish spending.  This is true of any capped league.  

The purpose of exceptions to the cap is to drive certain behaviours that are seen as desirable.

MLS has a $5.2 million cap plus another $3 million (?) in TAM/GAM to allow the signing of certain types of players.  The TAM/GAM rules appear to be loose enough that, functionally, it is more like MLS has an $8 million cap.  MLS also has the DP rule to allow a small number of higher value players with further tweaks to encourage the singing of younger DPs. The presence of these players presumably helps develop those around them and/or drives more ticket and media sales.

The CPL has a $1 million salary cap that can be flexed by $100 k if teams sign younger players.

So both leagues use incentives beyond the cap to encourage certain behaviours.

Having just a straight cap as you suggest would certainly be an option.  The biggest advantages are that it maintains parity and allows teams to use their resources however they themselves feel will be most beneficial.  The main downsides are that it limits the whole league to what the smallest market can afford and it doesn't allow for richer markets to use any of their potential to help the league (as well as themselves) with signings smaller teams can't afford.  Plus it prevents head office from steering behaviour but I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

I think most fans want to see the highest level of soccer they can from a stable league with a reasonable degree of parity.  I don't think there is a "correct" answer about exactly how to achieve that when considering salary cap and exceptions.

[Stanley]

8 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The New York Cosmos is maybe the better cautionary tale on how to kill a league that's drawing enough spectators for potential sustainability, if another economic model had been adopted, with an inflationary wage spiral driven by the excessive budget of one franchise.

The original NASL Cosmos killed the league?  How do you figure that?

[nolando]

6 hours ago, Kent said:

Well, we are through 4.5 years of it and attendances are the strongest since season 1.

Forge has had a great run admittedly, but there feels like a certain amount of parity underlying each season of CPL, which  I like, and which wasnt always the case in the old league.

But if Forge literally never lost and had the vast majority of the stars in the league, I think it could be a real barrier to the long-term viability of the competition, especially to those clubs with none of the stars and none of the wins.

The west coast had most of the Canadian stars in the 80s and early 90s. GTA has them now (as well as access to the best of the next generation of young Canadian stars) and will for for the foreseeable future. The conditions are certainly there for a potential stark imbalance, and should be monitored and managed, imo.

I stand by my comment that we should try to avoid a single team running away with things.

"The 86ers then went on a historic run, setting a North American professional sports record by playing 46 consecutive matches without defeat (37 wins and nine draws) between June 5, 1988, and August 8, 1989."

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

49 minutes ago, Stanley said:

The original NASL Cosmos killed the league?  How do you figure that?

In the absence of an MLS style salary cap the other franchises felt a need to try to keep pace with what the Cosmos were doing on player signings even though they couldn't afford to. Eventually many/most of the other owners who hadn't folded their team outright yet found moving indoors to the MISL a more attractive option and the real outdoor version of the sport slipped off the radar screen almost completely only 5 years after it had been booming.

[Stanley]

1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

In the absence of an MLS style salary cap the other franchises felt a need to try to keep pace with what the Cosmos were doing on player signings even though they couldn't afford to. Eventually many/most of the other owners who hadn't folded their team outright yet found moving indoors to the MISL a more attractive option and the real outdoor version of the sport slipped off the radar screen almost completely only 5 years after it had been booming.

That's more down to stupid owners like like Nelson Skalbania of the Calgary Boomers, who saw the success that the Whitecaps (not Cosmos) were having and relocated a team from Memphis thinking they would draw 20K per game immediately, and wasn't happy averaging 10501 per game, and folded the team (although it was more convoluted than that).  There were many more stupid owners like that.  If anything Cosmos were good for the league, drawing big crowds.

[Ansem]

Looking at how Messi and friends are making MLS look like child's play, we need to stop with the pretenses about parity.

Let the clubs who can afford it spend against a higher cap. I still maintain that luxury tax to avoid clubs going crazy overboard.

[narduch]

14 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Looking at how Messi and friends are making MLS look like child's play, we need to stop with the pretenses about parity.

Let the clubs who can afford it spend against a higher cap. I still maintain that luxury tax to avoid clubs going crazy overboard.

They have basically already broken their rules for Messi.

 

[Metro]

12 hours ago, narduch said:

They have basically already broken their rules for Messi.

 

You're telling us there ISN'T a way to fit in Suarez under the cap when he joins the team? 😄

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Wonder what this is about?