Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Spilt Pages

should the this page be split in 2 the orginal and the current whitecaps

NO. I can't believe that you did this! Now you have to have a separate page for the 86ers. --Walter Görlitz 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No they won't. The 86ers and new Whitecaps are the same franchise in the same city so they can stay together.
The NASL and USL pages should be recombined as the club itself combines all records from nasl to csl to usl in all time stats, club honours, reaffirmed by the clubs 35 years celebration. (Morbital (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps you could mention the Whitecaps all time starting 11?

Source http://whitecapsfc.com/teams/mens/alltimestarting11/

which just goes to show that the in the mind of the current franchise, the "old Whitecaps", the 86ers and the "current Whitecaps", and the team that will be an MLS franchise when the new stadium is completed are a continuum. It's a bad idea to separate them. Look at the various other sports franchises that have a long history. They trace their roots back to early professional teams in the regions. This is a bad, bad idea. --Walter Görlitz 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Size of league

I've removed the text "the largest system of national soccer leagues in North America" from the lead section for discussion here. Chriswonky had added "second" to the line, which I removed as there was no reference or details as to what the largest might be. He has since asked to return it, but after researching the articles on the two systems, it appears to me that the USL is the larger system. I'm basing this on the fact that Major League Soccer has thirteen teams in total, while the United Soccer Leagues encompasses three men's divisions, the women's W-League, and a youth league. The MSL is the top level of professional soccer in the United States (and will be in Canada when Toronto starts play), and perhaps that is what Chriswonky is referring to. However, the text would need to be rewritten to make that point. (The other option is to leave it out, as I've done, since the league articles are linked.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead to incorporate the second-tier status, using language from the Portland article. I've also cleaned up the text a bit and removed a redirect. Hopefully this will address Chriswonky's concerns. --Ckatzchatspy 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fans

"The two biggest supporters' groups.....both of whom often chant and sing" - unless North American crowds are radically different from those here in Europe, I wouldn't say that the fact that they chant and sing is especially unusual for fans at a football/soccer match, does it really need to be mentioned? ChrisTheDude 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Most American fans are passive at Football/Soccer outings. --Walter Görlitz 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oldcapslogo.gif

Image:Oldcapslogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know there's no longer copyright over such photo. I checked to the Canadian office for the Intellectual Property and learnt here that Whitecaps' old logo seems to be actually abandoned - so not protected by any copyright. Could "no copyright" be a fair rationale use? :) Sergio (146.133.254.83 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

Page move

The page move/split was *not* done properly... first off, it should have been discussed. Secondly, the edit history is now with the "old team" page, when it should have gone to the "new team" page as that is where most of the edits are from. I'm posting a notice at the move page to see if an admin can fix this properly. --Ckatzchatspy 06:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

AGREE! - I 100% agree with this. The fact that was not discussed is the most disturbing part. --Walter Görlitz 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes and I don't understand why. I wrote the Italian article and kept all in one article only. Sergio. (146.133.254.85 16:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
Sorry for the delay - I've just filed for a repair at the "Requested moves" page. --Ckatzchatspy 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the USL page redirects to Vancouver Whitecaps, this page has been restored to the non-split version, and I'm going to tweak the move request so that this article is returned to Vancouver Whitecaps. --Ckatzchatspy 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Moving the article as per this request. Dekimasuよ! 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... it is certainly appreciated. --Ckatzchatspy 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of operations

I do agree that the Vancouver Whitecaps page should reflect both the old and new teams, but I think the page order should be different; at least, the year-by-year stats should go at the end of the article. Currently, the order is Honours - NASL History - NASL Players - NASL Year-By-Year - NASL Attendance Statistics - 86ers History - USL Whitecaps History - USL Whitecaps Year By Year - Rival Clubs - Other Teams [in the organization - Fans - New Stadium - USL Squad - Record Attendance. I think the article would be a lot more coherent if it went History (all clubs, this can include the bit about the new stadium) - Rivals - Fans - Current Squad - Honours (all clubs) - Year by Year (all clubs) - Notable Former Players (all clubs) - Attendance (all clubs). If nobody is in opposition, I might affect these changes.

Another problem, and more important, I think, is where we plan on noting that this article concerns mainly the men's side and doesn't have a lot to do with the women's or youth teams. In the header? In a subsection, as it's currently done? DamionOWA 07:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New Separation Proposal

There should be two pages for the Vancouver Whitecaps. One for the NASL team and one for the USL team. They are two distinct franchises. Other franchises that are named after NASL teams have separate pages. Why should the Whitecaps be different? For examples, see Baltimore Bays (ASL), Baltimore Bays (USISL), Detroit Express (ASL), Edmonton Drillers (NPSL), Edmonton Drillers (CMISL), Fort Lauderdale Strikers (1988-1994), Fort Lauderdale Strikers (USISL), Las Vegas Quicksilver (USISL), Portland Timbers (USL), San Diego Sockers (2001-2004), San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders (USL), Toronto Blizzard (1986-1993), Tulsa Roughnecks (USISL), and Washington Diplomats (APSL). I can get more examples if needed. KitHutch 13:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the original was a major league NASL team that is now defunct. The current team is minor league and took the NASL name after years of going by the name 86ers. These teams have nothing in common other than the name/city. Definately split them -- Cmjc80 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposed as per the last attempt at splitting this page by Cmjc80. --Ckatzchatspy 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Several issues come to mind here. First off, I've reverted the addition of the template. It should be placed, given this discussion, but it was incorrectly applied and messed up the article. Feel free to restore it correctly; if no-one has done so, I'll try to get to it tonight. Second, please note that this is the second attempt to split the article in recent months; the first one failed because there was no support to do so. Third, both attempts were done incorrectly through the use of cut-and-paste moves. If this page is eventually split, the changes *must* be done properly in order to preserve edit histories. --Ckatzchatspy 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at other sports besides the soccer examples listed above, there are many other precedents where pages are split along franchises. Examples include Washington Senators, Washington Nationals, Milwaukee Brewers, Cincinnati Reds, Baltimore Orioles, along with Denver Nuggets (original) and Ottawa Senators. Its very confusing to have the histories of two unrelated teams on the same page. These pages are going to have to be split to get in line with the formatting of other team pages. Once split, a history merge request will be made to move the page history to the USL team's page -- Cmjc80 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there has been no additional opposition, I kept the USL Vancouver Whitecaps on this page and moved the NASL information to Vancouver Whitecaps (NASL). KitHutch 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverted, for now, os there is no overwhelming consensus for such a move. (It's not just a numbers game, and given that the last attempt failed, there is no rush. Plus, any split should be done properly; we still have to look into how to properly preserve the edit histories before any possible split is done.) --Ckatzchatspy 03:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Having one article for both Vancouver Whitecaps teams goes against every other Wikipedia sports article. These are two separate teams. The only thing connecting them is a common name. KitHutch 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

New player Signings

Is a new player only added to the roster once he dresses for a game? I've noticed that they signed Mason Trafford and wanted to keep the references fresh because they contain good bio info. http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-soccer/stories/062008aac.html and http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature06190807.aspx --Coppercanuck (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, if it certain that he's a member of the roster, he can be added to the page immediately. However, he only gets a bio when he actually plays. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that if a player is signed to the USL 1 team, add him, without a number. However if the player is playing on one of the feeder teams, hold off until he's at least on the bench. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Players with dual nationality

Is this section really necessary? I've never seen it on any other soccer page. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess not. I'll delete it.--JonBroxton (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New - Page Merge Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge. -- Ckatzchatspy 06:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The NASL Whitecaps and USL Whitecaps should be on the same page. It's been pointed out that they are separate entities which is entirely wrong. The current ownership of Vancouver Whitecaps F.C. purchased and own all previous rights and copyright to the former clubs going back to 1974 making them essentially the same team. They are now one continuous entity legally and should be displayed as such. You can see this on the official website. http://www.whitecapsfc.com/club/vision2011/

The Whitecaps are currently the only team where they are in this very unique situation of continuity. Not merging the two pages of this single legal entity hardly makes any logical sense at all.

Teams like the Brooklyn Dodgers and LA Dodgers are on the same page. How is the Whitecaps any different? Harryzimm (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE The Wikipedia precedent is that even if a team adopts the name of an old franchise, it gets its own page. The original Whitecaps folded along with the NASL in 1985. The Vancouver 86ers were a new team when the CSL started that had no connection to the old Whitecaps. The 86ers simply changed their name. They are two seperate and distinct organizations. For example, the Baltimore Blast of the NISL and owned by the former owner of the Baltimore Blast of the MSL, but both teams have their own pages. There are 3 different pages for the Seattle Sounders even though the USL team claims to be a continuation of the NASL team and owns the copyrights that team. The reason that the Brooklyn and LA Dodgers have the same page is that they are the same team that just moved. This did not happen with the Whitecaps. KitHutch (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

EXTREMELY STRONGLY AGREE - The players, essential ownership and back-room management of the teams were the same. The name was changed to the 86ers to distance itself from the failed NASL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
EXTREMELY STRONGLY AGREE - The club traces its history through the past 35 years, stats are based on combined nasl csl and usl. club aknowledges acolades from all leagues. Celebration of 35 years further reason that the pages should be COMBINED and not SPLIT. The club's official position is that the History goes back to December 11th, 1973. (Morbital (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC))
You are still revising history. It's all right to that the city of Vancouver is celebrating 35 years of professional soccer, but it happened over two different franchises (Whitecaps I and 86ers/Whitecaps II). It is the same situation that happened with the indoor Baltimore Blast. The original Blast began in the original MISL in 1980. The Blast folded with the MISL in 1992. A new team called the Baltimore Spirit started that year. Eventually, the Spirit changed its name to the Blast and recogized the ld Blast stats including the 1984 MISL title. However, they remain two separate franchises and have two separate pages on Wikipedia. The Whitecaps are the same. Old Whitecaps folded in 1985. 86ers came along and eventually adopted the Whitecaps name and records. However, they are still two separate franchises and the only thing that connects them is the name. The precedent was set with the Blast and should be followed! KitHutch (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not like revisionist history. The original Whitecaps ceased to exist in 1985. A new team the 86ers came into being for the first CSL season. Just because they eventually bought the copyrights and changed their name to the Whitecaps does not make this a continuation of the same franchise! KitHutch (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Separating them is revisionist, Kit. The Whitecaps consider the NASL franchise part of their continuous history. See Whitecaps FC celebrate 35 Years
Merge the articles now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
How is separating them revisionist? The NASL Whitecaps ceased operations in 1985. They were dead. The 86ers were formed later and did NOT have anything to do with the Whitecaps. It was only after they took the Whitecaps name that they started claiming their heritage. They "revised" their history. However, they are two separate organizations that ONLY share a name. KitHutch (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I see several incorrect points.
  1. You don't know know how to respond correctly. Each response should be indented.
  2. The organization does not agree with you, so argue with them, not Wikipedia.
  3. History itself does not agree with you. While the NASL Whitecaps ceased operations in 1985, the core of the team continued forward. The spirit of the team was alive. It was this core that formed the 86ers. Many players, most notably Valentine and Lenarduzzi, and original Whitecaps back-room people were involved in starting the 86ers. The fact that they finally got the original owners of the Whitecaps name to agree to this continuation of the heritage by returning the name to the franchise proves it. They are one organization in every sense of the word just as the 2009 franchise is still the Whitecaps despite having lost half of the starting line from the 2008 cup-winning team.
More people agree with merging than your position. Merge the articles now.
--Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
When a team ceases operations, it is defunct and doesn't exist anymore. That is what happened to the NASL Whitecaps. Keeping the "spirit" of the team alive does not mean the franchise continued to exist. When the Baltimore Blast of the original MISL ceased operations, most of the players, coaching staff, and back-room people continued with the new Baltimore Spirit. However, the two teams are distinct organizations even though the Spirit renamed themselves the Blast later. It is the same thing that happened with the Whitecaps. Also, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Just beacuse a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. See the article on Wikiality. KitHutch (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No is saying it's about democracy. Can't speak to the Baltimore situation as I don't know the parties involved. The question I ask about that situation is does the current club claim to be a descendant of the original team or not? The Whitecaps do. There is proof that it is. That is sufficient grounds to consider a continuum. Merge the articles now and stop arguing against it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, two distinct organizations get two different articles. Just because the USL Whitecaps want to claim the history of the NASL Whitecaps, doesn't mean they are the same organization. Same thing happened with the Kansas City Comets and Cleveland Force. Two new teams took the name of an old team, but they are still distinct, separate organizations. To believe otherwise is to rewrite history! I have no problem saying that there is 35 years of professional soccer in Vancouver, but it is not 35 years of the same team! These articles should NOT be mergered. KitHutch (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
two distinct organizations get two different articles Not true. See Los Angeles Dodgers. The team in Brooklyn ceased to exist. The ownership changed. Only the players and part of the name remained, but yet they consider it to be a continuum. See also Vancouver Grizzlies as to how it was handled. This is how this article was originally positioned.
still distinct, separate organizations They're not two organizations. The owner of the NASL franchise, who owned the trademark to the name, was the only one who actually left the team (along with the players whose contracts ended). The vestiges of the NASL Whitecaps comprised the 86ers. That makes it one organization. Also, since the club considers their history to be a single continuum, and the facts bear that there is continuum in more than just the sport and location, I suggest that you stop trying to change what is obvious: The Whitecaps (both NASL and USL) and 86ers are one continuous organization history. This isn't like the Toronto Lynx/Toronto FC thing. I understand your point, I don't think you understand mine.
Finally, I think we're talked out and have made our point. Let others make the final decision. I'm adding a merge request again because you have not made your point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


I request to merge the pages again. The Whitecaps own the essence, the history, the name, and all that comes with the previous Whitecaps. Yes, the previous team folded and the league with it but so what? The current Whitecaps purchased all what is of the previous incarnation and because of that a continuation of the past and present. They themselves currently incorporate the previous Whitecaps into their history. Surely it's appropriate for the two pages to merge considering this.
Also, another thing. The title at the top of the page should say Vancouver Whitecaps FC, considering that's their legal name. Now that certainly must not be debatable.--Harryzimm (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
MERGE THE ARTICLES Rationale: (1) This year, the Whitecaps celebrate 35 Years as a franchise, not 35 years of professional soccer, not 35 years of pro soccer in BC, as some have incorrectly argued. look at their website right now, it lists their championships in the header and includes 1979 (NASL), CSL championships AND USL-1 championships. If the Whitecaps now join the MLS, are you suggesting they get a new page for that? (2) I think the strongest argument in favour of merging the pages comes from this article: Cleveland Browns. In essence, the club moved to another city and became the Baltimore Ravens. A new ownership group BOUGHT BACK the original name and history, much the same way that the Whitecaps bought back their history. Considering the group leading the club (President Bob Lenarduzzi etc) and their return to BC place, keeping the articles separate is petty and revisionist. It's OVER-EDITING Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedzsee (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (3) Sorry for forgetting to sign... one last thing, all the discussion so far seems to have centered around people voting NOT to split the pages. Look at the original page-splitting proposal back in '07... it received one vote OPPOSED. This vote seems to be in favour of merging them and yet someone single-handedly split them. I don't understand. Tedzsee (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Should the current MLS Seattle Sounders FC and Seattle Sounders (USL) have one page? They have the same owner and name, but are two different franchises with two different articles? Why should the Whitecaps be any different? KitHutch (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think they should have the same page too. The only reason that the Sounders tried to ditch the old name and then ended up subtly changing it tweaking the colours had to do with branding and merchandising. It's why the Whitecaps haven't officially announced that they'll be known as the "Whitecaps" in the MLS or keep the same logo/look. They can sell much more stuff if they get a "new" look then if they keep the old one. It's all marketing. Tedzsee (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep Spilt All evidence supports that these are separate franchises and a new team simply began using an abandoned name to generate more fan interest. Unless documentation can be provided that shows an uninterupted continuance as a business, these pages should remain separate. Cmjc80 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
All evidence? What evidence is that? As I have shown, only the owner of the NASL franchise left the team, and with him and his payroll, a few players left. key players (Valentine and Lenarduzzi among others) stayed as did much of the back-room staff. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Valentine and Lenarduzzi went to play full-time in the original MISL. They spent their summers playing in Vancouver part-time. The original Whitecaps died in 1984. The current team didn't begin play until 1987. If the team has been around for 35 years, what happened to the 1985 and 1986 seasons? KitHutch (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, unless there is evidence of a continuation of business for 1985 and 1986 as in the case of the, these should not be merged. Simply hiring a few of the same people and years later taking over a nickname don't make these the same team. Cmjc80 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
As for "using an abandoned name", it was never abandoned. It was owned and they had to purchase the rights back from the NASL owners. It was never abandoned. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Check [1]. The club is making a very strong push to show continuity over the past 35 years. I suspect that they will do so even more as the new team enters the MLS. I only see two voices opposed to the proposal. they are strongly opposed and vehement about it, but I don't think their arguments hold any water. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point for me. Whether the name was abondoned or purchased really doen't matter. What does matter is that they had to somehow aquire the name because they are two different franchises and as such should remain split. Celebrating history is irrelevant, the Cincinnati Reds celebrate the history of every team that has ever had the name but it doesn't make them the same franchise. They're recognized as different teams. Cmjc80 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You missed the point I was making though. That's my fault. The club considered themselves the Whitecaps from the outset. Talk to Lenarduzzi. That's why they attempted to purchase the naming rights. They had a successful run using a different name, but that's not who they felt they were. I hope you understand now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
What do feelings have to do with anything? I could feel like I am the King of England, but the fact is that I am not. Whitecaps FC may feel that they are a continuation of the old team, but the fact is that the NASL Whitecaps ceased operations after the 1984 season. The 86ers were a new team that began using an old name. They are two separate franchises. KitHutch (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When the best arguement to merge is "feelings" than there is really no need to keep discussing this. It's been a week, I'm removing the merge tags.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attendance?

The attendance section should be referenced and the fact that it's tickets distributed (purchased and given away by marketing) that determine the attendance numbers, not the actual seats in the stands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's deciding who the key former players are?

Some of those names were not key players to the franchise, they were not important players prior to their arrival in Vancouver, and they certainly have not made names for themselves after having left. I would argue that if the player was a

  1. national team member,
  2. played for a first division team before or after their term in Vancouver, or
  3. they achieved a major award while playing in Vancouver (scoring title, USL 1 starting team honours, etc.)

They should be considered. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

People are still adding to the key players and not leaving any reasoning as to why they were key. I will be removing players shortly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the existing list. I have removed all of the NASL Whitecaps only since that article is still not merged with this one. The remaining players were either

  • national team members for their countries of birth or selected countries, or
  • played for a first division team before or after their term in Vancouver, or
  • achieved a major football/soccer award while playing in Vancouver, or
  • have some other form of notability. For instance Lutz Pfannenstiel is the first player to have played professionally on all inhabited continents. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why there isn't a section about Vancouver 86ers players in Canadian Soccer League and American Professional Soccer League? Many of those players have been playing in national teams (not only in Canada) but aren't listed in the Whitecaps' page also if there isn't a specific 86ers' page. --Gleorzov Iasnissaoa (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2010

Because no one has added them yet. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

NASL 2010

How can the team be a part of a league that doesn't exist? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The NASL exists. It is just not operating a league this year. KitHutch (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So I'm thinking of making a band and have some big names who are willing to participate. Does the band exist? It's the same thing here. It's an association not a league and it's appearing where other teams' league information appears. It is, at the very least confusing. I've already seen one media outlet refer to the league the Whitecaps are playing in as the NASL when they're playing in the NASL Conference of the USSF-D2. I don't want there to be any confusion. Since there's no template yet for USSF-D2, I would prefer not to confuse readers at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge Paul Barber (soccer administrator) into this article

Bad idea. First, this is the last year of operations for the club as next year they go to the MLS, which is why Mr. Barber was hired. Then you'd simply have to duplicate information to the additional article and they end up out-of-sync. No other players or admin are listed on the article's page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ALL the staff...

Are they all really necessary? --JonBroxton (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's traditional on other team pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Placing the roster into a template

Since the roster is listed in two places: 2010 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season (although I think it should be Vancouver Whitecaps FC 2010 season) and this page. Rather than have the two lists be out-of sync, and rather than updating it in two places, it makes sense to heep the roster in template:Vancouver Whitecaps 2010 squad. Sorry for not consulting Jon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And how does one edit it when "edit page" shows only the template code, and there is no edit template link anywhere? Please don't tell me we have to manually search for it. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and if it means we can get rid of the template, I'd be more than happy to do a quick Ctrl-C Ctrl-V to keep the roster up to date in the season article. I'm sure I can make room for those extra three seconds it would take me to keep both pages current ;) --JonBroxton (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Simply go to template:Vancouver Whitecaps 2010 squad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
That looks bloody awful now. Seriously, I'll take on the personal responsibility of updating the rosters on both pages. I can't express enough how terrible that looks. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I realize that it looks awful. I'll deal with it one way or the other this evening. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
How's that? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the standard version. While the effort is certainly appreciated, introducing a non-standard methodology is not the best way to go about it. Any possible benefits of a "one-stop" solution are far outweighed by the added complexity. --Ckatzchatspy 05:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Saw that and I'm about to undo your revert. This is an easier way. There is no complexity now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm extremely frustrated that Ckatz did the deletion without explaining what the complexity of one-page editing is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Walter, please stop restoring the table. Two editors are now in opposition to your change, so (per WP:BRD) the onus is now on you to establish consensus to make the change. This is a non-standard method of maintaining the section, which introduces needless complexity into the article. --Ckatzchatspy 05:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about consensus. That's a hollow argument. It's about doing what makes sense, and this makes sense. There is nothing complex at all. If a roster change is made, you hit the edit link and change it two places: the two templates. What is complex is making the change in in three places: this article, the season article and the footer template. Yuo have not presented any rationale for explaining why this new method is more complicated and as such I am restoring, yet again, the better method. Feel free to explain how this is more complicated and less error-prone. Insert non-formatted text here
Ckatz. You are a Vandal. I understand wp:3rr, but you're no better by deleting the valid changes three times. Going to see admin intervention on your actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Walter, please, be reasonable. Trying to force through your preferred version by claiming Wikipedia is not built on consensus is a non-starter. Look, you tried something new, Jon and I disagreed and reverted you. The proper course of action would have been for you to hash it out here, rather than keep reverting in your version. Unfortunately, you don't appear willing to do that, so I have nominated the template for deletion to get a wider range of input into the matter. You can argue your case here if you so desire.--Ckatzchatspy 06:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, you cannot simply remove a valid deletion discussion notice. The discussion exists to seek wider input as to whether or not the template is desired by the community. I'm also not sure why you're saying I reverted you three times, as a simple count disproves that claim. --Ckatzchatspy 06:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
There was a request to protect this, but as someone is trying to nominate it for deletion it would be wrong to protect the page against that—unless there's a particular reason this template shouldn't be nominated, but I can't see one. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Reasonable? You speak about being reasonable when you don't make an effort to achieve consensus and then you nominate the template for deletion before you discuss it? You don't appear to be willing to be reasonable. Jon did not disagree with this template. He disagreed with an earlier revision where I used the incorrect edit header. Eben I admitted it looked bad, but then I fixed it. Jon has not had a chance to see it which is why I wanted it left in place so he could comment. The proper action is to leave it so he can see it and discuss it here, but you have kept deleting it. You're exhibiting page ownership and I'm not impressed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Walter, we're obviously not getting anywhere with this. You've told me that consensus doesn't matter, yet now you claim I didn't wait for consensus to form. You say I'm being unreasonable, yet you are the one making spurious accusations of vandalism. You claim I'm "exhibiting page ownership", yet you are the one repeatedly restoring your preferred version, erasing deletion discussions, and trying to lock the template page. All I've asked - several times now - is that you get consensus for your change before instituting it. I'm not sure how seeking opinions from uninvolved editors as to the desirability of the template is a bad idea; after all, I'm bound by the outcome just as you are, and it takes the dispute out of our hands. --Ckatzchatspy 06:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's the issue. You are not giving anyone a chance to see how the template looks. The objection that was raised was done hours before improvements were made and even I admit it was unpleasant then and stated I would fix it, which I have, twice. You're not seeking opinions from uninvolved editors, you're asking for it to be deleted and not allowing anyone to see it. You're not bound by anything. If the decision is Keep, you may still decide to prevent it from being included on either of the pages for which it was created. There was no easy way to gain consensus when the item was removed which is what you were unreasonably preventing: the viewing of the template on a page. I never considered adding it below. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me?!? That's utter rubbish. Anyone can see the template as it is still sitting in the articles since you reverted it in yet again. The request to have a deletion discussion means that the template will actually get looked at by many more people than otherwise might have been aware of the localized discussion. Finally, how can you claim that I'm not bound by the by a deletion discussion? If the community decides to keep the template, I would be the one out of line if I went ahead and removed it against such a decision. --Ckatzchatspy 07:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. The last I saw, the edits had been reverted. You are correct that it is still in the article. You are incorrect in that you could visit the article pages and not include the template there. I'm not saying that you would. I'm saying that you could. Finally, looking over the past 1000 edits, there have been several instances where an editor updated the roster in the article and not in the footer. How much more likely would it be that the roster would be out-of-sync when it's in three places: this article, the current season, and the footer, particularly when one isn't even visible from this article? It would be a different situation entirely if the season article were to use the {{fb si header |age=y}} template the way several European teams do, or an entirely different template. I'm not willing to maintain the updates, which are far more frequent than with European teams, and again, looking over the past 1000 edits, Ckatz has never made any roster edits and I don't expect that he will either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Jon has indicated that he doesn't like the template I have placed a Speedy on the template and leave the managing of the rosters to others. I will place notices on Jon's and Ckatz' page when they are out of sync. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It won't be hard to keep this up to date if we all work together :) --JonBroxton (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The roster is out-of date and quite badly at that. The online roster reflects the recent signings but we're busy deleting anonymous additions to try to bring the two into harmony instead of fixing the three rosters. The one on this page is missing

  • 9 Omar Salgado
  • 11 Ridge Mobulu
  • 12 Russell Teibert

and includes Justin Thompson and Jonathan McDonald who are not on the Whitecaps site. I don't know about the roster on 2010 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season and Template:Vancouver Whitecaps squad. Sure would have been easier to have a template. Would the editors who said they would keep these rosters in order please do so now? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Team name

I don't think there is any doubt as to the team's name.. The MLS announcement of the awarding says straight up that "The Whitecaps are the second Canadian-based MLS team, following Toronto FC, which joined the league in 2006 and follow Seattle as the second club to make the jump from the United Soccer Leagues First Division to MLS."[2] I would propose moving the team to Vancouver Whitecaps (MLS)--Bobblehead (rants) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that - in all likelihood - the name will end up being "Whitecaps". However, the team isn't saying as such, and team president Bob Lenarduzzi even went so far as to say:

"There are a lot of things we need to make decisions on... the Whitecaps name has a lot of equity. There may be people out there that think it may need to be something other than that."

(Lenarduzzi, if given the choice, would retain the 'Caps name. Here are a few links: Vancouver Sun CTV) --Ckatzchatspy 21:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
What? You mean MLSNet did some shoddy reporting? Shocking. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that they will stop being called The Vancouver Whitecaps and start to call themselves what they've been calling themselves for the past two seasons Whitecaps F.C.. I also expect some mild re-branding, but keeping the blue and white, the colours that they originally had when they were an NASL franchise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just this morning on CBC radio, Steve Nash said that they would prefer to keep the Whitecaps name.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
MLS has a giant pole up their ass about teams retaining their names from the USL/NASL era. For whatever reason Garber wants the teams to have a "clean break" from previous team histories. When Seattle's team was first announced, Garber told them they couldn't use the Sounders name and it was only after a "huge" uproar over the lack of a Sounders option in the fan poll that the team was able to add in a write-in option. Granted, with the Sounders being able to retain a slightly modified version of their USL/NASL team name and Portland coming right out and saying their going to be the Timbers, I'd imagine Vancouver's ownership is just trying to get some fan participation in what name the team should have, with the "shocking" result being some variation of Vancouver Whitecaps. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I suspect the final name will be a variation of Whitecaps, I don't at this moment in time support changing the article name to this. Unlike Portland, no body with authority came out and emphatically said "We are the Whitecaps." I suspect the hesitation may be not because of MLS (no need for baseless speculation) but because the ownership needs to shore up the legality of using the name in the big leagues. Some may forget that these owners did not always own the name Whitecaps and had to buy it from the original holders to specifically use in USL. ...But this is not a forum. For the moment "Vancouver Major League Soccer 2011" is the best name if one consults Wikipedia's guidelines.--Blackbox77 (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Can probably close this discussion actually. The ownership group has left quite a bit of wiggle room as far as the team's name goes. Lots of "I'd like the team to be Whitecaps" and "My preference is for the team to be the Whitecaps", etc. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagreed. Steve Nash said on CBC radio that they will prefer the Whitecaps name, but wouldn't say unequivocally that this will be the name. However changing the article to "Vancouver MLS 2011" is a stupid idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In keeping with the theme, and I know this has nothing to do with the team, but how long before Montreal enters the MLS and the team keeps it's team name the Impact? 99.140.240.146 (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)BigBoi29 BigBoi29

FIFA rules are that "first division" leagues should have a maximum of eighteen teams. An exception was made for the UK who have twenty teams. Since MLS will have eighteen after Vancouver and Portland enter in 2011, Montreal may have a difficult time with expanding the league further for their inclusion and still have the MLS be considered for FIFA sanctioned events. To be fair, the FIFA rule is actually for national leagues and this is, with the inclusion of Toronto and Vancouver, an international league so it's not clear what the direction will be. It's obvious that Montreal and Vancouver are dissatisfied with the current USL structure though. Vancouver has their out, but there's no clear exit from the USL for Montreal and where they would go if they left it. Then there's that lingering rumour that Ottawa wants to field a team for the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a new article?

I don't understand why there is a new article being created here. Kerfoot owns the USL whitecaps, they are moving up to the MLS. The club history will remain intact, so the wiki page should reflect that. NeilCanada (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We aren't sure of the team's name yet and it isn't clear that the history of the USL team will be maintained by the MSL team. As an example, despite the owner of the USL Sounders being one of the owners of the MLS Sounders, the MLS team has not acknowledged the history of the USL team. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a simple case of a team moving from one league to another as there is no promotion in North American soccer. MLS consideres this an entirely new franchise even if they take the Whitecaps name and recognise its history. Like the Sounders, the USL players will be cut loose and there will be an expansion draft for a new team. -- Cmjc80 (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion about the Whitecaps multiple pages, there is a lot of talk about the legal entity known today as the Vancouver Whitecaps. Yes, the NASL, USL, and MLS Whitecaps have different owners and played in different leagues. However, please think seriously about these points.
The 86ers/Whitecaps II have played in 3 separate leagues (CSL, APSL/A-League, and USL) and thus were 3 separate franchises. The 86er's/Whitecaps II have had multiple owners (5 that I can think of). This history is all on one page. The MLS is a continuation. A different league, a new ownership group, a different franchise, but no different than the 3 leagues, 3 franchises, and at least 5 owners the current team went through. Thus, I my mind, there are two options. One page combining the complete history of the entity known as the Vancouver Whitecaps (with 86ers history included), or at least 5 separate pages representing the 5 leagues that Vancouver soccer teams have played in.
My belief that there should be only one page is that there is one factor which has been continuous throughout the history(s) of the franchise, and ignored in the discussion. The fans. Half the stands are full of people who have witnessed the Whitecaps play at Empire Stadium, BC Place, and Swangard Stadium, myself included, over 35 years. Whether the MLS, USL or Wikipedia considers the club to be separate franchises is irrelevant. The fans think of it as one club, continuous for 35 years. Without the fans, there would be no club and no pages on Wikipedia.Nerf86 (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a question that I've never heard answered to my satisfaction. There are multiple instances of teams in other sport throughout Wikipedia who's pages aren't divided regardless of differing leagues and histories that would warrant a separate page far more than the USL franchises that are being "reborn" in MLS. It doesn't help since MLS itself has gone the extra five yards to try to enforce this sort of separation to its utmost ability however the guidelines of Wikipedia usually doesn't even allow this sort of thing, especially when the information can be successfully, informatively and correctly merged into one article. People can be made aware of the differing leagues and ownerships and how that affected the various entities, but it seems to me that the correct manner of displaying the information is in one article. I think that what we have is alot of confusion about how to address the change in entities and leagues, crossed with the intention of disabusing the reader of the notion that the franchise has in any way been "promoted" to the new league. While making this distinction is essential, the manner that the editors of these articles have gone about it breaks with all other precedent on Wikipedia when concerning franchises or teams that have played in multiple leagues or that were even multiple entities. The Portland Beavers baseball team is one example. Perhaps at the moment it's an acceptable method to avoid confusion, but ultimately these articles should be made to conform to the makeup that other sports team articles have in the past, or the other articles should be broken up as these are. Unak78 (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The ownership is partially new. Kerfoot is the owner of the Whitecaps FC, he is in a partnership with two others for the MLS team.
While the MLS considers it a new franchise, the history of the team is not new. Whitecaps FC seasons ticket holders will be given preferential treatment by the MLS team. How can this be possible if there are no ties between the two teams?
Finally, the club considers this one, unified history. Let's see what the "new" team does in relationship with the old team. Notice I did not indicate "old teams" as I believe it's been a single club that has had many incarnations, with different ownership, and has played in different leagues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
As my two cents I'd like to point out at Japan's J. League, which was created in 1992 by completely new and fresh professional clubs — however, all of them consider JSL (former amateur top flight Japanese league) clubs as their direct predecessors with unified history, even though the names of teams are different. Something that is named "club" is not just a certain enterprise, it's really smth wider.
I agree though that this article should not be named after Whitecaps before an official name announce — WP has to stick to official data only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.50.169.20 (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The club's website says they've been a club since 1974. Additionally, they claim that their history has started since their NASL days, I believe therefore, these pages must be merged if we want to properly represent the club has whole. Each article about each "different" team could be an article reflecting on the history. Because, its rather premature to say that this is a completely new club and must be declared a brand-new team. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Still not in the MLS

When you go to the official MLS page Vancouver's page is essentially empty. Portland's and Philadelphia's pages are very advanced in comparison, but they're still in the future teams section. So they're not in the MLS either. They all will be soon though. Being future expansion teams. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  • To me, if a team's paid its league dues and officially been announced by the league, it's a member of that league, regardless of when it begins play. So Vancouver MLS 2011 is officially a member of Major League Soccer, it just doesn't begin active play until 2011. Just to clear it up, Tom Danson (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Officially the Whitecaps

This page should now be moved from Vancouver MLS 2011 to Vancouver Whitecaps (MLS). Team finally announced they'll still be the Whitecaps.<ref>http://www.canada.com/sports/Vancouver+soccer+team+decides+keep+name/2264139/story.html</ref> SportingFlyer (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be premature to change the name of the page as they HAVE NOT made any official announcement. Quoting from your citation "We are fully behind continuing the Whitecaps name" was said, and not 'we will be continuing the whitecaps name'.NeilCanada (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The meaning of his statement when taken in context is quite clear. The name of the MLS team in Vancouver is the Whitecaps. I would support an immediate move however if you want to wait until they change the name on the website when the jerseys are unveiled in a few weeks be my guest. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You may disagree, but I heard one of the principles on the CBC morning show in Vancouver just after the announcement and the question about the official team name came up. The wording was that it will be some variation of Vancouver Whitecaps, but that there were hurdles to cross with the MLS. Portland had to pay to keep their name. Seattle had to change their name slightly (and for the better) but that's how it stands. We should wait, yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the source on Portland having to pay to keep their name? Who would they have paid, considering the ownership group is the same between the USL club and the MLS club? Also, it's pretty clear they're going to be the Whitecaps. Steve Nash even says as much on their intro video. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The source is Steve Nash as interviewed on CBC. They paid the MLS more to enter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If this doesn't confirm the Whitecaps name, I don't know what would...

Link announcing "Whitecaps" new logo TBA on June 8 Tom Danson (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. We should have a better idea come Tuesday. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And now we have it.[3] "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" - same name, new crest. SixFourThree (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

Time to swap with no-(MLS) page?

The USSF-D2 season is over, MLS prep is fully underway. Is it time now to make this the "just plain Whitecaps" page, and relegate the old "just plain Whitecaps" page to "Whitecaps (USSF-D2)" status? 174.47.84.200 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No. It's time to merge the articles since the MLS team is not different than the USSF-D2 team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
An excellent idea, and in line with the separate NASL page. Unfortunately, we cannot do it at this time as there is a discussion under way as to whether the two articles should be merged or not. You are more than welcome to participate here. --Ckatzchatspy 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus Would have closed this as move were there only this article, but moving this requires moving several other pages too, for which there was no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) → Vancouver Whitecaps FC — Formalizing annon editor's move request from Nov.22. The new Division 1 MLS team will be the Wikipedia:Primary topic moving forward, the pages should be structured as such. Cmjc80 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Relisted. Cmjc80 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - Similar naming conventions can already be found at Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders FC, Edmonton Drillers, Fort Lauderdale Strikers, San Diego Sockers, San Jose Earthquakes. Cmjc80 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose much like I did at the Timbers primary topic discussion. If anything, the primary topic should be the team that played for over two decades, not one that hasn't even played a single season yet. Principle of RECENTISM applies with editors disregarding sources asserting notability (many of which are available in a Google News Archive search but many are not because internet news has become more prevalent since the late 80's early 90s). And again, I cannot believe fans of a team (assume some of you are) are willing to disregard such a proud history. I would support Vancouver Whitecaps FC → Vancouver Whitecaps FC (1986–2010) and Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) → Vancouver Whitecaps FC (2011-). Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
None of the pages are going to be lost/disregarded, just moved to a new title. In this case Wikipedia:Primary topic would trump RECENTISM as most people looking up information one the Whitecaps going forward will likely be looking for the MLS team. Cmjc80 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Because they're not three separate teams. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Support - Fits with precedent established by other MLS teams that share names with old NASL franchises. KitHutch (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Support - Disagree with the Recentism principle - Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) is the current first division team, the one most users will be searching for, and passes the recentism "ten-year test" (making the reasonable assumption Major League Soccer survives for ten years). SportingFlyer (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment While I support the idea of some form of move, the proposal needs to be restated and the titles rethought. For example, I don't see a need to move the first Whitecaps team from "(NASL)" to "(1974-1984)", and I'm not aware of a need to move the "Vancouver Whitecaps" page to add the "(disambiguation)". --Ckatzchatspy 03:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The title of the years is consistent with the way the histories for the Portland Timbers, San Jose Earthquakes, and Seattle Sounders FC have been done. This should probably be USL -> 1984-2010, NASL-> 1974-84, and a disambig page, but I'm just supposin' here. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
SportingFlyer is correct, the NASL page is moving beacue there is now a second league know as the NASL making dates more appropirate. The D2 team is using dates because they have played in too many leagues to list in a page name. The disambig page is moving per Wikipedia:Primary topic. My appologies if there was any confusion Cmjc80 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Fair enough, concerns addressed except for one. Per the disambiguation guidelines, we do not need to move Vancouver Whitecaps unless there is a plan to change that page. (Meaning, if Vancouver Whitecaps is simply going to be a redirect to Vancouver Whitecaps (disambiguation), then we don't need to move it.) If, however, the plan is to point the page to VW FC, then the disambig move makes sense. The proposal doesn't indicate such an event. --Ckatzchatspy 06:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Vancouver Whitecaps would then be converted into a redirect per Wikipedia:Primary topic. Cmjc80 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose – The club's website says they've been a club since 1974. Additionally, they claim that their history has started since their NASL days, I believe therefore, these pages must be merged if we want to properly represent the club has whole. Each article about each "different" team could be an article reflecting on the history. Because, its rather premature to say that this is a completely new club and must be declared a brand-new team. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.227.230 (talk)
This discussion is being done in a vacuum and needs to be done within the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and should be listed in the Nominations for deletion and page moves section. They make the policies and procedures for football teams not the rivals of the Whitecaps. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not sure that all of those renames are ideal (I believe the team changed names in there somewhere), but it's generally better than the current names. ← George talk 01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These seem to be the same team. Should be one article Vancouver Whitecaps that covers the team name's history with links to sub-articles for more detail on historic forms, if required. A change of owner or league doesn't mean a new article is needed. Jamesday (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the team issue was discussed at length at Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC, and there was no consensus to merge the articles. Therefore, this discussion is about how to name the separate pages. --Ckatzchatspy 10:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Discussed at length. Bullied by you. Let the man speak. They are the same team even if you don't think they are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No-one is preventing the user from commenting, but the "same team" issue has been discussed at length and consensus did not support your point of view, Walter. --Ckatzchatspy 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You were in essence telling him to shut-up. The other POV has no basis in WP:RS or even WP:V sources. So what does Wikipedia say about consensus in the absence of sources? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It's an interesting discussion of how the legal structures of the team have changed over the years. The name "Vancouver Whitecaps" is valuable intellectual property. It appears that it moved to the new structure along with substantial other parts of the intellectual, human and property assets of the team and, presumably, the vast majority of the fans, even to the point of the new corporate structure selling season tickets to the old incarnation fans first, respecting their continuity of support for the team. If you'd like to persuade me that it's not the same team, just with a change of structure, you might start by showing how the old one continues to run and how fans are choosing between the two teams, with some supporting one and some the other. That's not happening because it's just a corporate structure change, not a new team. The right structure of an article with this background is an overview article containing all of the history with "in detail" articles for the individual corporate incarnations, where the amount of material about one of those incarnations merits it. Jamesday (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It is hard to show that a defunct team is running, as the USL 'Caps are no more. As for the idea of a core article about the organization with sub-articles on the teams, it was proposed (by me, actually) and rejected in favour of the current setup during the aforementioned discussion. --Ckatzchatspy 10:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not hard at all. They still are running. The players are on the "in camp" roster for the Whitecaps. The coach is the same. The owners are the same. The offices are the same. The only difference is that the MLS holds the contract for the players and not the franchise.
There is no precedent that a different legal status means it's a different club. I have shown that the Premier League teams have different legal statuses from twenty years ago, but they still have one page. In the past, Football project members have shown European clubs going through bankruptcy and forming entirely new legal structures but they're still considered one club. The precedent here seems to be that some every different teams have had similar routes (Seattle and Portland) but are actually different legal entities and so other editors want to force that model onto the Whitecaps. It just doesn't fly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The sticking point is the minor league rights. When Seattle got MLS, I believe the USL rights shifted to Kitsap Pumas - if they did not, there was nevertheless consideration about moving the USL team from Seattle to Kitsap/buying the rights. The Timbers also have, or gave up, their USL rights when they moved to MLS - something which has value because of the cost of buying a USL franchise (they don't come free). There was talk of Victoria gaining a USL franchise, presumptively the old Whitecaps franchise, once the Whitecaps went to MLS. The other problem with the corporate structure argument is the Portland Timbers - their operations are exactly similar to what you have described (intellectual/human/property assets, selling tickets to old fans first, et cetera). There was an agreement of a rebuttable presumption the Whitecaps are a new franchise, which merits a new article and this renaming discussion. If there is definite proof the Whitecaps are the same entity, and not a new entity which has absorbed the old entity's history (similar to the Timbers), I have stated I would be in favour of merging the articles - but this is not currently the case, SportingFlyer (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Stay on Topic - Please stay on topic here, the issue being discussed is how to rename the pages. The issue of merging pages has been discussed in depth 3 times at Talk:Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC with no concensus to merge. - Cmjc80 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We are on-topic. If they're the same club, then it makes no sense to divide them just because they've moved from one league into another simply because that new league holds the contracts for the players. When the club's women's team, reserves, professional development team, and development programmes have not changed and are all part of the club, why should one minor element force the club to change. But to make your happy: Strongest possible oppose to moving any of the pages around. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear to anyone reviewing this discussion, this is Walter's second time voting in this discussion. ← George talk 00:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear to anyone reviewing this discussion this is not a vote as per [4]. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It is off topic, the merges have been discussed ad nauseum. This is a discussion about page names. Nothing about a page name prevents a merge in the future should consensus change. Cmjc80 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Many European clubs have multiple teams just as the Whitecaps do. FC Bayern Munich is a full-blown sporting club and in its article discusses "Other departments" such as the women's team, the second men's team, the development teams, seniors' team, as well as teams in other sports Basketball, Bowling, Chess, Gymnastics, Handball and Table tennis. Manchester United F.C. -> First-team squad & Reserves and academy Real Madrid C.F. There are others as well, but Vancouver Whitecaps FC should describe the parent club with all its children incarnations: the first men's team, the women's side, Vancouver Whitecaps Residency|the reserves]], the development team, and the youth development programme. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alain Rochat

I added Alain Rochat to the roster the other day, but someone erased him. Rochat was signed by the team several months ago, and then was immediately loaned back to the team he was already with (Zurich). But he's an official Whitecaps player. He just happens to be on loan. But as long as there's a footnote explaining the situation, then there's no reason not to include him on the roster. The other option would be to create a section called "Out on Loan," in which Rochat would be the only player. In any case, his loan ends in January, so all of this will be moot in the near future. However, I suggest we keep him on the roster, given that he's already signed with the club. --Pavlovscat567 28 December 2010.

In the football project, loaned players are not included on the active roster. They are added to the Loans section and added back to the roster when the player's loan has concluded. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see 2011 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season for that information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Omar Salgado

He should not be placed on the roster since he cannot play for the team until his 18th birthday in September. he will not be on the roster until then, and may bump someone at that time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course he should be on the roster. He's signed for the team. Whether he is eligible to play for the Caps or not is immaterial - they own his contract. Salgado was interviewed on FSC yesterday and he said he would train with the team through pre-season and then he will probably be loaned to another team - probably in NASL or USL Pro - to play until September, after which he will come back and play in MLS. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No he shouldn't be. He's not permitted to play. He doesn't qualify toward the salary cap. Also, players on-loan are removed from the roster. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Did Omar Salgado join the Vancouver Whitecaps yesterday following the draft? If the answer to that question is yes, all other considerations become irrelevant. (oh, and BTW, NONE of the Generation Adidas players count towards the salary cap. That's part of the attraction of being a GA). --JonBroxton (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if he joined or not. I just know that he was drafted by them. The "in-camp" players have joined the Whitecaps, but they don't have MLS contracts. In any case, we can remove him if and when he's transferred. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's the point. When you become a GA player you sign an MLS contract, and are then allocated to a team via the draft. All GA players have guaranteed MLS contracts. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Salgado is on the official Whitecaps roster and is a member of their team, but cannot appear in matches for them until September. [5] Also, see [6] Don't understand why this is an issue. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
He wasn't on the roster On January 14. None of the draft picks were. He is now. Not an issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The only thing that is going to happen to Salgado is that he is going to be loaned out to a US based NASL team until he turns 18 and then he's going to join Vancouver..--Bobblehead (rants) 06:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Opinion. Could be sent to Edmonton or Montreal as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Edmonton and Montreal have the same problem that Vancouver has. Underage players can only change their player registration once and need to have a relative living in the country for non-soccer reasons. Salgado was registered in Mexico prior to his parents moving to the US and his registration shifting to the US and Salgado does not have a relative living in Canada. So, unless MLS and Vancouver apply for an exemption from FIFA, Salgado can't play for Vancouver. From what I understand MLS tried to get an exemption for Salgado when they first tried to loan him out to Vancouver, but FIFA denied the claim. I'm not sure if him being officially assigned to Vancouver changes that exemption request or not... --Bobblehead (rants) 18:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Year the team was established

Walter has recently changed the year of establishment to 1974. This article is about the MLS team; there is no way to claim the MLS team was founded decades before MLS itself came into existence. --Ckatzchatspy 07:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying the franchise was awarding in 2009 then I agree. If you are saying that the team was founded in 2009, then http://www.whitecapsfc.com/history argues against that. European teams were formed many years before the leagues they play in were established. That is the case here according to http://www.whitecapsfc.com/history . --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
We've discussed this elsewhere, but again, your interpretation of that page would need to find consensus amongst other editors. The page - published by the Whitecaps - twice describes the MLS team as "new". --Ckatzchatspy
"The Whitecaps played their first game on May 5, 1974". "Having submitted a proposal in 2008 to enter MLS". Neither quote supports 2009. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither supports 1974, either. Let's say there was a team named the Whitecaps in 1974. And let's say there was another team in 2009, also named the Whitecaps. It wouldn't be wrong to write "The Whitecaps played their first game in 1974" in reference to the first, even if the two teams were completely different entities. If you read that source as talking about one, single team, then it would contradict itself: "...the Whitecaps became the 86ers, which name came from the year of Vancouver’s incorporation as a city (1886) and the year of the club’s founding (1986)." and "On February 24, 2003, the Whitecaps men and Breakers women were brought under a new club structure called Whitecaps Football Club (FC), with the set-up to include an extensive youth development program." ← George talk 15:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
"The Whitecaps played their first game on May 5, 1974" doesn't support 1974? Wow. Yours reads like WP:OR to me. The club structure, Whitecaps FC, is not the senior men's team which is what this article is about, or is supposed to be about if it weren't for Ckatz' inventive theories that counter the club's claims. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
And the sentence that says the 86ers were founded in 1986? It's quite clear that the page is talking about several different teams that have called the city home; at least three or four from how it reads. Most of those teams had the same name, and some of them played in more than one league, while others only lived the lifespan of the league they played in, but it's clearly not talking about a single team and clearly not trying to say that the MLS side was founded in 1974. ← George talk 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course the 86ers were founded. Players and staff from the Whitecaps formed it. The holder of the trademark refused to allow them to use the term. It was only after they came to an agreement with the trademark holder that they were allowed to claim the title again. This is very much in keeping with tradition of many European clubs that formed, merged with other clubs, dissolved, ceased to exist, and then formed again. The Whitecaps were founded in 1974. I suggest you visit every European and South American football team article and apply the same level of scrutiny to them and then come back here and discuss what you've found. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem, as we've discussed several times before, is that the MLS teams aren't treated the exact same way the European clubs are on Wikipedia, in part because MLS is part owner of the team. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's an established convention. If you want to change that convention, you would need go to WikiProject Football and propose it be applied to all MLS teams with earlier incarnations, which would include San Jose, Portland, Vancouver, Seattle, and the New York Cosmos (if the rumors of them being the next MLS expansion team become true). ← George talk 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
MLS is part owner of the team and the Whitecaps FC is part owner. If the league folds or changes its policies, and provided that the Whitecaps don't incur too much financial difficulty as a result, they will continue to exist. The same cannot be said for the Timbers, the Sounders or any other MLS team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Your proof for that claim is what, exactly? --Ckatzchatspy 20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, that's pretty much nonsense. MLS is part owner of every MLS team, and they all have other owners as well. If the league were to collapse, they would all have the same odds of surviving in some form (financial issues aside). ← George talk 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. They would likely have the same financial chance, but the team names wouldn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
And what makes the Whitecaps unique? Particularly when considering the Timbers, Sounders, and Impact? I can see the Earthquakes going away if MLS were to fold, but the other three teams all have the same situations as the Whitecaps... --Bobblehead (rants) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The Timbers were a company created specifically for the MLS. They had no associated baggage like a woman's team to deal with.
The Sounders were a company created specifically for the MLS. They cast-off all of the associated clubs they had when they were in the USL, which the Whitecaps didn't.
No idea what the Impact are going to do when they arrive. I know they don't have woman's team, but Saputo has been the sole proprietor and I don't think the MLS team is an entirely different entity. I didn't mention them at all so I have no objection to them being considered in the same category as I place the Whitecaps. And TFC started in opposition to the local USL team by a completely different group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Rampant absurdity aside, I think your best bet is going to be to take up the issue as an MLS-wide change here. ← George talk 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
But it doesn't apply MLS-wide as stated above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
All I see above is three editors indicating that it does, and Walter saying "They're different because I say so", repeatedly. You literally haven't backed up anything you've written. "The Timbers were a company created specifically for the MLS." ORLY? Okay, how about "The Whitecaps were a company created specifically for the MLS." See? I can write it too, and I've provided exactly as much evidence for my nonsense as you did yours. But if you're set on avoiding any additional input from the WikiProject, we can all just sit here & twiddle our thumbs I guess. ← George talk 01:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

and all I see is three editors saying "is so" without backing-up what they've written. I suppose this is consensus through lack of WP:RS or even a single WP:V source whereas I have both. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The same single, primary source which contradicts what you're citing it for? Yeah, okay. ← George talk 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't contradict what I'm citing it for. You are imposing meaning on it that is not there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Walter, the discussion seems to be indicating that you are the one imposing a meaning that is not there. The onus is now on you to find proof that your interpretation is correct. --Ckatzchatspy 05:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does seem to imply that I am imposing meaning on it. Once again. I have found lots and then you impose the practices of the MLS on teams like the Sounders on that and interpret it through those goggles. Sorry. I can't convince you if you refuse to change your incorrect POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing different between what the Sounders, Timbers, and Whitecaps have done. There are two different corporations for the Whitecaps, one for the MLS team and a separate one for the Women, residency program, and any other programs they have out there. It is true that they both have the same location, but they are two completely distinct corporate entities. It should also be noted that the Whitecaps are wholly owned by MLS and that the VWFC ownership group is merely licensed to operate the team.[7] There isn't a partial ownership as has been previously mentioned here other than the fact that the VWFC has purchased a portion of the league itself.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That's an old case and the Whitecaps had to create a new contract which may be different. Without knowing the contract details, this is not an adequate point related to their case. New franchisees change terms and conditions that do not effect existing franchisees all the time. Although this information is good to know. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Umm... The league owning all the teams is the lynch pin to the league's claim that they are a single entity. They are not going to change their rules just so the Whitecaps can join the league. That also isn't how Wikipedia works. Find a source that refutes that the league is not the owner of the Whitecaps and that the VWFC corporate entity is not a partial owner of MLS. That's how Wikipedia works. I've got a legal case showing that MLS owns all of its teams, you've got hand waving. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional proof

From Talk:Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC

To further the claim that this is one club http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Whitecaps+veteran+Moose+loose/3327007/story.html opens with "The Vancouver Whitecaps cast aside three players last week to make room for new talent that can help the club compete in Major League Soccer next year." In other words, the USSF D2 side is cutting players and bringing on talent to use on the MLS side. There are more stories to that effect. Did that happen in Seattle? Is that happening in Portland? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also related is: http://www.whitecapsfc.com/archive/feature08171001.aspx "Although the midfielder admits that everyone on the team is playing for a job, as the 'Caps prepare for their inaugural season in Major League Soccer". There have also been TV news stories about the USSF side making space for players who will be assisting the side when they arrive in the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional story: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/jasondevos/2010/10/whitecaps-impact-push-on-in-the-playoffs.html "The Whitecaps have had somewhat of a revolving door in terms of their playing staff this season, as new players have been added over the course of the season in preparation for the club's entry into Major League Soccer in 2011" and "next season's move into MLS". The reporter's opinion is not that a new franchise is starting using the Whitecaps name but that the franchise is moving. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another case: Alain Rochat. Signed by the USL Whitecaps in 2010 to play for the MLS Whitecaps in the 2011 season. His bio appears on the "USL" team's web site: http://whitecapsfc.com/men/roster/players/alain_rochat.aspx --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Another case: "The Vancouver Whitecaps released six players on Tuesday as the club makes room for new talent that will play on the club's Major League Soccer squad next year." http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Whitecaps+release+players+franchise+clears+room+worthy+talent/3696596/story.html

Another case from http://twitter.com/#!/VancouverMLS : "Major League Soccer is here! Therefore, @VancouverMLS will be closing. Please follow us @WhitecapsFC for the latest Whitecaps news.". @WhitecapsFC was the Twitter feed for the USL, then USSF D2 news and match information. @VancouverMLS was the news feed for information about MLS issues (such as seasons ticket offerings, etc). Now they are one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Address for the USSF-D2 Whitecaps: Suite 550 - 375 Water Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5C6 http://www.whitecapsfc.com/contact/
  • Address for the MLS Whitecaps: Suite 550, The Landing, 375 Water Street Vancouver, BC, V6B 5C6 http://www.vancouvermls2011.com/about/contact.aspx
  • Phone numbers for the USSF-D2 Whitecaps: Phone: 604.669.WAVE (9283)/Fax: 604.684.5173
  • Phone numbers for the MLS Whitecaps: 604.669.WAVE (9283)/604.684.5173 (FAX)

Sure looks like they're the same COMPANY. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/11/08/sp-whitecaps.html The entire story is about how the current owner has take a bankrupt franchise and turned it into a winner and now they are taking that francise into the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And so it begins. Today the Whitecaps moved three players from the USSF-D2 roster to the MLS roster. http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2010/11/whitecaps-fc-sign-three-including-clubs-first-homegrown-player They had collected a keeper in the expansion draft but bring their old keeper up to the MLS team. Philippe Davies, Wes Knight, and Jay Nolly all are noted as "signed to a MLS contract by Whitecaps FC on November 26, 2010" (emphasis mine). Notice that the statement doesn't indicate that they have simply signed MLS contracts, since supposedly the MLS controls the player contracts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If the USSF-D2 not on the books explain the following names at http://www.whitecapsfc.com/roster

  • Jay Nolly
  • Simon Thomas
  • Greg Janicki
  • Mouloud Akloul
  • Luca Bellisomo
  • Wes Knight
  • Blake Wagner
  • Willis Forko
  • Nizar Khalfan
  • Ethan Gage
  • Phillippe Davies
  • Russell Teibert
  • Terry Dunfield
  • Alexandre Morfaw
  • Davide Chiumiento
  • Gershon Koffie
  • Bedri Gashi
  • Cornelius Stewart
  • Ridge Mobulu
  • Kyle Porter

Please also explain the absence of any USSF-D2 players at http://portlandtimbers.com/players and then tell me again how the Timbers and the Whitecaps are the same. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


From http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2010/12/whitecaps-fc-wrap-first-week-training-camp "“It was a great exercise for us because we have some new guys here with the chance to have a look at, so it was a great opportunity to test them out,” said Thordason. "Among those new players were a pair of the club’s selections from the recent MLS Expansion Draft, as Jonathan Leathers and Shea Salinas were inserted into the starting eleven." So the coach is saying the the MLS Expansion Draft players are "new" to the team. "Many other players are still on trial trying to earn a spot on the roster", while the second division team are trying to earn a spot.

Meanwhile Portland isn't training. Yeah, they're in the same situation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The press release (not a blog post as some have suggested) is titled "Whitecaps FC legend Carl Valentine returns to the club" http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2010/12/whitecaps-fc-legend-carl-valentine-returns-club. Since he can't return to a club that just started this year... He played for the original Whitecaps. He played and then coached the 86ers. He's returning to the club. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And you what do you offer as proof. The odd word or phrase that seems to imply that they're new or a franchise. They're a football club in the same vein as European football clubs. They make deals to enter leagues as the leagues are forming. Those clubs don't cease to exist when they're sold or pay to enter leagues. Yet for some inexplicable reason paying a franchise fee makes a North American football club a unique entity. I'm sorry you don't see the similarity. I'm sorry you don't understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Does a legal case work? Fraser v. Major League Soccer:
The structure for MLS has not changed since Fraser v. MLS, so we're back to there being nothing different between the Whitecaps and any other MLS team. I don't think there is any denying that there is a "spiritual" connection between the MLS Whitecaps and the previous iterations, but from an encyclopedic standpoint, this iteration is completely new. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. No it doesn't work. The Whitecaps were formed after this and unless you can provide the contract between the league and the franchisees, this is simply another case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Walter, for the sake of clarity, please answer the following:
  • Do you maintain that the Whitecaps differ from the MLS single-entity structure?
  • Do you maintain that the Whitecaps MLS team is not centrally owned?
  • Do you maintain that Whitecaps players are contracted to the team, instead of to the league?
--Ckatzchatspy 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not about me, it's about providing WP:V/WP:RS and not WP:OR based on what other teams have experienced.
  1. I don't have any WP:V/WP:RS to indicate that the Whitecaps do or do not differ from the MLS single-entity structure, although evidence does not support single-entity structure.
  2. I don't have any WP:V/WP:RS to indicate that the Whitecaps MLS team is or is not centrally owned and simply locally managed.
  3. There are sufficient WP:V/WP:RS that show that Whitecaps players are under contract league contracts. There are also WP:V/WP:RS sources that show that teams want that practice to end.
I like this game. My turn.
  1. Do you have any WP:V/WP:RS to indicate that the Whitecaps do or do not differ from the MLS single-entity structure?
  2. Do you have any WP:V/WP:RS to indicate that the Whitecaps MLS team is or is not centrally owned and simply locally managed?
Please be kind enough to answer the questions to the best of your ability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see the link to Fraser v. MLS that I provided which describes MLS's single entity structure that includes central control of and ownership of teams. Unless you can provide a RS that counters that source, you do not have a leg to stand on. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Carl Valentine, Vancouver Whitecaps FC, speaking about the single-entity structure:

"The MLS operates under a single-entity structure"

Carl Valentine, Vancouver Whitecaps FC, speaking about ownership:

"Each club has an owner-operator and the team owners are shareholders in the league"

Carl Valentine, Vancouver Whitecaps FC, speaking about player contracts:

"Players are contracted not with individual teams, but with MLS itself"

Per the article "Valentine's MLS 101: The making of an MLS team - A look at the league's rules and regulations" on the Whitecaps FC website. --Ckatzchatspy 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallelujah. Finally some proof. I acquiesce. Thank you Ckatz. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Is anyone else as sick as I am of reading the same conversations phrased five different ways on a dozen different talk pages? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly sick of seeing the phrase that they're the same as the other franchises with no proof offered. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Very, John. I think it is time we simply move on and make necessary changes based on the apparent consensus, with discussion where necessary. It is tiresome seeing any attempts at progress simply being reverted based on one person's personal agenda. --Ckatzchatspy 20:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree as well. It is okay to move on without Walter agreeing to the consensus. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't about consensus Bobblehead, it's about a complete lack of sources to back your WP:OR. Even if every one of you has the same WP:OR, it doesn't mean it's not WP:OR. Show me the contract the Whitecaps are under. Show me a news story that claims that the Whitecaps are under the same rules that the Sounders and Galaxy are and I'll be glad to accept the facts. Until I see the facts, it's just an assumption that they're under the same rules. The Whitecaps are making a great deal of noise to indicate that they're not so that's why I have my doubts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You clearly do not understand WP:OR. I have already provided you with a reliable source showing that MLS centrally controls and owns all of its teams. You've provided hand waving. You are the one that has to provide a reliable source that shows the Whitecaps are treated differently than every other MLS team. Until you provide that reliable source, you are the one engaged in WP:OR. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Jon, Ckatz, and Bobblehead. This original thought is creeping towards tendentious nonsense. ← George talk 21:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I clearly do understand WP:OR. You offered a document that was created eight years ago and have not shown that the document applies to all future signings. Each team could enter the league under different rules. Therefore without like what Ckatz provided earlier, one I've been asking for for months, any assumption that the Whitecaps were under the same rules as the other 17 clubs is WP:OR. Now that it has been provided, I can see that they are under the same rules. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Update

This is probably a bit late, but I just received a reply to an email I sent to the Whitecaps Front Office some weeks back on the issue of ownership. I got the following response from the Whitecaps Directory of Media Relations & Broadcast Communications:

Hi George,

In response to your question – the basic structure of MLS has remained unchanged since its launch in 1996. MLS is structured as a single-entity, limited liability company (LLC). Each MLS club is centrally owned by the League, which assigns each club an investor-operator, commonly called an owner, to locally operate the club on the League’s behalf. Each investor-operator shares in the expenses and revenues of both its assigned club and the League.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Jason

This is probably a bit late, as the issue seems to have mostly resolved itself, but thought I would share anyways in case the issue comes up again. Cheers. ← George talk 22:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And again

Another editor, this time with a plethora of references... It isn't going to go away. May I suggest that we add a hidden comment to reflect the idea that this Whitecaps FC is a franchise that was founded....etc? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Very good idea. JonBroxton (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I've added a simple note for now:

"Please note that this article is about the MLS 'Caps franchise, which was granted in 2009"

Any suggestions for tweaking? --Ckatzchatspy 23:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC/Archive_1&oldid=1083350312"