PDA

View Full Version : Miami Barca getting cold feet?



Stryker
02-20-2009, 12:56 PM
We want to get into the American market, but only if that doesn't involve any financial risk", said Joan Olive, FC Barcelona's general director. "The risk is much higher today than when we announced this [the Miami franchise]".

"This team cannot be a part of an investment if we are not 100% sure that the estructure is solid enough. We cannot risk our image and prestige", Olive added. "We still have time to suspend this", he concluded.

When reporters asked Olive about Mauricio Claure, Olive said that "Mauricio is also analizing if this is financially convenient". "He is a businessman and he will not want to get involved with something if he doesn't know the repercussions".


Vancouver's got bucks and Montreal is ready to go. What's the problem here folks?

TFCREDNWHITE
02-20-2009, 12:58 PM
MLS should drop the 40 million asking price to 30 million for its franchise fee...And then bring in Vancouver and Montreal!

Lucky Strike
02-20-2009, 01:00 PM
MLS should drop the 40 million asking price to 30 million for its franchise fee...And then bring in Vancouver and Montreal!

That'd be awesome, if unlikely.

Stouffville_RPB
02-20-2009, 01:00 PM
Van City doesn't have a SSS and Montreal doesn't want to pay $40 million and has had their bid withdrawn.

ensco
02-20-2009, 01:04 PM
Vancover's got bucks and Montreal is ready to go. What's the problem here folks?

I think the right view is to assume that we really don't know what's going on with anyone's finance's anymore.

People are getting crushed. Rich people especially.

Billy the kid
02-20-2009, 01:11 PM
If Gillett could sell his portion of Liverpool like he's been trying to do, then Montreal would have ridiculous money.

JonO
02-20-2009, 01:14 PM
MLS should drop the 40 million asking price to 30 million for its franchise fee...And then bring in Vancouver and Montreal!
That would actually be shit for us because we would have to split the Canadian talent pool with two other teams. The only way it would work is if MLS drop the distinction between US/CA players...

JonO
02-20-2009, 01:15 PM
If Gillett could sell his portion of Liverpool like he's been trying to do, then Montreal would have ridiculous money.
Has Gillett been involved in this at all? I though it was all Saputo...

Azerban
02-20-2009, 01:16 PM
People are getting crushed. Rich people especially.

when the revolution comes, the rich will be first against the wall

Stryker
02-20-2009, 01:21 PM
I think the right view is to assume that we really don't know what's going on with anyone's finance's anymore.
I think you're right. Just when Garber thinks he knows who he's going to go with, he gets some sort of negitive news about the team. At the same time, others who looked out of it, are suddenly doing things to look like an attractive option again. Garbers probley flip flopping all over the place.

BakaGaijin
02-20-2009, 01:22 PM
If Gillett could sell his portion of Liverpool like he's been trying to do, then Montreal would have ridiculous money.

Why? Gillett is not affliated with the Impact........and I don't know if he ever will be.

The Impact are a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION with three founding partners: Saputo, Government of Quebec, and Hydro Quebec. I don't think a non-profit organization can make a $40 million dollar investment in MLS...........that would be way too risky.

The only way it would happen is if a loan was taken out by the orgazination and it was backed by either Saputo or Gillett (with Gillett becoming a partner in the NPO).

However, why would Gillett or Saputo want to do that?!? They would not get return on their investment. Saputo already has sponsorship and naming rights.........I can't see much added advertising value in investing more money in the Impact.

Cashcleaner
02-20-2009, 01:23 PM
That would actually be shit for us because we would have to split the Canadian talent pool with two other teams. The only way it would work is if MLS drop the distinction between US/CA players...

Which I believe is only a matter of time. Shouldn't be a problem at any rate, look at how many players are on the Impact team right now and how far they are in CONCACAF.

loconet
02-20-2009, 01:27 PM
meh, I read about this on sport.es this morning. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. sport likes to blow small things out of proportion sometimes.

ensco
02-20-2009, 01:29 PM
If Gillett could sell his portion of Liverpool like he's been trying to do, then Montreal would have ridiculous money.

Liverpool, like Chelsea and half of La Liga, has debts (in Liverpool's case, £450 million) that exceed the value of the franchise

Gillett has nothing to sell. In a normal market, the banks would have repossessed the team already, but with all these banks failing, normal rules don't apply. Banks don't want to recognize the losses, given their own problems.

EdTheRed
02-20-2009, 01:33 PM
"We want to get into the American market, but only if that doesn't involve any financial risk", said Joan Olive, FC Barcelona's general director.


:rolleyes:

"And I want a toilet made of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards, now is it, baby?" said Austin Powers.

I want to invest my money in ventures that don't involve any financial risk, too. I hear there's this guy, Madoff, who had a fund like that...

rocker
02-20-2009, 01:48 PM
can't wait to get the decision so we can stop handicapping all these bids. it's getting tiresome. every week some new piece of info comes out that reorders the bids in people's eyes.

I wouldn't be sad to see Miami withdraw.. I just don't think it's a great market for sport. It would be interesting to capitalize on the whole Seattle thang and introduce two new northwest teams: Vancouver and Portland. That area of the continent needs more teams.

SilverSamurai
02-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Why? Gillett is not affliated with the Impact........and I don't know if he ever will be.

The Impact are a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION with three founding partners: Saputo, Government of Quebec, and Hydro Quebec. I don't think a non-profit organization can make a $40 million dollar investment in MLS...........that would be way too risky.

The only way it would happen is if a loan was taken out by the orgazination and it was backed by either Saputo or Gillett (with Gillett becoming a partner in the NPO).

However, why would Gillett or Saputo want to do that?!? They would not get return on their investment. Saputo already has sponsorship and naming rights.........I can't see much added advertising value in investing more money in the Impact.
I think Saputo said he was willing to make the Impact a profit org. had they been given the franchise. Too lazy to look it up. lol

BFin
02-20-2009, 02:32 PM
That would actually be shit for us because we would have to split the Canadian talent pool with two other teams. The only way it would work is if MLS drop the distinction between US/CA players...
Good point. It would be very good for us to not have to count Americans as non-domestics.

Dirk Diggler
02-20-2009, 02:34 PM
If this is true, I wonder if the league will just decide to grant only one city a franchise instead of settling for a city that would not be deserving or be a risky venture. If Miami has truly dropped out, Vancouver and Ottawa seem like the likeliest bids but something tells me that MLS would not be too keen on awarding both spots to Canadian cities.

JonO
02-20-2009, 02:34 PM
Good point. It would be very good for us to not have to count Americans as non-domestics.
And good for Canadians in general to count as domestic players for US teams...

BakaGaijin
02-20-2009, 02:40 PM
I think Saputo said he was willing to make the Impact a profit org. had they been given the franchise. Too lazy to look it up. lol

Do you think the Government of Quebec would want their Non-profit organization made into a for profit org? They gave Olympic stadium lands to the Impact for free.

I highly doubt it.

Beach_Red
02-20-2009, 02:45 PM
I think the right view is to assume that we really don't know what's going on with anyone's finance's anymore.

People are getting crushed. Rich people especially.

Your first point cancels out your second. We really don't know.

Hitcho
02-20-2009, 02:49 PM
That would actually be shit for us because we would have to split the Canadian talent pool with two other teams. The only way it would work is if MLS drop the distinction between US/CA players...

I've been ranting about this for ages - if any other Canadian team comes in then equity dictates that the distinction has to go. We can only just manage to get about 4 Canadians in our starting line up as it is (sutton, brennan, de ro and Harmse if we don't sign a better CB before the season starts). If we had to split those players with two other teams then we'd be forced to fill up the roster with Canadian players who just aren't good enough or we would have to pay way over the top to secure Canadian players. in that event, a US team could take someone like OBW in the draft and make one of the three Canadian teams pay through the nuts to get him off them.

This is nothing to do with green cards and work permits (all of which would still apply). It's just an administrative distinction for MLS roster designation purposes. It should be scrapped now - MLS has allowed a Canadian team in and will allow more in if they cough up the 40million bones to join, so having taken that money they have to give the Canadian sides a level playing field and not handicap them. Anything else is pure BS.

Billy the kid
02-20-2009, 02:50 PM
Has Gillett been involved in this at all? I though it was all Saputo...

Yes Gillett was to team up with Saputo. Here is an old link, prior to their withdrawal.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/2008/03/26/impact_mls/

rocker
02-20-2009, 03:14 PM
This is nothing to do with green cards and work permits (all of which would still apply). It's just an administrative distinction for MLS roster designation purposes. It should be scrapped now - MLS has allowed a Canadian team in and will allow more in if they cough up the 40million bones to join, so having taken that money they have to give the Canadian sides a level playing field and not handicap them. Anything else is pure BS.

I wish I could dig up the article, but Ivan Gazidis made an immigration argument as to why you can't have both canadians and americans count as domestics. It has something to do with favouring one group of internationals (Canadians) over another (the rest of the non-American world). The green card issue isn't the same, since according to law a green card makes to employable as any American. So there's no arbitrary favouritism, just a favouritism encoded in law.

I am not an immigration lawyer, but it sounds plausible. We would like it happen, but it doesn't really seem fair that Canada would get such treatment at the expense of Mexico, or Costa Rica, or.....

Hitcho
02-20-2009, 03:21 PM
I wish I could dig up the article, but Ivan Gazidis made an immigration argument as to why you can't have canadians and americans count as domestics. It has something to do with favouring one group of internationals (Canadians) over another (the rest of the non-American world). The green card issue isn't the same, since according to law a green card makes to employable as any American. So there's no arbitrary favouritism, just a favouritism encoded in law.

I am not an immigration lawyer, but it sounds plausible. We would like it happen, but it doesn't really seem fair that Canada would get such treatment at the expense of Mexico, or Costa Rica, or.....

Interesting point. I guess the response would be that MLS designation is only assigned AFTER the standard immigration procedures have been complied with, so that wherever you are from, you have to pass muster to get into the US on a working visa to begin with. Only AFTER you are through that barrier would MLS designation be assigned, so that Canadians wouldn't be given any preference over other foreign nationals - no green card is issued to make you a "real" domestic, that is still down to US immigration rules, it's just an administrative description. To clarify, MLS could scrap the term "domestic" and use something else to avoid any confusion.

Whether that gets round the point you were alluding to I don't know. But if not, then MLS can still allow Canadian teams to have way more US players on their roster, thereby reducing the pressure on Canadian players and not doing anything to harm US immigration policy (in fact, it would help, as more US players could get jobs!).

ilikemusic
02-20-2009, 03:36 PM
MLS is running a big scam right now.
The only clubs that are actually worth what they claim the franchise value to be is Toronto, LA and probably New York.

tlear
02-20-2009, 03:48 PM
just remove all international roster restrictions and be done with it

S_D
02-20-2009, 03:51 PM
They can trade for international spots as well so it wouldn't be too big of a deal. And don't forget they already have Canadians on their team.

Whether or not they are good enough remains to be seen but with the system that they have in place, they are already doing quite well against other teams in the CL.

SweetOwnGoal
02-20-2009, 04:09 PM
Interesting point. I guess the response would be that MLS designation is only assigned AFTER the standard immigration procedures have been complied with, so that wherever you are from, you have to pass muster to get into the US on a working visa to begin with. Only AFTER you are through that barrier would MLS designation be assigned, so that Canadians wouldn't be given any preference over other foreign nationals - no green card is issued to make you a "real" domestic, that is still down to US immigration rules, it's just an administrative description. To clarify, MLS could scrap the term "domestic" and use something else to avoid any confusion.

Whether that gets round the point you were alluding to I don't know. But if not, then MLS can still allow Canadian teams to have way more US players on their roster, thereby reducing the pressure on Canadian players and not doing anything to harm US immigration policy (in fact, it would help, as more US players could get jobs!).

Non Americans have to apply for a visa to play in MLS (there is a class that allows athletes in if they have demonstrated a significant proficiency in their sport. Most MLS athletes are eligible for that. Those that aren't are granted a one-year visa that is geared around local labour shortage -- if you got a job picking fruit in the U.S. you would have the same visa -- after they have spent a year in the US they are eligible for the first type of visa).

If MLS opened things up to Canadians, but no other foreign national, it would be granting an advantage to Canadians over others. That's illegal under US labour laws. There might be a loophole in NAFTA that the league could use, but it would be a stretch and there likely isn't the political will to do it (plus it would apply to Mexicans as well and the Mexican FA may oppose it),

So, as someone else has said, the only way to open it up would be to eliminate the domestic requirements in total. I doubt the USSF would support that.

rocker
02-20-2009, 04:18 PM
having more teams might serve the same purpose, providing more opportunities that can't be filled just with americans... or they might lower the American roster #'s so Canadians can just go for more of those INT spots on American teams.

Rochdale
02-20-2009, 04:31 PM
Van City doesn't have a SSS and Montreal doesn't want to pay $40 million and has had their bid withdrawn.
Vancouver will have a SSS stadium (GM Place) after the winter olympic's finished.

TFCREDNWHITE
02-20-2009, 04:39 PM
Vancouver will have a SSS stadium (GM Place) after the winter olympic's finished.

HUH?? How?

Will they cut the roof off of GM Place after the olympics??

Where will the Canucks play??

JonO
02-20-2009, 04:42 PM
If MLS opened things up to Canadians, but no other foreign national, it would be granting an advantage to Canadians over others. That's illegal under US labour laws. There might be a loophole in NAFTA that the league could use, but it would be a stretch and there likely isn't the political will to do it (plus it would apply to Mexicans as well and the Mexican FA may oppose it),

Perhaps I am missing something, but as Hitcho suggests, making Canadians not count as international players for MLS purposes would not affect their legal ability to play in the US and would give them no legal advantage to non-Canadians. That is, the immigration requirements would not be affected.

I could see the argument that it would make Canadians more desirable over other jursidictions, but not necessarily more employable under labour law. I'm no labour lawyer though, so maybe trane would care to chime in ;)

Rochdale
02-20-2009, 04:44 PM
HUH?? How?

Will they cut the roof off of GM Place after the olympics??

Where will the Canucks play??

Oops, l mean BC Place Stadium.

Hitcho
02-20-2009, 04:57 PM
Non Americans have to apply for a visa to play in MLS (there is a class that allows athletes in if they have demonstrated a significant proficiency in their sport. Most MLS athletes are eligible for that. Those that aren't are granted a one-year visa that is geared around local labour shortage -- if you got a job picking fruit in the U.S. you would have the same visa -- after they have spent a year in the US they are eligible for the first type of visa).

If MLS opened things up to Canadians, but no other foreign national, it would be granting an advantage to Canadians over others. That's illegal under US labour laws. There might be a loophole in NAFTA that the league could use, but it would be a stretch and there likely isn't the political will to do it (plus it would apply to Mexicans as well and the Mexican FA may oppose it),

So, as someone else has said, the only way to open it up would be to eliminate the domestic requirements in total. I doubt the USSF would support that.

Good summary of the rules in place, but doesn't this just support what I said? ie, you apply all immigration and labour laws equally to all non-US players BEFORE anything else. Only aftre that is done do you worry about MLS designations, which is an administrative label for league purposes only and entirely separate from immigration rules. So, Canadians have to get into the US the same way as everybody else. Only then are they marked by MLS as being categry A, B or C - none of which has any impact on their immigration status or conditions for allowing them in.

We might be at cross-purposes here, so if I am missing something, let me know!

Hitcho
02-20-2009, 04:58 PM
What do other sports do about this? Do Canadian NHL sides have to have so many Canadian players and US teams only a certain number of non-US players? What about bouncy ball and rounders?

anyone know?

Dirk Diggler
02-20-2009, 05:11 PM
Oops, l mean BC Place Stadium.

BC Place isn't a SSS by any stretch ... even in its post-Olympic legacy mode.

Cristiano14
02-20-2009, 10:38 PM
I've been ranting about this for ages - if any other Canadian team comes in then equity dictates that the distinction has to go. We can only just manage to get about 4 Canadians in our starting line up as it is (sutton, brennan, de ro and Harmse if we don't sign a better CB before the season starts). If we had to split those players with two other teams then we'd be forced to fill up the roster with Canadian players who just aren't good enough or we would have to pay way over the top to secure Canadian players. in that event, a US team could take someone like OBW in the draft and make one of the three Canadian teams pay through the nuts to get him off them.

This is nothing to do with green cards and work permits (all of which would still apply). It's just an administrative distinction for MLS roster designation purposes. It should be scrapped now - MLS has allowed a Canadian team in and will allow more in if they cough up the 40million bones to join, so having taken that money they have to give the Canadian sides a level playing field and not handicap them. Anything else is pure BS.

I'm pretty sure MLS aksed the US soccer federationg to allow the US/Can designation to be dropped, since they have the final say. I'm pretty sure they said no and thats why it is the way it is now.
Sorry, I don't have a link but I remember reading it, and I'm pretty sure
that's the case.
Although with more Canadian teams in the league, and if the CSA actually attempted to do something, then I'm sure the US soccer federation might drop the Us/can player rules.

ginkster88
02-20-2009, 11:28 PM
The Vancouver bid comes with a renovated BC Place as the team's stadium. The province is pouring money into that building and the Whitecaps with use it for five years starting in 2011, regardless of whether they are in MLS or not. The team is really pushing for that waterfront stadium, which in terms of location and aesthetics will be one of the most beautiful stadiums on the continent.

Also, it's not surprising Barca is a little uneasy given that Florida has the highest rate of foreclosure of any state... who is going to be able to afford to go to their games?

Bender
02-20-2009, 11:56 PM
Regarding roster distinctions between CAN/US players, in my personal opinion what would be the harm in classifying all north american players as domestic? Or even outright getting rid of that system all together.

Keystone FC
02-21-2009, 06:51 AM
The Vancouver bid comes with a renovated BC Place as the team's stadium. The province is pouring money into that building and the Whitecaps with use it for five years starting in 2011, regardless of whether they are in MLS or not. The team is really pushing for that waterfront stadium, which in terms of location and aesthetics will be one of the most beautiful stadiums on the continent.

Also, it's not surprising Barca is a little uneasy given that Florida has the highest rate of foreclosure of any state... who is going to be able to afford to go to their games?

Okay, stay with me on this.
This is a valid point Gink and it touches on what I think may happen:
- Philly will come into the league in 2010 (No change).
- Garber pushes back to date for expansion to 2012 or 13 (Given the finacial state of the country this will give the cities more time to reorganize)
- Garber also lowers the expansion fee to 30 million (this gives cities that dropped out of the expansion race a chance to get back in it with more time and less fees than before)

If these things fall into place I can see the origianl expansion cities come back into the fold with more owners and money from the government for infrstructure (roads, bridges, buildings, stadiums).
This in turn works very well for Montreal and Vancouver as well as Portland and New York2.

rocker
02-21-2009, 09:24 AM
Regarding roster distinctions between CAN/US players, in my personal opinion what would be the harm in classifying all north american players as domestic? Or even outright getting rid of that system all together.

the question is: if they remove the roster distinctions altogether, will teams start dumping domestics in favour of better foreigners? this was/is a developmental league for America... and I think it really has done a good job at serving that purpose, thanks to the restrictions. In England, people are wondering if the free market in the Premiership has been a good thing to developing English football.... I think we have a good situation, despite its faults.

i don't think they need to remove the restrictions completely. Just add more teams to MLS and maybe lower the domestic requirement per team by 1 or 2 spots, and suddenly more spots will come available for Canadians (if they are good enough), while preserving the total volume of available domestic spots in the league. While I haven't been one of those to see TFC or any of the American teams as primarily means of developing national team players, I do see the benefit in some amount of quota.