What do you think MLS should do regarding the Designated Player? (2010 and beyond) [Archive]

Dust2

08-21-2009, 06:19 AM

B) DESIGNATED PLAYER
The Designated Player Rule allows the League to sign players (under the League's single entity system) whose salary will fall outside of the team salary budget and whose cost above the salary budget charge will be the financial responsibility of the club for which they play. A Designated Player's salary budget charge will be capped at $415,000 per annum in 2009, but his actual compensation is higher. Each team initially received one Designated Player slot, and clubs are allowed to trade Designated Player slots. However, no team can have more than two Designated Players. The Designated Player Rule is a three-year initiative that will conclude after the 2009 MLS season when its future will be reviewed.With Houston getting a DP, does that mean MLS will keep the DP ruling for at least the next 3 years? However, should MLS be more flexible about its DP? A-league has Marquee Player (its version of DP) and the salary is fully exempted from the salary cap. In MLS, if you spend on a DP, you can only spend $1.885 mil on the rest of your roster.

Here are the options:

Have the 1 DP slot ($415,000 count against salary cap)-----this is the current ruling.
Have the 1 DP slot (DP exempt from salary cap)---similar to A-league DP
Have the 1 DP slot (DP exempt from the salary cap, DP tradeable for $1 mil a year)-----a compromise option?
Increase the DP to 2 per team (both count toward the salary cap)
Increase the DP to 2 per team ($415,000 count against salary cap, 1 exempt)
Increase the DP to 2 per team (both exempt from the salary cap)
Get rid of DP (like it was in 2006 with no DP)

As a fan, I would like to see 2 DPs per team, both exempted from the cap. However, I doubt small clubs would vote for this unless they get something in return.

Which option would the majority of owners vote for? A compromise is probably required. Big clubs would want 2 cap-exempt DPs. Small clubs would want 1 DP in which $415,000 would count against the cap. Small clubs benefited from LA using its DP on Beckham but they didn't want to give LA $415,000 of cap space. When MLS owners voted on the DP ruling in 2006, it didn't exempt the DP from the salary cap. Galaxy CEO (and probably a few others) wanted MLS to exempt the DP salary. Guess who won?

Let's hope MLS exempt the DP from the salary cap starting in 2010. The carrot to tempt small clubs to vote for this is the option where the DP slot can be traded for cash (I'm using $1 mil a year as an example). For example, SJ, Colorado, NE owners might vote for it if they could trade their DP slot for say $1 mil a year to Los Angeles, Seattle, New York etc....

Pookie

08-21-2009, 07:15 AM

I'd like to see no DP, a strict hard cap with an increase in minimum salaries.

The current system with it's secret allocation money and DP slots that can be traded is way too much like NBA Luxury Tax system. I prefer competition and reasonable ticket prices.

Hitcho

08-21-2009, 08:45 AM

Way too many poll options to even begin reading them, especially since this seems like ANOTHER random poll.

But re the 3 year point, MLS will do whatever they think is best re the DP rule and then grandfather in existing players, as they've done before. Houston signing a DP, in and of itself, has no real bearing on the future of the rule.

Dust2

08-21-2009, 08:53 AM

NONE. Where is the 'Get rid of the DP rule and raise the salary cap significantly' option?

And how do you propose MLS to pay for this significant raise in salary cap? Many MLS teams are not profitable with a $2.3 mil salary cap which is paid for by the league. The small revenue clubs are not going to vote for a significant increase to the cap and they outnumber the like of NY, LA, Seattle, Toronto. I predict the salary cap will be raised from $2.3 mil to about $2.7 mil next year and I would be happy with that. Any bigger raise would be a bonus really.

A-league version of DP player and a Junior DP:

In order to combat fears that the salary cap would reduce the capacity of the clubs to attract crowds through big-name players, the league allows each team to have one "marquee" player, whose salary is exempt from the salary cap, and is quite well-paid.

For the 2008-09 season, A-League clubs are able to have a Junior Marquee player who is under the age of 23. The Junior Marquee's wages can be subsidised with $AU 150,000 outside the salary cap.

prizby

08-21-2009, 10:50 AM

Option 8: Get rid of useless polls

trane

08-21-2009, 11:15 AM

^ Can you start a poll on that please?

Fort York Redcoat

08-21-2009, 11:24 AM

Adding another DP seems more likely to be accepted to the owners than a raise across the board. There has been a precedent set and the mixed results from using the DP rule would reassure teams ther precious parity would remain partially intact.

fetajr

08-21-2009, 12:00 PM

no cap, no DP.. Any team can buy, transfer, sign any player for whatever money they want. That way big market teams (ie: Toronto) can outspend the rest of 'em, stock up on talent, and win everything!!

Pookie

08-21-2009, 12:09 PM

Fort York Redcoat

08-21-2009, 12:19 PM

... yeah, just like the Jays are doing.

Yeah but what if Toronto was a baseball town?

Cashcleaner

08-21-2009, 12:25 PM

For now, I say we keep the DP rule as it is, except maybe decrease the hit against a team's cap from $400,000 to $100,000.

Eventually, we may just get want to get rid of it altogether if we have a bigger salary cap in place like 5 or 10 million.

Pookie

08-21-2009, 12:38 PM

Yeah but what if Toronto was a baseball town?

It was... in 1992 the Jays lead the Majors in payroll at $51M. Then the Yankees revenue machine kicked in and we are were we are today.

Don't forget that revenue is in CDN dollars but expenses are in US dollars. That means for every buck that LA and NY take in, we take in 80-90 cents (or 65 cents if this was 2003).

fetajr

08-21-2009, 01:22 PM

It was... in 1992 the Jays lead the Majors in payroll at $51M. Then the Yankees revenue machine kicked in and we are were we are today..

true, but look at what else happened in 1992, 1993?...JAYS WON!

its worth noting however that the Leafs carefully spend alot in the non-cap nhl more than a few years ago remaining competitive, but unable to reach the top...but that had more to do with poor management decisions at the GM post and more so at ownership level.

Pookie

08-21-2009, 01:37 PM

true, but look at what else happened in 1992, 1993?...JAYS WON!

Yep and the odds of them winning again with the Yankees spending 3 x more on payroll? :(

My comment wasn't a knock on you, so hope you don't take it that way.

I just wanted to highlight that when revenue figures get high, Toronto isn't able to compete at the top. Even in the NBA, a league with a soft cap and luxury tax, the Raptors are 14th overall in payrolls. We are over $33M behind the Knicks.

If MLS grows, I'm not sure why people think that Toronto can compete dollar for dollar in a league with very successful, large US based teams.

(Even in the NHL in 2002-03, the Leafs spent $61M on salaries. Yet the NY Rangers and Red Wings were spending at $77M)

fetajr

08-21-2009, 02:29 PM

Yep and the odds of them winning again with the Yankees spending 3 x more on payroll? :(

My comment wasn't a knock on you, so hope you don't take it that way.

no worries,..i wasn't taking it badly. :drinking:

the cap (with DP(s)) suits a good purpose in MLS since the league's goal should be to develop players and develop soccer in north America. Not sure if this will be the same goal in X years when the league hopefully grows as big and powerful as any league in the world....note that X can equal any number :D.

Fort York Redcoat

08-21-2009, 02:45 PM

Yep and the odds of them winning again with the Yankees spending 3 x more on payroll? :(

Whenever the Jays want to match it. How much sense is it when crowds won't show unless they win it all.

Not a baseball town.

Pookie

08-21-2009, 02:52 PM

^ ... and how about the Rangers and Wings each outspending the Leafs by $16M in 2002-03? Is Toronto not a hockey town?

Fort York Redcoat

08-21-2009, 03:08 PM

^Leafs don't need to outspend since everyone but yourself is sure this is a hockey town.

The Yankees outspend because they can and want to. If they don't spend the most in the league the stadium would not turn into Skydome.

I believe your above point was about Toronto not being able to compete in an open market v US cities. I think fan support has a lot to say about it.

Pookie

08-21-2009, 03:23 PM

prizby

08-21-2009, 03:24 PM

true, but look at what else happened in 1992, 1993?...JAYS WON!

its worth noting however that the Leafs carefully spend alot in the non-cap nhl more than a few years ago remaining competitive, but unable to reach the top...but that had more to do with poor management decisions at the GM post and more so at ownership level.

they also had 4million in attendance every year

Whoop

08-21-2009, 03:38 PM

Whenever the Jays want to match it. How much sense is it when crowds won't show unless they win it all.

Not a baseball town.

^ ... and how about the Rangers and Wings each outspending the Leafs by $16M in 2002-03? Is Toronto not a hockey town?

^Leafs don't need to outspend since everyone but yourself is sure this is a hockey town.

The Yankees outspend because they can and want to. If they don't spend the most in the league the stadium would not turn into Skydome.

I believe your above point was about Toronto not being able to compete in an open market v US cities. I think fan support has a lot to say about it.

^ So, it's all about fan support?

That's interesting because in the NBA, Toronto averages just 500 fans less than New York yet the Knicks outspend the Raptors by $33M... and that's in a league with a soft cap.

FYR is right for the most part. Well, fan support really helps.

If Rogers wants to, they could easily match the NY Yankees and Boston Red Sox in salary... but why should they? Tough to generate revenue when only 20,000 people show up.

The Leafs, pre-cap days, could have spent more than anyone else if they wanted to, they chose not to. Having said that the Leafs were usually in the top 5-6 in payroll. Now with the cap, they're laughing all the way to the bank because they still have all their paying customers, and revenues go up, while salaries pretty much stay static.

As for the Raptors, they could also spend more if they wanted. The Knicks have just mismanaged their whole cap situation which is why they've stunk worse than the Raptors over the last few year. And the Knicks are willing to pay the luxury, whereas it appears MLSE would rather not pay an "unnecessary" expenses.

Whoop

08-21-2009, 03:41 PM

As for my answer.

No DP, but raise the salary cap, substantially. But not so much to the point where the owners screw themselves like they did in the NASL.

Sustained growth but make the MLS a viable option especially to younger NA players. And entice "imports".

Pookie

08-21-2009, 03:50 PM

FYR is right for the most part. Well, fan support really helps.

If Rogers wants to, they could easily match the NY Yankees and Boston Red Sox in salary... but why should they? Tough to generate revenue when only 20,000 people show up.

The Leafs, pre-cap days, could have spent more than anyone else if they wanted to, they chose not to. Having said that the Leafs were usually in the top 5-6 in payroll. Now with the cap, they're laughing all the way to the bank because they still have all their paying customers, and revenues go up, while salaries pretty much stay static.

As for the Raptors, they could also spend more if they wanted. The Knicks have just mismanaged their whole cap situation which is why they've stunk worse than the Raptors over the last few year. And the Knicks are willing to pay the luxury, whereas it appears MLSE would rather not pay an "unnecessary" expenses.

I agree with most of what you are saying... except for the part about FYR being right for the most part ;)....

.... which leads me to the question, if the Raptors, Leafs and Jays could spend more but opt not to, how do people so readily conclude that TFC would be amongst the top 4 big spenders?

They have presumably done the math and as a business that operates at a discount (ie. Canadian exchange) it doesn't make financial sense to lay the kinds of dollars on salaries that big market US teams do.

The math would be the same in the MLS example. We aren't talking about different kinds of money here... it's still the almighty dollar.

Whoop

08-21-2009, 03:57 PM

I agree with most of what you are saying... except for the part about FYR being right for the most part ;)....

.... which leads me to the question, if the Raptors, Leafs and Jays could spend more but opt not to, how do people so readily conclude that TFC would be amongst the top 4 big spenders?

They have presumably done the math and as a business that operates at a discount (ie. Canadian exchange) it doesn't make financial sense to lay the kinds of dollars on salaries that big market US teams do.

The math would be the same in the MLS example. We aren't talking about different kinds of money here... it's still the almighty dollar.

Again MLSE is one of the most profitable corporations out there. They could easily be amongst the top 4 spenders in the MLS.

They choose not to. MLSE is in the money making game not necessarily in the "do whatever is necessary to win championships game."

I mean... where's our DP?

As for the dollar... the dollar is pretty much on par with the US dollar... and would hazard to guess the TFC is #1 in the MLS in merchandise sales. So any difference in the dollar can easily be made.

What was the US-Canadian dollar situation like in '92-'93?

Pookie

08-21-2009, 05:35 PM

Again MLSE is one of the most profitable corporations out there. They could easily be amongst the top 4 spenders in the MLS.

They choose not to. MLSE is in the money making game not necessarily in the "do whatever is necessary to win championships game."

I mean... where's our DP?

Almost every sports franchise is a business and operates to generate a return for its investors. It would be extremely misleading to think that MLSE is the only business concerned about making a profit.

I should clarify something too. I agree that teams can spend whatever they want on salaries, as do EPL teams. However, to do so the majority would end up in debt, as do EPL teams.... which by the way are talking about instituting a form of a cap to ensure the health of their teams.

What was the US-Canadian dollar situation like in '92-'93?

About the same as it is now... going from a low of about 82 cents to a high of 89.

The question I have for you is if MLSE is to ignore debt risks and spend as much as they want, why don't they do it in their other ventures?

Despite a solid attendance base, the Raptors spend less than almost half of their American competitors. They have slightly better attendance averages than Boston, yet spend $13M less a season.

I then look at numbers that Forbes provides for MLS and it shows that LA had doubled the revenue ($36M vs 17M) of Toronto and I wonder how in the heck can anyone conclude that we'd be a top spender?

Yeah, maybe more than Columbus but LA went after Beckham. NYRB are rumoured to be going after Henry and have a new stadium. We went after De Guzman.

If the big boys start making big money, examples from other sports show that Toronto teams generally fall to the middle of the pack. The one exception to that is hockey and if TFC ever draws 1.1M viewers on average, I'd say we might be able to play in that big boy market.

twistedchinaman

08-22-2009, 01:52 AM

- Raise the cap slightly
- Keep the DP slot, and like the ALeague add a Junior DP slot (someone under the age of 28)
- Hit on cap for both should only be 150,000...

Dust2

08-22-2009, 04:14 AM

For those that want MLS to get rid of the DP Rule....take a look at this:

These numbers are a bit skewed by the Galaxy road game to Chivas. However, there are other effects not taken into consideration like package sales. I remember back in 2007, DC, NE and NY sold the Beckham as part of a package with other games. In order to get the best seats at the Beckham game, you need to buy 2-3 other games also. These teams are not the only one that do this. Let's assume the effect of these package sales cancel out the effect of the road game to Chivas.

2007 Beckham effect:

Road Games: 28,035
League Ave: 16,770
Difference: 11,265
Incremental revenue generated: 11,265 x 15 road games x $30 average ticket price = $5,069,250
Parking/Concession/Merchandise: assume 1/4 of attendance revenue = $1,267,312

Total effect for MLS as a whole (minus the Galaxy): $6,336,562

2008 Beckham effect:

Road Games: 28,132
League Ave: 16,460
Difference: 11672
Incremental revenue generated: 11,672 x 15 road games x $30 average ticket price = $5,252,400
Parking/Concession/Merchandise: assume 1/4 of attendance revenue = $1,305,600

Total effect for MLS as a whole (minus the Galaxy): $6,558,000

2009 Beckham effect (NY 23,238 on a Thursday, NE 26,623 on a Saturday, Chicago 20,000 on a Wednesday....too bad no Galaxy road game at Seattle....wouldn't be surprised to see 60,000+ at Qwest Field.)

Road Games: 18,823
League Ave: 15,899

--------------------------
There are two types of DP in term of road draw. One is marketing DP like Beckham and to certain extend Blanco that benefit the whole league. The other is a none-marketing DP like Angel, Scheletto, Ljungberg, Emilio, Landin, Denilson, Gallardo, Lopez and Reyna.

$6,336,562 in 2007 and $6,558,000 in 2008 in incremental Revenue generated from Galaxy road games tell us that MLS as a whole benefit from the marketing DP. That's why I am confident that MLS owners will renew the DP Rule when it expires at the end of this year. Other marketing DPs that might come to MLS near the end of their career (say 32+ in age) in the next 10 years are Ronaldinho, Henry, Cristiano Ronaldo, Kaka, Messi, Ribery, Torres, Rooney. (not sure if Lampard, Gerrard, Ballack, Robinho, Benzama, Tevez would draw well). Zidane would have been a good marketing DP.

Anyway, if every teams benefit from a marketing DP like Beckham (and to some extend Blanco) should MLS follow the A-league example and exempt the DP salary from the salary cap? Maybe even allow teams to trade the DP slot for cash (say at minimum $500,000 a year)? Teams will be more willing to trade the DP slot for cash compare to trading the DP slot for player. Two DP slot trades in MLS history: Amado Guevara (2007) to Chivas USA and Christian Gómez (2008) to Colorado.

Australia's A-league version of Designated Player Rule:

In order to combat fears that the salary cap would reduce the capacity of the clubs to attract crowds through big-name players, the league allows each team to have one "marquee" player, whose salary is exempt from the salary cap, and is quite well-paid.

For the 2008-09 season, A-League clubs are able to have a Junior Marquee player who is under the age of 23. The Junior Marquee's wages can be subsidised with $AU 150,000 outside the salary cap.

Pookie

08-22-2009, 06:49 AM

^ It has been suggested in many circles that the LA Galaxy received an undisclosed amount of allocation money in order to wiggle Beckham and their roster around the cap and assist with his salary.

Dust2

08-22-2009, 08:19 AM

^ It has been suggested in many circles that the LA Galaxy received an undisclosed amount of allocation money in order to wiggle Beckham and their roster around the cap and assist with his salary.

Give us a link to this please. Back up what you are stating.

Here's LA 2009 payroll: prove it that LA unfairly use allocation money:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/mls/2009-salaries.htm

A club receives allocation money for (1) poor performance during the preceding MLS regular season; (2) the transfer of a player to a club outside of MLS for value; (3) roster purposes due to expansion status; and/or (4) exceptional circumstances as approved by the Competition Committee.

Each year the MLS Competition Committee determines the allocation amount to be made available to each team. Allocation money can be traded by teams. Allocation money does not count against a team's salary budget

Cashcleaner

08-22-2009, 11:33 AM

About the same as it is now... going from a low of about 82 cents to a high of 89.

The question I have for you is if MLSE is to ignore debt risks and spend as much as they want, why don't they do it in their other ventures?

Despite a solid attendance base, the Raptors spend less than almost half of their American competitors. They have slightly better attendance averages than Boston, yet spend $13M less a season.

I'm glad you brought that up, because it flies in the face of what we're constantly being fed by MLSE. You see, when their teams fail and people start questioning the ownership's commitment to winning, they always come back with a remark about how they're always aiming for the post-season and how someone would be crazy to pass up the opportunity to make money from the playoffs.

That's all bullshit, of course.

Spending money to create a playoff-contending team is a risk no matter how you slice it and nothing is guaranteed. On top of that, the return on the investment in players and staff to create that sort of team is fairly low, because at the end of the day (and using hockey as an example), while you might be playing upwards of ten or more homes games over the course of the playoffs and raking in that cash, you still gotta pay several millions of dollars for the players that are going to get you there. And like I said before, getting that far is never a sure thing.

Whoop

08-22-2009, 11:43 AM

Beach_Red

08-22-2009, 12:28 PM

Pookie... see cash's answer. LOL

The NY Knicks are an example of what cash talks about. They've spent a shit load of money on payroll yet stink.

See NY Rangers in hockey.

MLSE is loving this whole cap situation!

Opening up MLS to competition requires hiring people with acumen. Good talent evaluators.

Funny, I would say opening up the spending would then require less acumen and talent evaluators -- how smart do you have to be to look at last year's results and say, "We'll give you more $$ than they did," to the top players? Granted you still have to get them to work together as a team, but once again, they've a;ready proven they can do that the previous year.

We know MLSE's poayrolls are for their teams, but we'll never know what any teams' rea profits are - ho wtied those teams are to other marketing ventures or hell, even real estate deals. Do the Celtics and the Raptors make the same gross amount from ticket sales, mechandise and TV revenue? Do we know?

It's a personal choice, but I would rather have a salary cap and leave the player decisions to sports people instead of unlimited spending by billionaires on their toys. I don't like the idea of whoring out the team for one guy's vanity.

rocker

08-22-2009, 12:39 PM

the whole DP review is best left (in my opinion) to Garber and the board. They are the only ones who know the finances of all teams. They also have some people on the board (AEG) who want to pull things to new heights... and they have teams pulling back.
That's good.. then you get differing opinions on the process.
One thing's certain though, that Garber and the MLS board have been very cautious over the years probably because 1) this league is still developing roots and 2) the collective bargaining agreement was coming up for renegotiation -- there's no sense increasing the pay to players in a negotiation year.. let the players negotiate that.
I think once this CBA is signed, and if it's for 6 years like the last once, we'll see Garber and the board evaluate the costs of that CBA, and then start to plan future growth in the cap and the DP option, or some new plan.

Cuz Garber knows the dilemma he faces... he's said time and again that he knows there are soccer fans in America that they haven't tapped into because of quality issues, quality issues that can be solved by paying more to get better players. Fans come out to see Barcelona and Chelsea and watch those leagues on TV because the quality is so clearly evident. MLS pales in comparison. He knows at some point the league will have to raise payments to players to start elevating that quality and bringing those fans in.

Pookie

08-22-2009, 12:53 PM

Give us a link to this please. Back up what you are stating.

Here's LA 2009 payroll: prove it that LA unfairly use allocation money:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/mls/2009-salaries.htm

Commentary on Beckham has been strong ever since he was signed. It's even in the wiki definition on "Allocation money" (of course, I get that wiki is not an airtight reference but it does highlight that common sentiment.)

I just came in for a beer and then I'm back out to work on my deck. I will highlight this one example. Google shall provide additional examples:

Full article (http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/03/garber-addresses-beckham-salary-cap-hit.html)

"MLS commissioner Don Garber addressed concerns over more perceived preferential treatment by MLS for the Los Angeles Galaxy, specifically the fact that LA will only have half of Beckham's salary cap hit counting against the Galaxy's salary cap in 2009.

Speaking to SBI on Sunday, Garber stated that the decision to only have Beckham count for $200,000 against the Galaxy's salary cap is in keeping with league policies. In this case, the Galaxy will not have Beckham on its roster, nor will the Galaxy be paying Beckham's salary, before he returns in July."

Fort York Redcoat

08-22-2009, 02:52 PM

^ So, it's all about fan support?

That's interesting because in the NBA, Toronto averages just 500 fans less than New York yet the Knicks outspend the Raptors by $33M... and that's in a league with a soft cap.

Didn't say that. And the Knicks are making more outrside the stadium than the Raps. Basketball has roots there.

prizby

08-22-2009, 02:53 PM

^jersey sales

Fort York Redcoat

08-22-2009, 02:56 PM

I agree with most of what you are saying... except for the part about FYR being right for the most part ;)....

.... which leads me to the question, if the Raptors, Leafs and Jays could spend more but opt not to, how do people so readily conclude that TFC would be amongst the top 4 big spenders?

They have presumably done the math and as a business that operates at a discount (ie. Canadian exchange) it doesn't make financial sense to lay the kinds of dollars on salaries that big market US teams do.

The math would be the same in the MLS example. We aren't talking about different kinds of money here... it's still the almighty dollar.

I swear we've had this talk before...

I don't need a gauran-bloody-tee that TFC will win everything and spend the most money. I support. I would hope that the team would take the opportunity given them.

I want the opportunity given.

Pookie

08-22-2009, 06:25 PM

Didn't say that. And the Knicks are making more outrside the stadium than the Raps. Basketball has roots there.

Just for shites and giggles... while NY does have higher revenue and overall value, they have an operating income of $29.6M. The Raptors have an operating income of $27.7M.

In a profit sense, they are pretty close.

What the Knicks do have that the Raptors don't are ticket prices that average $70/seat. The Raptors are still fleecing their fans too just not as much, 8th overall at $55/seat.

So, NY spends more on players. To do it they fleece their fans more to get to the same profit number and have no performance gain to show for it.

Sounds great. Sign me up.

Pookie

08-22-2009, 06:38 PM

Didn't say that. And the Knicks are making more outrside the stadium than the Raps. Basketball has roots there.

Just for shites and giggles... while NY does have higher revenue and overall value, they have an operating income is $29.6M. The Raptors have an operating income of $27.7M.

In a profit sense, they are pretty close.

What the Knicks do have that the Raptors don't are ticket prices that average $70/seat. The Raptors are still fleecing their fans too just not as much, 8th overall at $55/seat.

So, NY spends more on players. To do it they fleece their fans more to get to the same profit number and have no performance gain to show for it.

Sounds great. Sign me up.

Dust2

08-23-2009, 07:30 AM

Commentary on Beckham has been strong ever since he was signed. It's even in the wiki definition on "Allocation money" (of course, I get that wiki is not an airtight reference but it does highlight that common sentiment.)

I just came in for a beer and then I'm back out to work on my deck. I will highlight this one example. Google shall provide additional examples:

Full article (http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/03/garber-addresses-beckham-salary-cap-hit.html)

"MLS commissioner Don Garber addressed concerns over more perceived preferential treatment by MLS for the Los Angeles Galaxy, specifically the fact that LA will only have half of Beckham's salary cap hit counting against the Galaxy's salary cap in 2009.

Speaking to SBI on Sunday, Garber stated that the decision to only have Beckham count for $200,000 against the Galaxy's salary cap is in keeping with league policies. In this case, the Galaxy will not have Beckham on its roster, nor will the Galaxy be paying Beckham's salary, before he returns in July."

How is that quoting your exact words: the LA Galaxy received an undisclosed amount of allocation money in order to wiggle Beckham and their roster around the cap and assist with his salary ?

It is not like counting $200,000 of Beckham $400,000 cap hit in 2009 is only done for the Galaxy. EVERY SINGLE MLS CLUB can do this. Landin, Houston new DP, salary will be counted the same way. If Toronto signed its DP this August, Guzman salary would be counted from August onward.

You talk as if allocation money amount to large quantity. It is not. If you take a look at each MLS team payroll, they hover around the $2.3 mil mark. For example, an allocation of $100,000 is not a world shatter amount when the salary cap is $2.3 mil. And guess what? Every team have allocation money. It is not reserved exclusively for any clubs. Every teams get an allocation when they 1) miss the playoff 2) lose a good player on transfer 3) newly created expansion teams

A club receives allocation money for (1) poor performance during the preceding MLS regular season; (2) the transfer of a player to a club outside of MLS for value; (3) roster purposes due to expansion status; and/or (4) exceptional circumstances as approved by the Competition Committee.

Each year the MLS Competition Committee determines the allocation amount to be made available to each team. Allocation money can be traded by teams. Allocation money does not count against a team's salary budget

The amount is determined by the MLS Competition Committee. And guess who chair this committee? Every single investor/ownership group.

http://www.revolutionsoccer.net/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=18627&pcid=115

The MLS Competition Committee consists of representatives from each investor / ownership group: Clark Hunt (Hunt Sports – Kansas City, Columbus, FC Dallas); Sunil Gulati (Kraft Soccer); Dean Howes (Sports Capital Partners); Javier Leon (Chivas USA); Kevin Payne (AEG); and Jeff Plush (Kroenke Sports Enterprises).The article is from 2006 that why expansion teams like San Jose, Toronto, Seattle are not listed there.

Beach_Red

08-23-2009, 11:11 AM

I swear we've had this talk before...

I don't need a gauran-bloody-tee that TFC will win everything and spend the most money. I support. I would hope that the team would take the opportunity given them.

I want the opportunity given.

You've got more faith than I do ;).

Isn't it a little sad that we can all agree the thing that would make the "big 4" is simply spending more money? How is buying a championship good for a sport? How is limiting competition among teams by size of wallet good for a sport?

Fort York Redcoat

08-23-2009, 11:28 AM

Just for shites and giggles... while NY does have higher revenue and overall value, they have an operating income of $29.6M. The Raptors have an operating income of $27.7M.

In a profit sense, they are pretty close.

What the Knicks do have that the Raptors don't are ticket prices that average $70/seat. The Raptors are still fleecing their fans too just not as much, 8th overall at $55/seat.

So, NY spends more on players. To do it they fleece their fans more to get to the same profit number and have no performance gain to show for it.

Sounds great. Sign me up.

Your focusing a lot on quality for your dollar. I'm wondering how you think this can be instituted in the present sports landscape? To restrict all teams to spend the exact same amount on their teams and profit share does not ensure good competition.

On your original post, I too would like the simplicity of raising the minimum across the board but player improvement would not be gauranteed with higher wages right away. We would see marginal improvment on players coming in the league but without the flexibility of the present system many of the best players would leave.

Now I'm sure I'm as patient as yourself in growing the talent of the league but I also think at the present point the league's exposure would take a hit at it's apex.

Lesser talent in the league would not be tolerated by most of the leagues new fans.

mighty_torontofc_2008

08-23-2009, 12:55 PM

ExiledRed

08-23-2009, 01:50 PM

Get rid of the DP all together, and just raise the cap 50%...a DP is not needed unless you one of those teams that needs to put asses in the seats, ie LA, Chivas etc.
TFC should be getting more money to players like Frei, Serioiux, Wynn to keep them around as long as possible.

a) 50% more salary cap is not going to keep players like Wynne here if they get offers from higher level european clubs, or even equivalent level offering much higher wages.

b) where do you get "50%" from anyway? what mathematical equation bought you to that figure? Is it based on anything?

c)I reject the philosophy that teams with attendance issues should be assisted with quality players, while secure fanbases like ours are rewarded for their efforts with mediocrity.

Whoop

08-23-2009, 01:54 PM

Funny, I would say opening up the spending would then require less acumen and talent evaluators -- how smart do you have to be to look at last year's results and say, "We'll give you more $$ than they did," to the top players? Granted you still have to get them to work together as a team, but once again, they've a;ready proven they can do that the previous year.

We know MLSE's poayrolls are for their teams, but we'll never know what any teams' rea profits are - ho wtied those teams are to other marketing ventures or hell, even real estate deals. Do the Celtics and the Raptors make the same gross amount from ticket sales, mechandise and TV revenue? Do we know?

It's a personal choice, but I would rather have a salary cap and leave the player decisions to sports people instead of unlimited spending by billionaires on their toys. I don't like the idea of whoring out the team for one guy's vanity.

Still need to know which players to spend money on.

Whoop

08-23-2009, 01:59 PM

MLSE must be doing something right if the Teachers' Pension Plan is going to increase its stake in ownership.
I still think the league needs a cap... But a lot higher than what it is now. $10-15 million I'd say. That way it shouldn't bankrupt teams and teams won't put the screws to the fans but at least your players aren't living below the poverty line.

Beach_Red

08-23-2009, 02:33 PM

Still need to know which players to spend money on.

Yes, of course, but when it's not a matter of simply outbidding other teams, when all teams can offer the same money, then figuring out which players to spend the money on becomes more important.

Everyone on this board could put together a top team if money was no option, or if they had double the budget of every other team in the league (okay, maybe not everyone, but quite a few ;)).

Whoop

08-23-2009, 02:45 PM

Yes, of course, but when it's not a matter of simply outbidding other teams, when all teams can offer the same money, then figuring out which players to spend the money on becomes more important.

Everyone on this board could put together a top team if money was no option, or if they had double the budget of every other team in the league (okay, maybe not everyone, but quite a few ;)).

Exactly LOL

Pookie

08-24-2009, 06:59 AM

Lesser talent in the league would not be tolerated by most of the leagues new fans.

While it may be "lesser talent", this league isn't really competing directly with any of the established leagues for the average fan.

There is very little overlap. We play April through October. The EPL season kicks off in mid August.

We play in different time zones. When the seasons do overlap, I can watch a "live" match at 9:30 in the morning on a Saturday. For the most part, not many people are doing this. At the time that most MLS games are played, there is no other "live" alternative.

Of course, they will compete for player signings but if you are a fan that wants to watch a game in June at 7pm on a weekend... what are your options?

To say people won't tolerate it because of the perceived "talent" level is only part of the picture. What else are fans of the game going to gravitate towards? They have minimal options, if any at all.

Beach_Red

08-24-2009, 07:20 AM

To say people won't tolerate it because of the perceived "talent" level is only part of the picture. What else are fans of the game going to gravitate towards? They have minimal options, if any at all.

But are there enough fans of the game, or does the sport need to attract more people who aren't fans yet? Can they do that with lesser talent?

The competition for the fan in June is baseball - the best players in the world and now with the NFL starting it will dominate sports media in the US - alos with the best players in the world for that sport.

There are some challenges to sell tickets and get people to watch teams on TV that are far from the best in the world in a sports market not used to that.

Pookie

08-24-2009, 08:20 AM

But are there enough fans of the game, or does the sport need to attract more people who aren't fans yet? Can they do that with lesser talent?

You know, that's a great question.... are there enough fans of the game?

I think the answer is no and then yes.

"No" in that the majority of adults (read consumers) didn't grow up playing soccer. Baseball was the thing. It dominated the summer sports landscape.

But their kids are playing soccer and if participation rates are correct, more kids play it in Canada then any other sport. US participation rates are also through the roof.

My city isn't building more baseball fields, they are building pitches. Flying into Toronto from the north a few weeks ago, I was amazed at the number of pitches you could and very few ball parks.

So "Yes" in that these kids will evenutally be consumers and there are enough of them, IMO, to gravitate towards the professional soccer in North America. Regardless of whether or not you have a Lampard, Terry, Carvalho, Cole, Ballack, Bosingwa or Drogba on the roster.

Fort York Redcoat

08-24-2009, 10:01 AM

Of course, they will compete for player signings but if you are a fan that wants to watch a game in June at 7pm on a weekend... what are your options?

To say people won't tolerate it because of the perceived "talent" level is only part of the picture. What else are fans of the game going to gravitate towards? They have minimal options, if any at all.

I'm BR on this that the immediate reaction for the disenfranchised fan would be to stop going to MLS games and use his/her hard earned $$$ elsewhere. The majority of new fans would keep on watching better foreign football.

But Pook I agree that in the long term footie has it's talons on the generations to come.

Gazza_55

08-26-2009, 10:11 PM

a) 50% more salary cap is not going to keep players like Wynne here if they get offers from higher level european clubs, or even equivalent level offering much higher wages.

b) where do you get "50%" from anyway? what mathematical equation bought you to that figure? Is it based on anything?

c)I reject the philosophy that teams with attendance issues should be assisted with quality players, while secure fanbases like ours are rewarded for their efforts with mediocrity.

Why would we want to keep Wynne here?

Dust2

09-16-2009, 07:51 AM

Julian de Guzman and Landin signing as DP for Toronto and Houston respectively bode well for the continuation of the DP Rule.

If MLS exempt the salary of the DP like the A-league and make the club owner pays all of the DP salary, I would be very happy. If it's 2 DPs exempted, it is even better but I doubt it will happen. So just hoping for 1 cap-exempt DP for now.

Fort York Redcoat

09-16-2009, 07:57 AM

^Agreed. the more the better.

Dust2

09-16-2009, 08:00 AM

Get rid of the DP all together, and just raise the cap 50%...a DP is not needed unless you one of those teams that needs to put asses in the seats, ie LA, Chivas etc.
TFC should be getting more money to players like Frei, Serioiux, Wynn to keep them around as long as possible.

I would love it if MLS get rid of the DP and raise the cap by 50%. But how do you propose MLS to finance this $1.25 mil increase in the salary cap?

Some clubs like Sea, LA, Toronto can afford it easily with money generated by the club but most can't. They would depend on their owners generosity.

Attendance drop from last year:

FC Dallas -31.00%
NE Revolution -25.52%
N.Y./N.J. Red Bulls -24.49%
LA Galaxy -21.74%
D.C. United -20.53%
Chicago -18.22%

Fort York Redcoat

09-16-2009, 08:09 AM

^How long would we have waited for a DeGuzman signing without the DP rule. 50% wouldn't have done it. We'll see marginal increase next year but I can't see the death of the DP rule till another cba.

ManUtd4ever

09-16-2009, 08:41 AM

Ideally, a 5 million cap and a DP slot with no salary implications would maintain a level parity in the league, allow the overall quality of play to improve, and provide a slight edge to large market clubs with strong fan support and revenue streams, as it should be...

Dust2

02-16-2010, 03:43 AM

Here's something to think about:

1. If the cap goes up by $300,000 as rumor, then all teams would have at least $200,000 wiggle room (assuming the $100,000 will go to the current players per inflation or pay raise etc...).

2. If the DP is cap exempt, then teams who have DP would have an addition $425,000 to spend. This assume that teams with 2 DPs will only get 1 DP cap-exempted. Combine with $200,000 from the cap increase, we get $625,000 more for teams with DP to spend.

BUT

Philadelphia was able to sign Orozco via a deal with Red Bull New York. The Union sent allocation money to New York in exchange for the Red Bulls' top spot
the Red Bulls are busy negotiating with several attacking midfielders. Both Backe and Soler are confident they can add one before the March 27 opener against Chicago, and do it for a salary that won’t inhibit their ability to sign a Designated Player.New York is getting allocation money like they need it and wanting to sign players who would FIT into the salary cap. That should tell you that New York is not confident of the DP being cap-exempt. They are preparing for a $2.6 mil salary cap with DP counting $425,000 of the cap.

I hope I am wrong and the DP is cap-exempt but it does not look likely. We will find out in a few weeks what the new DP Rule will be like when it renews. The DP Rule was only a 3 years experiment and it expired last month.

The DP being cap-exempted or not will tell us who hold the cards among MLS owners: those want favor faster growth (e.g. Galaxy, Red Bull) or those that favor the slow growth approach (e.g. New England, Colorado etc..)

Oldtimer

02-16-2010, 09:06 AM

The DP being cap-exempted or not will tell us who hold the cards among MLS owners: those want favor faster growth (e.g. Galaxy, Red Bull) or those that favor the slow growth approach (e.g. New England, Colorado etc..)

Since the league considers itself only as strong as its weakest franchise, I suspect that the "go slow" people will have the upper hand.

That being said, there is a third option, a cap hit but a much lower one (say $200k).

Beach_Red

02-16-2010, 09:44 AM

The DP being cap-exempted or not will tell us who hold the cards among MLS owners: those want favor faster growth (e.g. Galaxy, Red Bull) or those that favor the slow growth approach (e.g. New England, Colorado etc..)

I think it's very interesting that New England is on the "slow growth" list. The team is owned by one of the richest, most experienced owners, a very successful owner of an NFL franchise, it's been a very successful team and is in a very good market.

I woner why the people involved with that team feel slow growth is better?

The Galaxy are also interesting as they are the biggest US market without an NFL team, so maybe they feel that helps them.

Oldtimer

02-16-2010, 09:56 AM

I think it's very interesting that New England is on the "slow growth" list. The team is owned by one of the richest, most experienced owners, a very successful owner of an NFL franchise, it's been a very successful team and is in a very good market.

I woner why the people involved with that team feel slow growth is better?

Robert Kraft has a notoriety as a cheapskate, so there is almost zero chance he would spend on a DP unless forced to, kicking and screaming all the way.

He's also a very cautious man.

So it's more to do with the personality of the owner, rather than anything to do with their situation.

Beach_Red

02-16-2010, 10:05 AM

Robert Kraft has a notoriety as a cheapskate, so there is almost zero chance he would spend on a DP unless forced to, kicking and screaming all the way.

He's also a very cautious man.

So it's more to do with the personality of the owner, rather than anything to do with their situation.

Well, maybe, but presumbly he has access to all kinds of marketing stuff that may not be made public so maybe there'ss more than just his cheapskate personality involved here ;).

But whatever the reason, he seems like the kind of owner MLS wants - his NFL team has been very, very successful and he let's the 'sports guy' run the team.

I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to guess that if the league had no salary cap he never would have gotten involved with it.

Of course it's easier to sell tickets to Patriots games than to Revolution games but I'm sure his company is trying.