PDA

View Full Version : Today's News,Tuesday,Dec.29



denime
12-29-2009, 08:08 AM
Mornin'


That's a wrap (http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/2009/12/28/johnston_mls_yearend)


Additional DP slot could be in the cards (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=718334&sec=mls&root=mls&cc=5901)



SUNSHINE (http://www.torontosun.com/sunshinegirl)

London
12-29-2009, 08:23 AM
i like her, she clearly does not like the argos!! LOL

keem-o-sabi
12-29-2009, 09:02 AM
coed girls 1 (http://coedmagazine.com/category/girls/daily-snapshot-girls-2/) and 2 (http://coedmagazine.com/category/girls/miss-coed/)

wzhxvy
12-29-2009, 09:31 AM
27 years old ? Is this the seniors edition ? I am sorry but you could already see signs of wear and tear by 27...thumbs down from me

TFC FORZA RPB
12-29-2009, 10:00 AM
coed girls 1 (http://coedmagazine.com/category/girls/daily-snapshot-girls-2/) and 2 (http://coedmagazine.com/category/girls/miss-coed/)


1) :ihih:

2) :taz::ihih::taz:

Roogsy
12-29-2009, 10:01 AM
Nothing wrong with 27 years olds or even 37 year olds as long as they are hot. Sometimes the girls they pick look too young in fact...

H Bomb
12-29-2009, 10:10 AM
Nothing wrong with 27 years olds or even 37 year olds as long as they are hot. Sometimes the girls they pick look too young in fact...

For sure man. When I was 18 i still preferred the look of a 27 year old to an 18 year old. 17-21 year old chicks remind me of new born deer...cute but still trying to get their legs under them. gimme a 26-32 year old every time.

wzhxvy
12-29-2009, 10:27 AM
If you are 27 and posing for this...something is up...lets be serious for a moment

Shway
12-29-2009, 10:53 AM
^^^lol

im 20 and ill prefer 30 hot over 20 hot anyday
plus they like stamina

tfcleeds
12-29-2009, 11:08 AM
Check out the MILF thread in off-topic - you won't be complaining about 37 year olds anymore (or 47 year olds for that matter).

Stryker
12-29-2009, 11:18 AM
Espn article talks about the possibility of trading for a 3rd DP in one scenerero.
I wouldn't mind us playing the Red Sox to LA's Yankee impression.

Mark in Ottawa
12-29-2009, 11:32 AM
Espn article talks about the possibility of trading for a 3rd DP in one scenerero.
I wouldn't mind us playing the Red Sox to LA's Yankee impression.
Wasn't rich team overspending one of the reasons for the imminent failure of the NASL??

So far MLS has moved slow and steady... and that seems to be working well.

Roogsy
12-29-2009, 11:59 AM
In the case of the NASL it was astronomical overspending. I mean, literally a roster payroll ten times higher than most other teams in the league.

That still isn't possible in the MLS even with these proposed changes. Literally you would have to have a team with 4 or 5 Beckham type salaries to get to where the NASL were back then.

If history has shown us anything it's that you still need dominant teams other fans love to hate. You need dynasties. You need someone a star attraction, a team that leads the way. In England you have the Man Uniteds. In baseball you have the Yankees. In basketball you have the Lakers. And all those teams have their rivals. That's how you build interest. You can't build that in the MLS unless some teams start doling out the cash...

Parkdale
12-29-2009, 12:03 PM
from RJ's article


It was also played on a temporary natural surface. The sight and success of the grass at BMO immediately opened the eyes and wallets of the Reds' parent company, and when the Reds march out on that silky surface in 2010, a quiet thank-you should be whispered to Real Madrid. In a way, the fuss made over ticket prices, was worth it.

I have a feeling that the constant complaining by DeRo (and every other player) and the outright snubbing by Huckabee and OBrien told them the same thing, much, much louder.

Roogsy
12-29-2009, 12:23 PM
Personally I never had a problem with the ticket prices, I think it was a reflection of the demand. Biggest team on earth was visiting our small little stadium, tickets weren't going to cost $20. Still...I think TFC could have shown better tact with season ticket holders.

But I stand by my biggest issue that it cost us a playoff spot. In the heart of our home stand in the summer when we needed to maximize points, they stuck a friendly in and moved a home game later in the year. We missed the playoffs by a point and I firmly believe the Real Madrid game influenced that shortfall. I will never be convinced otherwise. I said it back then and I will forever believe it. As long as everyone is ok with the benefits of that RM game vs missing the playoffs...we move on.

scooter
12-29-2009, 12:34 PM
afternoon d

rocker
12-29-2009, 12:36 PM
If history has shown us anything it's that you still need dominant teams other fans love to hate. You need dynasties. You need someone a star attraction, a team that leads the way. In England you have the Man Uniteds. In baseball you have the Yankees. In basketball you have the Lakers. And all those teams have their rivals. That's how you build interest. You can't build that in the MLS unless some teams start doling out the cash...

I disagree with this.

I don't see any proof that having the Yankees or the Man Uniteds makes sport better or more attractive to people. I mean, it's great for the Yankees and Man U, but I'm not sure it's great for the leagues as whole.

My personal experience has been to lose interest in baseball (Blue Jays) because of other teams outspending mine. But that's my own personal experience. If the Galaxy were near the top and beat us every year because they outspent TFC, I'd probably get disinterested over time, not more interested. Maybe if I were a casual fan with no ties to any team, I'd take more interest in the Galaxy in that situation. But if yer team is the one consistently getting shut out because of another team's outspending, it's tough to keep up the interest.

What i'd like to see is a soccer league where every team has a reasonably high level of money to spend. Sorta like the NHL or NBA -- where every team can spend 50-80 million (someday, when the league grows and there's more money in it to sustain that cap). Then we'd have an amazing level of quality across all teams and great competition. I think the low cap number of MLS holds back MLS more than needing a "big team" that becomes big through outspending the rest. If MLS teams were spending 50-80 million a year per team, we'd have a level of quality probably from the 6th best EPL team to the 12th best EPL team, which would be so damn good. We'd be stealing players from Europe.. and on a good day our best teams could beat the best in the world. And even the shittiest team in the league would still be fun to watch.

I think that would draw more interest than relying on a few big, outspending teams to pull interest up everywhere.

scooter
12-29-2009, 12:47 PM
Personally I never had a problem with the ticket prices, I think it was a reflection of the demand. Biggest team on earth was visiting our small little stadium, tickets weren't going to cost $20. Still...I think TFC could have shown better tact with season ticket holders.

But I stand by my biggest issue that it cost us a playoff spot. In the heart of our home stand in the summer when we needed to maximize points, they stuck a friendly in and moved a home game later in the year. We missed the playoffs by a point and I firmly believe the Real Madrid game influenced that shortfall. I will never be convinced otherwise. I said it back then and I will forever believe it. As long as everyone is ok with the benefits of that RM game vs missing the playoffs...we move on.

agreed on sth's - it was a disgrace but they pulled it off and got there $$
---------------- and sold out again for 2010 leaves no room to bargoon

agreed on missing the playoffs - because it was an important goal this year
i am not really ok with it but i think we need to strenthen the squad so
cup games and freindlies dont hurt us
look at european teams with champions league,uefa and in england fa cup games they take a toll on teams

yes thats my final answer tfc needs to get stronger

come on preki

Roogsy
12-29-2009, 01:25 PM
I disagree with this.

I don't see any proof that having the Yankees or the Man Uniteds makes sport better or more attractive to people. I mean, it's great for the Yankees and Man U, but I'm not sure it's great for the leagues as whole.


I said nothing about making the league or sport better. This is solely a revenue argument. The EPL wouldn't be as huge had United not become a global star attraction in the 90s. Baseball would not have survived had the Yankees not spent their way out after the strike.

These over-spending teams don't make the sport better and in some ways damage their sport and league...but in terms of generating revenue, this is the quickest way to the promised land.

Beach_Red
12-29-2009, 02:50 PM
I said nothing about making the league or sport better. This is solely a revenue argument. The EPL wouldn't be as huge had United not become a global star attraction in the 90s. Baseball would not have survived had the Yankees not spent their way out after the strike.

These over-spending teams don't make the sport better and in some ways damage their sport and league...but in terms of generating revenue, this is the quickest way to the promised land.

Quickest, yes, but like all get-rich-quick-schemes they don't last.

I know people hate the comparison, but the NFL is what every league wants to be. No team is going bankrupt, every team has an equal sot at winning. Dynasties emerge because some teams ar better-run, not because some Russian gangster is looking for a place to launder money.

MLS has a chance to build a solid foundation in North America, but it'll only work as a long-term investment.

SweetOwnGoal
12-29-2009, 05:14 PM
Parody is a fancy way to say mediocrity. Pro sports leagues in North America have feed fans here the Kool-Aid that parody is good for them. The truth is, it’s good for owners who have cost certainty. It prevents fans from seeing true greatness.

Rudi
12-29-2009, 05:23 PM
Parody is a fancy way to say mediocrity. Pro sports leagues in North America have feed fans here the Kool-Aid that parody is good for them. The truth is, it’s good for owners who have cost certainty. It prevents fans from seeing true greatness.
I believe you mean "parity" in there, D. "Parody" is satire. ;)

Roogsy
12-29-2009, 05:54 PM
I believe you mean "parity" in there, D. "Parody" is satire. ;)

:lol:

I giggled when I saw that...but I do agree with Duane.

The basic argument goes like this: We can't bring in real talent because markets like Columbus and Kansas can't support bigger teams...or even the team of it's current size. In essence, successful markets like Seattle and LA (and Toronto) have to hold back while we wait for these markets to hopefully...HOPEFULLY catch up.

While I am do understand the warnings that the NASL provides...I also know there is such a thing as hopeless expectations...and sometimes, these hopeless expectations actually hinder growth.

Oldtimer
12-29-2009, 06:37 PM
I support parity, because it's the best for the league, and for every MLS fan.

A lot in Toronto like the idea of some non-parity, I suspect they are assuming that Toronto will be one of the dominant teams.

But what if unleashing the genie out of the bottle means that it's teams with an interest in spending (i.e. LA and NY) that end up being the dominant teams... and Toronto ends up being an also-ran, like it is in baseball? I suspect that everyone would quickly come back to supporting parity again.

Being better than average should only depend on the skill of your manager's drafting (we're pretty good there), the manager's trades (we're not so hot there), discovery signings (below average there), and in the coaching and training staff (hopefully we'll be good). It shouldn't depend on whether you have high-spending owners or not.

Where I would support non-parity is in academies. Teams should be allowed to sign anyone they develop, That would be a just reward for doing what MLS is supposed to have been doing all along: developing the American (and now the Canadian) player.

Beach_Red
12-29-2009, 08:49 PM
Parody is a fancy way to say mediocrity. Pro sports leagues in North America have feed fans here the Kool-Aid that parody is good for them. The truth is, it’s good for owners who have cost certainty. It prevents fans from seeing true greatness.


Do you really think NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL fans are seeing second-rate athletes in their sport? Do you think those leagues have bred mediocrity in their sports?

America is far behind in soccer. At this moment they've chosen to try and develop a whole league instead of three or four teams. The idea may fail. But until American teams can play in a European Champions league, they have no choice but to develop their own league.

ExiledRed
12-29-2009, 11:02 PM
27 years old ? Is this the seniors edition ? I am sorry but you could already see signs of wear and tear by 27...thumbs down from me


Thats not wear and tear, thats called jpeg artifacting. Whoever optimizes the photographs for the website should be fired.

Mark in Ottawa
12-30-2009, 08:06 AM
Do you really think NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL fans are seeing second-rate athletes in their sport? Do you think those leagues have bred mediocrity in their sports?
In the NHL... Yes.
Far too many teams means we do not see the best playing the best consistently. Imagine a league of 16 teams...

Beach_Red
12-30-2009, 11:36 AM
In the NHL... Yes.
Far too many teams means we do not see the best playing the best consistently. Imagine a league of 16 teams...


You're right, I should have left the NHL off the list - anyway, it's far below even college sports in the US, so it should be off the list.

But still, it's not like there are many players of NHL-star-quality playing in other leagues so it isn't like even NHL fans have been duped into accepting a lesser product, as the original post said.

Roogsy
12-30-2009, 11:40 AM
But what if unleashing the genie out of the bottle means that it's teams with an interest in spending (i.e. LA and NY) that end up being the dominant teams... and Toronto ends up being an also-ran, like it is in baseball? I suspect that everyone would quickly come back to supporting parity again.


This could only happen if teams like LA and NY become too large...I mean Real Madrid type of large. And I don't think anyone thinks that can possibly happen in our generation.

Let's remember that the Toronto Blue Jays and other markets were competitive until the 90s. Meaning the system worked for decades until something changed.

Letting teams spend a little doesn't mean you let go the reigns completely...just loosen them a little. Otherwise, mediocrity will still rule the day and that isn't good for the long-term either.

TFCRegina
12-30-2009, 11:43 AM
In the NHL... Yes.
Far too many teams means we do not see the best playing the best consistently. Imagine a league of 16 teams...

I would disagree.

Having more teams is better for the overall quality of play.

In the short run it brings it down, but in the long run it offers more opportunity to play the game. Why are the most successful national teams the ones with massive club pyramids?

By comparison, you can look at Canada with a skeleton club framework and soccer underdevelopment.

You can also look at this in hockey.

Canada has a huge league called the CHL which allows us to have massive development of hockey players. Russia or any of our closest rivals have nothing that even nears us.

Roogsy
12-30-2009, 12:15 PM
I would disagree.

Having more teams is better for the overall quality of play.

In the short run it brings it down, but in the long run it offers more opportunity to play the game. Why are the most successful national teams the ones with massive club pyramids?

By comparison, you can look at Canada with a skeleton club framework and soccer underdevelopment.

You can also look at this in hockey.

Canada has a huge league called the CHL which allows us to have massive development of hockey players. Russia or any of our closest rivals have nothing that even nears us.


Very good argument. I'd have to say the evidence backs you up on this.

Mark in Ottawa
12-30-2009, 01:01 PM
I would disagree.

Having more teams is better for the overall quality of play.

Canada has a huge league called the CHL which allows us to have massive development of hockey players. Russia or any of our closest rivals have nothing that even nears us.
Lots of teams... great... just not in one league they try to pass off as the best league and players.

Why does the EPL have only 20 teams?
Because there are lesser leagues for lesser players allowing the quality players to migrate to the best domestic league and/or other top domestic leagues.

The top leagues have the best players and charge the top prices, the lesser teams work hard to get into the top leagues and then improve their rosters to try to stay there.

The CHL is a great coast to coast set of leagues... no disagreement there. The problem is that very few of those players go onto the NHL and the organization of lesser leagues means many will never get a shot to earn a living playing and possibly progressing to a higher league.

deltox
12-30-2009, 01:04 PM
24thminute

RT @pitchinvasion: Press release from US Soccer- neither USL nor NASL sanctioned as D2 leagues for 2010 (!!!)