PDA

View Full Version : Each club can spend up to 25% of its turnover; $1 for $1 luxury tax starts at $3 mil



Dust2
01-27-2010, 09:26 AM
Platini's proposals: Wages could be linked to percentage of club turnover

Proposals being considered by the Uefa president Michel Platini (http://soccernews.bigsoccer.com/topic/Michel_Platini):

* Clubs should live within their means and spend the income they have.

* This may mean wages being linked to an audited percentage of turnovers.

Why 25%?

Total MLS (http://soccernews.bigsoccer.com/topic/Major_League_Soccer) revenue in 2007 according to Forbes: $166,000,000
Total MLS salaries in 2007 according to MLS Player Unions: $41,418,825

% of total revenue spent on salaries in 2007: $41.418mil / 166 mil = 24.95%

Why $1 for $1 luxury tax?

-to help small market clubs survive and be profitable. If they live within their means, they should also be profitable.
-another purpose of the luxury tax is to control spending. The higher the spending, the higher the cost.

What the 25% turnover chart would look like?

$10 mil revenue club = at most $2.5 mil salary
$12 mil revenue club = at most $3.0 mil salary
$14 mil revenue club = at most $3.5 mil salary
$16 mil revenue club = at most $4.0 mil salary
$18 mil revenue club = at most $4.5 mil salary
$20 mil revenue club = at most $5.0 mil salary

This mean that a club with $16 mil turnover could spend up to $4 mil on player salaries. However, each dollar over the $3 mil luxury tax threshold will be charged with a $1 penalty.

Are the 25% of turnover, $1 for $1 luxury tax, $3 mil tax threshold all adjustable?

-Yes, absolutely. MLS can tweak this to reflect its financial situation. As MLS generates more revenue, expect the % to increase. Per its CBA, 54% of NHL hockey-related revenue go toward players. NHL CBA: "The players' share increases if revenues rise. They get 55 percent when NHL revenues hit $2.2 billion, 56 percent at $2.4 billion, and 57 percent at $2.7 billion."

What about the DP rule?

-DP Rule will be the same as the past 3 years.

Could teams be profitable if they only spend at most 25% of their turnover on player salaries?

-What do you think?

prizby
01-27-2010, 09:38 AM
ill take a pass, im tired of the 100 different salary cap rules...lets wait til the CBA comes out and debate the CBA

thx

Oldtimer
01-27-2010, 09:40 AM
I doubt Don Garber will read this board to find out what to do...

JonO
01-27-2010, 09:41 AM
Say it ain't so - I thought everybody read this board for guidance...

TFCRegina
01-27-2010, 09:44 AM
Against the luxury tax but for the 25% turnover plank of the proposal.

Oldtimer
01-27-2010, 09:44 AM
What would suck about a luxury tax is that Seattle pulls in 50% more than TFC, so it would make it even harder for TFC to win a championship...

TFC would be the Blue Jays, Seattle the Yankees of MLS.

Beach_Red
01-27-2010, 09:53 AM
What would suck about a luxury tax is that Seattle pulls in 50% more than TFC, so it would make it even harder for TFC to win a championship...

TFC would be the Blue Jays, Seattle the Yankees of MLS.


I like the idea of the 25% (it would be a little tough to get accurate numbers of revenue for teams, but if everyone was willing to accept the Forbes numbers I guess that would work - some indie distributors in the movie business started paying out bsedon the Variety numbers and most people accept that).

As we've seen the luxury tax in baseball doesn't work very well. Cetrainly in MLS we'd see a few teams - and MLSE-owned teams would definitely not be one - become far more successful than others. Maybe the bottom few teams would go out of business, but maybe that's for the best. How many teams do you need to have a league?

I think a luxury tax system would only work in a league with the same kind of ownership for all teams - like the NFL which requires individual owners and not 'board of director' type ownership. I don't think it works very well to mix ownership types, and as so few individuals are willing to buy MLS teams they went for the single-entity structure.

But really, anything that increases the amount of money available to spend on players I'm all for.

Dust2
01-27-2010, 10:03 AM
What would suck about a luxury tax is that Seattle pulls in 50% more than TFC, so it would make it even harder for TFC to win a championship...

TFC would be the Blue Jays, Seattle the Yankees of MLS.

Assume Seattle generate $32 mil a year and Toronto generate $20 mil in revenue. According to the 25% rule, Toronto can spend up to $5 mil salary and Seattle's $8 mil.

However, to spend $5 mil, it will cost Toronto $2 mil luxury tax. To spend $8 mil, it will cost Seattle $5 mil luxury tax. Conclusion, Seattle will not spend to the allowable limit because it will cost them too much ($5 mil in luxury tax).




something to ponder:
--------------------------------------------
Should teams with poor attendance have equal opportunity of success as teams with high attendance?

Should good management be the deciding factor of a club's success?

It should definitely be A factor but should fan support (lot of fan support = high revenue = more money to spend on players) be a factor, too?

Beach_Red
01-27-2010, 10:28 AM
something to ponder:
--------------------------------------------
Should teams with poor attendance have equal opportunity of success as teams with high attendance?

Should good management be the deciding factor of a club's success?

It should definitely be A factor but should fan support (lot of fan support = high revenue = more money to spend on players) be a factor, too?

It depends how important a soccer league in America is for you. It's possible that there are enough fans of only socer to finance a league, but chances are in order to be successful a soccer league is going to have to win a few fans from other sports, it's going to have to convince some ticket buyers of football or basketball or baseball to buy some soccer tickets, too.

What' the best way to do that?

Carts
01-27-2010, 10:42 AM
ill take a pass, im tired of the 100 different salary cap rules...lets wait til the CBA comes out and debate the CBA

thx

Agreed...

The only reason question is are there more rules in the MLS Salary Cap than threads started by 'Dust2' about salaries etc...

Boring... Tiring... Done...

Carts...

Fort York Redcoat
01-27-2010, 10:43 AM
It's not gauranteed that Seattle would be the Yankees in one year and remain a Man United for the next decade. I'd be willing to see the 25% and $1 for $1 luxury in place.

The likelyhood of MLS being that brave with Namerican Sports to contend with is slim.

Fort York Redcoat
01-27-2010, 10:47 AM
Agreed...

The only reason question is are there more rules in the MLS Salary Cap than threads started by 'Dust2' about salaries etc...

Boring... Tiring... Done...

Carts...


Aww C'mon Carts, Dusty at least tweaks his salary proposals every time.:)

Beach_Red
01-27-2010, 11:00 AM
It's not gauranteed that Seattle would be the Yankees in one year and remain a Man United for the next decade. I'd be willing to see the 25% and $1 for $1 luxury in place.

The likelyhood of MLS being that brave with Namerican Sports to contend with is slim.


There's a fine line between brave and stupid... oh no wait, that's between clever and stupid, isn't it?

I always like that Dust2 is so optimistic about this league. He's all about getting better players and I like that idea so I say keep trying till you find the formula that works.

Here's a question. How important is Champions League play to European leagues?

I mean, take Scotland for example, how important is it for that league to send teams to play in Europe? What would be the effect on the league if they didn't send any teams?

london_tfc_fan
01-27-2010, 11:02 AM
What would suck about a luxury tax is that Seattle pulls in 50% more than TFC, so it would make it even harder for TFC to win a championship...

TFC would be the Blue Jays, Seattle the Yankees of MLS.

I beg to differ, we would be the Red Sox NYRB would be the Jays! attendance numbers are eerily similar as well lol!

Carts
01-27-2010, 11:04 AM
Aww C'mon Carts, Dusty at least tweaks his salary proposals every time.:)

Its like listening to a CD with the laser skipping... Soo sick of it...

I miss the days of "...insert name here for DP..."

Those threads showed up every 2-days, but at least made you laugh at some of the names... These are just annoying...

Oh well, I drink... :drinking:

Carts...

Fort York Redcoat
01-27-2010, 11:46 AM
Here's a question. How important is Champions League play to European leagues?

I mean, take Scotland for example, how important is it for that league to send teams to play in Europe? What would be the effect on the league if they didn't send any teams?

In Scotland in means the difference of affording that one superstar or keeping him for the next year and beating your biggest rivals.

The money in Europe isn't big until you advance but making it when coming from a smaller league really helps you rise above the following year.

To not send teams to Europe would indeed get you closer to your Namerican parity dream.;) I just don't think the majority of people outside of our continent appreciate the parity movement.

Lucky Strike
01-27-2010, 12:19 PM
In theory good, but in practice not at all effective.

Generally speaking, the teams owned by gazillionaires just pay the luxury tax and it doesn't affect them in the slightest. You hate to compare sports because often it's apples and oranges, but the Yankess have spent 165 million on luxury tax since it's inception since 1998 or whatever years it came in. It just doesn't matter to them and doesn't prevent buying a championship.

As for an individual wage cap based on club turnover, that too sounds good but can set bad trends. Using stadium capacity as an example, the larger your stadium, the more tickets you can sell, therefore the more turnover you'll have and be able to spend more on wages. This could very well encourage clubs to go deep into debt in order to secure new or larger stadiums just so as to increase turnover. And the clubs who already have huge stadiums (like Old Traffod or Camp Nou for example) would simply have their already big advantage over smaller teams confirmed. It wouldn't address the problem.

And going specifically to MLS, it would encourage a trend back towards using behemoth NFL stadiums to have as many seats as possible. It's contrary to the vision of SSSs for all teams and would ruin an atmosphere that is already dead in some place like Columbus. I can't see any good coming from this proposal.

Beach_Red
01-27-2010, 12:24 PM
In Scotland in means the difference of affording that one superstar or keeping him for the next year and beating your biggest rivals.

The money in Europe isn't big until you advance but making it when coming from a smaller league really helps you rise above the following year.

To not send teams to Europe would indeed get you closer to your Namerican parity dream.;) I just don't think the majority of people outside of our continent appreciate the parity movement.


I think parity is a lot closer to the reality all over the world, people just don't like to admit it. Since TV revenues have become the big money generator parity will either emerge on its own, or you can have a hand in how it's done, I just don't see many places where it's avoided.

It just depends on how you organize the teams. As you say, once you advance in Europe the money is big and that seperates those teams form the rest. There is pretty much a parity of those teams and it's tough for new teams to join that club. (it's not like any different Scottish teams are likely to get very far, so there are two levels of parity in the league, but it's there).

Fort York Redcoat
01-27-2010, 12:33 PM
And going specifically to MLS, it would encourage a trend back towards using behemoth NFL stadiums to have as many seats as possible. It's contrary to the vision of SSSs for all teams and would ruin an atmosphere that is already dead in some place like Columbus. I can't see any good coming from this proposal.


Well said. Priority goes to losing all the shared stadia. It would give owners an excuse to remain second rate tenants.

denime
01-27-2010, 12:37 PM
Agreed...

The only reason question is are there more rules in the MLS Salary Cap than threads started by 'Dust2' about salaries etc...

Boring... Tiring... Done...

Carts...

+1 :facepalm:

Fort York Redcoat
01-27-2010, 12:39 PM
I think parity is a lot closer to the reality all over the world, people just don't like to admit it. Since TV revenues have become the big money generator parity will either emerge on its own, or you can have a hand in how it's done, I just don't see many places where it's avoided.

It just depends on how you organize the teams. As you say, once you advance in Europe the money is big and that seperates those teams form the rest. There is pretty much a parity of those teams and it's tough for new teams to join that club. (it's not like any different Scottish teams are likely to get very far, so there are two levels of parity in the league, but it's there).


Did you just call me "the people"? Wicked.

I the people will admit to an extant that tv helps your parity but with smaller leagues it doesn't have the same theory behind it. It's not as often you see two minnows on tele as a team that brings in more viewers. This generates more money for dispersal. The smaller the league, the less variety shown. Check out how many SPL games you can see on Setanta w/o the old firm involved.

Hitcho
01-27-2010, 01:04 PM
holy shit dust, you've really got a hard on for this cap structure with a luxury tax for MLS, but

can you please stop making threads galore about it? this is at least the third one you;ve spawned, and the others were merged. just keep it one thread, there's no need for this poll.

you don't want to become known as the next mighty. let it drop mate! :D

Fort York Redcoat
01-27-2010, 01:08 PM
^I forgot about that.lol

Dusty must be just as sick of seeing the same 4/5 guys in his threads. Wondered when you'd show Hitcho.:D

Hitcho
01-27-2010, 01:12 PM
Haha - wouldn't have missed you for the world Forts! :D

"I the people"... love it mate. Almost spat some Teriyaki over my desk when I read that.

trane
01-27-2010, 01:39 PM
The current system stunts the growth in the leagues major franchises, TFC, Seatle, DC. If not change it will stunt the growth of the league.

Beach_Red
01-27-2010, 03:30 PM
Did you just call me "the people"? Wicked.

I the people will admit to an extant that tv helps your parity but with smaller leagues it doesn't have the same theory behind it. It's not as often you see two minnows on tele as a team that brings in more viewers. This generates more money for dispersal. The smaller the league, the less variety shown. Check out how many SPL games you can see on Setanta w/o the old firm involved.


Yes, you the people.

And like you say, there is parity in the Scottish league - the Old Firm is one level of parity and then the rest of the premiere league is on the next. And that's not likely to change anytime soon. You seem to have some aversion to the word "parity" so we should callit something else - I like the line someoe on here had the other day about how all teams play by the same rules on the pitch - why not the same ones off?

But really, all Dust2 is trying to do with all these salary/tax/wahetevr plans is get better soccer and I agree with him on that.

The reason, I think, MLS can't have 3-4 dominant teams is because there's nowhere else for them to go. Sure, there's a Champions League, but really, it'll be tough to get American fans that interested in going against Costa Rica's best.

I would suspect that if it wasn't for European games, even fans of the Old Firm would get tired of beating up on everyone else in Scotland after a while.

rocker
01-27-2010, 09:22 PM
My solution for getting better soccer? Raise the salary cap for everybody. Simple.

Creating disparity isn't the same as creating quality.

All the methods Dust2 proposes involve creating inequality in the name of increased quality. But really it's an illusion -- the big spenders certainly are better, but the league as a whole isn't. They probably will look even better against an opposition that cannot afford to keep up financially.

Just raise the cap, my friends.. just raise the cap.

Dust2
01-28-2010, 06:20 AM
Should teams with poor attendance have equal opportunity of success as teams with high attendance?
Should good management be the ONLY factor in deciding a club's success?


Nov 1, 2009 playoff game Chicago @ New England. Announced attendance: 7,416.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Gillette_Stadium.jpg

.
.
.


Seattle has sold over 31,000 season tickets and has a 96% renewal rate.

http://www.soundersfc.com/News/Articles/2010/01-January/Season-Tickets.aspx

Season Tickets capped at 32,000

The Seattle Sounders FC announced today that less than 1,000 season tickets remain for the 2010 season. “They took their match day role very seriously and renewed their season tickets at a 96 percent rate.”http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3846064489_e720705c12.jpg



Should the Sounders growth be hindered for the benefit of a team like New England? Is the best way for MLS to grow is to be only as good as its weakest team? MLS have won about 4-5 games out of about 25-28 Concacaf Champions League games. This poor record is on par with league from Panama, El Salvador and Honduras. Is that good enough?

Pookie
01-28-2010, 08:05 AM
How big could Seattle get if they didn't have New England to play against?

Way too much attention on the money paid to players. Teams with deep pockets can develop and exploit advantages that other teams don't have.

Toronto is dropping over $5M in a quality pitch. This gives them an advantage over teams that don't have it.

Toronto could develop the best training facilities. Toronto could hire a top notch scouting staff, a top Manager (willing to coach in MLS). They could fly the boys around on private jets. They could offer them TV segments on GOL TV to boost their profile. They could broker endorsement deals for them with any number of partners.

The teams that don't draw, don't have these opportunities. The advantage and opportunity already exists with the big clubs.

Caps just protect against an inept owner(ship) firing money at players to cover shortcomings. It raises the costs artificially for the rest of the businesses in this league.

Dust2
01-28-2010, 08:24 AM
How big could Seattle get if they didn't have New England to play against?

Way too much attention on the money paid to players. Teams with deep pockets can develop and exploit advantages that other teams don't have.

Toronto is dropping over $5M in a quality pitch. This gives them an advantage over teams that don't have it.

Toronto could develop the best training facilities. Toronto could hire a top notch scouting staff, a top Manager (willing to coach in MLS). They could fly the boys around on private jets. They could offer them TV segments on GOL TV to boost their profile. They could broker endorsement deals for them with any number of partners.

The teams that don't draw, don't have these opportunities. The advantage and opportunity already exists with the big clubs.

Caps just protect against an inept owner(ship) firing money at players to cover shortcomings. It raises the costs artificially for the rest of the businesses in this league.

Is that why New England, a club that don't draw, made the playoff in the last 3 years while Toronto, a club that draw, did not? Oh, New England have made the playoff for the past 8 years.

Should good management be the ONLY factor in deciding a club's success?

According to you, good management should be the ONLY factor deciding if a team wins or not. Why can't money also play a factor?

Oldtimer
01-28-2010, 08:40 AM
Is that why New England, a club that don't draw, made the playoff in the last 3 years while Toronto, a club that draw, did not? Oh, New England have made the playoff for the past 8 years.

Should good management be the ONLY factor in deciding a club's success?

According to you, good management should be the ONLY factor deciding if a team wins or not. Why can't money also play a factor?

In the NHL, before the lockout and the NHL salary cap, the Leafs outspent every other team.
Spending doesn't guarantee results.

Anyway there is zero chance that MLS will ever agree to such a thing as a salary tax instead of a cap.

Now what would be an excellent departure from parity would be removing all restrictions on signing academy players. Then teams will get out of their academies what they put in, and MLS' goal of developing N. American talent will come true. I would support that even though it will give a leg-up to Vancouver, because I want what's best for the league.

Fort York Redcoat
01-28-2010, 09:15 AM
Now what would be an excellent departure from parity would be removing all restrictions on signing academy players. Then teams will get out of their academies what they put in, and MLS' goal of developing N. American talent will come true. I would support that even though it will give a leg-up to Vancouver, because I want what's best for the league.

Better development in Canada for Canada as well. Even with teams grabbing young talent from everywhere the repute of good development would help our kids here to strive to do better.

Beach_Red
01-28-2010, 09:28 AM
In the NHL, before the lockout and the NHL salary cap, the Leafs outspent every other team.
Spending doesn't guarantee results.

Anyway there is zero chance that MLS will ever agree to such a thing as a salary tax instead of a cap.

Now what would be an excellent departure from parity would be removing all restrictions on signing academy players. Then teams will get out of their academies what they put in, and MLS' goal of developing N. American talent will come true. I would support that even though it will give a leg-up to Vancouver, because I want what's best for the league.

Okay, so does spending matter or not?

I wonder, how come so many basketball players get developed in the US - to a much higher level than European or South American basketball players. NBA teams don't have academies.

Is it possible in the US that soccer is 'over-coached?' What I mean is, do kids in the US just play soccer on their own, or do they only do it in organized situations - practices and games? Is there such a thing as schoolyard soccer in the US?

Soccer hasn't become a part of the American culture the way basketball has. In many ways soccer is a very middle-class, suburban sport in the US. Unless all those cliches about 'Soccer Moms' are just wrong.

Fort York Redcoat
01-28-2010, 09:36 AM
Yes, you the people.

And like you say, there is parity in the Scottish league - the Old Firm is one level of parity and then the rest of the premiere league is on the next. And that's not likely to change anytime soon. You seem to have some aversion to the word "parity" so we should callit something else - I like the line someoe on here had the other day about how all teams play by the same rules on the pitch - why not the same ones off?

But really, all Dust2 is trying to do with all these salary/tax/wahetevr plans is get better soccer and I agree with him on that.

The reason, I think, MLS can't have 3-4 dominant teams is because there's nowhere else for them to go. Sure, there's a Champions League, but really, it'll be tough to get American fans that interested in going against Costa Rica's best.

I would suspect that if it wasn't for European games, even fans of the Old Firm would get tired of beating up on everyone else in Scotland after a while.

You're right about Old Firm fans getting bored but I find it far more exciting, the possibility of MLS teams vying to be in the regional wide parity vs the league wide parity. I find the latter leads to an insular mentality.

And please, I think we're well aware that no MLS team has the heritage or repute of the top teams in Mexico. There's an amount of denial rampant in the rest of Namerican footie fans that we've arrived since Superliga. The one or two giants from each smaller country in CONCACAF will rise to be launching points for many players to come.

Beach_Red
01-28-2010, 09:44 AM
You're right about Old Firm fans getting bored but I find it far more exciting, the possibility of MLS teams vying to be in the regional wide parity vs the league wide parity. I find the latter leads to an insular mentality.

And please, I think we're well aware that no MLS team has the heritage or repute of the top teams in Mexico. There's an amount of denial rampant in the rest of Namerican footie fans that we've arrived since Superliga. The one or two giants from each smaller country in CONCACAF will rise to be launching points for many players to come.

Maybe, but it's possible that American fans (and probably Canadian) will never be excited by games in Central America and the Carribean. Sure, there are a lot of people here form those regions but there are more with European roots, European teams are the most famous in the world, the ones seen as the best so if soccer is ever going to be on the same level as the NFL or MLB or NBA in America they'll have to play European teams.

Americans don't really care about heritage, they know money is more important. Real Madrid can have all the heritage in the world, but without the operating budget they're nothing. Give that same budget to a team in New York, let them play against European teams and they'd sell a ton of tickets.

As you say, that insular mentality is bad. If no Scottish team got to Europe that league would be very insular and well, who knows what would happen then, maybe it would start to look like MLS.

Still, it starts by raising the cap. I'd lik to see a plan laid out for the next five years with the cap going up steadily each year.

Dust2
01-28-2010, 06:36 PM
From the fact that the Player Union and MLS are taking a long time to hammer a deal, it's likely that the next CBA, which set the tone for the next 5 years, will look something like this:

$2.6 mil hard cap
DP rule stay the same

Those hoping the cap will increase significantly will be disappointed.

CanadaLFC
01-28-2010, 06:45 PM
MLS and players union have agreed to push negotiation deadline to Feb 12. According to Ives on twitter.

ag futbol
01-28-2010, 06:59 PM
Um compensation doesn’t “guarantee” results but it is highly correlated with it. IE it’s much harder to win if you’re spending less but spending more doesn’t mean victory is assured.

Beach_Red
01-28-2010, 07:05 PM
From the fact that the Player Union and MLS are taking a long time to hammer a deal, it's likely that the next CBA, which set the tone for the next 5 years, will look something like this:

$2.6 mil hard cap
DP rule stay the same

Those hoping the cap will increase significantly will be disappointed.


Yes, we will be. I guess MLS is hoping that further expansion and interest from places like Philadelphia and Vancouver will be enough to sustain growth. I hope they're right. Going too slowly can be as dangerous as trying to grow too quickly.

Fort York Redcoat
01-29-2010, 07:26 AM
Yes, we will be. I guess MLS is hoping that further expansion and interest from places like Philadelphia and Vancouver will be enough to sustain growth. I hope they're right. Going too slowly can be as dangerous as trying to grow too quickly.

Ineteresting because one could say MLS is expanding too quickly and raising the cap too slowly. It does go with the sports model here, though, doesn't it? The SPL and the CFL had the same number of teams but here that's considered too small a league for a league wanting to be in the top 4 whereas a strong 12 team league is considered better than thinning the quality for a 20 team SPL.

Adding all these teams in MLS does not insure long term success but a short term gain. An investment in quality would help the league along better IMO.

Pookie
01-29-2010, 08:20 AM
One could say that the reason that businesses want in on the MLS (remember, this isn't a volunteer thing) is that the cost structure is secure and favourable for business.

Funny too when Dust incorrectly keeps characterizing this as a hard cap system. How in the hell do you fit a $5M David Beckham into your line up in a hard cap system? Allocation money, the DP Rule all serve to provide wiggle room.

Beach_Red
01-29-2010, 08:30 AM
Ineteresting because one could say MLS is expanding too quickly and raising the cap too slowly. It does go with the sports model here, though, doesn't it? The SPL and the CFL had the same number of teams but here that's considered too small a league for a league wanting to be in the top 4 whereas a strong 12 team league is considered better than thinning the quality for a 20 team SPL.

Adding all these teams in MLS does not insure long term success but a short term gain. An investment in quality would help the league along better IMO.


Yes, MLS has to be careful not to follow too closely the NHL model of lettingin any owner that 'says' tey have the money and expanding to every market in the country (the US that is, while ignorin good Canadian markets).

I think the CFL is a top 4 league in Canada, though. In fact, I think in Canada it's #2.

The NHL always claimed it needed teams in every corner of the US to get a national TV deal - which it still doesn't have, does it?

MLS may be expanding too quickly, but I think the growth and popularity will increase steadily over the next few years.

Fort York Redcoat
01-29-2010, 08:33 AM
^^but "wiggle room cap system" sounds a bit childish. We can call it whatever you like Pook but it's closer to what we know as hard than soft. Maybe over easy? Scrambled?

Fort York Redcoat
01-29-2010, 08:37 AM
Yes, MLS has to be careful not to follow too closely the NHL model of lettingin any owner that 'says' tey have the money and expanding to every market in the country (the US that is, while ignorin good Canadian markets).

I think the CFL is a top 4 league in Canada, though. In fact, I think in Canada it's #2.

The NHL always claimed it needed teams in every corner of the US to get a national TV deal - which it still doesn't have, does it?

MLS may be expanding too quickly, but I think the growth and popularity will increase steadily over the next few years.

The CFL wants to be bigger than it is.
The NHL got what it wanted for a year or two but does the outdoor network count?
I want to see more focus on improving weaker teams turnout since most of them lie in areas that are great for playing the game and make sense unlike the NHL expansion.

Beach_Red
01-29-2010, 09:41 AM
The CFL wants to be bigger than it is.
The NHL got what it wanted for a year or two but does the outdoor network count?
I want to see more focus on improving weaker teams turnout since most of them lie in areas that are great for playing the game and make sense unlike the NHL expansion.


Does the CFL still want to be bigger? Didn't the whole US expansion finally put that to rest. Maybe a team in Quebec city and Moncton (th City at the Centre of the Maritimes, as they say) but that's it.

The CFL does so well on TV it makes me wish the same could happen for a Canadian soccer league. Someday it might, someday maybe five million people will be watching the Voyageurs Cup final.

And yes, there certainly seems to be a big market in the US that isn't coming out to MLS games.


And Pookie makes a good point about wiggle room (yes, it would be good to call it something else) - after Beckham every team in MLS could have gone out and spent big but no one did. And LA weren't even charged a luxury tax, so why would we think that a system like that would work across the league? TFC could have spent way more on a DP (another term I'd like to change, but that says more about me than it does the phrase) but they didn't. If they'd had to pay a luxury tax on top of JDG's salary I can't imagine that they would have signed a DP.

Dust2
01-29-2010, 10:55 AM
I got a feeling that teams like Galaxy, Seattle, New York, Toronto would love to pay $425,000 in luxury tax to make their DP cap-exempt. This would free up $425,000 to use on other players.

As for wiggle room, a DP cost $425,000 toward your $2.3 mil cap. And "allocations are given to teams that have missed the playoffs the previous seasons, given to expansion teams, or awarded as compensation for players lost."

Dust2
01-29-2010, 11:00 AM
Funny too when Dust incorrectly keeps characterizing this as a hard cap system. How in the hell do you fit a $5M David Beckham into your line up in a hard cap system? Allocation money, the DP Rule all serve to provide wiggle room.

If MLS allows team to spend the $5 mil on many players instead of a single DP, then you would have a point. It's a hard cap because every team have to get under the $2.3 mil. A DP counts $425,000 toward that.

p.s. Which would make the Galaxy a better team? $7.3 mil to spend on 24 players or $1.875 to spend on 23 players + $5 mil Beckham?

Fort York Redcoat
01-29-2010, 11:02 AM
Does the CFL still want to be bigger? Didn't the whole US expansion finally put that to rest. Maybe a team in Quebec city and Moncton (th City at the Centre of the Maritimes, as they say) but that's it.

The CFL does so well on TV it makes me wish the same could happen for a Canadian soccer league. Someday it might, someday maybe five million people will be watching the Voyageurs Cup final.

And yes, there certainly seems to be a big market in the US that isn't coming out to MLS games.


And Pookie makes a good point about wiggle room (yes, it would be good to call it something else) - after Beckham every team in MLS could have gone out and spent big but no one did. And LA weren't even charged a luxury tax, so why would we think that a system like that would work across the league? TFC could have spent way more on a DP (another term I'd like to change, but that says more about me than it does the phrase) but they didn't. If they'd had to pay a luxury tax on top of JDG's salary I can't imagine that they would have signed a DP.

Yes the CFL wants to expand but they are living hand to mouth year in year out. That's why they keep promising but not presenting expansion teams. TV is better for them but there are always blackouts arounfd the league that really hurt.

I still believe footie success will replace an eternally tottering CFL. It's simply more accessible.

Pookie
01-29-2010, 12:48 PM
If MLS allows team to spend the $5 mil on many players instead of a single DP, then you would have a point. It's a hard cap because every team have to get under the $2.3 mil. A DP counts $425,000 toward that.

Not if they have allocation money they don't have to get under $2.3. Further, the fact that a DP cap hit is less than their salary is a major concession. You can also trade for a DP slot to boost your numbers to 2.

Again, it isn't a cap free system but to imply it is a "hard cap" is misleading.

The fact that investors are lining up to pay a very high expansion fee to be a part of this league should tell you that the current model is working and working very well.

It is a business first and without them, there would be no league to argue about.


p.s. Which would make the Galaxy a better team? $7.3 mil to spend on 24 players or $1.875 to spend on 23 players + $5 mil Beckham?

I don't know. There are way too many hypotheticals in that one. Who are the specific players? Are you spending all this money on players and giving them Chris Cummins as a coach? Could a better coach get more out of existing players?

Peter Ridsdale, in his book "United We Fall" gives insight into the world of player transfers. He was the former Chairman at Leeds and I believe with Cardiff right now.

He talks about agents bringing over players from "corners of the world" with a ton of hype but very little actual scouting or insight into their background. The agent is able to ink the player to a contract on an EPL or lower division squad.

The player then has ____ F.C on their resume. Usually that player plays sparingly and lasts for a year or two. But a baseline salary expectation has been established. At which time, the agent promptly shops them around to different leagues highlighting the original hype and the fact that he is an ex-____ F.C player. Attempting bidding wars as they go.

The agent is able to cycle that player through league after league and before you know it, it's been 10 years and the player (and agent) have made a decent amount of money based on hype, some talent but mostly off the backs of managers that haven't done their homework and are under pressure to "improve the team."

So, there is no guarantee that higher paid players (the kind that would consider the MLS) are head and shoulders better than the players in the system now. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that such a system would drive up the costs for everyone, putting the league in a financial risk position.

jloome
01-31-2010, 12:16 PM
<<But really, all Dust2 is trying to do with all these salary/tax/wahetevr plans is get better soccer and I agree with him on that.>>

Uh, no. How does a series of intensely specific discussions of financial acuity, none actually accurate, "get better soccer?"

Intent's fine. Threads are fine. They're just esoteric and weird, and that's a normal reaction to anyone enjoying these kinds of discussions -- particularly as there's zero chance they're going to have any impact.

It's a theoretical, always good for discussion...if you're one of the people who enjoyes the subject matter at hand.

Beach_Red
01-31-2010, 12:20 PM
^ Well,he's looking at ways teams can spend more money on players. I think we'd all like to see MLS teams spend more money on players.

I think the biggest fault with all of this is his feelings that some MLS teams WANT to spend more money on players.

The salary cap shouldn't really be seen as a maximum, it really be seen as a minimum.

It's like Canadian content on TV - we always use the joke, "And not a minute more." There's no network looking to put more Canadian TV shows on the air, and no MLS team is looking for a way to spend more money. They've proven that with the DP rule - not even every team takes advantage of that.

rocker
01-31-2010, 04:10 PM
^ Well,he's looking at ways teams can spend more money on players. I think we'd all like to see MLS teams spend more money on players.

Raise the cap. That's an easy way to spend more money on players ;)

My greatest problem with these proposals is they are often promoted by fans of teams in a position of power. "Let's do it because it'll benefit TFC. They can spend more!!!!" But ya know what? There always seems to be a team that spends more than your team. It's impossible for every team to be the New York Yankees of a league.

And if we, as some fans want, dump the weaker revenue teams, TFC's ability to buy a championship will become even weaker. What if the league replaces KC or San Jose with big market teams (NY2 or Miami)? Then suddenly TFC may find itself in perpetual mid-table behind LA, Seattle, NY2, NYRB, Miami, even maybe Philly (huge market).... great...! ;) ;)

My concern comes straight from being a Blue Jays fan and seeing the resources of bigger teams put those teams in a greater chance of winning than my hometown club, killing my interest in baseball. I know people say "Well, then the Jays should spend more!!!" But they don't, so the fans are screwed. I'd hate to see that happen with TFC.

James Oliphant
01-31-2010, 04:13 PM
Say it ain't so - I thought everybody read this board for guidance...

TFC invented advice.

jloome
02-01-2010, 12:16 PM
^ Well,he's looking at ways teams can spend more money on players. I think we'd all like to see MLS teams spend more money on players.

I think the biggest fault with all of this is his feelings that some MLS teams WANT to spend more money on players.

The salary cap shouldn't really be seen as a maximum, it really be seen as a minimum.

It's like Canadian content on TV - we always use the joke, "And not a minute more." There's no network looking to put more Canadian TV shows on the air, and no MLS team is looking for a way to spend more money. They've proven that with the DP rule - not even every team takes advantage of that.

True enough, that.

I'm gonna write something on this today for Red Patch Online; I think they've actually kind of let slip what we're going to see -- in general, anyway. And it won't include a substantial hike in personnel costs.

Dust2
02-02-2010, 06:03 AM
I think the biggest fault with all of this is his feelings that some MLS teams WANT to spend more money on players.


Teams that WANT to spend more money:

New York
LA Galaxy
Seattle
Toronto (to a certain extent)

I believe these teams would love to spend $1 mil more than the salary cap and get charge with a $1 mil luxury tax penalty (small price to pay really).

Oldtimer
02-02-2010, 08:29 AM
Teams that WANT to spend more money:

New York
LA Galaxy
Seattle
Toronto (to a certain extent)

I believe these teams would love to spend $1 mil more than the salary cap and get charge with a $1 mil luxury tax penalty (small price to pay really).

...and to point out the obvious, these teams would not form a majority on the board of governors. So it's a moot point, the system will not change.

Beach_Red
02-02-2010, 09:06 AM
...and to point out the obvious, these teams would not form a majority on the board of governors. So it's a moot point, the system will not change.


Yes, and certainly MLSE will never vote in favour of raising their expenses, so three teams on the board of governors MIGHT vote yes.

But really, LA and Seattle have already found ways to go way over the salary cap and NY still has the novelty of its new stadium to wear off.

Looks like we're stuck with this system for the next few years at least.