PDA

View Full Version : Owners and Player Union have agreed on a $2.6 mil salary cap for 2010



Dust2
02-12-2010, 12:12 AM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2010536653_sounders18.html


The union would also like the league to open up its books to determine what it sees as a fair increase in the salary cap from year to year. Without complete knowledge of how much is in the coffers of MLS, the union came up with a 17 percent increase from $2.3 million last season to about $2.7 million in 2010.

http://www.24thminute.com/2010/02/good-news-on-cba-front.html


Due to the sensitive nature of the negotiations, both cannot go on record. However, they say that an agreement has been reached on the issue of guaranteed contracts and an increase in the cap.

The biggest issue still at play is free agency, according to the sources. The league is holding firm against allowing any type of free movement for fear that it will artificially inflate the market.

The sources say that the sides have agreed to a small cap increase, from $2.3 million USD to about $2.6 million USD. Veteran players who have met a certain threshold will be protected. It’s likely that the threshold will be set fairly high.

The term will likely be three years.

Lucky Strike
02-12-2010, 12:13 AM
Seems like good news. I think it's good that everyone involved knows a work stoppage would screw MLS.

Whoop
02-12-2010, 12:15 AM
Hopefully they can get this thing signed soon.

Yagbod
02-12-2010, 12:27 AM
So far, this is one of the most impressive CBA negotations that I can recall. It has been mostly contained (media silent) and the leaks/announcements have been well timed. I had a good feeling for it when they declared the 12 day extension. They know, as well or more than we do, how vital it is to have a full season.

The 300k increase will pay the low end a little more (like a chance to move out of mom's house) and/or add a couple of mid-level (for MLS) players. Either way both sides stand to win.

I was worried, but I feel much better now. That news is laying the ground for the 'big' announcement soon.

Dust2
02-12-2010, 12:53 AM
FYI: CBA negotiation is extended to Feb 23 now. Mentioned on several news sites including WashingtonPost soccerinsider

ginkster88
02-12-2010, 01:01 AM
It has been mostly contained (media silent) and the leaks/announcements have been well timed.

Perhaps there just isn't enough interest?

TFCUNITED
02-12-2010, 01:18 AM
It's good to hear some positive news on the CBA.

Super
02-12-2010, 01:18 AM
$400k more for each club. That's not too bad. Was hoping for more, but feared less ... so this is somewhere in the middle. Hope the rest of the stuff can be worked out so we can focus entirely on the new season.

Shway
02-12-2010, 02:07 AM
$400k more for each club. That's not too bad. Was hoping for more, but feared less ... so this is somewhere in the middle. Hope the rest of the stuff can be worked out so we can focus entirely on the new season.

400k more
plus the possiblity of DP exemption from the cap
thats almost a million there...

an MLS team will be at the Club World Championships in 2011

you heard it here first

J .
02-12-2010, 02:09 AM
Im expecting that DeRo is going to get a nice portion of the increase.

ginkster88
02-12-2010, 02:22 AM
Im expecting that DeRo is going to get a nice portion of the increase.

Seriously, three contracts in four years? I believe he'll do it too, but that's a bit much for me.

greatwhitenorf
02-12-2010, 05:44 AM
If more money for DeRo is such a crucial issue and the cap - even the new one - is preventing the club from paying what they agree he's worth, what's to stop the club from topping up his wages from a secondary, off-season source?

Say, something like opening an off-season soccer school for elite players and paying him a ridiculous fee to run it?

Dust2
02-12-2010, 05:56 AM
$400k more for each club. That's not too bad. Was hoping for more, but feared less ... so this is somewhere in the middle. Hope the rest of the stuff can be worked out so we can focus entirely on the new season.

$300,000 more not $400,000

$2.3 mil to $2.6 mil.

The Union wants 17% raise to $2.7 mil they got $2.6 mil, 13% raise.

daner90
02-12-2010, 08:15 AM
well sounds like I better book my flight to boston....

Keegan
02-12-2010, 08:16 AM
Wow how would they not raise to $2.7?! At least!! I was thinking the cap would end up being $5 million... the NHL operates on a what 52 million cap? Does the nhl generate 20 times the revenue of MLS?

FluSH
02-12-2010, 08:20 AM
Hopefully they can get this thing signed soon.

/co-signed

FluSH
02-12-2010, 08:24 AM
So far, this is one of the most impressive CBA negotations that I can recall. It has been mostly contained (media silent) and the leaks/announcements have been well timed. I had a good feeling for it when they declared the 12 day extension. They know, as well or more than we do, how vital it is to have a full season.

The 300k increase will pay the low end a little more (like a chance to move out of mom's house) and/or add a couple of mid-level (for MLS) players. Either way both sides stand to win.

I was worried, but I feel much better now. That news is laying the ground for the 'big' announcement soon.


Any disruption in the season = death to the MLS. In particular with the World Cup in the summer. MLS would be a forgotten about league. I am glad they are getting somewhere with negotiations, but as others have mentioned a bigger increase would have been better.

koryo
02-12-2010, 08:36 AM
Any disruption in the season = death to the MLS. In particular with the World Cup in the summer. MLS would be a forgotten about league. I am glad they are getting somewhere with negotiations, but as others have mentioned a bigger increase would have been better.

Couldn't agree more Flush. World Cup or no, a work stoppage would have been the death of this league.

I'm glad that common sense prevailed.

Oldtimer
02-12-2010, 08:37 AM
Perhaps there just isn't enough interest?

Google news shows 153 news stories on the CBA date being extended. Given that, it's pretty hard to claim there is "no interest." Plus professional bloggers like Ives would do a lot to get a story.

MartinUtd
02-12-2010, 08:40 AM
It doesn't seem like enough to address the roster size issues and the below poverty line wages. Its better than nothing, but I was really hoping for $3mil.

I_AM_CANADIAN
02-12-2010, 09:05 AM
Sounds like the players pretty much gave in... I find it really hard to believe that even the poorest owner in this league can only afford to pay a team less than what Jeff Finger alone makes in a season.

Ossington Mental Youth
02-12-2010, 09:10 AM
its apparently only for 3 years this time around, although i do hope the roster size is addressed (wages are still shit sadly)

deltox
02-12-2010, 09:15 AM
i would rather it be a tiny increase than be a stoppage.

we all agree that the season could not have a stoppage

Roogsy
02-12-2010, 09:17 AM
The players blinked first. That increase was likely going to happen regardless of the CBA negotiations. In other words, they got nothing. I'd be interested in seeing what else was negotiated because the higher cap isn't anything impressive.

Hitcho
02-12-2010, 09:18 AM
It doesn't seem like enough to address the roster size issues and the below poverty line wages. Its better than nothing, but I was really hoping for $3mil.

Actually it might not be a bad thing. As someone above mentioned, this may well be used to bolster the lower end salaries (it will be hard for the clubs to justify paying the "bigger" players more while still leaving some guys on 30k as a result of this increase). That's just as important for the league as bringing in star players on high salaries from abroad. Look what happened to the old NASL. You have GOT to have a grass roots supply of dopmestic players for any league to be viable. And players who are faced with a 30k salary or finishing college and earning double that may well just leave the game entirely. This situation is exascerabted by the fact that the main supply of young talent to MLS comes thrugh the college system. I just think we have to address the grass roots issue before we worry about bringing in Raul and company. Plus the standard of domestic players likely will be raised if the number of players coming throguh increases.


Sounds like the players pretty much gave in... I find it really hard to believe that even the poorest owner in this league can only afford to pay a team less than what Jeff Finger alone makes in a season.

I'm not sure anyone would have "given in" on this one. You have to remeber that if there is a strike out, then the league (or at least some teams) could get fucked so badly they end up folding. In that scenario, players are out of a job entirely and the sport will die off as a professional entity in Namerica for a long time. So in that scenario, it's worth accepting a lower compromise than you wanted just to keep the league alive.

The bottom line here was always pivotal - avoid a stoppage or it's game over.

TFCRegina
02-12-2010, 09:26 AM
400k more
plus the possiblity of DP exemption from the cap
thats almost a million there...

an MLS team will be at the Club World Championships in 2011

you heard it here first

Maybe, they need more roster spots and higher developmental contracts, so they can keep some of the more talented youngsters who head from PDL over to Europe, instead of going to MLS.

CretanBull
02-12-2010, 09:45 AM
i would rather it be a tiny increase than be a stoppage.


Me too, but I'm not trying to feed my family while making $30k ;)

I_AM_CANADIAN
02-12-2010, 09:48 AM
Me too, but I'm not trying to feed my family while making $30k ;)
Yeeep. There needs to be a higher salary floor. And a larger roster.

Detroit_TFC
02-12-2010, 09:49 AM
If the DP(s) are taken out of the sal cap altogether, then that is a hefty increase in spendable cap for each team. If it is status quo on DPs, or worse, if they add another DP slot under the cap, that's tight.

Steve
02-12-2010, 09:57 AM
Wow how would they not raise to $2.7?! At least!! I was thinking the cap would end up being $5 million... the NHL operates on a what 52 million cap? Does the nhl generate 20 times the revenue of MLS?

It's nice to see you have inside knowledge of the financials of the league. Oh, you don't? That $5 million was just a random number? Interesting.

The players didn't get nothing. If the quotes are to be believed, an agreement has been made on guaranteed contracts; which, if that agreement is in favour of the players, is a sizable feather in their caps. As to free agency, I have to side with the league on this one, as should most people here. See, true free agency will have one effect on this league: lower level of play. This is because the domestic players will suddenly become a bigger commodity, and as more teams are allowed to offer money to a single player, their salary will go up since they're allowed to play one team against the other (the very thing the single entity is looking to prevent right now). When they do that, teams will have to pay more money for the same quality. Since the cap is only going up to $2.6M, that means fewer decent domestic players will fit under the cap, which means we have to make up the difference with crappy domestic players. Essentially, the league isn't ready for true free agency yet, we just don't have the finances for it.

Though, thinking about TFC, it might actually have a slight positive effect in the short term (before Van and Montreal). See, Canadian players won't be able to play teams against each other, what with only one team in the league, the same way American players can, which means we might be able to get quality for cheaper... Interesting...

Even considering that, I think it's a bad idea at present. MLS needs to be fully in controlled stadiums, with a solid broadcast agreement and larger revenues before we can start to pull the chains off of the system a little at a time. And no, I can't see how free agency would lead to higher revenues in any way (since I'm sure someone will use the argument "but if we do it more like Europe, fans will come in droves!!").

Hitcho
02-12-2010, 10:18 AM
^ maybe, but at the same time, teams will know they hve a cap to stick to and most of their squad will already be on contracts under that cap, so it;s not like they will have the ability to just get into a bidding war for a free agent player. maybe for the very best domestic players, the top few, but that's about it. their hand would be tied by the cap and existing salaries they have underneath it.

maninb
02-12-2010, 10:24 AM
^^ Well said....As EVERY other NA sport has shown...True free agency doesn't work...crazy rich owners just can't help themselves, and it only takes one RIDICULOUS offer to open the flood gates and send spending out of control...

Carts
02-12-2010, 10:25 AM
Wow how would they not raise to $2.7?! At least!! I was thinking the cap would end up being $5 million... the NHL operates on a what 52 million cap? Does the nhl generate 20 times the revenue of MLS?

Way more than 20% currently...

Hell, the Leafs, Red Wings, and NY Rangers alone probably generate more than 10-times what the entire MLS does...

A raise to $2.7 (or $2.6 both numbers are floating around) is a very responsible number in terms of steady growth of the league...

Carts....

Steve
02-12-2010, 10:25 AM
^ maybe, but at the same time, teams will know they hve a cap to stick to and most of their squad will already be on contracts under that cap, so it;s not like they will have the ability to just get into a bidding war for a free agent player. maybe for the very best domestic players, the top few, but that's about it. their hand would be tied by the cap and existing salaries they have underneath it.

Right, but every time a player comes out of contract, the bidding war will start. I'm not saying it will destroy MLS this year, or anything nearly that dramatic, I'm just saying that it has the only possible thing that could lead to is higher salaries for the same players we have (mostly for the $100k plus players), which doesn't help raise the quality of the league. Central control right now is doing its best to keep costs down, and as long as that is not a long term strategy (to keep the cap very low and control costs strictly) I'm OK with it. Slow growth is a good strategy as long as there is an eye for the big picture. If there isn't, and we plan on not improving at all, that's when I have a problem with the tight control.

MUFC_Niagara
02-12-2010, 10:28 AM
Roster size and salary cap go hand in hand. Whats the point in increasing rosters if you can only afford to pay the extra players $30,000 per year? What quality of players will you get with an increased roster and a minimal increase of $300,000? Don't forget, as a has been mentioned, the players making $30,000 now will want a raise. If Ty Harden plays well you can bet he'll be saying show me the money....thats just one example.

Steve
02-12-2010, 10:28 AM
^^ Well said....As EVERY other NA sport has shown...True free agency doesn't work...crazy rich owners just can't help themselves, and it only takes one RIDICULOUS offer to open the flood gates and send spending out of control...

Exactly. As soon as one owner is willing to spend stupid money on a good player, all owners will be expected to (by the fans) or risk falling behind. And it just takes one stupid owner who either doesn't care if he/she loses money, or doesn't understand that they will, to upset the whole system.

Carts
02-12-2010, 10:31 AM
As per NHL compared to MLS revenue...

The MLS will receive $30-million over the next 8-years in TV revenue... That's about $3.75-million a season...

The Maple Leafs, cable deal alone, which is about 60-games, will generate approx $30-million (its higher) this season alone...

In the current NHL CBA, the Maple Leafs must funnel a large percentage of that money into the league, which is then divided to the small market teams...

Remember, that $30-million is for their 'cable games' alone (SportsNet/TSN), it doesn't include the millions that CBC pays for national 'broadcast' (over the air) rights...

Neither number includes playoffs...

MLS revenue is a drop in the ocean to NHL revenues...

To put it into an American perspective, NHL revenues are but a couple of bottles of water in the ocean to that of NFL, NBA, MLB, Nascar etc...

Carts...

Roogsy
02-12-2010, 10:35 AM
^ Believe the man...he knows of what he speaks.

The only funny thing in all of this? The whole NBC hockey game debacle. Despite the huge revenues, soccer and hockey still isn't respected in the US. Nothing but football and basketball (and Nascar I guess) catches American's attention.

Beach_Red
02-12-2010, 10:41 AM
^ Believe the man...he knows of what he speaks.

The only funny thing in all of this? The whole NBC hockey game debacle. Despite the huge revenues, soccer and hockey still isn't respected in the US. Nothing but football and basketball (and Nascar I guess) catches American's attention.


Don't forget baseball.

ManUtd4ever
02-12-2010, 10:55 AM
As per NHL compared to MLS revenue...

The MLS will receive $30-million over the next 8-years in TV revenue... That's about $3.75-million a season...

The Maple Leafs, cable deal alone, which is about 60-games, will generate approx $30-million (its higher) this season alone...

In the current NHL CBA, the Maple Leafs must funnel a large percentage of that money into the league, which is then divided to the small market teams...

Remember, that $30-million is for their 'cable games' alone (SportsNet/TSN), it doesn't include the millions that CBC pays for national 'broadcast' (over the air) rights...

Neither number includes playoffs...

MLS revenue is a drop in the ocean to NHL revenues...

To put it into an American perspective, NHL revenues are but a couple of bottles of water in the ocean to that of NFL, NBA, MLB, Nascar etc...

Carts...

Unfortunately, the apathy towards hockey and footy in the U.S. isn't likely to change dramatically in the foreseeable future. The MLS owners are well aware that most clubs in the league are capable of developing a niche market at best. The long term economic viability of the MLS is dependant on a formula based on slow and steady growth and the owners have been very responsible in that regard since the inception of the league...

Carts
02-12-2010, 10:58 AM
Unfortunately, the apathy towards hockey and footy in the U.S. isn't likely to change dramatically in the foreseeable future. The MLS owners are well aware that most clubs in the league are capable of developing a niche market at best. The long term economic vaibility of the MLS is dependant on a formula based on slow and steady growth and the owners have been very responsible in that regard since the inception of the league...

100% correct...

Which is why the salary cap increase from of $300k-$400k is another responsible step forward...

Don Garber (love him or hate him) has done an excellent job of "slow & steady wins the race" mentality... The last time around, that wasn't the case, and the league died a quick death because of that...

Carts...

Roogsy
02-12-2010, 10:58 AM
Don't forget baseball.

I actually would prefer to forget thank you very much. :D

Steve
02-12-2010, 11:01 AM
Unfortunately, the apathy towards hockey and footy in the U.S. isn't likely to change dramatically in the foreseeable future. The MLS owners are well aware that most clubs in the league are capable of developing a niche market at best. The long term economic vaibility of the MLS is dependant on a formula based on slow and steady growth and the owners have been very responsible in that regard since the inception of the league...

Right. In the short/medium term the goal of MLS needs to be to be a sellers league. The united states collegiate system actually develops some phenomenal athletes, so if MLS can build that, and build a good developmental system, they can start selling more players for money money, and build a good revenue model based on that (which allows the teams to put more money into development, facilities, coaching, and finally players themselves). If they have a system like that, even teams in locations not suitable for huge support can turn a profit and the league can grow. Sure, in the long term, aim for the stars, but in the medium term, aim for sustainable growth and increased revenue channels.

Beach_Red
02-12-2010, 11:10 AM
I actually would prefer to forget thank you very much. :D

Ha ha, I hear you.

And not having to compete with baseball for fans, sponsors and media in the summer is one reason I think the future of soccer in Canada looks very good right now. Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton - soon Calgary, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Victoria - no other major summer sports. I think it makes a big difference for places like Kansas City or Denver to have to compete with baseball.

olegunnar
02-12-2010, 11:45 AM
Only 13%?

If I were to present a budget tomorrow to our President with a 13% increase on the salary line I'd be kicked out of the room and asked to empty my desk.


I feel bad for the $18K a year players, but in this environment a 13% increase in salary is very very good for the players.

Also lets not forget that these agreements have an expiration date. So if the 13% works well and the league grows, the players can come back in 3 years and will have a better bargaining position the next time around. If the salary number doesn't work, then hasta la vista MLS as we know it. It's better to err on the side of caution in this environment.

What will have a bigger effect on the average salary is how the franchises use this new money. For example if they blow it all this year, then the players whose contract is up next year will be SOL.

Carts
02-12-2010, 12:12 PM
Only 13%?

If I were to present a budget tomorrow to our President with a 13% increase on the salary line I'd be kicked out of the room and asked to empty my desk.


I feel bad for the $18K a year players, but in this environment a 13% increase in salary is very very good for the players.

Also lets not forget that these agreements have an expiration date. So if the 13% works well and the league grows, the players can come back in 3 years and will have a better bargaining position the next time around. If the salary number doesn't work, then hasta la vista MLS as we know it. It's better to err on the side of caution in this environment.

What will have a bigger effect on the average salary is how the franchises use this new money. For example if they blow it all this year, then the players whose contract is up next year will be SOL.

Just speculation here but...

We might even see something along the lines of a 3-year deal, with an option for the Union to re-open negotiations after 2-years...

That's often a concession player unions make in this kind of environment...

If after 2-years, the leagues growth is so large they feel they're being unfairly compensated, they re-open the agreement early...

Either way, its smart, slow and steady growth...

Carts...

Oldtimer
02-12-2010, 01:06 PM
Just speculation here but...

its smart, slow and steady growth...

Carts...

The players see the need for slow growth, too. They realize that they are not a big sport in the U.S. and would prefer to be cautious rather than bankrupt the league.

ag futbol
02-12-2010, 05:42 PM
Ok MLS wants to be conservative, but the flip side here is that quality on the field helps growth off it. This isn’t really a significant step in that direction. I hope the market in four years time is still the one that allows MLS to continue this kind of steady path, because it would really suck to be stuck in port looking at the ass end of the ship. Even amongst the range of potential conservative outcomes, I`d call this very tight fisted.

I was never expecting anything insane but I was hoping they’d address the following:

1) Increase salary enough so that nobody in this league (bench or otherwise) is earning less than 50k. I know guys have signed deals for less, but given the average quality of a player who make low dev money per year, I suggest we avoid it.
2) As somebody else mentioned, increase roster spots so depth can be provided. There are too many guys playing out of position in this league. That hurts on-field quality. It also is pathetic that some teams could not field enough professionals to regularly play 11v11 in practice.

The owners in some ways are too savvy for their own good, as they are failing to realise how things that in would cost them little amounts of money would make a huge difference in the overall product.

olegunnar
02-12-2010, 05:49 PM
1) Increase salary enough so that nobody in this league (bench or otherwise) is earning less than 50k. I know guys have signed deals for less, but given the average quality of a player who make low dev money per year, I suggest we avoid it.
.


The thing is....that's not an item for the CBA...that's an item for each individual team.
The CBA and the league can't tell franchises how much to pay individual players.

If it's true the cap is going to 2.6, with a roster size of 24 players that 108K per player. If you have a DP then you have 2.2 million to pay 23 players...or 96K per player.

No matter what you'll still have GMs that will pay Robert, Robbo, Ricketts, Dero, Guevara etc. etc. 300+ and then be forced to cheap out to fill out the rest of the roster.

Super
02-12-2010, 07:01 PM
Still no word on whether or not we get to have an extra DP, or if DP salaries go towards the cap? That to me is high on the wanted list right now.

ag futbol
02-12-2010, 07:22 PM
The thing is....that's not an item for the CBA...that's an item for each individual team.
The CBA and the league can't tell franchises how much to pay individual players.

There's a league minimum salary set out by the CBA.

CretanBull
02-12-2010, 07:44 PM
Ok MLS wants to be conservative, but the flip side here is that quality on the field helps growth off it. This isn’t really a significant step in that direction. I hope the market in four years time is still the one that allows MLS to continue this kind of steady path, because it would really suck to be stuck in port looking at the ass end of the ship. Even amongst the range of potential conservative outcomes, I`d call this very tight fisted.

I agree. I've heard a lot of people say that expanding the cap by $300k will allow each team to add a star player, but that's not the case at all. A certain portion of that $300k is going to be used on bumping 3-4 players per team to the new league minimum. Another portion is going to be used to expand the roster sizes...even 3 players at the league minimum is probably going to be around $100k. Another portion is going to be used to resign existing players (alot of players are currently without a contract, with teams/agents waiting to see how the new CBA looks before negociating) to modest raises (based on the fact that they were under paid before). In the end, almost all - if not all - of the $300k is going to be used on raising the salary of the lowest paid players, expanding the rosters and resigning existing players.

I understand the desire to play it smart and be conservative, but the league has to recognize an opportunity when it presents itself. Toronto has been a success, Seatle has been a success, without even playing a game Philly has been a success..I'd bet my life that Vancouver will be a success, NY in a new stadium will be a success....we're heading in the right direction and that has to create a new reality for the league. The league can't keep opperating on a model that caters to questionable franchises, it should be looking forward.

The solution isn't to repeat the mistakes of the old NASL, but at the same time the answer isn't to hold back the league and prevent its growth.

rocker
02-12-2010, 07:58 PM
My problem is nobody knows what a good amount would be. It's totally subjective on our parts.

To me, any increase must be completely sustainable. It must be tied to revenue. In other leagues, spending is not necessarily from revenue -- it goes beyond that and owners take $$$ from other businesses. MLS has already had that phase.

A 300K increase is nearly $5 million extra to the league salary budget. I've heard people say they should increase the cap to 3.5 million -- well that's nearly $20 million more per season in costs. I think it's risky to add $20 million to league revenues when you're still only at a 3.5 million cap. If they could get a decent TV contract they could do this. But when you're a gate driven league, $20 million is a heckuva lot more money, even with new teams arriving.

Is the quality increase at 3.5 million going to be enough to draw in the fans who aren't watching MLS at 2.3 million? I'm not sure what that quality level would be. And wouldn't it just inflate salaries for current players? Roster domestic limits mean you're just going to be paying the current pool of Americans and Canadians more. Now, it may draw back some from Europe, but I'm sure a good portion will also just get paid more. So quality won't go up drastically.

CretanBull
02-12-2010, 08:08 PM
^I know what you're saying, but Seatle added more to league revenue than the $2.3 that they're taking out, RSL in their new stadium are adding more than they're taking out, NYRB in their new stadium, Philly etc. are all trending up wards. The new model for the league should reflect that. Instead, we've got a model that's meant to protect the still floundering teams in the league.

Mikey
02-12-2010, 08:42 PM
Having the first 75k of any players income not count against the cap might go a ways further to stopping promising players being lured away by the bright lights and all the rolled herrings you can eat lifestyles of second tier Scandanavian leagues......

jazzy
02-12-2010, 08:56 PM
I was never expecting anything insane but I was hoping they’d address the following:

1) Increase salary enough so that nobody in this league (bench or otherwise) is earning less than 50k. I know guys have signed deals for less, but given the average quality of a player who make low dev money per year, I suggest we avoid it.
2) As somebody else mentioned, increase roster spots so depth can be provided. There are too many guys playing out of position in this league. That hurts on-field quality. It also is pathetic that some teams could field enough professionals to regularly play 11v11 in practice.

The owners in some ways are too savvy for their own good, as they are failing to realise how things that in would cost them little amounts of money would make a huge difference in the overall product.[/quote]

+1...Really important especially #1.....embarrassing realy EG: NANA

James17930
02-12-2010, 10:57 PM
With this minimal increase to the cap, DPs should not count against it. That would in effect double the cap raise and give each team an extra $800,000, which would allow for higher minimum salaries and more mid-level players.

They also need to make sure there's a full 28 man roster with no Developmental players. Rosters are just too small at the moment given all the new competitions many MLS clubs find themselves involved in.

SilverSamurai
02-13-2010, 01:49 AM
I think players under say 45-50k should get subsidized housing and raise the min. salary to 35-40k. The cap limit should be $2.8-3million w/ the DP not counting against the cap.
The basement rate needs to be raised. No players should be worried about not being able to move out in order to pursue a career in footy.

Perhaps also allow players from the academy/reserve team to play in non-league competitions? And/or allow them to call up 3-4 players on a temporary basis, say 2-3times per season at a reduced rate, lets say it costs $5k to call up a player. If he ends up playing he gets a min. rate 6-8k. That player can then be called up 2-4times/season. This also should be used on an emergency basis, unless if the team wants to sign them.
This could be a temp fix to having bigger roster.

Cashcleaner
02-13-2010, 02:28 AM
They should have topped the salary cap at an even 3 million. A 16% increase is still pennies compared to the other top-flight leagues and I don't think it will do much to entice foreign players over to North America and good talent raised here from leaving.

I think Roogsy is right, the players union might have been negotiating too cautiously. If this league wants to make a name for itself, they're going to have to do better than a 2.6 million dollar cap.

As it was mentioned earlier, these baby-step approaches at salaries are too much about helping the teams that just aren't cutting it financially than anything else.

SilverSamurai
02-14-2010, 12:47 AM
Why not do a 50/50 or 60/40 league/team salary split? Say the league cover 2.4million and the teams can spend an extra million. Allow for free agents that are already in the league with say a max 30% cap and let teams trade players w/o league approval. That way the league doesn't over extended itself and teams will have some leeway in negotiating with players within the league.

Have a cap of how much a team can pay players still so that no 1 goes crazy and spends 1million 1 on player, (not including the DP)
Might work?

Keegan
02-15-2010, 05:08 AM
Way more than 20% currently...

Hell, the Leafs, Red Wings, and NY Rangers alone probably generate more than 10-times what the entire MLS does...

A raise to $2.7 (or $2.6 both numbers are floating around) is a very responsible number in terms of steady growth of the league...

Carts....

Really find that hard to believe... the Red Wings don't even sell out every game anymore. Maybe change Red Wings to Blackhawks and that would seem more realistic.

Teams like TFC, Seattle and LA generate a TON of revenue. LA particularly can be seen all over the world thanks to golden balls.

Now I see your point in those 3 teams generating a ton of money... but do you think the Rangers really generate that much more than TFC or LA? The merch for those two clubs is insane... if you looked at sales for a year I'd bet those two clubs sell more than the Rangers do and also like the Rangers charge pricey tickets. I know the NHL is a bigger league but comparing them financially there is no way it is 20 times bigger

trane
02-15-2010, 12:18 PM
^ $2.6 is not enought to put a decent team together. The cap has to be soft. There should be a minimum and a maximum, and with some flexibility to allow those teams with more revenues to spend more.

Shway
02-15-2010, 01:10 PM
^ $2.6 is not enought to put a decent team together. The cap has to be soft. There should be a minimum and a maximum, and with some flexibility to allow those teams with more revenues to spend more.

agreed , they need to eff all the allocation money crap

rocker
02-15-2010, 01:13 PM
^ $2.6 is not enought to put a decent team together. The cap has to be soft. There should be a minimum and a maximum, and with some flexibility to allow those teams with more revenues to spend more.

disagree...i don't want LA and Seattle and NYRB spending more than us and winning more often because of it.

trane
02-15-2010, 01:40 PM
^ First who says they would? Who says that they have more revenues then us? I doubt that they have. But even so, your would rather see 16 very very mediocare teams, and mediocare is being kind. Nah, 2.7 does not buy you a decent back line never mind a decent starting 11. I do not mean CL quality, I mean just a good competitive team on the international level.

Beach_Red
02-15-2010, 01:44 PM
^ First who says they would? Who says that they have more revenues then us? I doubt that they have. But even so, your would rather see 16 very very mediocare teams, and mediocare is being kind. Nah, 2.7 does not buy you a decent back line never mind a decent starting 11. I do not mean CL quality, I mean just a good competitive team on the international level.


I would certainly like to see the salary cap increase but what teams pay their players sometimes has very little to with revenue from fans and more with how much owners are willing to either lose, or disguise in complicated accounting practices over more than one business.

We've been over this so any times and what it's come to is that the people who are willing to invest their own money in soccer in North America will only do it under these conditions - they want a strong league instead of a few strong teams.

Maybe they're wrong, but it's not like there are other investors willing to do it some other way.

Carts
02-15-2010, 01:50 PM
Really find that hard to believe... the Red Wings don't even sell out every game anymore. Maybe change Red Wings to Blackhawks and that would seem more realistic.

Teams like TFC, Seattle and LA generate a TON of revenue. LA particularly can be seen all over the world thanks to golden balls.

Now I see your point in those 3 teams generating a ton of money... but do you think the Rangers really generate that much more than TFC or LA? The merch for those two clubs is insane... if you looked at sales for a year I'd bet those two clubs sell more than the Rangers do and also like the Rangers charge pricey tickets. I know the NHL is a bigger league but comparing them financially there is no way it is 20 times bigger

They're way more than 20-times bigger...

As per NHL compared to MLS revenue...

The MLS will receive $30-million over the next 8-years in TV revenue... That's about $3.75-million a season...

The Maple Leafs, cable deal alone, which is about 60-games, will generate approx $30-million (its higher) this season alone...

In the current NHL CBA, the Maple Leafs must funnel a large percentage of that money into the league, which is then divided to the small market teams...

Remember, that $30-million is for their 'cable games' alone (SportsNet/TSN) in Canada, it doesn't include the millions that CBC pays for national 'broadcast' (over the air) rights & the relatively small amount (compared to other US sports) Versus pays the NHL for American National cable rights - then you have local cable rights...

Neither number includes playoffs...

MLS revenue is a drop in the ocean to NHL revenues...

To put it into an American perspective, NHL revenues are but a couple of bottles of water in the ocean to that of NFL, NBA, MLB, Nascar etc...

Another thing to remember, in the big American sports, tickets sales are the 3rd factor in generating money - and they're a far 3rd place...

1. Television revenue.
2. Corporate Sponsorship (everything from signage to in game crap, to be associated with the franchise in banking etc)
3. Ticket Sales
4. Merchandise (with some teams, merchandise in 3rd. The Oakland Raiders generate more money in merchandise than tickets).

Another thing about the NHL CBA (which I have a copy of here at home) is that even things like sponsorship is shared between teams (often refered to as big market to small market)...

People think that the main obstacle in the NHL's CBA was a salary cap - when in fact the major issue was a taxation on 'out of game' revenue that would help small market clubs & the league... The taxation of revenue of the NY Rangers, Toronto Maple Leafs & Detroit Red Wings alone is higher than the MLS revenue generation...

Carts...

SoccMan
02-15-2010, 02:07 PM
Yes of course I must agree that the NHL generates much much more revenue than than the MLS it's not even close I would imagine without even looking at the numbers. However, if it wasn't for the Canadian teams and Canadian TV, the money generated, I would imagine would be considerably less I'm just venturing a guess. Take away the Canadian teams and Canadian TV and what would the money the NHL generates look like, I would still think the NHL without the Canadian teams and Canadian TV money would still generate much more than the MLS does,however, would it be much much more or would it be just much more. Also lets keep in mind that it cost so much more to operate an NHL team than it does an MLS one just look at what an NHL team has to pay in player salaries compared to the MLS, also what about overhead costs in the NHL compared to the MLS, cost like equipment, travel expenses, arena maintenance, team staff would be so much more in the NHL than MLS. Just simply put it costs so much more to operate an NHL team than it does an MLS one. I think there are more teams in the NHL losing much more money than there are in the MLS, yes there are many teams losing money in the MLS but not the same amount of money that many of these NHL owners are losing.

Oldtimer
02-15-2010, 04:38 PM
Yes of course I must agree that the NHL generates much much more revenue than than the MLS it's not even close I would imagine without even looking at the numbers. However, if it wasn't for the Canadian teams and Canadian TV, the money generated, I would imagine would be considerably less I'm just venturing a guess.

That is true. For example, the Leafs bring in more revenue from merchandising deals than all of the U.S. NHL teams all put together.

Hockey is just not that big in the U.S. while it's huge in Canada.

Carts
02-15-2010, 06:04 PM
That is true. For example, the Leafs bring in more revenue from merchandising deals than all of the U.S. NHL teams all put together.

Hockey is just not that big in the U.S. while it's huge in Canada.

That's not exactly true...

While the Leafs merchandising revenue is extremely impressive, it isn't more than the 24 American based teams combined...

I have the 2008-2009 reported merchandising stats at work and can look it up...

People would be suprised at the revenue generated by some teams. Nothing close to the Leafs, but nothing to be embarrassed about either...

Carts...

J .
02-15-2010, 06:11 PM
The MLS is taking small steps in growing the league. While I was hoping for it to go up to at least 3m, I think the amount will give flexibility to the clubs to increase their payroll, improve salaries, and add more talent.

There are clubs which are still in need of a lower cap like KC, Columbus to name a few that couldnt survive if the cap ballooned up to the 5m neighbourhood.

Smart for the league to take its time in growing, once we are a 20 team league and stable, I think pushing the cap up more aggressively may be a better choice.

CretanBull
02-15-2010, 06:16 PM
I think the obvious teams bring in big money - Detroit, Chicago, NYR etc. along with Pittsburgh (Crosby) and Washington (Ovechkin), but I'm also willing to bet that Carolina, Atlanta (especially minus Kovalchuk now), Florida, Nashville etc. really struggle with merch sales.

What I'd be curious to see is if a player like Stamkos provided a bump in Tampa Bay's merch, or is the team so far off the radar that no one has noticed.

CretanBull
02-15-2010, 06:21 PM
The MLS is taking small steps in growing the league. While I was hoping for it to go up to at least 3m, I think the amount will give flexibility to the clubs to increase their payroll, improve salaries, and add more talent.

I think that point is debateable. Once all the players on the bottom are raised to a new minimum salary, existing players who are currently under paid are given their fair due and the a few more players are brought in to satisfy new roster limits - how much money is really going to be left over to add new talent?

J .
02-15-2010, 06:46 PM
I think that point is debateable. Once all the players on the bottom are raised to a new minimum salary, existing players who are currently under paid are given their fair due and the a few more players are brought in to satisfy new roster limits - how much money is really going to be left over to add new talent?

Probably 1 at most 2.

Stryker
02-17-2010, 10:36 AM
Has there been any mention of how long this new agreement is going to be set for?
If we're going to still have a 2.6 million cap in 2016 then the level of talent across the league will be even lower than it is now.
Which would be pretty hard to stomach.

rocker
02-17-2010, 11:18 AM
Has there been any mention of how long this new agreement is going to be set for?

I've read 3 years.

Carts
02-17-2010, 11:20 AM
Has there been any mention of how long this new agreement is going to be set for?
If we're going to still have a 2.6 million cap in 2016 then the level of talent across the league will be even lower than it is now.
Which would be pretty hard to stomach.

Most reports are for 3-years...

Some even have an option for the CBA to be re-opened after 2-years if there is a significant difference in revenues or (for lack of a better word) expenses...

Carts...