PDA

View Full Version : Will there be a season this year?



mastermixer
03-11-2010, 04:34 PM
People, it's getting down to the wire. Just over two weeks until kickoff and to be honest its hard to get fully hyped with all this strike talk going on.
What do you guys think? Will we get to see the reds play?

TFC Bhoy
03-11-2010, 05:25 PM
I WANT to say yes but I'm nervous. The players have drawn the line with that vote today saying they will strike, but I don't see the league bending too much to them. So I'm really not sure.

I heard something they may be going to a mediator or something, so hopefully they might be able to help. But I am just skeptical.

Just like the saying goes, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

DangerRed
03-11-2010, 05:29 PM
I think the strike's getting likelier by the minute. The league has said the issues are beyond resolving as it stands before the season starts. Hence their willingness to proceed without a new agreement.

My question? What happens to our season tickets/partial packs in the event of a strike? New tickets reissued, a refund, or what?

menefreghista
03-11-2010, 05:41 PM
I predict a short strike, with TFC's first 2 games getting canceled, but no TFC home games will be harmed.

The missed games will have to be rescheduled for a later date.

Red Rat
03-11-2010, 05:51 PM
I think a strike is around the corner and season will begin in May.

rr

Suds
03-11-2010, 06:05 PM
as each day goes by I get a little more concerned

Of course, if there is a work stoppage for a few weeks it's not going to be that big of a deal. The schedule can be changed to accommodate a short stoppage. It will only be an issue if there is a work stoppage for a significant period of time and it results in games being canceled.

sully
03-11-2010, 06:09 PM
I think the season will start as scheduled as the players would be on a stronger position to strike in the middle of the season. Striking then would draw more attention to the players cause as more people would notice it then, and a strike around the time of the World Cup would be more embarrassing to the League.

Red Rat
03-11-2010, 06:13 PM
as each day goes by I get a little more concerned

Of course, if there is a work stoppage for a few weeks it's not going to be that big of a deal. The schedule can be changed to accommodate a short stoppage. It will only be an issue if there is a work stoppage for a significant period of time and it results in games being canceled.
I think that if it goes up to WC time the season is done for.

rr

Whoop
03-11-2010, 06:18 PM
I think the season will start as scheduled as the players would be on a stronger position to strike in the middle of the season. Striking then would draw more attention to the players cause as more people would notice it then, and a strike around the time of the World Cup would be more embarrassing to the League.

Players strike around the World Cup... no one is going to care. It would get lost among the NBA finals, NHL finals, the World Cup and even baseball.

They'll get lost in the shuffle.

If they strike it has to be at the start of the season.

Parkdale
03-11-2010, 06:47 PM
it's not the strike that has power, it's the potential of a strike that gets things done.

you know what I could live with? Strike over the first game of the season (Columbus) and get back to work after that weekend (and in time for Boston)

Super
03-11-2010, 06:54 PM
I think the season will start as scheduled as the players would be on a stronger position to strike in the middle of the season. Striking then would draw more attention to the players cause as more people would notice it then, and a strike around the time of the World Cup would be more embarrassing to the League.

I sure hope not. They better not start the season unless they plan on finishing it. Imagine us, the fans, going to games, only to have the season cancelled. I'll want every dime spent on games, travel, etc. refunded by the players if they do. Oh, and also I won't break if I see them crossing the street ;)

GuelphStorm2007
03-11-2010, 08:11 PM
I predict a short strike, with TFC's first 2 games getting canceled, but no TFC home games will be harmed.

The missed games will have to be rescheduled for a later date.


I agree that will probably be the worst case scenerio . With the game growing in North America a strike/ lockout would be suicide for Mls.I think bothe Players Assocition and the Owners realise that.:canada:

daner90
03-11-2010, 09:40 PM
The question is if there is a short strike which side will cave and go back to work.

I really don't see the League backing down on much based on it's lack of flexibility in terms of keeping the current structure.

MFG1
03-11-2010, 09:45 PM
Go ahead have a strike, I am behind the players on this one, but if it happens I wont have to wait for Mo to make things even worse, it will be the end of the line for me as a fan. Ill waste my money else where this fall. 10 bucks say there will be no refund of any season ticket money as well if there is a strike/season cancelled. it will probably be a credit if anything towards next year blahahahaha, anyone know the legal rights for a season ticket holder in the event of a strike, canceled season????

ensco
03-11-2010, 09:56 PM
Setting a strike date prior to the season opener is a positive development, because it means the players are not pursuing a path designed to inflict maximum damage.

The league said they wouldn't lock the players out. While this had benefit of firming up their legal position vis-a-vis any future challenge to the "single entity", it really strengthened the player's position in the short run, because it gave the players the ability to strike at a time of their choosing.

The players can walk out two weeks into the season, or after the WC break, ie at a point where they could really hurt the league. By going out before the season starts, they minimize the damage to the bran

Redcoe15
03-11-2010, 10:07 PM
:noidea: I haven't got a clue!

Toronto Gunner
03-11-2010, 10:26 PM
I just paid for my boston tickets, so I'm sure as farts going to hope there's a season. and that it starts early. like boston early.

Keystone FC
03-12-2010, 02:57 AM
I think there will be a strike but the question I have is at what point in a strike can a season still be played when an agreement is reached. If the first couple of games are canceled because of a strike then it's okay but can a season be saved when the players are still on th picket line at the end of April?...May?
A short season is better than no season but can the league pull off a 14 match schedule if need be?

Mikey
03-12-2010, 07:52 AM
MLS season or not, there will still be plenty of footie around.

koryo
03-12-2010, 08:36 AM
As much as I don't want to see a strike, I think the players are in the right if they do strike. This league has to change if it is to survive.

And yes, I think there will be a strike.

Brooker
03-12-2010, 08:51 AM
:noidea: I haven't got a clue!

that makes 2 of us. :D

Blazer
03-12-2010, 09:00 AM
Professional soccer in North America (MLS) doesn’t yet have the security that fans will return so they’d better do everything in their power to avert a strike. Look what happened to baseball – a sport that America has called their pastime for generations. Soccer here doesn’t have that luxury (loyalty).

Dave67
03-12-2010, 10:01 AM
/\ I am one of those ex baseball fans. In my opinion the baseball players were overpaid. Then they went on strike for even more money. Fans became disenchanted because fans did not want to spend their hard earned money so the players could have even more than the huge salaries they were already getting.

I believe the MLS players situation is different. Many of these guys are not paid enough to realistically live in the cities they need to play in. Even the $80 odd thousand dollar median is barely enough for a guy to move his family to Toronto and live on.

I'm fully behind the players on this one. I have waited ages for good soccer and a good soccer environment to come to Toronto. A player strike is not going to send me packing, not this time, not like it did with baseball. When they come back I will be ready and waiting.

Gazza_55
03-12-2010, 10:17 AM
Players strike around the World Cup... no one is going to care. It would get lost among the NBA finals, NHL finals, the World Cup and even baseball.

They'll get lost in the shuffle.

If they strike it has to be at the start of the season.

And it won't get lost among March Madness, start of the MLB, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs?

Gazza_55
03-12-2010, 10:20 AM
/\ I am one of those ex baseball fans. In my opinion the baseball players were overpaid. Then they went on strike for even more money. Fans became disenchanted because fans did not want to spend their hard earned money so the players could have even more than the huge salaries they were already getting.

I believe the MLS players situation is different. Many of these guys are not paid enough to realistically live in the cities they need to play in. Even the $80 odd thousand dollar median is barely enough for a guy to move his family to Toronto and live on.

I'm fully behind the players on this one. I have waited ages for good soccer and a good soccer environment to come to Toronto. A player strike is not going to send me packing, not this time, not like it did with baseball. When they come back I will be ready and waiting.

Name for me the players on our squad that are underpaid? Nana and that's about it. Meanwhile we have several that are overpaid including 2 guys (Garcia & Barrett) who shouldn't even be playing professional football.

billyfly
03-12-2010, 10:46 AM
If there is no season will it count against Mo's 5 year plan?

rocker
03-12-2010, 10:52 AM
anybody hear any leaks yet about what the players are demanding, what the owners have offered, and what has been agreed on in principle?

i can't pick a side without knowing what the sides are proposing.
if the players were saying "we want complete free agency and fully guaranteed contracts for all" i could not support their strike. if the owners wouldn't give in on anything at all, then I could not support that position either.

The union has come out and complained, but they haven't said exactly what they are fighting against/for.

menefreghista
03-12-2010, 10:53 AM
if the players were saying "we want complete free agency and fully guaranteed contracts" i could not support their strike.

Not sure what's unreasonable about those demands.

Dave67
03-12-2010, 11:27 AM
Name for me the players on our squad that are underpaid? Nana and that's about it. Meanwhile we have several that are overpaid including 2 guys (Garcia & Barrett) who shouldn't even be playing professional football.

The real question is are they paid well enough to move a family here?

Sam Cronin? Brian Edwards? Stephan Frei? Gabe Gala? Nana? Gomez.. the list goes on.

I'd say more than half our team does not really make enough money to actually live in the city they play in.

* For the sake of debate. Take a guy like Frei. I think he is on about $110K this year. Would you say that is enough money for a professional athlete to live on in a city like Toronto? Remember these guys have a relatively short time to earn their living. So they need to make enough for now and enough for their future out of pro sports.

How do you propose MLS retain good players if you really feel a median wage of around the current $88K or so is good enough?

ManUtd4ever
03-12-2010, 11:45 AM
/\ I am one of those ex baseball fans. In my opinion the baseball players were overpaid. Then they went on strike for even more money. Fans became disenchanted because fans did not want to spend their hard earned money so the players could have even more than the huge salaries they were already getting.

I believe the MLS players situation is different. Many of these guys are not paid enough to realistically live in the cities they need to play in. Even the $80 odd thousand dollar median is barely enough for a guy to move his family to Toronto and live on.

I'm fully behind the players on this one. I have waited ages for good soccer and a good soccer environment to come to Toronto. A player strike is not going to send me packing, not this time, not like it did with baseball. When they come back I will be ready and waiting.

I agree. Although a prolonged strike would cause irreparable damage I believe the MLS players union has a legitimate beef, unlike situations that arose in MLB and the NHL in the past...

Gazza_55
03-12-2010, 11:47 AM
The real question is are they paid well enough to move a family here?

Sam Cronin? Brian Edwards? Stephan Frei? Gabe Gala? Nana? Gomez.. the list goes on.

I'd say more than half our team does not really make enough money to actually live in the city they play in.

Are you kidding me? Cronin and Frei are GA. Cronin made $84k and Frei $120k in 2009. Are you telling me you can't live in Toronto on that? I lived in Toronto for 6 years and never made more than $35k.

Edwards made $48k and Gomez made $41k as back-ups. $40,000 to sit on the bench and travel all over North America. Gabe Gala is not good enough to be making more than $20k. I agree Nana deserves more and he will get more as soon as his contract expires or before if Mo gets his crap together. Chris Pontius for DC got a big raise after one year.

Gazza_55
03-12-2010, 11:50 AM
The real question is are they paid well enough to move a family here?

Sam Cronin? Brian Edwards? Stephan Frei? Gabe Gala? Nana? Gomez.. the list goes on.

I'd say more than half our team does not really make enough money to actually live in the city they play in.

* For the sake of debate. Take a guy like Frei. I think he is on about $110K this year. Would you say that is enough money for a professional athlete to live on in a city like Toronto? Remember these guys have a relatively short time to earn their living. So they need to make enough for now and enough for their future out of pro sports.

How do you propose MLS retain good players if you really feel a median wage of around the current $88K or so is good enough?

Are they not allowed to work another job after their soccer career is over? I have never heard of that rule.

Dave67
03-12-2010, 11:57 AM
Are they not allowed to work another job after their soccer career is over? I have never heard of that rule.

Ha ha - well lets just disagree on this one. I want MLS to grow into a league of stellar players. $88K a year won't do it. I don't know where you lived and raised a family in Toronto on $35K a year. Must have been interesting.

Gazza_55
03-12-2010, 12:08 PM
Ha ha - well lets just disagree on this one. I want MLS to grow into a league of stellar players. $88K a year won't do it. I don't know where you lived and raised a family in Toronto on $35K a year. Must have been interesting.

I didn't raise a family in Toronto. Sam Cronin, Brian Edwards, Nana, etc are not raising families in Toronto. It was me for 2 years then it was me and my wife. It was at Yonge & Eglinton.

We don't disagree on players salaries because I also think they should be paid more. The Salary Cap should be $5m in my opinion but not to the players we have on our current roster. Paying Gabe Gala $190k instead of $20k and guaranteeing his contract will not make him a better. It will make him Nick Garcia.

Dave67
03-12-2010, 12:18 PM
I didn't raise a family in Toronto. Sam Cronin, Brian Edwards, Nana, etc are not raising families in Toronto. It was me for 2 years then it was me and my wife. It was at Yonge & Eglinton.

We don't disagree on players salaries because I also think they should be paid more. The Salary Cap should be $5m in my opinion but not to the players we have on our current roster. Paying Gabe Gala $190k instead of $20k and guaranteeing his contract will not make him a better. It will make him Nick Garcia.

I agree. For the cap to go to higher it sounds like we need the current group of MLS players to stand up and demand more. Which looks like it means strike.

Ultimately the guys striking may put themselves out of work because the teams will be able to afford better players. Just another good reason to support the players if they strike.

Blazer
03-12-2010, 01:11 PM
/\ I am one of those ex baseball fans. In my opinion the baseball players were overpaid. Then they went on strike for even more money. Fans became disenchanted because fans did not want to spend their hard earned money so the players could have even more than the huge salaries they were already getting.

I believe the MLS players situation is different. Many of these guys are not paid enough to realistically live in the cities they need to play in. Even the $80 odd thousand dollar median is barely enough for a guy to move his family to Toronto and live on.

I'm fully behind the players on this one. I have waited ages for good soccer and a good soccer environment to come to Toronto. A player strike is not going to send me packing, not this time, not like it did with baseball. When they come back I will be ready and waiting.

Not entirely true.

Players weren’t demanding money so much as they were just opposing the idea of a salary cap in baseball that they felt (MLBPA) wasn’t equitable for all. Whether you chose to believe it was a players only issue, I suppose depends on how you view labour negotiations and the workers’ rights that are involved. They exercised their rights like any unionized labour association so to say it was their fault would be a miscalculation in my opinion.

From Wiki:
"The Union basically doesn’t trust the Ownership because collusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_collusion) was a $280 million theft by Bud Selig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Selig) and Jerry Reinsdorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Reinsdorf) of that money from the players. I mean, they rigged the signing of free agents. They got caught. They paid $280 million to the players. And I think that’s polluted labor relations in baseball ever since it happened. I think it’s the reason Fehr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Fehr) has no trust in Selig."[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994%E2%80%9395_Major_League_Baseball_strike#cite_ note-0)

Although I agree with just about everything else you've posted. I think in the end it was the players who believed that they were the ones being targeted for a lack of responsible spending habits on the behalf of the respective owners and the league officials (Selig et al) who allowed for it to go on for as long as it did with collusion deep within.

torontocelt
03-12-2010, 01:19 PM
Ha ha - well lets just disagree on this one. I want MLS to grow into a league of stellar players. $88K a year won't do it. I don't know where you lived and raised a family in Toronto on $35K a year. Must have been interesting.

The MLS is most definitely a mixed bag, there are some good players and then there are some average players and also some down right crap players. I cannot ever forsee the MLS having teams full of great players, the market does not seem to be there for it and no player in their right mind would pick here over Europe if they had a chance to play at a good level. The MLS should primarily be a feeder league for Europe and help build and showcase North American and perhaps some South American players who have potential but have fallen through the cracks. The mixture of producing young, talented North Americans with South / Central American flair should provide dividends for the play on the pitch. Some of the players in the MLS are simply not worthy of wages of $88k a year, realistically some of them are no better than part timers in Scotland who have another job to suppliment their football career.

Dave67
03-12-2010, 01:57 PM
Not entirely true.


To me the fans perception = reality. The fans left in droves after that strike. Just my opinion, but I think fans left because they were angry at the players. That and the Expos were screwed out of a World Series.

Anyway I should not keep taking this off topic. I think there will be a season this year, but it will be delayed in starting.

TorCanSoc
03-12-2010, 02:07 PM
Its a world cup year. MLS could fold up shop for a year, and no one would notice. Most of teams in the league would save themselves from another year of losses.

If the U.S. does well in the worldcup it will help MLS. If MLS players strike, and U.S. bombs out in the first two games of the W.C., say goodbye MLS.

Huyton
03-12-2010, 02:30 PM
You only have to see what a strike did to the Blue Jays. They went from being a perennial powerhouse, labelled by Baseball Weekly as "Damned Blue Jays", to as ordinary a team as it's possible to get.

Look at the average attendance figures before and after the baseball strike (August, 1994 to April, 1995) for the Jays:
1990 SkyDome 47,966
1991 SkyDome 49,402
1992 SkyDome 49,732
1993 SkyDome 50,098
1994 SkyDome 49,287
1995 SkyDome 39,257
1996 SkyDome 31,600
1997 SkyDome 31,967
1998 SkyDome 30,300
1999 SkyDome 26,710
2000 SkyDome 21,058
2001 SkyDome 23,690
2002 SkyDome 20,209
2003 SkyDome 22,215
2004 (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/charts/attendance-al/attendance-al2004.shtml) SkyDome 23,457
2005 SkyDome 24,724

Can the same thing happen league wide in the event of an MLS strike?

I hope not.

But it would help TFC's front office with a big problem: the waiting list!

Toronto_Bhoy
03-12-2010, 03:42 PM
Just got an email from TFC:
Just Two Weeks To Go!
Till the Strike/Lockout?

Gixmo
03-12-2010, 04:12 PM
^^^ Of course you will get that, The Team wants the seats filled on Day1 obviously in the event there is no strike.

Blazer
03-13-2010, 08:23 AM
To me the fans perception = reality. The fans left in droves after that strike. Just my opinion, but I think fans left because they were angry at the players. That and the Expos were screwed out of a World Series.

Anyway I should not keep taking this off topic. I think there will be a season this year, but it will be delayed in starting.

Fans left because they were mad, yes. Not because the players were asking for more money, but because they were not willing to settle for what they thought was a raw deal in the end. Baseball’s Expos fans were one bad reason away from not supporting that team anyway. A strike only expedited what was bound to happen after years of consecutive failure on the diamond. MLB has always found ways to cover up scandals that otherwise were instigated by their own league officials.

Blazer
03-13-2010, 08:26 AM
You only have to see what a strike did to the Blue Jays. They went from being a perennial powerhouse, labelled by Baseball Weekly as "Damned Blue Jays", to as ordinary a team as it's possible to get.

Look at the average attendance figures before and after the baseball strike (August, 1994 to April, 1995) for the Jays:
1990 SkyDome 47,966
1991 SkyDome 49,402
1992 SkyDome 49,732
1993 SkyDome 50,098
1994 SkyDome 49,287
1995 SkyDome 39,257
1996 SkyDome 31,600
1997 SkyDome 31,967
1998 SkyDome 30,300
1999 SkyDome 26,710
2000 SkyDome 21,058
2001 SkyDome 23,690
2002 SkyDome 20,209
2003 SkyDome 22,215
2004 (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/charts/attendance-al/attendance-al2004.shtml) SkyDome 23,457
2005 SkyDome 24,724

Can the same thing happen league wide in the event of an MLS strike?

I hope not.

But it would help TFC's front office with a big problem: the waiting list!

Somewhat deceiving.

The years when attendance was highest, we had our best teams on the diamond so naturally the attendance is going to inflate. The drop-off (lockout) season marred attendance all over the league, not just us – but I get what you’re saying with respect to MLS attendance all around the league’s respective cities and how we can expect (if its even possible?!) to see even smaller crowds.

Menelaos
03-13-2010, 08:55 AM
It is great to say that Edwards made 'x' amount of money sitting on a bench, but how much do you think MLSE made not even sitting on that bench?

There is no reason whatsoever why a professional athlete in Toronto should have to look down the street and find 18 year olds pushing a little puck with a stick making more money in 1 year than they will make in their career in the MLS.

T.O TILL I DIE
03-13-2010, 02:34 PM
im really depressed lol :( :(
someone buy me a beer

rocker
03-13-2010, 03:08 PM
i can only speak for myself, but I lost interest in hockey after the hockey labour dispute. I was addicted to hockey before... but it was just out of habit. Once the crack was gone for a year, I realized I didn't need it and I found other sports of interest. Now I don't watch the Leafs at all. I just don't care.

koryo
03-13-2010, 03:27 PM
i can only speak for myself, but I lost interest in hockey after the hockey labour dispute. I was addicted to hockey before... but it was just out of habit. Once the crack was gone for a year, I realized I didn't need it and I found other sports of interest. Now I don't watch the Leafs at all. I just don't care.

That's precisely what happened with me as well. Started watching the Leafs in 1981, stopped in 2004 and don't plan on starting again.

Roogsy
03-15-2010, 03:15 PM
I stopped watching baseball for good after the MLB strike.

I didn't stop watching but did lose some interest in the NHL after the lock-out.

I fear for what would happen if there was a lost MLS season.

And for the record, while many owners may save themselves "losses" this year, they are also fully aware that they'd be throwing away years of investment in soccer in North America instead of seeing this thing through. Nobody wants to start from scratch all over and endure years of losses again, especially on the precipice of teams beginning to make money. The players aren't the only ones who have a vested interest in seeing the league start on time and capitalize on the World Cup fever that will hit this summer.

InDa_110
03-15-2010, 03:28 PM
i can only speak for myself, but I lost interest in hockey after the hockey labour dispute. I was addicted to hockey before... but it was just out of habit. Once the crack was gone for a year, I realized I didn't need it and I found other sports of interest. Now I don't watch the Leafs at all. I just don't care.


Very Good Point.

MLS knows they are not an addictive product like hockey in Canada and baseball in the U.S. and people got off those drugs in huge numbers after their labour disputes.

THERE WILL NOT BE A STRIKE!!

Strikes/lockouts occur to improve either labour or sometimes managements position in a business under the assumption that the business will continue once agreements are reached. This is simply not the case with this soccer league.

T.O TILL I DIE
03-15-2010, 03:40 PM
i cant wait to read a post that says the strike is over!!
im sure alot more poeple cant wait eaither

ag futbol
03-15-2010, 09:49 PM
Strikes/lockouts occur to improve either labour or sometimes managements position in a business under the assumption that the business will continue once agreements are reached. This is simply not the case with this soccer league.
You really think this league would shut down after a strike of how long? 1/4 season, 1/2 season, full-season?

Remember Don Garber the used car salesman criss crossing the globe over the last three years hawking MLS and all it's success. Smart people actually bought into that. This is all going to be blow up by a strike? I doubt it.

Is there anybody out there actually willing to argue that some more liberal rules and levels of spending aren't in order?

TFCtoMUFC
03-15-2010, 10:29 PM
Somewhat deceiving.

The years when attendance was highest, we had our best teams on the diamond so naturally the attendance is going to inflate. The drop-off (lockout) season marred attendance all over the league, not just us – but I get what you’re saying with respect to MLS attendance all around the league’s respective cities and how we can expect (if its even possible?!) to see even smaller crowds.

Don't forget the Clemens years, attendance was still 10,000 lower.

menefreghista
03-16-2010, 09:18 AM
Financially, MLB is probably stronger than ever.

Even the NHL is doing well, except for in the US southern belt. But that was probably going to happen strike or no strike.

When the NHL came back from the strike their ratings and fan excitement actually went up (in Canada). Sure, some people may have vowed to stop watching, but overall that didn't happen.

Steve
03-16-2010, 09:31 AM
The real question is are they paid well enough to move a family here?

Sam Cronin? Brian Edwards? Stephan Frei? Gabe Gala? Nana? Gomez.. the list goes on.

I'd say more than half our team does not really make enough money to actually live in the city they play in.

* For the sake of debate. Take a guy like Frei. I think he is on about $110K this year. Would you say that is enough money for a professional athlete to live on in a city like Toronto? Remember these guys have a relatively short time to earn their living. So they need to make enough for now and enough for their future out of pro sports.

How do you propose MLS retain good players if you really feel a median wage of around the current $88K or so is good enough?

Right but, you see, that isn't what the players are even fighting for. If the players had drawn a line in the sand and said "We demand minimum wage increases, for developmental players to make 40k, and the league minimum for senior players to be 60k, and for the cap to increase to permit this without taking money away from other players" I would have been behind them. In fact, I would wager the MLS ownership group would have been HAPPY to give this concession, and the new CBA would have been signed months ago. I still hope the players will fall back on this.

No, the problem is much bigger than that. The problem is the players are demanding free agency. That might seem fine to most people here (I mean, since there is a cap, the costs won't go up at all!) but it is actually a huge problem. The least of the issues is it will drive relative costs up. That is to say, we'll be paying more for the same players, which means the quality of the league will go down. The ownership group would probably be OK with that, since they could raise the cap accordingly, spend a little more money, and still get a good return.

The bigger problem is single entity. MLS has already been challenged in court over the single entity structure of the league. They won that time. If they implement free agency, single entity will take a huge blow. That means that, next time MLS is challenged, a court could very well strike down the single entity nature of MLS and essentially declare each team a separate competing entity. The result of that would be less stability, and more costs, for the league (and a limited ability to control costs, as at that point owners getting together to agree on certain things becomes anti-competitive and illegal). Let's face it, most ownership groups got into the game because they saw a good, safe, investment. They saw a league that knew how to grow slowly enough to maintain stability. They saw a league that knew how, and had the structure in place to, strictly control costs in the beginning to ensure a profitable and stable league in the future. Take out the single entity nature of the league, and not only will you get far fewer interested investors, but many current investors will be looking to get out (by selling or by writing off their investment and letting their team fold). Sorry, but the league just isn't popular enough yet in the US to let go of their holds. I hate to say it, but the players have made a huge misstep here. They should have pushed to sign a one year CBA, and continue on one year CBAs until the league is in a position to give them what they want. As it is now, the owners might not be bluffing, they might be looking at their financials and saying "well, either we keep single entity, or I walk away", which means the players will never get what they asked for, they will only get a welfare check and a defunct league.

Super
03-16-2010, 12:23 PM
I'm not sure I buy the financial argument as made above. There are TONS of leagues around the world with far less money in rotation than the MLS, and somehow they've managed just fine. Perhaps clubs will just have to work a little harder for their money instead of relying on other clubs to pay their bills. That would be a great way to improve on the overall strength of the league. Also, the USL doesn't have the same restrictions as in the MLS - and they too have been doing just fine. Their only problem is that they do not get the same kind of respect - but maybe if they did, and if they had clubs in every major city, they'd be far healthier than the MLS is today. Certainly the MLS is the number one problem the USL/NASL is facing today - being labelled as second best.

And finally, I don't want investors looking to make a quick buck in the MLS. I want football people. Far too many business people in this league, and they have ZERO interest in the quality of the product - or even winning. As long as they make money then they couldn't care less about the fans, the sport, or the culture itself. Robert Kraft is a good example of that. A good example of the opposite is Drew Carey!

Gordo113
03-16-2010, 12:39 PM
There is a lot at stake this season, there are several people who have been season ticket holders since day one like myself who have decided not to renew their seats. The new grass will limit the other events that can take place such as Lacrosse and possible concerts. There is the parade on warriors day that will see many including myself setting a trail across the new grass:drum:. The money that will be lost to the clubs and vendors will be very high. This needs to be settled qucikly and provide our players with more control over their selected careers.

:scarf:

menefreghista
03-16-2010, 12:57 PM
The new grass will limit the other events that can take place such as Lacrosse and possible concerts.

The Lacrosse team has already moved to Lamport for this season and I doubt we will ever see another concert at BMO Field. There's a perfectly good outdoor concert venue across the Lakeshore. Not sure why anyone would have a concert at BMO Field.

Steve
03-16-2010, 01:53 PM
I'm not sure I buy the financial argument as made above. There are TONS of leagues around the world with far less money in rotation than the MLS, and somehow they've managed just fine. Perhaps clubs will just have to work a little harder for their money instead of relying on other clubs to pay their bills. That would be a great way to improve on the overall strength of the league. Also, the USL doesn't have the same restrictions as in the MLS - and they too have been doing just fine. Their only problem is that they do not get the same kind of respect - but maybe if they did, and if they had clubs in every major city, they'd be far healthier than the MLS is today. Certainly the MLS is the number one problem the USL/NASL is facing today - being labelled as second best.

And finally, I don't want investors looking to make a quick buck in the MLS. I want football people. Far too many business people in this league, and they have ZERO interest in the quality of the product - or even winning. As long as they make money then they couldn't care less about the fans, the sport, or the culture itself. Robert Kraft is a good example of that. A good example of the opposite is Drew Carey!

Football people is a mixed blessing. In the short term, having "football people" means you have owners willing to invest without getting a return. That's all well and good, but what happens when you run out of billionaires willing to lose money on a team? By having business people you ensure the league is run with an eye on profit which, in the long term, means a league that will be stable for longer. It means that even if one investor goes bankrupt, or gets bored, or needs to suddenly divest for any number of reasons, you will be able to sell that franchise to a new investor because you have a history of profitability to show them. If the team is saddled with debt, or has lost money hand over fist for years, how many people do you think would be interested in acquiring it?

InDa_110
03-16-2010, 05:34 PM
You really think this league would shut down after a strike of how long? 1/4 season, 1/2 season, full-season?

Remember Don Garber the used car salesman criss crossing the globe over the last three years hawking MLS and all it's success. Smart people actually bought into that. This is all going to be blow up by a strike? I doubt it.

Is there anybody out there actually willing to argue that some more liberal rules and levels of spending aren't in order?


Smart people? Risk takers bought into this league.


The sad reality is that this product really sucks that bad, and a strike of anything more than 1/4 season will cost fans, sponsors, tv audiences that yes this league will be hit so hard that it sinks very soon after that.
That why I believe this strike will not happen.

Super
03-16-2010, 06:24 PM
Football people is a mixed blessing. In the short term, having "football people" means you have owners willing to invest without getting a return. That's all well and good, but what happens when you run out of billionaires willing to lose money on a team? By having business people you ensure the league is run with an eye on profit which, in the long term, means a league that will be stable for longer. It means that even if one investor goes bankrupt, or gets bored, or needs to suddenly divest for any number of reasons, you will be able to sell that franchise to a new investor because you have a history of profitability to show them. If the team is saddled with debt, or has lost money hand over fist for years, how many people do you think would be interested in acquiring it?

Yes, you're right that it's important to have owners with good business sense. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive, though. Someone who has a passion for football, and yet want to protect the product by being fiscally responsible - that's the ultimate ideal. I don't really think that's the case with most owners in this league. TFC as an example is not run by a single person with a background in football - period. Their profits are MASSIVE - and even with a significant lift in the salary cap, or even getting rid of it, MLSE would continue to make a profit. It's a well run club - period.

Get rid of the salary cap and force upon clubs to show fiscal transparency to the league - who could then veto spending if things go out of control. That's a semi-controlled situation that would work much better for this league. But as business goes, you're not going to succeed unless you're willing to take chances. As the old saying goes: Who dares wins!

rocker
03-16-2010, 08:06 PM
Football people is a mixed blessing. In the short term, having "football people" means you have owners willing to invest without getting a return. That's all well and good, but what happens when you run out of billionaires willing to lose money on a team? By having business people you ensure the league is run with an eye on profit which, in the long term, means a league that will be stable for longer. It means that even if one investor goes bankrupt, or gets bored, or needs to suddenly divest for any number of reasons, you will be able to sell that franchise to a new investor because you have a history of profitability to show them. If the team is saddled with debt, or has lost money hand over fist for years, how many people do you think would be interested in acquiring it?

True... in Europe they can afford to dump a team due to administration because so many want to come up. Last time MLS dumped a team it was a near-death experience for the league.

The great thing about single entity has been it's ability to weather the fickle nature of ownership, economic problems, etc. "All for one" as they say. :)

Beach_Red
03-16-2010, 08:07 PM
Yes, you're right that it's important to have owners with good business sense. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive, though. Someone who has a passion for football, and yet want to protect the product by being fiscally responsible - that's the ultimate ideal. I don't really think that's the case with most owners in this league. TFC as an example is not run by a single person with a background in football - period. Their profits are MASSIVE - and even with a significant lift in the salary cap, or even getting rid of it, MLSE would continue to make a profit. It's a well run club - period.

Get rid of the salary cap and force upon clubs to show fiscal transparency to the league - who could then veto spending if things go out of control. That's a semi-controlled situation that would work much better for this league. But as business goes, you're not going to succeed unless you're willing to take chances. As the old saying goes: Who dares wins!


Or even just raise the cap - set the level at what the most profitable team can spend, find a way to tie the expenditures to the revenue of the team. I can understand owners not wanting to get into a league with billioniares willing to lose money for the sake of their egos - it's bad business and it will keep good businesspeople away.

But it's time for soccer to try and go big-time. It will either work or it will fail (to be honest, the more I read this board the more I think soccer will fail in the USA - it really does seem like too foreign a culture - but it could be very successful in Canada).