PDA

View Full Version : Today's News,Tuesday,March.16



denime
03-16-2010, 05:32 AM
Mornin'


MLS at a turning point (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/mls-at-a-turning-point/article1501286/)


TFC fans, not all is bad (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Wheeler/2010/03/15/13232261-qmi.html)


Toronto FC sends Gerba home (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/03/15/sp-soccer-gerba.html)


Major League Soccer strike? Ten days to go until kickoff or... (http://www.examiner.com/x-413-Seattle-Soccer-Examiner%7Ey2010m3d15-Major-League-Soccer-strike-Ten-days-to-go-until-kickoff-or)


MLS contract rules detrimental to players (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=756341&sec=mls&root=mls&cc=5901)[/B]



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

Stouffville_RPB
03-16-2010, 06:23 AM
So players are complaining that they want gaurenteed contracts in the CBA, here is one for the owners. Gerba, Garcia and Barrett aren't exactly ringing endorsements as to why players should be given this.

mastermixer
03-16-2010, 06:35 AM
So players are complaining that they want gaurenteed contracts in the CBA, here is one for the owners. Gerba, Garcia and Barrett aren't exactly ringing endorsements as to why players should be given this.

This is exactly why they need to raise the cap so they can give guaranteed contracts to players that deserve it instead of watered down talent we do now

Stouffville_RPB
03-16-2010, 06:38 AM
^ But if gaurenteed contracts aren't the norm why give them out to these guys? It seems that management isn't capable of deciding who deserves to be gaurenteed and if that is the case all you do is handicap yourself down the road when you can't release these guys.

[NBF]
03-16-2010, 06:38 AM
SSG: :hump:


MLS Contracts Detrimental To Players:

Geeeezus Christ!

Freddie Ljundberg is the MLS version of Bo Jackson, he can do everything and still play on the field.

Wish we still had a player like that.........shit:facepalm:

Ali Gerba sent Home:

Ok, now thats bad, because we didn't even send Collin Samuel home.

I like one of the comments in this article:



Man... I forgot how absolutely brutal that trade for Gerba ended up going down. Not only did they bring in the on-pitch comedian Ali G, but also ended up bringing in the absolutely worst defender I've ever seen play in Garcia. If Preki can send Ali home, he damn well better send Nick home too. Garcia is by far the greater liability than Gerba, at least Gerba doesn't have to defend so his incompetence doesn't quite go as far.


^Fucking beautiful

CretanBull
03-16-2010, 06:46 AM
So players are complaining that they want gaurenteed contracts in the CBA, here is one for the owners. Gerba, Garcia and Barrett aren't exactly ringing endorsements as to why players should be given this.

So players shouldn't be given guaranteed contracts because GMs offer stupid contracts? All of the contracts that you listed were signed at a time when 100% of the power was in the GM's hands - they had to take what they were given or get nothing at all. You're pointing out bad decisions made by GMs, not flaws in a system.

Stouffville_RPB
03-16-2010, 06:56 AM
So players shouldn't be given guaranteed contracts because GMs offer stupid contracts? All of the contracts that you listed were signed at a time when 100% of the power was in the GM's hands - they had to take what they were given or get nothing at all. You're pointing out bad decisions made by GMs, not flaws in a system.

How hard would it be for the teams to turn to the payers though and say "we've given gaurenteed contracts but as soon as we do player performance drops".

In all honesty I think that there are things that the league should do for players instead of offering gaurenteed contracts.

CretanBull
03-16-2010, 07:03 AM
How hard would it be for the teams to turn to the payers though and say "we've given gaurenteed contracts but as soon as we do player performance drops".


I don't think that there's any proof of that being true...



In all honesty I think that there are things that the league should do for players instead of offering gaurenteed contracts.

I don't think anyone views guaranteed contracts as the critical issue in the current CBA negociations. Of course the players want them, but I would imagine that free agency, a higher starting wage and a higher salary cap are all far more important.

Stouffville_RPB
03-16-2010, 07:06 AM
I don't think that there's any proof of that being true...

Would you offer Nick Garcia a gaurenteed contract at 250k if he was always this quesionable?

CretanBull
03-16-2010, 07:18 AM
Would you offer Nick Garcia a gaurenteed contract at 250k if he was always this quesionable?

You can't suggest that proformance goes down once a player gets a guaranteed contract based on Nick Garcia. If that's all it took to make a sound arguement, I'd offer that every player should be given a guaranteed contract because Landon Donovan's proformance skyrocketed after he got one.

League wide, I don't think that it can be said that proformance goes down after getting a guaranteed contract. If anything, most of the league's top players have them. There's probably more to the fact that once a player achieves some level of security they're better able to focus on playing soccer.

Offering guaranteed contracts in a salary capped league is potentially dangerous, but it offers the teams as much reward as it presents a risk (you're just as likely to tie down a quality player to an affordable contract as you are to offer big money to a bust). The key is having a competent GM, one who can evaluate a player's worth and have an exit strategy when they get it wrong (ie San Jose forcing us to take Garcia off their hands in order for us to get Gerba's rights).

scooter
03-16-2010, 07:35 AM
mornin d

i wouldnt give anyone a guaranteed contract----earn your place

keem-o-sabi
03-16-2010, 07:36 AM
coed girls 1 (http://coedmagazine.com/2010/03/15/miss-coed-brooke-banx-2/) and 2 (http://coedmagazine.com/2010/03/15/tina-wallman-new-worlds-hottest-australian/) (oh yummy)

spark
03-16-2010, 08:11 AM
Pull up a chair and make sure you have a snack. We've all been ranting, and might seem obvious but certainly it's almost consensus ...

STICK A FORK IN MO, HE'S LONG PAST DONE (http://www.rednationonline.ca/Stick_a_Fork_in_Mo_Hes_Long_Past_Done_mar_16_10_co lumn.shtml)

Parkdale
03-16-2010, 08:31 AM
Pull up a chair and make sure you have a snack. We've all been ranting, and might seem obvious but certainly it's almost consensus ...

STICK A FORK IN MO, HE'S LONG PAST DONE (http://www.rednationonline.ca/Stick_a_Fork_in_Mo_Hes_Long_Past_Done_mar_16_10_co lumn.shtml)


that's a good read right there.

Stouffville_RPB
03-16-2010, 08:31 AM
Pull up a chair and make sure you have a snack. We've all been ranting, and might seem obvious but certainly it's almost consensus ...

STICK A FORK IN MO, HE'S LONG PAST DONE (http://www.rednationonline.ca/Stick_a_Fork_in_Mo_Hes_Long_Past_Done_mar_16_10_co lumn.shtml)


Wait until 2011 and FO gets a look at Vancouver. Then you see the trigger pulled.

It can't be obvious to everyone but FO that Mo really hasn't done much in 3+ years. It just seems like they don't care because the club makes money.

JonO
03-16-2010, 08:33 AM
I don't get the feeling that the guaranteed contracts are as much a sticking point as this (from Ljundberg's article)

One thing for me that is very confusing is what happens after a player's contract is up. I find it amazing that even after your club lets your contract run out without renewing, it still has all the power and still owns the player's rights.

MG42
03-16-2010, 09:06 AM
that's a good read right there.

great article

Roogsy
03-16-2010, 09:22 AM
Guaranteed contracts are necessary because players get let go in the middle of a season and aren't really able to look at their options until the next season rolls around. For a guy like Sutton, that means 6 to 7 months of sitting at home wondering what is going to happen to your future. That's ridiculous. You guys are talking about guaranteed contracts like the players are referring to them for the life of the deal. The players are simply talking about not being able to let players go mid-season! How would you like to get let go from a job and told you really don't have options to look at work until next year?

As for the real sticking point...the free agency issue is imperative in my opinion. If a team doesn't want you, then they shouldn't keep your rights. Every person on this planet should have the right to ply their trade whereever they are wanted. For someone to say "no you can't work" should be illegal. In any industry.

Boris
03-16-2010, 09:23 AM
Guaranteed contracts are necessary because players get let go in the middle of a season and aren't really able to look at their options until the next season rolls around. For a guy like Sutton, that means 6 to 7 months of sitting at home wondering what is going to happen to your future. That's ridiculous. You guys are talking about guaranteed contracts like the players are referring to them for the life of the deal. The players are simply talking about not being able to let players go mid-season! How would you like to get let go from a job and told you really don't have options to look at work until next year?

As for the real sticking point...the free agency issue is imperative in my opinion. If a team doesn't want you, then they shouldn't keep your rights. Every person on this planet should have the right to ply their trade whereever they are wanted. For someone to say "no you can't work" should be illegal. In any industry.

agreed.

I am sure there can be a system put in place where a player wouldnt be left with that sort of uncertainty.

greatwhitenorf
03-16-2010, 09:31 AM
Wow. Paul James article links and scrolls so much faster now that they've dropped his bio.

Gareth Wheeler has some good perspective - it's not all bad with TFC. but not clear what he means when he says moving Marvell Wynne to 'outside right' will pay dividends. Hasn't he always played right back? Is he moving up to midfield? I'd like to see that.

SSG. Pretty woman. Odd outfits and awkwardly posed.

Whoop
03-16-2010, 09:36 AM
I think free agency would be the bigger, easier, thing to deal with than guaranteed contracts.

I know it's a bad example but the NFL has been built on the fact that contracts aren't guaranteed - you essentially can be cut loose whenever a team feels like it. However, if a player is cut he is then a free agent.

For example, Ali Gerba signs a contract, doesn't perform, team cuts him but then he should be free to sign with whoever he wants.

Is that too simple? LOL

CretanBull
03-16-2010, 09:40 AM
Gareth Wheeler has some good perspective - it's not all bad with TFC. but not clear what he means when he says moving Marvell Wynne to 'outside right' will pay dividends. Hasn't he always played right back? Is he moving up to midfield? I'd like to see that.


They've tried using him as a right winger a few times - Carver and Cummins both tried it - and each time it was a horrendous failure. He struggles to run with the ball at his feet, he can't break down a defender 1 vs 1 and he can't cross the ball - basically other than being quick he has none of the skills that a good winger needs to have.

He's at his best playing from the back making over-lapping runs with the right sided midfielder...as long as the midfielder is the one who ends up with the ball in the attacking zone.

Rather than relying on Marvell to defend, the right side of our defensive zone should be seen as a place to play the ball when there isn't a clear outlet pass...just dump the ball to the right side and let Marvell run with it.

Beach_Red
03-16-2010, 09:47 AM
I think free agency would be the bigger, easier, thing to deal with than guaranteed contracts.

I know it's a bad example but the NFL has been built on the fact that contracts aren't guaranteed - you essentially can be cut loose whenever a team feels like it. However, if a player is cut he is then a free agent.

For example, Ali Gerba signs a contract, doesn't perform, team cuts him but then he should be free to sign with whoever he wants.

Is that too simple? LOL

It does sem more in the owners favour to give free agency but not gauaranteed contracts - I'm sure they'd rather let Ali Gerba be a free agent than have to give out 20 guranteed contracts to everyone else.

Though it does say pretty clearly that the owners don't trust each other - and they know each other better than we do ;).

CretanBull
03-16-2010, 09:48 AM
I think free agency would be the bigger, easier, thing to deal with than guaranteed contracts.

I know it's a bad example but the NFL has been built on the fact that contracts aren't guaranteed - you essentially can be cut loose whenever a team feels like it. However, if a player is cut he is then a free agent.

For example, Ali Gerba signs a contract, doesn't perform, team cuts him but then he should be free to sign with whoever he wants.

Is that too simple? LOL


The league doesn't want it because they see it as the first step in underminding their single-entity system. In their view, if players can move from one team to another it's as if the teams are sepparate businesses and not just one MLS business. I don't think they fear player movement, I think they fear that it might lead to the break down of the single-entity system They've already been sued under anti-trust laws in America, they won their case but anything that shows a shift in how the league runs might expose them to another lawsuit where they'd have a weaker case.

Yohan
03-16-2010, 10:12 AM
The league doesn't want it because they see it as the first step in underminding their single-entity system. In their view, if players can move from one team to another it's as if the teams are sepparate businesses and not just one MLS business. I don't think they fear player movement, I think they fear that it might lead to the break down of the single-entity system They've already been sued under anti-trust laws in America, they won their case but anything that shows a shift in how the league runs might expose them to another lawsuit where they'd have a weaker case.
ding ding ding... i think this is the crux of MLS position here

greatwhitenorf
03-16-2010, 10:15 AM
My favorite TFC goal had Wynne playing the ball up to O'Brien, who then chipped a beautiful, back-spun lob down the wing for Marvell to run on to. Wynne then nutmegged a Colorado defender and fired a quick cross for Dichio to knock in.

Sadly, haven't seen a repeat of that. Might be due to not having a winger with O'Brien's deft touches. Still like Wynne, though. Maybe Preki can help him develop more defensive discipline.

Roogsy
03-16-2010, 10:18 AM
The MLS is pretty short-sighted here. There is a way around this that can be pretty simple but they simply don't want to look at options.

If there is anything I have learned in negotiations, it's that there are almost always more than just two options. There are a variety of solutions to the free agency issue without giving the players actual free agency. The issue is that the players want to play and don't want former teams inhibiting them from negotiating with new teams without those new teams fearing having to compensate the old club. So what do you do? Take away forced compensation. Or at the very least, make the compensation required so negligible, clubs won't care. But in the meantime, the fundamental rule hasn't changed much, just how it's put into practice.

There. Free agency solved. As John Hodgman from the Daily Show would say: You're Welcome.

rocker
03-16-2010, 10:19 AM
Players have guaranteed contracts already... not for the whole life of the deal, but many on TFC get it for the first season at least. It's a way to attract players to sign.

Secondly, after July 1 (or is it 15?) all players except a couple are guaranteed for the rest of the season.

Yeah, Sutton was released, but he could have gone to other teams (Montreal) and chose not to. He was released at the time when other leagues around the world are in training camp. He could have gone to many places if he wanted, but he chose not to, probably cuz MoJo gave him a payoff. Even Rohan Ricketts got a payoff. Ricketts has since found no employment except in Hungary, so thank god guaranteed contracts over years aren't typical.

Guaranteed contracts can go both ways, really. They can be good because you lock up a player and nobody can have him but you for 3-4 years. But they can also be a burden. Fans probably shouldn't side with fully guaranteed contracts for the life of the deal because that may ruin a team's salary cap and the potential to improve.

Guaranteed contracts doesn't immediately mean "better league for the fans" is what I'm trying to say.

Whoop
03-16-2010, 10:21 AM
Guaranteed contracts can go both ways, really. They can be good because you lock up a player and nobody can have him but you for 3-4 years. But they can also be a burden. Fans probably shouldn't side with fully guaranteed contracts for the life of the deal because that may ruin a team's salary cap and the potential to improve.


See Maple Leafs, Toronto.

Yohan
03-16-2010, 10:22 AM
The MLS is pretty short-sighted here. There is a way around this that can be pretty simple but they simply don't want to look at options.

If there is anything I have learned in negotiations, it's that there are almost always more than just two options. There are a variety of solutions to the free agency issue without giving the players actual free agency. The issue is that the players want to play and don't want former teams inhibiting them from negotiating with new teams without those new teams fearing having to compensate the old club. So what do you do? Take away forced compensation. Or at the very least, make the compensation required so negligible, clubs won't care. But in the meantime, the fundamental rule hasn't changed much, just how it's put into practice.

There. Free agency solved. As John Hodgman from the Daily Show would say: You're Welcome.
your solution doesn't solve the perceived thing of MLS clubs bidding against each other for a free agent, thus driving up player's salaries

rocker
03-16-2010, 10:23 AM
The league doesn't want it because they see it as the first step in underminding their single-entity system. In their view, if players can move from one team to another it's as if the teams are sepparate businesses and not just one MLS business. I don't think they fear player movement, I think they fear that it might lead to the break down of the single-entity system They've already been sued under anti-trust laws in America, they won their case but anything that shows a shift in how the league runs might expose them to another lawsuit where they'd have a weaker case.

Also, unless the players force the league to sell off each team to the individual operator, true free agency just cannot happen.

Look at it from the players' perspective: if MLS had free agency in a single entity system, how could the players know that they are getting "free" bids from the teams when the final contract is still with MLS?

I don't think it's in the players' rights to force MLS to change its whole business model to give them true free agency. That's totally MLS's prerogative because going to individual ownership would be the most radical change ever in the history of the league. It would affect more than just free agency... changing from single entity changes everything.

The players need to realize that they cannot have free agency in a single entity. Impossible. So they need to accept some other plan (like a waiver system that occurs right when his contract is up). But that's not free agency in a pure sense.

Roogsy
03-16-2010, 10:26 AM
Also, unless the players force the league to sell off each team to the individual operator, true free agency just cannot happen.

Look at it from the players' perspective: if MLS had free agency in a single entity system, how could the players know that they are getting "free" bids from the teams when the final contract is still with MLS?

I don't think it's in the players' rights to force MLS to change its whole business model to give them true free agency. That's totally MLS's prerogative because going to individual ownership would be the most radical change ever in the history of the league. It would affect more than just free agency... changing from single entity changes everything.

The players need to realize that they cannot have free agency in a single entity. Impossible. So they need to accept some other plan (like a waiver system that occurs right when his contract is up). But that's not free agency in a pure sense.

This I agree with.

In the end, the point is that people continue with their ability to work and that is what should matter. If the players are demanding more, they are overplaying their hand.

Beach_Red
03-16-2010, 10:27 AM
your solution doesn't solve the perceived thing of MLS clubs bidding against each other for a free agent, thus driving up player's salaries


No, but the salary cap does.

When the salary cap gets increased it could be a problem - and I'm pretty sure we'd all like to see the salary cap increased - but it shoul be possible to manage it at that point.

CretanBull
03-16-2010, 10:27 AM
^I don't think the players care what it's called or how it works, they just want to be able to sign with a new MLS team if their old one cuts them loose.

Roogsy
03-16-2010, 10:29 AM
your solution doesn't solve the perceived thing of MLS clubs bidding against each other for a free agent, thus driving up player's salaries

It should be allowed to happen. With a cap in place, teams can only bid so high anyways. So what if Serioux gets offers of 125k from one team and 150k from another? That should be allowed. It happens internally at any company anyways, it's not like that will be the death knell for the single-entity structure. Shoot...it happened to me at my previous job. At one point I had 3 offers from different divisions in the bank with 3 different compensation levels. How I decided was up to me, but suffice to say, I didn't pick the highest paying job at all. All players want (or should want) is the ability to choose, and the ability to play. If the MLS can't figure that out, then they are stupid since any other firm in any other industry can make it work, why can't they?

CretanBull
03-16-2010, 10:37 AM
It should be allowed to happen. With a cap in place, teams can only bid so high anyways. So what if Serioux gets offers of 125k from one team and 150k from another? That should be allowed. It happens internally at any company anyways, it's not like that will be the death knell for the single-entity structure. Shoot...it happened to me at my previous job. At one point I had 3 offers from different divisions in the bank with 3 different compensation levels. How I decided was up to me, but suffice to say, I didn't pick the highest paying job at all. All players want (or should want) is the ability to choose, and the ability to play. If the MLS can't figure that out, then they are stupid since any other firm in any other industry can make it work, why can't they?

I'm totally in favour of the players on this issue, but the problem with competitive bids from different MLS teams for the services of a player is that the MLS negociates and signs all the deals.

Say Serioux was a free agent and Houston wanted him and Dallas wanted him. In a single entity system, how does MLS negociate on behalf of Houston while also negociating on behalf of Dallas? How can they represent both sides fairly and equally?

Like I said earlier, I really don't think the league cares about player movement, they just don't want to open any doors that might lead to a break down of the single-entity system and (from their point of view) the issues surrounding free agency are a slippery-slope.

Phil
03-16-2010, 10:42 AM
AEG speak out:

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/mls-labor-dispute-an-owner-strikes-back/8422

Yohan
03-16-2010, 10:46 AM
AEG speak out:

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/mls-labor-dispute-an-owner-strikes-back/8422
summarizing leiweke: yo bitches. be glad that you're getting paid because without me, you'd be starving, yo

Phil
03-16-2010, 10:51 AM
summarizing leiweke: yo bitches. be glad that you're getting paid because without me, you'd be starving, yo

Pretty much bang on.

I dont know, hearing a group that boasts they have spent 300 mil then complain is a bit weak.

I dont like that its getting down to the back and forth, its best if all sides just shut it and get to work on fixing it without impacting the season.

rocker
03-16-2010, 10:54 AM
summarizing leiweke: yo bitches. be glad that you're getting paid because without me, you'd be starving, yo

and the players are like:

Yo, i can't make it in europe but dude, imma all you got! gimme all yo' cash and lemme move around anywhere, or i'll strike and starve yo' baby momma, yo!

S_D
03-16-2010, 10:55 AM
Pull up a chair and make sure you have a snack. We've all been ranting, and might seem obvious but certainly it's almost consensus ...

STICK A FORK IN MO, HE'S LONG PAST DONE (http://www.rednationonline.ca/Stick_a_Fork_in_Mo_Hes_Long_Past_Done_mar_16_10_co lumn.shtml)

oh the irony:



Yes, the team has just 13 full-time roster members




How many excuses can Anselmi buy? "We're just two good players away,";


Now what is the roster cap? :D

Beach_Red
03-16-2010, 11:04 AM
I'm totally in favour of the players on this issue, but the problem with competitive bids from different MLS teams for the services of a player is that the MLS negociates and signs all the deals.

Say Serioux was a free agent and Houston wanted him and Dallas wanted him. In a single entity system, how does MLS negociate on behalf of Houston while also negociating on behalf of Dallas? How can they represent both sides fairly and equally?

Like I said earlier, I really don't think the league cares about player movement, they just don't want to open any doors that might lead to a break down of the single-entity system and (from their point of view) the issues surrounding free agency are a slippery-slope.


Yes, exactly. The fear isn't the players with free agency, it's the owners with free agency. They need the single-entity to keep the owners in line. Open bidding is what ruined every previous start-up league in North America, from the WFL to the USFL.

And you're right, the players don't care what it's called, they just want to be able to sign with another team when one cuts them loose.

S_D
03-16-2010, 11:15 AM
AEG speak out:

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/mls-labor-dispute-an-owner-strikes-back/8422


Don't forget about the corporate shell game that goes on :).

LA Galaxy may not be making money but what about AEG as the overall owner of the Galaxy? Does the Galaxy own the stadium or does AEG? Does AEG charge rent of the stadium to the Galaxy? They sure charge Chivas. Does SUM pay the Galaxy or AEG?

Owners crying poor doesn't wash with me. As I have mentioned before, we already saw their reaction to the Forbes report on the profitablity of soccer. They cry poor when it is convenient.

Yohan
03-16-2010, 11:20 AM
Don't forget about the corporate shell game that goes on :).

LA Galaxy may not be making money but what about AEG as the overall owner of the Galaxy? Does the Galaxy own the stadium or does AEG? Does AEG charge rent of the stadium to the Galaxy? They sure charge Chivas. Does SUM pay the Galaxy or AEG?

Owners crying poor doesn't wash with me. As I have mentioned before, we already saw their reaction to the Forbes report on the profitablity of soccer. They cry poor when it is convenient.
by your account, does the cost of building SSS and training facilities go towards, or against overall profitability of the club? (last i heard, those things aren't cheap, even with govt funding)

S_D
03-16-2010, 11:44 AM
by your account, does the cost of building SSS and training facilities go towards, or against overall profitability of the club? (last i heard, those things aren't cheap, even with govt funding)

Depends on which structure owns it :)

AEG owns the stadium. So construction costs would be in whatever AEG holding company owns it. They may not be cheap, but lets face it when they are renting them out, they don't do it at a loss ;). So the revenue and costs wouldn't be shown in the Galaxy books. Only the rent paid to AEG for the stadium.

AEG tried to do the same thing at Red Bull Park before the partnership collapsed. If i recall correctly, they wanted to partially fund the stadium in return for the rights to manage the stadium. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't have done it.

When the forbes report came out, the Columbus GM or owner (can't remember which one) said the Forbes was way off as it didn't account for the corporate structure. They said that while the team was losing money, overall they were making money, because the holding company that owned the team, had a second company that owned the stadium. The second company was renting out the stadium and making cash from it. As I said.. it is all a shell game.

scooter
03-16-2010, 12:36 PM
^I don't think the players care what it's called or how it works, they just want to be able to sign with a new MLS team if their old one cuts them loose.

i totally agree with that
it is utter bs that an mls team can cut you and you cant go play elsewhere and i know there must be deals made but basically no $$ for player and he cant go play and earn a living wtf

is it the control thing with mls or is it teams paying transfer fees ?

rocker
03-16-2010, 01:20 PM
And you're right, the players don't care what it's called, they just want to be able to sign with another team when one cuts them loose.

I sympathize with them, but of course they can't "sign with another team" under single entity. They have to sign with MLS no matter what.

And they can still be allocated to another team. Kevin Hartman was with KC and now he's with FC Dallas.

Don Julio
03-16-2010, 01:23 PM
The lack of free agency also allows the league to maintain their forced parity (where's my parity?!) by always having the rights to players locked up. i.e. the entire USMT can't just decide to sign for the Revs in the year before the WC to build chemistry (or any other less extreme example).

Roogsy
03-16-2010, 01:33 PM
I sympathize with them, but of course they can't "sign with another team" under single entity. They have to sign with MLS no matter what.

And they can still be allocated to another team. Kevin Hartman was with KC and now he's with FC Dallas.


And that only happened because the team didn't want Hartman out on his ass during CBA negotiations.

You can rest assured Hartman would still be without a job had this not been a CBA year. So the argument doesn't fly.

Yohan
03-16-2010, 01:35 PM
I sympathize with them, but of course they can't "sign with another team" under single entity. They have to sign with MLS no matter what.

And they can still be allocated to another team. Kevin Hartman was with KC and now he's with FC Dallas.
well, Hartmann couldn't agree to contract extension with wizards and was traded to Dallas for 2nd round pick
although, KC didn't too bad getting Jimmy Nielsen as his replacement (former Aalborg keeper)

Stouffville_RPB
03-16-2010, 01:53 PM
they got a 2nd rounder for Hartman and we get 4ths for Robbo and Serioux

Yohan
03-16-2010, 02:04 PM
they got a 2nd rounder for Hartman and we get 4ths for Robbo and Serioux
why compare?

hartmann is still a good MLS keeper that can start for most MLS teams. Robbo and Serioux.... not so much

Phil
03-16-2010, 02:25 PM
hmmm, well something is up because Sounders ownership are talking about it:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundersfcblog/2011358800_sounders_fc_majority_owner_joe.html?syn dication=rss

As well, PaulB has been twittering that the Don has gone for the negotiation meetings. Hopefully something is resolved soon.

Beach_Red
03-16-2010, 02:53 PM
hmmm, well something is up because Sounders ownership are talking about it:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundersfcblog/2011358800_sounders_fc_majority_owner_joe.html?syn dication=rss

As well, PaulB has been twittering that the Don has gone for the negotiation meetings. Hopefully something is resolved soon.


Joe Roth (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005387/) nice to have an owner with a name. Who represents TFC at these meetings?

rocker
03-16-2010, 03:03 PM
And that only happened because the team didn't want Hartman out on his ass during CBA negotiations.

You can rest assured Hartman would still be without a job had this not been a CBA year. So the argument doesn't fly.

Kevin Hartman is not the first player to move teams after being out of contract... (I don't believe that argument about the team thing.. cuz Van Den Burgh is still out on his ass).

It happens all the time. It's not "free agency" but it happens.

That's my point -- that players move around this league regularly, often to the very teams they want to go to.

Colorado told Ty Harden that TFC wanted him, and they asked him if he wanted to go there, and he said "yes." and he went to TFC.

I think if a guy is out of contract they could have some waiver system for him immediately (so his old team doesn't hold him for years without making a deal). They could come up with some rule whereby his last contract value will be his new contract value, and then teams would go into a lottery or something for him. This is the way it works now with some of the kids dispersed by lottery.

Anything more than this is impossible under the current single entity setup and the players better realize that.

I just wish we had more detail on what's been offered/demanded. If the players agreed on everything except they still held out for full free agency and went on strike, I'd tell 'em to get lost because you just can't get full free agency in this league. Don't like single entity? Go to the NASL or Europe or Mexico.

Phil
03-16-2010, 03:13 PM
Joe Roth (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005387/) nice to have an owner with a name. Who represents TFC at these meetings?

As a single entity league, I think the MLS appoints their representatives.

I do find it odd that two strong clubs ownership have made public comments today.

Whoop
03-16-2010, 03:22 PM
Where's Tom Anslemi's comments?

Still, Joe Roth's comments aren't very optimistic.

Beach_Red
03-16-2010, 03:31 PM
Where's Tom Anslemi's comments?

Still, Joe Roth's comments aren't very optimistic.


They do confirm a lot of what we've speculated, though:

He went on to describe MLS as a "baby" league, just 15 years old and with only two profitable teams: Seattle and Toronto. The league's structure, he said, is also what has drawn many of the owners, and their deep pockets, to the league.

So, no salary cap, no single entity, no investors.

It's a little optimistic that he's been through the writer's strike and said, "everyone suffered." Said he's been a part of 3-4 similar situations and all of them ended badly.

It would be great to have an owner like Joe Roth who's been very successful for many years in a very competitive business.

ag futbol
03-16-2010, 05:36 PM
But the thing here is that MLS has to globally compete for talent, NFL does not.

I don't know what the percentage of guaranteed contracts is, if you believe the union, not high. Guaranteeing PART of the contract means nothing if other leagues guarantee full contracts.

Free agents aren't going to stick around this league to be willingly underpaid. That's why guys like William Conde, Chris Rolf, Troy Perkins, go to leagues that are no better, but offered better terms once their deals were done.

Bottom line is that you get what you pay for in an efficient market and because there is plenty of demand out there for guys who can play the game well, MLS is only screwing itself by being tight fisted.

ag futbol
03-16-2010, 05:37 PM
So, no salary cap, no single entity, no investors.

No salary cap, maybe. No single entity, you are taking a huge leap of faith there, because there are plenty of other ways to control costs without this thing being a single entity.

I'm getting tired of this backwards argument linking the league's single entity structure to it's success. If MLSE hadn't stumbled onto an actual business model that worked a couple years ago, MLS would be exactly where it was in the past, in the toilet with a few exceptions.

The bottom line here is that the success in each respective market city in MLS has always boiled down to the following:

1) Infrastructure - ie the stadium, where is it located? is it good to watch the game in?
2) market demographics - vastly different, depending on where you are. Which means some markets have a taste for soccer, some do NOT!
3) business planning - if hunt sports group started toronto FC i guarantee about 5% of the people here. I don't think people understand how poorly some franchises in this league are run. That's why they have no fans, that's why they lose money, and that's why delaying expanding (with no plans to improve these dogs) is just delaying judgement day.

Single entity does not save anybody from any of those things. In fact, under single entity where the league is expanding, the laggers have little incentive to start pulling their weight, because the other half of their investment keeps getting more profitable while they have to contribute very little.

Dunkers
03-16-2010, 05:48 PM
Free agency can exist in a single entity structure. The issue with the players is that once a player is released by a team, that team still holds his rights, and any other team that wants to sign the player must offer some incentive to the team that released him.

If a player is released he should be put in a league pool. While the released player is in the league pool, any other team should be able to claim him by simply agreeing to pay his contact (much like waivers in the NHL). While the player remains in the league pool, his salary would still count towards the teams cap that released him (to prevent teams from just releasing players at will). If a team wishing to sign a player did not want to pay the full salary, they could re-negotiate the contract with the player, if an agreement was reached then the players original salary would be taken away from the releasing teams cap. If the player doesn't want to take a pay cut, he can ride the league pool until his contract expires.

This will help teams sign players from within the league, if they are willing to pay or renegotiate the contact, without having to give concessions to a team that does not want that player. Which I think is the real issue here, even if a player want to play he cannot until the releasing team says he can.

CretanBull
03-16-2010, 06:04 PM
If a player is released he should be put in a league pool. While the released player is in the league pool, any other team should be able to claim him by simply agreeing to pay his contact (much like waivers in the NHL). While the player remains in the league pool, his salary would still count towards the teams cap that released him (to prevent teams from just releasing players at will). If a team wishing to sign a player did not want to pay the full salary, they could re-negotiate the contract with the player, if an agreement was reached then the players original salary would be taken away from the releasing teams cap. If the player doesn't want to take a pay cut, he can ride the league pool until his contract expires.


That doesn't work in a single-entity system because all of the negociating is done by the league, not the teams. The league can't negociate with itself/against itself. If a team likes a player but releases him because they can't afford his $200k cap hit and then he turns around and signs with another team for $125k then that first team is going to feel cheated - they would have kept the player if they knew that he'd play for $125k. That process opens the door to contracts having no real value, if they can be opened and renegociated at a lower value at any time. The teams would be asking the league why they were able to work out a $125k contract for one team, but a $200k contract for another team.

A solution might be based around the way signing a RFA hockey player to an offer sheet works. The team who currently owns the rights can match the offer, or take a pre-determined compensation package of draft picks based on the value of the contract. That way the players get the movement that they'd like (and not be able to possibly be black-balled by a bitter owner) and the teams would get the compensation that they want for giving up a player's rights.

Beach_Red
03-16-2010, 06:23 PM
No salary cap, maybe. No single entity, you are taking a huge leap of faith there, because there are plenty of other ways to control costs without this thing being a single entity.

I'm getting tired of this backwards argument linking the league's single entity structure to it's success. If MLSE hadn't stumbled onto an actual business model that worked a couple years ago, MLS would be exactly where it was in the past, in the toilet with a few exceptions.

The bottom line here is that the success in each respective market city in MLS has always boiled down to the following:

1) Infrastructure - ie the stadium, where is it located? is it good to watch the game in?
2) market demographics - vastly different, depending on where you are. Which means some markets have a taste for soccer, some do NOT!
3) business planning - if hunt sports group started toronto FC i guarantee about 5% of the people here. I don't think people understand how poorly some franchises in this league are run. That's why they have no fans, that's why they lose money, and that's why delaying expanding (with no plans to improve these dogs) is just delaying judgement day.

Single entity does not save anybody from any of those things. In fact, under single entity where the league is expanding, the laggers have little incentive to start pulling their weight, because the other half of their investment keeps getting more profitable while they have to contribute very little.

It may be a bit of a chicken and egg thing, though. The people running he franchises do a bad job, well why doesn't the league try and interest people who could do a better job into buying a franchise?

But sure, take "single entity" out of the equation and as long as costs are controlled they'll still get at least the same investment they've got now - though as you say, that's not very good.

So, how to get a better league with better owners willing to make the investment?

Dunkers
03-16-2010, 06:28 PM
i know the players sign with the league, but does the league really do the negotioation? If Mo wanted to sign player A, would he just tell head office, and head office would say player A wants this much? I am under the impression, the league finalizes contacts, but does not negotiate them.

DOMIN8R
03-16-2010, 06:41 PM
The European Court of Justice ruled on the case of French defender Olivier Bernard's move from Lyon to Newcastle in 2000 - he now trains with Toronto.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/8570329.stm

Chevy
03-16-2010, 06:48 PM
From his wiki...

He trained with Toronto FC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_FC) to keep his fitness up in June 2008, mainly because he is friends with former Toronto midfielder Laurent Robert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Robert).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Bernard#cite_note-5)

Yohan
03-16-2010, 06:52 PM
bernard haven't played competively for 2 years... just how rusty he'd be?

or he could pull a babayaro and leave after he sees TFC/MLS for what it really is lol

Wagner
03-16-2010, 06:56 PM
ding ding ding... i think this is the crux of MLS position here
sorry, i had to.

ag futbol
03-16-2010, 09:08 PM
It may be a bit of a chicken and egg thing, though. The people running he franchises do a bad job, well why doesn't the league try and interest people who could do a better job into buying a franchise?

But sure, take "single entity" out of the equation and as long as costs are controlled they'll still get at least the same investment they've got now - though as you say, that's not very good.

So, how to get a better league with better owners willing to make the investment?
Yeah good point. In some cases the solutions are obvious but people are stuck in their ways.

How do you get DC United a stadium?
How do you convince Bob Kraft to invest money?
How do you convince the "soccer mom" teams to switch their approach?

If there were 20 quality owners out there this would all be pretty simple.

It's hard as a fan not to get pissed off, when we have a huge anchor dragging the league down.